NYT: Not in the interest of BigPharma
Mort Zuckerman
gary_w...@nymc.edu, scientifi...@ostp.gov,
pkru...@princeton.edu, Stanle...@fiu.edu,
emcsw...@niaid.nih.gov, afa...@niaid.nih.gov,
Spin...@yahoogroups.com, kshe...@calea.org, fit...@gmail.com,
patrick.f...@usdoj.gov, model...@sbcglobal.net,
jdr...@nejm.org, let...@courant.com, Jgerb...@cdc.gov,
michae...@po.state.ct.us, con...@po.state.ct.us, executive-
edi...@nytimes.com, managin...@nytimes.com, news-
ti...@nytimes.com, biz...@nytimes.com, for...@nytimes.com,
nati...@nytimes.com, dv...@cdc.gov, brigidc...@optonline.net,
tr...@hotmail.com, illino...@aol.com, jle...@courant.com,
tinaj...@yahoo.com, jhorn...@fff.org, thomas...@usdoj.gov,
thoma...@po.state.ct.us, kur...@washpost.com,
georg...@washpost.com, p...@allegorypress.com,
commissi...@po.state.ct.us, brans...@comcast.net,
vts...@comcast.net, o...@po.state.ct.us, freet...@charter.net,
scott....@po.state.ct.us, govern...@po.state.ct.us,
attorney...@po.state.ct.us, randall...@usdoj.gov,
Robert....@yale.edu, edi...@greenwich-post.com,
harol...@yale.edu, sedm...@nswbc.org, rrmcg...@aol.com,
fr...@nytimes.com, dpr...@stmartin.edu
Cc: fra...@ucia.gov, dr-ahma...@president.ir,
eugener...@washpost.com, afa...@niaid.nih.gov,
bmi...@newstimes.com, tr...@hotmail.com, rast...@aol.com,
billc...@gmail.com, amcg...@rms-law.com, rjmu...@aol.com,
paulcrai...@yahoo.com, sidney_b...@yahoo.com,
criminal...@usdoj.gov, karla.d...@usdoj.gov,
christophe...@usdoj.gov, richar...@yale.edu,
harol...@yale.edu, james.p...@yale.edu, inq...@aldf.com,
ly...@idsociety.org, meganm...@theatlantic.com
Subject: NYT: Not in the interest of BigPharma
Date: Jan 13, 2010 5:04 AM
ARTICLE BELOW
========================
1) It is not in the interest of BigPharma
to discover the causes of chronic diseases
like RA, MS, [exclude high blood pressure
because that's normal and not a disease],
Lupus, insulin resistance and the damage
to the Langerhans cells from infections
resulting in diabetes or infections that
result in autoimmune diseases or autoimmune
damage... because the interest of BigPharma
is to keep populations on drugs permanently.
2) The CDC is working together with Kaiser
to come up with vaccines, but now we all know
about the results of a forced hypervaccination
program. The likes of Anthony Fauci has had
to admit he knows dick about vaccines or the
mechanisms of immunity. What is autism?
The data points to hypervaccination of the
non-prescreened for immune competence to thw
vaccines antigens and their carriers (SSPE) and
letting the pediatric brain damage chips fall
where they may.
3) As for psychotropics and "mental illness,"
the world is awakening to discernment between
harm/intent and the victims of it. And even
more enlightening, the paranormal (watch this
entire show):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDVXM-9opTc&feature=related
And lastly, Stanford can expect spies from
BigPharma. I don't know of a company more
infamous for nepotism than Pfizer. The
model for infiltrating universities in order
to steal or manipulate intelligence is of course,
Israelis, as revealed to us by Sibel Edmonds:
http://www.amconmag.com/article/2009/nov/01/00006/
So, what's the answer?
It's becoming common knowledge that "The Government"
has no interest in performing its function of protecting
us from the abuses of the Bigs. SCOTUS, in their
intellectual incapacity (legal term: "incompetence")
has declared Humanity to be secondary to the
profit pursuits of the Bigs and the Bankstahs:
http://vdare.com/roberts/100111_americans.htm
The only thing to do is let the world know
US intent. Russia has declared that they'll
not take over the job as world police in response
to US Oil shenanigans, but now that we have
a formal declaration from SCOTUS, that Humanity
can eat shit and bark at the moon, perhaps they
and China, and India, and Brazil... will give
that position a re-think.
KMDickson
http://www.actionlyme.org
====================================
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/11/business/11drug.html?ref=health&pagewanted=print
January 11, 2010
Using a Pfizer Grant, Courses Aim to Avoid Bias
By DUFF WILSON
Stanford University on Monday will announce plans to develop new
continuing education programs for doctors that will be devoid of the
drug industry influence that has often permeated such courses.
The work is being done with a $3 million grant — from the drug maker
Pfizer.
Dr. Philip Pizzo, dean of the Stanford medical school, says Pfizer
will have no say on how the three-year grant will be spent. The
university plans to set up unbiased programs of postgraduate education
on the Stanford campus rather than the industry-selected topics of the
past that have been presented to rooms full of doctors at hotels and
resorts.
“It’s a fundamental change,” Dr. Pizzo said Sunday, criticizing the
drug industry for poisoning educational programs with marketing
messages and doctors for “complicity” in taking speaker fees and
expenses-paid trips. He called the grant “a novel rebooting.”
Stanford’s move was applauded by David J. Rothman, a professor and
president of the Center on Medicine as a Profession at Columbia.
“It’s fair to say Stanford is once again leading the pack,” said
Professor Rothman, who has written in The Journal of the American
Medical Association about conflicts of interest in academic medicine.
“I will also confess I am surprised Pfizer is doing it,” he added,
“and I don’t know how many more times they will give money with no
strings attached.”
Pfizer, in a statement, said it wanted to help redefine how continuing
medical education was financed to ensure the independence and patient
benefit of the programs, which most doctors are required to take to
maintain their state medical licenses.
Still, some saw inherent conflicts in the Pfizer connection.
“The announcement is self-satirizing,” said Dr. Adriane Fugh-Berman, a
Georgetown University medical professor who has researched and written
about industry influence in continuing medical education. “Pfizer’s
interest in better ways to manipulate physicians is well-known.”
Stanford said the curriculum would focus on areas that needed
improvement, like diabetes, cardiovascular disease, smoking cessation
and infections. The university plans to use advanced technologies,
including a simulated hospital, rather than lecturing.
“The Pfizer grant comes with no conditions, and the company will not
be involved in developing the curriculum,” according to a medical
school press release.
But Dr. Fugh-Berman said that Pfizer has major products in two of the
four areas that the Stanford press release suggested might be pursued:
smoking cessation and heart disease.
Dr. Pizzo, the Stanford dean said he was aware that the grant from
Pfizer would receive some skepticism. “I think that’s appropriate
because I have a certain guarded skepticism or optimism about this,
too,” he said. “It remains to be seen how this eventually works.”
Drug and medical device companies have paid more than $1 billion a
year for continuing medical education through universities, disease
associations and private vendors, about half the total cost of the
programs. The industry’s influence on topic selection, tone of
presentations and advice given to doctors has spurred calls for reform
from the Institute of Medicine, the Association of American Medical
Colleges and the inspector general of the Department of Health and
Human Services.
Pfizer has a checkered history of using such education courses to
promote off-label use of its drugs. For instance Pfizer paid $2.3
billion last year to settle government fraud charges of deceptive
marketing, including sponsoring supposedly independent programs
promoting off-label uses for the pain drug Bextra.
In 2008, it became the first drug company to say it would no longer
provide such money directly to profit-making medical education
companies, but only to universities and other nonprofits. But a
$780,000 grant from Pfizer to the Canadian Medical Association for
educational programs drew criticism because the company was given two
seats on a six-member supervisory board. And a $3.4 million grant last
year for the California Academy of Family Physicians to sponsor stop-
smoking educational programs was questioned because Pfizer makes
Chantix, a smoking cessation drug.
Dr. Arnold S. Relman, a former editor of The New England Journal of
Medicine, a Harvard professor emeritus, an outspoken critic of
industry conflicts and a friend of Dr. Pizzo, said he could not
understand the rationale behind the arrangement.
“If it is true — a big, big if — but if it is true that this money is
being given without any strings at all and without any obligation on
the part of Stanford to please Pfizer, then it’s arguable that it’s
O.K.,” Dr. Relman said.
“But it’s just not a good idea for a profession that says it wants to
be independent and trusted, a reliable source of information to the
profession and the public about drugs, to take money from the drug
company under any conditions.”
In September 2008, the Stanford medical school became the first in the
nation to stop accepting industry financing for specific topics in
postgraduate educational programs. It will accept only industry money
that was pooled in a general fund for the education programs.
"[Real] scientists are *fiercely* independent. That's the good
news."-- NIH's Top Fool, Anthony Fauci