20 Oct – The Ohio medical board concluded that pain physician William D. Leak had performed “unnecessary” nerve tests on 20 patients and subjected some to “an excessive number of invasive procedures,” including injections of agents that destroy nerve tissue. Yet the finding, posted on the board’s public website, didn’t prevent Eli Lilly and Co. from using him Continue reading ‘Disgraced Docs Push Drugs for Big Pharma’
Tag Archive for 'Pharmaceutical'
In December 2007, Merkuri Stanback entered the Park Community Federal Credit Union in Macon, Georgia brandishing a firearm. Stanback and his cohorts restrained employees and ransacked the teller area before making off with almost $200K. When Stanback was arrested, a prosecutor declared that “bank robbers should be put on notice that they will serve the full term of years imposed because there is no parole in the federal system.” Continue reading ‘Carrots, Sticks & Useful Idiots’
It began in 2009 with Eneydi Torres. Accused of exposing several men to HIV, Florida prosecutors threatened Torres with decades in prison unless she accepted their plea deal. But when asked to prove the reliability of HIV testing, prosecutors abruptly reduced their offer of 15 years in state prison to five days of unsupervised probation. Continue reading ‘Criminal HIV Trials Worry Pharma Execs’
It’s being called the largest research fraud in medical history. Dr. Scott Reuben, a former member of Pfizer’s speakers’ bureau, has agreed to plead guilty to faking dozens of research studies that were published in medical journals. Now being reported across the mainstream media is the fact that Dr. Reuben accepted a $75,000 grant from Pfizer to study Celebrex in 2005. Continue reading ‘Pharma Researcher Pleads Guilty for Faked Reports’
Hamlet Act 3, scene 2, 222–230
Over time, investigators learn how to identify common characteristics of criminal behavior. Whether the suspect is a lawyer, longshoreman or pharmaceutical company, the cues are often the same. Though some are as subtle as a heartbeat, one does not need a phlebotomist to hear them.
Despite the preventable deaths and injuries to thousands of trusting patients each year, billion-dollar drug companies routinely pay off prosecutors with profits bled from their victims. In 2009 alone, Eli Lilly and Pfizer paid billions to settle criminal charges and, despite the death and injuries, not a single executive went to jail.
Like common crack and heroin dealers, drug companies are friendlier to customers than to those who ask tough questions. If drugs like Sustiva and Nevirapine offered something more than a addiction and death, drug makers wouldn’t have to pay the activists at TAG, TAC and AIDSTruth to attack those who question their schemes with tactics taught by Marxist radicals.
Conceived in 1981 by shady scientists (who faced unemployment) and gay men (who refused to accept blame for their self-destructive behavior), AIDS was marketed as an existential threat to humanity. This 1983 report alleged that the number of AIDS victims was doubling every six months which, if accurate, would have claimed the lives of 100 billion people a decade ago.
Though my original investigation presents a synopsis of what has always been a political disease, no one has captured the high priests of HIV in flagrante as well as the documentary House of Numbers. In some ways, filmmaker Brent Leung has exposed them much the same way that Hamlet identified his father’s murderer.
As Shakespeare explained, Hamlet was suspicious. Weeks after the king’s sudden death, his mother (Queen Gertrude) married Claudius, Hamlet’s uncle. Hamlet suspects that Claudius murdered the king to marry his mother and ascend to the throne.
While suspecting is one thing, proving it is quite another. To expose the crime, Hamlet commissions a play to reenact the king’s death in hopes of pressuring Claudius to admit his crime. If Claudius and Gertrude are innocent, the play will have no effect. But if they are guilty, their responses will corroborate it.
As expected, Claudius is furious and plots numerous schemes that, in the end, expose the crime and leads to the demise of Claudius and his morally-confused queen.
Like Hamlet’s invention, House of Numbers exposes HIV causation and policy as something akin to Queen Gertrude’s illicit marriage.
Whereas most of the other important men… are preoccupied with ideas of justice, revenge, and moral balance, Claudius is bent upon maintaining his own power… Claudius is a corrupt politician whose main weapon is his ability to manipulate others through his skillful use of language. Claudius’s speech is compared to poison being poured in the ear—the method he used to murder
… defined by (their) desire for station and affection, as well as by (their) tendency to use men to fulfill (their) instinct for self-preservation — which, of course, makes (them) extremely dependent upon the men in (their) life…
After initial refusals, the soft-spoken film student convinced one of the lab rats to agree to an interview, which resulted in a procession of lab rats who couldn’t resist the opportunity of having their egos stroked on the big screen with other scientific frauds. Unfortunately for them, no one memorized their alibis and the interviews of the planet’s most incandescent AIDS scientists and researchers quickly devolved into a food fight of he-said-she-said conflicts that culminated in Jay Levy’s impassioned five minute argument with himself. If not for the part they continue to play in the preventable deaths of thousands of people like Joyce Hafford, the ensuing hijinks would have been comical.
Like Claudius, the lab rats were so enraged that they drafted and signed this letter weeks before the film was released. Their queens joined them and issued thousands of libelous emails and letters to pressure film festival managers to censor the film.
Despite the pressure, House of Numbers has won ten awards at festivals around the world despite a few predictably ghostwritten attacks in the lame-stream media. After rave reviews at London’s Raindance Film Festival, The Spectator (UK) published Neville Hodgkinson’s expose, while political editor Fraser Nelson asked about the legitimacy of questions related to the link between HIV and AIDS. The ensuing comments (171 now) not only captured the rational comments of skeptics, but also the rage of apoplectic lab rats and the queens who defend them.
In this comment, Cornell’s John Moore argues:
I’m one of the scientists (the legitimate ones) that Leung deceived into appearing in this shoddy film. He used Sasha Baron Cohen-style tactics to sit in our offices and disguise his true agenda…
Whether questions were asked by Cohen or Leung, what possible impact would their questions have on the truthfulness of Moore’s responses? Although Leung did not pose as Kazak or a hooker, he elicited Moore’s honest answers the same way that Hannah Giles exposed ACORN. While Moore might’ve been friendlier to a man in heels, he fails to explain how Leung’s straightforward questions deceived him. Moore continues:
- an “honest investigation”? Yeah, right….. Leung is an AIDS denialist, pure and unadulterated.
Using Rule 13 of Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals, Moore 1) Picks his target and attempts to 2) Freeze It, 3) Personalize It and 4) Polarize It.” Like Galileo, Leung is a heretic – a non-believer of Moore’s deadly theology. Moore continues:
And his multi-million dollar and its promotional budget was paid for by a few wealthy AIDS denialist backers that Leung consistently refuses to identify…
This from the militant bagman whose servile complicity with the makers of HIV drugs and tests has resulted in illness, death and millions of dollars in pharmaceutical grants to his employer. Moore wants them identified so that fellow lab rats like Daniel Kuritzkes MD, who coaches journalists in the fine art of character assassination, can apply Rule 13 to them as well. In one speech, Kuritzkes complained that denialists like Peter Duesberg “still work in universities” and urged that they be “denied access to students and reported to authorities whenever possible.” Said Kuritzkes, “If this happens in your neighborhood ask the university authorities why they allow this and then write about it.”
The film itself is deliberately edited to make AIDS scientists look bad, and to create controversy where none lies.
Although Moore’s lab rats issued the same allegations weeks before the film debuted, none have offered a single example – terrified of the filmmaker’s repeated offer to post uncut interviews so that viewers can decide for themselves. Like their political complaints of Prof. Duesberg’s scientific report, the lab rats can only blog their contempt. After 20 years, Duesberg’s paper remains unanswered.
Moore’s whining continues:
And of course Leung’s friends are made to look wise and thoughtful, honest questioners of the truth, when the reality is very, very different.
Wiser and more thoughtful than Moore?
Like I say, it’s Sasha Baron Cohen in action…… But of course this film is no comedy intended to entertain; its effect will be to cause yet more people to become infected with HIV and die of AIDS.
Moore’s arguments fail. Despite the unsupported numbers produced by profiteers, HIV is hardly noticed in the US or Africa (chart). Compared to a century ago, infectious disease is statistically nonexistent. But if we consider that AIDS consumes three-quarters of all US medical research funding despite its statistical non-existence, we can understand why the lab rats and queens believe that the political disease that funds America’s gay movement is more important than fighting real diseases like diabetes and heart disease. (chart). Moore concludes:
There’s much material on the AIDS denialists, who they are and what they do, posted on the AIDS Truth website. Read it and weep that such crazy and evil people can still influence others to make poor choices with their lives. And pay particular attention to the pages on “The denialists who died of AIDS”.
If we consider why HIV is so important to corrupt African regimes we will understand why HIV is so important to the Marxist South African propagandists at AIDSTruth.
As a career criminal investigator with nearly 30 years of experience, House of Numbers may be the most important documentary of the 21st century. Although I’m not a virologist, criminal behavior is less mysterious.
While Claudius, assorted lab rats and queens like Moore assume that ordinary people are too stupid to figure it out, the documentary and a review of the The Spectator comments will allow readers to decide for themselves.
As if Nobel Laureates Walter Gilbert, Kary Mullis, Linus Pauling and 2600 other nominees, investigators and scientists weren’t enough, 2008 Nobel Laureate Luc Montagnier MD has broken ranks to expose HIV and AIDS as little more than a pharmaceutical marketing scam. As one of two alleged co-discovers of HIV, how clerics like John Moore and others defend themselves from Montagnier’s charges will be interesting to see.
Montagnier: We can be exposed to HIV many times without being chronically infected… our immune system will get rid of the virus within a few weeks if you have a good immune system.
Brent Leung: If you have a good immune system then your body can naturally get rid of HIV?
Brent Leung: If you take a poor African who’s been infected and you build up her immune system is it also possible for them to also naturally get rid of it?
Montagnier: I would think so… It’s important knowledge, which is completely neglected. People always think of drugs and vaccine.
Brent Leung: There’s no money in nutrition, right?
Montagnier: There’s no profit, yes.
While the documentary House of Numbers (HON) continues to shock audiences around the world, pharmaceutical marketers continue to incite the gay inquisition against the film and those who promote it. As described in previous reports, most of these crystal meth radicals are supported by the makers of HIV tests and drugs and predators like George Soros who exploit them.
In many ways, HIV has become the de facto religion of the radical gay movement that parades under the pretext of human rights – as if cross-dressing, gay sex and crystal meth somehow equate to the abolition of slavery.
The AIDS Church requires believers to evangelize Robert Gallo’s unproven assumptions about HIV (1, 2, 3, 4) and subject themselves to a baptism of HIV tests. Once confirmed, believers receive a sacramental cocktail of highly addictive psychotropic drugs and DNA inhibitors so that members can suffer and die for their church just like Jesus.
Thankfully, the vast majority of men and woman (gay and straight) know better than to subject themselves to the church’s social marketing schemes – which may be why the Academy of Education Development and pharmaceutical companies are now paying ex-celebrities like Blair Underwood and Magic Johnson to target their own vulnerable communities.
Montagnier and Gallo are only two of the highly paid clerics who make fools of themselves throughout the documentary. It would be comedic, except that these clerics are complicit in the deliberate and unnecessary sickness and death of millions around the world – drug-caused mortality that continues to be used to perpetuate a fake epidemic that the American Medical Association cannot substantiate.
Years from now, researchers and students will watch recordings of those clerics with the same fascination we now share for humanity’s other historical monsters. Our amazed progeny will ask themselves, “How could millions of people around the world fall for such a transparent lie?”
Coming to a film festival near you.
“A stunning piece of filmmaking!”
That’s what Canadian filmmaker and Raindance Film Festival founder Elliot Grove said this week about Brent Leung’s documentary House of Numbers. Having worked on 68 feature films and over 700 commercials, Grove knows what he’s talking about.
Objecting to the wasted resources and union bureaucracy that prevents aspiring filmmakers from getting their features off the ground, Grove moved to London in the late 1980s and launched the Raindance Film Festival in 1993 – a festival devoted to independent filmmaking and its emerging talent. He has written books about, and lectures on, screenwriting and filmmaking throughout the UK, Europe, North America and Japan. In 1992, he set up the training division of Raindance, which offers nearly two dozen evening and weekend master classes on writing, directing, producing and marketing films.
After the film’s screening, Grove said:
I’ve just come out of screening of House of Numbers Brent Leung’s film… I hadn’t seen it until now. I was a bit skeptical because of all the furor around the film that has swirled around Raindance, but I’ve gotta say that it was just a stunning piece of filmmaking…
In another coordinated attack on free expression, the pharmaceutical industry’s marketing goons tried to pressure Grove into spiking the film:
We were flooded with hate mail, emails, legal letters couriered from the States from all sorts of people threatening us and accusing us of being prissy and smug about showing this film obviously from people who obviously hadn’t seen it accusing this film of being an “AIDS denialist” film and I’ve just seen the film and it’s obviously not an “AIDS denialist” film at all. It’s just a brilliant piece of filmmaking – journalistic filmmaking which, anyone who takes the time and effort to see it should completely re-examine their view of the whole AIDS/HIV question… I think history is gonna be re-written or should be re-written and perhaps this… film is one of the first steps.
This explains why the makers of deadly AIDS drugs and dangerously unreliable testing kits are so fearful of Leung’s film. Grove wasn’t deterred:
Regardless of the topic… as the way the film was put together, the journalistic approach and the skill of the filmmaking, the post-production, the music and everything reminded me of a British documentary… called Man on Wire… I’ve got to say that Brent’s film, House of Numbers was right up there – and Oscar season isn’t far away… It’s extreme, it’s honest… a really good piece of filmmaking.
Hollywood Gumshoe has posted more on the film here.
AHRP reports that history is about to repeat itself:
In the 1976 swine flu vaccine program, 40 million people were vaccinated with an inadequately tested vaccine. The government gave the vaccine manufacturers immunity from liability, but created an alternative compensation program. Five thousand people sought benefits for vaccine injuries.
Today, as in 1976, official concern has focused on flu vaccine availability without regard for the safety of an H1N1 vaccine. Many national regulatory agencies have set-up fast-track approval processes for the H1N1 vaccine, which means that a vaccine might be licensed without the usual safety and efficacy data requirements. Vaccine safety will therefore have to be monitored through post-marketing surveillance.
But there is reason for concern that we will repeat the debacle of the 1976 H1N1 outbreak in the USA, where mass vaccination was associated with complications, which stopped the campaign and led to the withdrawal of the vaccine.
What’s more, today, the government has NOT established an ALTERNATIVE COMPENSATION PROGRAM – as it had in 1976. The existing vaccine compensation program covers only designated vaccines and does NOT cover most adult vaccines.
The U.S. government has adopted (what critics regard) a reckless policy encouraging (if not mandating) the use of untested controversial vaccines with novel adjuvants likely to be used to strengthen vaccines and stretch the supply–they are named MF59 (Novartis) and ASO3 (Glaxo Smith-Kline). Only 3 vaccines using these adjuvants have been licensed in Europe, and none have been given a license in the US.
It is likely that these adjuvants will cause far more damage and autoimmune illness than the swine vaccine used in 1976.
Indeed, manufacturers have been given immunity from liability, as have the government program planners. But no compensation mechanism has been created for citizens who are likely to suffer harm. This is but a tacit acknowledgement that the vaccines are likely to produce harm.
The New York Times reports that pharmaceutical company ghostwriters played a major role in producing 26 scientific papers that backed the use of hormone replacement therapy in women, suggesting that the level of hidden industry influence on medical literature is broader than previously known.
The articles, published in medical journals between 1998 and 2005, emphasized the benefits and de-emphasized the risks of taking hormones to protect against maladies like aging skin, heart disease and dementia. That supposed medical consensus benefited Wyeth, the pharmaceutical company that paid a medical communications firm to draft the papers, as sales of its hormone drugs, called Premarin and Prempro, soared to nearly $2 billion in 2001.
But the seeming consensus fell apart in 2002 when a huge federal study on hormone therapy was stopped after researchers found that menopausal women who took certain hormones had an increased risk of invasive breast cancer, heart disease and stroke. A later study found that hormones increased the risk of dementia in older patients.
The ghostwritten papers were typically review articles, in which an author weighs a large body of medical research and offers a bottom-line judgment about how to treat a particular ailment. The articles appeared in 18 medical journals, including The American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology and The International Journal of Cardiology.
The articles did not disclose Wyeth’s role in initiating and paying for the work. Elsevier, the publisher of some of the journals, said it was disturbed by the allegations of ghostwriting and would investigate.
The documents on ghostwriting were uncovered by lawyers suing Wyeth and were made public after a request in court from PLoS Medicine, a medical journal from the Public Library of Science, and The New York Times.
A spokesman for Wyeth said that the articles were scientifically accurate and that pharmaceutical companies routinely hired medical writing companies to assist authors in drafting manuscripts. (Story here)
Although the reporting of this story by the NYT is new, the practice is not. According to former Eli Lilly marketing executive John Virapen, fake stories and reports are part of the overall marketing strategy throughout the pharmaceutical industry. Because the industry funds the FDA, CDC and NIH officials, no one investigates the corruption because they profit from them.
As a result, thousands of people are unnecessarily killed or injured from adverse drug reactions. In the case of Prozac or hormone replacement therapy, the eventual lawsuits are merely part of the cost of doing business. If a drug like Prozac generates $10 billion in profits over 20 years and generates $4 billion in lawsuits (with confidentiality agreements), the $6 billion net profit makes it worthwhile.
The problem is not that the pharmaceutical industry harms and kills patients millions of patients for profit, but that there are no competent investigative agencies or politicians who aren’t paid to ignore the mayhem.
In this related story, pharmaceutical lobbyists have successfully pressured White House officials to stand by their behind-the-scenes deal to block Congressional efforts to extract more than their agreed-upon $80 billion.