OPEN LETTER TO DR. MATTHIAS RATH AND TO HIS SUPPORTERS
by Justice Lover
In his comment on an article published on 13 August ,2007 by Time Magazine, Dr. Fred Baughman, a renowned American neurologist, points out the outrageous lies about “mental illness treatment” pushed by psychiatry as follows (see the first post on this blog for the full text ) :
“If there is no abnormality, there is no disorder, no disease or abnormal phenotype--nothing to seek the cause of and nothing to make that toddler, child, adolescent, adult or elder a /patient /to treat. Knowing this, as you always do, should you diagnose and treat anyway, you are a fraud ,and should you drug or otherwise physically treat a normal you are guilty of assault and battery and deserve nothing less than to be arrested indicted, and sentenced for what you do---even if it has become the standard of practice in your field---in "biological" psychiatry---an oxymoron.”
And the same applies to orthomolecular psychiatry too. So why label people as “mentally ill”with a stigma which follows them for the rest of their lives, even when the shrink does not use neuroleptics and other Big Pharma poisons ? And even when such an orthomolecular shrink is not forcing his treatment on the patient, yet does not condemn psychiatric crimes, and is affiliated with the APA, does he not become himself an accomplice to psychiatric crimes ?
You, Dr. Matthias Rath, have correctly condemned the crimes against humanity by Big Pharma, but you did not mention psychiatry and its shrinks on your lists of perpetrators-enemies, but why so when you know that psychiatry has been the main junior partner of Big Pharma ?
In additon to its general role of the people’s oppressor psychiatry is used as political tool by the rulers’ secret police organisations, to taget and destroy/kill people who are considered as dangerous trouble makers by the rulers. I know this from the experience of Benjamin Merhav and his daughter and son, and there have been many other examples of whistleblowers targeted by the shrinks, on the orders of the rulers. The following message which was emailed yesterday to me is the latest example from the USA.
So, please Dr. Rath, reconsider your silence, and help us outlaw psychiatry now!
“-----Forwarded Message-----
From: CAMPAIGN Sent: Oct 11, 2007 3:27 PM
To: CAMPAIGN
Subject: URGENT - Whistleblower Alert: Lt. Eric Shine at risk of illegal mental illness commitment in illegal hearing on Oct. 23, 2007
NOTE: Lt. Eric Schine is scheduled to appear in a hearing in Long Beach, CA on October, 23, 2007, reportedly to determined if he is "depressed." He is being harassed for whistle blowing activity against Homeland Security excesses and contracting corruption by a network of Bush insiders that includes Tony Snow, Ted Olson, and reportedly the Administrative Law Judge assigned to the Oct. 23 hearing. Eric Schine needs legal counsel and needs our support. Please distribute widely.
Eric can be reached at LtShine@socal.rr.com.Lt. Schine's website is: http://www.martiallaw911.com/Thank you.
Ilene Proctor PR
PUBLIC RELATIONS
For Immediate Release: Press Contact - Ilene Proctor
(310) 271 5857: e-mail: proctor@artnet.net
Whistleblower and Hero Lt. Eric Shine Strikes at Heart of Unconstitutional Darkness in America's Military.
Lt. Eric Shine's background reads as a packet of pedigrees: his father and brother attended West Point, he himself graduated with the highest honours from Kings Point, the sister academy to West Point and Annapolis where his uncle attended.
Kings Point ranks even higher than M.I.T. and Harvard for having graduates as C.E.O's, Presidents of Boards of Corporations, and other accolades. Lt. Shine was congressionally appointed as a licensed and degree Federal and Military Maritime Officer to serve in and throughout the maritime industry and US Merchant Marine on "special duty" in a very unique branch of service. Lt. Shine was awarded a US Navy Commission with a Top Secret security clearance in a degree in marine engineering; sailed as Federal Maritime officer for numerous shipping companies (formerly American owned, now flying foreign flags) and, above all, Lt. Shine has been afforded unparalleled access to the inner workings of our government and US corporations as Federal contractors from "behind the scenes" not just here in America but throughout the world.
Despite all of his accomplishments [far beyond what is listed here], the truly brilliant [he is reported by Homeland Security to have a genius I.Q.] and highly accomplished, articulate [has been doing numerous Radio and TV interviews and programs] and educated [a several hundred thousand dollar education paid for by the U.S. taxpayers] Lt. Eric Shine is hunted and hounded by the Bush Administration and Homeland Security for blowing the whistle on federal contracting violations and corruptions of U.S. taxpayer assets that began in the lead up to and were being constructed to envelope and even encourage the endless continuation of wars.
Lt. Eric Shine's eyes look out at the world with knowing and pained scorn. Lt. Shine should be scornful - as you should be mindful. For the past four years, Homeland Security has been using your resources, U.S . taxpayer dollars to target, hold, detain and prosecute this dissenting Federal officer with bogus and trumped-up charges. The charge of the Bush brigade: Lt. Shine is "being depressed". Yes, seriously. There have been no valid charges brought against him, nor has Lt. Shine been able to see evidence against him, nor able to face his accusers or afforded any level of due process which is tantamount to gross violations of constitutional protections and human rights.
Federal officers have actually suggested that he "blow himself away…"That is just for starters in what Lt. Shine has been forced to endure for the past 5 years or more. Worse he is being denied due process and his pay, legal aid, medical benefits and more that are due to him are being withheld by the very Federal Contractors that he has been complaining about.
Beyond belief, while Lt. Shine is now being prosecuted for medical mental incompetence [somehow] by Homeland Security's new "Preventions" Department [Risk Managers for the Shipping Companies as incorporated into the USCG], he is expected to defend himself and act as his own counsel. This is a perversion beyond what happened and even continues to some degree at Walter Reed. In fact, what is happening is that the Executive branch is violating the fundamental principle in the most foundational and core doctrine of the" separation of powers" created by our founding fathers as Lt. Shine had pre-existing civil court cases he was prosecuting against the Federal Contractors and those involved from within seats of power and authority within the U.S. Government who are complicit in the corruptions including Admirals in the USCG and others. His own prosecution or counter-prosecution is in and of itself is a prime example of gross forms of "waste, fraud, abuse and gross mismanagement" of Government resources and assets.
Additionally something that has added more fuel to the fire and put the Bush administration on alert: Lt. Shine has been enormously outspoken against Bush's war on Iraq, Republican war profiteering, breaches in civil defense and national security and more. Main reason is Lt. Shine understands clearly that all of this is about war profiteering, oil profiteering and subjugation of not just the people in Iraq or Afghanistan but also here at home in the United States as well.
Lt. Shine has fought to address issues like the simple fact that right now 97% of American cargo is being carried on foreign flag vessels; port security concerns, cargo container inspections, and he has filed complaints regarding toxic dumping off ships; complained about selling U.S. Treasury assets relating to the ships in the federal fleet, gross corruptions in the U.S. merchant marine, cargo insurance fraud; and even the sabotaging of the American economy by use of Fair Trade Agreements, and privatizing of U.S. Treasury assets to the point of trying to cure this in the courts where a new U.S. Program of Legal Warfare was launched against Lt. Shine as is being run out of the Pentagon at tax payer's expense and as injury to their own legal rights and security as well.
A program the administration has itself coined as Legal Warfare - or Law fare.
Lt. Shine declares: US war crimes and atrocities against himself and other Federal and Military Officers and personnel should be seen as the direct consequence of a foreign policy and military agenda, which supports US corporate interests and militarism of all, including involvement of the international oil giants, the Wall Street financial establishment and the big six defense contractors and all those who will do their bidding.
The very idea that an American citizen, let alone Congressionally and Presidentially appointed Federal and Naval Officer can be imprisoned or even held or detained without recourse to judicial process or remedy, and on trumped up and bogus charges in the face of overwhelming force and that this can be done on the sole say-so of the President of the United States or those acting in his name through use of National Security Letters, is beyond the pale and un-American, and must to be stopped now.
Thousands of Americans have voiced opposition < http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Operation_Iraqi_Freedom:_Military_and_Political_Dissent> to the military/entertainment /industrial/ religious complex that is the Bush administration, but when an officer of Lt. Shine's rank and accomplishment [he was up for promotion to Lcdr. when all of this started] voices articulate opposition, the whole military and corporate machinery machine must take note and take no prisoners. It means dissent has crept up the chain of command, potentially undermining the whole war effort and war profiteering schemes.
Lt. Shine's stance is the product of profound reflection on taking personal responsibility for halting the US government's careening course toward authoritarianism and criminality and protection of the U.S . Constitution that he swore an oath to defend against all enemies - foreign and domestic. His claims are based on the fact that that the Administration is breaking state, federal, constitutional, and even international law. His case addresses the soft underbelly of the Bush project--the subversion of US government and rule of law - not men in the name of the "war on terror."
In the context of plummeting support for the war and cascading evidence of officially concealed criminal acts by US forces, the potential by Lt. Shine to focus public attention on possible US war crimes is enormous.
Under military law, military personnel have the right to refuse to carry out illegal orders; in fact, they have a duty not to commit war crimes and to go even further as Lt. Shine has done - to confront them head on. According to Article 32 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Shine retains the right to a preliminary hearing to "present anything he may desire in his own behalf, either in defense or mitigation." Under Article 46 defendants are allowed at trial to "compel witnesses to appear and testify and to compel the production of other evidence."
On its face this and many other statutes appear to allow a war crimes defense. In practice, however, defenses under international law are often denied, based on the military's "fundamental necessity for obedience," a principle affirmed by the Supreme Court in 1974. Lt. Shine maintains he owes obedience to the Constitution--not to officials who are abusing it [and his rights do not come from under just the UCMJ - but under constitutional, general maritime and admiralty law due to his position as a Constitutional Officer in the form of a Federal Maritime Officer from Kings Point.
Anyone who believes in justice must demand that Lt. Shine's case should provide him reasonable opportunity to defend himself with assistance of counsel and] prove his case for US war crimes, including the right to subpoena witnesses and government documents. Without such rights, the case will be nothing but a kangaroo court, violating the very national and international norms that the government is required to respect. [The legal norm is that any and all cases are intended to be seen from "... under the light of all existing circumstances".
Under our constitution, the right and duty to obey conscience is paramount, God-Given, and inalienable. Cut to the case: Lt. Shine needs our [immediate] help, morally and financially. He needs proper, independent counsel, plus a legal defense fund.
The World is at the crossroads of the most serious crisis in modern history. The US has embarked on aggressive military adventures, "long wars", which threaten the future of humanity. It is incumbent upon all of us who love and respect our country's values to intervene immediately and help support and defend Lt. Eric Shine.
Please contact Ilene Proctor as focal point with assistance or resources at 310-858-6643
Lt. Shine needs commensurate and capable counsel and a legal defense fund. They are intent on "taking his mind" anyway and everyway they can.
In addition some information - but only minimal as Lt. Shine needs help with his website, with getting information up and even in telling his story more clearly so that others may understand it, but current web sites can be found at;
http://www.martiallaw911.com/< http://www.martiallaw911.com/> and http://ftp.aurn.com/ < http://ftp.aurn.com/>
Lt. Shine could use help in getting a book together and published, getting before groups to speak about what he knows and what is going on with him and the USCG and why.
http://www.martiallaw911.com/
http://ftp.aurn.com/“
(Emphasis by Justice Lover)
13 October 2007
03 October 2007
MORE ON THE CRIMES OF BIG PHARMA AND ON THE CRIMES OF PSYCHIATRY AND ITS SHRINKS
by Justice Lover
Following are 2 reports concerning neuroleptic drugs prescribed and forced on their patients by shrinks, and concerning SSRI drugs that might be prescribed by other medical doctors too. Both reports were forwarded to me today by Dr. Rebecca Carley, an outstanding American physician.
Those are reports on crimes against humanity for your attention !
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Gary Kohls <http://www.blogger.com/ym/Compose?To=gkohls@cpinternet.com>Date: Oct 2, 2007 10:50 AM Subject: The case against antipsychotic drugs: a 50-year record of doing more harm than goodTo: Gary Kohls <http://www.blogger.com/ym/Compose?To=gkohls@cpinternet.com>
A timeline for neuroleptics
Excerpted from:
"The case against antipsychotic drugs: a 50-year record of doing more harm than good," by Robert Whitaker, author of Mad In America: Bad Medicine, Bad Science and the Enduring Mistreatment of the Mentally Ill.
Published in the journal Medical Hypotheses (2004)
62, 5–13
Preclinical
1883 Phenothiazines developed as synthetic dyes.
1934 USDA develops phenothiazines as insecticide.
1949 Phenothiazines shown to hinder rope-climbing abilities in rats.
1950 Rhone Poulenc synthesizes chlorpromazine, a phenothiazine, for use as an anesthetic.
Clinical history/standard neuroleptics
1954 Chlorpromazine, marketed in the US as Thorazine, found to induce symptoms of Parkinson's disease.
1955 Chlorpromazine said to induce symptoms similar to encephalitis lethargica.
1959 First reports of permanent motor dysfunction linked to neuroleptics, later named tardive dyskinesia.
1960 French physicians describe a potentially fatal toxic reaction to neuroleptics, later named neuroleptic malignant syndrome.
1962 California Mental Hygiene Department determines that chlorpromazine and other neuroleptics prolong hospitalization.
1963 Six-week NIMH collaborative study concludes that neuroleptics are safe and effective "antischizophrenic" drugs.
1964 Neuroleptics found to impair learning in animals and humans.
1965 One-year followup of NIMH collaborative study finds drug-treated patients more likely than placebo patients to be rehospitalized.
1968 In a drug withdrawal study, the NIMH finds that relapse rates rise in direct relation to dosage. The higher the dosage that patients are on before withdrawal, the higher the relapse rate.
1972 Tardive dyskinesia is said to resemble Huntington's disease, or "postencephalitic brain damage".
1974 Boston researchers report that relapse rates were lower in pre-neuroleptic era, and that drugtreated patients are more likely to be socially dependent.
1977 A NIMH study that randomizes schizophrenia patients into drug and non-drug arms reports that only 35% of the non-medicated patients relapsed within a year after discharge, compared to 45% of those treated with medication.
1978 California investigator Maurice Rappaport reports markedly superior three-year outcomes for patients treated without neuroleptics. Only 27% of the drug-free patients relapsed in the three years following discharge, compared to 62% of the medicated patients.
1978 Canadian researchers describe drug-induced changes in the brain that make a patient more vulnerable to relapse, which they dub "neuroleptic induced supersensitive psychosis".
1978 Neuroleptics found to cause 10% cellular loss in brains of rats.
1979 Prevalence of tardive dyskinesia in drug-treated patients is reported to range from 24% to 56%.
1979 Tardive dyskinesia found to be associated with cognitive impairment.
1979 Loren Mosher, chief of schizophrenia studies at the NIMH, reports superior one-year and two-year outcomes for Soteria patients treated without neuroleptics.
1980 NIMH researchers find an increase in "blunted effect" and "emotional withdrawal" in drugtreated patients who don't relapse, and that neuroleptics do not improve "social and role performance" in non-relapsers.
1982 Anticholinergic medications used to treat Parkinsonian symptoms induced by neuroleptics reported to cause cognitive impairment.
1985 Drug-induced akathisia is linked to suicide.
1985 Case reports link drug-induced akathisia to violent homicides.
1987 Tardive dyskinesia is linked to worsening of negative symptoms, gait difficulties, speech impairment, psychosocial deterioration, and memory deficits. They conclude it may be both a "motor and dementing disorder".
1992 World Health Organization reports that schizophrenia outcomes are much superior in poor countries, where only 16% of patients are kept continuously on neuroleptics. The WHO concludes that living in a developed nation is a "strong predictor" that a patient will never fully recover.
1992 Researchers acknowledge that neuroleptics cause a recognizable pathology, which they name neuroleptic induced deficit syndrome. In addition to Parkinson's, akathisia, blunted emotions and tardive dyskinesia, patients treated with neuroleptics suffer from an increased incidence of blindness, fatal blood clots, arrhythmia, heat stroke, swollen breasts, leaking breasts, impotence, obesity, sexual dysfunction, blood disorders, skin rashes, seizures, and early death.
1994 Neuroleptics found to cause a swelling of the caudate region in the brain.
1994 Harvard investigators report that schizophrenia outcomes in the US appear to have worsened over past 20 years, and are now no better than in the first decades of 20th century.
1995 "Real world" relapse rates for schizophrenia patients treated with neuroleptics said to be above 80% in the two years following hospital discharge, which is much higher than in pre-neuroleptic era.
1995 "Quality of life" in drug-treated patients reported to be "very poor".
1998 MRI studies show that neuroleptics cause hypertrophy of the caudate, putamen and thalamus, with the increase "associated with greater severity of both negative and positive symptoms".
1998 Neuroleptic use is found to be associated with atrophy of cerebral cortex.
1998 Harvard researchers conclude that "oxidative stress" may be the process by which neuroleptics cause neuronal damage in the brain.
1998 Treatment with two or more neuroleptics is found to increase risk of early death.
2000 Neuroleptics linked to fatal blood clots.
2003 Atypicals linked to an increased risk of obesity, hyperglycemia, diabetes, and pancreatitis.
References :
[1] Cole J, Klerman G, Goldberg S. The National Institute of Mental Health Psychopharmacology Service Center Collaborative Study Group. Phenothiazine treatment in acute schizophrenia. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1964;10:246–61.
[2] Gilbert P, Harris M, McAdams L, Jeste D. Neuroleptic withdrawal in schizophrenic patients. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1995;52:173–88.
[3] Shorter E. A history of psychiatry. New York: Wiley; 1997. p. 255.
[4] Hegarty J, Baldessarini R, Tohen M, Waternaux C. One hundred years of schizophrenia: a meta-analysis of the outcome literature. Am J Psychiatry 1994;151:1409–16.
[5] Holden C. Deconstructing schizophrenia. Science 2003; 299:333–5.
[6] Weiden P, Aquila R, Standard J. Atypical antipsychotic drugs and long-term outcome in schizophrenia. J Clin Psychiatry 1996;57(Suppl 11):53–60.
[7] Harvey P. Cognitive impairment in schizophrenia: its characteristics and implications. Psychiatr Ann 1999;29: 657–60.
[8] Stip E. Happy birthday neuroleptics! 50 years later: la folie du doute. Eur Psychiatry 2002;17(3):115–9.
[9] Brill H, Patton R. Analysis of population reduction in New York State mental hospitals during the first four years of large scale therapy with psychotropic drugs. Am J Psychiatry 1959;116:495–508.
[10] Brill H, Patton R. Clinical-statistical analysis of population changes in New York State mental hospitals since introduction of psychotropic drugs. Am J Psychiatry 1962;119:20–35.
[11] Council of State Governments. The mental health programs of the forty-eight states. Chicago: The Council; 1950. p 4–13.
[12] Rusk H. States map a new attack to combat mental illness. New York Times 1954;21:4–13.
[13] Epstein L, Morgan R, Reynolds L. An approach to the effect of ataraxic drugs on hospital release rates. Am J Psychiatry 1962;119:36–47.
[14] Scull A. Decarceration: community treatment and the deviant, a radical view. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press; 1984.
[15] Schooler N, Goldberg S, Boothe H, Cole J. One year after discharge:community adjustment of schizophrenic patients. Am J Psychiatry 1967;123:986–95.
[16] Prien R, Levine J, Switalski R. Discontinuation of chemotherapy for chronic schizophrenics. Hosp Community Psychiatry 1971;22:20–3.
[17] Gardos G, Cole J. Maintenance antipsychotic therapy: is the cure worse than the disease? Am J Psychiatry 1977;133: 32–6.
[18] Bockoven J, Solomon H. Comparison of two five-year follow-up studies: 1947–1952 and 1967–1972. Am J Psychiatry 1975;132:796–801.
[19] May P, Tuma A, Dixon W. Schizophrenia: a follow-up study of the results of five forms of treatment. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1981;38:776–84.
[20] Carpenter W, McGlashan T, Strauss J. The treatment of acute schizophrenia without drugs: an investigation of some current assumptions. Am J Psychiatry 1977;134: 14–20.
[21] Rappaport M, Hopkins H, Hall K, Belleza T, Silverman J. Are there schizophrenics for whom drugs may be unnecessary or contraindicated. Int Pharmacopsychiatry 1978;
13:100–11.
[22] Mathews S, Roper M, Mosher L, Menn A. A non-neuroleptic treatment for schizophrenia: analysis of the two-year postdischarge risk of relapse. Schizophr Bull 1979;5:322–32.
[23] Bola J, Mosher L. Treatment of acute psychosis without neuroleptics: two-year outcomes from the Soteria Project. J Nerv Ment Dis 2003;191:219–29.
-- http://www.drcarley.com/
Listen to "What's Ailing America?" every Thursday night at 5:30 PM PST (8:30 PM EST) on http://www.bbsradio.com/; click on "BBS station 2""Inoculations are the true weapons of mass destruction, causing an epidemic of genocide"Rebecca Carley, MD Court Qualified Expert in vaccine Induced Diseases"
The individual is handicapped by coming face to face with a conspiracy so monstrous that he cannot believe it exists"J Edgar HooverFBI Director
All TRUTH passes through 3 stages:
1st - it is ridiculed
2nd - it is violently opposed
3rd - it is accepted as SELF EVIDENT
Arthur Schopenhauer
In a time of universal deceit, telling the TRUTH is a revolutionary act. 1984,
George Orwell
====================
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Gary Kohls <http://www.blogger.com/ym/Compose?To=gkohls@cpinternet.com>Date: Oct 2, 2007 7:26 PM Subject: PPEN # 309: SSRIs are commonly teratogenic to babies born to mothers taking them, whether early or late in pregnancyTo: Gary Kohls <http://www.blogger.com/ym/Compose?To=gkohls@cpinternet.com>
Preventive Psychiatry E-Newsletter # 309
Women Not Warned About SSRI-Related Lung Birth Defects
By Evelyn Pringle
October 2, 2007
A study of nearly 500,000 women by researchers at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, in the September 18, 2007, Annals of Internal Medicine, found that nearly 50% of women taking a prescription drug that could cause birth defects did not receive warnings to avoid pregnancy. The authors note that the pregnancy risks of a drug should be discussed with women before they begin taking it.
Experts say the seriousness of a life-threatening lung disorder found six times more often in infants born to mothers who take antidepressants during pregnancy is not being adequately conveyed to women while they are considering whether to use the drugs. The disorder, persistent pulmonary hypertension (PPHN), occurs when a newborn does not adjust to breathing outside the womb. PPHN refers to high pressure in the lungs' blood vessels which prevents the body's oxygen-poor blood from entering the lungs to absorb oxygen, and leaves the infant with not enough oxygen into the bloodstream.
On July 19, 2006, the FDA ordered a PPHN warning for the labels of the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor antidepressants (SSRI's), based on a February 9, 2006 study in the New England Journal of Medicine, and issued a Public Health Advisory that stated: "A recently published case-control study has shown that infants born to mothers who took selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRI's) after the 20th week of pregnancy were 6 times more likely to have persistent pulmonary hypertension (PPHN) than infants born to mothers who did not take antidepressants during pregnancy." Two week later on August 1, 2006, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologist issued a press release warning that the use of SSRI's and selective norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRI's) during pregnancy should be individualized based on their respective risks and benefits, and specifically warned that Paxil should be avoided due to the potential risk of fetal heart defects, PPHN and other negative effects.
SSRI's sold in the US include Paxil marketed by GlaxoSmithKline, Prozac by Eli Lilly, Zoloft by Pfizer, and Celexa and Lexapro sold by Forest Laboratories, along with various generic versions of the drugs. The closely-related class of SNRI antidepressants also carry birth defects warnings and include Wyeth's Effexor and Lilly's Cymbalta. In any given year in the US, at least eighty-thousand pregnant women are prescribed SSRI's, according to a study in the May 2005, Journal of American Medical Association. The CDC recently reported that antidepressants were the most prescribed class of drugs in the country in 2005. The fact that the overall prescribing rate is higher than for any other drugs indicates that a large number of pregnant women may be taking antidepressants without knowledge of the risks to the unborn fetus.
Overall, respiratory failure affects nearly 80,000 newborns per year, and it is responsible for as many as half of all infant deaths. Nearly one-third of all newborns with respiratory failure are born at term or near-term, and are at risk for PPHN, according to the April 2007 article, "Pulmonary Hypertension, Persistent-Newborn," by Dr Robin Steinhorn, head of the Division of Neonatology at Children's Memorial Hospital in Chicago and Professor at Northwestern University Medical School, in eMedicine from WebMD. Dr Steinhorn also notes that an increased incidence of PPHN is reported for mothers who use SSRI's during the last half of their pregnancies.
As recently as 15 years ago, the reports says, the mortality rate for PPHN infants reached 40%, and the prevalence of major neurologic disability was 15-60%. However, the introduction of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) and other new therapies has had a major effect on reducing the mortality rate, yet the prevalence of major neurologic disabilities among surviving newborns remains approximately 15-20%. Dr Steinhorn reports that Glass and colleagues compared the neurodevelopmental outcome of 103 neonates following ECMO and 37 without ECMO at age 5 and states: "Major disability, which was defined as mental disability, motor disability, sensorineural impairment, or seizure disorder, was present in 17 of children in whom ECMO had been used. The mean full-scale, verbal, and performance intelligence quotient (IQ) scores of children who received ECMO treatment were within the normal range; however, as a group, the scores were significantly lower than in children who had not had ECMO (96 vs 115)."
According to the report, infants who survive following ECMO have a higher rate of re-hospitalization for non-pulmonary and surgical conditions, and the rate of sensorineural disabilities in infants who survive averages 6% and developmental delay occurs in 9%. Because the prevalence of hearing loss is high, the report recommends that an automated hearing test should be administered before discharging the baby and hearing should be reassessed when he or she is 6-months-old and again, as the results indicate. Dr Steinhorn also notes that an increased frequency of social problems, academic difficulties at school age and higher rates of attention deficit disorder are reported in children who received ECMO.
Although the actual FDA warning about PPHN was not added to the antidepressant labels until August 2006, the drug makers were well aware of the risk of this birth defect for more than a decade, due to a long and steady line of studies that linked the drugs to serious respiratory problems in newborns dating back to 1996.
A study in the October 3, 1996, New England Journal of Medicine, lead by Dr Christina Chambers of the Department of Pediatrics at the University of California-San Diego, reported that PPHN developed in 2.7% of a group of infants whose mothers took Prozac throughout their pregnancy. From 1989 through 1995, the California Teratogen Information Service and Clinical Research Program received approximately 1,500 calls requesting information on the potential teratogenic effects of Prozac (fluoxetine), and an estimated one-third of the calls were made by pregnant women who were currently taking Prozac. For their study, the researchers selected 228 of these women.
Because they hypothesized that birth size, gestational age, and neonatal adaptation were influenced by exposure to Prozac late in pregnancy, the women were divided into two groups. One group was referred to as the exposed-early group because the women discontinued Prozac in the first or second trimester, and another group was referred to as the exposed-late group because the women continued to take Prozac in the third trimester. A third group of 254 pregnant women who called the same California Information Program between 1989 through 1995, but with questions about other drugs and procedures that were not considered teratogenic, was enrolled as a control group. The researchers determined that 73 infants in the exposed-late group had higher rates of premature delivery, admissions to special care nurseries, and poor neonatal adaptation, including respiratory difficulty, cyanosis on feeding and jitteriness. Birth weight was also lower and birth length shorter in the exposed-late infants, they found. The study authors noted their concern over the 15.5% incidence of three or more minor anomalies in some infants exposed to Prozac in early pregnancy. "The combination of any three minor anomalies in a single child is an unusual finding," they wrote. The 15.5 percent incidence, they said, indicates that exposure during the first trimester has an effect on embryonic development. "This finding raises the possibility of an associated defect in the development of the central nervous system that may become evident when the infant is older," the authors wrote.
In January 1998, a study in the international journal of medical science and practice, The Lancet, explained that the lungs act as a reservoir for antidepressants and this study suggests that SSRI's could play a pivotal role in infant respiratory conditions, such as PPHN. Another study, in the April 2002 Journal of Laboratory and Clinical Medicine, investigated the effects of SSRI's on pulmonary circulation and found that SSRI's affect the pulmonary smooth muscle cells and aggravate pulmonary hypertension. In June 2004, a study in Prescrire International also reported that newborns exposed to SSRI's toward the end of pregnancy showed signs of altered muscle tone, breathing and suction problems, and agitation, with an estimated 20% to 30% of the infants affected.
The next month, after receiving hundreds of adverse event reports over a decade, in July 2004, the FDA finally revised the labels for all SSRI's and SNRI's, warning that some newborns exposed to the drugs had developed problems requiring prolonged hospitalizations, respiratory support and tube feeding. Less than a year later, a study in the May 2005 Journal of the American Medical Association reported that women who took SSRI's or SNRI's late in pregnancy were at a 3 times higher risk of giving birth to infants suffering from serious respiratory problems, jitteriness and irritability.
Lead author, Dr Eydie Moses-Kolko, reported that serious respiratory problems developed in about one out of every 100 infants. According to Dr David Healy, a leading expert on pharmacology and author of "The Antidepressant Era," the doctors who prescribe SSRI's are often not able to spend enough time with patients to discuss their emotional issues in depth. "For some doctors," he notes, "SSRI's may appear to provide a quick solution for patient problems arising from normal life events such as bereavement, work stress, or marital conflict." However, he says, a review of the actual SSRI studies shows that only one patient in 10 responds to these drugs, and he attributes the massive prescribing to successful marketing rather than benefits. "Through educational and marketing campaigns," Dr Healy says, "the SSRI makers have produced a situation where people who would never have been given an antidepressant in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s, are now given one after cursory questioning by a physician."
Another leading expert, Dr Peter Breggin, founder of The International Center for the Study of Psychiatry and Psychology (ICSPP), a nonprofit research and educational network, and the journal Ethical Human Sciences and Services, also says a thorough review of all the studies submitted to the FDA for the approval of the SSRI's showed that, when taken as a whole, the drugs do not work. Dr Breggin also agrees that the high rate of prescribing to women indicates that women who may be experiencing minor symptoms of distress common with daily living are being convinced that they have a mental illness that requires drugs, most frequently an SSRI.
Proponents for the drug makers claim that depression itself poses a greater risk to the fetus than SSRI's. "The problem with this claim is that there is no consideration for the health of the baby and the immense stress a mother has to endure when her baby is sick," states Kate Gillespie, a Paxil injury lawyer from the Baum Hedlund law firm."Not to mention, the far greater stress that is created by having to constantly deal with life and death health issues, like the respiratory problems of an infant, that are caused by SSRI-induced PPHN," she adds."For these women," Ms Gillespie says, "it is clear that the risks far outweigh any benefit." An August 2006 study in the Archives of General Psychiatry compared babies born to depressed mothers treated with SSRI's to those born to mothers who were not treated, and found a significantly greater incidence of respiratory distress, 13.9% vs 7.8%, and longer hospital stays for the infants exposed to SSRI's.
Another study, in the August 2007 American Journal of Psychiatry, examined the effects of depression and antidepressant use on fetal age and the risk of preterm birth with 90 women and found the drugs, rather than depression, to be associated with lower fetal age and an increased risk of preterm birth. The researchers noted that the presence of depression per se during pregnancy did not adversely affect outcomes. According to Dr Breggin, SSRI's should never be used during pregnancy. "If pregnant women feel anxious or sad," he says, "they should seek counseling or family therapy involving the child's father, along with other sources of emotional support."
Families seeking legal advice regarding SSRI-antidepressant birth defects can contact the Baum, Hedlund, Aristei & Goldman Law Firm at: (800) 827-0087; http://www.baumhedlundlaw.com/
(Written by Evelyn Pringle as part of the Antidepressant Birth Defect Litigation Monthly Round-Up, Sponsored by Baum Hedlund's Pharmaceutical Antidepressant Litigation Department)www.paxilbirthdefect.com/ http://www.pphnlawyers.com/
(Evelyn Pringle is a regular columnist for OpEd News and investigative journalist focused on exposing corruption in government and corporate America)--
http://www.drcarley.com/Listen to "What's Ailing America?" every Thursday night at 5:30 PM PST (8:30 PM EST) on http://www.bbsradio.com/; click on "BBS station 2""Inoculations are the true weapons of mass destruction, causing an epidemic of genocide"
Rebecca Carley, MD Court Qualified Expert in vaccine Induced Diseases
"The individual is handicapped by coming face to face with a conspiracy so monstrous that he cannot believe it exists"J Edgar HooverFBI Director
All TRUTH passes through 3 stages:
1st - it is ridiculed
2nd - it is violently opposed
3rd - it is accepted as SELF EVIDENTArthur Schopenhauer
In a time of universal deceit, telling the TRUTH is a revolutionary act. 1984, George Orwell
(Emphasis by Justice Lover)
by Justice Lover
Following are 2 reports concerning neuroleptic drugs prescribed and forced on their patients by shrinks, and concerning SSRI drugs that might be prescribed by other medical doctors too. Both reports were forwarded to me today by Dr. Rebecca Carley, an outstanding American physician.
Those are reports on crimes against humanity for your attention !
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Gary Kohls <http://www.blogger.com/ym/Compose?To=gkohls@cpinternet.com>Date: Oct 2, 2007 10:50 AM Subject: The case against antipsychotic drugs: a 50-year record of doing more harm than goodTo: Gary Kohls <http://www.blogger.com/ym/Compose?To=gkohls@cpinternet.com>
A timeline for neuroleptics
Excerpted from:
"The case against antipsychotic drugs: a 50-year record of doing more harm than good," by Robert Whitaker, author of Mad In America: Bad Medicine, Bad Science and the Enduring Mistreatment of the Mentally Ill.
Published in the journal Medical Hypotheses (2004)
62, 5–13
Preclinical
1883 Phenothiazines developed as synthetic dyes.
1934 USDA develops phenothiazines as insecticide.
1949 Phenothiazines shown to hinder rope-climbing abilities in rats.
1950 Rhone Poulenc synthesizes chlorpromazine, a phenothiazine, for use as an anesthetic.
Clinical history/standard neuroleptics
1954 Chlorpromazine, marketed in the US as Thorazine, found to induce symptoms of Parkinson's disease.
1955 Chlorpromazine said to induce symptoms similar to encephalitis lethargica.
1959 First reports of permanent motor dysfunction linked to neuroleptics, later named tardive dyskinesia.
1960 French physicians describe a potentially fatal toxic reaction to neuroleptics, later named neuroleptic malignant syndrome.
1962 California Mental Hygiene Department determines that chlorpromazine and other neuroleptics prolong hospitalization.
1963 Six-week NIMH collaborative study concludes that neuroleptics are safe and effective "antischizophrenic" drugs.
1964 Neuroleptics found to impair learning in animals and humans.
1965 One-year followup of NIMH collaborative study finds drug-treated patients more likely than placebo patients to be rehospitalized.
1968 In a drug withdrawal study, the NIMH finds that relapse rates rise in direct relation to dosage. The higher the dosage that patients are on before withdrawal, the higher the relapse rate.
1972 Tardive dyskinesia is said to resemble Huntington's disease, or "postencephalitic brain damage".
1974 Boston researchers report that relapse rates were lower in pre-neuroleptic era, and that drugtreated patients are more likely to be socially dependent.
1977 A NIMH study that randomizes schizophrenia patients into drug and non-drug arms reports that only 35% of the non-medicated patients relapsed within a year after discharge, compared to 45% of those treated with medication.
1978 California investigator Maurice Rappaport reports markedly superior three-year outcomes for patients treated without neuroleptics. Only 27% of the drug-free patients relapsed in the three years following discharge, compared to 62% of the medicated patients.
1978 Canadian researchers describe drug-induced changes in the brain that make a patient more vulnerable to relapse, which they dub "neuroleptic induced supersensitive psychosis".
1978 Neuroleptics found to cause 10% cellular loss in brains of rats.
1979 Prevalence of tardive dyskinesia in drug-treated patients is reported to range from 24% to 56%.
1979 Tardive dyskinesia found to be associated with cognitive impairment.
1979 Loren Mosher, chief of schizophrenia studies at the NIMH, reports superior one-year and two-year outcomes for Soteria patients treated without neuroleptics.
1980 NIMH researchers find an increase in "blunted effect" and "emotional withdrawal" in drugtreated patients who don't relapse, and that neuroleptics do not improve "social and role performance" in non-relapsers.
1982 Anticholinergic medications used to treat Parkinsonian symptoms induced by neuroleptics reported to cause cognitive impairment.
1985 Drug-induced akathisia is linked to suicide.
1985 Case reports link drug-induced akathisia to violent homicides.
1987 Tardive dyskinesia is linked to worsening of negative symptoms, gait difficulties, speech impairment, psychosocial deterioration, and memory deficits. They conclude it may be both a "motor and dementing disorder".
1992 World Health Organization reports that schizophrenia outcomes are much superior in poor countries, where only 16% of patients are kept continuously on neuroleptics. The WHO concludes that living in a developed nation is a "strong predictor" that a patient will never fully recover.
1992 Researchers acknowledge that neuroleptics cause a recognizable pathology, which they name neuroleptic induced deficit syndrome. In addition to Parkinson's, akathisia, blunted emotions and tardive dyskinesia, patients treated with neuroleptics suffer from an increased incidence of blindness, fatal blood clots, arrhythmia, heat stroke, swollen breasts, leaking breasts, impotence, obesity, sexual dysfunction, blood disorders, skin rashes, seizures, and early death.
1994 Neuroleptics found to cause a swelling of the caudate region in the brain.
1994 Harvard investigators report that schizophrenia outcomes in the US appear to have worsened over past 20 years, and are now no better than in the first decades of 20th century.
1995 "Real world" relapse rates for schizophrenia patients treated with neuroleptics said to be above 80% in the two years following hospital discharge, which is much higher than in pre-neuroleptic era.
1995 "Quality of life" in drug-treated patients reported to be "very poor".
1998 MRI studies show that neuroleptics cause hypertrophy of the caudate, putamen and thalamus, with the increase "associated with greater severity of both negative and positive symptoms".
1998 Neuroleptic use is found to be associated with atrophy of cerebral cortex.
1998 Harvard researchers conclude that "oxidative stress" may be the process by which neuroleptics cause neuronal damage in the brain.
1998 Treatment with two or more neuroleptics is found to increase risk of early death.
2000 Neuroleptics linked to fatal blood clots.
2003 Atypicals linked to an increased risk of obesity, hyperglycemia, diabetes, and pancreatitis.
References :
[1] Cole J, Klerman G, Goldberg S. The National Institute of Mental Health Psychopharmacology Service Center Collaborative Study Group. Phenothiazine treatment in acute schizophrenia. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1964;10:246–61.
[2] Gilbert P, Harris M, McAdams L, Jeste D. Neuroleptic withdrawal in schizophrenic patients. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1995;52:173–88.
[3] Shorter E. A history of psychiatry. New York: Wiley; 1997. p. 255.
[4] Hegarty J, Baldessarini R, Tohen M, Waternaux C. One hundred years of schizophrenia: a meta-analysis of the outcome literature. Am J Psychiatry 1994;151:1409–16.
[5] Holden C. Deconstructing schizophrenia. Science 2003; 299:333–5.
[6] Weiden P, Aquila R, Standard J. Atypical antipsychotic drugs and long-term outcome in schizophrenia. J Clin Psychiatry 1996;57(Suppl 11):53–60.
[7] Harvey P. Cognitive impairment in schizophrenia: its characteristics and implications. Psychiatr Ann 1999;29: 657–60.
[8] Stip E. Happy birthday neuroleptics! 50 years later: la folie du doute. Eur Psychiatry 2002;17(3):115–9.
[9] Brill H, Patton R. Analysis of population reduction in New York State mental hospitals during the first four years of large scale therapy with psychotropic drugs. Am J Psychiatry 1959;116:495–508.
[10] Brill H, Patton R. Clinical-statistical analysis of population changes in New York State mental hospitals since introduction of psychotropic drugs. Am J Psychiatry 1962;119:20–35.
[11] Council of State Governments. The mental health programs of the forty-eight states. Chicago: The Council; 1950. p 4–13.
[12] Rusk H. States map a new attack to combat mental illness. New York Times 1954;21:4–13.
[13] Epstein L, Morgan R, Reynolds L. An approach to the effect of ataraxic drugs on hospital release rates. Am J Psychiatry 1962;119:36–47.
[14] Scull A. Decarceration: community treatment and the deviant, a radical view. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press; 1984.
[15] Schooler N, Goldberg S, Boothe H, Cole J. One year after discharge:community adjustment of schizophrenic patients. Am J Psychiatry 1967;123:986–95.
[16] Prien R, Levine J, Switalski R. Discontinuation of chemotherapy for chronic schizophrenics. Hosp Community Psychiatry 1971;22:20–3.
[17] Gardos G, Cole J. Maintenance antipsychotic therapy: is the cure worse than the disease? Am J Psychiatry 1977;133: 32–6.
[18] Bockoven J, Solomon H. Comparison of two five-year follow-up studies: 1947–1952 and 1967–1972. Am J Psychiatry 1975;132:796–801.
[19] May P, Tuma A, Dixon W. Schizophrenia: a follow-up study of the results of five forms of treatment. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1981;38:776–84.
[20] Carpenter W, McGlashan T, Strauss J. The treatment of acute schizophrenia without drugs: an investigation of some current assumptions. Am J Psychiatry 1977;134: 14–20.
[21] Rappaport M, Hopkins H, Hall K, Belleza T, Silverman J. Are there schizophrenics for whom drugs may be unnecessary or contraindicated. Int Pharmacopsychiatry 1978;
13:100–11.
[22] Mathews S, Roper M, Mosher L, Menn A. A non-neuroleptic treatment for schizophrenia: analysis of the two-year postdischarge risk of relapse. Schizophr Bull 1979;5:322–32.
[23] Bola J, Mosher L. Treatment of acute psychosis without neuroleptics: two-year outcomes from the Soteria Project. J Nerv Ment Dis 2003;191:219–29.
-- http://www.drcarley.com/
Listen to "What's Ailing America?" every Thursday night at 5:30 PM PST (8:30 PM EST) on http://www.bbsradio.com/; click on "BBS station 2""Inoculations are the true weapons of mass destruction, causing an epidemic of genocide"Rebecca Carley, MD Court Qualified Expert in vaccine Induced Diseases"
The individual is handicapped by coming face to face with a conspiracy so monstrous that he cannot believe it exists"J Edgar HooverFBI Director
All TRUTH passes through 3 stages:
1st - it is ridiculed
2nd - it is violently opposed
3rd - it is accepted as SELF EVIDENT
Arthur Schopenhauer
In a time of universal deceit, telling the TRUTH is a revolutionary act. 1984,
George Orwell
====================
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Gary Kohls <http://www.blogger.com/ym/Compose?To=gkohls@cpinternet.com>Date: Oct 2, 2007 7:26 PM Subject: PPEN # 309: SSRIs are commonly teratogenic to babies born to mothers taking them, whether early or late in pregnancyTo: Gary Kohls <http://www.blogger.com/ym/Compose?To=gkohls@cpinternet.com>
Preventive Psychiatry E-Newsletter # 309
Women Not Warned About SSRI-Related Lung Birth Defects
By Evelyn Pringle
October 2, 2007
A study of nearly 500,000 women by researchers at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, in the September 18, 2007, Annals of Internal Medicine, found that nearly 50% of women taking a prescription drug that could cause birth defects did not receive warnings to avoid pregnancy. The authors note that the pregnancy risks of a drug should be discussed with women before they begin taking it.
Experts say the seriousness of a life-threatening lung disorder found six times more often in infants born to mothers who take antidepressants during pregnancy is not being adequately conveyed to women while they are considering whether to use the drugs. The disorder, persistent pulmonary hypertension (PPHN), occurs when a newborn does not adjust to breathing outside the womb. PPHN refers to high pressure in the lungs' blood vessels which prevents the body's oxygen-poor blood from entering the lungs to absorb oxygen, and leaves the infant with not enough oxygen into the bloodstream.
On July 19, 2006, the FDA ordered a PPHN warning for the labels of the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor antidepressants (SSRI's), based on a February 9, 2006 study in the New England Journal of Medicine, and issued a Public Health Advisory that stated: "A recently published case-control study has shown that infants born to mothers who took selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRI's) after the 20th week of pregnancy were 6 times more likely to have persistent pulmonary hypertension (PPHN) than infants born to mothers who did not take antidepressants during pregnancy." Two week later on August 1, 2006, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologist issued a press release warning that the use of SSRI's and selective norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRI's) during pregnancy should be individualized based on their respective risks and benefits, and specifically warned that Paxil should be avoided due to the potential risk of fetal heart defects, PPHN and other negative effects.
SSRI's sold in the US include Paxil marketed by GlaxoSmithKline, Prozac by Eli Lilly, Zoloft by Pfizer, and Celexa and Lexapro sold by Forest Laboratories, along with various generic versions of the drugs. The closely-related class of SNRI antidepressants also carry birth defects warnings and include Wyeth's Effexor and Lilly's Cymbalta. In any given year in the US, at least eighty-thousand pregnant women are prescribed SSRI's, according to a study in the May 2005, Journal of American Medical Association. The CDC recently reported that antidepressants were the most prescribed class of drugs in the country in 2005. The fact that the overall prescribing rate is higher than for any other drugs indicates that a large number of pregnant women may be taking antidepressants without knowledge of the risks to the unborn fetus.
Overall, respiratory failure affects nearly 80,000 newborns per year, and it is responsible for as many as half of all infant deaths. Nearly one-third of all newborns with respiratory failure are born at term or near-term, and are at risk for PPHN, according to the April 2007 article, "Pulmonary Hypertension, Persistent-Newborn," by Dr Robin Steinhorn, head of the Division of Neonatology at Children's Memorial Hospital in Chicago and Professor at Northwestern University Medical School, in eMedicine from WebMD. Dr Steinhorn also notes that an increased incidence of PPHN is reported for mothers who use SSRI's during the last half of their pregnancies.
As recently as 15 years ago, the reports says, the mortality rate for PPHN infants reached 40%, and the prevalence of major neurologic disability was 15-60%. However, the introduction of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) and other new therapies has had a major effect on reducing the mortality rate, yet the prevalence of major neurologic disabilities among surviving newborns remains approximately 15-20%. Dr Steinhorn reports that Glass and colleagues compared the neurodevelopmental outcome of 103 neonates following ECMO and 37 without ECMO at age 5 and states: "Major disability, which was defined as mental disability, motor disability, sensorineural impairment, or seizure disorder, was present in 17 of children in whom ECMO had been used. The mean full-scale, verbal, and performance intelligence quotient (IQ) scores of children who received ECMO treatment were within the normal range; however, as a group, the scores were significantly lower than in children who had not had ECMO (96 vs 115)."
According to the report, infants who survive following ECMO have a higher rate of re-hospitalization for non-pulmonary and surgical conditions, and the rate of sensorineural disabilities in infants who survive averages 6% and developmental delay occurs in 9%. Because the prevalence of hearing loss is high, the report recommends that an automated hearing test should be administered before discharging the baby and hearing should be reassessed when he or she is 6-months-old and again, as the results indicate. Dr Steinhorn also notes that an increased frequency of social problems, academic difficulties at school age and higher rates of attention deficit disorder are reported in children who received ECMO.
Although the actual FDA warning about PPHN was not added to the antidepressant labels until August 2006, the drug makers were well aware of the risk of this birth defect for more than a decade, due to a long and steady line of studies that linked the drugs to serious respiratory problems in newborns dating back to 1996.
A study in the October 3, 1996, New England Journal of Medicine, lead by Dr Christina Chambers of the Department of Pediatrics at the University of California-San Diego, reported that PPHN developed in 2.7% of a group of infants whose mothers took Prozac throughout their pregnancy. From 1989 through 1995, the California Teratogen Information Service and Clinical Research Program received approximately 1,500 calls requesting information on the potential teratogenic effects of Prozac (fluoxetine), and an estimated one-third of the calls were made by pregnant women who were currently taking Prozac. For their study, the researchers selected 228 of these women.
Because they hypothesized that birth size, gestational age, and neonatal adaptation were influenced by exposure to Prozac late in pregnancy, the women were divided into two groups. One group was referred to as the exposed-early group because the women discontinued Prozac in the first or second trimester, and another group was referred to as the exposed-late group because the women continued to take Prozac in the third trimester. A third group of 254 pregnant women who called the same California Information Program between 1989 through 1995, but with questions about other drugs and procedures that were not considered teratogenic, was enrolled as a control group. The researchers determined that 73 infants in the exposed-late group had higher rates of premature delivery, admissions to special care nurseries, and poor neonatal adaptation, including respiratory difficulty, cyanosis on feeding and jitteriness. Birth weight was also lower and birth length shorter in the exposed-late infants, they found. The study authors noted their concern over the 15.5% incidence of three or more minor anomalies in some infants exposed to Prozac in early pregnancy. "The combination of any three minor anomalies in a single child is an unusual finding," they wrote. The 15.5 percent incidence, they said, indicates that exposure during the first trimester has an effect on embryonic development. "This finding raises the possibility of an associated defect in the development of the central nervous system that may become evident when the infant is older," the authors wrote.
In January 1998, a study in the international journal of medical science and practice, The Lancet, explained that the lungs act as a reservoir for antidepressants and this study suggests that SSRI's could play a pivotal role in infant respiratory conditions, such as PPHN. Another study, in the April 2002 Journal of Laboratory and Clinical Medicine, investigated the effects of SSRI's on pulmonary circulation and found that SSRI's affect the pulmonary smooth muscle cells and aggravate pulmonary hypertension. In June 2004, a study in Prescrire International also reported that newborns exposed to SSRI's toward the end of pregnancy showed signs of altered muscle tone, breathing and suction problems, and agitation, with an estimated 20% to 30% of the infants affected.
The next month, after receiving hundreds of adverse event reports over a decade, in July 2004, the FDA finally revised the labels for all SSRI's and SNRI's, warning that some newborns exposed to the drugs had developed problems requiring prolonged hospitalizations, respiratory support and tube feeding. Less than a year later, a study in the May 2005 Journal of the American Medical Association reported that women who took SSRI's or SNRI's late in pregnancy were at a 3 times higher risk of giving birth to infants suffering from serious respiratory problems, jitteriness and irritability.
Lead author, Dr Eydie Moses-Kolko, reported that serious respiratory problems developed in about one out of every 100 infants. According to Dr David Healy, a leading expert on pharmacology and author of "The Antidepressant Era," the doctors who prescribe SSRI's are often not able to spend enough time with patients to discuss their emotional issues in depth. "For some doctors," he notes, "SSRI's may appear to provide a quick solution for patient problems arising from normal life events such as bereavement, work stress, or marital conflict." However, he says, a review of the actual SSRI studies shows that only one patient in 10 responds to these drugs, and he attributes the massive prescribing to successful marketing rather than benefits. "Through educational and marketing campaigns," Dr Healy says, "the SSRI makers have produced a situation where people who would never have been given an antidepressant in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s, are now given one after cursory questioning by a physician."
Another leading expert, Dr Peter Breggin, founder of The International Center for the Study of Psychiatry and Psychology (ICSPP), a nonprofit research and educational network, and the journal Ethical Human Sciences and Services, also says a thorough review of all the studies submitted to the FDA for the approval of the SSRI's showed that, when taken as a whole, the drugs do not work. Dr Breggin also agrees that the high rate of prescribing to women indicates that women who may be experiencing minor symptoms of distress common with daily living are being convinced that they have a mental illness that requires drugs, most frequently an SSRI.
Proponents for the drug makers claim that depression itself poses a greater risk to the fetus than SSRI's. "The problem with this claim is that there is no consideration for the health of the baby and the immense stress a mother has to endure when her baby is sick," states Kate Gillespie, a Paxil injury lawyer from the Baum Hedlund law firm."Not to mention, the far greater stress that is created by having to constantly deal with life and death health issues, like the respiratory problems of an infant, that are caused by SSRI-induced PPHN," she adds."For these women," Ms Gillespie says, "it is clear that the risks far outweigh any benefit." An August 2006 study in the Archives of General Psychiatry compared babies born to depressed mothers treated with SSRI's to those born to mothers who were not treated, and found a significantly greater incidence of respiratory distress, 13.9% vs 7.8%, and longer hospital stays for the infants exposed to SSRI's.
Another study, in the August 2007 American Journal of Psychiatry, examined the effects of depression and antidepressant use on fetal age and the risk of preterm birth with 90 women and found the drugs, rather than depression, to be associated with lower fetal age and an increased risk of preterm birth. The researchers noted that the presence of depression per se during pregnancy did not adversely affect outcomes. According to Dr Breggin, SSRI's should never be used during pregnancy. "If pregnant women feel anxious or sad," he says, "they should seek counseling or family therapy involving the child's father, along with other sources of emotional support."
Families seeking legal advice regarding SSRI-antidepressant birth defects can contact the Baum, Hedlund, Aristei & Goldman Law Firm at: (800) 827-0087; http://www.baumhedlundlaw.com/
(Written by Evelyn Pringle as part of the Antidepressant Birth Defect Litigation Monthly Round-Up, Sponsored by Baum Hedlund's Pharmaceutical Antidepressant Litigation Department)www.paxilbirthdefect.com/ http://www.pphnlawyers.com/
(Evelyn Pringle is a regular columnist for OpEd News and investigative journalist focused on exposing corruption in government and corporate America)--
http://www.drcarley.com/Listen to "What's Ailing America?" every Thursday night at 5:30 PM PST (8:30 PM EST) on http://www.bbsradio.com/; click on "BBS station 2""Inoculations are the true weapons of mass destruction, causing an epidemic of genocide"
Rebecca Carley, MD Court Qualified Expert in vaccine Induced Diseases
"The individual is handicapped by coming face to face with a conspiracy so monstrous that he cannot believe it exists"J Edgar HooverFBI Director
All TRUTH passes through 3 stages:
1st - it is ridiculed
2nd - it is violently opposed
3rd - it is accepted as SELF EVIDENTArthur Schopenhauer
In a time of universal deceit, telling the TRUTH is a revolutionary act. 1984, George Orwell
(Emphasis by Justice Lover)
01 October 2007
DR. LINUS PAULING’S “ORTHOMOLECULAR PSYCHIATRY” AND DR. MATTHIAS RATH’S DEAFENING SILENCE IN THE FACE OF CONTINUED CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY BY PSYCHIATRY (THE DOGMA AND THE PRACTICE) AND BY ITS BRIBED SHRINKS
by Justice Lover
Dr. Linus Pauling was a great bio-chemist scientist, and a great campaigner against nuclear weapons. No one can dispute that. However, like all humans, he was not
Infallible and he certainly was wrong in his attitude to psychiatry. In his article titled, Orthomolecular Psychiatry: Varying the concentrations of substances normally present in the human body may control mental disease, which he wrote
And had it published in 1968
(See http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/160/3825/265) he advocated orthomolecular psychiatry as a new psychiatric method of treatment.
This was tantamount to telling the shrinks that their psychiatric dogma (which is based on the big lie of “mental illness”), as well as their psychiatric practice (of forcing their, so called, treatment) are OK. Moreover, he offered his new method without condemning the prevailing methods of compulsory deadly drugs, electric shocks torture, and “psychosurgery” as crimes against humanity, which they are, of course, and which had killed and maimed many thousands of people around the world (not counting the murder of hundreds of thousands of patients under the Hitler regime in fascist Germany) by the time he wrote his article.
The top shrinks did not accept Dr. Paulings ideas, of course. To accept the orthomolecular psychiatry premises would mean abandonment of the alliance of psychiatry with Big Pharma, and the loss of all the heavy bribes the shrinks are getting from Big Pharma. However, the top shrinks did not fight Pauling either, as they could see the benefits to psychiatry by Pauling's endorsement of psychiatry and its "mental illness" dogma.
As if to provide proof of what has been stated above, Pauling was so keen on psychiatry that he encouraged (certainly endorsed) his elder son to become a shrink. As a result, Dr. Linus Carl Pauling Jr. had been a practicing psychiatrist for 30 years, until his retirement for the purpose of heading the Linus Pauling Institute. However, it is not to say that Dr. Linus Pauling (the father) scientific research results are not of great value, as are the research results of Dr. Mathias Rath, the great German physician who followed in his footsteps. Even the method of treatment “by the provision of the optimum molecular environment for the mind, especially the optimum concentrations of substances normally present in the human body”, as advocated by Linus Pauling can be very helpful at times to some people. What is wrong - very wrong! - is to lump it together with the other psychiatric “treatments” as a treatment for “mental illness” which does not exist other than as the figment of imagination of Big Pharma chiefs and in psychiatry's bribed shrinks. Dr. Mathias Rath should have known that and not choose to ignore this truth, as he has been doing, out of respect for his dead mentor, presumably.
Furthermore, Dr. Rath’s campaigning against the crimes of Big Pharma - which is a great service to humanity !- should have led him to the condemnation of psychiatry too, because of its role as the main junior partner of Big Pharma, and because the shrinks are serving Big Pharma in return for heavy bribes, as everyone knows.
by Justice Lover
Dr. Linus Pauling was a great bio-chemist scientist, and a great campaigner against nuclear weapons. No one can dispute that. However, like all humans, he was not
Infallible and he certainly was wrong in his attitude to psychiatry. In his article titled, Orthomolecular Psychiatry: Varying the concentrations of substances normally present in the human body may control mental disease, which he wrote
And had it published in 1968
(See http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/160/3825/265) he advocated orthomolecular psychiatry as a new psychiatric method of treatment.
This was tantamount to telling the shrinks that their psychiatric dogma (which is based on the big lie of “mental illness”), as well as their psychiatric practice (of forcing their, so called, treatment) are OK. Moreover, he offered his new method without condemning the prevailing methods of compulsory deadly drugs, electric shocks torture, and “psychosurgery” as crimes against humanity, which they are, of course, and which had killed and maimed many thousands of people around the world (not counting the murder of hundreds of thousands of patients under the Hitler regime in fascist Germany) by the time he wrote his article.
The top shrinks did not accept Dr. Paulings ideas, of course. To accept the orthomolecular psychiatry premises would mean abandonment of the alliance of psychiatry with Big Pharma, and the loss of all the heavy bribes the shrinks are getting from Big Pharma. However, the top shrinks did not fight Pauling either, as they could see the benefits to psychiatry by Pauling's endorsement of psychiatry and its "mental illness" dogma.
As if to provide proof of what has been stated above, Pauling was so keen on psychiatry that he encouraged (certainly endorsed) his elder son to become a shrink. As a result, Dr. Linus Carl Pauling Jr. had been a practicing psychiatrist for 30 years, until his retirement for the purpose of heading the Linus Pauling Institute. However, it is not to say that Dr. Linus Pauling (the father) scientific research results are not of great value, as are the research results of Dr. Mathias Rath, the great German physician who followed in his footsteps. Even the method of treatment “by the provision of the optimum molecular environment for the mind, especially the optimum concentrations of substances normally present in the human body”, as advocated by Linus Pauling can be very helpful at times to some people. What is wrong - very wrong! - is to lump it together with the other psychiatric “treatments” as a treatment for “mental illness” which does not exist other than as the figment of imagination of Big Pharma chiefs and in psychiatry's bribed shrinks. Dr. Mathias Rath should have known that and not choose to ignore this truth, as he has been doing, out of respect for his dead mentor, presumably.
Furthermore, Dr. Rath’s campaigning against the crimes of Big Pharma - which is a great service to humanity !- should have led him to the condemnation of psychiatry too, because of its role as the main junior partner of Big Pharma, and because the shrinks are serving Big Pharma in return for heavy bribes, as everyone knows.
21 September 2007
TWO VERY IMPORTANT AHRP WARNINGS REGARDING BIG PHARMA AND FDA CRIMES
by Justice Lover
The first warning concerns the deadly dangers of Clozapine and Risperdal, the two neuroleptics the shrinks like to prescribe and force “psychotic“ patients to take (both because the poisons turn their patients into docile zombies, and because they bring high profits to Big Pharma, therefore high bribes for the shrinks). Also a similar warning regarding a few other drugs produced by Big Pharma with the approval of the FDA.
The second warning concerns some colossal deceptions on a global scale regarding the introduction and spread of HIV/AIDS, and poisoning of infants and young children by Mercury.
Here are the AHRP reports :
ALLIANCE FOR HUMAN RESEARCH PROTECTION (AHRP)
Promoting Openness, Full Disclosure, and Accountability
www.ahrp.org and http://ahrp.blogspot.com/
FYI
To appreciate the growing challenge that bloggers pose for the press, one
needs to examine medical news reports in both.
Compare the coverage of a major report in the Archives of Internal Medicine
analyzing adverse events reported to FDA's Medwatch between 1998-2005. http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/short/167/16/1752
The number of serious adverse event reports went from 34,966 in 1998, to
89,842 in 2005.
The number of fatal adverse drug events increased nearly 300 percent from
5,519 in 1998, to 15,107 in 2005.
Reported serious events increased 4 times faster than the total number of
outpatient prescriptions during the period.
The authors note that the increase was influenced by relatively few drugs:
298 of the 1489 drugs identified (20%) accounted for 407 394 of the 467 809
events (87%).
These findings confirm FDA's failure to protect the public from lethal
drugs--both by approving drugs whose safety has not been demonstrated, and
by failing to take action when a drug is identified as killing Americans.
"The results highlight the importance of this public health problem and
illustrate the need for improved systems to manage the risks of prescription
drugs."
Of greatest importance for consumers and physicians who prescribed unsafe
drugs is to identify them.
Table 4 lists the 15 drugs most frequently identified in fatal events and 15
drugs identified most frequently with serious non-fatal events.
Below, the 15 drugs with the most fatalities:
DEATHS
Oxycondone....................................................5,548
......opiate
Fentanyl...........................................................3,545
......opiate
Clozapine.......................................................
3,277.......antipsychotic
Morphine........................................................
1,616........opiate
Acetaminophen..............................................1,393........
analgesiac
Methadone....................................................
1,258........opiate
Infliximab.........................................................1,228....
....antirheumatism
Interferon beta................................................
1,178........immunomoderator
Risperdone....................................................
1,093........antipsychotic
Etanercept..................................................
...1,034........antirheumatism
Paclitaxel.......................................................
1,033........antineoplastic
Olanzapine....................................................
1,005........antipsychotic
Rofecoxib......................................................
932........antiinflammatory
Paroxetine.....................................................
850.........antidepressant
Of note, there were fewer deaths reported involving the anti- inflammatory
drug Vioxx (rofecoxib) than were reported for the antipsychotics--clozapine
(Clozaril), risperidone (Risperdal) and olanzapine (Zyprexa). FDA received
932 death reports involving Vioxx, 3,277 death reports involving Clozaril,
1,093 death reports involving Risperdal, and 1,005 death reports involving
Zyprexa.
Yet, Vioxx was withdrawn from the market because it was harmful to
patients, while the antipsychotics--whose reported death toll far surpasses
Vioxx, remain on the market. Not only that, but FDA officials have actually
approved Risperdal and Zyprexa for use in children--in the latter case,
overruling the team of safety officers.
http://ahrp.blogspot.com/2007/08/fda-approval-of-risperdal-for-children.html
http://ahrp.blogspot.com/2007/06/surge-of-back-door-fda-pediatric.html
http://www.thejabberwock.org/blog/2/20070627ahrpfda.pdf
One of the best blogs focusing exclusively on mental health news is Furious
Seasons.com. Today's post is an example of in-depth intelligent reporting
about the significance of a disturbing trend documented in FDA's database.
The significance of thousands of Americans dying from adverse drug effects
appears to have eluded the general press.
http://www.furiousseasons.com/archives/2007/09/worse_than_vioxx_zyprexa_risp
erdal_clozaril_and_paxil_killed_thousands_of_americans_1.html
Furious Seasons is managed by an investigative journalist, Phillip Dowdy,
whose website provides easy access to the secret Eli Lilly Zyprexa
documents. Others, among them, AHRP, are constrained by the court from even
providing a direct link to those documents.
Second report :
ALLIANCE FOR HUMAN RESEARCH PROTECTION (AHRP) Promoting Openness, Full Disclosure, and Accountability www.ahrp.org and http://ahrp.blogspot.com/
FYI Below are several commentaries about the AHRP Infomail Re: the astounding revelations in a Youtube interview with Dr. Maurice Hilleman, an internationally renowned vaccinologist, who was Merck's Chief Vaccine Division.
An interesting 'companion' piece involving Dr. Hilleman's outspoken candor was reported by The Los Angeles Times in 2005: See: http://www.ahrp.org/infomail/05/02/08.php After stepping down as Chief of Vaccines, Dr. Hilleman became the director of Merck Institute for Vaccinology. In a 1991 memo addressed to Merck's new Chief of Vaccines, Dr. Hilleman stated that 6-month-old children who received their shots on schedule would get a mercury dose up to 87 times higher than guidelines for the maximum daily consumption of mercury from fish.
"When viewed in this way, the mercury load appears rather large." Dr. Hilleman The memo was prepared at a time when U.S. health authorities were aggressively expanding their immunization schedule by adding five new shots for children in their first six months. Many of these shots, as well as some previously included on the vaccine schedule, contained thimerosal, an antibacterial compound that is nearly 50% ethyl mercury, a neurotoxin. The memo pulls the rug from under the argument currently made by Merck and other vaccine makers, along with many government health officials and scientists, who claim there is no credible evidence of harm from the amounts of mercury once widely present in kids' shots.
The memo provides plaintiffs with evidence showing that, "nearly a decade before the first public disclosure, senior executives were concerned that infants were getting an elevated dose of mercury in vaccinations containing a widely used sterilizing agent." In his memo, Dr. Hilleman observed, "unlike regulators in Sweden and some other countries, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration . does not have this concern for thimerosal." The FDA's disregard for public safety--whenever safety collides with corporate profits--is OUR BIGGEST NATIONAL HEALTH HAZARD. See also: Deadly Immunity: Robert F. Kennedy Jr. investigates the government cover-up of a mercury/autism scandal ROBERT F. KENNEDY JR.Posted Jun 20, 2005 12:00 AM Rolling Stone and Salon.com
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/7395411/deadly_immunity/ Contact: Vera Hassner Sharav 212-595-8974 http://www.blogger.com/ym/Compose?To=veracare@ahrp.org&YY=61670&y5beta=yes&y5beta=yes&order=down&sort=date&pos=0 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ from: Clifford Miller, Solicitor-Advocate of the Supreme Court of England Civil Proceedings http://www.cliffordmiller.com/ AIDS & Polio Vaccine Cancer Caused by Merck In a previously undisclosed 1987 filmed interview Merck's chief vaccine researcher and "Father" of modern childhood vaccines, the late Dr Maurice Hilleman, admitted that he introduced the claimed AIDS virus to the modern world. In a separate admission, Hilleman confirmed that contaminated polio vaccines containing cancer causing SV40 monkey virus was given to millions. The Hilleman interview can be viewed on the internet click here. The filmed interview was lodged with the US National Library of Medicine by the interviewer, Professor Dr. Edward Shorter, it is now posted on "You Tube" by Dr Leonard Horowitz. The authenticity has been verified by the Alliance for Human Research Protection (AHRP). See below for details from AHRP. What is not revealed in the interview is that some child polio vaccines continue to be contaminated by SV40 virus.
It is claimed by health officials and manufacturers that the amount of contamination has been reduced from that previously in the vaccines. However, the virus is still present in some vaccines. Whilst Merck may yet dispute the allegation perhaps claiming Hilleman's comments are in error. Those remarks were made in an interview by their own senior employee in a position to know the facts and who was clearly authorised to give the interview. That the interview was deposited in the US National Library of Medicine shows there were no restrictions on its disclosure. In the circumstances, those remarks might be treated as an admission on behalf of the company and if for a legal technical reason they are not, the remarks may prove difficult for Merck to rebut. Accordingly, this email is not to be taken as claiming the video is proof of the allegations and Merck may yet seek to rebut them. ~~~~~~ Did Merck Bring AIDS to America? No. Nevertheless, that didn't stop Horowitz from titling the video "Merck Vaccine Chief Brings HIV/AIDS to America", or science watchdog Vera Hassner Sharav... Wired News - USA By Brandon Keim September 19, 2007 Categories: AIDS/HIV, Debunking, Medicine & Medical Procedures In an archival video recently posted on YouTube, former Merck vaccine developer Maurice Hilleman recalls the company's unwitting importation of AIDS-carrying African green monkeys during the early 1980's. "Oh, it was you who introduced the AIDS virus to this country?" jokes the interviewer, medical historian Edward Shorter. It's hard to tell exactly what's said next, since the person who posted the video -- intelligent design supporter and Da Vinci Code interpreter Leonard Horowitz -- tweaked the tape DJ-style, repeating the catch phrases over and over again. Hilleman might have said, "Yup." He definitely said, with the air of someone telling a true but hard-to-believe tale, "This is the real story." And then the off-camera Merck researchers laugh loudly, and someone quips, "What Merck won't do to develop a vaccine." It's clear that they're joking. Telling the truth about the infected monkeys, but joking about the implication of that. Sick jokes poorly told, and how anybody could find them funny is beyond me, but jokes nonetheless. There's absolutely no evidence that the virus ever made the jump from monkeys into Merck's vaccines and into people. Nevertheless, that didn't stop Horowitz from titling the video "Merck Vaccine Chief Brings HIV/AIDS to America", or science watchdog Vera Hassner Sharav, founder of the Alliance for Human Research Protection, from repeating the transcript without any context in an email alert. For Horowitz to do what he did is the height of irresponsibility. As for Sharav, though I don't always agree with her, I'm very glad for her activism -- but in this case, she should have known better. In the alert, Sharav goes on to describe how Hilleman acknowledges that a Merck-manufactured polio vaccine was infected by the SV40 cancer virus. If anything, that part of the interview casts Hilleman in a slightly more favorable light -- he discovered the contamination and angrily confronted the vaccine's lead researcher -- but those facts, at least, are beyond question: from 1955 to 1963, about 100 millions Americans, and even more people abroad, received SV40-contaminated polio vaccine. It's not known whether the vaccinations went on to cause cancer. Some studies say they did; other studies say those studies were flawed. The facts aren't clear. That the possibility even exists is scary and reprehensible. It underscores the vital importance of strictly regulating vaccine development and production. But should it, in Sharav's words, "prompt a reexamination of the advisability of US mandatory vaccine policies"? No, it doesn't. Vaccines are one of the greatest advances in modern public health -- and I'm saying this as someone who still thinks there could be a small but real thimerosal-autism link. In many places, that makes me an anti-vaccine crackpot. But I'm not so cracked as to be unable to distinguish between joke and reality, or to judge all vaccines by something that happened 50 years ago, or to suggest that we risk millions of lives on the strength of a few scientifically controversial reports. Merck Vaccine Chief Brings HIV/AIDS to America [YouTube]
* An earlier origin-of-AIDS theory brought under suspicion an oral polio vaccine distributed in central Africa during the 1950's. This was eventually discounted (scroll down to Oral Polio
Vaccine theory.) Wikipedia reference here.
(Emphasis by Justice Lover)
by Justice Lover
The first warning concerns the deadly dangers of Clozapine and Risperdal, the two neuroleptics the shrinks like to prescribe and force “psychotic“ patients to take (both because the poisons turn their patients into docile zombies, and because they bring high profits to Big Pharma, therefore high bribes for the shrinks). Also a similar warning regarding a few other drugs produced by Big Pharma with the approval of the FDA.
The second warning concerns some colossal deceptions on a global scale regarding the introduction and spread of HIV/AIDS, and poisoning of infants and young children by Mercury.
Here are the AHRP reports :
ALLIANCE FOR HUMAN RESEARCH PROTECTION (AHRP)
Promoting Openness, Full Disclosure, and Accountability
www.ahrp.org and http://ahrp.blogspot.com/
FYI
To appreciate the growing challenge that bloggers pose for the press, one
needs to examine medical news reports in both.
Compare the coverage of a major report in the Archives of Internal Medicine
analyzing adverse events reported to FDA's Medwatch between 1998-2005. http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/short/167/16/1752
The number of serious adverse event reports went from 34,966 in 1998, to
89,842 in 2005.
The number of fatal adverse drug events increased nearly 300 percent from
5,519 in 1998, to 15,107 in 2005.
Reported serious events increased 4 times faster than the total number of
outpatient prescriptions during the period.
The authors note that the increase was influenced by relatively few drugs:
298 of the 1489 drugs identified (20%) accounted for 407 394 of the 467 809
events (87%).
These findings confirm FDA's failure to protect the public from lethal
drugs--both by approving drugs whose safety has not been demonstrated, and
by failing to take action when a drug is identified as killing Americans.
"The results highlight the importance of this public health problem and
illustrate the need for improved systems to manage the risks of prescription
drugs."
Of greatest importance for consumers and physicians who prescribed unsafe
drugs is to identify them.
Table 4 lists the 15 drugs most frequently identified in fatal events and 15
drugs identified most frequently with serious non-fatal events.
Below, the 15 drugs with the most fatalities:
DEATHS
Oxycondone....................................................5,548
......opiate
Fentanyl...........................................................3,545
......opiate
Clozapine.......................................................
3,277.......antipsychotic
Morphine........................................................
1,616........opiate
Acetaminophen..............................................1,393........
analgesiac
Methadone....................................................
1,258........opiate
Infliximab.........................................................1,228....
....antirheumatism
Interferon beta................................................
1,178........immunomoderator
Risperdone....................................................
1,093........antipsychotic
Etanercept..................................................
...1,034........antirheumatism
Paclitaxel.......................................................
1,033........antineoplastic
Olanzapine....................................................
1,005........antipsychotic
Rofecoxib......................................................
932........antiinflammatory
Paroxetine.....................................................
850.........antidepressant
Of note, there were fewer deaths reported involving the anti- inflammatory
drug Vioxx (rofecoxib) than were reported for the antipsychotics--clozapine
(Clozaril), risperidone (Risperdal) and olanzapine (Zyprexa). FDA received
932 death reports involving Vioxx, 3,277 death reports involving Clozaril,
1,093 death reports involving Risperdal, and 1,005 death reports involving
Zyprexa.
Yet, Vioxx was withdrawn from the market because it was harmful to
patients, while the antipsychotics--whose reported death toll far surpasses
Vioxx, remain on the market. Not only that, but FDA officials have actually
approved Risperdal and Zyprexa for use in children--in the latter case,
overruling the team of safety officers.
http://ahrp.blogspot.com/2007/08/fda-approval-of-risperdal-for-children.html
http://ahrp.blogspot.com/2007/06/surge-of-back-door-fda-pediatric.html
http://www.thejabberwock.org/blog/2/20070627ahrpfda.pdf
One of the best blogs focusing exclusively on mental health news is Furious
Seasons.com. Today's post is an example of in-depth intelligent reporting
about the significance of a disturbing trend documented in FDA's database.
The significance of thousands of Americans dying from adverse drug effects
appears to have eluded the general press.
http://www.furiousseasons.com/archives/2007/09/worse_than_vioxx_zyprexa_risp
erdal_clozaril_and_paxil_killed_thousands_of_americans_1.html
Furious Seasons is managed by an investigative journalist, Phillip Dowdy,
whose website provides easy access to the secret Eli Lilly Zyprexa
documents. Others, among them, AHRP, are constrained by the court from even
providing a direct link to those documents.
Second report :
ALLIANCE FOR HUMAN RESEARCH PROTECTION (AHRP) Promoting Openness, Full Disclosure, and Accountability www.ahrp.org and http://ahrp.blogspot.com/
FYI Below are several commentaries about the AHRP Infomail Re: the astounding revelations in a Youtube interview with Dr. Maurice Hilleman, an internationally renowned vaccinologist, who was Merck's Chief Vaccine Division.
An interesting 'companion' piece involving Dr. Hilleman's outspoken candor was reported by The Los Angeles Times in 2005: See: http://www.ahrp.org/infomail/05/02/08.php After stepping down as Chief of Vaccines, Dr. Hilleman became the director of Merck Institute for Vaccinology. In a 1991 memo addressed to Merck's new Chief of Vaccines, Dr. Hilleman stated that 6-month-old children who received their shots on schedule would get a mercury dose up to 87 times higher than guidelines for the maximum daily consumption of mercury from fish.
"When viewed in this way, the mercury load appears rather large." Dr. Hilleman The memo was prepared at a time when U.S. health authorities were aggressively expanding their immunization schedule by adding five new shots for children in their first six months. Many of these shots, as well as some previously included on the vaccine schedule, contained thimerosal, an antibacterial compound that is nearly 50% ethyl mercury, a neurotoxin. The memo pulls the rug from under the argument currently made by Merck and other vaccine makers, along with many government health officials and scientists, who claim there is no credible evidence of harm from the amounts of mercury once widely present in kids' shots.
The memo provides plaintiffs with evidence showing that, "nearly a decade before the first public disclosure, senior executives were concerned that infants were getting an elevated dose of mercury in vaccinations containing a widely used sterilizing agent." In his memo, Dr. Hilleman observed, "unlike regulators in Sweden and some other countries, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration . does not have this concern for thimerosal." The FDA's disregard for public safety--whenever safety collides with corporate profits--is OUR BIGGEST NATIONAL HEALTH HAZARD. See also: Deadly Immunity: Robert F. Kennedy Jr. investigates the government cover-up of a mercury/autism scandal ROBERT F. KENNEDY JR.Posted Jun 20, 2005 12:00 AM Rolling Stone and Salon.com
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/7395411/deadly_immunity/ Contact: Vera Hassner Sharav 212-595-8974 http://www.blogger.com/ym/Compose?To=veracare@ahrp.org&YY=61670&y5beta=yes&y5beta=yes&order=down&sort=date&pos=0 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ from: Clifford Miller, Solicitor-Advocate of the Supreme Court of England Civil Proceedings http://www.cliffordmiller.com/ AIDS & Polio Vaccine Cancer Caused by Merck In a previously undisclosed 1987 filmed interview Merck's chief vaccine researcher and "Father" of modern childhood vaccines, the late Dr Maurice Hilleman, admitted that he introduced the claimed AIDS virus to the modern world. In a separate admission, Hilleman confirmed that contaminated polio vaccines containing cancer causing SV40 monkey virus was given to millions. The Hilleman interview can be viewed on the internet click here. The filmed interview was lodged with the US National Library of Medicine by the interviewer, Professor Dr. Edward Shorter, it is now posted on "You Tube" by Dr Leonard Horowitz. The authenticity has been verified by the Alliance for Human Research Protection (AHRP). See below for details from AHRP. What is not revealed in the interview is that some child polio vaccines continue to be contaminated by SV40 virus.
It is claimed by health officials and manufacturers that the amount of contamination has been reduced from that previously in the vaccines. However, the virus is still present in some vaccines. Whilst Merck may yet dispute the allegation perhaps claiming Hilleman's comments are in error. Those remarks were made in an interview by their own senior employee in a position to know the facts and who was clearly authorised to give the interview. That the interview was deposited in the US National Library of Medicine shows there were no restrictions on its disclosure. In the circumstances, those remarks might be treated as an admission on behalf of the company and if for a legal technical reason they are not, the remarks may prove difficult for Merck to rebut. Accordingly, this email is not to be taken as claiming the video is proof of the allegations and Merck may yet seek to rebut them. ~~~~~~ Did Merck Bring AIDS to America? No. Nevertheless, that didn't stop Horowitz from titling the video "Merck Vaccine Chief Brings HIV/AIDS to America", or science watchdog Vera Hassner Sharav... Wired News - USA By Brandon Keim September 19, 2007 Categories: AIDS/HIV, Debunking, Medicine & Medical Procedures In an archival video recently posted on YouTube, former Merck vaccine developer Maurice Hilleman recalls the company's unwitting importation of AIDS-carrying African green monkeys during the early 1980's. "Oh, it was you who introduced the AIDS virus to this country?" jokes the interviewer, medical historian Edward Shorter. It's hard to tell exactly what's said next, since the person who posted the video -- intelligent design supporter and Da Vinci Code interpreter Leonard Horowitz -- tweaked the tape DJ-style, repeating the catch phrases over and over again. Hilleman might have said, "Yup." He definitely said, with the air of someone telling a true but hard-to-believe tale, "This is the real story." And then the off-camera Merck researchers laugh loudly, and someone quips, "What Merck won't do to develop a vaccine." It's clear that they're joking. Telling the truth about the infected monkeys, but joking about the implication of that. Sick jokes poorly told, and how anybody could find them funny is beyond me, but jokes nonetheless. There's absolutely no evidence that the virus ever made the jump from monkeys into Merck's vaccines and into people. Nevertheless, that didn't stop Horowitz from titling the video "Merck Vaccine Chief Brings HIV/AIDS to America", or science watchdog Vera Hassner Sharav, founder of the Alliance for Human Research Protection, from repeating the transcript without any context in an email alert. For Horowitz to do what he did is the height of irresponsibility. As for Sharav, though I don't always agree with her, I'm very glad for her activism -- but in this case, she should have known better. In the alert, Sharav goes on to describe how Hilleman acknowledges that a Merck-manufactured polio vaccine was infected by the SV40 cancer virus. If anything, that part of the interview casts Hilleman in a slightly more favorable light -- he discovered the contamination and angrily confronted the vaccine's lead researcher -- but those facts, at least, are beyond question: from 1955 to 1963, about 100 millions Americans, and even more people abroad, received SV40-contaminated polio vaccine. It's not known whether the vaccinations went on to cause cancer. Some studies say they did; other studies say those studies were flawed. The facts aren't clear. That the possibility even exists is scary and reprehensible. It underscores the vital importance of strictly regulating vaccine development and production. But should it, in Sharav's words, "prompt a reexamination of the advisability of US mandatory vaccine policies"? No, it doesn't. Vaccines are one of the greatest advances in modern public health -- and I'm saying this as someone who still thinks there could be a small but real thimerosal-autism link. In many places, that makes me an anti-vaccine crackpot. But I'm not so cracked as to be unable to distinguish between joke and reality, or to judge all vaccines by something that happened 50 years ago, or to suggest that we risk millions of lives on the strength of a few scientifically controversial reports. Merck Vaccine Chief Brings HIV/AIDS to America [YouTube]
* An earlier origin-of-AIDS theory brought under suspicion an oral polio vaccine distributed in central Africa during the 1950's. This was eventually discounted (scroll down to Oral Polio
Vaccine theory.) Wikipedia reference here.
(Emphasis by Justice Lover)
17 September 2007
THE TOP PERPETRATORS OF CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY, INCLUDING THE BIG PHARMA CHIEFS, THE TOP SHRINKS, THE CHIEFS OF THE ZIONIST APARTHEID REGIME OF ISRAEL, AND THE CHIEFS OF THE USA PLUTOCRACY MUST BE TAKEN TO THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT IN THE HAGUE AND TRIED NOW !
by Justice Lover
It is now well over 4 years since the renowned German physician, Dr. Matthias Rath, had launched his following complaint to the International Criminal Court in The Hague. Although no action has been taken so far by the court, there can be no doubt that the complaint itself by this brave and honest physician is a great service to humanity ! However, as the title to this post indicates there are more top criminals that should be added to the list of the accused, namely, the heads of the psychiatric profession, as well as the heads of the zionist apartheid regime of Israel.
Here is the full text of the original complaint by Dr. Matthias Rath :
http://www4.dr-rath-foundation.org/The_Hague/complaint/complaint04.htm
IN THE NAME OF THE PEOPLE OF THE WORLD
Complaint Against Genocide and Other Crimes against Humanity Committed in Connection with the Pharmaceutical ‘Business With Disease’and the Recent War Against Iraq.This complaint is submitted to the International Criminal Court by Matthias Rath MD and others on behalf of the people of the world.
The Hague, June 14, 2003
To the prosecutor of theInternational Criminal Court,
Senator Louis Moreno-Ocampo,
c/o International Court,Maanweg 174NL-2516 AB
Den Haag/The Hague
SUMMARY
This complaint brings before the International Court of Justice (ICC) the greatest crimes ever committed in the course of human history. The accusedare charged with causing injury to and the death of millions ofpeople through the ‘business with disease’, war crimes and other crimesagainst humanity. These crimes fall under the jurisdiction of the InternationalCriminal Court.The accused know that they will be held accountable for these crimesand they have therefore embarked on a global campaign to underminethe authority of the ICC in order to put themselves above internationallaw and continue their crimes to the detriment of all mankind.Therefore, the current complaint must be considered by the ICC withutmost urgency. Moreover, every natural person and every governmentis hereby called upon to join this complaint with the goal to once and forall terminate these crimes.
INTRODUCTION
The Cartel
The charges presented in this complaint relate to two main fields of crime:
• Genocide and other crimes against humanity committed in connection withthe pharmaceutical business with disease.
• Crimes of war and aggression and other crimes against humanity committedin connection with the recent war against Iraq and the international escalationtowards a world war.
These two fields of crime are directly related and connected by one factor: they are committed in the name and interest of the same corporate investment groups and their political stakeholders. In order to establish the evidence and show the common motives of the accused a short historical review is imperative.
Throughout the 20th century, the pharmaceutical industry was built and organized with the goal of controlling healthcare systems around the world by systematically replacing natural, non-patentable therapies with patentable and therefore profitable synthetic drugs. This industry did not evolve naturally. To the contrary, it was an investment decision taken by a handful of wealthy and unscrupulous entrepreneurs. They deliberately defined the human body as their market place in order to generate further wealth.The driving force of this investment industry was the Rockefeller Group. They already controlled more than 90% of the petrochemical business in the UnitedStates at the turn of the 19th to the 20th century and they were looking for new global investment opportunities. Another investment group active in this fieldwas formed around the Rothschild financial group.
The Cartel and the Second World War
After Rockefeller’s Standard Oil (today EXXON), the second largest pharmaceutical/petrochemical corporate conglomerate during the first half of the 20thcentury, was the IG Farben conglomerate headquartered in Germany. This corporate conglomerate was the single most important factor for the political rise to power of Hitler and their joint conquest of Europe and the world. In fact,the Second World War was a war of aggression planned, started and conducted on the planning boards of IG Farben.
IG Farben was the parent companyof IG Auschwitz, the largest Industrial plant of this chemical cartel outside Germany. Much of the wealth of this cartel was built upon the blood and suffering of slave laborers, including those from the Auschwitz concentration camp. IG Farben promoted and used the unscrupulous political rulers of Germany as their willing tools to seek economic dominance over Europe and therest of the world. IG Farben was the largest shareholder in Rockefeller’s Standard Oil and vice versa. The victory of the Allied Forces over Nazi-Germany at that time terminated the plans of IG Farben to become the leading pharmaceutical and petrochemicalconglomerate in the world. At the same time, Standard Oil and the other pharmaceutical/petrochemical corporations of the Rockefeller consortium became the controlling financial group of this industry and remained soever since.
In the Nuremberg War Tribunal of 1947 against the managers of the IG FarbenCartel several of them were found guilty and convicted for committing crimes against humanity including mass murder, plundering and other crimes.The Nuremberg War Tribunal also dismantled the IG Farben Cartel into the daughter companies Hoechst, Bayer and BASF. Today, each of these companiesis larger than the parent company IG Farben was at that time.Today the United States of America and Great Britain are the leading export nations of pharmaceutical products in the world. In fact, two out of three pharmaceutical drugs currently marketed globally derive from corporations in these two countries.
Fundamentals of the Pharmaceutical Business
The accused are responsible for the deaths of hundreds of millions of people who continue to die from cardiovascular disease, cancer and other diseases that could have been prevented and largely eliminated long ago.This premature death of millions of people is neither the result of coincidence nor negligence. It has been willfully and systematically organized on behalf of the pharmaceutical industry and its investors with the sole purpose to expanda global drug market worth trillions of dollars.The market place of the pharmaceutical industry is the human body and its return on investment depends on the continuation and expansion of diseases.
Its profits depend on the patentability of drugs rendering this industry the mostprofitable industry on planet Earth.In contrast, the prevention and eradication of any disease significantly reduces or totally eliminates the markets for pharmaceutical drugs. Therefore,the pharmaceutical corporations have been systematically obstructing the prevention and the eradication of diseases.To commit these crimes, the pharmaceutical corporations use a maze of executors and accomplices in science, medicine, the mass media and in politics.The governments of entire nations are manipulated or even run by lobbyists and former executives of the pharmaceutical industry.
For decades, the legislation of entire nations has been corrupted and abused to promote this multi trillion-dollar “business with disease” thereby risking the health and lives of hundreds of millions of innocent patients and people.A precondition for the rise of the pharmaceutical industry as a successful investment business was the elimination of competition from safe and natural therapies because they are not patentable and their profit margins are small. In addition, these natural therapies can effectively help prevent and eliminate diseases because of their essential roles in cellular metabolism.
As the result of the systematic elimination of natural health therapies and the takeover of the healthcare systems in most countries of the world, the pharmaceutical industry has brought millions of people and almost all nations into dependency upon its investment business.
Pharmaceutical Industry as an Organized Fraud Business
The pharmaceutical industry offers “health” to millions of patients – but does not deliver the goods. Instead it delivers products that merely alleviate symptoms while promoting the underlying disease as a precondition for its futurebusiness. To cover the fraud, this industry spends twice the amount of money in covering it up than it spends on research on future therapies.This organized deception is the reason why this investment business could continue for almost a century behind a strategically designed smoke screen as ‘benefactors’ to humanity. The lives of 6 billion people and the economiesof most countries in the world are held hostage by the criminal practices of this industry.
Exposing the Pharmaceutical ‘Business with Disease’Over the past decade, I have led the effort to unmask the organized fraud of this largest investment industry on earth. I have been instrumental in pointing out that the biggest obstacle for improving the health of the people of our planet is the pharmaceutical industry itself - and its nature as an investment industry driven by the expansion of diseases.As a scientist, I was privileged to discover the true cause of cardiovascular disease and other chronic diseases. Together with my colleagues and others I have also been instrumental in documenting the effective, natural and non patentable alternatives to the pharmaceutical ‘business with disease.’ The identification of the natural molecules that optimize cellular metabolism enables mankind to prevent and largely eliminate most of today’s most common diseases including cardiovascular disease, cancer and many others.
Background of the Current International Crisis and the War of AggressionAgainst Iraq
Four main factors are currently threatening the survival of the pharmaceutical industry and thereby the very basis of a long-term investment industry worth hundreds of trillions of dollars:
1. Unsolvable legal conflicts, resulting in an avalanche of class action lawsuitsagainst many pharmaceutical corporations for product liability.
2. Unsolvable scientific conflicts due to the breakthroughs in natural, nonpatentabletherapies that effectively and largely eradicate diseases as amarket place.
3. Unsolvable ethical conflicts, resulting in the loss of credibility for the entirepharmaceutical business due to the fact that their exorbitant patent feeslimit access to medicines for the majority of people and risk prematuredeath for millions.
4. Unsolvable corporate conflicts.The unmasking of the pharmaceuticalbusiness model as an organized fraud.
For decades, the Pharma-Cartel has made every effort to protect its global business with patented drugs and to ban the dissemination of competing non patentable health alternatives. This effort is conducted at the international level, by infiltration of the European Parliament and the abuse of the World Health Organization and other United Nations Organizations.
Now, with the largest investment industry on planet Earth being exposed as an organized fraud business - haunted by tens of thousands of liability lawsuits- immediate and global industry protection laws have become an urgent measure to cover up these crimes and to cement the continued control of the investment “business with disease” over human health worldwide.
These far-reaching protection laws for an organized fraud-business impliedthe curtailing of civil rights and other drastic measures that could not be implementedduring peacetime. The implementation of these measures required the escalation of an international crisis, a series of military conflicts that deliberatelyfactors in the use of weapons of mass destruction and the triggering ofa World War. Only then would there exist a global psychological situation that would allow abandonment of civil rights, passing of martial laws and the globalimplementation of protection laws allowing the accused to continue their ’businesswith disease’ and other crimes.
In this situation, the pharmaceutical industry became the single largest corporatedonor to the election of George Bush in order to exert direct influenceover the most powerful political and military center in the world. With the electionof George Bush, the Rockefeller investment group had direct access tothe White House, the Pentagon and the political decisions taken there. A similar influence was exerted by the Rothschild group on the government of TonyBlair in Great Britain.
Thus, it was no surprise that the two largest export nations of pharmaceuticalproducts, the United States of America and Great Britain, spearheaded thecurrent international crisis and instigated the war against Iraq. The alleged necessity for this war was presented to the people in America, Great Britain and the world under the false pretence of a global fight against ‘terrorism’,elimination of rogue governments and the crusade against proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.Thus, the same corporate interest groups and the same political stakeholders responsible for millions of deaths from the continued business with diseaseare now also responsible for risking the unnecessary death of tens of thousands of innocent people in Iraq and for the death of young soldiers in America,Great Britain and other countries.
They are responsible for starting and conducting a war of aggression against Iraq without any international mandate.They are responsible for the enslavement, plunder and other crimes currentlybeing conducted in occupied Iraq.If these interest groups and their political stakeholders are not held accountablefor these crimes immediately, they are likely to continue the escalation of the international crisis with the ultimate risk of a war withweapons of mass destruction.
In this critical and historical situation I am bringing these crimes against humanity, these war crimes and crimes of aggression and of genocide to the attention of the prosecutor at the International Criminal Court and urge him to take immediate action to prevent further crimes and the ultimate disaster, a world war.Every individual person, government, corporation or organization fromanywhere in the world who has suffered from these crimes or wishes toterminate these crimes is called upon to join this complaint.
CRIMINAL CHARGES
The charges in this complaint relate to crimes in two main fields:
• Crimes perpetrated by the pharmaceutical “business with disease” includingthe crime of genocide and other crimes against humanity.
• Crimes related to the 2003 war against Iraq and the international escalationtowards a world war including crimes of war and aggression as well asother crimes against humanity.
These two fields of crime are directly connected because they are committed in the name and interest of the same corporate investment groups and their political stakeholders. The accused are charged with the most serious crimes committed against all mankind and are therefore subject to the principle of international prosecution.
1. CRIMES COMMITTED IN CONNECTION WITH THE PHARMACEUTICALBUSINESS WITH DISEASE
1.1. The Crime of GenocideThe accused are guilty of the crime of genocide for which they are liable toprosecution under Article 6 of the ICC Statute. This includes but is not limitedto the following specific crimes:1.1.1. Genocide by Killing (Article 6a)1.1.2. Genocide by causing serious bodily or mental harm (Article 6b)1.2.3. Genocide by deliberately inflicting conditions of lifecalculated to bring about physical destruction (Article 6c)1.2. Crimes Against HumanityThe accused are guilty of the crime of genocide for which they are liable toprosecution under Article 7 of the ICC Statute. This includes but is not limitedto the following specific crimes:1.2.1. Crime Against Humanity of Murder (Article 7a)1.2.2. Crime Against Humanity of Extermination (Article 7b)1.2.3. Crime Against Humanity of Enslavement (Article 7c)1.2.4. Crime Against Humanity of Severe Deprivationof Physical Liberty (Article 7e)1.2.5. Crime Against Humanity of Other Inhumane Acts (Article 7k)
SUMMARY OF THE SUBSTANTIATION OF THE CHARGES IN RELATIONTO THE CRIMES CONNECTED WITH THE PHARMACEUTICAL ‘BUSINESSWITH DISEASE’ (CHARGES 1.1. - 1.2.)
1. The accused willfully and systematically maintain cardiovascular diseases,including high blood pressure, heart failure, diabetic complicationsand other diseases, cancer, infectious diseases including AIDS,osteoporosis and many other of today’s most common diseases thatare recognized to be largely preventable by natural means. The accusedhave deliberately caused the unnecessary suffering and prematuredeath of hundreds of millions of people.
2. The accused systematically and deliberately prevent the eradication ofcardiovascular disease, cancer and other diseases by obstructing andblocking the dissemination of life-saving information on the healthbenefits of natural non-patentable therapies. Thereby, the accusedhave deliberately caused further unnecessary suffering and the prematuredeath of hundreds of millions of people.
3. The accused deliberately and systematically expand existing diseasesand creating new diseases by manufacturing and marketing pharmaceuticaldrugs with short-term symptomatic relief but with known anddetrimental long-term side-effects. Thereby the accused have deliberatelycaused further unnecessary suffering and premature death ofhundreds of millions of people.Details are provided in the evidence section below.
2. SPECIFIC CRIMES COMMITTED IN CONNECTION WITH THE WARAGAINST IRAQ AND THE CURRENT INTERNATIONAL CRISIS
2.1. The Crime of Genocide The accused are guilty of the crime of genocide for which they are liable toprosecution under Article 6 of the ICC Statute. Under the terms of this statutegenocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, inwhole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group. This includes butis not limited to the following specific criminal charges:2.1.1. Genocide by killing (Article 6a)2.1.2. Genocide by causing serious physical or mental harm (Article 6b)2.1.3. Genocide by deliberately inflicting living conditionscalculated to bring about physical destruction (Article 6c)2.2. Crimes Against HumanityUnder the terms of Article 7 of the Rome Statute, crimes against humanity mean any of the following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack. This includes but is not limited to the following specific criminalcharges:
2.2.1. Crimes against humanity of murder (Article 7a)
2.2.2. Crimes against humanity of extermination (Article 7b)
2.2.3. Crimes against humanity of enslavement (Article 7c)
2.2.4. Crimes against humanity of deportationor forcible transfer of population (Article 7d)
2.2.5. Crimes against humanity of imprisonmentor other severe deprivation of physical liberty (Article 7e)
2.2.6. Crimes against humanity of other inhumane acts (Article 7k)of a similar nature intentionally causing great suffering,or serious injury to the body or to mental or physical health.2.3. War CrimesUnder the terms of Article 8 of the Rome Statute, war crimes mean gravebreaches of the Geneva Conventions of 12th August 1949 (Geneva Conventionon the Treatment of Prisoners of War, Geneva Convention for the Protectionof Civilian Persons in Times of War). War crimes under the terms of the Statute therefore include but are not limited to:
2.3.1. War crime of wilful killing (Article 8(2)(a)(i))
2.3.2. War crime of torture (Article 8(2)(a)(ii)-1)
2.3.3. War crime of inhuman treatment (Article 8(2)(a)(ii)-2)
2.3.4. War crime of including biological experiments (Article 8(2)(a)(ii)-3)
2.3.5. War crime of wilfully causing great suffering (Article 8(2)(a)(iii))
2.3.6. War crime of destruction and appropriation of property (Article 8(2)(a)(iv))
2.3.7. War crime of denying a fair trial (Article 8(2)(a)(vi))
2.3.8. War crime of unlawful deportation and transfer (Article 8(2)(a)(vii)-1)
2.3.9. War crime of unlawful confinement (Article 8(2)(a)(vii)-2)
2.3.10. War crime of taking hostages (Article 8(2)(a)(viii))
2.3.11. War crime of attacking civilians (Article 8(2)(b)(i))
2.3.12. War crime of attacking civilian objects (Article 8(2)(b)(ii))
2.3.13. War crime of excessive incidental death, injury or damage (Article 8(2)(b)(iv))
2.3.14. War crime of attacking of undefended places (Article 8(2)(b)(v))
2.3.15. War crime of killing or wounding a person outside combat (Article 8(2)(b)(vi))
2.3.16. War crime of mutilation (Article 8(2)(b)(x)-1)
2.3.17. War crime of destroying or seizing the enemy’s property (Article 8(2)(b)(xiii))
2.3.18. Warcrimeofdeprivingthenationalsofhostilepowerofrights (Article 8(2)(b)(xiiv))
2.3.19. War crime of employing poison or poisoned weapons (Article 8(2)(b)(xvii))
2.3.20. War crime of employing prohibited bullets (Article 8(2)(b)(xix))
2.3.21. War crime of outrages upon personal dignity (Article 8(2)(b)(xxi))
2.3.22. War crime of starvation as a method of warfare (Article 8(2)(b)(xxv))
2.3.23. War crime of murder (Article 8(2)(c)(i)-1)
2.3.24. War crime of cruel treatment (Article 8(2)(c)(i)-3)
SUMMARY OF THE SUBSTANTIATION OF THE CHARGES IN RELATIONTO THE CRIMES CONNECTED TO THE WAR OF AGGRESSION AGAINST IRAQ AND THE CURRENT INTERNATIONAL CRISIS (CHARGES 2.1.1 -2.3.24)
1. The accused deliberately started a war of aggression against Iraq without any mandate by international law.
2. The accused deliberately escalate an international crisis situation includingpsychological warfare and actual military warfare. The goal ofthis escalation strategy is to create a global emergency state that allowsthe abandonment of civil rights on global scale – including establishmentof far reaching protectionist laws. The war of aggressionagainst Iraq on the false pretence of a global fight against “terrorism”and the crusade proliferation of weapons of mass destruction is part ofthis strategy.
3. The accused deliberately committed the crimes of genocide, murder,mutilation and other serious bodily and mental harm during their war ofaggression against the people of Iraq.4. The accused deliberately committed the crime of destroying and seizingpublic and private property during and after the war of aggression.Iraq has the second largest oil resources in the world and these resourcesare being plundered on behalf of the accused for private gain.Details are documented in the section “Evidence” below.
HISTORIC PRECEDENT FOR THIS COMPLAINT
The Nuremberg War Tribunal against executives of the pharmaceutical/petrochemical cartel IG- FarbenMore than half a century ago, the Nuremberg War Tribunal took place against the executives of the IG Farben Corporation, the largest pharmaceuticalpetrochemicalcartel in pre-world-war Europe. The Nuremberg War Tribunal brought to justice those responsible for the Second World War and set theprecedent for international prosecution of war crimes and ultimately theInternational Court in The Hague.
Unbeknown to most people today, the Nuremberg War Tribunal did not onlysentence the political and military leaders, but also the corporate executiveswho brought Hitler to power. 24 executives and managers of IG Farben wereindicted in this War Tribunal. US chief prosecutor Telford Taylor stated in hisopening statement: “The indictment accuses these men of mature responsibilityfor visiting upon mankind the most devastating and catastrophic war inhuman history. It accuses them of wholesale, enslavement, plunder and murder.These are terrible charges.” And he continued, “These accused corporate executives, not the Nazi lunatics are the principal war criminals. If their crimes are not brought to the daylight and they are not punished, they will commit even larger crimes in the future that Hitler could ever have committed.”
In 1947, the main charges against the IG Farben managers were:
• Charge 1: the planning and conduction of a war of aggression and theconquest of other countries with the result of unprecedented destruction inthe entire world, the death of millions of people and the continued sufferingsof millions more.
• Charge 2: deportation, plundering and spoliation of public and privateproperty in the occupied countries with the purpose of permanently exertingeconomic control in these countries and other severe crimes.
• Charge 3: slavery, mistreatment, terrorizing, torture and murdering of millionsof people.Now, half a century later, the charges in this complaint, are strikingly similar:
• Planning and conduct of a war of aggression against Iraq under the pretenceof fighting international terror and the proliferation of weapons ofmass destruction with the result that vast areas of the country are devastated,thousands of people have died and hundreds of thousands were injured.
• Plundering and spoliation of public and private property in the pursuit ofeconomic power and control in entire regions of the world by escalating aninternational crisis. Against this war of aggression the accused were deliberatelyfactoring in the use of weapons of mass destruction including nuclear,chemical and biological weapons.
• Genocide by killing, by causing serious bodily harm and by inflictingconditions of life to bring about physical destruction and crimes against humanityof murder and of other inhumane acts.EVIDENCE FOR THE CRIMES COMMITTEDThe evidence for the charges brought in this complaint also relate to two mainfields of crimes.
• Evidence of genocide and other crimes against humanity committed inconnection with the pharmaceutical business with disease.
• Evidence for crimes of war and aggression and other crimes against humanitycommitted in connection with the war against Iraq and the escalationof the international crisis to a world war.
1. EVIDENCE OF GENOCIDE AND OTHER CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITYCOMMITTED IN CONNECTION WITH THE PHARMACEUTICAL BUSINESSWITH DISEASE.
Specific evidence is presented that the accused are responsible for deliberately maintaining and expanding diseases, purposefully causing newdiseases as well as expanding the use of drugs once registered for onedisease to as many other diseases as possible.To accomplish those goals, the accused have strategically designed, implemented,conducted and organized a business fraud scheme on a globalscale that by its economic magnitude is unmatched in human history.
1.1. The Deliberate Expansion of DiseaseThe following specific evidence is presented that today’s most commondiseases are deliberately maintained and expanded by the accused, despitethe fact that these diseases could have been effectively preventedand largely eradicated saving millions of lives.
1.1.1. Coronary heart diseaseThe primary cause of coronary artery disease and heart attacks is a structuralweakening and impaired function of the artery wall, which - similar toscurvy – develops as the result of long-term deficiencies of vitamins andother essential nutrients.In contrast, pharmaceutical approaches to the prevention and treatment ofcardiovascular disease deliberately ignore this cause and focus rather onthe treatment of symptoms, such as the reduction of cholesterol levels inthe blood.Whilst deliberately avoiding curing the disease for which they are marketed,the detrimental side effects of these pharmaceutical drugs causenew diseases. The worldwide death toll from cardiovascular disease as aresult of these deliberate crimes of the accused is in excess of 12 millionlives every year.
1.1.2. High Blood PressureThe primary cause of high blood pressure is an increased tension of theartery wall due to a deficiency of essential nutrients in the arterial smoothmuscle cells, leading to narrowing of the artery diameter and a rise inblood pressure. A multitude of clinical studies is available documenting thebenefits of non-patentable micronutrients, in particular the amino acid arginineand magnesium. They correct the underlying deficiency in millionsof vascular wall cells thereby relaxing the blood vessel walls, increasingblood vessel diameter and helping to normalize high blood pressure,Pharmaceutical drugs sold for the treatment of high blood pressure purposelyfocus on the treatment of symptoms. For example, beta-blockersreduce the heart rate and diuretics reduce the blood volume. These pharmaceuticaldrugs deliberately avoid correcting the ‘spasms’ of the bloodvessel walls as the primary cause of high blood pressure. Thus, whilst deliberatelyavoiding curing the disease, these pharmaceutical drugs havelong-term detrimental side effects potentially causing a multitude of newdiseases - and thereby new drug markets.Worldwide several hundred million high blood pressure patients remainuncured as a direct result of these actions by the accused and their deathtoll is rising daily.
1.1.3. Heart FailureThe primary cause of heart failure is lack of cellular biocatalysts, certain vitamins,minerals, carnitine, coenzyme Q10 and other bioenergy carriers inmillions of heart muscle cells. This results in impaired heart pumping functionand accumulation of water in the body.In contrast, pharmaceutical approaches for the treatment of heart failuredeliberately ignore this fact and focus on symptoms. Diuretics marketed forthe treatment of heart failure not only eliminate water accumulated in thebody but also wash out vitamins, minerals and other water-soluble bioenergycarriers. Thus, the pharmaceutical drugs marketed for heart failureactually worsen the disease and they are responsible for the short life expectancyof heart failure patients once diuretic medication sets in.Whilst deliberately avoiding curing the disease, these pharmaceuticaldrugs flush out essential nutrients from the body, thereby aggravating theunderlying cause of the disease. Worldwide over one hundred million heartfailure patients remain uncured and eventually die prematurely as a directresult of the actions by the accused.
1.1.4. Irregular heartbeatThe primary cause of irregular heartbeat is lack of micronutrients, vitamins,minerals, ubiquinone and other bioenergy carriers, in millions of electricalheart muscle cells. This results in impaired generation or conduction of theelectrical impulses required for normal heartbeat. A recent double blindplacebo-controlled study has unequivocally documented that the therapeuticuse of micronutrients is an effective safe and affordable way to correctthe health condition underlying irregular heart beat.In contrast, pharmaceutical approaches for the treatment of irregularheartbeat deliberately ignore this fact and focus instead on symptoms.Anti-arrhythmic drugs marketed to treat arrhythmia frequently worsen theirregular heartbeat and cause cardiac arrest and the premature death ofpatients.A decade ago the author Thomas Moore documented in his book “DeadlyMedicine” that one new class of anti-arrhythmic drugs in the USA alonehad caused more deaths than the number of US casualties in the VietnamWar. Worldwide over one hundred million patients with irregular heartbeatremain uncured as a direct result of these actions by the accused and theirdeath toll is rising daily.
1.1.5. CancerUntil recently cancer has been considered a death verdict. Recent advancesin natural health and cellular medicine have fundamentallychanged that. For this disease too, it is now obvious that medical researchwith non-patentable therapies has been deliberately neglected and excludedby the accused in favor of ineffective drugs that allow the continuationof the cancer epidemic as one of their most profitable markets. Becauseof the extraordinary significance of the crimes committed by the accusedin connection with the cancer epidemic it is presented here in moredetail.It is a scientific fact that all cancers spread by the same mechanism, theuse of collagen digesting enzymes (collagenases, metalloproteinases).The therapeutic use of the natural amino acid lysine – especially togetherwith other non-patentable micronutrients - can block these enzymes andthereby inhibit the spread of cancer cells. All types of cancer studied thusfar respond to this therapeutic approach including breast cancer, prostatecancer, lung cancer, skin cancer, fibroblastoma, synovial cancer and anyother forms of cancer.The only reason why this breakthrough in medicine has not been investigatedfurther and applied in the treatment of cancer patients worldwide isthe fact that these substances are not patentable and therefore has lowprofit margins. More importantly, any effective treatment of any disease ultimatelyleads to its eradication and to the destruction of a multi-trilliondollarmarket of pharmaceutical drugs.The pharmaceutical drug marketing for cancer patients has been particularlyfraudulent and malicious. Under the pretence of treating cancer usingthe cover-term ‘chemo-therapy’ toxic substances, including derivatives ofmustard gas, are applied to patients. The fact that these toxic agents alsodestroy millions of healthy cells in the body is deliberately factored in.Knowing this fact, the following consequences were deliberately taken intoaccount: First, cancer would continue as a global epidemic, providing theeconomic basis for a multi-trillion-dollar continued business with this disease.Secondly, the systematic application of toxic agents in the form ofchemotherapy causes an epidemic of new diseases in cancer patients receivingthese toxic substances.As a result of this strategy, the pharmaceutical drug market from treatingthe dangerous side effects of these drugs – including infections, inflammation,bleeding, organ failure etc. – is even bigger than the market of thechemotherapy drugs itself. Thus, the accused also applied their organizeddeception scheme also to the detriment of hundreds of millions of cancerpatients with one purpose only: their financial enrichment.
1.1.6. AIDS and other Infectious DiseasesSimilar deliberate deception schemes were applied for the treatment ofone of the most deadly epidemics in human history, AIDS. Already 10years ago scientific studies have shown that vitamin C is able to reducethe replication of the HIV-Virus by more than 99%. This fact has beenknown to the accused for more than a decade.Deliberately ignoring and bypassing this safe and affordable nonpatentabletreatment, the accused developed patentable drugs againstAIDS, with severe side-effects and - due to their exorbitant patent royalties- unaffordable to the great majority of the people on this planet. Thus, byapplying their criminal business scheme, the accused are guilty of riskingthe lives and causing the deaths of hundreds of millions of people in Africa,South America, Asia and all the other regions of the world.In a similar way, they have boycotted the information that the single mostimportant measure to enhance immunity against infectious diseases is anoptimum intake of vitamins B6, B12, Folic Acid and certain other essentialnutrients. It is a scientific fact that these biocatalysts of cellular metabolismincrease the production of leucocytes, the body’s main weapon againstany infection. By systematically withholding this information, particularlyfrom hundreds of millions of children and adults in the developing world,the pharmaceutical industry deliberately risks the lives of hundreds of millionsof people in these areas of the world. All the accused know thathardly anyone in these areas of the world can afford pharmaceuticaltreatments and they will consequently die.Withholding this lifesaving information about natural, non-patentable alternativesto prevent and fight infectious diseases, not only leads to the deathof millions of people, but also to the ruin of the economies of many developingcountries. As a direct result the already existing imbalance in thecurrent world economy is dramatically aggravated. These countries aredeliberately placed in a conflict where they can only lose.
1.1.7. Other diseasesIn a similar way, other degenerative, inflammatory, infectious diseases andmany other of today’s most common diseases only continue to exist ashealth problems because the accused have defined them and protectthem as the markets for their criminal ‘business with disease.’1.2. EVIDENCE ABOUT THE CRIMINAL MARKETING SCHEMES OFTHE ACCUSED1.2.1 Deliberately Expanding Diseases and Causing New Diseases inPatients to Expand Pharmaceutical Drug MarketsTo expand their markets the following groups of drugs are manufacturedand marketed by the accused deliberately, in spite of their known detrimentalside effects. In a criminal manner, the accused are deliberatelycausing new diseases under the pretense of fighting existing ones. Thefact that these new diseases caused by the side effects of these drugs surfacemany years later is used as an additional cover for this deceptivescheme:Cholesterol-lowering drugs, particularly statins and fibrates are massmarketedunder the pretense of preventing cardiovascular disease. Thesedrugs are known to induce cancer at doses currently administered to millionsof patients worldwide.Chemotherapy drugs are marketed to allegedly treat cancer. In fact, theycause a series of severe side effects the most frequent of which is settingoff new cancers. The entire criminal marketing scheme around chemotherapycan only work because the accused have rendered cancer a deathverdict – and even a few month’s survival of a patient on chemotherapy isbeing marketed by the accused as a success story.Aspirin is mass-marketed under the false pretense of preventing heart attacksand strokes, whilst long-term use of this drug is known to cause andestroy collagen and therefore gradually increase the risk of heart attacksand strokes as well as other diseases such as stomach ulcers and gastrointestinalbleeding.Anti-inflammatory drugs are used to treat pain and inflammation, e.g. in arthritis.However, many of these drugs destroy connective tissue, e.g. thejoints. With their long-term use these drugs aggravate the health problemsrather than healing them.Calcium antagonists are mass-marketed under the false pretense of treatinghigh blood pressure and preventing heart attacks, whilst long-term useof these drugs is known to cause an increase in heart attacks, strokes andother diseases.Estrogen and other hormone drugs are mass-marketed under the falsepretense of preventing osteoporosis and heart disease, whilst long-termuse of these drugs is known to cause cancer in more than 30% of thewomen taking them. Particularly frequent forms of cancer caused by thesedrugs are hormone dependent cancers such as cancer of the breast and uterus.
Tranquilizers and anti-depressants.
Another mechanism by which the accused systematically expand their markets is to deliberately cause addiction in order to increase drug sales. Many tranquillizers and antidepressants,including widespread diazepam (‘Valium’) are known tocause dependency and addiction. In order to expand their global sales ofthese addictive drugs, the accused even praise them through full-page advertsdirectly to the public.
Other drugs
Since patentability is a precondition for the pharmaceutical investment business typical pharmaceutical drugs are synthetic molecules and therefore toxic to the human body. For almost all drugs the same fraudulent business principle is valid – alleviate symptoms short termwhilst, at the same time causing damage and gradually generating newdiseases as the basis for new drug markets.
1.2. Expanding their drug markets to new diseases
In executing their crimes, the accused deliberately extend their existingpharmaceutical drug market by inventing new health conditions for whichthey recommend the drugs that had previously been recommended forother diseases. As first evidence the following examples are presentedhere:Headache pills allegedly prevent heart disease. Aspirin was developed as a headache and pain relief pill and is now being mass-marketed and recommended by the accused for long-term use, even by healthy individuals for the alleged prevention and treatment of heart disease and other severehealth conditions.Antibiotics allegedly fight coronary heart disease. In order to extend the global market for their antibiotic drugs, the accused fabricated and spreadthe so-called “bacteria-theory” of heart attacks on a worldwide scale. Withoutany clinical evidence that chlamydia or other bacteria actually causeatherosclerosis or heart attacks the accused criminally promoted the generaluse of antibiotics even for healthy individuals with the false pretenseof preventing heart attacks.These are just a few examples of the practices by the accused to systematicallyexpand the use of their drugs to other diseases. In fact this marketingscheme is not the exception, but the rule. The list of crimes committedin this context should be amended and completed during further investigation.
1.4. CRIMES CONNECTED WITH THE SYSTEMATIC INFILTRATION OFVARIOUS SECTORS OF SOCIETY WITH THE PURPOSE TO FACILITATE COMMITTING THESE CRIMES.
The accused have systematically and deliberately infiltrated medicine and the health sectors of most countries in the world to create financial andother dependencies in order to conduct their ‘business with disease’ and commit other crimes. Medical research is not performed with the primary object to find the most effective, safest and most affordable treatmentagainst a disease, but with the goal to identify the largest disease marketsand to achieve the highest gains in that market for the drug manufacturer.
As part of this strategy over recent decades, the accused systematicallyremoved from the training programs at medical schools the knoeledfgeabout effective, but non-patentable natural therapies. They purposely producinggenerations of doctors with little or no knowledge about the lifesaving health benefits of these natural therapies.Simultaneously, therapeutic education at medical schools was taken over by thenewly created departments named pharmacology. Thus, over decades generations of doctors have been leaving medical schools practically as a trained salesforce for the pharmaceutical ‘business with disease’.
In order to hide this strategy, patented drugs were portrait as ‘scientific’ and even baptized‘ethical drugs’ whereas non-patentable natural therapies were discredited as ‘unscientific.’In a similar way the accused have systematically and deliberately infiltratedthe mass media around the world, creating financial and other dependencies,disseminate deceptive and false information in order to concealtheir criminal practices, promote their ‘business with disease’ andcommit other crimes.
The accused have deliberately and systematically abused the legislative and political system of most nations to pass laws, establish regulationsand promote other measures with the purpose to expand their sales of ineffective,unsafe but lucrative pharmaceutical drugs. The accused abusedtheir political influence to coerce legislation that would allow them to appropriatetrillions of dollars under the cover of ‘health insurance’ and otherpublic and private health funds. By promoting their fraudulent ‘businesswith disease’ they have taken this money from individuals, corporations and governments around the world by requesting payment for ineffective and harmful therapies. Thereby, the accused secure exorbitant gains for the pharmaceutical industry and causing unnecessary suffering and prematuredeath of hundreds of millions of people.
The accused have purposely and systematically infiltrated and abused theEuropean Parliament and other regional and international bodies includingthe United Nations Organizations, the World Health Organization (WHO),the Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) and other national and internationalpolitical bodies to commit their crimes against humanity.
1.5. CRIMES CONNECTED WITH THE SYSTEMATIC OBSTRUCTION OFEFFECTIVE, NON-PATENTABLE HEALTH MEASURES
To protect their artificial investment business with disease, the accused triedto strategically eliminate access of the people of the world to non-patentablenatural therapies. To accomplish this goal the accused used several strategicmeasures:
1. Withholding life saving information about non-patentable natural therapies.The accused have deliberately and systematically withheld andblocked the basic health information from millions of people that the humanbody does not produce its own vitamin C (ascorbic acid). Becauseof the lack of this knowledge almost all humans suffer from vitamin C deficiencyand are susceptible to cardiovascular and other diseases. In asimilar way, the accused have systematically and purposefully withheldand blocked the basic health information from millions of people that thehuman body does not produce the natural amino acid lysine. Because of the lack of this knowledge almost all humans suffer from lysine deficiency and are susceptible to cancer and other diseases. Thereby, the accused deliberately cause further unnecessary suffering and the premature death of hundreds of millions of people.
2. Publicly discrediting non-patentable natural therapies. The accusedhave willfully and systematically deceived the public by disseminatingfalse, misleading and fabricated information discrediting non-patentablehealth therapies with the goal to protect and expand their ‘business withdisease’ based on patented drugs and to commit other crimes. Thereby,the accused deliberately cause further unnecessary suffering and thepremature death of hundreds of millions of people.
3. Outlawing the dissemination of health information related to nonpatentablenatural therapies. The accused have deliberately abusedtheir political influence trying to implement legislation at the national aswell as the international level that would essentially outlaw the disseminationof preventive and therapeutic health information related to non patentable natural therapies. At the same time, this legislation seeks to establish arbitrarily low ‘upper limits’ for the amounts of these naturaland safe therapies, a step intended to prohibit their use as naturaltherapeutic agents. By abusing the United Nation’s ‘Codex AlimentariusCommission’, the accused have even been trying to establish such lawsfor all member countries of the UN – that is worldwide.
1.5.5. Now that all peaceful efforts to protect the pharmaceutical ‘businesswith disease’ have failed, the accused refrain to another strategy. They are deliberately escalating an international crisis, including wars, in orderto create the psychological and legal precondition that would allowan immediate and global implementation of protectionist laws and cementthe continuation of their ‘business with disease’ and the othercrimes of which they are accused.
2. EVIDENCE OF GENOCIDE, CRIMES OF WAR AND OTHER CRIMESAGAINST HUMANITY COMMITTED IN CONNECTION WITH THE WAR OF AGGRESSION AGAINST IRAQ.
The accused are committing the crime of deliberately escalating an internationalcrisis including wars of aggression towards a war that includesweapons of mass destruction.The accused have been consistently abusing the tragedy of September 11th for the purpose of building up an international crisis scenario, whichthey ultimately used as a justification for their war of aggression.Whilst the accused maximized the psychological factor of this tragedy they have blocked an official investigation into the actual events and the backgroundof September 11th. It was The White House itself that blocked theinstitution of an independent commission for over a year.Thus whilst the facts about this tragedy are not fully disclosed to the publicthe events of September 11th have been abused as the justification for the international crisis situation ever since.Whilst failing to disclose any convincing evidence about September 11ththey abused this tragedy to conquer the country of Afghanistan.
The militaryconquest of Afghanistan was followed by the plundering of its natural resources, by the accused, for their financial gain.In a similar way the accused used this pretense to conquer the next country,Iraq. Under cover of fighting the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction,the accused were trying to coerce the world community into awar of aggression against Iraq.Despite the fact that the great majority of the UN Security Council, the vastmajority of the member states of the UN and overwhelming world opinionopposed this war, the accused still launched their attack.The war planned, started and conducted by the accused was a war without any international mandate and therefore constituted a war of aggression and a crime against humanity.
If the accused are not brought to justice for this crime, the entire system of internationallaw as designed after the Second World War to protect mankind fromdestruction, will collapse.In the absence of any international mandate the only justification left forthe accused to commit this criminal act, was to fabricate a pretense - theiralleged search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Today the entireworld knows that this too was a deception.During their war of aggression against Iraq, tens of thousands of Iraq people– soldiers and civilians alike – were killed. Killing of that magnitude during a war without any international mandate constitutes the crime of genocide.
In addition, hundreds of thousands of innocent people – many of them children - were injured, mutilated, or suffered physical or mental harmcaused by the criminal acts of the accused.Moreover, the accused purposefully and systematically seized the oil fieldsand other natural resources of Iraq with the purpose to exploit them to enrichthemselves. To cover up their crimes the accused disseminate the false justification that their seizure of the oil resources would be in the interestsof and to the benefit of the Iraqi people.With the occupation of Iraq and the appropriation of its resources in a war of aggression, the accused also committed the crime of plundering and seizing the enemy’s property.
The accused systematically promoted this crisis escalation to further curtail civil rights through so-called ‘anti-terror’ laws. To deceive the peoplewhile committing their crimes these laws were deliberately given deceptivenames, e.g. ‘Homeland Security Act’, or ‘Patriot-Act’, thereby coercing politicalsupport for the abandonment of civil rights.Whilst systematically organizing this escalation the accused also deliberatelyabused the media distraction and made their first moves trying to implementprotectionist laws on behalf of the pharmaceutical cartel.
Largely unbeknown to the US Congress at that time, a provision was inserted into the Homeland Security Act granting immunity to drug makers from product liability law suits.
This is but a short synopsis of the crimes of war and crimes against humanity committed by the accused and of their strategy to abuse these war crimes to continue crimes of even larger magnitude, such as cementing their global ‘business with disease’. In the course of the further investigation of these war crimes, all available resources must be used to bring the accused to justice. This includes particularly all information available through the United Nations organizations,the UN weapons inspectors, documentation of war crimes from Iraqi and international sources and all other available sources.
The people of the world will demand to be part of this process and contribute documentation about these war crimes in order to accelerate the process of justice.
THE ACCUSED
The accused are the following persons from the corporate, military and political sectorsof different nationalities:
1. George Walker Bush, U.S. President. He is the main political executor of theinterests of the pharmaceutical/petrochemical cartel. He is the main politicalexecutor of the war crimes against Iraq and the other crimes of this complaint.
2. Anthony Charles Lynton (“Tony”) Blair, Prime Minister of the U.K. He isthe political head and executor for himself as well as an accomplice ofGeorge Bush in committing the crimes listed in this complaint.
3. Richard Bruce (“Dick”) Cheney, U.S. Vice President. Cheney was the chiefexecutive officer of the oil service provider Haliburton & Company from Dallas,Texas. After the conquest of Iraq, Haliburton became the key companyfor the economic plundering of Iraq under the pretence of reconstruction.
4. Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense. Rumsfeld was Chief Executive Officerof several biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies, among othersthe pharma-concern G. D. Searle, today part of Pharmacia. For several decades,he had the role of strategic organizer of the pharmaceutical “businesswith disease”. He received several awards of the pharmaceutical industry.Beside George W. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld was one of the main instigators ofthe war of aggression against Iraq.
5. John Ashcroft, U.S. Attorney General. He is one of the strategists of the socalledHomeland Security Act, one of the organizational instruments by whichthe accused are systematically curtailing civil rights in the U.S. He is responsiblefor protectionist legislation that would essentially grant immunity to thepharmaceutical industry from being held responsible for their crimes in theU.S.
6. Tom Ridge, Secretary of Homeland Security, an accomplice of John Ashcroftin cementing the political and economic control of the accused with the purposeto continue their unscrupulous business with disease and other crimesby systematically curtailing civil rights in the U.S.
7. Condoleezza Rice, U.S. Security Advisor. She is a former director of the petrochemicalconcern Chevron and was instrumental in promoting the war ofaggression of the accused.
In the pharmaceutical sector, the following companies are accused:
1. Pfizer Inc., the Chief Executive Officer Henry A. McKinnell, Ph.D., the otherExecutives and the Board of Directors.
2. Merck & Co., Inc., the Chief Executive Officer Raymond V. Gilmartin, theother Executives and the Board of Directors.
3. GlaxoSmithKline PLC, the Chief Executive Officer Dr Jean-Pierre Garnier,the other Executives and the Board of Directors.
4. Novartis AG, the Chief Executive Officer Dr Daniel Vasella, the other Executivesand the Board of Directors.
5. Amgen Inc., the Chief Executive Officer Kevin Sharer, the other Executivesand the Board of Directors.
6. Astra Zeneca, the Chief Executive Officer Sir Tom McKillop, the other Executivesand the Board of Directors.
7. Ely Lilly and Company, the Chief Executive Officer Sidney Taurel, the otherExecutives and the Board of Directors.
8. Abbott Laboratories, the Chief Executive Officer Miles D. White, the otherExecutives and the Board of Directors.
9. Other pharmaceutical companies, their Executive Officers and Boards of Directorsthat maintain and promote the investment “business with disease” andother crimes.
In the petrochemical sector, the following corporations and their executives are accused:
1. ExxonMobil Corporation, its Chief Executive Officer Lee R. Raymond, theother Executives and its Board of Directors.
2. British Petroleum (BP), its Chief Executive Officer The Lord Browne of Madingley,FREng, the other Executives and its Board of Directors.
3. Chevron Texaco Corp., its Chief Executive Officer David O’Reilly, the otherExecutives and its Board of Directors.
4. Other petrochemical companies that benefit from the plunder and spoliation ofthe war of aggression against Iraq.
The financial groups behind these corporate multinationals:
1. The Rockefeller Financial Group and the members of the Rockefeller Familyin benefiting from the crimes committed.
2. The Rothschild Group and all its members financially benefiting from these crimes.
3. The JP Morgan Group and all its members financially benefiting from thesecrimes.
4. The Trilateral Commission and its members, a body founded by DavidRockefeller to coordinate the interests of this investment group in the threeareas of the world, U.S.A., Europe and Japan - hence, the name “trilateral” -including all members of this commission individually who are found guilty ofparticipating in these crimes or benefiting from them financially.
5. The members of other corporate lobby and interest groups who in thecourse of further investigation will be found to have participated in committingthese crimes or financially benefited from them.
6. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, its Chief Executive Officer William B. Harrison Jr.,the other Executives and its Board of Directors.
7. Other financial institutions their Executive Officers, Boards of Directors andshareholders and others who in the course of further investigation will befound to have participated in committing these crimes or financially benefitedfrom them.
8. Politicians as well as national and international political bodies who inthe course of further investigation will be found to have participated incommitting these crimes or financially benefited from them.
9. Members of the military who participated, or in the course of further investigationwill be found to have participated in committing these crimes or financiallybenefited from them.
10. Pharmaceutical health executives who in the course of further investigationwill be found to have deliberately and systematically participated in committingthese crimes or financially benefited from them.
11. Members of the media and others who in the course of further investigationwill be found to have participated in committing these crimes or financiallybenefited from them.
12. Any other individual person, organization or body that in the course offurther investigation will be found to have participated in committing thesecrimes or financially benefited from them.
INTERNATIONAL TREATIES APPLICABLE FOR THIS COMPLAINT
Beside the Rome Statutes for the International Court of Justice the following internationaltreaties and declarations are applicable for the severe charges of this complaint:
1. The United Nations Charter
2. The Declaration of Human Rights of December 8, 1948
3. The Geneva Convention on Human Rights of August 12, 1949
4. The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide ofJanuary 12, 1951
5. The Convention on Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes andCrimes against Humanity of 1968
6. The Principles of International Co-Operation in the Detection, Arrest, Extraditionand Punishment of Persons Guilty of War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity of1973
THE JURISDICTION OF THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURTOVER THE ACCUSED
The accused committed the crimes outlined above, knowingly and deliberately and infull knowledge of all the circumstances surrounding their actions.The crimes reported here have been committed against all mankind. The ICC in TheHague is the court governed by international law addressing these urgent issues.Moreover, the ICC was established after WWII and the Nuremberg Tribunal, with thegoal to prevent another tragedy from happening – possibly a world war.1. Liability to prosecution of those bearing officeThe accused can be both sentenced and punished by the International CriminalCourt.The Statute applies equally to all persons without any distinction based on officialcapacity. In particular, official capacity as a Head of State or Government, a member of a Government or parliament, an elected representative or a government officialshall in no case exempt a person from criminal responsibility under the Statute of theICC, nor shall it, in and of itself, constitute a ground for reduction of sentence (Article27, Paragraph 1 of the Statute).Immunities or special procedural rules which may attach to the official capacity of aperson, whether under national or international law, shall also not bar the Court from exercising its jurisdiction over such a person (Article 27, Paragraph 2 of the Statute).
2. Exclusion of criminal responsibilityNone of the accused may invoke any of the grounds specified under Article 31 of theStatute for excluding criminal responsibility.
The accused were acting in full knowledge about the illegitimacy of their actions.Thus, any claims to the contrary are null and void.Equally null and void are all efforts by the accused to retroactively justify their crimesby forming ‘coalitions’ of opinions with other nations.
3. Power to inflict punishment over members of the US Government and citizensof the USAEven those of the accused, who hold citizenship of the United States of America,cannot claim immunity from criminal prosecution before the International CriminalCourt, just because the United States of America in contrast to 90 other countriesaround the world (i.e. almost half of the members of the United Nations) is notamongst the signatory states to the Rome Statute.The accused have long been devising plans to try and evade the power to inflict punishmentof the International Criminal Court. This, however, does not exempt the accused from the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, because the mere performance of the crimes involved in the acts to be judged before the ICC constitutes liability to punishment under the terms of the Statute.It does not matter if you belong to a specific Member State, because the InternationalCriminal Court has jurisdiction over natural persons and not over States and establishesindividual responsibility and liability for punishment (Article 25 Paragraphs 1and 2 of the Statute).The ICC Statutes render attempts by the US Administration to coerce smaller nationsinto bilateral ‘immunity pacts’ redundant.In addition, the UN Security Council did rule that the US Government and therefore also the majority of the accused could not and should not decide themselves whetherthe International Criminal Court could take action against them or not.This decision was taken for good reason: One can only imagine what would have happened if the main figures accused in the Nuremberg Trials had been allowed tochoose whether they had to stand trial before the Nuremberg Tribunal.For these reasons the accused, even if they are citizens of the United States ofAmerica, are still subject to the power to inflict punishment of the International CriminalCourt.
FINAL APPEAL
The individuals named should be indicted before the International Criminal Court onthe basis of the valid grounds specified in this complaint.The investigations into the individual responsibilities of the accused are to be takenup and continued by the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court.These investigations will also be continued and intensified on our side, the side of thepeople of the world.The accused should be convicted for the following reasons:
• knowing and deliberate violation of the human right to peace;
• knowing and deliberate violation of the human right to life;
• knowing and deliberate violation of the human right to health.
This complaint is to be updated and completed in a system of constant development and revision until legal proceedings finally commence against the accused.This complaint deals with the largest crimes ever committed in the course of human history. Every day that formal proceeding at the International Criminal Court against the accused are delayed, millions of people worldwide will pay with their lives and theworld moves closer to the next world war. There must be no delay.As the US Prosecutor in the Nuremberg War Tribunal against the executives of thechemical/petrochemical cartel IG Farben stated: “ If the crimes committed by the accusedare not brought to the daylight and if they are not held accountable, they will do even more harm in the future.”We call on every person and every Government in the world to unite behind the charges. The time to act is now.
The Hague, Netherlands14th June 2003
On behalf of the people of the world,
Matthias Rath, M.D.
(Emphasis added by Justice Lover)
by Justice Lover
It is now well over 4 years since the renowned German physician, Dr. Matthias Rath, had launched his following complaint to the International Criminal Court in The Hague. Although no action has been taken so far by the court, there can be no doubt that the complaint itself by this brave and honest physician is a great service to humanity ! However, as the title to this post indicates there are more top criminals that should be added to the list of the accused, namely, the heads of the psychiatric profession, as well as the heads of the zionist apartheid regime of Israel.
Here is the full text of the original complaint by Dr. Matthias Rath :
http://www4.dr-rath-foundation.org/The_Hague/complaint/complaint04.htm
IN THE NAME OF THE PEOPLE OF THE WORLD
Complaint Against Genocide and Other Crimes against Humanity Committed in Connection with the Pharmaceutical ‘Business With Disease’and the Recent War Against Iraq.This complaint is submitted to the International Criminal Court by Matthias Rath MD and others on behalf of the people of the world.
The Hague, June 14, 2003
To the prosecutor of theInternational Criminal Court,
Senator Louis Moreno-Ocampo,
c/o International Court,Maanweg 174NL-2516 AB
Den Haag/The Hague
SUMMARY
This complaint brings before the International Court of Justice (ICC) the greatest crimes ever committed in the course of human history. The accusedare charged with causing injury to and the death of millions ofpeople through the ‘business with disease’, war crimes and other crimesagainst humanity. These crimes fall under the jurisdiction of the InternationalCriminal Court.The accused know that they will be held accountable for these crimesand they have therefore embarked on a global campaign to underminethe authority of the ICC in order to put themselves above internationallaw and continue their crimes to the detriment of all mankind.Therefore, the current complaint must be considered by the ICC withutmost urgency. Moreover, every natural person and every governmentis hereby called upon to join this complaint with the goal to once and forall terminate these crimes.
INTRODUCTION
The Cartel
The charges presented in this complaint relate to two main fields of crime:
• Genocide and other crimes against humanity committed in connection withthe pharmaceutical business with disease.
• Crimes of war and aggression and other crimes against humanity committedin connection with the recent war against Iraq and the international escalationtowards a world war.
These two fields of crime are directly related and connected by one factor: they are committed in the name and interest of the same corporate investment groups and their political stakeholders. In order to establish the evidence and show the common motives of the accused a short historical review is imperative.
Throughout the 20th century, the pharmaceutical industry was built and organized with the goal of controlling healthcare systems around the world by systematically replacing natural, non-patentable therapies with patentable and therefore profitable synthetic drugs. This industry did not evolve naturally. To the contrary, it was an investment decision taken by a handful of wealthy and unscrupulous entrepreneurs. They deliberately defined the human body as their market place in order to generate further wealth.The driving force of this investment industry was the Rockefeller Group. They already controlled more than 90% of the petrochemical business in the UnitedStates at the turn of the 19th to the 20th century and they were looking for new global investment opportunities. Another investment group active in this fieldwas formed around the Rothschild financial group.
The Cartel and the Second World War
After Rockefeller’s Standard Oil (today EXXON), the second largest pharmaceutical/petrochemical corporate conglomerate during the first half of the 20thcentury, was the IG Farben conglomerate headquartered in Germany. This corporate conglomerate was the single most important factor for the political rise to power of Hitler and their joint conquest of Europe and the world. In fact,the Second World War was a war of aggression planned, started and conducted on the planning boards of IG Farben.
IG Farben was the parent companyof IG Auschwitz, the largest Industrial plant of this chemical cartel outside Germany. Much of the wealth of this cartel was built upon the blood and suffering of slave laborers, including those from the Auschwitz concentration camp. IG Farben promoted and used the unscrupulous political rulers of Germany as their willing tools to seek economic dominance over Europe and therest of the world. IG Farben was the largest shareholder in Rockefeller’s Standard Oil and vice versa. The victory of the Allied Forces over Nazi-Germany at that time terminated the plans of IG Farben to become the leading pharmaceutical and petrochemicalconglomerate in the world. At the same time, Standard Oil and the other pharmaceutical/petrochemical corporations of the Rockefeller consortium became the controlling financial group of this industry and remained soever since.
In the Nuremberg War Tribunal of 1947 against the managers of the IG FarbenCartel several of them were found guilty and convicted for committing crimes against humanity including mass murder, plundering and other crimes.The Nuremberg War Tribunal also dismantled the IG Farben Cartel into the daughter companies Hoechst, Bayer and BASF. Today, each of these companiesis larger than the parent company IG Farben was at that time.Today the United States of America and Great Britain are the leading export nations of pharmaceutical products in the world. In fact, two out of three pharmaceutical drugs currently marketed globally derive from corporations in these two countries.
Fundamentals of the Pharmaceutical Business
The accused are responsible for the deaths of hundreds of millions of people who continue to die from cardiovascular disease, cancer and other diseases that could have been prevented and largely eliminated long ago.This premature death of millions of people is neither the result of coincidence nor negligence. It has been willfully and systematically organized on behalf of the pharmaceutical industry and its investors with the sole purpose to expanda global drug market worth trillions of dollars.The market place of the pharmaceutical industry is the human body and its return on investment depends on the continuation and expansion of diseases.
Its profits depend on the patentability of drugs rendering this industry the mostprofitable industry on planet Earth.In contrast, the prevention and eradication of any disease significantly reduces or totally eliminates the markets for pharmaceutical drugs. Therefore,the pharmaceutical corporations have been systematically obstructing the prevention and the eradication of diseases.To commit these crimes, the pharmaceutical corporations use a maze of executors and accomplices in science, medicine, the mass media and in politics.The governments of entire nations are manipulated or even run by lobbyists and former executives of the pharmaceutical industry.
For decades, the legislation of entire nations has been corrupted and abused to promote this multi trillion-dollar “business with disease” thereby risking the health and lives of hundreds of millions of innocent patients and people.A precondition for the rise of the pharmaceutical industry as a successful investment business was the elimination of competition from safe and natural therapies because they are not patentable and their profit margins are small. In addition, these natural therapies can effectively help prevent and eliminate diseases because of their essential roles in cellular metabolism.
As the result of the systematic elimination of natural health therapies and the takeover of the healthcare systems in most countries of the world, the pharmaceutical industry has brought millions of people and almost all nations into dependency upon its investment business.
Pharmaceutical Industry as an Organized Fraud Business
The pharmaceutical industry offers “health” to millions of patients – but does not deliver the goods. Instead it delivers products that merely alleviate symptoms while promoting the underlying disease as a precondition for its futurebusiness. To cover the fraud, this industry spends twice the amount of money in covering it up than it spends on research on future therapies.This organized deception is the reason why this investment business could continue for almost a century behind a strategically designed smoke screen as ‘benefactors’ to humanity. The lives of 6 billion people and the economiesof most countries in the world are held hostage by the criminal practices of this industry.
Exposing the Pharmaceutical ‘Business with Disease’Over the past decade, I have led the effort to unmask the organized fraud of this largest investment industry on earth. I have been instrumental in pointing out that the biggest obstacle for improving the health of the people of our planet is the pharmaceutical industry itself - and its nature as an investment industry driven by the expansion of diseases.As a scientist, I was privileged to discover the true cause of cardiovascular disease and other chronic diseases. Together with my colleagues and others I have also been instrumental in documenting the effective, natural and non patentable alternatives to the pharmaceutical ‘business with disease.’ The identification of the natural molecules that optimize cellular metabolism enables mankind to prevent and largely eliminate most of today’s most common diseases including cardiovascular disease, cancer and many others.
Background of the Current International Crisis and the War of AggressionAgainst Iraq
Four main factors are currently threatening the survival of the pharmaceutical industry and thereby the very basis of a long-term investment industry worth hundreds of trillions of dollars:
1. Unsolvable legal conflicts, resulting in an avalanche of class action lawsuitsagainst many pharmaceutical corporations for product liability.
2. Unsolvable scientific conflicts due to the breakthroughs in natural, nonpatentabletherapies that effectively and largely eradicate diseases as amarket place.
3. Unsolvable ethical conflicts, resulting in the loss of credibility for the entirepharmaceutical business due to the fact that their exorbitant patent feeslimit access to medicines for the majority of people and risk prematuredeath for millions.
4. Unsolvable corporate conflicts.The unmasking of the pharmaceuticalbusiness model as an organized fraud.
For decades, the Pharma-Cartel has made every effort to protect its global business with patented drugs and to ban the dissemination of competing non patentable health alternatives. This effort is conducted at the international level, by infiltration of the European Parliament and the abuse of the World Health Organization and other United Nations Organizations.
Now, with the largest investment industry on planet Earth being exposed as an organized fraud business - haunted by tens of thousands of liability lawsuits- immediate and global industry protection laws have become an urgent measure to cover up these crimes and to cement the continued control of the investment “business with disease” over human health worldwide.
These far-reaching protection laws for an organized fraud-business impliedthe curtailing of civil rights and other drastic measures that could not be implementedduring peacetime. The implementation of these measures required the escalation of an international crisis, a series of military conflicts that deliberatelyfactors in the use of weapons of mass destruction and the triggering ofa World War. Only then would there exist a global psychological situation that would allow abandonment of civil rights, passing of martial laws and the globalimplementation of protection laws allowing the accused to continue their ’businesswith disease’ and other crimes.
In this situation, the pharmaceutical industry became the single largest corporatedonor to the election of George Bush in order to exert direct influenceover the most powerful political and military center in the world. With the electionof George Bush, the Rockefeller investment group had direct access tothe White House, the Pentagon and the political decisions taken there. A similar influence was exerted by the Rothschild group on the government of TonyBlair in Great Britain.
Thus, it was no surprise that the two largest export nations of pharmaceuticalproducts, the United States of America and Great Britain, spearheaded thecurrent international crisis and instigated the war against Iraq. The alleged necessity for this war was presented to the people in America, Great Britain and the world under the false pretence of a global fight against ‘terrorism’,elimination of rogue governments and the crusade against proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.Thus, the same corporate interest groups and the same political stakeholders responsible for millions of deaths from the continued business with diseaseare now also responsible for risking the unnecessary death of tens of thousands of innocent people in Iraq and for the death of young soldiers in America,Great Britain and other countries.
They are responsible for starting and conducting a war of aggression against Iraq without any international mandate.They are responsible for the enslavement, plunder and other crimes currentlybeing conducted in occupied Iraq.If these interest groups and their political stakeholders are not held accountablefor these crimes immediately, they are likely to continue the escalation of the international crisis with the ultimate risk of a war withweapons of mass destruction.
In this critical and historical situation I am bringing these crimes against humanity, these war crimes and crimes of aggression and of genocide to the attention of the prosecutor at the International Criminal Court and urge him to take immediate action to prevent further crimes and the ultimate disaster, a world war.Every individual person, government, corporation or organization fromanywhere in the world who has suffered from these crimes or wishes toterminate these crimes is called upon to join this complaint.
CRIMINAL CHARGES
The charges in this complaint relate to crimes in two main fields:
• Crimes perpetrated by the pharmaceutical “business with disease” includingthe crime of genocide and other crimes against humanity.
• Crimes related to the 2003 war against Iraq and the international escalationtowards a world war including crimes of war and aggression as well asother crimes against humanity.
These two fields of crime are directly connected because they are committed in the name and interest of the same corporate investment groups and their political stakeholders. The accused are charged with the most serious crimes committed against all mankind and are therefore subject to the principle of international prosecution.
1. CRIMES COMMITTED IN CONNECTION WITH THE PHARMACEUTICALBUSINESS WITH DISEASE
1.1. The Crime of GenocideThe accused are guilty of the crime of genocide for which they are liable toprosecution under Article 6 of the ICC Statute. This includes but is not limitedto the following specific crimes:1.1.1. Genocide by Killing (Article 6a)1.1.2. Genocide by causing serious bodily or mental harm (Article 6b)1.2.3. Genocide by deliberately inflicting conditions of lifecalculated to bring about physical destruction (Article 6c)1.2. Crimes Against HumanityThe accused are guilty of the crime of genocide for which they are liable toprosecution under Article 7 of the ICC Statute. This includes but is not limitedto the following specific crimes:1.2.1. Crime Against Humanity of Murder (Article 7a)1.2.2. Crime Against Humanity of Extermination (Article 7b)1.2.3. Crime Against Humanity of Enslavement (Article 7c)1.2.4. Crime Against Humanity of Severe Deprivationof Physical Liberty (Article 7e)1.2.5. Crime Against Humanity of Other Inhumane Acts (Article 7k)
SUMMARY OF THE SUBSTANTIATION OF THE CHARGES IN RELATIONTO THE CRIMES CONNECTED WITH THE PHARMACEUTICAL ‘BUSINESSWITH DISEASE’ (CHARGES 1.1. - 1.2.)
1. The accused willfully and systematically maintain cardiovascular diseases,including high blood pressure, heart failure, diabetic complicationsand other diseases, cancer, infectious diseases including AIDS,osteoporosis and many other of today’s most common diseases thatare recognized to be largely preventable by natural means. The accusedhave deliberately caused the unnecessary suffering and prematuredeath of hundreds of millions of people.
2. The accused systematically and deliberately prevent the eradication ofcardiovascular disease, cancer and other diseases by obstructing andblocking the dissemination of life-saving information on the healthbenefits of natural non-patentable therapies. Thereby, the accusedhave deliberately caused further unnecessary suffering and the prematuredeath of hundreds of millions of people.
3. The accused deliberately and systematically expand existing diseasesand creating new diseases by manufacturing and marketing pharmaceuticaldrugs with short-term symptomatic relief but with known anddetrimental long-term side-effects. Thereby the accused have deliberatelycaused further unnecessary suffering and premature death ofhundreds of millions of people.Details are provided in the evidence section below.
2. SPECIFIC CRIMES COMMITTED IN CONNECTION WITH THE WARAGAINST IRAQ AND THE CURRENT INTERNATIONAL CRISIS
2.1. The Crime of Genocide The accused are guilty of the crime of genocide for which they are liable toprosecution under Article 6 of the ICC Statute. Under the terms of this statutegenocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, inwhole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group. This includes butis not limited to the following specific criminal charges:2.1.1. Genocide by killing (Article 6a)2.1.2. Genocide by causing serious physical or mental harm (Article 6b)2.1.3. Genocide by deliberately inflicting living conditionscalculated to bring about physical destruction (Article 6c)2.2. Crimes Against HumanityUnder the terms of Article 7 of the Rome Statute, crimes against humanity mean any of the following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack. This includes but is not limited to the following specific criminalcharges:
2.2.1. Crimes against humanity of murder (Article 7a)
2.2.2. Crimes against humanity of extermination (Article 7b)
2.2.3. Crimes against humanity of enslavement (Article 7c)
2.2.4. Crimes against humanity of deportationor forcible transfer of population (Article 7d)
2.2.5. Crimes against humanity of imprisonmentor other severe deprivation of physical liberty (Article 7e)
2.2.6. Crimes against humanity of other inhumane acts (Article 7k)of a similar nature intentionally causing great suffering,or serious injury to the body or to mental or physical health.2.3. War CrimesUnder the terms of Article 8 of the Rome Statute, war crimes mean gravebreaches of the Geneva Conventions of 12th August 1949 (Geneva Conventionon the Treatment of Prisoners of War, Geneva Convention for the Protectionof Civilian Persons in Times of War). War crimes under the terms of the Statute therefore include but are not limited to:
2.3.1. War crime of wilful killing (Article 8(2)(a)(i))
2.3.2. War crime of torture (Article 8(2)(a)(ii)-1)
2.3.3. War crime of inhuman treatment (Article 8(2)(a)(ii)-2)
2.3.4. War crime of including biological experiments (Article 8(2)(a)(ii)-3)
2.3.5. War crime of wilfully causing great suffering (Article 8(2)(a)(iii))
2.3.6. War crime of destruction and appropriation of property (Article 8(2)(a)(iv))
2.3.7. War crime of denying a fair trial (Article 8(2)(a)(vi))
2.3.8. War crime of unlawful deportation and transfer (Article 8(2)(a)(vii)-1)
2.3.9. War crime of unlawful confinement (Article 8(2)(a)(vii)-2)
2.3.10. War crime of taking hostages (Article 8(2)(a)(viii))
2.3.11. War crime of attacking civilians (Article 8(2)(b)(i))
2.3.12. War crime of attacking civilian objects (Article 8(2)(b)(ii))
2.3.13. War crime of excessive incidental death, injury or damage (Article 8(2)(b)(iv))
2.3.14. War crime of attacking of undefended places (Article 8(2)(b)(v))
2.3.15. War crime of killing or wounding a person outside combat (Article 8(2)(b)(vi))
2.3.16. War crime of mutilation (Article 8(2)(b)(x)-1)
2.3.17. War crime of destroying or seizing the enemy’s property (Article 8(2)(b)(xiii))
2.3.18. Warcrimeofdeprivingthenationalsofhostilepowerofrights (Article 8(2)(b)(xiiv))
2.3.19. War crime of employing poison or poisoned weapons (Article 8(2)(b)(xvii))
2.3.20. War crime of employing prohibited bullets (Article 8(2)(b)(xix))
2.3.21. War crime of outrages upon personal dignity (Article 8(2)(b)(xxi))
2.3.22. War crime of starvation as a method of warfare (Article 8(2)(b)(xxv))
2.3.23. War crime of murder (Article 8(2)(c)(i)-1)
2.3.24. War crime of cruel treatment (Article 8(2)(c)(i)-3)
SUMMARY OF THE SUBSTANTIATION OF THE CHARGES IN RELATIONTO THE CRIMES CONNECTED TO THE WAR OF AGGRESSION AGAINST IRAQ AND THE CURRENT INTERNATIONAL CRISIS (CHARGES 2.1.1 -2.3.24)
1. The accused deliberately started a war of aggression against Iraq without any mandate by international law.
2. The accused deliberately escalate an international crisis situation includingpsychological warfare and actual military warfare. The goal ofthis escalation strategy is to create a global emergency state that allowsthe abandonment of civil rights on global scale – including establishmentof far reaching protectionist laws. The war of aggressionagainst Iraq on the false pretence of a global fight against “terrorism”and the crusade proliferation of weapons of mass destruction is part ofthis strategy.
3. The accused deliberately committed the crimes of genocide, murder,mutilation and other serious bodily and mental harm during their war ofaggression against the people of Iraq.4. The accused deliberately committed the crime of destroying and seizingpublic and private property during and after the war of aggression.Iraq has the second largest oil resources in the world and these resourcesare being plundered on behalf of the accused for private gain.Details are documented in the section “Evidence” below.
HISTORIC PRECEDENT FOR THIS COMPLAINT
The Nuremberg War Tribunal against executives of the pharmaceutical/petrochemical cartel IG- FarbenMore than half a century ago, the Nuremberg War Tribunal took place against the executives of the IG Farben Corporation, the largest pharmaceuticalpetrochemicalcartel in pre-world-war Europe. The Nuremberg War Tribunal brought to justice those responsible for the Second World War and set theprecedent for international prosecution of war crimes and ultimately theInternational Court in The Hague.
Unbeknown to most people today, the Nuremberg War Tribunal did not onlysentence the political and military leaders, but also the corporate executiveswho brought Hitler to power. 24 executives and managers of IG Farben wereindicted in this War Tribunal. US chief prosecutor Telford Taylor stated in hisopening statement: “The indictment accuses these men of mature responsibilityfor visiting upon mankind the most devastating and catastrophic war inhuman history. It accuses them of wholesale, enslavement, plunder and murder.These are terrible charges.” And he continued, “These accused corporate executives, not the Nazi lunatics are the principal war criminals. If their crimes are not brought to the daylight and they are not punished, they will commit even larger crimes in the future that Hitler could ever have committed.”
In 1947, the main charges against the IG Farben managers were:
• Charge 1: the planning and conduction of a war of aggression and theconquest of other countries with the result of unprecedented destruction inthe entire world, the death of millions of people and the continued sufferingsof millions more.
• Charge 2: deportation, plundering and spoliation of public and privateproperty in the occupied countries with the purpose of permanently exertingeconomic control in these countries and other severe crimes.
• Charge 3: slavery, mistreatment, terrorizing, torture and murdering of millionsof people.Now, half a century later, the charges in this complaint, are strikingly similar:
• Planning and conduct of a war of aggression against Iraq under the pretenceof fighting international terror and the proliferation of weapons ofmass destruction with the result that vast areas of the country are devastated,thousands of people have died and hundreds of thousands were injured.
• Plundering and spoliation of public and private property in the pursuit ofeconomic power and control in entire regions of the world by escalating aninternational crisis. Against this war of aggression the accused were deliberatelyfactoring in the use of weapons of mass destruction including nuclear,chemical and biological weapons.
• Genocide by killing, by causing serious bodily harm and by inflictingconditions of life to bring about physical destruction and crimes against humanityof murder and of other inhumane acts.EVIDENCE FOR THE CRIMES COMMITTEDThe evidence for the charges brought in this complaint also relate to two mainfields of crimes.
• Evidence of genocide and other crimes against humanity committed inconnection with the pharmaceutical business with disease.
• Evidence for crimes of war and aggression and other crimes against humanitycommitted in connection with the war against Iraq and the escalationof the international crisis to a world war.
1. EVIDENCE OF GENOCIDE AND OTHER CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITYCOMMITTED IN CONNECTION WITH THE PHARMACEUTICAL BUSINESSWITH DISEASE.
Specific evidence is presented that the accused are responsible for deliberately maintaining and expanding diseases, purposefully causing newdiseases as well as expanding the use of drugs once registered for onedisease to as many other diseases as possible.To accomplish those goals, the accused have strategically designed, implemented,conducted and organized a business fraud scheme on a globalscale that by its economic magnitude is unmatched in human history.
1.1. The Deliberate Expansion of DiseaseThe following specific evidence is presented that today’s most commondiseases are deliberately maintained and expanded by the accused, despitethe fact that these diseases could have been effectively preventedand largely eradicated saving millions of lives.
1.1.1. Coronary heart diseaseThe primary cause of coronary artery disease and heart attacks is a structuralweakening and impaired function of the artery wall, which - similar toscurvy – develops as the result of long-term deficiencies of vitamins andother essential nutrients.In contrast, pharmaceutical approaches to the prevention and treatment ofcardiovascular disease deliberately ignore this cause and focus rather onthe treatment of symptoms, such as the reduction of cholesterol levels inthe blood.Whilst deliberately avoiding curing the disease for which they are marketed,the detrimental side effects of these pharmaceutical drugs causenew diseases. The worldwide death toll from cardiovascular disease as aresult of these deliberate crimes of the accused is in excess of 12 millionlives every year.
1.1.2. High Blood PressureThe primary cause of high blood pressure is an increased tension of theartery wall due to a deficiency of essential nutrients in the arterial smoothmuscle cells, leading to narrowing of the artery diameter and a rise inblood pressure. A multitude of clinical studies is available documenting thebenefits of non-patentable micronutrients, in particular the amino acid arginineand magnesium. They correct the underlying deficiency in millionsof vascular wall cells thereby relaxing the blood vessel walls, increasingblood vessel diameter and helping to normalize high blood pressure,Pharmaceutical drugs sold for the treatment of high blood pressure purposelyfocus on the treatment of symptoms. For example, beta-blockersreduce the heart rate and diuretics reduce the blood volume. These pharmaceuticaldrugs deliberately avoid correcting the ‘spasms’ of the bloodvessel walls as the primary cause of high blood pressure. Thus, whilst deliberatelyavoiding curing the disease, these pharmaceutical drugs havelong-term detrimental side effects potentially causing a multitude of newdiseases - and thereby new drug markets.Worldwide several hundred million high blood pressure patients remainuncured as a direct result of these actions by the accused and their deathtoll is rising daily.
1.1.3. Heart FailureThe primary cause of heart failure is lack of cellular biocatalysts, certain vitamins,minerals, carnitine, coenzyme Q10 and other bioenergy carriers inmillions of heart muscle cells. This results in impaired heart pumping functionand accumulation of water in the body.In contrast, pharmaceutical approaches for the treatment of heart failuredeliberately ignore this fact and focus on symptoms. Diuretics marketed forthe treatment of heart failure not only eliminate water accumulated in thebody but also wash out vitamins, minerals and other water-soluble bioenergycarriers. Thus, the pharmaceutical drugs marketed for heart failureactually worsen the disease and they are responsible for the short life expectancyof heart failure patients once diuretic medication sets in.Whilst deliberately avoiding curing the disease, these pharmaceuticaldrugs flush out essential nutrients from the body, thereby aggravating theunderlying cause of the disease. Worldwide over one hundred million heartfailure patients remain uncured and eventually die prematurely as a directresult of the actions by the accused.
1.1.4. Irregular heartbeatThe primary cause of irregular heartbeat is lack of micronutrients, vitamins,minerals, ubiquinone and other bioenergy carriers, in millions of electricalheart muscle cells. This results in impaired generation or conduction of theelectrical impulses required for normal heartbeat. A recent double blindplacebo-controlled study has unequivocally documented that the therapeuticuse of micronutrients is an effective safe and affordable way to correctthe health condition underlying irregular heart beat.In contrast, pharmaceutical approaches for the treatment of irregularheartbeat deliberately ignore this fact and focus instead on symptoms.Anti-arrhythmic drugs marketed to treat arrhythmia frequently worsen theirregular heartbeat and cause cardiac arrest and the premature death ofpatients.A decade ago the author Thomas Moore documented in his book “DeadlyMedicine” that one new class of anti-arrhythmic drugs in the USA alonehad caused more deaths than the number of US casualties in the VietnamWar. Worldwide over one hundred million patients with irregular heartbeatremain uncured as a direct result of these actions by the accused and theirdeath toll is rising daily.
1.1.5. CancerUntil recently cancer has been considered a death verdict. Recent advancesin natural health and cellular medicine have fundamentallychanged that. For this disease too, it is now obvious that medical researchwith non-patentable therapies has been deliberately neglected and excludedby the accused in favor of ineffective drugs that allow the continuationof the cancer epidemic as one of their most profitable markets. Becauseof the extraordinary significance of the crimes committed by the accusedin connection with the cancer epidemic it is presented here in moredetail.It is a scientific fact that all cancers spread by the same mechanism, theuse of collagen digesting enzymes (collagenases, metalloproteinases).The therapeutic use of the natural amino acid lysine – especially togetherwith other non-patentable micronutrients - can block these enzymes andthereby inhibit the spread of cancer cells. All types of cancer studied thusfar respond to this therapeutic approach including breast cancer, prostatecancer, lung cancer, skin cancer, fibroblastoma, synovial cancer and anyother forms of cancer.The only reason why this breakthrough in medicine has not been investigatedfurther and applied in the treatment of cancer patients worldwide isthe fact that these substances are not patentable and therefore has lowprofit margins. More importantly, any effective treatment of any disease ultimatelyleads to its eradication and to the destruction of a multi-trilliondollarmarket of pharmaceutical drugs.The pharmaceutical drug marketing for cancer patients has been particularlyfraudulent and malicious. Under the pretence of treating cancer usingthe cover-term ‘chemo-therapy’ toxic substances, including derivatives ofmustard gas, are applied to patients. The fact that these toxic agents alsodestroy millions of healthy cells in the body is deliberately factored in.Knowing this fact, the following consequences were deliberately taken intoaccount: First, cancer would continue as a global epidemic, providing theeconomic basis for a multi-trillion-dollar continued business with this disease.Secondly, the systematic application of toxic agents in the form ofchemotherapy causes an epidemic of new diseases in cancer patients receivingthese toxic substances.As a result of this strategy, the pharmaceutical drug market from treatingthe dangerous side effects of these drugs – including infections, inflammation,bleeding, organ failure etc. – is even bigger than the market of thechemotherapy drugs itself. Thus, the accused also applied their organizeddeception scheme also to the detriment of hundreds of millions of cancerpatients with one purpose only: their financial enrichment.
1.1.6. AIDS and other Infectious DiseasesSimilar deliberate deception schemes were applied for the treatment ofone of the most deadly epidemics in human history, AIDS. Already 10years ago scientific studies have shown that vitamin C is able to reducethe replication of the HIV-Virus by more than 99%. This fact has beenknown to the accused for more than a decade.Deliberately ignoring and bypassing this safe and affordable nonpatentabletreatment, the accused developed patentable drugs againstAIDS, with severe side-effects and - due to their exorbitant patent royalties- unaffordable to the great majority of the people on this planet. Thus, byapplying their criminal business scheme, the accused are guilty of riskingthe lives and causing the deaths of hundreds of millions of people in Africa,South America, Asia and all the other regions of the world.In a similar way, they have boycotted the information that the single mostimportant measure to enhance immunity against infectious diseases is anoptimum intake of vitamins B6, B12, Folic Acid and certain other essentialnutrients. It is a scientific fact that these biocatalysts of cellular metabolismincrease the production of leucocytes, the body’s main weapon againstany infection. By systematically withholding this information, particularlyfrom hundreds of millions of children and adults in the developing world,the pharmaceutical industry deliberately risks the lives of hundreds of millionsof people in these areas of the world. All the accused know thathardly anyone in these areas of the world can afford pharmaceuticaltreatments and they will consequently die.Withholding this lifesaving information about natural, non-patentable alternativesto prevent and fight infectious diseases, not only leads to the deathof millions of people, but also to the ruin of the economies of many developingcountries. As a direct result the already existing imbalance in thecurrent world economy is dramatically aggravated. These countries aredeliberately placed in a conflict where they can only lose.
1.1.7. Other diseasesIn a similar way, other degenerative, inflammatory, infectious diseases andmany other of today’s most common diseases only continue to exist ashealth problems because the accused have defined them and protectthem as the markets for their criminal ‘business with disease.’1.2. EVIDENCE ABOUT THE CRIMINAL MARKETING SCHEMES OFTHE ACCUSED1.2.1 Deliberately Expanding Diseases and Causing New Diseases inPatients to Expand Pharmaceutical Drug MarketsTo expand their markets the following groups of drugs are manufacturedand marketed by the accused deliberately, in spite of their known detrimentalside effects. In a criminal manner, the accused are deliberatelycausing new diseases under the pretense of fighting existing ones. Thefact that these new diseases caused by the side effects of these drugs surfacemany years later is used as an additional cover for this deceptivescheme:Cholesterol-lowering drugs, particularly statins and fibrates are massmarketedunder the pretense of preventing cardiovascular disease. Thesedrugs are known to induce cancer at doses currently administered to millionsof patients worldwide.Chemotherapy drugs are marketed to allegedly treat cancer. In fact, theycause a series of severe side effects the most frequent of which is settingoff new cancers. The entire criminal marketing scheme around chemotherapycan only work because the accused have rendered cancer a deathverdict – and even a few month’s survival of a patient on chemotherapy isbeing marketed by the accused as a success story.Aspirin is mass-marketed under the false pretense of preventing heart attacksand strokes, whilst long-term use of this drug is known to cause andestroy collagen and therefore gradually increase the risk of heart attacksand strokes as well as other diseases such as stomach ulcers and gastrointestinalbleeding.Anti-inflammatory drugs are used to treat pain and inflammation, e.g. in arthritis.However, many of these drugs destroy connective tissue, e.g. thejoints. With their long-term use these drugs aggravate the health problemsrather than healing them.Calcium antagonists are mass-marketed under the false pretense of treatinghigh blood pressure and preventing heart attacks, whilst long-term useof these drugs is known to cause an increase in heart attacks, strokes andother diseases.Estrogen and other hormone drugs are mass-marketed under the falsepretense of preventing osteoporosis and heart disease, whilst long-termuse of these drugs is known to cause cancer in more than 30% of thewomen taking them. Particularly frequent forms of cancer caused by thesedrugs are hormone dependent cancers such as cancer of the breast and uterus.
Tranquilizers and anti-depressants.
Another mechanism by which the accused systematically expand their markets is to deliberately cause addiction in order to increase drug sales. Many tranquillizers and antidepressants,including widespread diazepam (‘Valium’) are known tocause dependency and addiction. In order to expand their global sales ofthese addictive drugs, the accused even praise them through full-page advertsdirectly to the public.
Other drugs
Since patentability is a precondition for the pharmaceutical investment business typical pharmaceutical drugs are synthetic molecules and therefore toxic to the human body. For almost all drugs the same fraudulent business principle is valid – alleviate symptoms short termwhilst, at the same time causing damage and gradually generating newdiseases as the basis for new drug markets.
1.2. Expanding their drug markets to new diseases
In executing their crimes, the accused deliberately extend their existingpharmaceutical drug market by inventing new health conditions for whichthey recommend the drugs that had previously been recommended forother diseases. As first evidence the following examples are presentedhere:Headache pills allegedly prevent heart disease. Aspirin was developed as a headache and pain relief pill and is now being mass-marketed and recommended by the accused for long-term use, even by healthy individuals for the alleged prevention and treatment of heart disease and other severehealth conditions.Antibiotics allegedly fight coronary heart disease. In order to extend the global market for their antibiotic drugs, the accused fabricated and spreadthe so-called “bacteria-theory” of heart attacks on a worldwide scale. Withoutany clinical evidence that chlamydia or other bacteria actually causeatherosclerosis or heart attacks the accused criminally promoted the generaluse of antibiotics even for healthy individuals with the false pretenseof preventing heart attacks.These are just a few examples of the practices by the accused to systematicallyexpand the use of their drugs to other diseases. In fact this marketingscheme is not the exception, but the rule. The list of crimes committedin this context should be amended and completed during further investigation.
1.4. CRIMES CONNECTED WITH THE SYSTEMATIC INFILTRATION OFVARIOUS SECTORS OF SOCIETY WITH THE PURPOSE TO FACILITATE COMMITTING THESE CRIMES.
The accused have systematically and deliberately infiltrated medicine and the health sectors of most countries in the world to create financial andother dependencies in order to conduct their ‘business with disease’ and commit other crimes. Medical research is not performed with the primary object to find the most effective, safest and most affordable treatmentagainst a disease, but with the goal to identify the largest disease marketsand to achieve the highest gains in that market for the drug manufacturer.
As part of this strategy over recent decades, the accused systematicallyremoved from the training programs at medical schools the knoeledfgeabout effective, but non-patentable natural therapies. They purposely producinggenerations of doctors with little or no knowledge about the lifesaving health benefits of these natural therapies.Simultaneously, therapeutic education at medical schools was taken over by thenewly created departments named pharmacology. Thus, over decades generations of doctors have been leaving medical schools practically as a trained salesforce for the pharmaceutical ‘business with disease’.
In order to hide this strategy, patented drugs were portrait as ‘scientific’ and even baptized‘ethical drugs’ whereas non-patentable natural therapies were discredited as ‘unscientific.’In a similar way the accused have systematically and deliberately infiltratedthe mass media around the world, creating financial and other dependencies,disseminate deceptive and false information in order to concealtheir criminal practices, promote their ‘business with disease’ andcommit other crimes.
The accused have deliberately and systematically abused the legislative and political system of most nations to pass laws, establish regulationsand promote other measures with the purpose to expand their sales of ineffective,unsafe but lucrative pharmaceutical drugs. The accused abusedtheir political influence to coerce legislation that would allow them to appropriatetrillions of dollars under the cover of ‘health insurance’ and otherpublic and private health funds. By promoting their fraudulent ‘businesswith disease’ they have taken this money from individuals, corporations and governments around the world by requesting payment for ineffective and harmful therapies. Thereby, the accused secure exorbitant gains for the pharmaceutical industry and causing unnecessary suffering and prematuredeath of hundreds of millions of people.
The accused have purposely and systematically infiltrated and abused theEuropean Parliament and other regional and international bodies includingthe United Nations Organizations, the World Health Organization (WHO),the Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) and other national and internationalpolitical bodies to commit their crimes against humanity.
1.5. CRIMES CONNECTED WITH THE SYSTEMATIC OBSTRUCTION OFEFFECTIVE, NON-PATENTABLE HEALTH MEASURES
To protect their artificial investment business with disease, the accused triedto strategically eliminate access of the people of the world to non-patentablenatural therapies. To accomplish this goal the accused used several strategicmeasures:
1. Withholding life saving information about non-patentable natural therapies.The accused have deliberately and systematically withheld andblocked the basic health information from millions of people that the humanbody does not produce its own vitamin C (ascorbic acid). Becauseof the lack of this knowledge almost all humans suffer from vitamin C deficiencyand are susceptible to cardiovascular and other diseases. In asimilar way, the accused have systematically and purposefully withheldand blocked the basic health information from millions of people that thehuman body does not produce the natural amino acid lysine. Because of the lack of this knowledge almost all humans suffer from lysine deficiency and are susceptible to cancer and other diseases. Thereby, the accused deliberately cause further unnecessary suffering and the premature death of hundreds of millions of people.
2. Publicly discrediting non-patentable natural therapies. The accusedhave willfully and systematically deceived the public by disseminatingfalse, misleading and fabricated information discrediting non-patentablehealth therapies with the goal to protect and expand their ‘business withdisease’ based on patented drugs and to commit other crimes. Thereby,the accused deliberately cause further unnecessary suffering and thepremature death of hundreds of millions of people.
3. Outlawing the dissemination of health information related to nonpatentablenatural therapies. The accused have deliberately abusedtheir political influence trying to implement legislation at the national aswell as the international level that would essentially outlaw the disseminationof preventive and therapeutic health information related to non patentable natural therapies. At the same time, this legislation seeks to establish arbitrarily low ‘upper limits’ for the amounts of these naturaland safe therapies, a step intended to prohibit their use as naturaltherapeutic agents. By abusing the United Nation’s ‘Codex AlimentariusCommission’, the accused have even been trying to establish such lawsfor all member countries of the UN – that is worldwide.
1.5.5. Now that all peaceful efforts to protect the pharmaceutical ‘businesswith disease’ have failed, the accused refrain to another strategy. They are deliberately escalating an international crisis, including wars, in orderto create the psychological and legal precondition that would allowan immediate and global implementation of protectionist laws and cementthe continuation of their ‘business with disease’ and the othercrimes of which they are accused.
2. EVIDENCE OF GENOCIDE, CRIMES OF WAR AND OTHER CRIMESAGAINST HUMANITY COMMITTED IN CONNECTION WITH THE WAR OF AGGRESSION AGAINST IRAQ.
The accused are committing the crime of deliberately escalating an internationalcrisis including wars of aggression towards a war that includesweapons of mass destruction.The accused have been consistently abusing the tragedy of September 11th for the purpose of building up an international crisis scenario, whichthey ultimately used as a justification for their war of aggression.Whilst the accused maximized the psychological factor of this tragedy they have blocked an official investigation into the actual events and the backgroundof September 11th. It was The White House itself that blocked theinstitution of an independent commission for over a year.Thus whilst the facts about this tragedy are not fully disclosed to the publicthe events of September 11th have been abused as the justification for the international crisis situation ever since.Whilst failing to disclose any convincing evidence about September 11ththey abused this tragedy to conquer the country of Afghanistan.
The militaryconquest of Afghanistan was followed by the plundering of its natural resources, by the accused, for their financial gain.In a similar way the accused used this pretense to conquer the next country,Iraq. Under cover of fighting the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction,the accused were trying to coerce the world community into awar of aggression against Iraq.Despite the fact that the great majority of the UN Security Council, the vastmajority of the member states of the UN and overwhelming world opinionopposed this war, the accused still launched their attack.The war planned, started and conducted by the accused was a war without any international mandate and therefore constituted a war of aggression and a crime against humanity.
If the accused are not brought to justice for this crime, the entire system of internationallaw as designed after the Second World War to protect mankind fromdestruction, will collapse.In the absence of any international mandate the only justification left forthe accused to commit this criminal act, was to fabricate a pretense - theiralleged search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Today the entireworld knows that this too was a deception.During their war of aggression against Iraq, tens of thousands of Iraq people– soldiers and civilians alike – were killed. Killing of that magnitude during a war without any international mandate constitutes the crime of genocide.
In addition, hundreds of thousands of innocent people – many of them children - were injured, mutilated, or suffered physical or mental harmcaused by the criminal acts of the accused.Moreover, the accused purposefully and systematically seized the oil fieldsand other natural resources of Iraq with the purpose to exploit them to enrichthemselves. To cover up their crimes the accused disseminate the false justification that their seizure of the oil resources would be in the interestsof and to the benefit of the Iraqi people.With the occupation of Iraq and the appropriation of its resources in a war of aggression, the accused also committed the crime of plundering and seizing the enemy’s property.
The accused systematically promoted this crisis escalation to further curtail civil rights through so-called ‘anti-terror’ laws. To deceive the peoplewhile committing their crimes these laws were deliberately given deceptivenames, e.g. ‘Homeland Security Act’, or ‘Patriot-Act’, thereby coercing politicalsupport for the abandonment of civil rights.Whilst systematically organizing this escalation the accused also deliberatelyabused the media distraction and made their first moves trying to implementprotectionist laws on behalf of the pharmaceutical cartel.
Largely unbeknown to the US Congress at that time, a provision was inserted into the Homeland Security Act granting immunity to drug makers from product liability law suits.
This is but a short synopsis of the crimes of war and crimes against humanity committed by the accused and of their strategy to abuse these war crimes to continue crimes of even larger magnitude, such as cementing their global ‘business with disease’. In the course of the further investigation of these war crimes, all available resources must be used to bring the accused to justice. This includes particularly all information available through the United Nations organizations,the UN weapons inspectors, documentation of war crimes from Iraqi and international sources and all other available sources.
The people of the world will demand to be part of this process and contribute documentation about these war crimes in order to accelerate the process of justice.
THE ACCUSED
The accused are the following persons from the corporate, military and political sectorsof different nationalities:
1. George Walker Bush, U.S. President. He is the main political executor of theinterests of the pharmaceutical/petrochemical cartel. He is the main politicalexecutor of the war crimes against Iraq and the other crimes of this complaint.
2. Anthony Charles Lynton (“Tony”) Blair, Prime Minister of the U.K. He isthe political head and executor for himself as well as an accomplice ofGeorge Bush in committing the crimes listed in this complaint.
3. Richard Bruce (“Dick”) Cheney, U.S. Vice President. Cheney was the chiefexecutive officer of the oil service provider Haliburton & Company from Dallas,Texas. After the conquest of Iraq, Haliburton became the key companyfor the economic plundering of Iraq under the pretence of reconstruction.
4. Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense. Rumsfeld was Chief Executive Officerof several biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies, among othersthe pharma-concern G. D. Searle, today part of Pharmacia. For several decades,he had the role of strategic organizer of the pharmaceutical “businesswith disease”. He received several awards of the pharmaceutical industry.Beside George W. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld was one of the main instigators ofthe war of aggression against Iraq.
5. John Ashcroft, U.S. Attorney General. He is one of the strategists of the socalledHomeland Security Act, one of the organizational instruments by whichthe accused are systematically curtailing civil rights in the U.S. He is responsiblefor protectionist legislation that would essentially grant immunity to thepharmaceutical industry from being held responsible for their crimes in theU.S.
6. Tom Ridge, Secretary of Homeland Security, an accomplice of John Ashcroftin cementing the political and economic control of the accused with the purposeto continue their unscrupulous business with disease and other crimesby systematically curtailing civil rights in the U.S.
7. Condoleezza Rice, U.S. Security Advisor. She is a former director of the petrochemicalconcern Chevron and was instrumental in promoting the war ofaggression of the accused.
In the pharmaceutical sector, the following companies are accused:
1. Pfizer Inc., the Chief Executive Officer Henry A. McKinnell, Ph.D., the otherExecutives and the Board of Directors.
2. Merck & Co., Inc., the Chief Executive Officer Raymond V. Gilmartin, theother Executives and the Board of Directors.
3. GlaxoSmithKline PLC, the Chief Executive Officer Dr Jean-Pierre Garnier,the other Executives and the Board of Directors.
4. Novartis AG, the Chief Executive Officer Dr Daniel Vasella, the other Executivesand the Board of Directors.
5. Amgen Inc., the Chief Executive Officer Kevin Sharer, the other Executivesand the Board of Directors.
6. Astra Zeneca, the Chief Executive Officer Sir Tom McKillop, the other Executivesand the Board of Directors.
7. Ely Lilly and Company, the Chief Executive Officer Sidney Taurel, the otherExecutives and the Board of Directors.
8. Abbott Laboratories, the Chief Executive Officer Miles D. White, the otherExecutives and the Board of Directors.
9. Other pharmaceutical companies, their Executive Officers and Boards of Directorsthat maintain and promote the investment “business with disease” andother crimes.
In the petrochemical sector, the following corporations and their executives are accused:
1. ExxonMobil Corporation, its Chief Executive Officer Lee R. Raymond, theother Executives and its Board of Directors.
2. British Petroleum (BP), its Chief Executive Officer The Lord Browne of Madingley,FREng, the other Executives and its Board of Directors.
3. Chevron Texaco Corp., its Chief Executive Officer David O’Reilly, the otherExecutives and its Board of Directors.
4. Other petrochemical companies that benefit from the plunder and spoliation ofthe war of aggression against Iraq.
The financial groups behind these corporate multinationals:
1. The Rockefeller Financial Group and the members of the Rockefeller Familyin benefiting from the crimes committed.
2. The Rothschild Group and all its members financially benefiting from these crimes.
3. The JP Morgan Group and all its members financially benefiting from thesecrimes.
4. The Trilateral Commission and its members, a body founded by DavidRockefeller to coordinate the interests of this investment group in the threeareas of the world, U.S.A., Europe and Japan - hence, the name “trilateral” -including all members of this commission individually who are found guilty ofparticipating in these crimes or benefiting from them financially.
5. The members of other corporate lobby and interest groups who in thecourse of further investigation will be found to have participated in committingthese crimes or financially benefited from them.
6. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, its Chief Executive Officer William B. Harrison Jr.,the other Executives and its Board of Directors.
7. Other financial institutions their Executive Officers, Boards of Directors andshareholders and others who in the course of further investigation will befound to have participated in committing these crimes or financially benefitedfrom them.
8. Politicians as well as national and international political bodies who inthe course of further investigation will be found to have participated incommitting these crimes or financially benefited from them.
9. Members of the military who participated, or in the course of further investigationwill be found to have participated in committing these crimes or financiallybenefited from them.
10. Pharmaceutical health executives who in the course of further investigationwill be found to have deliberately and systematically participated in committingthese crimes or financially benefited from them.
11. Members of the media and others who in the course of further investigationwill be found to have participated in committing these crimes or financiallybenefited from them.
12. Any other individual person, organization or body that in the course offurther investigation will be found to have participated in committing thesecrimes or financially benefited from them.
INTERNATIONAL TREATIES APPLICABLE FOR THIS COMPLAINT
Beside the Rome Statutes for the International Court of Justice the following internationaltreaties and declarations are applicable for the severe charges of this complaint:
1. The United Nations Charter
2. The Declaration of Human Rights of December 8, 1948
3. The Geneva Convention on Human Rights of August 12, 1949
4. The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide ofJanuary 12, 1951
5. The Convention on Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes andCrimes against Humanity of 1968
6. The Principles of International Co-Operation in the Detection, Arrest, Extraditionand Punishment of Persons Guilty of War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity of1973
THE JURISDICTION OF THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURTOVER THE ACCUSED
The accused committed the crimes outlined above, knowingly and deliberately and infull knowledge of all the circumstances surrounding their actions.The crimes reported here have been committed against all mankind. The ICC in TheHague is the court governed by international law addressing these urgent issues.Moreover, the ICC was established after WWII and the Nuremberg Tribunal, with thegoal to prevent another tragedy from happening – possibly a world war.1. Liability to prosecution of those bearing officeThe accused can be both sentenced and punished by the International CriminalCourt.The Statute applies equally to all persons without any distinction based on officialcapacity. In particular, official capacity as a Head of State or Government, a member of a Government or parliament, an elected representative or a government officialshall in no case exempt a person from criminal responsibility under the Statute of theICC, nor shall it, in and of itself, constitute a ground for reduction of sentence (Article27, Paragraph 1 of the Statute).Immunities or special procedural rules which may attach to the official capacity of aperson, whether under national or international law, shall also not bar the Court from exercising its jurisdiction over such a person (Article 27, Paragraph 2 of the Statute).
2. Exclusion of criminal responsibilityNone of the accused may invoke any of the grounds specified under Article 31 of theStatute for excluding criminal responsibility.
The accused were acting in full knowledge about the illegitimacy of their actions.Thus, any claims to the contrary are null and void.Equally null and void are all efforts by the accused to retroactively justify their crimesby forming ‘coalitions’ of opinions with other nations.
3. Power to inflict punishment over members of the US Government and citizensof the USAEven those of the accused, who hold citizenship of the United States of America,cannot claim immunity from criminal prosecution before the International CriminalCourt, just because the United States of America in contrast to 90 other countriesaround the world (i.e. almost half of the members of the United Nations) is notamongst the signatory states to the Rome Statute.The accused have long been devising plans to try and evade the power to inflict punishmentof the International Criminal Court. This, however, does not exempt the accused from the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, because the mere performance of the crimes involved in the acts to be judged before the ICC constitutes liability to punishment under the terms of the Statute.It does not matter if you belong to a specific Member State, because the InternationalCriminal Court has jurisdiction over natural persons and not over States and establishesindividual responsibility and liability for punishment (Article 25 Paragraphs 1and 2 of the Statute).The ICC Statutes render attempts by the US Administration to coerce smaller nationsinto bilateral ‘immunity pacts’ redundant.In addition, the UN Security Council did rule that the US Government and therefore also the majority of the accused could not and should not decide themselves whetherthe International Criminal Court could take action against them or not.This decision was taken for good reason: One can only imagine what would have happened if the main figures accused in the Nuremberg Trials had been allowed tochoose whether they had to stand trial before the Nuremberg Tribunal.For these reasons the accused, even if they are citizens of the United States ofAmerica, are still subject to the power to inflict punishment of the International CriminalCourt.
FINAL APPEAL
The individuals named should be indicted before the International Criminal Court onthe basis of the valid grounds specified in this complaint.The investigations into the individual responsibilities of the accused are to be takenup and continued by the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court.These investigations will also be continued and intensified on our side, the side of thepeople of the world.The accused should be convicted for the following reasons:
• knowing and deliberate violation of the human right to peace;
• knowing and deliberate violation of the human right to life;
• knowing and deliberate violation of the human right to health.
This complaint is to be updated and completed in a system of constant development and revision until legal proceedings finally commence against the accused.This complaint deals with the largest crimes ever committed in the course of human history. Every day that formal proceeding at the International Criminal Court against the accused are delayed, millions of people worldwide will pay with their lives and theworld moves closer to the next world war. There must be no delay.As the US Prosecutor in the Nuremberg War Tribunal against the executives of thechemical/petrochemical cartel IG Farben stated: “ If the crimes committed by the accusedare not brought to the daylight and if they are not held accountable, they will do even more harm in the future.”We call on every person and every Government in the world to unite behind the charges. The time to act is now.
The Hague, Netherlands14th June 2003
On behalf of the people of the world,
Matthias Rath, M.D.
(Emphasis added by Justice Lover)
16 September 2007
WHY IS THE PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY (BIG PHARMA) SUCH A BIG BUSINESS WITH DISEASE, AND PSYCHIATRY IS ITS MAIN JUNIOR PARTNER ?
by Justice Lover
Dr. Matthias Rath is a renowned German physician who has been exposing the crimes of Big Pharma for many years now. He had not turned his attention to psychiatry, so far, but it is obvious that his arguments against Big Pharma apply to the pushing of psychiatric drugs by the shrinks too. Moreover, the crimes of psychiatry are even more blatant when you consider the big lie on which the entire "Medical Specialty" of psychiatry exists, namely, that there are psychiatric "illnesses" ("mental illnesses") for which the shrinks provide (by force ! )the poisons of Big Pharma as "medications" !
Here is one of Dr. Rath's articles relevant to this post :
http://www4.dr-rath-foundation.org/PHARMACEUTICAL_BUSINESS/laws_of_the_pharmaceutical_industry.htm
"The Laws of the Pharmaceutical Industry
The main principles governing the pharmaceutical “business with disease.”
It is not in the financial interests of the pharmaceutical industry to prevent common diseases – the maintenance and expansion of diseases is a precondition for the financial growth of this industry.
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
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:
(1) 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.
(2) 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.
(3) 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.
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."
(Emphasis added by Justice Lover)
by Justice Lover
Dr. Matthias Rath is a renowned German physician who has been exposing the crimes of Big Pharma for many years now. He had not turned his attention to psychiatry, so far, but it is obvious that his arguments against Big Pharma apply to the pushing of psychiatric drugs by the shrinks too. Moreover, the crimes of psychiatry are even more blatant when you consider the big lie on which the entire "Medical Specialty" of psychiatry exists, namely, that there are psychiatric "illnesses" ("mental illnesses") for which the shrinks provide (by force ! )the poisons of Big Pharma as "medications" !
Here is one of Dr. Rath's articles relevant to this post :
http://www4.dr-rath-foundation.org/PHARMACEUTICAL_BUSINESS/laws_of_the_pharmaceutical_industry.htm
"The Laws of the Pharmaceutical Industry
The main principles governing the pharmaceutical “business with disease.”
It is not in the financial interests of the pharmaceutical industry to prevent common diseases – the maintenance and expansion of diseases is a precondition for the financial growth of this industry.
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
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:
(1) 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.
(2) 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.
(3) 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.
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."
(Emphasis added by Justice Lover)
07 September 2007
The FDA Exposed: An Interview With Dr. David Graham, the Vioxx Whistleblower
Emailed to me today by Lynne Michaels of
"SSRI-Research" SSRI-Research and of tapersafely .
The interview was published two years ago on
http://www.newstarg et.com/011401. html
The following interview with Dr. David Graham (senior drug safety researcher at the FDA) was conducted by Manette Loudon, the lead investigator for Dr. Gary Null. This interview contains jaw-dropping insights about the corruption and crimes that take place every day inside the Food and Drug Administration. This is no outside critic, either: these are the words from a top FDA employee who has worked at the agency for two decades. If you've ever wondered how the drug industry could pull off the greatest con of our time -- and turn the human body into a profit-generating machine -- you're about to learn the shocking answers in this interview.
This interview is reprinted here with permission from Dr. Gary Null. Parts of this interview also appear in Dr. Gary Null's Prescription For Disaster video documentary, which is available at the Gary Null website and is a must-see video for anyone who wants to know the truth about the pharmaceutical industry and the FDA.
MANETTE: Dr. Graham, it's truly a pleasure to have the opportunity to interview you. Let me begin by asking you how long you've been with the FDA and what your current position is?
DR. GRAHAM: I've been with the FDA for 20 years. I'm currently the Associate Director for Science and Medicine in the Office of Drug Safety. That's my official job. But when I'm here today I'm speaking in my private capacity on my own time, and I do not represent the FDA. We can be pretty certain that the FDA would not agree with most of what I have to say. So with those disclaimers you know everything is okay.
MANETTE: On November 23, 2004 PBS Online News Hour Program you were quoted as making the following statement. "I would argue that the FDA as currently configured is incapable of protecting America against another Vioxx. Simply put, FDA and the Center for Drug Evaluation Research (CDER) are broken." Since you've made that statement, has anything changed within the FDA to fix what's broken and, if not, how serious is the problem that we're dealing with here?
DR. GRAHAM: Since November, when I appeared before the Senate Finance Committee and announced to the world that the FDA was incapable of protecting America from unsafe drugs or from another Vioxx, very little has changed on the surface and substantively nothing has changed. The structural problems that exist within the FDA, where the people who approve the drugs are also the ones who oversee the post marketing regulation of the drug, remain unchanged. The people who approve a drug when they see that there is a safety problem with it are very reluctant to do anything about it because it will reflect badly on them. They continue to let the damage occur. America is just as at risk now, as it was in November, as it was two years ago, and as it was five years ago.
MANETTE: In that same PBS program, you were also quoted saying, "The organizational structure within the CDER is currently geared towards the review and approval of new drugs. When a serious safety issue arises at post marketing, the immediate reaction is almost always one of denial, rejection and heat. They approved the drugs, so there can't possibly be anything wrong with it. This is an inherent conflict of interest." Based on what you're saying it appears that the FDA is responsible for protecting the interests of pharmaceutical companies and not the American people. Do you believe the FDA can protect the public from dangerous drugs?
DR. GRAHAM: As currently configured, the FDA is not able to adequately protect the American public. It's more interested in protecting the interests of industry. It views industry as its client, and the client is someone whose interest you represent. Unfortunately, that is the way the FDA is currently structured. Within the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research about 80 percent of the resources are geared towards the approval of new drugs and 20 percent is for everything else. Drug safety is about five percent. The "gorilla in the living room" is new drugs and approval. Congress has not only created that structure, they have also worsened that structure through the PDUFA, the Prescription Drug User Fee Act, by which drug companies pay money to the FDA so they will review and approve its drug. So you have that conflict as well.
MANETTE: When did that go into effect?
DR. GRAHAM: The Prescription Drug User Fee Act came into play in 1992. It was passed by Congress as a way of providing the FDA with more funds so that it could hire more physicians and other scientists to review drug applications so that drugs would be approved more quickly. For industry, every day a drug is held up from being marketed, represents a loss of one to two million dollars of profit. The incentive is to review and approve the drugs as quickly as possible, and not stand in the way of profit-making. The FDA cooperates with that mandate.
MANETTE: And what about those new drugs? Are they any better than what already exists on the market?
DR. GRAHAM: It's a myth that is promulgated not only by industry but also by the FDA itself. It's a misperception that our lawmakers in Congress have as well and they've been fed this line by industry. Industry is saying there are all these lifesaving drugs that the FDA is slow to approve and people are dying in the streets because of it. The fact is that probably about two-thirds to three-quarters of the drugs that the FDA reviews are already on the market and are being reviewed for another indication. So, for example, if I've got a drug that can treat bronchitis and now it's going to be used to treat a urinary tract infection well, that's a new indication. But it's the same drug and we already know about the safety of the drug. There is nothing lifesaving there. There is nothing new. There is nothing innovative. A very small proportion of drugs represent a new drug that hasn't been marketed before. Most of those drugs are no better than the ones that exist. If you want to talk about breakthrough drugs - the ones that really make a difference in patients' lives and represent a revolution in pharmacology - we're talking about maybe one or two drugs a year. Most of them aren't breakthroughs and most of them aren't lifesaving, but they get treated as if they were.
MANETTE: Are you at liberty to discuss some of the problems your colleagues are finding with other drugs and if so, how widespread is the problem? DR. GRAHAM: I'm really not at liberty to talk about things that pertain to my official duties at the FDA. I can talk in my private capacity, but I can't talk about material that would be confidential. What I can say is that there are a number of other scientists within the FDA who have also worked with drugs that they know are not safe, even though the FDA has approved or allowed them to remain on the market. They face some of the same difficulties that I do. The difference is that either the problem isn't as serious in terms of the numbers of people that were injured or that it's a fatal reaction - they're not willing to expose themselves to retaliation by the FDA - and retaliation would surely follow.
MANETTE: Do you think we should have any confidence in the FDA and if so, can you elaborate on what they do that you feel benefits the American people?
DR. GRAHAM: In terms of confidence in what the FDA does, there are two things that the FDA determines when it looks at a drug: it determines whether or not a drug is safe and it determines whether or not it's effective. Regarding the determination of drug effectiveness, I think the FDA does a pretty good job. If the FDA says that the drug will have a particular effect, probably for many of the patients who take the drug it will actually have that effect. If the FDA says a given drug will lower blood pressure and you're somebody who has high blood pressure, there's a good chance that the drug will have an effect that lowers your blood pressure. That has to do with the rigor with which they force the drug companies to establish that the drug actually has an effect. On the safety side, I think that the American public can't be very confident. They can have some confidence because it turns out that most drugs are remarkably safe. But, when there are unsafe drugs, the FDA is very likely to err on the side of industry. Rarely will they keep a drug from being marketed or pull a drug off the market. A lot of this has to do with the standards that the FDA uses for safety. When they look at efficacy, they assume that the drug doesn't work and the company has to prove that the drug does work. When they look at safety it's entirely the opposite. The FDA assumes the drug is safe and now it's up to the company to prove that the drug isn't safe. Well, that's a no-brainer. What company on earth is going to try to prove that the drug isn't safe? There's no incentive for the companies to do things right. The clinical trials that are done are too small, and as a result it's very unusual to find a serious safety problem in these clinical trials. Safety flaws are discovered after the drug gets on the market.
MANETTE: I read somewhere that a drug only has to be better than a sugar pill
DR. GRAHAM: Right. The standard that the FDA uses to approve a drug is primarily "does the drug work?" That's what they call efficacy. Most often, they'll compare the drug against something called a placebo or a sugar pill. It's basically something that doesn't have a medical effect. The assumption is that the drug will be no different than the sugar pill. The FDA puts the onus on the drug company to conduct a clinical trial to show that the drug is different from a sugar pill. The way the FDA's approval standards are, the drug does not necessarily have to have a very great effect in order to be approved. The drug might lower your blood pressure by just a few millimeters of mercury, but the FDA will say we can approve it because it does lower your blood pressure. Now, would that be a benefit or are there other drugs out there - many other drugs - that patients could take instead that would lower their blood pressure by 10 or 15 or 20 millimeters? The FDA doesn't really care about that. What happens is the drug gets marketed. You've got two drugs that are out there - one drug that effectively lowers your blood pressure a substantial degree and another drug that barely lowers your blood pressure at all. The company that has that second drug markets it like it's this breakthrough medicine. It lowers your blood pressure and they have all these glitzy ads, direct-to-consumer advertising. Lots of patients and lots of doctors will use that medication. What happens in the process is these patients are actually in a sense being denied a more effective treatment because the FDA doesn't require that drugs that come on to market be at least equivalent to, or better than, the drugs that are already there. All they have to do is be better than a sugar pill.
MANETTE: When you consider the financial impact your whistle blowing has had on the pharmaceutical industry do you have any fears that your life may be in jeopardy?
DR. GRAHAM: I have tried not to think about that. In the work that I've done I've never really thought about what the financial impact would be on any particular company. I put that out of my mind because my primary concern is whether or not the drug is safe. If it's not safe, how unsafe is it and how many people are being hurt by it? In terms of when I identify an unsafe drug, to me it doesn't really matter what drug company it is. I've helped to get ten different drugs off the market, and they're from ten different drug companies. It's not a vendetta against any particular drug company. I have to hope that the drug companies don't take it personally. I'm just a scientist doing my job and I have to leave the rest to God to protect me.
MANETTE: Has anyone tried to silence you and stop you from becoming a whistleblower?
DR. GRAHAM: Prior to my Senate testimony in mid-November of 2004, there was an orchestrated campaign by senior level FDA managers to intimidate me so that I would not testify before Congress. This intimidation took several forms. One attack came from our acting Center Director who contacted the editor of the Lancet, the prestigious medical journal in the United Kingdom, and intimated to the editor that I had committed scientific misconduct and that they shouldn't publish a paper that I had written showing that Vioxx increases the risks of heart attack. This high-level FDA official never talked to me about this allegation. He just went directly to the Lancet. The second attack was from other high level FDA officials who contacted Senator Grassley's office and attempted to prevent Senator Grassley and his staff from supporting me and calling me as a witness. They knew that if they could disarm Senator Grassley that would neutralize me. The third attack came from senior FDA officials who contacted Tom Devine, my attorney at the Government Accountability Project, and attempted to convince him that he should not represent me because I was guilty of scientific misconduct; I was a bully; a demigod; and a terrible person that couldn't be trusted. These people were posing as whistleblowers themselves ratting on another whistleblower. Some of these senior level FDA officials were in my supervisory chain and are people I work for. They were involved in a coordinated attempt to discredit me and to smear my name and to prevent me from giving testimony. There's one other thing that happened the week before I testified. The Acting Commissioner of the FDA invited me to his office and offered me a job in the Commissioner' s Office to oversee the revitalization of drug safety for the FDA if I would just leave the Office of Drug Safety and come to the Commissioner' s Office. Obviously he had been tipped off by people in the Senate Finance Committee who are sympathetic to the FDA's status quo that I was going to be called as a witness. To preempt that, he offers me this job, which basically would have been exile to a fancy title with no real ability to have an impact. This was a conspiracy and it was coordinated and there was collaboration among senior level FDA officials. What a mess!
MANETTE: All of these attacks backfired on them. Tell us a little bit about that.
DR. GRAHAM: Well, Senator Grassley and his staff quickly realized that what they were saying about me was fabricated. The editor of The Lancet also realized that what the high level FDA officials were saying to him was a pack of lies. He sent emails to them saying it looked to him as if they were trying to interfere with his editorial process. He was very savvy to what these people were doing. Tom Devine, as he said publicly, was very interested in doing the right thing. He said, "We don't want to protect somebody who's a lawbreaker and who really isn't representing the truth so produce your evidence." They had no evidence because there is no evidence. But I produced my evidence. I showed him all the documentation, all the emails, and the reports that I've written. They flunked every test and I passed every test. In all of the criticism I have received relating to Vioxx and drug safety, they've never attacked the work or the science that I've done or the results that I've come to. What they've done is call me names. The ad hominem attack is the last refuge of the indefensible. They don't have an argument that's substantial. They know that they're vulnerable. They know that they've disserved the American people. The FDA is responsible for 140,000 heart attacks and 60,000 dead Americans. That's as many people as were killed in the Vietnam War. Yet the FDA points the finger at me and says, "Well, this guy's a rat, you can't trust him," but nobody is calling them to account. Congress isn't calling them to account. For the American people, it's dropped off the radar screen. They should be screaming because this can happen again.
MANETTE: On CNN with Lou Dobbs you said that there was a certain "culture" that exists at the FDA. Can you explain what you meant by that?
DR. GRAHAM: The FDA has a very peculiar culture. It runs like the army so it's very hierarchal. You have to go through the chain of command and if somebody up above you says that they want things done in a particular way well, they want it done in a particular way. The culture also views industry as the client. They're serving industry rather than the public. In fact, when a former office director for the Office of Drug Safety criticized me and tried to get me to change a report I'd written on another drug - Arava - he said to me and to a colleague who was a coauthor on this report that "industry is our client." I begged to differ with him. I said, "No, industry is not the client, it's the American people, the people who pay our taxes. That's who we're here to serve." He said, "No! Industry is our client." I ended the conversation by saying, "Well, industry may be your client, but it will never be my client." Another aspect to the culture at the FDA is that it overvalues the benefits of drugs and undervalues the risks of drugs. And so the FDA will always say to you, "Well, we're leaving this drug on the market because the benefits exceed the risks." Well, the FDA has never assessed the benefit of any drug that it's ever approved. It works on what's called efficacy. Does the drug work or not? Does it lower your blood pressure or does it lower your blood sugar? Not: Does it prolong your life? Does it prevent you from having a heart attack? Those are benefits. All they focus on is efficacy. For example, ask the FDA why on earth they didn't ban high dose Vioxx after the VIGOR Study showed in early 2000 that it increased the risk of heart attack by 500 percent? High dose Vioxx was approved for the short-term treatment of acute pain. What earthly benefit was there that exceeds a 500 percent increase in heart attack risk? Ask the FDA to produce its benefit analysis that shows that the benefits exceed the risks. It doesn't exist. The FDA has never looked at benefit. The FDA just says to the American people, "The benefits exceed the risks. Trust me. Believe me." If you held the FDA to its proof the American people would see how badly served they've been by the FDA and its culture that belittles safety in the drug companies' interest. If the FDA were to pull a drug due to safety issues, it would hurt the marketing of the drug. It might also call into question why they approved the drug in the first place. Therefore, you get this culture of cover-up, this culture of suppression, this culture of denial, and this culture that demonstrates above all else that industry is the client and not the American people.
MANETTE: Have your peers turned against you?
DR. GRAHAM: No. I've been very fortunate. Tom Devine at GAP has told me that the experience of a typical whistleblower is that they'll have the support of their peers but the peers will be so afraid of retaliation that they won't express that support in public. I've had a very different experience. I've been basically embraced by my peers as someone who has said what they want to say and what they wished they had been able to say and that they recognize as the truth. They're really proud of the fact that I've said it and they're not afraid to be seen with me. They're not afraid to work with me. I've been pretty fortunate in that way. Now with management it's been another story. Upper management avoids me and doesn't talk to me. I could be walking down the hall and I'll say hello, and they'll act like I'm not there. They don't give me interesting work assignments. They don't call me in to consult on things that I should be consulted on even though I am the senior epidemiologist in the Office of Drug Safety with more experience than any of the other people there. I'm looked up to by the scientific staff because of that expertise. Basically, I feel like I'm in the Gulag.
MANETTE: How do you cope with that going to work each day?
DR. GRAHAM: It's difficult. It's a mind game. They're hoping that I'll just become very frustrated and disillusioned and leave or that I'll slip up in some way so that they can take some sort of action against me. As Tom Devine at GAP has said, I have to be Saint David. I can't afford to make any mistakes. That's very difficult and it is a little bit discouraging. But I've been a target of retaliation in the past. You take ten drugs off the market well, no good deed goes unpunished at the FDA. I've experienced retaliation with many of those other episodes but not as severe as what I've experienced with Vioxx. This is the first time that my job was actually in jeopardy and where the FDA actually intended to fire me. That was stopped only because Senator Grassley intervened. He put the heat on the FDA and told them, "Lay off. This guy has told the truth. He's helped America. Whose side are you on?"
MANETTE: Were there any warnings that Vioxx was a problem? Did you see the disaster coming?
DR. GRAHAM: I think that I was afraid that there would be a disaster, but I only became aware of this with the publication of the VIGOR Study, which was this large clinical trial that was done that showed that Vioxx increased the risk of heart attack five fold. That study was published in November of 2000. It was written, performed, and paid for by industry. What industry concluded was not that Vioxx increases the risks of heart attack, but that the drug they were comparing it against - Naproxen - decreased the risk of heart attack. I knew that was not a sustainable argument. There was no way that Naproxen was that protective against heart attacks. Clearly Vioxx was the problem. I knew that Vioxx was on the road to becoming a blockbuster drug (20 million users). All the ingredients were there for a disaster. The FDA is responsible in so far as it could have prevented much of the damage, heart attacks, and deaths simply by banning the high dose Vioxx back in mid 2000 when they knew the results of the VIGOR Study. But the FDA did nothing for almost two years. They were "negotiating" with the company over a label. What did the label accomplish? Nothing! Before the label 17 or 18 percent of people who took Vioxx took the high dose. After the label change 17 or 18 percent were still taking the high dose. High dose use didn't change at all. People didn't read the label, and if they read the label they wouldn't know what to do anyway because it was very confusing. The right thing to do would have been to pull the high dose off the market because there is no benefit for short-term relief of acute pain that exceeds this risk. The FDA made bad decisions based on its culture and its institutionalized biases that favor industry, and as a result thousands of Americans died. Americans and Congress should be screaming bloody murder. They should be beating on the doors of the FDA demanding change.
MANETTE: It's estimated that over 200,000 people a year die from prescription drugs. Do you see this as a serious problem and do you think many of these treatments are more dangerous than the disease itself?
DR. GRAHAM: Death from adverse drug reactions is one of the leading causes of death in the United States. It turns out that most of these adverse reactions are actually what are expected in the sense that they are an extension of the drug's action. For example, we know that drugs for diabetes can lower your blood sugar. If you're more sensitive to the drug than the normal person and it lowers your blood sugar too much, causing you to have a seizure while driving your car and you get killed, well, you died from an adverse drug reaction, but it wasn't something unexpected. The blood thinner Coumadin is another example. That drug provides a benefit, but it is also responsible for probably more deaths than any single drug currently marketed. But it has a recognized benefit and there aren't other drugs to do what it does or to do what it does well. So physicians accept that there are patients who are in a serious situation and who might die without the drug, so they take it. Yes, drugs cause a lot of harm. Unfortunately, we haven't quantified the benefits. For most of these drugs it's more belief. It's faith. We have faith that they'll confer a benefit, but the FDA hasn't demonstrated that they confer a benefit. We're getting much better at quantitating the risks. In the future what we need to do is just take the risks and look hard and dispassionately at what the real benefits are. If the benefits aren't there we shouldn't be having discussions about labeling the drug. You need to weed the garden patch of drugs that aren't doing what they're supposed to do. The FDA has not been very good about that; it likes to cultivate all these weeds.
MANETTE: In a perfect world what role do you see the FDA playing in our nation's health?
DR. GRAHAM: In a perfect world, I think the FDA would need to be restructured. If it were restructured properly, I think that it could actually provide a great benefit to the public health. I would recommend several changes. First, I would separate safety and post-marketing from the pre-marketing. I would create a separate center for product safety. Actually, Senator Grassley and Dodd have recently introduced legislation to create an independent center for post-marketing safety that would serve to protect the American people from unsafe drugs. This isn't happening now. On the pre-marketing side, the FDA needs to pay greater attention to safety. They need to have larger clinical trials. They need to compare drug products against other drugs that treat the same indication rather than comparing a drug against a sugar pill. What we want in the end are drugs that actually have better benefit. The FDA also needs to determine the post-marketing benefits of a drug. I've done that for several drugs. How many people are actually benefiting? How many people are living longer versus those who are having their lives shortened? Only when you have that kind of information can you make rational decisions about a medication. The times when I've done the benefit analysis, I've been chastised, criticized and suppressed by the FDA. These benefit analyses should be done as a matter of routine. There is a lot that the FDA could do to improve, but the changes aren't going to happen on their own. Congress is going to have to make them happen. There's an expression, "the zebra doesn't change its stripes nor the leopard its spots." The FDA isn't going to change the way it does business; changes will have to be imposed from outside.
MANETTE: How you do feel about direct-to-consumer advertising?
DR. GRAHAM: Direct-to-consumer advertising in general is a great disservice to the American people. We see wonderful ads of people demonstrating their health, whether they're skating across the ice or doing their Tai chi. Madison Avenue knows that a picture is worth a thousand words, so they convey an image, a message, and it makes an impression on patients and on physicians. It creates needs or desires where there really isn't a need or a desire. There was a recent study in The Journal of The American Medical Association that showed that if patients mentioned a drug that they've seen on television to their physician they were much more likely to be prescribed that drug by the doctor. Drug companies know this. That's why they do it. Would the Vioxx disaster have been as great and as large in the absence of direct-to-consumer advertising? I submit that the numbers would have been far lower than what they were. Direct-to-consumer advertising is part of what made Vioxx a blockbuster drug. It helped to rev the market up to get people to want to use the drug. Clearly, direct-to-consumer advertising does not serve the American people well. Madison Avenue is smarter than the most intelligent American. That's why they make so much money and that's why the drug companies go to them to sell their products. We're not living in a neutral world where the information we're getting is objective and unbiased. It might be that the average American, given all the data, all the facts, and all the information in an objective way could make an intelligent, rational decision. But we don't live in that kind of world. We live in a world where what we're seeing is a visual image of these people being vital and healthy and cured of their illnesses. And it's all because of this little pill that they're taking. A patient with that condition says, "I want to be just like that person." So they go to the doctor and say, "I want that pill." Are their lives changed? Maybe some people's lives are changed, but I think most aren't.
MANETTE: What do you think people hear when they're watching the ad and after the ad they list all the possible side effects?
DR. GRAHAM: I don't think it registers. You have the visual image that conveys one message. Then you have the voice that's speaking over this pictorial being shown telling you what this drug is good for. Then at the end the auctioneer gets on and says, "You know this drug could cause.," and they rattle off 25 different things in three seconds. You're lucky if you hear anything. I don't think that people come away with it and they certainly don't come away with any sense of how likely it is to happen because the visual image overpowers anything that gets said. It's the same with the ads that appear in magazines. Companies are required to put some of the labeling in the ad. You have the ad on the one side - that's the picture. It shows this person being healthy because they take this pill. The fine print is all on the next page. People aren't going to read the fine print. It's the same thing with labeling for physicians. Physicians don't read product labels. Where do they learn about drugs? They learn about drugs from the detail person from the drug company or from other colleagues who have used the drug. They're not learning it from the labeling.
MANETTE: Do you think there is a criminal cover-up going on between the FDA and Big Pharma to approve dangerous drugs that sicken and kill Americans?
DR. GRAHAM: I have no knowledge of criminal activity and I'm sure there are legal standards for what's criminal and what's not. I do think that there is an institutional bias at the FDA that says we will look for a way to say "yes" to the approval of any drug that comes down the pipe. If a drug is so bad that they can't find a reason to approve it, they won't. But, if there is any way that they can approve the drug, they will. The way this is done is by what's called the "indication. " Why is it that you're going to take the drug? Maybe you're going to take it because you have high blood pressure. Maybe you'll take it because you have high cholesterol. That's the indication. A company may come in with a drug and want to get it approved for five different indications. One of them is a really insignificant indication that affects a very small number of people. The main indication might affect millions of people. The drug doesn't show efficacy for that major indication, but they're able to somehow or another approve the small indication. So the drug gets approved for this narrow indication, but the FDA and the drug company both know that it's going to be used for that other indication. It's going to be used "off-label." Then, the FDA turns around and says that they don't regulate the "off- label" use of drugs. No. But, they aid and abet it. They allow it to happen and in many instances "off-label" use of a drug product is a public health threat. The FDA has a responsibility to protect the public health. The FDA should be intervening, but they don't. In my own experience I have seen multiple examples where I've heard people say, "We can't ask a company to put that in the labeling because the company will say no." Or, "We can't do that because that will decrease their marketing. We've got to try to approve this drug. Let's see if we can give them this small indication. At least it's giving them something. You've got to find a way to say yes." That is the typical attitude of the FDA culture. I think Congress is partially responsible for that because when they issued the PDUFA, the Prescription Drug User Fee Act, what they were really saying was, "We want you to review these drug applications more quickly because you're keeping lifesaving medicines from the American people." That's the line they were fed by Big Pharma. So they pressure the FDA and the FDA gets the message. It's a really pernicious system. I think it's unfortunate. There are many people from the FDA who have examples that they unfortunately can't talk about. They'd lose their job and maybe get thrown in prison because you can't discuss confidential and trade secret information. But the fact is these things happen at the FDA and there have been multiple examples in the past where one could see evidence of that.
MANETTE: Did your faith as a devout Roman Catholic play any role in the decisions you made to put your career on the line to report the truth?
DR. GRAHAM: It did in so far as my faith forms my conscience. It's sort of my sense of what's right and what's wrong and what I am and am not responsible for. I was in a situation here with Vioxx where I was invited by Senator Grassley's office to testify. I could have told them no, but then they would have subpoenaed me. So of course I went peaceably. I was faced with this dilemma. Should I lay it on the line and tell them the way it really is or do I kind of downplay it? There are ways of doing that. What I concluded was that I'm now being given the opportunity to tell the truth to the people who are in a position to actually make a difference. I can't make a difference. I can't change the FDA, but Congress can. If I don't tell them the truth, then I'm now responsible, in part, for future deaths. I don't want to become a co-conspirator with the FDA in what happens with Vioxx because tens of thousands of people were injured or killed because of the FDA's disregard for safety. If I keep quiet about that, now I'm part of the problem. I'm one of them, and at that point then my conscience asks me, "You know what the truth is, are you going to speak it or aren't you?" So I went ahead and did that and prayed that it all works out well for me personally. That I have a job and I'll be able to support my family, that I'm protected from retaliation, that maybe some good will come out of that. My faith plays a role, but it wasn't a direct teaching of the church. You have to do x, y and z, but it's the faith as I've internalized it. My conscience is formed by the voice of Christ speaking internally to me. That's what the conscience is; it's the voice of God speaking to each and every one of us about what's right and what's wrong. I knew what was right. If I walked away from that nobody else would have to do anything. I'd be beating myself up because my conscience would condemn me. So yes, faith plays a part in every thing that I do. It's not saying I'm a saint, because I'm not. But I can't separate who I am from my religious faith. It's all part of the same person.
MANETTE: Do you think Congress genuinely wants to fix the problems at the FDA or are too many politicians influenced by the pharmaceutical industry?
DR. GRAHAM: I don't know what Congress will do in the end. My hope is that they will act decisively to reform the FDA and make the American people safer by having strong post-marketing. Will that happen or not? I don't know. I think there are many people in Congress who see this as a serious problem and who very much want to see a change. I think at the same time there are other people who don't think it's such a bad problem, and many of those people honestly believe that. For those people I'd say they haven't seen the evidence so they don't really understand how bad the problem is. There are undoubtedly some people who are influenced by industry. Does that influence their judgment in the end? I don't know. They'd probably say no, it doesn't. Maybe at a conscious level it doesn't. But we have the same phenomenon in the scientific world where we look at research studies that are funded by industry and studies that are funded by government, by National Institutes of Health or the Medical Research Council in the United Kingdom. Multiple studies have been done that have shown that if your study is funded by industry you are much likelier - about five times more likely - to come up with the result that's favorable to the drug company than if your study on the same subject is funded by an independent body unrelated to the company. Now, are the researchers who did this study biased? Are they consciously cheating and manipulating the data and everything else? No. I don't think that's happening at all, but the fact is if the study is funded by industry it's much more likely to be favorable to industry. Without attributing bad motivations to the scientists doing those studies all I can do is point to a strong correlation. With Congress I would be concerned that there could be a strong correlation there because Pharma is very bright. They fund as many politicians as they can. They get to the Republicans and the Democrats. Look at the funding on the major committees, the Health, Education, Labor and Pension Committee in the Senate or the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee in the House. The Wall Street Journal reported recently that many people on these committees are funded by industry to a substantial degree. Industry knows how to exercise influence. What we have to do is overcome that influence with evidence, and then rely on the fact that at the end of the day the Congress will do what's best for the American people. Will that happen? I don't know because then it gets embroiled in politics. You know, Republicans versus Democrats, the left versus the right, conservatives versus liberals. Yet, what we're talking about is public health and public health is nonpartisan. I can say this with certainty. For every member of the House of Representatives somebody in their district died because of Vioxx. Somebody in their district had a heart attack because of Vioxx. For every Senator in the Senate, many more people in their state died because of Vioxx or had a heart attack because of Vioxx. It doesn't matter whether it's a red state or a blue state. Those are human beings and what we're talking about is public health. What I'm hoping is that Congress will respond. There is a problem and the evidence is overwhelming, but we'll just have to wait and see.
MANETTE: What are you thoughts on President Bush's attempt to pass tort reform, which would protect most pharmaceutical companies from lawsuits except in the most egregious cases?
DR. GRAHAM: I think it's dangerous and wrong for the following reasons. We already have an FDA that's been neutralized by industry and sees industry as its client. The Center for Drug Evaluation and The Office of New Drugs dominates drug safety so that the drug safety is not independent. Drug safety can't protect the American people. So government now isn't going to protect the average citizen from the consequences of unsafe drugs. The only alternative they have left is the legal system - the tort system. It's not a wonderful system. It would be much better if we had effective post-marketing regulation so that we could get bad drugs off the market before they hurt more people, but that's been neutralized. All that's left to people now is the courts. That's the only way we have of getting companies to change their behavior. What tort reform will do is remove that threat as well. It's basically giving companies immunity because now the people who are injured by the drugs can't recover damages that might actually mean something to industry. I mean $250,000 for damages; they blow that in one ad campaign. To them that's nothing. But a lawsuit for multiple millions of dollars has more of an impact. Now, is that optimal? No. But the fact is that since we have a regulatory agency that doesn't regulate and we have a public health agency that doesn't protect the public, we have thousands of people who are being injured by products that the FDA knows are unsafe. The FDA knew there was a problem with Vioxx. They knew it was a big problem back in mid 2000 yet did nothing about it. There has to be a system in place that reins companies in. If the FDA isn't going to exercise control over companies, then who will? How will it happen? I don't think that working through the courts and lawsuits is a particularly effective way of doing it; but it's the only recourse we have now, and that will be removed as well. You can demonize the trial lawyers but I think that there are patients who are severely injured by drugs. The defense is, "It's on the labels so we're protected." The problem is that nobody reads the labels so how do they protect anyone? The FDA should be making those decisions.
MANETTE: What can you tell us about all the antidepressants on the market that millions of children are taking?
DR. GRAHAM: In early 2004, SSRI antidepressants and suicidal behavior was a big safety issue. The FDA had suppressed a report written by a colleague of mine in drug safety and had prevented him from presenting this information in an advisory committee meeting. That information leaked to the media, embarrassing the FDA because it had been caught suppressing very important information - that most of the antidepressants don't work for treating children. Someone in my supervisory chain initiated a criminal investigation to identify the person who had leaked this information to the media. It turns out that the investigation ordered by these FDA officials was illegal. They broke federal laws - at least two or three federal laws - in ordering this investigation. I think it's well established that depression is very common in adolescence. With the antidepressants that we have on the market right now only one of them has been shown to work in children and that's Fluoxetine or Prozac. All the other SSRI antidepressants are no better than sugar pills. However, if you were to read the labeling for these drugs it doesn't point that fact out so patients think one SSRI is as good as another. This is another way that the FDA has betrayed the American public and has betrayed the public health. With the SSRI and antidepressants what the FDA should have insisted on was a signed informed consent at the time a child was going to be treated. That informed consent would say three things. One, these are the antidepressants that are available. Only Fluoxetine has been shown to work for depression in children. All the other drugs are no better than placebo. That's point two. No better than placebos. No better than sugar pills. Third, all of these drugs appear to have the ability to increase the risk of suicidal behavior. As a parent, if I see that in writing and the psychiatrist or GP is going to write the prescription and put my child on some drug other than Fluoxetine, I can say, "Doc, why are you putting my child on a drug that doesn't work in kids." The FDA didn't want patients to have that information so they refused to have signed informed consent. The companies didn't want the patients to have that information because all of a sudden the "off-label" use of these drugs would dry up. So whose interest was being served there?
MANETTE: How do you feel about taking the approval process out of the hands of the FDA?
DR. GRAHAM: Well, where would you put it? If you put it somewhere else they're going to eventually become co-opted the way the FDA has been co-opted. I think the most that we could probably hope for is to try to disassociate the industry pressures from the approval decision. You have to change the culture of the organization, and you have to change the incentives in the organization. The culture and the incentives that the FDA operates by would have to be changed, and Congress can do that through legislation and by establishing different standards for how a drug gets approved. Not only do you have to show that the drug is effective, but you've got to show that it works as well or better than other drugs that treat that indication. You've got to prove to me that the drug is safe, not that the drug is harmful because you're never going to prove to me that the drug is harmful. You set up stringent standards of evidence that might lead to the approval of safe drugs that actually have benefits to the population. Then pair that up with an independent post marketing regulation. Currently, the pre-market people who approve the drug decide what happens after it's on the market. If the drug needs to come off the market, they're the ones who have to say yes at the end of the day. The people at the FDA who approved the drug, the Office of New Drugs, they are the single greatest obstacle when it comes to removing unsafe drugs from the market. I can vouch for that from personal experience. What you have to do is you have to take that responsibility and power away from them and put it with the group who sees their mission as serving the public and protecting the public health from unsafe drugs. I think if you do those two things you'd be a long way towards getting the FDA on the right footing. Also, it would probably be beneficial not to have the FDA's funding come from industry. He who pays the piper calls the tune, and we now have a captured agency. Industry underwrites more than 50 percent of the Center for Drug Evaluation's budget. When industry yanks the chain whose neck is going to get tugged? The Center for Drug Evaluation! If industry isn't happy with them and the funding dries up what are we going to do? We're going to have to let half our people go. The program is going to shrink. Congress is going to be jumping up and down on our back. So it's a captured agency and America is not well served when industry is calling all the shots. Yes, industry has a right to make a legitimate profit from marketing products that help the American people. But you shouldn't have a situation that just basically leaves the American public defenseless. And that's what we have right now. We're virtually defenseless.
MANETTE: Are there other Vioxx's out there? Do you think this will repeat itself at this high profile level?
DR. GRAHAM: At this current moment I don't think there are other drugs out there that are as bad as Vioxx in terms of the enormous numbers of people that were hurt. During my Senate testimony I did mention that there were five other drugs that I thought the FDA really needed to reevaluate because in my estimation the benefit to risk was misjudged. After I named those five drugs the FDA was in the media saying that I did junk science and that these drugs were safe and effective and that I was a crackpot. However, recently the FDA announced that they were going to take Bextra off the market. Well, Bextra was one of the five I mentioned. They announced that with Acutane they were going to impose a restricted distribution system. Well, I had recommended a restricted distribution system 15 years ago. The major problem with Acutane is that it's just so widely overused that it causes an enormous amount of potential harm to pregnancy exposure. If we restricted the use of the drug to the small number of women who really need it each year, the problem would be pretty much resolved. But the FDA didn't want to do that because it would interfere with company profits. If you restrict the distribution and only one-tenth of the people who are getting it now are getting it tomorrow, profit will drop 90 percent. Of course companies aren't going to go along with that and the FDA isn't going to do anything that's going to harm corporate profit. After my Senate testimony the FDA announced that they can look at other drugs - not only the other three of the five that I mentioned. There are other drugs on the market that I prefer not to talk about that the FDA knows are killing people. Ten or 100 people a year are dying because of the use of a particular drug or being hospitalized. Hundreds or maybe thousands of people are being hospitalized each year. For some of those drugs the benefits do exceed the risks. For others, it's clear that more could and should be done and maybe that means restricting the distribution of the drug's use or maybe it means banning an indication for the drug saying the drug should not be used for particular indications. Maybe it would be something like with the SSRI's where I believe there should be signed informed consent so that parents will know that the drug the doctor is prescribing for their son or daughter actually doesn't work in children. I think that there are many things that can be done that haven't been done. There are other unsafe drugs out there, and the nature of our business is that a drug could be approved tomorrow that turns out to be the next Vioxx and we won't know until it happens. Then the question is, how quickly do we identify the problem and how quickly do we take effective action against it? We're pretty good at identifying these problems quickly. Where the FDA falls flat on its face is that there is a long period of time in which it does nothing. Then what it normally does is woefully inadequate and ineffective and as a result the body count mounts and that needs to be changed. Maybe Congress will change that.
MANETTE: Let's talk about incentives. When you say incentives what do you mean? For example, working at the FDA, is their pay somehow based on how many drugs they approve?
DR. GRAHAM: Currently, the performance evaluations for managers at the FDA are built around the drug review. How many reviews did they get done? Did they meet their PDUFA deadlines? It looks bad if you miss your PDUFA deadlines. The unspoken mores - what's the expected - is that you're going to approve as many of these drugs as you can. There has to be an overwhelming reason for you not to approve. Frequently what will happen is that these medical officers in their review will recommend that a drug not be approved and they get overruled by the higher ups because the higher ups are answering to a different set of incentives. You have to change that. A lot of that comes from the leaders. What I want to see is does the drug really make a difference? Is it beneficial? There are many classes of drugs where we've got 10 or 15 members of that class. They all lower your blood pressure. They all lower your cholesterol. Another one comes along and the FDA feels its obligation to approve it. Why? Maybe the standard should be that for the drugs that come later in a class, they've got to show that they're actually better than the drugs on the market because we've already got these other drugs that work. That would create incentives maybe within industry to develop drugs that are better than the ones that are already there. Currently, the way the incentives are for industry, it's safer to do a "me too" drug, another drug in the same class.
MANETTE: Do you think that the FDA should not be partially funded by industry?
DR. GRAHAM: I think that PDUFA funding for the FDA is a mistake.
MANETTE: Can you explain that a little more clearly because most people don't know what PDUFA funding is?
DR. GRAHAM: The drug companies pay a substantial amount of money to the FDA at the time that they bring a drug application for approval in order for the FDA to review the drug. Basically it's a tax. It's a fee. Industry pays the fee, and the FDA will review the drug application. But the real expectation is from the company: "We've paid our money, now approve our drug." That's basically how the FDA reacts as well. I think that the funding for the FDA should be independent of the industry that it's regulating and I think in the scientific field there's good evidence to support this notion. Industry money is influencing the decisions that get made, and it creates this incentive structure. You have this culture, you have these expectations, you have pressure from Congress. All of them come to a head at the FDA and all of those incentives are in the direction of "approve the drug." That's what happens so I believe that the FDA is unduly influenced by industry and that undue influence is in part the result of industry money funding the FDA operations.
MANETTE: Dr. Graham, thank you for your commitment to your convictions and for sharing insights that drove you to save many lives.
DR. GRAHAM: You're welcome. I hope I've helped.
(Emphasis by Justice Lover)
Emailed to me today by Lynne Michaels of
"SSRI-Research" SSRI-Research and of tapersafely .
The interview was published two years ago on
http://www.newstarg et.com/011401. html
The following interview with Dr. David Graham (senior drug safety researcher at the FDA) was conducted by Manette Loudon, the lead investigator for Dr. Gary Null. This interview contains jaw-dropping insights about the corruption and crimes that take place every day inside the Food and Drug Administration. This is no outside critic, either: these are the words from a top FDA employee who has worked at the agency for two decades. If you've ever wondered how the drug industry could pull off the greatest con of our time -- and turn the human body into a profit-generating machine -- you're about to learn the shocking answers in this interview.
This interview is reprinted here with permission from Dr. Gary Null. Parts of this interview also appear in Dr. Gary Null's Prescription For Disaster video documentary, which is available at the Gary Null website and is a must-see video for anyone who wants to know the truth about the pharmaceutical industry and the FDA.
MANETTE: Dr. Graham, it's truly a pleasure to have the opportunity to interview you. Let me begin by asking you how long you've been with the FDA and what your current position is?
DR. GRAHAM: I've been with the FDA for 20 years. I'm currently the Associate Director for Science and Medicine in the Office of Drug Safety. That's my official job. But when I'm here today I'm speaking in my private capacity on my own time, and I do not represent the FDA. We can be pretty certain that the FDA would not agree with most of what I have to say. So with those disclaimers you know everything is okay.
MANETTE: On November 23, 2004 PBS Online News Hour Program you were quoted as making the following statement. "I would argue that the FDA as currently configured is incapable of protecting America against another Vioxx. Simply put, FDA and the Center for Drug Evaluation Research (CDER) are broken." Since you've made that statement, has anything changed within the FDA to fix what's broken and, if not, how serious is the problem that we're dealing with here?
DR. GRAHAM: Since November, when I appeared before the Senate Finance Committee and announced to the world that the FDA was incapable of protecting America from unsafe drugs or from another Vioxx, very little has changed on the surface and substantively nothing has changed. The structural problems that exist within the FDA, where the people who approve the drugs are also the ones who oversee the post marketing regulation of the drug, remain unchanged. The people who approve a drug when they see that there is a safety problem with it are very reluctant to do anything about it because it will reflect badly on them. They continue to let the damage occur. America is just as at risk now, as it was in November, as it was two years ago, and as it was five years ago.
MANETTE: In that same PBS program, you were also quoted saying, "The organizational structure within the CDER is currently geared towards the review and approval of new drugs. When a serious safety issue arises at post marketing, the immediate reaction is almost always one of denial, rejection and heat. They approved the drugs, so there can't possibly be anything wrong with it. This is an inherent conflict of interest." Based on what you're saying it appears that the FDA is responsible for protecting the interests of pharmaceutical companies and not the American people. Do you believe the FDA can protect the public from dangerous drugs?
DR. GRAHAM: As currently configured, the FDA is not able to adequately protect the American public. It's more interested in protecting the interests of industry. It views industry as its client, and the client is someone whose interest you represent. Unfortunately, that is the way the FDA is currently structured. Within the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research about 80 percent of the resources are geared towards the approval of new drugs and 20 percent is for everything else. Drug safety is about five percent. The "gorilla in the living room" is new drugs and approval. Congress has not only created that structure, they have also worsened that structure through the PDUFA, the Prescription Drug User Fee Act, by which drug companies pay money to the FDA so they will review and approve its drug. So you have that conflict as well.
MANETTE: When did that go into effect?
DR. GRAHAM: The Prescription Drug User Fee Act came into play in 1992. It was passed by Congress as a way of providing the FDA with more funds so that it could hire more physicians and other scientists to review drug applications so that drugs would be approved more quickly. For industry, every day a drug is held up from being marketed, represents a loss of one to two million dollars of profit. The incentive is to review and approve the drugs as quickly as possible, and not stand in the way of profit-making. The FDA cooperates with that mandate.
MANETTE: And what about those new drugs? Are they any better than what already exists on the market?
DR. GRAHAM: It's a myth that is promulgated not only by industry but also by the FDA itself. It's a misperception that our lawmakers in Congress have as well and they've been fed this line by industry. Industry is saying there are all these lifesaving drugs that the FDA is slow to approve and people are dying in the streets because of it. The fact is that probably about two-thirds to three-quarters of the drugs that the FDA reviews are already on the market and are being reviewed for another indication. So, for example, if I've got a drug that can treat bronchitis and now it's going to be used to treat a urinary tract infection well, that's a new indication. But it's the same drug and we already know about the safety of the drug. There is nothing lifesaving there. There is nothing new. There is nothing innovative. A very small proportion of drugs represent a new drug that hasn't been marketed before. Most of those drugs are no better than the ones that exist. If you want to talk about breakthrough drugs - the ones that really make a difference in patients' lives and represent a revolution in pharmacology - we're talking about maybe one or two drugs a year. Most of them aren't breakthroughs and most of them aren't lifesaving, but they get treated as if they were.
MANETTE: Are you at liberty to discuss some of the problems your colleagues are finding with other drugs and if so, how widespread is the problem? DR. GRAHAM: I'm really not at liberty to talk about things that pertain to my official duties at the FDA. I can talk in my private capacity, but I can't talk about material that would be confidential. What I can say is that there are a number of other scientists within the FDA who have also worked with drugs that they know are not safe, even though the FDA has approved or allowed them to remain on the market. They face some of the same difficulties that I do. The difference is that either the problem isn't as serious in terms of the numbers of people that were injured or that it's a fatal reaction - they're not willing to expose themselves to retaliation by the FDA - and retaliation would surely follow.
MANETTE: Do you think we should have any confidence in the FDA and if so, can you elaborate on what they do that you feel benefits the American people?
DR. GRAHAM: In terms of confidence in what the FDA does, there are two things that the FDA determines when it looks at a drug: it determines whether or not a drug is safe and it determines whether or not it's effective. Regarding the determination of drug effectiveness, I think the FDA does a pretty good job. If the FDA says that the drug will have a particular effect, probably for many of the patients who take the drug it will actually have that effect. If the FDA says a given drug will lower blood pressure and you're somebody who has high blood pressure, there's a good chance that the drug will have an effect that lowers your blood pressure. That has to do with the rigor with which they force the drug companies to establish that the drug actually has an effect. On the safety side, I think that the American public can't be very confident. They can have some confidence because it turns out that most drugs are remarkably safe. But, when there are unsafe drugs, the FDA is very likely to err on the side of industry. Rarely will they keep a drug from being marketed or pull a drug off the market. A lot of this has to do with the standards that the FDA uses for safety. When they look at efficacy, they assume that the drug doesn't work and the company has to prove that the drug does work. When they look at safety it's entirely the opposite. The FDA assumes the drug is safe and now it's up to the company to prove that the drug isn't safe. Well, that's a no-brainer. What company on earth is going to try to prove that the drug isn't safe? There's no incentive for the companies to do things right. The clinical trials that are done are too small, and as a result it's very unusual to find a serious safety problem in these clinical trials. Safety flaws are discovered after the drug gets on the market.
MANETTE: I read somewhere that a drug only has to be better than a sugar pill
DR. GRAHAM: Right. The standard that the FDA uses to approve a drug is primarily "does the drug work?" That's what they call efficacy. Most often, they'll compare the drug against something called a placebo or a sugar pill. It's basically something that doesn't have a medical effect. The assumption is that the drug will be no different than the sugar pill. The FDA puts the onus on the drug company to conduct a clinical trial to show that the drug is different from a sugar pill. The way the FDA's approval standards are, the drug does not necessarily have to have a very great effect in order to be approved. The drug might lower your blood pressure by just a few millimeters of mercury, but the FDA will say we can approve it because it does lower your blood pressure. Now, would that be a benefit or are there other drugs out there - many other drugs - that patients could take instead that would lower their blood pressure by 10 or 15 or 20 millimeters? The FDA doesn't really care about that. What happens is the drug gets marketed. You've got two drugs that are out there - one drug that effectively lowers your blood pressure a substantial degree and another drug that barely lowers your blood pressure at all. The company that has that second drug markets it like it's this breakthrough medicine. It lowers your blood pressure and they have all these glitzy ads, direct-to-consumer advertising. Lots of patients and lots of doctors will use that medication. What happens in the process is these patients are actually in a sense being denied a more effective treatment because the FDA doesn't require that drugs that come on to market be at least equivalent to, or better than, the drugs that are already there. All they have to do is be better than a sugar pill.
MANETTE: When you consider the financial impact your whistle blowing has had on the pharmaceutical industry do you have any fears that your life may be in jeopardy?
DR. GRAHAM: I have tried not to think about that. In the work that I've done I've never really thought about what the financial impact would be on any particular company. I put that out of my mind because my primary concern is whether or not the drug is safe. If it's not safe, how unsafe is it and how many people are being hurt by it? In terms of when I identify an unsafe drug, to me it doesn't really matter what drug company it is. I've helped to get ten different drugs off the market, and they're from ten different drug companies. It's not a vendetta against any particular drug company. I have to hope that the drug companies don't take it personally. I'm just a scientist doing my job and I have to leave the rest to God to protect me.
MANETTE: Has anyone tried to silence you and stop you from becoming a whistleblower?
DR. GRAHAM: Prior to my Senate testimony in mid-November of 2004, there was an orchestrated campaign by senior level FDA managers to intimidate me so that I would not testify before Congress. This intimidation took several forms. One attack came from our acting Center Director who contacted the editor of the Lancet, the prestigious medical journal in the United Kingdom, and intimated to the editor that I had committed scientific misconduct and that they shouldn't publish a paper that I had written showing that Vioxx increases the risks of heart attack. This high-level FDA official never talked to me about this allegation. He just went directly to the Lancet. The second attack was from other high level FDA officials who contacted Senator Grassley's office and attempted to prevent Senator Grassley and his staff from supporting me and calling me as a witness. They knew that if they could disarm Senator Grassley that would neutralize me. The third attack came from senior FDA officials who contacted Tom Devine, my attorney at the Government Accountability Project, and attempted to convince him that he should not represent me because I was guilty of scientific misconduct; I was a bully; a demigod; and a terrible person that couldn't be trusted. These people were posing as whistleblowers themselves ratting on another whistleblower. Some of these senior level FDA officials were in my supervisory chain and are people I work for. They were involved in a coordinated attempt to discredit me and to smear my name and to prevent me from giving testimony. There's one other thing that happened the week before I testified. The Acting Commissioner of the FDA invited me to his office and offered me a job in the Commissioner' s Office to oversee the revitalization of drug safety for the FDA if I would just leave the Office of Drug Safety and come to the Commissioner' s Office. Obviously he had been tipped off by people in the Senate Finance Committee who are sympathetic to the FDA's status quo that I was going to be called as a witness. To preempt that, he offers me this job, which basically would have been exile to a fancy title with no real ability to have an impact. This was a conspiracy and it was coordinated and there was collaboration among senior level FDA officials. What a mess!
MANETTE: All of these attacks backfired on them. Tell us a little bit about that.
DR. GRAHAM: Well, Senator Grassley and his staff quickly realized that what they were saying about me was fabricated. The editor of The Lancet also realized that what the high level FDA officials were saying to him was a pack of lies. He sent emails to them saying it looked to him as if they were trying to interfere with his editorial process. He was very savvy to what these people were doing. Tom Devine, as he said publicly, was very interested in doing the right thing. He said, "We don't want to protect somebody who's a lawbreaker and who really isn't representing the truth so produce your evidence." They had no evidence because there is no evidence. But I produced my evidence. I showed him all the documentation, all the emails, and the reports that I've written. They flunked every test and I passed every test. In all of the criticism I have received relating to Vioxx and drug safety, they've never attacked the work or the science that I've done or the results that I've come to. What they've done is call me names. The ad hominem attack is the last refuge of the indefensible. They don't have an argument that's substantial. They know that they're vulnerable. They know that they've disserved the American people. The FDA is responsible for 140,000 heart attacks and 60,000 dead Americans. That's as many people as were killed in the Vietnam War. Yet the FDA points the finger at me and says, "Well, this guy's a rat, you can't trust him," but nobody is calling them to account. Congress isn't calling them to account. For the American people, it's dropped off the radar screen. They should be screaming because this can happen again.
MANETTE: On CNN with Lou Dobbs you said that there was a certain "culture" that exists at the FDA. Can you explain what you meant by that?
DR. GRAHAM: The FDA has a very peculiar culture. It runs like the army so it's very hierarchal. You have to go through the chain of command and if somebody up above you says that they want things done in a particular way well, they want it done in a particular way. The culture also views industry as the client. They're serving industry rather than the public. In fact, when a former office director for the Office of Drug Safety criticized me and tried to get me to change a report I'd written on another drug - Arava - he said to me and to a colleague who was a coauthor on this report that "industry is our client." I begged to differ with him. I said, "No, industry is not the client, it's the American people, the people who pay our taxes. That's who we're here to serve." He said, "No! Industry is our client." I ended the conversation by saying, "Well, industry may be your client, but it will never be my client." Another aspect to the culture at the FDA is that it overvalues the benefits of drugs and undervalues the risks of drugs. And so the FDA will always say to you, "Well, we're leaving this drug on the market because the benefits exceed the risks." Well, the FDA has never assessed the benefit of any drug that it's ever approved. It works on what's called efficacy. Does the drug work or not? Does it lower your blood pressure or does it lower your blood sugar? Not: Does it prolong your life? Does it prevent you from having a heart attack? Those are benefits. All they focus on is efficacy. For example, ask the FDA why on earth they didn't ban high dose Vioxx after the VIGOR Study showed in early 2000 that it increased the risk of heart attack by 500 percent? High dose Vioxx was approved for the short-term treatment of acute pain. What earthly benefit was there that exceeds a 500 percent increase in heart attack risk? Ask the FDA to produce its benefit analysis that shows that the benefits exceed the risks. It doesn't exist. The FDA has never looked at benefit. The FDA just says to the American people, "The benefits exceed the risks. Trust me. Believe me." If you held the FDA to its proof the American people would see how badly served they've been by the FDA and its culture that belittles safety in the drug companies' interest. If the FDA were to pull a drug due to safety issues, it would hurt the marketing of the drug. It might also call into question why they approved the drug in the first place. Therefore, you get this culture of cover-up, this culture of suppression, this culture of denial, and this culture that demonstrates above all else that industry is the client and not the American people.
MANETTE: Have your peers turned against you?
DR. GRAHAM: No. I've been very fortunate. Tom Devine at GAP has told me that the experience of a typical whistleblower is that they'll have the support of their peers but the peers will be so afraid of retaliation that they won't express that support in public. I've had a very different experience. I've been basically embraced by my peers as someone who has said what they want to say and what they wished they had been able to say and that they recognize as the truth. They're really proud of the fact that I've said it and they're not afraid to be seen with me. They're not afraid to work with me. I've been pretty fortunate in that way. Now with management it's been another story. Upper management avoids me and doesn't talk to me. I could be walking down the hall and I'll say hello, and they'll act like I'm not there. They don't give me interesting work assignments. They don't call me in to consult on things that I should be consulted on even though I am the senior epidemiologist in the Office of Drug Safety with more experience than any of the other people there. I'm looked up to by the scientific staff because of that expertise. Basically, I feel like I'm in the Gulag.
MANETTE: How do you cope with that going to work each day?
DR. GRAHAM: It's difficult. It's a mind game. They're hoping that I'll just become very frustrated and disillusioned and leave or that I'll slip up in some way so that they can take some sort of action against me. As Tom Devine at GAP has said, I have to be Saint David. I can't afford to make any mistakes. That's very difficult and it is a little bit discouraging. But I've been a target of retaliation in the past. You take ten drugs off the market well, no good deed goes unpunished at the FDA. I've experienced retaliation with many of those other episodes but not as severe as what I've experienced with Vioxx. This is the first time that my job was actually in jeopardy and where the FDA actually intended to fire me. That was stopped only because Senator Grassley intervened. He put the heat on the FDA and told them, "Lay off. This guy has told the truth. He's helped America. Whose side are you on?"
MANETTE: Were there any warnings that Vioxx was a problem? Did you see the disaster coming?
DR. GRAHAM: I think that I was afraid that there would be a disaster, but I only became aware of this with the publication of the VIGOR Study, which was this large clinical trial that was done that showed that Vioxx increased the risk of heart attack five fold. That study was published in November of 2000. It was written, performed, and paid for by industry. What industry concluded was not that Vioxx increases the risks of heart attack, but that the drug they were comparing it against - Naproxen - decreased the risk of heart attack. I knew that was not a sustainable argument. There was no way that Naproxen was that protective against heart attacks. Clearly Vioxx was the problem. I knew that Vioxx was on the road to becoming a blockbuster drug (20 million users). All the ingredients were there for a disaster. The FDA is responsible in so far as it could have prevented much of the damage, heart attacks, and deaths simply by banning the high dose Vioxx back in mid 2000 when they knew the results of the VIGOR Study. But the FDA did nothing for almost two years. They were "negotiating" with the company over a label. What did the label accomplish? Nothing! Before the label 17 or 18 percent of people who took Vioxx took the high dose. After the label change 17 or 18 percent were still taking the high dose. High dose use didn't change at all. People didn't read the label, and if they read the label they wouldn't know what to do anyway because it was very confusing. The right thing to do would have been to pull the high dose off the market because there is no benefit for short-term relief of acute pain that exceeds this risk. The FDA made bad decisions based on its culture and its institutionalized biases that favor industry, and as a result thousands of Americans died. Americans and Congress should be screaming bloody murder. They should be beating on the doors of the FDA demanding change.
MANETTE: It's estimated that over 200,000 people a year die from prescription drugs. Do you see this as a serious problem and do you think many of these treatments are more dangerous than the disease itself?
DR. GRAHAM: Death from adverse drug reactions is one of the leading causes of death in the United States. It turns out that most of these adverse reactions are actually what are expected in the sense that they are an extension of the drug's action. For example, we know that drugs for diabetes can lower your blood sugar. If you're more sensitive to the drug than the normal person and it lowers your blood sugar too much, causing you to have a seizure while driving your car and you get killed, well, you died from an adverse drug reaction, but it wasn't something unexpected. The blood thinner Coumadin is another example. That drug provides a benefit, but it is also responsible for probably more deaths than any single drug currently marketed. But it has a recognized benefit and there aren't other drugs to do what it does or to do what it does well. So physicians accept that there are patients who are in a serious situation and who might die without the drug, so they take it. Yes, drugs cause a lot of harm. Unfortunately, we haven't quantified the benefits. For most of these drugs it's more belief. It's faith. We have faith that they'll confer a benefit, but the FDA hasn't demonstrated that they confer a benefit. We're getting much better at quantitating the risks. In the future what we need to do is just take the risks and look hard and dispassionately at what the real benefits are. If the benefits aren't there we shouldn't be having discussions about labeling the drug. You need to weed the garden patch of drugs that aren't doing what they're supposed to do. The FDA has not been very good about that; it likes to cultivate all these weeds.
MANETTE: In a perfect world what role do you see the FDA playing in our nation's health?
DR. GRAHAM: In a perfect world, I think the FDA would need to be restructured. If it were restructured properly, I think that it could actually provide a great benefit to the public health. I would recommend several changes. First, I would separate safety and post-marketing from the pre-marketing. I would create a separate center for product safety. Actually, Senator Grassley and Dodd have recently introduced legislation to create an independent center for post-marketing safety that would serve to protect the American people from unsafe drugs. This isn't happening now. On the pre-marketing side, the FDA needs to pay greater attention to safety. They need to have larger clinical trials. They need to compare drug products against other drugs that treat the same indication rather than comparing a drug against a sugar pill. What we want in the end are drugs that actually have better benefit. The FDA also needs to determine the post-marketing benefits of a drug. I've done that for several drugs. How many people are actually benefiting? How many people are living longer versus those who are having their lives shortened? Only when you have that kind of information can you make rational decisions about a medication. The times when I've done the benefit analysis, I've been chastised, criticized and suppressed by the FDA. These benefit analyses should be done as a matter of routine. There is a lot that the FDA could do to improve, but the changes aren't going to happen on their own. Congress is going to have to make them happen. There's an expression, "the zebra doesn't change its stripes nor the leopard its spots." The FDA isn't going to change the way it does business; changes will have to be imposed from outside.
MANETTE: How you do feel about direct-to-consumer advertising?
DR. GRAHAM: Direct-to-consumer advertising in general is a great disservice to the American people. We see wonderful ads of people demonstrating their health, whether they're skating across the ice or doing their Tai chi. Madison Avenue knows that a picture is worth a thousand words, so they convey an image, a message, and it makes an impression on patients and on physicians. It creates needs or desires where there really isn't a need or a desire. There was a recent study in The Journal of The American Medical Association that showed that if patients mentioned a drug that they've seen on television to their physician they were much more likely to be prescribed that drug by the doctor. Drug companies know this. That's why they do it. Would the Vioxx disaster have been as great and as large in the absence of direct-to-consumer advertising? I submit that the numbers would have been far lower than what they were. Direct-to-consumer advertising is part of what made Vioxx a blockbuster drug. It helped to rev the market up to get people to want to use the drug. Clearly, direct-to-consumer advertising does not serve the American people well. Madison Avenue is smarter than the most intelligent American. That's why they make so much money and that's why the drug companies go to them to sell their products. We're not living in a neutral world where the information we're getting is objective and unbiased. It might be that the average American, given all the data, all the facts, and all the information in an objective way could make an intelligent, rational decision. But we don't live in that kind of world. We live in a world where what we're seeing is a visual image of these people being vital and healthy and cured of their illnesses. And it's all because of this little pill that they're taking. A patient with that condition says, "I want to be just like that person." So they go to the doctor and say, "I want that pill." Are their lives changed? Maybe some people's lives are changed, but I think most aren't.
MANETTE: What do you think people hear when they're watching the ad and after the ad they list all the possible side effects?
DR. GRAHAM: I don't think it registers. You have the visual image that conveys one message. Then you have the voice that's speaking over this pictorial being shown telling you what this drug is good for. Then at the end the auctioneer gets on and says, "You know this drug could cause.," and they rattle off 25 different things in three seconds. You're lucky if you hear anything. I don't think that people come away with it and they certainly don't come away with any sense of how likely it is to happen because the visual image overpowers anything that gets said. It's the same with the ads that appear in magazines. Companies are required to put some of the labeling in the ad. You have the ad on the one side - that's the picture. It shows this person being healthy because they take this pill. The fine print is all on the next page. People aren't going to read the fine print. It's the same thing with labeling for physicians. Physicians don't read product labels. Where do they learn about drugs? They learn about drugs from the detail person from the drug company or from other colleagues who have used the drug. They're not learning it from the labeling.
MANETTE: Do you think there is a criminal cover-up going on between the FDA and Big Pharma to approve dangerous drugs that sicken and kill Americans?
DR. GRAHAM: I have no knowledge of criminal activity and I'm sure there are legal standards for what's criminal and what's not. I do think that there is an institutional bias at the FDA that says we will look for a way to say "yes" to the approval of any drug that comes down the pipe. If a drug is so bad that they can't find a reason to approve it, they won't. But, if there is any way that they can approve the drug, they will. The way this is done is by what's called the "indication. " Why is it that you're going to take the drug? Maybe you're going to take it because you have high blood pressure. Maybe you'll take it because you have high cholesterol. That's the indication. A company may come in with a drug and want to get it approved for five different indications. One of them is a really insignificant indication that affects a very small number of people. The main indication might affect millions of people. The drug doesn't show efficacy for that major indication, but they're able to somehow or another approve the small indication. So the drug gets approved for this narrow indication, but the FDA and the drug company both know that it's going to be used for that other indication. It's going to be used "off-label." Then, the FDA turns around and says that they don't regulate the "off- label" use of drugs. No. But, they aid and abet it. They allow it to happen and in many instances "off-label" use of a drug product is a public health threat. The FDA has a responsibility to protect the public health. The FDA should be intervening, but they don't. In my own experience I have seen multiple examples where I've heard people say, "We can't ask a company to put that in the labeling because the company will say no." Or, "We can't do that because that will decrease their marketing. We've got to try to approve this drug. Let's see if we can give them this small indication. At least it's giving them something. You've got to find a way to say yes." That is the typical attitude of the FDA culture. I think Congress is partially responsible for that because when they issued the PDUFA, the Prescription Drug User Fee Act, what they were really saying was, "We want you to review these drug applications more quickly because you're keeping lifesaving medicines from the American people." That's the line they were fed by Big Pharma. So they pressure the FDA and the FDA gets the message. It's a really pernicious system. I think it's unfortunate. There are many people from the FDA who have examples that they unfortunately can't talk about. They'd lose their job and maybe get thrown in prison because you can't discuss confidential and trade secret information. But the fact is these things happen at the FDA and there have been multiple examples in the past where one could see evidence of that.
MANETTE: Did your faith as a devout Roman Catholic play any role in the decisions you made to put your career on the line to report the truth?
DR. GRAHAM: It did in so far as my faith forms my conscience. It's sort of my sense of what's right and what's wrong and what I am and am not responsible for. I was in a situation here with Vioxx where I was invited by Senator Grassley's office to testify. I could have told them no, but then they would have subpoenaed me. So of course I went peaceably. I was faced with this dilemma. Should I lay it on the line and tell them the way it really is or do I kind of downplay it? There are ways of doing that. What I concluded was that I'm now being given the opportunity to tell the truth to the people who are in a position to actually make a difference. I can't make a difference. I can't change the FDA, but Congress can. If I don't tell them the truth, then I'm now responsible, in part, for future deaths. I don't want to become a co-conspirator with the FDA in what happens with Vioxx because tens of thousands of people were injured or killed because of the FDA's disregard for safety. If I keep quiet about that, now I'm part of the problem. I'm one of them, and at that point then my conscience asks me, "You know what the truth is, are you going to speak it or aren't you?" So I went ahead and did that and prayed that it all works out well for me personally. That I have a job and I'll be able to support my family, that I'm protected from retaliation, that maybe some good will come out of that. My faith plays a role, but it wasn't a direct teaching of the church. You have to do x, y and z, but it's the faith as I've internalized it. My conscience is formed by the voice of Christ speaking internally to me. That's what the conscience is; it's the voice of God speaking to each and every one of us about what's right and what's wrong. I knew what was right. If I walked away from that nobody else would have to do anything. I'd be beating myself up because my conscience would condemn me. So yes, faith plays a part in every thing that I do. It's not saying I'm a saint, because I'm not. But I can't separate who I am from my religious faith. It's all part of the same person.
MANETTE: Do you think Congress genuinely wants to fix the problems at the FDA or are too many politicians influenced by the pharmaceutical industry?
DR. GRAHAM: I don't know what Congress will do in the end. My hope is that they will act decisively to reform the FDA and make the American people safer by having strong post-marketing. Will that happen or not? I don't know. I think there are many people in Congress who see this as a serious problem and who very much want to see a change. I think at the same time there are other people who don't think it's such a bad problem, and many of those people honestly believe that. For those people I'd say they haven't seen the evidence so they don't really understand how bad the problem is. There are undoubtedly some people who are influenced by industry. Does that influence their judgment in the end? I don't know. They'd probably say no, it doesn't. Maybe at a conscious level it doesn't. But we have the same phenomenon in the scientific world where we look at research studies that are funded by industry and studies that are funded by government, by National Institutes of Health or the Medical Research Council in the United Kingdom. Multiple studies have been done that have shown that if your study is funded by industry you are much likelier - about five times more likely - to come up with the result that's favorable to the drug company than if your study on the same subject is funded by an independent body unrelated to the company. Now, are the researchers who did this study biased? Are they consciously cheating and manipulating the data and everything else? No. I don't think that's happening at all, but the fact is if the study is funded by industry it's much more likely to be favorable to industry. Without attributing bad motivations to the scientists doing those studies all I can do is point to a strong correlation. With Congress I would be concerned that there could be a strong correlation there because Pharma is very bright. They fund as many politicians as they can. They get to the Republicans and the Democrats. Look at the funding on the major committees, the Health, Education, Labor and Pension Committee in the Senate or the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee in the House. The Wall Street Journal reported recently that many people on these committees are funded by industry to a substantial degree. Industry knows how to exercise influence. What we have to do is overcome that influence with evidence, and then rely on the fact that at the end of the day the Congress will do what's best for the American people. Will that happen? I don't know because then it gets embroiled in politics. You know, Republicans versus Democrats, the left versus the right, conservatives versus liberals. Yet, what we're talking about is public health and public health is nonpartisan. I can say this with certainty. For every member of the House of Representatives somebody in their district died because of Vioxx. Somebody in their district had a heart attack because of Vioxx. For every Senator in the Senate, many more people in their state died because of Vioxx or had a heart attack because of Vioxx. It doesn't matter whether it's a red state or a blue state. Those are human beings and what we're talking about is public health. What I'm hoping is that Congress will respond. There is a problem and the evidence is overwhelming, but we'll just have to wait and see.
MANETTE: What are you thoughts on President Bush's attempt to pass tort reform, which would protect most pharmaceutical companies from lawsuits except in the most egregious cases?
DR. GRAHAM: I think it's dangerous and wrong for the following reasons. We already have an FDA that's been neutralized by industry and sees industry as its client. The Center for Drug Evaluation and The Office of New Drugs dominates drug safety so that the drug safety is not independent. Drug safety can't protect the American people. So government now isn't going to protect the average citizen from the consequences of unsafe drugs. The only alternative they have left is the legal system - the tort system. It's not a wonderful system. It would be much better if we had effective post-marketing regulation so that we could get bad drugs off the market before they hurt more people, but that's been neutralized. All that's left to people now is the courts. That's the only way we have of getting companies to change their behavior. What tort reform will do is remove that threat as well. It's basically giving companies immunity because now the people who are injured by the drugs can't recover damages that might actually mean something to industry. I mean $250,000 for damages; they blow that in one ad campaign. To them that's nothing. But a lawsuit for multiple millions of dollars has more of an impact. Now, is that optimal? No. But the fact is that since we have a regulatory agency that doesn't regulate and we have a public health agency that doesn't protect the public, we have thousands of people who are being injured by products that the FDA knows are unsafe. The FDA knew there was a problem with Vioxx. They knew it was a big problem back in mid 2000 yet did nothing about it. There has to be a system in place that reins companies in. If the FDA isn't going to exercise control over companies, then who will? How will it happen? I don't think that working through the courts and lawsuits is a particularly effective way of doing it; but it's the only recourse we have now, and that will be removed as well. You can demonize the trial lawyers but I think that there are patients who are severely injured by drugs. The defense is, "It's on the labels so we're protected." The problem is that nobody reads the labels so how do they protect anyone? The FDA should be making those decisions.
MANETTE: What can you tell us about all the antidepressants on the market that millions of children are taking?
DR. GRAHAM: In early 2004, SSRI antidepressants and suicidal behavior was a big safety issue. The FDA had suppressed a report written by a colleague of mine in drug safety and had prevented him from presenting this information in an advisory committee meeting. That information leaked to the media, embarrassing the FDA because it had been caught suppressing very important information - that most of the antidepressants don't work for treating children. Someone in my supervisory chain initiated a criminal investigation to identify the person who had leaked this information to the media. It turns out that the investigation ordered by these FDA officials was illegal. They broke federal laws - at least two or three federal laws - in ordering this investigation. I think it's well established that depression is very common in adolescence. With the antidepressants that we have on the market right now only one of them has been shown to work in children and that's Fluoxetine or Prozac. All the other SSRI antidepressants are no better than sugar pills. However, if you were to read the labeling for these drugs it doesn't point that fact out so patients think one SSRI is as good as another. This is another way that the FDA has betrayed the American public and has betrayed the public health. With the SSRI and antidepressants what the FDA should have insisted on was a signed informed consent at the time a child was going to be treated. That informed consent would say three things. One, these are the antidepressants that are available. Only Fluoxetine has been shown to work for depression in children. All the other drugs are no better than placebo. That's point two. No better than placebos. No better than sugar pills. Third, all of these drugs appear to have the ability to increase the risk of suicidal behavior. As a parent, if I see that in writing and the psychiatrist or GP is going to write the prescription and put my child on some drug other than Fluoxetine, I can say, "Doc, why are you putting my child on a drug that doesn't work in kids." The FDA didn't want patients to have that information so they refused to have signed informed consent. The companies didn't want the patients to have that information because all of a sudden the "off-label" use of these drugs would dry up. So whose interest was being served there?
MANETTE: How do you feel about taking the approval process out of the hands of the FDA?
DR. GRAHAM: Well, where would you put it? If you put it somewhere else they're going to eventually become co-opted the way the FDA has been co-opted. I think the most that we could probably hope for is to try to disassociate the industry pressures from the approval decision. You have to change the culture of the organization, and you have to change the incentives in the organization. The culture and the incentives that the FDA operates by would have to be changed, and Congress can do that through legislation and by establishing different standards for how a drug gets approved. Not only do you have to show that the drug is effective, but you've got to show that it works as well or better than other drugs that treat that indication. You've got to prove to me that the drug is safe, not that the drug is harmful because you're never going to prove to me that the drug is harmful. You set up stringent standards of evidence that might lead to the approval of safe drugs that actually have benefits to the population. Then pair that up with an independent post marketing regulation. Currently, the pre-market people who approve the drug decide what happens after it's on the market. If the drug needs to come off the market, they're the ones who have to say yes at the end of the day. The people at the FDA who approved the drug, the Office of New Drugs, they are the single greatest obstacle when it comes to removing unsafe drugs from the market. I can vouch for that from personal experience. What you have to do is you have to take that responsibility and power away from them and put it with the group who sees their mission as serving the public and protecting the public health from unsafe drugs. I think if you do those two things you'd be a long way towards getting the FDA on the right footing. Also, it would probably be beneficial not to have the FDA's funding come from industry. He who pays the piper calls the tune, and we now have a captured agency. Industry underwrites more than 50 percent of the Center for Drug Evaluation's budget. When industry yanks the chain whose neck is going to get tugged? The Center for Drug Evaluation! If industry isn't happy with them and the funding dries up what are we going to do? We're going to have to let half our people go. The program is going to shrink. Congress is going to be jumping up and down on our back. So it's a captured agency and America is not well served when industry is calling all the shots. Yes, industry has a right to make a legitimate profit from marketing products that help the American people. But you shouldn't have a situation that just basically leaves the American public defenseless. And that's what we have right now. We're virtually defenseless.
MANETTE: Are there other Vioxx's out there? Do you think this will repeat itself at this high profile level?
DR. GRAHAM: At this current moment I don't think there are other drugs out there that are as bad as Vioxx in terms of the enormous numbers of people that were hurt. During my Senate testimony I did mention that there were five other drugs that I thought the FDA really needed to reevaluate because in my estimation the benefit to risk was misjudged. After I named those five drugs the FDA was in the media saying that I did junk science and that these drugs were safe and effective and that I was a crackpot. However, recently the FDA announced that they were going to take Bextra off the market. Well, Bextra was one of the five I mentioned. They announced that with Acutane they were going to impose a restricted distribution system. Well, I had recommended a restricted distribution system 15 years ago. The major problem with Acutane is that it's just so widely overused that it causes an enormous amount of potential harm to pregnancy exposure. If we restricted the use of the drug to the small number of women who really need it each year, the problem would be pretty much resolved. But the FDA didn't want to do that because it would interfere with company profits. If you restrict the distribution and only one-tenth of the people who are getting it now are getting it tomorrow, profit will drop 90 percent. Of course companies aren't going to go along with that and the FDA isn't going to do anything that's going to harm corporate profit. After my Senate testimony the FDA announced that they can look at other drugs - not only the other three of the five that I mentioned. There are other drugs on the market that I prefer not to talk about that the FDA knows are killing people. Ten or 100 people a year are dying because of the use of a particular drug or being hospitalized. Hundreds or maybe thousands of people are being hospitalized each year. For some of those drugs the benefits do exceed the risks. For others, it's clear that more could and should be done and maybe that means restricting the distribution of the drug's use or maybe it means banning an indication for the drug saying the drug should not be used for particular indications. Maybe it would be something like with the SSRI's where I believe there should be signed informed consent so that parents will know that the drug the doctor is prescribing for their son or daughter actually doesn't work in children. I think that there are many things that can be done that haven't been done. There are other unsafe drugs out there, and the nature of our business is that a drug could be approved tomorrow that turns out to be the next Vioxx and we won't know until it happens. Then the question is, how quickly do we identify the problem and how quickly do we take effective action against it? We're pretty good at identifying these problems quickly. Where the FDA falls flat on its face is that there is a long period of time in which it does nothing. Then what it normally does is woefully inadequate and ineffective and as a result the body count mounts and that needs to be changed. Maybe Congress will change that.
MANETTE: Let's talk about incentives. When you say incentives what do you mean? For example, working at the FDA, is their pay somehow based on how many drugs they approve?
DR. GRAHAM: Currently, the performance evaluations for managers at the FDA are built around the drug review. How many reviews did they get done? Did they meet their PDUFA deadlines? It looks bad if you miss your PDUFA deadlines. The unspoken mores - what's the expected - is that you're going to approve as many of these drugs as you can. There has to be an overwhelming reason for you not to approve. Frequently what will happen is that these medical officers in their review will recommend that a drug not be approved and they get overruled by the higher ups because the higher ups are answering to a different set of incentives. You have to change that. A lot of that comes from the leaders. What I want to see is does the drug really make a difference? Is it beneficial? There are many classes of drugs where we've got 10 or 15 members of that class. They all lower your blood pressure. They all lower your cholesterol. Another one comes along and the FDA feels its obligation to approve it. Why? Maybe the standard should be that for the drugs that come later in a class, they've got to show that they're actually better than the drugs on the market because we've already got these other drugs that work. That would create incentives maybe within industry to develop drugs that are better than the ones that are already there. Currently, the way the incentives are for industry, it's safer to do a "me too" drug, another drug in the same class.
MANETTE: Do you think that the FDA should not be partially funded by industry?
DR. GRAHAM: I think that PDUFA funding for the FDA is a mistake.
MANETTE: Can you explain that a little more clearly because most people don't know what PDUFA funding is?
DR. GRAHAM: The drug companies pay a substantial amount of money to the FDA at the time that they bring a drug application for approval in order for the FDA to review the drug. Basically it's a tax. It's a fee. Industry pays the fee, and the FDA will review the drug application. But the real expectation is from the company: "We've paid our money, now approve our drug." That's basically how the FDA reacts as well. I think that the funding for the FDA should be independent of the industry that it's regulating and I think in the scientific field there's good evidence to support this notion. Industry money is influencing the decisions that get made, and it creates this incentive structure. You have this culture, you have these expectations, you have pressure from Congress. All of them come to a head at the FDA and all of those incentives are in the direction of "approve the drug." That's what happens so I believe that the FDA is unduly influenced by industry and that undue influence is in part the result of industry money funding the FDA operations.
MANETTE: Dr. Graham, thank you for your commitment to your convictions and for sharing insights that drove you to save many lives.
DR. GRAHAM: You're welcome. I hope I've helped.
(Emphasis by Justice Lover)
03 September 2007
MORE ON THE BRIBES THE SHRINKS GET FROM BIG PHARMA, AND SOME OFFICIAL STATISTICS
by Justice Lover
The article below was emailed to me today by Lynn Michaels of SSRI-Research, and of tapersafely.org. Written by American investigative journalist, Evelyn Pringle, her article proves once more the criminal partnership between psychiatry and Big Pharma. The shrinks prescribe "generously" the psychiatric poisons produced by Big Pharma, and get in return "generous" bribes from Big Pharma. The bribe taking by the shrinks is no longer secretive, as it is done in open daylight, with complete zionist-type impunity. The reason for it is obvious : the shrinks have nothing to fear as the entire ruling class and the entire state apparatus are supporting them.
Here is the article/report :
*http://www.lawyersandsettlements.com/articles/01347/doctors-paid-to-prescribe-drugs.html*
Influence peddling in the field of psychiatry is out of control
by Evelyn Pringle
Washington, DC
September 2, 2007
An analysis of Minnesota disclosure records by the Pioneer Press and the consumer watchdog group Public Citizen showsthat, between 2002 and 2006, 187 Minnesota doctors received payments from drug companies worth a grand total of $7.38 million. No other field of medicine even comes close to that amount. The next highest specialty was neurology, with 99 doctors receiving $2.89million, according to the analysis.
In psychiatry, drug makers underwrite decision makers at every levelof care, according to a May 10, 2007, report by Gardiner Harris inthe New York Times. "They pay doctors who prescribe and recommend drugs, teach about the underlying diseases, perform studies and write guidelines that other doctors often feel bound to follow," Mr Harris states.He determined that, between 2000 and 2005, payments to Minnesota psychiatrists increased more than six-fold.
The Times also analyzed Minnesota Medicaid records, and the report provides details on how the financial relationships between doctors and drug makers have played a major role in the growing use of atypical antipsychotics with children.The drugs include Zyprexa, marketed by Eli Lilly; Seroquel, byAstraZeneca; Risperdal, marketed by Johnson & Johnson subsidiary Janssen; Geodon, sold by Pfizer, and Abilify, from Bristol-MyersSquibb.The drugs are the most powerful psychiatric drugs on the market and were FDA-approved only to treat adults with schizophrenia or adults in the manic phase of bipolar disorder.Over the past three years, every atypical maker has come under firefor influencing doctors to prescribe the drugs off-label to childrenfor uses never approved by the FDA, and they are all currently involved in litigation related to the illegal promotion and sales of the drugs.
A study at Columbia University on the use of antipsychotics with children found that only a small percentage of the kids on the drugshad psychotic disorders and that, most of the time, the drugs were prescribed to treat mood disorders, depression, anxiety and ADHD.Mr Harris reports that the Minnesota psychiatrists who received the most money from the drug's makers tended to prescribe them to kids the most often. On average, psychiatrists who received at least$5,000 between 2000 to 2005 appeared to have written 3 times as many prescriptions for kids as psychiatrists who received less or no money, the Times notes.
The rising Medicaid costs for atypicals also coincides with the rising payments to doctors. For instance, Minnesota Medicaid spent roughly $521,000 in 2000 on antipsychotics for children; but in 2005, the cost was more than $7 million, or a 14-fold increase.In June 2007, Vermont officials revealed that disclosure records in that state showed payments to psychiatrists had more than doubled in one year, from an average of $20,835 in 2005, to an average $45,692in 2005. There, too, antipsychotics were among the highest Medicaiddrug expense.The drug makers have shrinks in their pockets all over the country.However, only 3 states, Minnesota, Vermont and Maine, have laws that require companies to disclose their payments.
The media's recent reporting that members of a Minnesota advisory panel who decide which drugs will be covered by the state's Medicaid program are on the take, adds a new chapter to an old book. This same scam has been used in states all over the country since the late 1990's, and if not for two relentless fraud investigators from Pennsylvania, the fact that the formulary committees are bought andpaid for by the pharmaceutical industry might have remained a secret for all time.
The fact that drug makers were bribing state policy makers and members of advisory panels with the ultimate goal of capturing the lucrative Medicaid customer base to increase the sale of psychiatric drugs was first discovered several years ago by Allen Jones, while he was a federal fraud investigator in the Pennsylvania Office of Inspector General Bureau of Special Investigations, and Dr StefanKruszewski, a pediatric psychiatrist by trade, who was hired by the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare to review the quality of care provided to persons covered by state programs.According to Mr Jones, "the pharmaceutical industry has systematically infiltrated the mental health service delivery system of this nation."
"The situation uncovered in Minnesota, " he says, "will be exposed in every state that demonstrates the political will to force transparency through full disclosure of industry payments to decision makers."
"Thinly veiled bribery of public officials by the pharmaceutical industry is a pervasive and deeply rooted problem," he warns.During his investigation in Pennsylvania, Mr Jones found a drug money trail to key policy officials who controlled the Medicaidpreferred drug list in that state, which eventually led him to Texas and an elaborate scheme that involved influential psychiatrists,including many who served as professors at Texas universities, and state policy officials who developed the preferred drug list known as the "Texas Medication Algorithm Project (TMAP)".Mr Jones calls the Texas panel the "most transparent example" of industry influence, because all of the project directors had financial ties to the drug makers. It was put into effect, he says,by buying off doctors who were considered "opinion leaders" in the psychiatric field, along with state policy makers in positions of authority with control over the preferred drug lists.
For instance, Dr John Rush, from the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, served as the TMAP Project Co-Director with Dr Steven Shon, the Medical Director of the Texas Department of State Health Services.Mr Jones determined that Dr Rush had received grants, research funding and served as a consultant and speaker for atypical makers Bristol-Myers, Janssen, Eli Lilly and Pfizer.The director for the schizophrenia module was Dr Alexander Miller,of the University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, who also served as a consultant, advisory board member and speaker for AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers, Lilly, Janssen and Pfizer. (http://www.wpic.%20pitt.edu/%20STANLEY/4thbipco%20nf/introduction ).
Research on the Texas Medication Algorithm Project(TMAP) Schizophrenia Algorithms partially supported by Abbott,Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Forest Laboratories,Glaxo-Wellcome, Janssen Pharmaceutica, Novartis, Pfizer, SmithKlineBeecham, Wyeth-Ayerst (pharmaceutical division of American HomeProducts), and AstraZeneca. (J Clin Psychiatry. 1999;60:649- 57.;http://www.psychiatrist.com/pasttoc/toc/october1999/ab109901.htm;accessed 12/30/03) - Vince>** **http://psychiatry.%20uthscsa.edu/%20Searches/%20SearchProfileDat%20a.asp?ID=accessed 3/4/05) Research on the efficacy and tolerability ofZyprexa (olanzapine) , Quetiapine (seroquel) and Risperdal(risperidone) in the treatment of first episode psychosis funded byAstraZeneca. (http://psychiatry.uthscsa.edu/Searches/SearchProjectsData.asp?ProID=122;accessed 2/23/04) Research on the efficacy and safety of Depakote(divalproex) in the treatment of the manic phase of bipolar disordersupported by Abbott Laboratories. (http://psychiatry.uthscsa.edu/Searches/SearchProjectsData.asp?ProID=92;accessed 2/23/04) Received financial support from AstraZenecaPharmaceuticals, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, JanssenPharmaceutica, and Eli Lilly. (Am J Psychiatry. 2004;161:1334- 49.)Research on the Texas Medication Algorithm Project (TMAP)schizophrenia algorithms partially supported by Abbott Laboratories,Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Forest Laboratories, Glaxo-Wellcome(now GlaxoSmithKline) , Janssen Pharmaceutica, NovartisPharmaceuticals, Pfizer, SmithKline Beecham, Wyeth-Ayerst(pharmaceutical division of American Home Products), andAstraZeneca. (J Clin Psychiatry. 1999;60:649- 57.) The director of the bipolar disorder module was Dr Patricia Suppes,from the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas,who also received grants and research funding and served as a consultant for AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers, Janssen, Lilly and Pfizer.
Other University of Texas professors who participated in the development of TMAP included psychiatrist Dr Graham Emslie, who has received grants and research support and served as a consultant and member of speakers' bureaus for atypical makers Bristol-Myers, Lillyand Pfizer.*http://www3. utsouthwestern. edu/psychiatry/ facbios/emslie. htm;accessed 6/16/03) - Vince>*Another professor, Dr Karen Dineen Wagner, was a member of the speakers' bureaus for Janssen, Lilly and Pfizer, and a member of a scientific advisory board for Lilly, Janssen and Pfizer and received research funding from the same 3 atypical makers and Bristol-Myers.
Once the formulary was in place in Texas, the drug makers paid Dr Shon to travel around the country to convince policy makers in other states to use the TMAP model for their Medicaid approved list. Pennsylvania adopted the program and called it PennMap. Mr Jones found that Janssen paid for Dr Shon to fly to Pennsylvania two times, and a document he obtained shows that the grant covering Dr Shon's travel expenses was "to expand atypical usage." The New York Times reported that some payments were made through patient advocacy groups instead of directly to state officials. In 2002, Janssen gave the Olympia, WA, chapter of the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill a grant of $15,000 to fly Dr Shon and other Texas officials to speak to state legislators about the formulary, the Times found.
While reviewing the medical care provided to patients under state care in the summer of 2002, Dr Kruszewski immediately recognized that a mass drugging-for-profit scheme involving Medicaid patients,especially children, was taking place in Pennsylvania, and that several patients had died.In one case, where the child fortunately survived, Dr Kruszewski found that the girl had been placed on 11 psychiatric drugs at the same time, including 5 antipsychotics, without ever being diagnosed with a psychiatric disorder. She exhibited impulsive behaviors and was mentally disabled, but there was nothing in the records to justify the use of all these drugs, he says. According Dr Kruszewski, the atypicals are associated with an increased the risk of obesity which can lead to diabetes type II,hypertension, heart attacks and stroke. The weight of the girl who was on 11 drugs had ballooned from 106 pounds to 194, Dr Kruszewski found.In reviewing patient records, he found a state-wide pattern wherepatients who were not mentally ill were placed on cocktails of 3 or more expensive psychiatric drugs at the same time and kept on the cocktails indefinitely and if patients experienced side effects from the original medications, more drugs were added to the mix.
The sheer greed evidenced by the mass drugging of patients on Medicaid all over the US, similar to that discovered by DrKruszewski in Pennsylvania, has forced state Medicaid programs to either put a stop to the drug maker's encouragement of the rampant prescribing of atypicals or go broke.For instance, Texas Medicaid was charged nearly $15 million for antipsychotics for foster children in 2004, according to theDecember 2006 Special Report, "Foster Children - Texas Health CareClaims Study."http://www.window.state.tx.us/specialrpt/hccfoster06/
In fact,Texas spent more money on antipsychotics for foster kids than anyother class of drugs, and the report said, Zyprexa, Seroquel and Risperdal typically cost an average of $229 per prescription.The report also pointed out that the drugs were not approved for children, and listed the health risks associated with the atypicalsand stated, in part:"These very powerful and expensive medications were prescribed despite a lack of studies demonstrating their safety and efficacy in children. There are questions regarding the long-term safety of these medications; documented serious side-effects include menstrual irregularities, gynecomastia, galactorrhea, possible pituitarytumors, hyperglycemia, type 2 diabetes and liver functionabnormalities. "In a May 10, 2006 Press Release, Comptroller Carole Keeton Strayhorn said she was "particularly concerned" about the use and side effectsof the atypical antipsychotic drugs."A clear pattern of overmedication and potential misdiagnosis of foster children is evident," she said and the "potential for Medicaid fraud and the possibility of long-term health problems inthese children is alarming."
A USA TODAY study of FDA data from 2000 to 2004 found 45 pediatric deaths in which atypicals were the primary suspect, with at least six related to diabetes and other causes ranged from heart and pulmonary problems to suicide, choking and liver failure. A 15-year-old boy died of an overdose, an 8-year-old boy died of cardiac arrest, a 13-year-old girl experienced diabetic ketoacidosis, a deficiency of insulin, and the youngest death was a 4-year-old boy whose symptoms suggested diabetes complications, who was also taking 10 other drugs. A July 29, 2007, report by Robert Farley in the St Petersburg Times revealed that in the last 7 years, the cost to Florida tax payers for atypicals prescribed to children jumped nearly 500%, from $4.7million to $27.5 million, and on average in 2006, it cost the state nearly $1,800 for each child on atypicals.Mr Farley reported that last year, more than 18,000 kids on Medicaid were prescribed antipsychotics including 1,100 under the age of 6 and some as young as 3, even though guidelines from the Florida Agency for Health Care Administration say children younger than 6 should generally not be given psychotropic drugs and they should"only be considered under the most extraordinary of circumstances. "According to Mr Jones, these new "miracle" drugs have proven to be no better than generics, and, "it is a statistical certainty that many lives have been lost and many others irreparably damaged."
In September 2005, the New England Journal of Medicine, reported that although Zyprexa was the most expensive and most prescribed antipsychotic, it was the only atypical that worked slightly better than the 40-year-old generic drug<http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/NEJMoa051688>,perphenazine, but the NEJM also noted that Zyprexa had more side effects. The cost for a 3 month supply of Zyprexa in September, 2005at drugstore.com, was $1,500, while a 3 month supply of perphenazine was only $135.And the atypical drugging for profit scheme is not limited to theMedicaid population. An analysis revealed in March 2006 byinvestment firm CIBC World Markets showed that in the previous 12months, the top 20 drugs in managed care spending included Zyprexawith $2.6 billion, Seroquel at $2.5 billion, and Risperdal was $2.2billion.
The corrupt psychiatrists in Minnesota and other states might want to think about what is happening to "professionals" who were involved in similar behavior in Pennsylvania and Texas.In Pennsylvania, the state Ethics Commission determined that Pfizer operated its own "Advisory Boards," comprised exclusively of formulary committee chairmen from various states who received honorariums and all-expense-paid trips from Pfizer at the same time they were evaluating Pfizer drugs for use in state mental healthsystems.The Commission determined that Steven Fiorello, Director of thePharmacy Services in the Office of Mental Health and Substance AbuseServices in Pennsylvania, and Chairman of the Formulary Committee,had used his office to obtain private pecuniary benefits for his participation in Pfizer's advisory board meetings in New York when he received honoraria for his participation in the meetings, as wellas for his presentations at conferences in Orlando, Florida andDublin, Ireland.Mr Jones found that Mr Fiorello traveled to Pfizer's worldheadquarters in Manhattan 3 times to participate in advisory boardmeetings, with all expenses paid for by Pfizer, including lodging at Manhattan's Millennium Hotel and he was paid an honorarium of $1,000for attending each meeting.The Commission also found a number of additional violations,including Mr Fiorello's receipt of honoraria from other companiesfor whom he made presentations in connection with his publicemployment, and ordered Mr Fiorello to make restitution of$27,268.50 and referred the case to the Pennsylvania AttorneyGeneral's Public Corruption Unit.On November 21, 2006, Mr Fiorello was charged with two counts ofconflicts of interest, one count of accepting honoraria and onecount of failing to disclose income on annual Statements ofFinancial Interests. In a press release, Pennsylvania' s AttorneyGeneral stated: "As part of his responsibilities, Fiorello served on a committee that decided which drugs would be used for mental health treatment in all state hospitals - decisions which guided more than$9 million in annual drug purchases by the Commonwealth. "He also noted that, "while Fiorello was helping to guide the purchase of various drugs by the Department of Public Welfare, he was also paid more than $12,000 by drug companies for appearances,speeches and presentations, as well as service on a drug companyadvisory board."
Down in Texas, Dr Shon was fired last fall after the state'sattorney general found that Janssen had improperly influenced him to list Risperdal on the state formulary. An October 9, 2006, letter to Dr Shon from Dr Charles Bell, acting commissioner of the Texas Department of State Health Services, obtained by the AustinAmerican-Statesman states: "It is my determination that your services are no longer required by the Department.I am, therefore, terminating you as the Medical Director forBehavioral Health effective immediately ", Dr Bell wrote.In addition, Texas is now closely monitoring the prescribing of psychiatric drugs to Medicaid patients, and several psychiatrists have been ordered to reimburse the state for the cost of the drugs they prescribed to foster children.Texas and Pennsylvania have also recently filed Medicaid fraudlawsuits against the makers of Zyprexa, Risperdal and Seroquel,seeking to recoup the cost of the drugs prescribed to Medicaid patients, as well as the medical care for persons injured by the drugs.
(Emphasis by Justice Lover)
by Justice Lover
The article below was emailed to me today by Lynn Michaels of SSRI-Research, and of tapersafely.org. Written by American investigative journalist, Evelyn Pringle, her article proves once more the criminal partnership between psychiatry and Big Pharma. The shrinks prescribe "generously" the psychiatric poisons produced by Big Pharma, and get in return "generous" bribes from Big Pharma. The bribe taking by the shrinks is no longer secretive, as it is done in open daylight, with complete zionist-type impunity. The reason for it is obvious : the shrinks have nothing to fear as the entire ruling class and the entire state apparatus are supporting them.
Here is the article/report :
*http://www.lawyersandsettlements.com/articles/01347/doctors-paid-to-prescribe-drugs.html*
Influence peddling in the field of psychiatry is out of control
by Evelyn Pringle
Washington, DC
September 2, 2007
An analysis of Minnesota disclosure records by the Pioneer Press and the consumer watchdog group Public Citizen showsthat, between 2002 and 2006, 187 Minnesota doctors received payments from drug companies worth a grand total of $7.38 million. No other field of medicine even comes close to that amount. The next highest specialty was neurology, with 99 doctors receiving $2.89million, according to the analysis.
In psychiatry, drug makers underwrite decision makers at every levelof care, according to a May 10, 2007, report by Gardiner Harris inthe New York Times. "They pay doctors who prescribe and recommend drugs, teach about the underlying diseases, perform studies and write guidelines that other doctors often feel bound to follow," Mr Harris states.He determined that, between 2000 and 2005, payments to Minnesota psychiatrists increased more than six-fold.
The Times also analyzed Minnesota Medicaid records, and the report provides details on how the financial relationships between doctors and drug makers have played a major role in the growing use of atypical antipsychotics with children.The drugs include Zyprexa, marketed by Eli Lilly; Seroquel, byAstraZeneca; Risperdal, marketed by Johnson & Johnson subsidiary Janssen; Geodon, sold by Pfizer, and Abilify, from Bristol-MyersSquibb.The drugs are the most powerful psychiatric drugs on the market and were FDA-approved only to treat adults with schizophrenia or adults in the manic phase of bipolar disorder.Over the past three years, every atypical maker has come under firefor influencing doctors to prescribe the drugs off-label to childrenfor uses never approved by the FDA, and they are all currently involved in litigation related to the illegal promotion and sales of the drugs.
A study at Columbia University on the use of antipsychotics with children found that only a small percentage of the kids on the drugshad psychotic disorders and that, most of the time, the drugs were prescribed to treat mood disorders, depression, anxiety and ADHD.Mr Harris reports that the Minnesota psychiatrists who received the most money from the drug's makers tended to prescribe them to kids the most often. On average, psychiatrists who received at least$5,000 between 2000 to 2005 appeared to have written 3 times as many prescriptions for kids as psychiatrists who received less or no money, the Times notes.
The rising Medicaid costs for atypicals also coincides with the rising payments to doctors. For instance, Minnesota Medicaid spent roughly $521,000 in 2000 on antipsychotics for children; but in 2005, the cost was more than $7 million, or a 14-fold increase.In June 2007, Vermont officials revealed that disclosure records in that state showed payments to psychiatrists had more than doubled in one year, from an average of $20,835 in 2005, to an average $45,692in 2005. There, too, antipsychotics were among the highest Medicaiddrug expense.The drug makers have shrinks in their pockets all over the country.However, only 3 states, Minnesota, Vermont and Maine, have laws that require companies to disclose their payments.
The media's recent reporting that members of a Minnesota advisory panel who decide which drugs will be covered by the state's Medicaid program are on the take, adds a new chapter to an old book. This same scam has been used in states all over the country since the late 1990's, and if not for two relentless fraud investigators from Pennsylvania, the fact that the formulary committees are bought andpaid for by the pharmaceutical industry might have remained a secret for all time.
The fact that drug makers were bribing state policy makers and members of advisory panels with the ultimate goal of capturing the lucrative Medicaid customer base to increase the sale of psychiatric drugs was first discovered several years ago by Allen Jones, while he was a federal fraud investigator in the Pennsylvania Office of Inspector General Bureau of Special Investigations, and Dr StefanKruszewski, a pediatric psychiatrist by trade, who was hired by the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare to review the quality of care provided to persons covered by state programs.According to Mr Jones, "the pharmaceutical industry has systematically infiltrated the mental health service delivery system of this nation."
"The situation uncovered in Minnesota, " he says, "will be exposed in every state that demonstrates the political will to force transparency through full disclosure of industry payments to decision makers."
"Thinly veiled bribery of public officials by the pharmaceutical industry is a pervasive and deeply rooted problem," he warns.During his investigation in Pennsylvania, Mr Jones found a drug money trail to key policy officials who controlled the Medicaidpreferred drug list in that state, which eventually led him to Texas and an elaborate scheme that involved influential psychiatrists,including many who served as professors at Texas universities, and state policy officials who developed the preferred drug list known as the "Texas Medication Algorithm Project (TMAP)".Mr Jones calls the Texas panel the "most transparent example" of industry influence, because all of the project directors had financial ties to the drug makers. It was put into effect, he says,by buying off doctors who were considered "opinion leaders" in the psychiatric field, along with state policy makers in positions of authority with control over the preferred drug lists.
For instance, Dr John Rush, from the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, served as the TMAP Project Co-Director with Dr Steven Shon, the Medical Director of the Texas Department of State Health Services.Mr Jones determined that Dr Rush had received grants, research funding and served as a consultant and speaker for atypical makers Bristol-Myers, Janssen, Eli Lilly and Pfizer.The director for the schizophrenia module was Dr Alexander Miller,of the University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, who also served as a consultant, advisory board member and speaker for AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers, Lilly, Janssen and Pfizer. (
Research on the Texas Medication Algorithm Project(TMAP) Schizophrenia Algorithms partially supported by Abbott,Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Forest Laboratories,Glaxo-Wellcome, Janssen Pharmaceutica, Novartis, Pfizer, SmithKlineBeecham, Wyeth-Ayerst (pharmaceutical division of American HomeProducts), and AstraZeneca. (J Clin Psychiatry. 1999;60:649- 57.;http://www.psychiatrist.com/pasttoc/toc/october1999/ab109901.htm;accessed 12/30/03) - Vince>** **
(Emphasis by Justice Lover)
01 September 2007
THE COMPLIANCE ALLIANCE :
HOW BIG PHARMA AND THE SHRINKS
MANIPULATE SURVIVORS OF PSYCHIATRY
by Justice lover
Manipulating survivors of psychiatry has proven to be the least expensive of all of Big Pharma's bribery activities. All that is required of Big Pharma to do is to invite the self appointed leaders of the survivors of psychiatry movement to the shrinks conferences, have them wined and dined by the shrinks (all expenses paid by Big Pharma, of course), and get the shrinks to make those knaves feel great by considering the knaves as equal human beings. This is what had happened three months ago in Dresden, during the world's shrinks conference there (6 - 8 June 2007).
Here is how the conferece was then described by survivors of psychiatry whom the shrinks/Big Pharma have not managed to manipulate (see my first post in this series : http://outlawpsychiatry.blogspot.com/ ) :
"From 6 - 8 June 2007 in Dresden Germany a World Congress of Psychiatry is to take place on the subject of coercive treatment. The congress is evil, since it has as its premise torture-like coercion and force as the basis of psychiatry.
This was confirmed by the organizer and speaker of the congress, Professor Thomas Kallert, on 24.5. in two large daily newspapers, the "Leipziger Volkszeitung" and the "Dresdner Neueste Nachrichten":"Naturally, coercive measures in psychiatry are justified."
Thus Professor Kallert himself unmasked the fact that the invitation of "critics" of coercive treatment was only a cunning evasive maneuver. The actual goal of the congress however was never to place this practice of coercion and violence in psychiatry in question but instead to come to an agreement on an international level on how the coercive methods can be perfected and standardized.
This is exactly the goal which we strongly criticize and we therefore demand the strict termination of all psychiatric coercion – be it "coercive treatment", "compulsory custodian-ship" or "only" involuntary labeling with so-called psychiatric "diagnoses".We are of the opinion that psychiatric coercive treatment is a despicable form of torture or comes close to being torture.
According to the Anti-Torture Convention of the United Nations, coercive psychiatric treatment fulfills all criteria for the definition of torture:
1. Humans are subjected to great physical and mental harm by being locked up or the compulsory mechanism of a guardianship (so-called "support"), by the forced administering of harmful drugs (psychopharmacological drugs), electroshocking (so-called ECT), binding (so-called "four-point-restraint"), by slandering as allegedly "mentally ill", by the loss of dignity and one's self-determination and lasting social and physical consequences of coercive treatment.
2. It is not only a matter of persons just being tormented by others, it happens on the basis of national laws such as the "PsychKG" (German mental health laws) and custodianship law and is also exercised by "persons with official status" e.g. the social psychiatric service.
3. Psychiatric coercive treatment fulfills the criteria of the UN definition by torture in as much as humans are intimidated and/or forced into a confession, with the goal of "illness insight" so that the victim remains permanently under the control and thereby becoming a "customer" of psychiatry in order to standardize people's behavior and thoughts.
Psychiatry is thereby an instrument of power and social control. (Here you can read a detailed account of the direct proximity of coercive psychiatry and torture: "Coercive psychiatry, a torture system": www.iaapa.de/zwang2/halmi_english.htm).Psychiatric coercive treatment cannot be justified as medical or therapeutic treatment, because informed consent is necessary for it. The self-determination over one's own body is an inviolable human right.
The only purpose of so-called psychiatric "diagnoses" is to divide adults into two categories: "humans" and the "mentally ill" and to rob the latter of their human rights, in order - under the pretext of the medical treatment - to make them submissive. History has proven how the medical libel of the psychiatric diagnosis "Schizophrenia" can lead to criminal acts: the psychiatrist Eugen Bleuler, inventor of this term, committed the typically Nazi crime of coerced sterilizations, based on this diagnosis."
Today I received the following email from Rene Talbot, Secretary of IAAPA, which ridicules correctly,of course, those knaves who betray the survivors of psychiatry to the shrinks and Big Pharma alliance. It reads :
We invite you to look at the results of the ZWANG contest displayed here: http://www.iaapa.de/contest.htmlRené Talbot(Secreatry of IAAPA)----------------------------------------------------
George Ebert, USA won the 1st prize for the best title of the ZWANG contest of this photo: http://www.mindfreedom.org/campaign/media/mfradio/show/copy3_of_next/image/image_view_fullscreen
Cozy, - and worth a thousand other words!
Here are the other top 9 titles of this contest:
The two 2nd prizes go to Jan Groth, Germany:
In Dresden experts for coercive treatment searched for ways toward user-controlled and humane torture in psychiatry.
AND Nicholas Petcher, Switzerland:
The besmirched and the servile ones.---------------------------------------------------------
3rd prize goes to:Thomas Szasz, USA:
Psychiatric training is the ritualized indoctrination of the young physician into the theory and practice of psychiatric violence.------------------------------------------------------------
Here are the others out of the 10 best (random order):
Rodney Yoder, USA:
Psychiatric thugs welcome power and coercion crazed c/s/x tokens into their coven.
Mechthild von Magdeburg, Germany:
Burying the hatchet Psychiatrists from all over the world and top representatives of international federations of users and victims of psychiatry strove for constructive co-operation and mutual understanding at a congress of the World Psychiatric Association on coercive treatment, in order to produce even more humane psychiatric torture measures in the future.
Johann von Leyden, Germany:
Five proud of their cynicism
Karl Valentin, Germany:
Together with the head nurse the patient club has just planned an excursion
Rene Talbot, Germany:
The compliance alliance
Hagai Aviel, Israel:
Putting a face on this practice"
(Emphasis by Justice Lover)
26 August 2007
ON THE SIMILARITIES BETWEEN THE PROPAGANDA METHOD OF PSYCHIATRY AND THAT OF ZIONISM
by Justice Lover
There are astonishing similarities between the modus operandi of psychiatry and the ideology and propaganda methods of the zionist apartheid regime of Israel. It is as if both have been under the same management for many years now. Ostensibly, such a state of affairs is absurd as psychiatry purports to be a "Medical Specialty" whereas zionism is a political ideology. However, the reality is that psychiatry is a "Medical Specialty" in name only, as it serves as an instrument for political oppression, as well as the promoter and hawker for Big Pharma poisons. Let us then take a closer look at the two.
The basic similarity between the two is very fundamental, as both the base of the psychiatric dogma and the foundation of the zionist ideology are big lies. The latter's big lie is that "there is a Jewish nation ,and Palestine is its homeland". The former's big lie is that there are "mental illnesses" for which psychiatry provides "medical treatments". Proceeding from those big lies each of the two provides chains of other big lies to mislead and to bamboozle the public.
Thus, for example, one of earliest zionist propaganda lies was that Palestine was "a land without people for a people without land", so as to lure people of jewish background into Palestine as zionist colonisers. Similarly, psychiatry proclaimed Big Pharma's poisons as "medications" - as well as electric shocks (ECT) and "psychosurgery" as "harmless medical treatments" - to be imposed on people the shrinks have labelled as "mentally ill".
There are many lie chains psychiatry is made of, and many chains of lies zionism is made of. Let us first check a number of lie chains psychiatry is made of according to the testimony of two prominent American neurologists. The first one is an official testimony made by Dr. John Friedberg to NY Assembly in 2001 regarding the use of electric shocks (ECT). He expressly lists 5 big lies by psychiatry regarding electric shocks as follows :
"FIVE BIG LIES
Big Lie 1: Dr. Fink tells people that ECT is safer than childbirth. If one out of every 200 women were dying in delivery it would be front page news.
Big Lie 2: ECT doesn’t cause brain damage. One picture will refute that. The illustration below (MRI on the right, CT left, same patient) depicts a large hemorrhage from ECT. Hemorrhages, large and small, cause permanent seizure disorders in some patients.
( Weisberg, L. Elliott, D and Mielke, D: Intracerebral Hemorrhage Following Electroconvulsive Therapy (ECT). November 1991, Neurology V 41 p 1849.)
Another MRI study documented a breakdown of the blood brain barrier and cerebral edema - brain swelling - after each and every shock. (Mander et al: British Journal of Psychiatry, 1987: V 151, p 69-71)
Big lie 3: ECT is new and improved. The whole point of ECT is to trigger a convulsion and there is simply no way around the brain’s threshold: 100 joules of energy, a typical "dose," whether brief pulse, square wave, sine wave, AC or DC, unilateral or bilateral, with or without oxygen equals the energy it takes to light up a 100 watt bulb for one second or drop a 73 pound weight one foot. And it’s the energy that does the damage.
Big lie 4: ECT is a "Godsend" (Fink again). In March of this year, Dr. Sackeim published a study in JAMA showing a "relapse rate" of 84% within six months of stopping ECT. It is no coincidence that improvement ceases just as the concussive effects are finally waning. Sackeim’s solution?: more ECT. Call it "maintenance" or call it "continuation," just don’t stop. (JAMA. 2001;285:1299-1307).
Big lie 5: No one knows how ECT works. On the contrary, everyone knows how ECT works. It works by erasing memory and terrifying people."
Dr. Fred A. Baughman, Jr., MD, a prominent veteran American neurologist, commenting recently on a Time magazine article, accused psychiatry of being completely, totally, made of lies as follows (see the previous post ) :
"Doubt if you must, but the lie is total---100%-- meant only to victimize us until we can take or receive drugs no longer.Analyze there every word. The only reason psychiatrists go to medical school is to learn medical-eze and how to wield it, to deceive and to carry out the contract work they do for their master--Big Pharma."
Then he goes on to conclude :
"If there is no abnormality, there is no disorder, no disease or abnormal phenotype--nothing to seek the cause of and nothing to make that toddler, child, adolescent, adult or elder a /patient /to treat.Knowing this, as you always do, should you diagnose and treat anyway, you are a fraud ,and should you drug or otherwise physically treat a normal you are guilty of assault and battery and deserve nothing less than to be arrested indicted, and sentenced for what you do---even if it has become the standard of practice in your field---in "biological" psychiatry---an oxymoron."
As for zionism, and the zionist apartheid regime of Israel, they too have one chain of lies piled up on top of other chains of lies. Thus , for example, having ethnically cleansed more than half the population of Arab Palestine during 1947-49, and turned them into refugees, the zionist rulers still refuse to let them and their families return saying that they left their home, not driven out, which is a big lie, of course.
The Palestinians who stayed in Palestine are considered and treated as third class citizens, but the official lie is that they enjoy their "democratic rights" under the zionist apartheid regime of Israel. Other Palestinian folks in the Gaza Strip and in the West Bank suffer daily from zionist murders, ethnic cleansing, arbitrary arrest and torture,theft and destruction of their lands etc. - all under zionist occupation, which continuously lies to the world about "Palestinian terrorism".
The most interesting of similar lies is that both psychiatry and zionism claim to be peace loving, justice seeking humanitarians. The shrinks kill, maim,torture and detain people because it is all part of the treatment to help them. The zionist too kill,maim,torture and detain Palestinians because they "want to live in peace with them"...
(Emphasis by Justice Lover)
by Justice Lover
There are astonishing similarities between the modus operandi of psychiatry and the ideology and propaganda methods of the zionist apartheid regime of Israel. It is as if both have been under the same management for many years now. Ostensibly, such a state of affairs is absurd as psychiatry purports to be a "Medical Specialty" whereas zionism is a political ideology. However, the reality is that psychiatry is a "Medical Specialty" in name only, as it serves as an instrument for political oppression, as well as the promoter and hawker for Big Pharma poisons. Let us then take a closer look at the two.
The basic similarity between the two is very fundamental, as both the base of the psychiatric dogma and the foundation of the zionist ideology are big lies. The latter's big lie is that "there is a Jewish nation ,and Palestine is its homeland". The former's big lie is that there are "mental illnesses" for which psychiatry provides "medical treatments". Proceeding from those big lies each of the two provides chains of other big lies to mislead and to bamboozle the public.
Thus, for example, one of earliest zionist propaganda lies was that Palestine was "a land without people for a people without land", so as to lure people of jewish background into Palestine as zionist colonisers. Similarly, psychiatry proclaimed Big Pharma's poisons as "medications" - as well as electric shocks (ECT) and "psychosurgery" as "harmless medical treatments" - to be imposed on people the shrinks have labelled as "mentally ill".
There are many lie chains psychiatry is made of, and many chains of lies zionism is made of. Let us first check a number of lie chains psychiatry is made of according to the testimony of two prominent American neurologists. The first one is an official testimony made by Dr. John Friedberg to NY Assembly in 2001 regarding the use of electric shocks (ECT). He expressly lists 5 big lies by psychiatry regarding electric shocks as follows :
"FIVE BIG LIES
Big Lie 1: Dr. Fink tells people that ECT is safer than childbirth. If one out of every 200 women were dying in delivery it would be front page news.
Big Lie 2: ECT doesn’t cause brain damage. One picture will refute that. The illustration below (MRI on the right, CT left, same patient) depicts a large hemorrhage from ECT. Hemorrhages, large and small, cause permanent seizure disorders in some patients.
( Weisberg, L. Elliott, D and Mielke, D: Intracerebral Hemorrhage Following Electroconvulsive Therapy (ECT). November 1991, Neurology V 41 p 1849.)
Another MRI study documented a breakdown of the blood brain barrier and cerebral edema - brain swelling - after each and every shock. (Mander et al: British Journal of Psychiatry, 1987: V 151, p 69-71)
Big lie 3: ECT is new and improved. The whole point of ECT is to trigger a convulsion and there is simply no way around the brain’s threshold: 100 joules of energy, a typical "dose," whether brief pulse, square wave, sine wave, AC or DC, unilateral or bilateral, with or without oxygen equals the energy it takes to light up a 100 watt bulb for one second or drop a 73 pound weight one foot. And it’s the energy that does the damage.
Big lie 4: ECT is a "Godsend" (Fink again). In March of this year, Dr. Sackeim published a study in JAMA showing a "relapse rate" of 84% within six months of stopping ECT. It is no coincidence that improvement ceases just as the concussive effects are finally waning. Sackeim’s solution?: more ECT. Call it "maintenance" or call it "continuation," just don’t stop. (JAMA. 2001;285:1299-1307).
Big lie 5: No one knows how ECT works. On the contrary, everyone knows how ECT works. It works by erasing memory and terrifying people."
Dr. Fred A. Baughman, Jr., MD, a prominent veteran American neurologist, commenting recently on a Time magazine article, accused psychiatry of being completely, totally, made of lies as follows (see the previous post ) :
"Doubt if you must, but the lie is total---100%-- meant only to victimize us until we can take or receive drugs no longer.Analyze there every word. The only reason psychiatrists go to medical school is to learn medical-eze and how to wield it, to deceive and to carry out the contract work they do for their master--Big Pharma."
Then he goes on to conclude :
"If there is no abnormality, there is no disorder, no disease or abnormal phenotype--nothing to seek the cause of and nothing to make that toddler, child, adolescent, adult or elder a /patient /to treat.Knowing this, as you always do, should you diagnose and treat anyway, you are a fraud ,and should you drug or otherwise physically treat a normal you are guilty of assault and battery and deserve nothing less than to be arrested indicted, and sentenced for what you do---even if it has become the standard of practice in your field---in "biological" psychiatry---an oxymoron."
As for zionism, and the zionist apartheid regime of Israel, they too have one chain of lies piled up on top of other chains of lies. Thus , for example, having ethnically cleansed more than half the population of Arab Palestine during 1947-49, and turned them into refugees, the zionist rulers still refuse to let them and their families return saying that they left their home, not driven out, which is a big lie, of course.
The Palestinians who stayed in Palestine are considered and treated as third class citizens, but the official lie is that they enjoy their "democratic rights" under the zionist apartheid regime of Israel. Other Palestinian folks in the Gaza Strip and in the West Bank suffer daily from zionist murders, ethnic cleansing, arbitrary arrest and torture,theft and destruction of their lands etc. - all under zionist occupation, which continuously lies to the world about "Palestinian terrorism".
The most interesting of similar lies is that both psychiatry and zionism claim to be peace loving, justice seeking humanitarians. The shrinks kill, maim,torture and detain people because it is all part of the treatment to help them. The zionist too kill,maim,torture and detain Palestinians because they "want to live in peace with them"...
(Emphasis by Justice Lover)
25 August 2007
HOW THE MEDIA BOSSES HELP BIG PHARMA SPREAD THE HORRENDOUS LIES OF PSYCHIATRY
by Justice Lover
The following article was emailed to me today by Lynn Michaels of tapersafely.org .It is a comment by an veteran American neurologist on a recent article published by Time
magazine.
The article proves once more - if any more proof is necessary for anybody - that not only is psychiatry a dangerous quackery, but its lies and deceptions are perpetuated by the entire USA ruling class (which in turn is manipulated by the zionist lobby in Washington, for the zionist apartheid regime of Israel) although Big Pharma are their immediate beneficiaries, and the shrinks are bribed direcly by the Big Pharma apparatus.
Here is the article : [SSRI-Research] Digest Number 1627
by Lynn Michaels SSRI-Research@yahoogroups.com
OCD A DISEASE? TIME MAGAZINE A PSYCHO-PHARMA PROPAGANDIST?
by Fred A. Baughman, Jr., MD (8/16/07)
(Author: /THE ADHD FRAUD---How Psychiatry Makes Patients of NormalChildren/ www.Trafford.com http://www.trafford.com/)
In /When Worry Hijacks The Brain/ (by Jeffrey Kluger, August 13,2007, p 44) Time Magazine proves itself, once again, to be purveyor---par excellence, of the lie that there are such things as psychiatric diseases/ "chemical imbalances" needing "chemical balancers"---pills. The money---drug money---must be good.
We read: "Devoting an entire evening to a 12-minute drive is not the only way to know you've got obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). You know it when leaving the house consumes hours of your day because the pillows on your bed must be placed just right."
How many hours devoted to this 12 minute drive constitutes a disorder, by which psychiatry means an organic-physical abnormality--a disease? How many hours spent arranging the pillows before leaving the house?Two hours? Two hours, forty-five minutes? Five hours? These are symptoms---complaints and are wholly subjective, not physical abnormalities---objective signs---diseases, which, of course is what drug-pushing, drug company-owned psychiatry wants us to believe of their every diagnosis when none of them are.
Setting the stage to sell drugs they move to: "About 7 millionadults, teens and children in the US are now thought to have it in one form or another, and their pain is far worse than you probably know." And yes, the epidemics they contrive are always in the millions (ADHD is in the 6-7 million range) and the pain is always unimaginably severe (still subjective, but translating to never being able to get off of the drugs once started).And get this: "Victims often conceal their problem for years ensuring that no diagnosis---right or wrong---can begin to be made". Wouldn't it be great if cancer, diabetes or epilepsy victims could conceal their problems for years so no diagnosis could be made---so that no objective abnormality---proof of disease could be found.
And now for the abnormality = disorder = disease claims: "A burst of new genetics studies is turning up insights into the causes of the disorder." Not proof but "turning up insights." Here we have the painting of medical-physical illusions by claiming a cause is known, an abnormal gene or genes, when the disorder = abnormality =disease itself has never been found. This is exactly as is done throughout "biological" psychiatry. There being no such thing in all of psychiatry as a disorder = disease = objective abnormality means there is nothing to have a cause = etiology for--not even a genetic cause---their number one lie---deceit.
And next they launch into talk of treatments old and new---more illusions of disorders = diseases when none exist. Let us continue with Kluger and see if we hear anything scientific. On it's firstpage (p 44) the article is listed as "science." We continue: "Having these OCD-like traits is a universal experience." Well then, how many for how long constitute a disorder = disease? Where is the abnormality, chemical or microscopic, which there has to be if a disease is diagnosed, as throughout the rest of medicine.
Not having developed the claim of a genetics of OCD the author (and those who commissioned this piece) move on to the claim that the defect in OCD "was always thought to lie principally in a small almond-shaped structure in the brain called the amygdala---a place where danger is processed and evaluated. It stands to reason that if this risk center is overactive it would keep on alerting you to peril even after you've attended to the problem." But where is the proof? There must be a microscopic or chemical abnormality patient-by-patient or it cannot be said that there is a disorder =disease. Should you have any doubt they are lying to us, read on: "...the amygdala is indeed a big player in the pathological process of OCD but only one of several players." Saying "pathological" there is no doubt they are calling the OCD patient disordered = diseased for the simple reason that "pathology" = abnormality = disorder = disease.What laymen could possibly bring themselves to believe that all of these professionals--physicians, researchers, medical centers and medical schools are in collusion, lying to us, telling us "chemical imbalances" exist, when they don't, to sell us "chemical balancers"---pills.
Doubt if you must, but the lie is total---100%-- meant only to victimize us until we can take or receive drugs no longer.Analyze there every word. The only reason psychiatrists go to medical school is to learn medical-eze and how to wield it, to deceive and to carry out the contract work they do for their master--Big Pharma.
Moving on: "Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and other scanning technologies have allowed researchers to peer deeper than ever into the OCD-tossed brain." What kind of scientific languageis this?: "OCD-tossed brain." No scan exists, no microscopic or chemical abnormality exists that has proved a definite, replicable,abnormality in OCD or in any psychiatric disorder = disease.Allow them to call you "disordered" or your child "disordered" and they own you. Their illusions of disease continue to rain down on us sure to build upon the OCD epidemic already in the millions.
And,at the end of the day, this is all they care about. Most of their illusions of science and disease are amateurish, childish, even laughable---were it not that poisoning invariably follows---poisoning that may even be coerced---court-ordered, having called parents or "patients" who resist, medically negligent. They will never be found debating me or real scientists, or scientific physicians or actually moral, medical ethicists. Not as long as the epidemic burgeons and drug sales boom. Their research is meant only to create illusions of disease, medicine and treatment where there are no such things---a fraud costing millions, reaping billions,making diseased-intoxicated-poisoned "patients" of normals, wherever they go.
That circuit (referring to the other brain areas) says Sanjaya Saxena of the University of California, San Diego, "is abnormally active in people with OCD." One illusion is never sufficient, they always need several, each with its own perverted, pseudo-scientific literature. Much of their patently fraudulent research is found in the most august of scientific journals, having sold out, having shown themselves to be accomplices. None are above such involvement---not the New England Journal of Medicine, not the Journal of the American Medical Association, Neurology or Pediatrics---none.
Further we read: "Although scans can tell you the landscape of the obsessive-compulsive brain, they can't tell you how it got to be that way". Here they represent brain scan abnormalities, usually functional scans (MRI, SPECT, PET)---as being abnormalities when none of them are---when none are reproducible microscopic or chemical abnormalities such as are needed to say a disease exists in this person or that.Clearly the number of illusions of "disease" matters.
Read on: "If the disorder comes to you through the genes." And: "...they discovered gene markers at six sites on five chromosomes that appear more frequently in those kids." Back to claims of abnormal genes,when there is no proof of a disorder/disease/abnormality in the first place. And now they make use of the human genome to create"gene associations" when there is no abnormality = disorder =disease to associate a gene or chromosome with. Whats more those of legitimate medicine and genetics, usually esteemed academics/researchers in their own right, know of and countenance this fraud, becoming accomplices, co-conspirators. Giving aid,comfort and a patina of legitimacy to "biological" psychiatry, all of US medical academia can be called accomplices, co-conspirators.
Finally, the "biological" psychiatrists interviewed for this work of fiction and fraud seek, for good measure, to implicate a chemical---glutamate, a glutamate-regulating gene, and---through aclaimed relationship to a real neurological disorder/disease/abnormality (a common semantic strategy)--To urette's syndrome, to streptococcal infections.Having thrown an array of false pathologies against the wall, some of them stick--at least in the minds of the lay-public.
Physicians,on the other hand, know the difference, but "go along." What a wondrous way of making "patients" of normals. This is all they care about as long as the epidemic is in the millions and is continuing to grow.Having created a disease and an epidemic they turn to the final "hook"-- talk of treatment and treatments even psychosurgery---By now who is left to remember that nowhere alongthe way, throughout the lecture, throughout the conference with loved ones for purposes of informed consent (never to be) has there been proof---actual proof of an abnormality before brain damaging drugs, implanted brain electrodes or psychosurgery, is begun. Whether the leading "science" article is about ADHD, schizophrenia,bipolar disorder, conduct disorder, oppositional-defiant disorder or any one of the multitude of "learning disabilities" there is nophysical or chemical abnormality as there must be if one is to diagnose a disease.
If there is no abnormality, there is nodisorder, no disease or abnormal phenotype--nothing to seek the cause of and nothing to make that toddler, child, adolescent, adultor elder a /patient /to treat.Knowing this, as you always do, should you diagnose and treat anyway, you are a fraud ,and should you drug or otherwise physically treat a normal you are guilty of assault and battery and deserve nothing less than to be arrested indicted, and sentenced for what you do---even if it has become the standard of practice in your field---in "biological" psychiatry---an oxymoron.
(Emphasis by Justice Lover)
by Justice Lover
The following article was emailed to me today by Lynn Michaels of tapersafely.org .It is a comment by an veteran American neurologist on a recent article published by Time
magazine.
The article proves once more - if any more proof is necessary for anybody - that not only is psychiatry a dangerous quackery, but its lies and deceptions are perpetuated by the entire USA ruling class (which in turn is manipulated by the zionist lobby in Washington, for the zionist apartheid regime of Israel) although Big Pharma are their immediate beneficiaries, and the shrinks are bribed direcly by the Big Pharma apparatus.
Here is the article : [SSRI-Research] Digest Number 1627
by Lynn Michaels SSRI-Research@yahoogroups.com
OCD A DISEASE? TIME MAGAZINE A PSYCHO-PHARMA PROPAGANDIST?
by Fred A. Baughman, Jr., MD (8/16/07)
(Author: /THE ADHD FRAUD---How Psychiatry Makes Patients of NormalChildren/ www.Trafford.com http://www.trafford.com/)
In /When Worry Hijacks The Brain/ (by Jeffrey Kluger, August 13,2007, p 44) Time Magazine proves itself, once again, to be purveyor---par excellence, of the lie that there are such things as psychiatric diseases/ "chemical imbalances" needing "chemical balancers"---pills. The money---drug money---must be good.
We read: "Devoting an entire evening to a 12-minute drive is not the only way to know you've got obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). You know it when leaving the house consumes hours of your day because the pillows on your bed must be placed just right."
How many hours devoted to this 12 minute drive constitutes a disorder, by which psychiatry means an organic-physical abnormality--a disease? How many hours spent arranging the pillows before leaving the house?Two hours? Two hours, forty-five minutes? Five hours? These are symptoms---complaints and are wholly subjective, not physical abnormalities---objective signs---diseases, which, of course is what drug-pushing, drug company-owned psychiatry wants us to believe of their every diagnosis when none of them are.
Setting the stage to sell drugs they move to: "About 7 millionadults, teens and children in the US are now thought to have it in one form or another, and their pain is far worse than you probably know." And yes, the epidemics they contrive are always in the millions (ADHD is in the 6-7 million range) and the pain is always unimaginably severe (still subjective, but translating to never being able to get off of the drugs once started).And get this: "Victims often conceal their problem for years ensuring that no diagnosis---right or wrong---can begin to be made". Wouldn't it be great if cancer, diabetes or epilepsy victims could conceal their problems for years so no diagnosis could be made---so that no objective abnormality---proof of disease could be found.
And now for the abnormality = disorder = disease claims: "A burst of new genetics studies is turning up insights into the causes of the disorder." Not proof but "turning up insights." Here we have the painting of medical-physical illusions by claiming a cause is known, an abnormal gene or genes, when the disorder = abnormality =disease itself has never been found. This is exactly as is done throughout "biological" psychiatry. There being no such thing in all of psychiatry as a disorder = disease = objective abnormality means there is nothing to have a cause = etiology for--not even a genetic cause---their number one lie---deceit.
And next they launch into talk of treatments old and new---more illusions of disorders = diseases when none exist. Let us continue with Kluger and see if we hear anything scientific. On it's firstpage (p 44) the article is listed as "science." We continue: "Having these OCD-like traits is a universal experience." Well then, how many for how long constitute a disorder = disease? Where is the abnormality, chemical or microscopic, which there has to be if a disease is diagnosed, as throughout the rest of medicine.
Not having developed the claim of a genetics of OCD the author (and those who commissioned this piece) move on to the claim that the defect in OCD "was always thought to lie principally in a small almond-shaped structure in the brain called the amygdala---a place where danger is processed and evaluated. It stands to reason that if this risk center is overactive it would keep on alerting you to peril even after you've attended to the problem." But where is the proof? There must be a microscopic or chemical abnormality patient-by-patient or it cannot be said that there is a disorder =disease. Should you have any doubt they are lying to us, read on: "...the amygdala is indeed a big player in the pathological process of OCD but only one of several players." Saying "pathological" there is no doubt they are calling the OCD patient disordered = diseased for the simple reason that "pathology" = abnormality = disorder = disease.What laymen could possibly bring themselves to believe that all of these professionals--physicians, researchers, medical centers and medical schools are in collusion, lying to us, telling us "chemical imbalances" exist, when they don't, to sell us "chemical balancers"---pills.
Doubt if you must, but the lie is total---100%-- meant only to victimize us until we can take or receive drugs no longer.Analyze there every word. The only reason psychiatrists go to medical school is to learn medical-eze and how to wield it, to deceive and to carry out the contract work they do for their master--Big Pharma.
Moving on: "Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and other scanning technologies have allowed researchers to peer deeper than ever into the OCD-tossed brain." What kind of scientific languageis this?: "OCD-tossed brain." No scan exists, no microscopic or chemical abnormality exists that has proved a definite, replicable,abnormality in OCD or in any psychiatric disorder = disease.Allow them to call you "disordered" or your child "disordered" and they own you. Their illusions of disease continue to rain down on us sure to build upon the OCD epidemic already in the millions.
And,at the end of the day, this is all they care about. Most of their illusions of science and disease are amateurish, childish, even laughable---were it not that poisoning invariably follows---poisoning that may even be coerced---court-ordered, having called parents or "patients" who resist, medically negligent. They will never be found debating me or real scientists, or scientific physicians or actually moral, medical ethicists. Not as long as the epidemic burgeons and drug sales boom. Their research is meant only to create illusions of disease, medicine and treatment where there are no such things---a fraud costing millions, reaping billions,making diseased-intoxicated-poisoned "patients" of normals, wherever they go.
That circuit (referring to the other brain areas) says Sanjaya Saxena of the University of California, San Diego, "is abnormally active in people with OCD." One illusion is never sufficient, they always need several, each with its own perverted, pseudo-scientific literature. Much of their patently fraudulent research is found in the most august of scientific journals, having sold out, having shown themselves to be accomplices. None are above such involvement---not the New England Journal of Medicine, not the Journal of the American Medical Association, Neurology or Pediatrics---none.
Further we read: "Although scans can tell you the landscape of the obsessive-compulsive brain, they can't tell you how it got to be that way". Here they represent brain scan abnormalities, usually functional scans (MRI, SPECT, PET)---as being abnormalities when none of them are---when none are reproducible microscopic or chemical abnormalities such as are needed to say a disease exists in this person or that.Clearly the number of illusions of "disease" matters.
Read on: "If the disorder comes to you through the genes." And: "...they discovered gene markers at six sites on five chromosomes that appear more frequently in those kids." Back to claims of abnormal genes,when there is no proof of a disorder/disease/abnormality in the first place. And now they make use of the human genome to create"gene associations" when there is no abnormality = disorder =disease to associate a gene or chromosome with. Whats more those of legitimate medicine and genetics, usually esteemed academics/researchers in their own right, know of and countenance this fraud, becoming accomplices, co-conspirators. Giving aid,comfort and a patina of legitimacy to "biological" psychiatry, all of US medical academia can be called accomplices, co-conspirators.
Finally, the "biological" psychiatrists interviewed for this work of fiction and fraud seek, for good measure, to implicate a chemical---glutamate, a glutamate-regulating gene, and---through aclaimed relationship to a real neurological disorder/disease/abnormality (a common semantic strategy)--To urette's syndrome, to streptococcal infections.Having thrown an array of false pathologies against the wall, some of them stick--at least in the minds of the lay-public.
Physicians,on the other hand, know the difference, but "go along." What a wondrous way of making "patients" of normals. This is all they care about as long as the epidemic is in the millions and is continuing to grow.Having created a disease and an epidemic they turn to the final "hook"-- talk of treatment and treatments even psychosurgery---By now who is left to remember that nowhere alongthe way, throughout the lecture, throughout the conference with loved ones for purposes of informed consent (never to be) has there been proof---actual proof of an abnormality before brain damaging drugs, implanted brain electrodes or psychosurgery, is begun. Whether the leading "science" article is about ADHD, schizophrenia,bipolar disorder, conduct disorder, oppositional-defiant disorder or any one of the multitude of "learning disabilities" there is nophysical or chemical abnormality as there must be if one is to diagnose a disease.
If there is no abnormality, there is nodisorder, no disease or abnormal phenotype--nothing to seek the cause of and nothing to make that toddler, child, adolescent, adultor elder a /patient /to treat.Knowing this, as you always do, should you diagnose and treat anyway, you are a fraud ,and should you drug or otherwise physically treat a normal you are guilty of assault and battery and deserve nothing less than to be arrested indicted, and sentenced for what you do---even if it has become the standard of practice in your field---in "biological" psychiatry---an oxymoron.
(Emphasis by Justice Lover)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
