By: unoineedu

Jan 30 2017

Category: Uncategorized

Leave a comment

​Another example of destructive conflicts of interest and nefarious intent is illustrated when we examine U.S. public officials’ connections to the Monsanto group.  Monsanto controls to a significant degree the health & wealth of many nations.  Monsanto Group includes innumerable subsidiaries & inter-relationships with Pharmacia-Upjohn; G.D. Searle, LLC (a wholly owned trademark of Pfizer); Genentech Inc., a biotechnology & pharmaceutical corporation which became a subsidiary of Roche in 2009; the Swiss global health-care company F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG; Eli Lilly and Company; Bayer; DuPont Co.; EuropaBio; among others.  A great number of people who work for Monsanto also work for the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the US Supreme Court; the National Defense Research Committee (NDRC); one Monsanto executive held a position as a Former Director of the FBI, another as a Deputy Attorney General for the United States, another with the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, and yet other executives worked for President George Bush, VP Dick Cheney, and Former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, among others.   In fact, in 2013, Michael Taylor, the former vice president of public policy at Monsanto, was named by President Obama as deputy commissioner for foods and veterinary medicine at the Food and Drug Administration. 
Clinical trials funded directly by the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) have long been considered independent.  However, a large majority of the trails done by the NIH are now designed, funded, operated by, and solely organized for the profits of major pharmaceutical corporations.  A recent Johns Hopkins report indicates that the number of independent NIH trials has fallen and the number of pharma-funded NIH trials has risen each year since 2006.  Furthermore, pharma monopolies are free to hide their clinical designs and actual data.   What makes it far more dangerous to the public is that physicians in the USA seldom if ever critically analyze the information brought to them by Pharmaceutical Corporate reps!  Typically physicians whole-heartedly accept whatever the Pharma Corporate rep tells them.  To further assure sales, Pharmaceutical Corporate reps frequently prescribe creative kick-back schemes for the physicians that prescribe their medication!
Among other things, this has led to physicians no longer prescribing superior medications of the past, and opting for the highly-promoted inferior and far more expensive newer on-patent drugs.  A perfect example of this grave dilemma is the off-patent, inexpensive amphenicol class of anti-microbial medications which thoroughly outperform all the expensive alternatives.  This leaves many, such as chronic Lyme disease patients, without a viable solution.   Ironically, US veterinarians have access to them all.   
What does this information tell us?  The most obvious implication is simply that we are being lied to by the very people we trust to explore the world around us and help us better understand it.  Furthermore, it also poses a crucial question: how deep do the roots of corruption reach in the field of information?  How much of what we think we know has actually been the result of manipulated data?  Can it be fixed?  Richard Horton, the editor of the medical journal Lancet, has this to say:
“Part of the problem is that no-one is incentivised to be right. Instead, scientists are incentivised to be productive and innovative. Would a Hippocratic Oath for science help? Certainly don’t add more layers of research red tape. Instead of changing incentives, perhaps one could remove incentives altogether. Or insist on replicability statements in grant applications and research papers. Or emphasize collaboration, not competition. Or insist on preregistration of protocols. Or reward better pre and post publication peer review. Or improve research training and mentorship. Or implement the recommendations from our Series on increasing research value, published last year. One of the most convincing proposals came from outside the biomedical community. Tony Weidberg is a Professor of Particle Physics at Oxford. Following several high-profile errors, the particle physics community now invests great effort into intensive checking and rechecking of data prior to publication. By filtering results through independent working groups, physicists are encouraged to criticise. Good criticism is rewarded. The goal is a reliable result, and the incentives for scientists are aligned around this goal.”


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: