How Would You Feel If Your Doctor Were Bribed To Give You A Drug?

Secrecy

Source: NoMoreFakeNews.com | JonRappoport.wordpress.com
Jon Rappoport
April 27, 2017

Hello, Novartis. The pharmaceutical giant has just been fined $50 million by the government of South Korea for bribing doctors to prescribe the company’s drugs.

FiercePharma reports: “Last year, prosecutors in the country [Korea] raided Novartis offices to gather documents and account books. South Korean officials later indicted a half-dozen Novartis execs, as well as more than a dozen doctors and five medical journal heads…The Korea Times says the criminal trial is now underway.”

A Novartis spokesperson called the crime “in violation of our policies and inconsistent with our culture…”

Really? There’s more.

FiercePharma continues: “Outside of Korea, Novartis faces separate bribery claims in Greece, where an official earlier this month said ‘thousands’ of people could be implicated.”

The company faced other allegations in Turkey, which it now considers ‘unsubstantiated,’ and paid $25 million to U.S. authorities last year to settle a bribery investigation in China.”

Sounds like bribery might be central to the culture of Novartis.

You walk into a doctor’s office. He makes a diagnosis and writes out a prescription for a drug. Unknown to you, he’s been paid off to tell you to take the drug.

In the case of Novartis, do law enforcement officials in Korea, Greece, Turkey, and China release the names of the bribed doctors and inform their patients of these crimes? If not, why not? The patients ought to know, and they ought to be able to sue the drug company.

Let’s take this whole business out on to a wider stage. Do you think doctors who take money from drug companies (e.g., for speaking fees and consulting) might be prone to altering their prescription habits? If so, consider this nugget from NPR (3/17/16): “Nationwide [in the US], nearly 9 in 10 cardiologists who wrote at least 1,000 prescriptions for Medicare patients received payments from a drug or device company in 2014, while 7 in 10 internists and family practitioners did.”

Then there is this bombshell from Business Insider (1/9/15)—wait for the punch line in the last sentence: “Companies pay doctors millions of dollars to promote not their most innovative or effective drugs, but some of their most unremarkable.”

“In the last five months of 2013, drug makers spent almost $20 million trying to convince physicians and teaching hospitals to give their freshly-patented drugs to patients, but many of them are near-copies of existing drugs that treat the same conditions.”

“A hefty portion are also available as generics, chemically identical copies that work just as well at a fraction of the price. And still others have serious side effects that only became apparent after they were approved by the FDA.”

Doctors paid by drug companies. Doctors prescribed those companies’ drugs. Some of those drugs have serious side effects.

Medicalbillingandcoding.org (5/25/11) follows the money. According to their analysis, between 2009 and 2011, these drug companies paid doctors the following amounts: Merck, $9.4 million; Johnson & Johnson, $10.6 million; Pfizer, $19.8 million; AstraZeneca, $22.8 million; GlaxoSmithKline, $96.4 million; and Eli Lilly, $144.1 million. For speaking fees, consulting fees, etc., and who knows what else? Does this cast an ominous cloud over the companies and their favorite doctors? Is the Pope Catholic?

Medicalbillingandcoding,org goes on to publish fines that have been levied against drug companies (2007-2010) for engaging in illegal activities with doctors. The fines are, of course, a drop in the bucket, considering the profits of these corporations:

Forest Laboratories, $313 million; Allergan, $600 million; AstraZeneca, $520 million; Cephalon, $425 million; Pfizer, $2.3 billion.

Paying a fine is having to say you’re sorry, and then you walk away.

The next time you talk with a doctor, you might apprise him of these matters, just to liven the conversation.

[Editor’s Note] Bold Emphasis Added Throughout

Read More At: JonRappoport.wordpress.com
_______________________________________________________________

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

Disclosing Conflicts of Interest in Medical Research

Source: NutritionFacts.Org
Dr. Greger
August 30, 2016

DESCRIPTION: Billions in fines for bribery and suppressing data may just be the cost of doing business for drug companies, but surely doctors themselves have more integrity.

The World According to Monsanto

There’s nothing they are leaving untouched: the mustard, the okra, the bringe oil, the rice, the cauliflower. Once they have established the norm: that seed can be owned as their property, royalties can be collected. We will depend on them for every seed we grow of every crop we grow. If they control seed, they control food, they know it — it’s strategic. It’s more powerful than bombs. It’s more powerful than guns. This is the best way to control the populations of the world. The story starts in the White House, where Monsanto often got its way by exerting disproportionate influence over policymakers via the “revolving door”. One example is Michael Taylor, who worked for Monsanto as an attorney before being appointed as deputy commissioner of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 1991. While at the FDA, the authority that deals with all US food approvals, Taylor made crucial decisions that led to the approval of GE foods and crops. Then he returned to Monsanto, becoming the company’s vice president for public policy.

Thanks to these intimate links between Monsanto and government agencies, the US adopted GE foods and crops without proper testing, without consumer labeling and in spite of serious questions hanging over their safety. Not coincidentally, Monsanto supplies 90 percent of the GE seeds used by the US market. Monsanto’s long arm stretched so far that, in the early nineties, the US Food and Drugs Agency even ignored warnings of their own scientists, who were cautioning that GE crops could cause negative health effects. Other tactics the company uses to stifle concerns about their products include misleading advertising, bribery and concealing scientific evidence.

Blind Trust – Wikipedia’s Duplicitious Dealings & Scandals

“The deepest sin against the human mind is to believe things without evidence. Science is simply common sense at its best – that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
– Thomas Huxley

—————————————————–
By: Zy Marquiez
December 22, 2015

In previous a Breakaway Guide to Mainstream Media Manipulation & Propaganda, we showed how trustworthy downright deceptive the mainstream media can be.

Its rather unfortunate, because the majority of the populace shows blind faith in the media, but thankfully not everyone. A large portion of people have begun to unplug, as media conglomerates such as CNBC keep losing viewers , even though there is a growing number of people capable of watching TV. Quite ironic.

Moving on to another more subtle component of media, but nonetheless important, we will take a cursory look at Wikipedia.

There have been a few instances that took place in the past which made me treat information provided by Wikipedia in an askance way.  Coupled with this is the fact that there is a wide breadth of people that can access the website anonymously and how ‘precise’ those “edits” can be.

These handful of events that took place made me extremely convinced that at worst, Wikipedia is just another mouthpiece for the establishment.

This is just personal opinion based on nefarious dealings witnessed by myself and two other people as it was happening.  

However, to be more precise, what am going to show you is that Wikipedia’s reliability isn’t as ironclad as people give it credit for.

The latitude and scope of power that Wikipedia has been able to showcase in its growth is as resounding at it is precise. Such power has the capability to singlehandedly make or break any particular individual/corporation/idea in more ways that people could fathom.

Recently published by the Independent, a veritable cavalcade of folks/corporations were eviscerated by actions undertaken within the catacombs of Wikipedia.

Serious scamming of a colossal magnitude was running rampant behind the scenes in unprecedented ways.

It’s been a long suspicion of a few folks that Blackmail is merely the tip of the iceberg however. That alone though is still quite notable given the reliability deceptiveness that can be carried out on such a widely known/used website.

To elucidate further into what was taking place, please take a note of how scam/s worked as detailed by Jamie Merril & Jonathan Owen:

” The scam worked by targeting firms struggling to get pages about their businesses on Wikipedia. They were often told their articles had been rejected due to concerns of excessive promotional content – although in some cases the scammers themselves may have been the ones causing the articles to be removed.

According to a Wikipedia insider, at this stage the scammers would demand a payment of up to several hundred pounds to successfully “re-post or re-surface” the article, and in some cases demanded an on-going monthly payment to “protect” the articles. The fraudster  usually claimed to be a Wikipedia editor or administrator.”

If that’s not disturbing enough for what has been considered by some as the Encyclopedia Britannica of the interwebz, it gets better.

Furthermore, lets couple the above fact with a statement by Andrew Orlowski which he elucidates in his article at TheRegister:

There are serious questions to be asked, not only of Wikipedia’s community structures – which encourage and protect anonymous editing – but also of the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) itself. The charity has amassed assets of over $70m and a ready cash pile of millions of dollars, thanks to aggressive fundraising which suggests donors must pay to keep the site online (in reality, only around $3m is required to run the site every year). Yet the Foundation has little power to compel anyone to do anything: the community makes its own mind up. Neither seems able to bear much self-examination. [Bold emphasis added]

If that’s not enough to make someone downright outraged am not sure what is.

Trust is something that is often asked of us as individuals by society/corporations/institutions, but rarely earned by those very institutions that implore you at the outset. Events such as this are the exact reason why many folks are suspicious.

While anonymity can protect privacy, it can also be used as a weapon.

In this case we have seen what happens when one is behind the crosshairs of targeted bribery.

That doesn’t even begin to touch issues that Sharyl Attkisson spoke of in her Ted-Talks presentation about the deception within Wikipedia.

Author Phillip Roth reportedly went to edit information to correct a major fact error that pertained to one of his own characters that was cited on a wikipedia page, but as Attkisson relates:

“No matter how hard he tried, wikipedia’s editors wouldn’t allow it. They kept reverting the evidence back to the false information. When Roth finally reached a person at wikipedia, which was no easy task, and tried to find out what was going wrong, they told him he simply was not considered a credible source on himself.”

Ladies and gentlemen, case closed.

A place that doesn’t allow facts to be corrected, by people that created them, is no place that should be trustworthy.

When traveling the innards of the websphere, be mindful of information, no matter where it comes from. Including here. Do your research.

Ultimately what our mind hones in on, is our choice. Luckily for us, we still have one.

Do your research, check, recheck, and make the correct choice for yourself.

As Buddha once said:

“Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who has said it, not even if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense.”

———————————————————-
Sources:

https://thebreakaway.wordpress.com/category/mainstream-media-propaganda/
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-04-24/cnbc-viewership-plunges-eight-year-lows
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/wikipedia-rocked-by-rogue-editors-blackmail-scam-targeting-small-businesses-and-celebrities-10481993.html
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/09/03/wikipedia_industrial_scale_smears_and_blackmail/
https://thebreakaway.wordpress.com/2015/12/07/sharyl-attkisson-astroturf-manipulation-of-media-messages/