Home » Big Pharma » How Big Pharma Scam Patients, and Manipulate Doctors and Scientists

How Big Pharma Scam Patients, and Manipulate Doctors and Scientists

Drugs falling out of prescription bottle onto money

Conventional American Medicine is now the #1 cause of death, followed by heart disease and cancer.

A national crisis has been in play from coast to coast in the U.S. for decades, and statistics of government-run sanctioned agencies such as the FDA admittedly and legally murder and maim hundreds of thousands of Americans each and every year from the drugs they approve from a pharmaceutical company which the FDA deems as safe, or their term of GRAS (generally recognized as safe).

The US and UK governments killed 1.5 million in Iraq on the basis of lies about weapons of mass destruction they knew did not exist. The medical and pharmaceutical industry kills more than that every single year.

If this were a terrorist group causing death and destruction like we’ve never seen in any other time in history, the US would be bombing every last one of them out of existence.

Let’s Have a Real Look at American Medicine

US health care spending reached $1.6 trillion in 2003, representing 14% of the nation’s gross national product.(15)
Considering this enormous expenditure, we should have the best medicine in the world. We should be preventing and reversing disease, and doing minimal harm. Careful and objective review, however, shows we are doing the opposite.

Because of the extraordinarily narrow, technologically driven context in which contemporary medicine examines the human condition, we are completely missing the larger picture.

What you are about to read is a stunning compilation of facts that documents that those who seek to abolish consumer access to natural therapies are misleading the public. Over 700,000 Americans die each year at the hands of government-sanctioned medicine, while the FDA and other government agencies pretend to protect the public by harassing those who offer safe alternatives.

Breaking Down the Numbers

A definitive review of medical peer-reviewed journals and government health statistics shows that American medicine frequently causes more harm than good.

Each year approximately 2.2 million US hospital patients experience adverse drug reactions (ADRs) to prescribed medications.(1) In 1995, Dr. Richard Besser of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimated the number of unnecessary antibiotics prescribed annually for viral infections to be 20 million. In 2003, Dr. Besser spoke in terms of tens of millions of unnecessary antibiotics prescribed annually.

Approximately 7.5 million unnecessary medical and surgical procedures are performed annually in the US, while approximately 8.9 million Americans are hospitalized unnecessarily. By comparison, approximately 699,697 Americans died of heart disease in 2001, while 553,251 died of cancer.

As shown in the following table, the estimated total number of iatrogenic deaths—that is, deaths induced inadvertently by a physician or surgeon or by medical treatment or diagnostic procedures—in the US annually is 783,936.

Table 1: Estimated Annual Mortality and Economic Cost of Medical Intervention

Adverse Drug Reactions106,000$12 billionLazarou(1), Suh (49)
Medical error98,000$2 billionIOM
Bedsores115,000$55 billionXakellis, Barczak
Infection88,000$5 billionWeinstein, MMWR
Malnutrition108,800———–Nurses Coalition
Outpatients199,000$77 billionStarfield, Weingart
Unnecessary Procedures37,136$122 billionHCUP
Surgery-Related32,000$9 billionAHRQ
Total783,936$282 billion

It is evident that the American medical system and pharmaceutical industry are the leading cause of death and injury in the US.

Statistics Showing Death by Adverse Drug Reactions (ADRs)

ADRs are one of the leading causes of death in health care. The Institute of Medicine reported in January of 2000 that from 44,000 to 98,000 deaths occur annually from medical errors. Of this total, an estimated 7,000 deaths occur due to ADRs. To put this in perspective, consider that 6,000 Americans die each year from workplace injuries.

However, other studies conducted on hospitalized patient populations have placed much higher estimates on the overall incidence of serious ADRs. These studies estimate that 6.7% of hospitalized patients have a serious adverse drug reaction with a fatality rate of 0.32%. There are more than 2,216,000 serious ADRs in hospitalized patients, causing over 106,000 deaths annually.

ADRs are the 4th leading cause of death—ahead of pulmonary disease, diabetes, AIDS, pneumonia, accidents, and automobile deaths.

These statistics do not include the number of ADRs that occur in ambulatory settings. Also, it is estimated that over 350,000 ADRs occur in U.S. nursing homes each year.

The exact number of ADRs is not certain and is limited by methodological considerations. However, whatever the true number is, ADRs represent a significant public health problem. [Source]

Showing Death by Adverse Drug Reactions (ADRs)

It is clear that the FDA’s approval process of drugs is not only lacking rigorous testing and safety protocols to ensure the safety of the drugs they approve but by doing such, through legal loopholes, it places no accountability upon them should a drug the FDA approves later is found to cause death.

The FDA gets away with that in many ways, in part, from their cozy relationship with pharmaceutical companies using deceptive and fraudulent practices.

Below is a video that explains how some of those deceptions play out and how they affect every single patient to doctors and academic research journal findings.

Medical Ethics and Conflict of Interest in Scientific Medicine

Jonathan Quick, director of essential drugs and medicines policy for the World Health Organization (WHO), wrote in a recent WHO Bulletin: “If clinical trials become a commercial venture in which self-interest overrules public interest and desire overrules science, then the social contract which allows research on human subjects in return for medical advances is broken.

As a former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, Dr. Marcia Angell struggled to bring greater attention to the problem of commercializing scientific research. In her outgoing editorial entitled “Is Academic Medicine for Sale?” Angell said that growing conflicts of interest are tainting science and called for stronger restrictions on pharmaceutical stock ownership and other financial incentives for researchers: “When the boundaries between industry and academic medicine become as blurred as they are now, the business goals of industry influence the mission of medical schools in multiple ways.” She did not discount the benefits of research but said a Faustian bargain now existed between medical schools and the pharmaceutical industry.

Angell left the New England Journal in June 2000. In June 2002, the New England Journal of Medicine announced that it would accept journalists who accept money from drug companies because it was too difficult to find ones who have no ties. Another former editor of the journal, Dr. Jerome Kassirer, said that was not the case and that plenty of researchers are available who do not work for drug companies.

According to an ABC news report, pharmaceutical companies spend over $2 billion a year on over 314,000 events attended by doctors.

The ABC news report also noted that a survey of clinical trials revealed that when a drug company funds a study, there is a 90% chance that the drug will be perceived as effective whereas a non-drug-company-funded study will show favorable results only 50% of the time. It appears that money can’t buy you love but it can buy any “scientific” result desired.

Cynthia Crossen, a staffer for the Wall Street Journal, in 1996 published Tainted Truth: The Manipulation of Fact in America, a book about the widespread practice of lying with statistics. Commenting on the state of scientific research, she wrote: “The road to hell was paved with the flood of corporate research dollars that eagerly filled gaps left by slashed government research funding.” Her data on financial involvement showed that in 1981 the drug industry “gave” $292 million to colleges and universities for research. By 1991, this figure had risen to $2.1 billion.

How Do We Know Drugs Are Safe?

Another aspect of scientific medicine that the public may not be aware of is the testing of new drugs. Drugs generally are tested on individuals who are fairly healthy and not on other medications that could interfere with findings. But when these new drugs are declared “safe” and enter the drug prescription books, they are naturally going to be used by people who are on a variety of other medications and have a lot of other health problems.

Then, a new phase of drug testing called “post-approval” comes into play, which is the documentation of side effects once drugs hit the market. In one very telling report, the federal government’s General Accounting Office “found that of the 198 drugs approved by the FDA between 1976 and 1985…102 (or 51.5%) had serious post-approval risks…the serious post-approval risks (included) heart failure, myocardial infarction, anaphylaxis, respiratory depression and arrest, seizures, kidney and liver failure, severe blood disorders, birth defects and fetal toxicity, and blindness.”

NBC Television’s investigative show “Dateline” wondered if your doctor is moonlighting as a drug company representative. After a yearlong investigation, NBC reported that because doctors can legally prescribe any drug to any patient for any condition, drug companies heavily promote “off-label” and frequently inappropriate and untested uses of these medications, even though these drugs are approved only for the specific indications for which they have been tested.

The leading causes of adverse drug reactions are antibiotics (17%), cardiovascular drugs (17%), chemotherapy (15%), and analgesics and anti-inflammatory agents (15%).

Cancer Chemotherapy

In 1989, German biostatistician Ulrich Abel, Ph.D., wrote a monograph entitled “Chemotherapy of Advanced Epithelial Cancer.” It was later published in shorter form in a peer-reviewed medical journal. Abel presented a comprehensive analysis of clinical trials and publications representing over 3,000 articles examining the value of cytotoxic chemotherapy on advanced epithelial cancer.

Over a decade after Abel’s exhaustive review of chemotherapy, there seems no decrease in its use for advanced

In March 2000, however, results from the largest multi-center randomized controlled trial conducted thus far showed that, compared to a prolonged course of monthly conventional-dose chemotherapy, HDC and SCT were of no benefit, with even a slightly lower survival rate for the HDC/SCT group.

Licensed prescription drugs are the number 4 cause of death (106,000) in the USA, and they maim 2 million a year. They don’t give figures for the rest of the western world, but if we count western population at 1.5 Billion, prescription drugs kill 530, 000 a year. Chemotherapy deaths aren’t included, they are counted as cancer deaths. But in the West, chemo kills one million and maim 10 million people annually.

In 2004, the Journal of Clinical Oncology did a massive study on chemo results. They found that chemo was beneficial in just 2.3%  of cases, ie, chemo was destructive in 97.7% of cases.

Worse, chemo usually destroys your immune system and blood counts, so, particularly in stage 4, you are likely to catch an infection you would normally have fought off, and die from it.

Many chemo drugs are listed as “known carcinogens.” The poison is so powerful that nurses who administer it have to be protected from it with gloves and monthly tests. Some chemos can’t become safe even if they are heated to 1,800 degrees centigrade.

Drug Companies Fined – No Change of Outcomes

Periodically, the FDA fines a drug manufacturer when its abuses are too glaring and impossible to cover up.

In May 2002, The Washington Post reported that Schering-Plough Corp., the maker of Claritin, was to pay a $500 million dollar fine to the FDA for quality-control problems at four of its factories.(72) The indictment came after the Public Citizen Health Research Group, led by Dr. Sidney Wolfe, called for a criminal investigation of Schering-Plough, charging that the company distributed albuterol asthma inhalers even though it knew the units were missing the active ingredient.

The FDA tabulated infractions involving 125 products or 90% of the drugs made by Schering-Plough since 1998.
Besides paying the fine, the company was forced to halt the manufacture of 73 drugs or suffer another $175 million fine. Schering-Plough’s news releases told another story, assuring consumers that they should still feel confident in the company’s products.

This large settlement served as a warning to the drug industry about maintaining strict manufacturing practices and has given the FDA more clout in dealing with drug company compliance.

According to The Washington Post article, a federal appeals court ruled in 1999 that the FDA could seize the profits of companies that violate “good manufacturing practices.” Since that time, Abbott Laboratories has paid a $100 million fine for failing to meet quality standards in the production of medical test kits, while Wyeth Laboratories paid $30 million in 2000 to settle accusations of poor manufacturing practices.

If you’d like to go even further down the Big Pharma rabbit hole, watch this in-depth video that breaks down the inner workings of how pharmaceutical companies proceed, with government approval, their drug war on the masses of people in the good ole USA.

Source for this article:


Subscribe to Natural Revolution

*Your information is absolutely safe and you can unsubscribe anytime!

· · · ·

Did you enjoy this article? If so, share it. ❤️

Steven Peters

Owner & Publisher at Natural Revolution
Steven Peters has been a health advocate for more than a decade and proponent for alternative healing by ‘Empowering Natural Living’ through homeopathic approaches. He is also an activist for social justice and environmental causes in the GMO Labeling and Non-GMO grassroots movements across the country, and a staunch advocate for cannabis education and reform.

Read more about Steven Peters.
Scroll Up