Big Pharma

From Dharmapedia Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This website is for information purposes only. By providing the information contained herein we are not diagnosing, treating, curing, mitigating, or preventing any type of disease or medical condition. Before beginning any type of natural, integrative or conventional treatment regimen, it is advisable to seek the advice of a licensed healthcare professional.

Pharma typically refers to the pharmaceutical industry, a multibillion-dollar industry enriching executives and stockholders. The term Big Pharma refers to the large pharmacological lobbying trade association whose members produce most of the commonly prescribed medications today. Big Pharma virtually owns the FDA through intense lobbying and hiring practices, and the FDA is constantly pandering to Big Pharma by preferring use of expensive, risky new medication and vaccines rather than safe, inexpensive medication. Also known as Pharmafia.

Big Pharma media[edit]

Richard Smith, former editor, BMJ, said: In what has been called the age of accountability, editors have continued to be as unaccountable as kings. The whole business of medical journals is corrupt because owners are making money from restricting access to important research, most of it funded by public money. He also said: Medical journals are an extension of the marketing arm of pharmaceutical companies... between two-thirds and three-quarters of the trials published in the major journals—Annals of Internal Medicine, JAMA, Lancet, and New England Journal of Medicine—are funded by the industry... The peer-review process is defunct, inclined toward bias and abuse. Medical journals have become marketing tools of the drug industry, publishing studies that favor their products. Instead of publishing clinical trials, journals should consider critically describing them.[1]

Richard Horton (The Lancet) said: Journals have devolved into information laundering operations for the pharmaceutical industry. The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness.

Peter Goetzche wrote that medical journals contribute substantially to the corruption of medical science. Gøtzsche said: “The pervasive scientific misconduct has led to a research literature where one has to dig deeply to find the few gems among all the garbage.”

Robert Yoho wrote, The “big five” most respected medical journals, Lancet, JAMA, BMJ, NEJM, and Annals of Internal Medicine, are all contaminated with this commercial bias.

Nortin Hadler wrote in The Citizen Patient (2013): “It turns out that the vast majority of the clinical literature is so lacking in methodological quality as to offer no contribution of substance to clinical decision making. For most clinical questions, one is fortunate to find a dozen studies that can be deemed informative.”

Jason Fung said: Do the editors of the NEJM and the Lancet believe [evidence-based medicine] anymore? Not at all. So neither should we. We can’t believe evidence-based medicine until the evidence has been cleaned up from the corrupting influence of commercial interests.

  • “This is the first meta-analysis of surveys asking scientists about their experiences of misconduct. It found that, on average, about 2% of scientists admitted to have fabricated, falsified or modified data or results at least once and up to one third admitted a variety of other questionable research practices.”[2]
  • “Our findings reveal a range of questionable practices that are striking in their breadth and prevalence. U.S. scientists engage in a range of behaviors extending far beyond fabrication, falsification or plagiarism that can damage the integrity of science.”[3]
  • “Our data demonstrate that senior-level investigators who responded to the survey receive a wide variety of industry-sponsored support which is important for their careers, and that industry support of research and researchers is pervasive in the clinical and research departments of top U.S. research institutions.”[4]
  • “For a pharmaceutical company, delaying or minimizing knowledge of a side effect of a medication has cash value. Similarly, not publishing negative studies may shift the balance of subsequent meta-analyses.”[5]
  • “Today’s biomedical researchers live in an organizational world within which lying and cheating are rife.”[6]
  • Data audits by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) found that 10-20% of studies contained misrepresented data, inaccurate reporting and fabricated experimental results.[7]
  • “Vaccine manufacturers have financial motives and public health officials have bureaucratic reasons that might lead them to sponsor research that concludes vaccines are safe.”[8]
  • “Conflict of interest is widespread among the authors of published manuscripts and these authors are more likely to present positive findings.”[9]
  • “Among a group of meta-analyses of pharmacological treatments published in high-impact biomedical journals, information concerning primary study funding and author conflicts of interest for the included randomized controlled trials were only rarely reported.”[10]
  • “This study found that most Cochrane reviews of drug trials did not report information on trial funding sources or trial author-industry financial ties, including employment, from included trials. When this information was reported, patterns of reporting were inconsistent.”[11]
  • “The CDC’s image as an independent watchdog over the public health has given it enormous prestige, and its recommendations are occasionally enforced by law. Despite the agency’s disclaimer, the CDC does receive millions of dollars in industry gifts and funding, both directly and indirectly, and several recent CDC actions and recommendations have raised questions about the science it cites, the clinical guidelines it promotes, and the money it is taking.”[12]
  • “Failure to report placebo composition compromises the foundation on which medical decisions are based, and on which the fate of lives may rest.”Placebos that are not neutral can have effects that influence study results. When studies do not provide sufficient details about placebo interventions, study replication is not possible. [13]
  • “For most study designs and settings, it is more likely for a research claim to be false than true. Moreover, for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias.”• This paper demonstrates that most published research findings are false.[14]
  • “Contradiction and initially stronger effects are not unusual in highly cited research of clinical interventions and their outcomes. Controversies are most common with highly cited non-randomized studies, but even the most highly cited randomized trials may be challenged and refuted over time.”[15]
  • There is a double standard in biomedical and vaccine research. When orthodox views are promoted, serious ethical violations such as undeclared conflicts of interest, using false placebos and withholding evidence, are often ignored.[16]

Online Big pharma shills include many so-called fact checkers, WebMD, Rationalwiki and Wikipedia. Even the New York Times noted that WebMD has become "permeated with Pseudomedicine and subtle misinformation" and "synonymous with Big Pharma Shilling."[17][18] If your search engine shills these websites, it is good idea to change your search engine.

Publication bias[edit]

Another problem with the influence of pharmaceutical corporations is the possibility of publication bias in research they sponsor. Pharmaceuticals carrying out their own clinical trials must register the trials in a database by law, but they are not required to disclose the results of all of their trials. This enables them to inflate the effectiveness of a drug by sitting on negative trial data.[19] Ben Goldacre is a noted critic of the way in which pharmaceutical companies refuse to release the data from negative and inconclusive trials.

Medical experiments, coverups and other controversies[edit]

  • The Tuskegee Study of Untreated Syphilis in the Negro Male[20][21][22] (informally referred to as the "Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment", the "Tuskegee Syphilis Study", the "Tuskegee Study of Untreated Syphilis in the African American Male", the "U.S. Public Health Service Syphilis Study at Tuskegee", or the "Tuskegee Experiment") was an ethically abusive study conducted between 1932 and 1972 by the United States Public Health Service (PHS) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).[23][24] The purpose of this study was to observe the natural history of untreated syphilis.
  • Between 1949 and 1969, open-air tests of biological agents were conducted 239 times. In 80 of those experiments, the Army said it used live bacteria that its researchers at the time thought were harmless. In the others, it used inert chemicals to simulate bacteria.
  • In the 1950s, army researchers dispersed Serratia on Panama City and Key West Florida with no known illnesses resulting.
  • In the 1950s, army researchers dispersed zinc cadmium sulfide (now a known cancer-causing agent) over Minnesota and other Midwestern states to see how far they would spread in the atmosphere. The particles were detected more than 1,000 miles away in New York state.
  • Bacillus globigii, never shown to be harmful to people, was released in San Francisco, New York, Washington, D.C., and along the Pennsylvania Turnpike, among other places.
  • In New York, military researchers in 1966 spread Bacillus subtilis variant Niger, also believed to be harmless, in the subway system by dropping lightbulbs filled with the bacteria onto tracks in stations in midtown Manhattan. The bacteria were carried for miles throughout the subway system. Army officials concluded in a January 1968 report that: "Similar covert attacks with a pathogenic disease-causing agent during peak traffic periods could be expected to expose large numbers of people to infection and subsequent illness or death."
  • In a May 1965 secret release of Bacillus globigii at Washington's National Airport and its Greyhound Lines bus terminal, more than 130 passengers were exposed to the bacteria traveling to 39 cities in seven states in the two weeks following the mock attack.[25]
  • Project Coast was a 1980s top-secret chemical and biological weapons (CBW) program instituted by the apartheid-era government of South Africa. Project Coast was the successor to a limited post-war CBW program which mainly produced the lethal agents CX powder and mustard gas; as well as non-lethal tear gas for riot control purposes. Research on birth control methods to reduce the black birth rate was one such area. Daan Goosen, the managing director of Roodeplaat Research Laboratories between 1983 and 1986, told Tom Mangold of the BBC that Project Coast supported a project to develop a contraceptive that would have been applied clandestinely to blacks. Goosen reported that the project had developed a 'vaccine' for males and females and that the researchers were still searching for a means by which it could be delivered to make black people sterile without making them aware. Testimony given at the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) suggested that Project Coast researchers were also looking into putting birth control substances in water supplies.

Rockeller Foundation in India[edit]

Robert Kennedy writes: In the early 1950s, the Rockefeller Foundation conducted fertility studies in India that historian Matthew Connolly characterizes as an example of “American social science at its most hubristic.” In one of the collaborations with the Harvard School of Public Health and India’s Ministry of Health, the Rockefeller Foundation studied 8,000 tribal people in seven villages in the Khanna section of Punjab to determine whether contraceptive tablets could dramatically reduce fertility rates. According to Linsey McGoey, “The villagers were treated like lab specimens, subjected to monthly questioning but otherwise ignored.” Rockefeller’s researchers did not initially inform the Punjabis that their pills would prevent women from bearing children... Over the next two decades, the Rockefeller Foundation conducted frequent anti-fertility programs in India and elsewhere, earning the growing animosity of physicians, human rights activists, and poverty specialists who criticized the foundation for focusing on population growth.[26]

Linsey McGoey writes, on the Khanna study, an initiative aimed at reducing fertility rates in India. Today, the Khanna project is widely seen, as historian Matthew Connolly puts it, as an example of ‘American social science at its most hubristic’. Developed as a collaborative effort between the Harvard School of Public Health, India’s Ministry of Health, and a small Christian medical school funded by the Rockefeller Foundation, the study’s aim was to discover whether contraceptive tablets could dramatically reduce fertility rates. The study was massive in size: 8,000 people in seven villages in the Punjab were placed under surveillance and subjected to monthly household visits from Harvard epidemiologists... When it became clear that the study’s objective was to assist with reducing conception, the villagers were mystified. Some were incensed by the effort to limit their future progeny...The Khanna study took place in the early 1950s. Its failure – the fact that its results confirmed the exact opposite of what researchers hoped – led the Rockefeller Foundation to distance itself from its methodology, but not from its objectives. In years ahead, the foundation funded numerous anti-fertility programmes in India and elsewhere, earning the growing animosity of physicians and poverty activists who felt that the foundation’s efforts to control population growth ignored the realities of the persistent poverty that makes large families so indispensable to Indian villagers. [27]

Big Pharma drugs[edit]

Thalidomide[edit]

“2-years and 8-months” after the FDA approved thalidomide, “the drug’s tragic potential became public knowledge”

On October 1, 1957, the company launched thalidomide and began marketing it under the trade name Contergan.[28][29] It was proclaimed a "wonder drug" for insomnia, coughs, colds and headaches.[30]

During that period, the use of medications during pregnancy was not strictly controlled, and drugs were not thoroughly tested for potential harm to the fetus.[31] Thousands of pregnant women took the drug to relieve their symptoms. At the time of the drug's development, scientists did not believe any drug taken by a pregnant woman could pass across the placental barrier and harm the developing fetus.[32] There soon appeared reports of abnormalities in children being born to mothers using thalidomide. In late 1959, it was noticed that peripheral neuritis developed in patients who took the drug over a period of time, and it was only after this point that thalidomide ceased to be provided over the counter.[33]

While initially considered safe, the drug was responsible for teratogenic deformities in children born after their mothers used it during pregnancies, prior to the third trimester. In November 1961, thalidomide was taken off the market due to massive pressure from the press and public.[34] Experts estimate that thalidomide led to the death of approximately 2,000 children and serious birth defects in more than 10,000 children, about 5,000 of them in West Germany.[citation needed] The regulatory authorities in East Germany did not approve thalidomide.[35] One reason for the initially unobserved side effects of the drug and the subsequent approval in West Germany was that at that time drugs did not have to be tested for teratogenic effects. They were tested on rodents only, as was usual at the time.[36]

In the UK, the British pharmaceutical company The Distillers Company (Biochemicals) Ltd, a subsidiary of Distillers Co. Ltd (now part of Diageo plc), marketed thalidomide throughout the UK, Australia and New Zealand, under the brand name Distaval, as a remedy for morning sickness. Their advertisement claimed that "Distaval can be given with complete safety to pregnant women and nursing mothers without adverse effect on mother or child ... Outstandingly safe Distaval has been prescribed for nearly three years in this country."[35] Globally, more pharmaceutical companies started to produce and market the drug under license from Chemie Grünenthal. By the mid-1950s, 14 pharmaceutical companies were marketing thalidomide in 46 countries under at least 37 different trade names.

In the US, representatives from Chemie Grünenthal approached Smith, Kline & French (SKF), now GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), with a request to market and distribute the drug in North America. A memorandum, rediscovered in 2010 in the archives of the FDA, shows that in 1956–57, as part of its in-licensing approach, Smith, Kline and French conducted animal tests and ran a clinical trial of the drug in the US involving 875 people, including pregnant women.[citation needed] In 1956, researchers involved in clinical trials at SKF noted that, even when used in very high doses, thalidomide could not induce sleep in mice.[citation needed] And when administered at doses 50 to 650 times larger than that claimed by Chemie Grünenthal to be "sleep inducing", the researchers could still not achieve the hypnotic effect in animals that it had on humans.[citation needed] After completion of the trial, and based on reasons kept hidden for decades, SKF declined to commercialize the drug. In 1958, Chemie Grünenthal reached an agreement with William S Merrell Company in Cincinnati, Ohio (later Richardson-Merrell, now part of Sanofi), to market and distribute thalidomide throughout the US.[35]

The US FDA refused to approve thalidomide for marketing and distribution. However, the drug was distributed in large quantities for testing purposes, after the American distributor and manufacturer Richardson-Merrell had applied for its approval in September 1960.[citation needed] The official in charge of the FDA review, Frances Oldham Kelsey, did not rely on information from the company, which did not include any test results. Richardson-Merrell was called on to perform tests and report the results. The company demanded approval six times, and was refused each time. Nevertheless, a total of 17 children with thalidomide-induced malformations were born in the US. Oldham Kelsey was given a Presidential award for distinguished service from the federal government for not allowing thalidomide to be approved for sale in the US.[37]

In Canada, the history of thalidomide dates back to April 1, 1961. There were many different forms sold, with the most common variant being called Talimol.[38] Two months after Talimol went on sale, pharmaceutical companies sent physicians letters warning about the risk of birth defects.[38] It was not until March 2, 1962, that both drugs were banned from the Canadian market by the FDD and, soon afterward, physicians were warned to destroy their supplies.[38]

Vioxx[edit]

https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Vioxx [archive]

Psychiatric drugs[edit]

Psychiatric drugs have been estimated to be the third leading cause of death.[39] Gøtzsche writes that since the effect of psychiatric drugs is so poor and the harms so overwhelming, they should not be used at all.

The treatment of SSRIs by medical agencies is similar to the Covid vaccines, where the agencies have not only ignored but actively tried to conceal a horrific number of adverse events [archive].

Big Pharma companies[edit]

Johnson & Johnson[edit]

1995: J&J incurs a $7.5 million fine for destroying documents to cover up an investigation into wrongful marketing of its Retin-A acne cream to remove wrinkles.

1996: J&J pays out an undisclosed settlement on false claims over false condom protection claims to protect against HIV and other STDs.

2001: J&J pays out a cool $860 million in a class action lawsuit for misleading customers about prematurely discarding its 1-Day Acuvue soft contact lens. J&J recommended they should be worn only once, but then it was discovered the lenses were no different than the regular Acuvue lens that last two weeks.

2010: J&J shells out an $81 million settlement for misbranding its anti-epileptic drug Topamax to treat psychiatric disorders, plus they hired outside physicians to join their sales force to promote the drug for unapproved conditions. Just one year later, J&J paid $85 million for similar charges against its Natrecor, a deadly heart drug.

2011: Several of J&J’s BABY products were discovered to contain carcinogenic ingredients.[40]

2013: The U.S. Justice Department charged J&J $2.2 billion in criminal fines for marketing its autism and anti-psychotic drug Risperdal for unapproved uses.

On July 21, 2021 J&J and three other smaller drug makers agreed to pay a staggering $26 billion damages to a group of US states for their role in causing America’s opioid epidemic.[41]

Pfizer[edit]

Pfizer is party to a number of lawsuits stemming from its pharmaceutical products as well as the practices of various companies it has merged with or acquired.[42][43][44] [45]

Quigley Co.[edit]

Pfizer acquired Quigley in 1968, and the division sold asbestos-containing insulation products until the early 1970s.[46] Asbestos victims and Pfizer have been negotiating a settlement deal that calls for Pfizer to pay $430 million to 80 percent of existing plaintiffs. It will also place an additional $535 million into an asbestos settlement trust that will compensate future plaintiffs as well as the remaining 20 percent of current plaintiffs with claims against Pfizer and Quigley. The compensation deal is worth $965 million all up. Of that $535 million, $405 million is in a 40-year note from Pfizer, while $100 million will come from insurance policies.[47]

Bjork–Shiley heart valve[edit]

Pfizer purchased Shiley in 1979 at the onset of its Convexo-Concave valve ordeal, involving the Bjork–Shiley heart valve. Approximately 500 people died when defective valves failed and, in 1994, the United States ruled against Pfizer for ~$200 million.[48][49]

Abdullahi v. Pfizer, Inc and Trovafloxacin (Trovan) Controversy.[edit]

In 1996, an outbreak of measles, cholera, and bacterial meningitis occurred in Nigeria. Pfizer representatives and personnel from a contract research organization (CRO) traveled to Kano, Nigeria to set up a clinical trial and administer an experimental antibiotic, trovafloxacin, to approximately 200 children.[50] Local Kano officials report that more than 50 children died in the experiment, while many others developed mental and physical deformities.[51] The nature and frequency of both fatalities and other adverse outcomes were similar to those historically found among pediatric patients treated for meningitis in sub-Saharan Africa.[52] In 2001, families of the children, as well as the governments of Kano and Nigeria, filed lawsuits regarding the treatment.[53] According to the news program Democracy Now!, "[r]esearchers did not obtain signed consent forms, and medical personnel said Pfizer did not tell parents their children were getting the experimental drug."[54] The lawsuits also accuse Pfizer of using the outbreak to perform unapproved human testing, as well as allegedly under-dosing a control group being treated with traditional antibiotics in order to skew the results of the trial in favor of Trovan. While the specific facts of the case remain in dispute, both Nigerian medical personnel and at least one Pfizer physician have stated that the trial was conducted without regulatory approval.[55][56]

In 2007, Pfizer published a Statement of Defense letter.[57] The letter states that the drug's oral form was safer and easier to administer, that Trovan had been used safely in over 5000 Americans prior to the Nigerian trial, that mortality in the patients treated by Pfizer was lower than that observed historically in African meningitis epidemics, and that no unusual side effects, unrelated to meningitis, were observed after 4 weeks.

In June 2010, the US Supreme Court rejected Pfizer's appeal against a ruling allowing lawsuits by the Nigerian families to proceed.[58]

In December 2010, WikiLeaks released US diplomatic cables, which indicate that Pfizer had hired investigators to find evidence of corruption against Nigerian attorney general Aondoakaa to persuade him to drop legal action.[59] Washington Post reporter Joe Stephens, who helped break the story in 2000, called these actions "dangerously close to blackmail."[54] In response, the company has released a press statement describing the allegations as "preposterous" and stating that they acted in good faith.[60] Aondoakka, who had allegedly demanded bribes from Pfizer in return for a settlement of the case,[61] was declared unfit for office and had his U.S. visa revoked in association with corruption charges in 2010.[62][63]

Retrovirus lawsuit[edit]

A scientist claims she was infected by a genetically modified virus while working for Pfizer. In her federal lawsuit she says she has been intermittently paralyzed by the Pfizer-designed virus. "McClain, of Deep River, suspects she was inadvertently exposed, through work by a former Pfizer colleague in 2002 or 2003, to an engineered form of the lentivirus, a virus similar to the one that can lead to acquired immune deficiency syndrome, also known as AIDS."[64] The court found that McClain failed to demonstrate that her illness was caused by exposure to the lentivirus,[65] but also that Pfizer violated whistleblower laws.[66]

Blue Cross Blue Shield[edit]

Health insurance company Blue Cross Blue Shield (BCBS) filed a lawsuit against Pfizer for reportedly illegally marketing their drugs Bextra, Geodon and Lyrica. BCBS is reporting that Pfizer used "kickbacks" and wrongly persuaded doctors to prescribe the drugs.[67][68] FiercePharma reported that "According to the suit, the drugmaker not only handed out those "misleading" materials on off-label uses, but sent doctors on Caribbean junkets and paid them $2,000 honoraria in return for their listening to lectures about Bextra. More than 5,000 healthcare professionals were entertained at meetings in Bahamas, Virgin Islands, and across the U.S., the suit alleges."[69][70] The case was settled in 2014 for $325M.[71]

Brigham Young University[edit]

Controversy arose over the drug "Celebrex". Brigham Young University (BYU) said that a professor of chemistry, Dr. Daniel L. Simmons, discovered an enzyme in the 1990s that would later lead towards the development of Celebrex. BYU was originally seeking 15% royalty on sales, which would equate to $9.7 billion. The court filings show that a research agreement was made with Monsanto, whose pharmaceutical business was later acquired by Pfizer, to develop a better aspirin. The enzyme that Dr. Simmons claims to have discovered would induce pain and inflammation while causing gastrointestinal problems, which Celebrex is used to reduce those issues. A battle ensued, lasting over six years, because BYU claimed that Pfizer did not give him credit or compensation while Pfizer claims it had met all obligations regarding the Monsanto agreement. This culminated in a $450 million amicable settlement without going to trial. Pfizer said it would take a $450 million charge against first quarter earnings to settle.[72]

Litigation in which Pfizer was not a party[edit]

Pfizer was discussed as part of the Kelo v. New London case that was decided by U.S. Supreme Court in 2005. In February 1998 Pfizer announced it would build a research facility in New London, Connecticut, and local planners, hoping to promote economic development and build on the influx of jobs the planned facility would bring to the town, created a plan that included seizing property to redevelop it under eminent domain, and local residents sued to stop the seizure. The case went to the Supreme Court, and with regard to Pfizer, the court cited a prior decision that said: "The record clearly demonstrates that the development plan was not intended to serve the interests of Pfizer, Inc., or any other private entity, but rather, to revitalize the local economy by creating temporary and permanent jobs, generating a significant increase in tax revenue, encouraging spin-off economic activities and maximizing public access to the waterfront”.[73] The Supreme Court allowed the eminent domain to proceed.[73] Pfizer opened the facility in 2001 but abandoned it in 2009, angering residents of the town.[74]

Environmental record[edit]

Between 2002 and 2008, Pfizer reduced its greenhouse emissions by 20%,[75] and committed to reducing emissions by an additional 20% by 2012. In 2012 the company was named to the Carbon Disclosure Project's Carbon Leadership Index in recognition of its efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.[76]

Pfizer has inherited Wyeth's liabilities in the American Cyanamid site in Bridgewater, New Jersey. This site is highly toxic and an EPA declared Superfund site. Pfizer has since attempted to remediate this land in order to clean and develop it for future profits and potential public uses.[77] The Sierra Club and the Edison Wetlands Association have come out in opposition to the cleanup plan, arguing that the area is subject to flooding, which could cause pollutants to leach. The EPA considers the plan the most reasonable from considerations of safety and cost-effectiveness, arguing that an alternative plan involving trucking contaminated soil off site could expose cleanup workers. The EPA's position is backed by the environmental watchdog group CRISIS.[78]

In June 2002, a chemical explosion at the Groton plant injured seven people and caused the evacuation of over 100 homes in the surrounding area.[79]

Political lobbying[edit]

Pfizer is a leading member of the U.S. Global Leadership Coalition, a Washington D.C.-based coalition of over 400 major companies and NGOs that advocates for a larger International Affairs Budget, which funds American diplomatic, humanitarian, and development efforts abroad.[80]

Pfizer is one of the single largest lobbying interests in United States politics. For example, in the first 9 months of 2009 Pfizer spent over $16.3 million on lobbying US congressional lawmakers, making them the sixth largest lobbying interest in the US (following Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), which ranked fourth but also represents many of their interests). A spokeswoman for Pfizer said the company “wanted to make sure our voice is heard in this conversation” in regards to the company's expenditure of $25 million in 2010 to lobby health care reform.[81]

According to U.S. State Department cables released by the whistleblower site WikiLeaks, Pfizer "lobbied against New Zealand getting a free trade agreement with the United States because it objected to New Zealand's restrictive drug buying rules and tried to get rid of New Zealand's former health minister, Helen Clark, in 1990.[82]

In an example of the revolving door between government and industry in the United States, Scott Gotlieb, who resigned as the US FDA Commissioner in April 2019, joined the Pfizer board of directors three months later, in July.[83]

AstraZeneca[edit]

In June of 2003, AstraZeneca pleaded guilty to a felony charge of health care fraud and agreed to pay $355 million to settle criminal and civil accusations that it engaged in a nationwide scheme to illegally market a prostate cancer drug. -- New York Times [archive]

Nexium, the successor to Prilosec, has according to some commentators "become a symbol of everything that is wrong with the pharmaceutical industry".[1] [archive] The issue was that of evergreening patents, which in effect would extend the market dominance of certain proprietary medicines. Esomeprazole is a single stereoisomer of omeprazole and based upon available evidence there seems to be little difference between the two in dose-related response. However, AZ as owners of the lucrative Losec patent sought to extend domination of the PPI market with Nexium, marketed as the successor to the original drug. Though identical in biological action, the new drug could be patented, thus achieving "evergreening" of the product and maintaining market share.

Moderna[edit]

Moderna (Mode-RNA or Modify-RNA) is said to have received funding from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and from DARPA.

Insiders have written about the toxic and secretive workplace culture at Moderna.[84] While Moderna focused research on mRNA technology, RNA drug development was shunned by many major Big Pharma companies due to concerns about the risks because the nanoparticles used to deliver mRNA can lead to dangerous side effects.[85] During early development of mRNA technology at Moderna there were troubling effects on the liver in animal studies.[86]

Merck[edit]

Henry Gadsden, former CEO of Merck, said: I want to sell drugs to everyone. I want to sell drugs to healthy people. I want drugs to sell like chewing gum.[87]

https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Merck [archive]

Vaccine manufacturers[edit]

Vaccine manufacturers are the least regulated, and most protected by federal legislation of Big Pharma companies. Vaccine manufacturers are so powerful that the FDA allows them to test vaccines without using placebo-controlled clinical trials. If you’re injured by a vaccine, you cannot sue the manufacturer. Instead, you must sue the federal government in a special vaccine court which functions like a kangaroo court.[88]

Medical colonialism[edit]

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. writes that Africa and Asia have been Pharma colonies for over a century. Vaccination programs can justify interventions in developing countries as a tool for social and political control. Vaccines are weaponized as a foreign policy tool with deep connections to the Intelligence Apparatus. [89]

Celia Farber writes: “The racism is cloaked inside carefully crafted philanthropic manipulations such as ‘access’ to drugs. It’s never access to clean drinking water, education, sanitation, nutrition. It’s a very blighting message for the US to constantly be browbeating Africans with our self-serving messaging that they are so sick, and we have just the drugs to ‘save’ their lives. When the opposite happens, it’s swept away and hidden behind the false front of charity. I call it Pharma-Colonialism.”[90]

Pharmaceutical companies are about as interested in public health as the arms industry is in world peace.

Pharmaceutical companies don't create cures, they create customers. Vaccines are one of the primary ways of doing so.

Pharma trials in India[edit]

Linsey McGoey writes, Since 2005, the number of clinical trials in India has ballooned to 1,600 studies involving over 150,000 research subjects. Health campaigners in India have mounted a vigorous campaign calling for stricter regulation of an industry that has seen over 2,000 research participants die between 2007 and 2013. ... India’s health minister recently reported to the Indian parliament that to date, less than twenty-five family members have received compensation from foreign drug companies for loss of life. Families received an average of about $3,000 per individual – a pittance.[91]

Notes[edit]

<templatestyles src="Reflist/styles.css" />

References[edit]

<templatestyles src="Reflist/styles.css" />

  1. Smith R. Medical journals are an extension of the marketing arm of pharmaceutical companies. PLoS Med 2005 May; 2(5): e138.
  2. Fanelli D. How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data. PloS One 2009 May 29; 4(5): e5738.Neil Z. Miller - Miller's Review of Critical Vaccine Studies_ 400 Important Scientific Papers Summarized for Parents and Researchers-New Atlantean Press (2016)
  3. Martinson BC, Anderson MS, de Vries R. Scientists behaving badly. Nature 2005 Jun 9; 435: 737-38.Neil Z. Miller - Miller's Review of Critical Vaccine Studies_ 400 Important Scientific Papers Summarized for Parents and Researchers-New Atlantean Press (2016)
  4. Tereskerz PM, Hamric AB, et al. Prevalence of industry support and its relationship to research integrity. Account Res 2009 Apr-Jun; 16(2): 78-105.Neil Z. Miller - Miller's Review of Critical Vaccine Studies_ 400 Important Scientific Papers Summarized for Parents and Researchers-New Atlantean Press (2016)
  5. Fava GA. Preserving intellectual freedom in clinical medicine. Psychother Psychosom 2009; 78: 1-5.Neil Z. Miller - Miller's Review of Critical Vaccine Studies_ 400 Important Scientific Papers Summarized for Parents and Researchers-New Atlantean Press (2016)
  6. Noble JH. Detecting bias in biomedical research: looking at study design and published findings is not enough. Monash Bioethics Review 2007 Jan-Apr; 26(1-2): 24-45.Neil Z. Miller - Miller's Review of Critical Vaccine Studies_ 400 Important Scientific Papers Summarized for Parents and Researchers-New Atlantean Press (2016)
  7. Glick JL. Scientific data audit—a key management tool. Accountability in Research 1992; 2(3): 153-68.Neil Z. Miller - Miller's Review of Critical Vaccine Studies_ 400 Important Scientific Papers Summarized for Parents and Researchers-New Atlantean Press (2016)
  8. DeLong G. Conflicts of interest in vaccine safety research. Account Res 2012; 19(2): 65-88.Neil Z. Miller - Miller's Review of Critical Vaccine Studies_ 400 Important Scientific Papers Summarized for Parents and Researchers-New Atlantean Press (2016)
  9. Friedman LS, Richter ED. Relationship between conflicts of interest and research results. J Gen Intern Med 2004 Jan; 19(1): 51-56.Neil Z. Miller - Miller's Review of Critical Vaccine Studies_ 400 Important Scientific Papers Summarized for Parents and Researchers-New Atlantean Press (2016)
  10. Roseman M, Milette K, et al. Reporting of conflicts of interest in meta-analyses of trials of pharmacological treatments. JAMA 2011 Mar 9; 305(10): 1008-17.Neil Z. Miller - Miller's Review of Critical Vaccine Studies_ 400 Important Scientific Papers Summarized for Parents and Researchers-New Atlantean Press (2016)
  11. Roseman M, Turner EH, et al. Reporting of conflicts of interest from drug trials in Cochrane reviews: cross sectional study. BMJ 2012 Aug 16; 345: e5155.Neil Z. Miller - Miller's Review of Critical Vaccine Studies_ 400 Important Scientific Papers Summarized for Parents and Researchers-New Atlantean Press (2016)
  12. Lenzer J. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: protecting the private good? BMJ 2015 May 15; 350: h2362.Neil Z. Miller - Miller's Review of Critical Vaccine Studies_ 400 Important Scientific Papers Summarized for Parents and Researchers-New Atlantean Press (2016)
  13. Golomb BA, Erickson LC, et al. What’s in placebos: who knows? Analysis of randomized, controlled trials. Ann Intern Med 2010; 153(8): 532-35.Neil Z. Miller - Miller's Review of Critical Vaccine Studies_ 400 Important Scientific Papers Summarized for Parents and Researchers-New Atlantean Press (2016)
  14. Ioannidis JP. Why most published research findings are false. PloS Med 2005 Aug; 2(8): e124.Neil Z. Miller - Miller's Review of Critical Vaccine Studies_ 400 Important Scientific Papers Summarized for Parents and Researchers-New Atlantean Press (2016)
  15. Ioannidis JP. Contradicted and initially stronger effects in highly cited clinical research. JAMA 2005 Jul 13; 294(2): 218-28.Neil Z. Miller - Miller's Review of Critical Vaccine Studies_ 400 Important Scientific Papers Summarized for Parents and Researchers-New Atlantean Press (2016)
  16. Martin B. On the Suppression of Vaccination Dissent. Sci Eng Ethics 2015; 21(1): 143-57. Neil Z. Miller - Miller's Review of Critical Vaccine Studies_ 400 Important Scientific Papers Summarized for Parents and Researchers-New Atlantean Press (2016)
  17. https://seekingalpha.com/article/967771-has-webmd-become-synonymous-with-big-pharma [archive]
  18. https://ihpi.umich.edu/news/truth-about-webmd-hypochondriacs-nightmare-big-pharmas-dream [archive]
  19. Publication Duty for Big Pharma [archive], PloS Medicine
  20. Newkirk, Vann R. II (June 17, 2016). "A Generation of Bad Blood" [archive]. The Atlantic. Archived [archive] from the original on December 18, 2020. Retrieved 18 December 2020. Known officially as the Tuskegee Study of Untreated Syphilis in the Negro Male ...<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  21. Shamim M Baker, Otis W Brawley, Leonard S Marks (June 2005). "Effects of untreated syphilis in the negro male, 1932 to 1972: a closure comes to the Tuskegee study, 2004" [archive] (PDF). Urology. 65 (6): 1259–62. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2004.10.023 [archive]. PMID 15922414 [archive]. Archived [archive] (PDF) from the original on September 15, 2012. Retrieved 18 December 2020. The study was officially titled “The Effects of Untreated Syphilis in the Negro Male.”CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  22. "The Tuskegee Timeline" [archive]. U.S. Public Health Service Syphilis Study at Tuskegee. U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Archived [archive] from the original on May 10, 2019. Retrieved 18 December 2020. It was called the “Tuskegee Study of Untreated Syphilis in the Negro Male.”<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  23. Brandt, Allan M. (December 1978). "Racism and Research: The Case of the Tuskegee Syphilis Study" [archive]. The Hastings Center Report. 8 (6): 21–29. doi:10.2307/3561468 [archive]. JSTOR 3561468 [archive]. PMID 721302 [archive]. Archived [archive] from the original on January 18, 2021. Retrieved June 27, 2020.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  24. "Tuskegee Study - Timeline" [archive]. CDC - NCHHSTP. 2020-03-02. Archived [archive] from the original on May 10, 2019. Retrieved 2020-05-14.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  25. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named wall
  26. (Children’s Health Defense) Robert F. Kennedy - The Real Anthony Fauci_ Bill Gates, Big Pharma, and the Global War on Democracy and Public Health-Skyhorse (2021)
  27. Linsey McGoey - No Such Thing as a Free Gift_ The Gates Foundation and the Price of Philanthropy-Verso (2015)
  28. Grünenthal: Where we come from [archive]. Official website, undated. Retrieved 2 July 2018. See also Developments regarding thalidomide [archive]
  29. Moghe, Vijay V; Kulkarni, Ujjwala; Parmar, Urvashi I (2008). "Thalidomide" [archive] (PDF). Bombay Hospital Journal. Bombay: Bombay Hospital. 50 (3): 472–6. Unknown parameter |name-list-style= ignored (help)<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  30. Campbell, Denis. "'Wonder drug' left babies with deformed limbs." The Guardian. 29 July 2009.
  31. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named pmid15172781
  32. Heaton CA (1994). The Chemical Industry. Springer. ISBN 978-0-7514-0018-2.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  33. Kelsey FO (1967). "Events after thalidomide". Journal of Dental Research. 46 (6): 1201–5. doi:10.1177/00220345670460061201 [archive]. PMID 5235007 [archive]. Unknown parameter |s2cid= ignored (help)<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  34. "Thalidomide: The Fifty Year Fight (no longer available)" [archive]. BBC. 15 May 2014. Retrieved 13 September 2015.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  35. 35.0 35.1 35.2 Hofland, Peter (December 2013). "Reversal of Fortune: How a Vilified Drug Became a Life-saving Agent in the "War" Against Cancer" [archive]. Onco'Zine. Unknown parameter |name-list-style= ignored (help)<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  36. VFA: teratogenic effects [archive] 6. July 2011.
  37. "Report" [archive]. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. 12 May 2009. Archived from the original [archive] on 12 May 2009.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  38. 38.0 38.1 38.2 Webb JF (November 1963). "Canadian Thalidomide Experience" [archive]. Canadian Medical Association Journal. 89: 987–92. PMC 1921912 [archive]. PMID 14076167 [archive].<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  39. Peter C. Gøtzsche - Survival in an overmedicated world_ Look up the evidence yourself-People’sPress
  40. https://www.globalresearch.ca/we-should-trust-science-pharma-industry/5751561 [archive]
  41. https://www.globalresearch.ca/we-should-trust-science-pharma-industry/5751561 [archive]
  42. Harris, Gardiner (September 3, 2009). "Pfizer Pays $2.3 billion to Settle Marketing Case" [archive]. The New York Times.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  43. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named wapo offlabel
  44. "Pfizer agrees record fraud fine" [archive]. BBC. September 2, 2009. Retrieved May 22, 2010.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  45. https://www.globalresearch.ca/we-should-trust-science-pharma-industry/5751561 [archive]
  46. The Quigley Company, Inc. Trust [archive] Quigley Company reorganization
  47. Crown, Reign (2012). Master [archive]. Booktango. ISBN 978-1-4689-2014-7. over $965 million in settlements<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  48. Blackstone, E.H. (2005). "Could It Happen Again?: The Bjork–Shiley Convexo-Concave Heart Valve Story" [archive]. Circulation. 111 (21): 2717–2719. doi:10.1161/circulationaha.105.540518 [archive]. PMID 15927988 [archive]. Archived from the original [archive] on June 8, 2011. Retrieved June 21, 2010.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  49. Bloomfield, P.; et al. (1991). "Twelve-year comparison of a Bjork–Shiley mechanical heart valve with porcine bioprostheses" [archive]. N Engl J Med. 324 (9): 573–579. doi:10.1056/nejm199102283240901 [archive]. PMID 1992318 [archive].<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  50. Oldani, Michael (2016), "Trovafloxacin (Trovan) Controversy" [archive], The SAGE Encyclopedia of Pharmacology and Society, SAGE Publications, Inc., pp. 1444–1447, doi:10.4135/9781483349985.n409 [archive], ISBN 9781483350004, retrieved 2019-01-21<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  51. Murray, Senan (June 20, 2007). "Africa | Anger at deadly Nigerian drug trials" [archive]. BBC News. Retrieved July 11, 2011.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  52. Ramakrishnan M, Ulland AJ, Steinhardt LC, Moïsi JC, Were F, Levine OS (2009). "Sequelae due to bacterial meningitis among African children: a systematic literature review" [archive]. BMC Med. 7: 47. doi:10.1186/1741-7015-7-47 [archive]. PMC 2759956 [archive]. PMID 19751516 [archive].<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  53. "Nigerians sue Pfizer over test deaths" [archive]. BBC News. August 30, 2001. Retrieved May 22, 2010.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  54. 54.0 54.1 WikiLeaks Cables: Pfizer Targeted Nigerian Attorney General to Undermine Suit over Fatal Drug Tests [archive], Democracy Now!
  55. Panel Faults Pfizer in '96 Clinical Trial In Nigeria [archive]. The Washington Post. May 7, 2006
  56. "Pfizer Bribed Nigerian Officials in Fatal Drug Trial, Ex-Employee Claims - CBS News" [archive].<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  57. "Trovan, Kano State Civil Case – Statement Of Defense" [archive] (PDF). Retrieved July 11, 2011.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  58. "Pfizer-Nigeria appeal dismissed" [archive]. BBC News. June 29, 2010.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  59. Boseley, Sarah (December 9, 2010). "WikiLeaks cables: Pfizer 'used dirty tricks to avoid clinical trial payout'" [archive]. The Guardian. London.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  60. "Press Statement Regarding Article in The Guardian" [archive] (PDF). Pfizer. December 9, 2010. Retrieved December 13, 2010.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  61. "In Defense of Blackmail: Why Shouldn't Pfizer Dig Dirt on Crooked Pols? - CBS News" [archive].<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  62. "Michael Aondoakaa "Unfit" To Remain SAN, Says CDHR In High-Powered Petition | Sahara Reporters" [archive].<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  63. "USAfrica: The Authoritative Link for Africans and Americans" [archive].<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  64. "Ex-Pfizer Worker Cites Genetically Engineered Virus In Lawsuit Over Firing" [archive]. Courant.com. March 14, 2010. Archived from the original [archive] on July 28, 2012. Retrieved July 11, 2011.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  65. "McClain v. PFIZER, INC., 692 F. Supp. 2d 229" [archive]. Retrieved September 13, 2012.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  66. "A Pfizer Whistle-Blower Is Awarded $1.4 Million" [archive]. The New York Times. April 2, 2010. Retrieved September 13, 2012.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  67. "Blue Cross Names and Shames Pfizer Execs Linked to Massages-for-Prescriptions Push | BNET" [archive]. Industry.bnet.com. June 10, 2010. Retrieved July 11, 2011.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  68. Bounds, Jeff (June 10, 2010). "Blue Cross Blue Shield of Texas sues Pfizer" [archive].<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  69. Tracy Staton (June 11, 2010). "BCBS names Pfizer managers in kickback suit" [archive]. FiercePharma. Retrieved July 11, 2011.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  70. "Blue Cross Blue Shield of Texas sues Pfizer over drug marketing | News for Dallas, Texas | Dallas Morning News | Dallas Business News" [archive]. Dallasnews.com. June 11, 2010. Retrieved July 11, 2011.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  71. "Pfizer Agrees to $325 Million Neurontin Marketing Accord - Bloomberg" [archive].<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  72. Pfizer Settles Lawsuite [archive] Archived [archive] 1 June 2012 at the Wayback Machine.
  73. 73.0 73.1 "Kelo V. New London (04-108) 545 U.S. 469 (2005) 268 Conn. 1, 843 A. 2d 500, affirmed" [archive]. Cornell University Law School. Retrieved 27 November 2015.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  74. Mcgeehan, Patrick (12 November 2009). "Pfizer and 1,400 Jobs to Leave New London, Connecticut" [archive]. The New York Times.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  75. "Pfizer Commended For Leadership In Addressing Climate Change For Third Consecutive Year - FierceBiotech" [archive].<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  76. "Pfizer Recognized by Carbon Disclosure Project for Carbon Performance | Pfizer: One of the world's premiere biopharmaceutical companies" [archive].<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  77. "American Cyanamid Superfund Site" [archive] (PDF). The State of New Jersey. December 2011. Retrieved 27 November 2015.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  78. "Activists say EPA $204M fix for polluted American Cyanamid property will not permanently resolve problem | NJ.com" [archive].<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  79. The tempest [archive]. The Washington Post. May 28, 2006
  80. "U.S. Global Leadership Coalition, Global Trust members" [archive]. Usglc.org. Retrieved July 11, 2011.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  81. Steinbrook, R., 2009. Lobbying, Campaign Contributions, and Health Care Reform [archive] Archived [archive] June 10, 2010, at the Wayback Machine. New England Journal of Medicine. 361(23), e52–e52.
  82. David Fisher & Jonathan Milne (December 19, 2010). "WikiLeaks: Drug firms tried to ditch Clark" [archive]. The New Zealand Herald. Retrieved November 3, 2011.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  83. Mishra, Manas (2 July 2019). Kuber, Shailesh (ed.). "Senator Warren asks former FDA chief Gottlieb to resign from Pfizer board" [archive]. Reuters. Retrieved 4 July 2019.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  84. https://www.statnews.com/2016/09/13/moderna-therapeutics-biotech-mrna/ [archive]
  85. https://www.statnews.com/2016/09/13/moderna-therapeutics-biotech-mrna/ [archive]
  86. https://www.statnews.com/2017/01/10/moderna-trouble-mrna/ [archive]
  87. Robert Yoho MD [Yoho MD, Robert] - Butchered by “Healthcare”_ What to Do About Doctors, Big Pharma, and Corrupt Government Ruining Your Health and Medical Care-Inverness Press (2020)
  88. Peter R. Breggin, Ginger R. Breggin - COCIS-19 and the Global Predators. We Are the Prey (2021)
  89. (Children’s Health Defense) Robert F. Kennedy - The Real Anthony Fauci_ Bill Gates, Big Pharma, and the Global War on Democracy and Public Health-Skyhorse (2021)
  90. (Children’s Health Defense) Robert F. Kennedy - The Real Anthony Fauci_ Bill Gates, Big Pharma, and the Global War on Democracy and Public Health-Skyhorse (2021)
  91. Linsey McGoey - No Such Thing as a Free Gift_ The Gates Foundation and the Price of Philanthropy-Verso (2015)

See also[edit]

Books[edit]

Many of these books can be downloaded at Library Genesis [archive] for free.
  • Big Pharma: How the World's Biggest Drug Companies Control Illness is a 2006 book by British journalist Jacky Law.
  • Bad Pharma: How Drug Companies Mislead Doctors and Harm Patients is a book by the British physician and academic Ben Goldacre
  • Side Effects: A Prosecutor, a Whistleblower, and a Bestselling Antidepressant on Trial is a nonfiction book by investigative journalist Alison Bass
  • Anatomy of an Epidemic: Magic Bullets, Psychiatric Drugs, and the Astonishing Rise of Mental Illness in America is a book by Robert Whitaker
  • Empire of Pain: The Secret History of the Sackler Dynasty is a 2021 book by Patrick Radden Keefe.
  • Peter Goetzche, Deadly Medicines and Organised Crime
  • Breggin, Peter - The Antidepressant Fact Book_ What Your Doctor Won't Tell You About Prozac, Zoloft, Paxil, Celexa, Luvox and the Other Newly Approved Psychiatric Drugs (2009)
  • Alan Schwarz - ADHD Nation_ Children, Doctors, Big Pharma, and the Making of an American Epidemic-Scribner (2016)
  • Brogan, Kelly_Loberg, Kristin - A mind of your own_ what women can do about depression that big pharma can't_ featuring a 30-day plan for transformation-HarperCollins_Harper Wave (2016)
  • Goldacre, Ben - Bad pharma_ how medicine is broken and how we can fix it-HarperCollins Publishers_Fourth Estate (2012_2013)
  • Sherri J. Tenpenny DO - Fowl! Bird Flu_ It’s Not What You Think-Nma Media Press (2006)
  • Peter C. Gøtzsche (2015). Deadly Psychiatry and Organised Denial. People's Press. ISBN 978-87-7159-623-6.
  • Peter C. Gøtzsche (2019). Survival in an Overmedicated World: Look Up the Evidence Yourself. People's Press. ASIN B07R5TPV9C.
  • Peter C. Gøtzsche (2020). Mental Health Survival Kit and Withdrawal from Psychiatric Drugs. People's Press. ASIN B08HM7QGFZ.
  • Jacky Law - Big Pharma_ Exposing the Global Healthcare Agenda-Basic Books (2006)
  • Sergio Sismondo - Ghost-Managed Medicine_ Big Pharma's Invisible Hands-Mattering Press (2018)
  • Whitaker, Robert - Anatomy of an epidemic_ magic bullets, psychiatric drugs, and the astonishing rise of mental illness in America-Crown_Archetype_Broadway Paperbacks (2010)
  • Robert Yoho MD [Yoho MD, Robert] - Butchered by “Healthcare”_ What to Do About Doctors, Big Pharma, and Corrupt Government Ruining Your Health and Medical Care-Inverness Press (2020)
  • Brogan, Kelly_Loberg, Kristin - A mind of your own_ what women can do about depression that big pharma can't_ featuring a 30-day plan for transformation-HarperCollins_Harper Wave (2016)
  • Brogan, Kelly_Loberg, Kristin - A mind of your own_ what women can do about depression that big pharma can't_ featuring a 30-day plan for transformation-HarperCollins_Harper Wave (2016)
  • Toxic psychiatry: why therapy, empathy and love must replace the drugs, electroshock, and biochemical theories of the new psychiatry
  • Medication madness: the role of psychiatric drugs in cases of violence, suicide, and crime
  • Your drug may be your problem: how and why to stop taking psychiatric medications
  • Talking Back to Prozac: What Doctors Won't Tell You About Prozac and the Newer Antidepressants
  • Brain Disabling Treatments in Psychiatry: Drugs, Electroshock, and the Psychopharmaceutical Complex
  • Talking Back to Ritalin: What Doctors Aren't Telling You About Stimulants and ADHD
  • The Truth About the Drug Companies: How They Deceive Us and What to Do About It.
  • Breggin, Peter Roger - Medication madness_ the role of psychiatric drugs in cases of violence, suicide, and crime-St. Martin's Press_St. Martin's Griffin (2009)
  • Breggin, Peter Roger - Toxic psychiatry_ why therapy, empathy and love must replace the drugs, electroshock, and biochemical theories of the new psychiatry-St. Martin's Griffin_St. Martin's Press
  • Cohen, David_ Breggin, Peter Roger - Your drug may be your problem_ how and why to stop taking psychiatric medications-DaCapo Life Long (2007)
  • Confessions of a Medical Heretic
  • Marcia Angell - The Truth About the Drug Companies_ How They Deceive Us and What to Do About It-Random House Trade Paperbacks (2005)
  • Peter R. Breggin MD - Brain Disabling Treatments in Psychiatry_ Drugs, Electroshock, and the Psychopharmaceutical Complex-Springer Publishing Company (2007)
  • Peter R. Breggin MD, Ginger Ross Breggin - Talking Back to Prozac_ What Doctors Won't Tell You About Prozac and the Newer Antidepressants-Open Road Media (2014)
  • Peter R. Breggin, Dick Scruggs - Talking Back to Ritalin_ What Doctors Aren't Telling You About Stimulants and ADHD (2001)
  • PETER R. BREGGIN, MD A MEMBER OF THE PERSEUS BOOKS GROUP - The Antidepressant Fact Book_ What Your Doctor Won't Tell You About Prozac, Zoloft, Paxil, Celexa, Luvox and the Other Newly Approved Psychia
  • Robert Mendelsohn - Confessions of a Medical Heretic-McGraw-Hill Education (1990)
  • Gerald Posner - Pharma_ Greed, Lies, and the Poisoning of America-Avid Reader Press _ Simon & Schuster (2020)
  • Sickening: How Big Pharma Broke American Health Care and How We Can Repair It
  • Ty M. Bollinger - Monumental Myths of the Modern Medical Mafia and Mainstream Media and the Multitude of Lying Liars That Manufactured Them-Infinity 510 Squared Partners (2013)

Movies[edit]

External links[edit]

These links are being provided as a convenience and for informational purposes only; they do not constitute an endorsement or an approval by Dharmapedia of any of the products, services or opinions of the corporation or organization or individual. Dharmapedia bears no responsibility for the accuracy, legality or content of the external site or for that of subsequent links. Contact the external site for answers to questions regarding its content.

https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/patent-wars-india-takes-on-big-pharma [archive]

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2005/04/indi-a16.html [archive]

https://www.livemint.com/Opinion/YcLGNkf5vm6XlnFosTInFP/Big-Pharmas-India-shadow.html [archive]

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/markets/stocks/news/drug-giants-are-hunting-for-patients-in-indias-remote-corners/articleshow/59892642.cms [archive]

https://www.aidsnews.org/2004/12/india-patent.html [archive]

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2013/07/11/big-pharma-using-indias-poor-lab-rats-test-meds [archive]

https://countercurrents.org/2022/02/big-pharma-and-drug-misuse [archive]

This website is for information purposes only. By providing the information contained herein we are not diagnosing, treating, curing, mitigating, or preventing any type of disease or medical condition. Before beginning any type of natural, integrative or conventional treatment regimen, it is advisable to seek the advice of a licensed healthcare professional.