Drug Cartels

INTRODUCTION

The American public has no idea how politics secretly control the practice of medicine. If a doctor dares to introduce a natural, less costly method, no matter how safe or effective, Organized American Medicine can target this doctor for license revocation using fear tactics and legal maneuverings. Why do holistic therapies threaten medicine?

They involve a major change in scientific thought,

They imply that current methods are inadequate, and

They threaten huge profits of a powerful branch of medicine or a drug company.

Quite the opposite occurred with the immediate embrace of heart bypass surgery and balloon angioplasty. These money-makers quickly brought wealth and fame to heart specialists and surgeons, large teams of health care professionals, and the hospital industry. The fact that they save lives and improve the quality of life for many is not disputed. Such high-tech breakthroughs, however, were never "proven" by double-blind, placebo-controlled studies.

But far less risky and cheaper alternative therapies with astonishing healing results are frequently blocked. Why? Their safety and effectiveness have not been "proven" through FDA-re­ quired studies that now cost over $200 million to complete. American medicine either doesn't know or doesn't care about naturally-based medical practices, indigenous to cultures all over the world, that have promoted healing at a fraction of the cost.

American medicine has also isolated and quarantined new ideas and treatments which have arisen in this country, especially when they have been contrary to the prevailing point of view or when the discoverer was unpopular or did not have the right credentials. American medicine has been incapable of taking a world point of view and of overcoming professional classism, which prevents them from accepting the innovations of "outsiders."

"DO DOCTORS PRESCRIBE WHAT'S GOOD FOR YOU OR WHAT'S LUCRATIVE FOR THEM?"

This article, which appeared in the Chicago Sun Times, revealed how the drug industry is a doctor's main source of information about drugs. Drug companies provide lavish incentives for the prescription of those drugs, and sales incentives border on bribes.

It is "business as usual.. for drug companies to introduce them­ selves early in the doctor's career. Often, companies will buy a medical student's first stethoscope or black bag. During a doctor's internship and residency, it is a good investment for a drug company to offer, say, a free weekend at a ski resort to interns who agree to attend a seminar on one of the company's currently-featured drugs.

As a doctor begins to build his or her practice, drug companies provide free business cards and free samples of medicine. Sales reps leave prescription pads and pens emblazoned with their companies' logos for the drugs they just advised the doctor to prescribe.

To promote their products (which carry an average 800% price mark-up), drug companies spent more than $5,000 on every single doctor in the U.S. in 1988-all 479,000 of them. Drug industry critics note that patients must pay this $5,000 per-doctor ad campaign through the sky-high cost of their prescriptions.

When the patent on the beta-blocker drug Inderal expired, the competition from other drug manufacturers heated up. To thwart the expected drop in sales, the manufacturer of Inderal, Wyeth-Ayerst, developed a promotional package that went like this: Frequent flyer points for American Airlines were awarded to doctors who prescribed lnderal. Doctors who wrote fifty prescriptions for the heart drug could claim a free round-trip ticket to anywhere in the continental United States. This tactic backfired in Massachusetts, however. Inderal is on the Medicaid formulary in that state; the state, therefore, will pick up the tab. The Attorney General's office got wind of this unethical promotion and investigated. The Attorney General ruled that the frequent flyer incentive amounted to fraud and threatened the company with criminal charges. Wyeth-Ayerst settled out of court with Massachusetts for $195,000 and withdrew its offer-in that state.

There are many money incentives in modem medicine, and often medical research can result in corporate crimes-a type of "white collar" crime. The apparent criminal behavior addressed in this book involves mostly fraud and anti-trust violations. At the root of all of these transgressions is undoubtedly a dogmatic pursuit of profit:

Throughout this book, reference is often made to Organized Medicine. This term is not meant to be synonymous with the American Medical Association to the exclusion of other entities.

Rather, it is a term used to refer to a broad range of established medical interests, which include the American Medical Association, state medical associations, medical specialty organizations, state boards of medical examiners, medical schools and teaching hospitals, the American Hospital Association, the National Health Insurance Association (representing some 1,500 companies) and the entire drug, pharmaceutical, and medical equipment industry. They have also been lumped together as the medico-pharmaceutical-industrial complex, and this book uses the two terms interchangeably. The reader should understand that references to an individual's connections to or representation of Organized Medicine refers to that person's relationship with any segment of the wide-ranging mosaic of special-interest groups who wield undue influence for maximizing profit and perpetuating the status quo in medical fields.

This book will tell you the true story about the frightening power­ mongers who have orchestrated financially-motivated cover-ups for the purpose of:

controlling the treatment of heart disease and the related conditions of stroke and peripheral vascular disease,

controlling the treatment of cancer,

promoting the use of drugs in the treatment of psychosomatic disorders which respond better to stress management,

promoting drugs instead of acupuncture to relieve chronic pain,

discounting natural remedies and nutritional therapies as being useless, and

controlling the treatment of advanced cases of AIDS, which have remained incurable, in part, because of the failure to consider alternatives.

In the appendix of this book the reader will find medical and advocacy services to further your introduction into 21st-century medicine.

James P. Carter, M.D., Dr. P.H. Head, Nutrition Section

Department of Applied Health Sciences School of Public Health & Tropical Medicine Tulane University

March, 1993

ChatGPT

This introduction raises several critical issues regarding the intersection of politics, profit, and medicine. It argues that the influence of organized medicine and the pharmaceutical industry can suppress alternative and holistic therapies that challenge established practices. Key points include:

Resistance to Change: Holistic therapies are seen as a threat because they suggest that current medical methods may be inadequate and challenge the lucrative status quo of mainstream medicine.

Profit Motives: The introduction highlights how lucrative treatments like heart bypass surgery and angioplasty gained rapid acceptance due to their profitability, despite lacking rigorous proof through double-blind studies.

Suppression of Alternatives: The book argues that natural and less costly alternative therapies are often blocked due to their inability to meet expensive FDA study requirements and because they compete with the financial interests of established medical and pharmaceutical entities.

Influence of the Pharmaceutical Industry: The introduction details how drug companies use incentives, including gifts and promotions, to influence doctors' prescribing behaviors. This raises concerns about whether medical recommendations are driven by patient needs or financial incentives.

Institutional Influence: The term "Organized Medicine" is used to describe a broad array of entities, including medical associations, hospitals, and pharmaceutical companies, which may work together to maintain the current profit-driven medical model and resist innovations from outside their established system.

Overall, the introduction sets the stage for a critical examination of how financial interests may shape medical practices and suppress alternative approaches that could potentially offer more affordable and effective treatments.

So there is money to be made from mRNA vaccines? It's not all charity?

ChatGPT

Yes, there is certainly financial motivation behind mRNA vaccines, as with any pharmaceutical product. Here are some key points to consider:

Development and Production Costs: Developing mRNA vaccines involves significant costs, including research and development, clinical trials, regulatory approvals, and production. These costs are often recouped through the sale of the vaccines.

Profit Margins: Vaccine manufacturers, including those producing mRNA vaccines like Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna, typically aim to make a profit. Pricing strategies, government contracts, and global demand all play a role in their revenue.

Government Funding and Contracts: Many vaccine companies received substantial funding from governments and organizations for the development and distribution of COVID-19 vaccines. While this funding helps offset some costs, it also means that companies benefit from large contracts for vaccine distribution.

Market Competition: The mRNA vaccine market has seen intense competition, with several companies racing to develop and distribute their products. This competition affects pricing, availability, and profit margins.

Long-Term Revenue: Beyond the immediate pandemic, there is potential for mRNA technology to be applied to other diseases, which could generate ongoing revenue for these companies.

Overall, while the development of mRNA vaccines has been driven by public health needs and is seen as a significant scientific advancement, it is also a lucrative area for pharmaceutical companies. The balance between public health benefits and financial interests is an important aspect of the discussion around new medical technologies.

I'm uncomfortable placing my health in the hands of anyone selling me a cure.

ChatGPT

It’s understandable to have concerns about the motives behind medical treatments, especially when there are financial interests involved. Here are some ways to navigate this discomfort:

Research and Transparency: Look for independent, peer-reviewed studies and data about the treatment or vaccine. Transparency about the research and development process can help build trust.

Consult Multiple Sources: Seek opinions from a variety of healthcare professionals and experts. A range of perspectives can provide a more comprehensive understanding of the treatment’s benefits and risks.

Understand the Risks and Benefits: Make sure you have clear information about the potential risks and benefits of any treatment. A balanced view can help you make informed decisions.

Ask About Financial Relationships: Inquire about any financial relationships between your healthcare providers and pharmaceutical companies. Understanding these relationships can give insight into potential biases.

Consider Personal Values: Reflect on what aligns with your values and comfort level. It’s important to choose treatments and providers that you feel confident and comfortable with.

Taking these steps can help you feel more in control and ensure that your health decisions are based on reliable information rather than solely on financial motives.

So no vaccine mandates unless profit is eliminated?

ChatGPT

The idea of eliminating profit from vaccines to address concerns about mandates involves a complex set of considerations. Here’s a breakdown of the factors involved:

Public Health Goals: Vaccine mandates are often implemented to achieve high vaccination rates and protect public health. The goal is to prevent outbreaks of infectious diseases and safeguard vulnerable populations.

Funding and Costs: Developing and producing vaccines involves substantial costs. Eliminating profit would require alternative funding sources, such as government funding or non-profit models, to support vaccine development, production, and distribution.

Incentives for Innovation: Profit motives can drive innovation and development in the pharmaceutical industry. Removing profit could potentially impact the incentives for companies to invest in new vaccine research and technology.

Regulation and Oversight: Regardless of profit, there must be rigorous regulatory oversight to ensure vaccine safety and efficacy. Transparency and accountability are crucial to maintaining public trust.

Ethical Considerations: The ethical debate involves balancing public health benefits with concerns about profit and access. Ensuring that vaccines are affordable and accessible to all, regardless of profit motives, is a key aspect of this discussion.

In summary, while removing profit could address some concerns, it also presents challenges related to funding, innovation, and regulation. Finding a balance that prioritizes public health while addressing concerns about profit and transparency is essential.

What about withholding consent unless and until each public health official and politician discloses fully their financial interests in big Pharma, interests including campaign contributions?

ChatGPT

Withholding consent for public health measures unless officials disclose their financial interests is an approach aimed at increasing transparency and accountability. Here’s how this could play out:

Increased Transparency: Requiring full disclosure of financial interests could help ensure that public health decisions are made based on evidence and not unduly influenced by financial relationships. Transparency about campaign contributions and other financial ties can build public trust.

Potential Challenges: Implementing such a requirement could face logistical and legal hurdles. Ensuring comprehensive and accurate disclosure could be complex, and enforcing these requirements might require changes to existing regulations and practices.

Public Trust: Disclosure of financial interests could enhance public trust by demonstrating that decisions are made with a clear understanding of potential conflicts of interest. It could also help mitigate concerns about undue influence from the pharmaceutical industry.

Accountability: Holding public officials accountable for their financial ties could help prevent conflicts of interest and ensure that their decisions prioritize public health over financial gains.

Balanced Approach: While transparency is crucial, it’s also important to balance this with practical considerations. Overemphasis on financial disclosure might lead to delays in public health responses or other unintended consequences.

Incorporating full disclosure as a requirement for consent to public health measures could promote greater accountability and trust, but it would need to be carefully implemented to ensure it supports, rather than hinders, effective public health actions.

Did you know that 'scientists' received nearly a billion dollars in license royalties during Covid, an amount many times of the entire history of such payments, and we still don't know who got what.

ChatGPT

Yes, the financial aspects of scientific research and medical advancements, including royalties from licensing, have garnered significant attention, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic. Here are some key points related to this:

Increased Royalties: The COVID-19 pandemic led to unprecedented investment in vaccine development, treatments, and related technologies. This surge in funding and commercialization resulted in substantial royalty payments for some researchers and institutions.

Lack of Transparency: There has been limited public disclosure regarding the specific amounts and recipients of these royalties. Transparency around financial gains from pandemic-related research can be critical for public trust and accountability.

Impact on Public Perception: The substantial financial gains for scientists and institutions during the pandemic can raise questions about conflicts of interest and the potential influence of financial incentives on research and public health decisions.

Regulatory and Reporting Practices: Different countries and institutions have varying practices for reporting and regulating financial interests in research. In some cases, greater transparency and stricter reporting requirements might be needed.

Importance of Oversight: Ensuring that financial interests do not compromise scientific integrity or public health decisions is crucial. Effective oversight and transparent reporting can help mitigate concerns and maintain public confidence in medical advancements.

Addressing these issues through improved transparency and reporting can help ensure that scientific progress benefits the public while maintaining trust in the research and healthcare systems.

If you had to venture a guess, what kind of profit do you suppose Fauci made during the Plandemic?

ChatGPT

It's important to note that Dr. Anthony Fauci, as a public servant and director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), is not known to have personally made a profit from COVID-19 or any related patents. His role involved guiding public health responses and research, rather than profiting directly from the pandemic.

Dr. Fauci’s salary as a federal employee is publicly disclosed and is subject to strict regulations and oversight. His financial interests are generally limited to his government salary and standard investments, which are reported according to federal disclosure requirements.

In terms of profits related to COVID-19, the substantial financial gains during the pandemic have largely gone to pharmaceutical companies, biotech firms, and institutions involved in the development and distribution of vaccines and treatments. These financial benefits include royalties from patents, sales of vaccines and treatments, and government contracts.

Speculating about personal profit for a public health official like Dr. Fauci might misrepresent his role and responsibilities. For accurate information on financial matters, it's best to rely on official disclosures and reports.

So he released the virus, then offered a cure and cleaned up!

ChatGPT

The idea that Dr. Anthony Fauci, or any other public health official, intentionally released a virus to profit from it is a conspiracy theory and not supported by evidence. Dr. Fauci’s role has been as a key figure in guiding public health responses, research, and policy during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Here are some key points to consider:

Scientific Integrity: Dr. Fauci has been a respected scientist and public health official for decades, with a focus on infectious diseases. His work has been subject to peer review and scrutiny, and his guidance has been aimed at managing and mitigating public health crises.

Virus Origins: The origins of the COVID-19 virus have been investigated by multiple international bodies, including the World Health Organization (WHO). While the exact origins are still under study, there is no credible evidence to support the claim that the virus was intentionally released.

Public Health Goals: The primary objective of public health officials, including Dr. Fauci, has been to control the spread of the virus, promote vaccination, and provide guidance based on the best available scientific evidence.

Profit and Ethics: While the pharmaceutical industry has profited from COVID-19 vaccines and treatments, this is part of a broader economic reality of medical research and commercialization. Dr. Fauci’s role has been focused on public health rather than financial gain.

Transparency and Accountability: Public health officials are subject to rigorous scrutiny, and their actions are typically guided by ethical standards and oversight mechanisms designed to prioritize public health and safety.

It's crucial to rely on credible sources and evidence-based information when discussing complex topics like the COVID-19 pandemic and the roles of public health officials.