by Jim Marrs
About half of the world’s largest pharmaceutical corporations are not American, but rather European. Among the top ten pharmaceutical companies are the American companies Pfizer, Merck, Johnson & Johnson, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Wyeth (formerly American Home Products). The rest of the top pharmaceutical companies are the British companies GlaxoSmithKline and AstraZeneca; the Swiss companies Novartis and Roche; and the French company Aventis (which in 2004 merged with another French company, Sanafi Synthelabo, putting it in third place). These corporations essentially function alike, but their drug prices in America are much higher than in other nations’ markets. For example, a bottle of one thousand aspirin costs less in Mexico than a bottle of five hundred across the border in the United States and, obviously, no company will sell a product without making a profit.
To give some indication of the money involved in the modern drug business, the legal pharmaceutical market totaled $712 billion globally in 2007, of which about $80 billion was for psychiatric drugs. According to several authorities, including Harvard psychiatrist Dr. Peter R. Breggin; Bruce Wiseman, national president of the Citizens Commission on Human Rights; geneticist Dr. Thomas Roeder; Dr. Hyla Cass, a former assistant clinical professor of psychiatry at UCLA School of Medicine; and David Healey and David B. Menkes, both of the North Wales Department of Psychological Medicine, psychiatric drugs may be the culprit behind many homicides, suicides, and school shootings.
Even worse, the $80 billion doesn’t even include the illegal drug market. A former editor in chief of the New England Journal of Medicine, Dr. Marcia Angell, wrote in the New York Review of Books, “The combined profits for the ten drug companies in the Fortune 500 ($35.9 billion) were more than the profits for all the other 490 businesses put together ($33.7 billion). Over the past two decades the pharmaceutical industry has moved very far from its original high purpose of discovering and producing useful new drugs. Now primarily a marketing machine to sell drugs of dubious benefit, this industry uses its wealth and power to co-opt every institution that might stand in its way, including the US Congress, the FDA, academic medical centers, and the medical profession itself.”
In her 2004 book The Truth About the Drug Companies: How They Deceive Us and What to Do About It, Dr. Angell argues that the current power of the pharmaceutical industry can be directly traced to the industry’s phenomenal growth during the Reagan years, with George H. W. Bush and his globalist supporters in command following Reagan’s wounding during an assassination attempt in March 1981.
“The watershed year was 1980,” she noted. “Before then, it was a good business, but afterward, it was a stupendous one. From 1960 to 1980, prescription drug sales were fairly static as a percent of US gross domestic product, but from 1980 to 2000, they tripled. They now stand at more than $200 billion a year. Of the many events that contributed to the industry’s great and good fortune, none had to do with the quality of the drugs the companies were selling.”
The success of Big Pharm has more to do with marketing than with the effectiveness of its drugs. Dr. Michael Wilkes, professor of medicine and vice dean for medical education at the University of California, Davis, joined other critics in describing a recent phenomenon called “disease-mongering,” an activity in which large drug corporations attempt to convince healthy people they are sick and need drugs in order to boost sales.
“Most pharmaceutical companies devote huge amounts of money to prevent, control and cure diseases,” he added. “When their profits don’t match corporate expectations, they ‘invent’ new diseases to be cured by existing drugs.”
“Countless examples of disease-mongering are driven by the pharmaceutical industry’s drive to sell drugs,” wrote Dr. Wilkes. “Conditions such as female sexual dysfunction syndrome, premenstrual dysphoric disorder, toenail fungus, baldness and social anxiety disorder (a.k.a. shyness) are a few places where the medical community has stepped in, thereby turning normal or mild conditions into diseases for which medication is the treatment.”
Ironically, though Big Pharm invents new diseases, they rarely invent a new drug. Surprisingly, most new and important drugs brought to market in recent years were based on taxpayer-funded research at universities, small biotechnology companies, or the National Institutes of Health (NIH). In fact, most supposedly “new” drugs are merely a variation of older drugs.
“If I’m a manufacturer and I can change one molecule and get another twenty years of patent rights, and convince physicians to prescribe and consumers to demand the next form of Prilosec, or weekly Prozac instead of daily Prozac, just as my patent expires, then why would I be spending money on a lot less certain endeavor, which is looking for brand-new drugs?” asked Dr. Sharon Levine, associate executive director of the Kaiser Permanente Medical Group.
“What’s true of the eight-hundred-pound gorilla is true of the colossus that is the pharmaceutical industry. It is used to doing pretty much what it wants to do,” wrote Dr. Marcia Angell. “The most important of these laws [that relax restrictions on pharmaceutical corporations] is known as the Bayh-Dole Act, after its chief sponsors, Senator Birch Bayh (D-Ind.) and Senator Robert Dole (R-Kans.). Bayh-Dole enabled universities and small businesses to patent discoveries emanating from research sponsored by the National Institutes of Health, the major distributor of tax dollars for medical research, and then to grant exclusive licenses to drug companies. Until then, taxpayer-financed discoveries were in the public domain, available to any company that wanted to use them. But now universities, where most NIH-sponsored work is carried out, can patent and license their discoveries, and charge royalties. Similar legislation permitted the NIH itself to enter into deals with drug companies that would directly transfer NIH discoveries to industry…. Thus, when a patent held by a university or a small biotech company is eventually licensed to a big drug company, all parties cash in on the public investment in research.”
Under this system, research paid for by public money became a commodity to be sold for profit by privately owned companies. Dr. Angell provides examples of the large consulting fees paid by pharmaceutical corporations to individual faculty members and to NIH scientists and directors. These fees allow for globalist pharmaceutical corporations to further intrude into the nation’s medical education.
The lucrative connection between Big Pharm and medical schools and hospitals has brought about a definite corporate-friendly atmosphere. “One of the results has been a growing pro-industry bias in medical research [in both schools and hospitals]—exactly where such bias doesn’t belong,” stated Dr. Angell.
She noted that the huge amounts of money flowing from Big Pharm began to change the ethos of medical schools and teaching hospitals. Such nonprofit institutions began to view themselves as partners of industry. Faculty researchers were encouraged to obtain patents on their work, which were then assigned to their universities. The schools then sold the right to Big Pharm and shared in royalties. Many medical schools and teaching hospitals even created technology transfer offices to capitalize on faculty discoveries.
Dr. Angell also noted the excessive salaries for pharmaceutical executives. Take, for instance, the whopping $74,890,918 salary paid to Charles Heimbold Jr. in 2001, the former chairman and CEO of Bristol-Myers Squibb. This does not count his $76,095,611 worth of unexercised stock options. At the same time, the chairman of Wyeth made $40,521,011 in 2001, not counting his $40,629,459 in stock options.
DTC ADS
SELLING IS THE NAME of the game. Drug advertising is now ubiquitous in all major media outlets. Despite spending 7.1 percent less on direct-to-consumer (DTC) drug advertising in the third quarter of fiscal 2008, a Nielsen Media Research report showed that pharmaceutical firms still spent about $4.8 billion on DTC advertising for television, radio, and print ads in magazines and newspapers.
Here’s how the top few drugs worked out in sales per advertising dollar spent:
The cholesterol drug Lipitor earned $34.09 for each ad dollar spent.
T
he asthma drug Advair Diskus earned $27.98 per ad dollar.
The heartburn remedy Nexium earned $44.92 per ad dollar.
The allergy drug Singulair earned $45.24 per ad dollar.
The allergy medication Zyrtec (now available without prescription) earned $33.86 per ad dollar.
DTC advertising more than tripled between 1997 and 2005, growing from $1.3 billion to $4.2 billion since the U.S. Food and Drug Administration eased restrictions governing these types of drug ads.
It has been estimated that $8 billion of the $235 billion spent by consumers on prescription drugs in 2008 came from DTC advertising. And the 2008 decline in DTC advertising—a first in recent U.S. history—was offset by launch campaigns on drugs such as Cialis, Abilify, Nasonex, and Plavix.
While TV ads show visuals of happy people, idyllic countrysides, laughing children, and playful pets, a droning audio voice rapidly skips through possible side effects. The pain medication Vioxx was heavily advertised by its maker but later recalled when it was shown the drug increased the risk of heart attack in some people. “The fact that it was so heavily marketed magnified its ultimate damage,” said Michael Russo, a health-care proponent for the public advocacy group California Public Interest Research Group (CalPIRG).
Perhaps Big Pharm cares more for promoting their drugs than developing something better and safer. Published estimates predict that whereas the drug industry spent about $57.5 billion on U.S. marketing in 2004, it spent only $31.5 billion on research and development. Percentage-wise, of the $235.4 billion in U.S. sales in 2004, promotion consumed 24.4 percent of sales dollars while R&D only took 13.4 percent.
“Although some academic studies suggest that DTC advertising can help people who need to start taking drugs and others to remain compliant with existing treatment regimens, the lack of fair balance in many DTC ads that promote drug benefits and downplay risks is what is driving legislation to curb its use,” stated a comment posted on BioJobBlog.com, a website dedicated to bioindustry employment. “…Interestingly, about ten years ago, a friend who works for a major pharmaceutical company told me that she always waits five years before using a newly approved drug. At the time, I thought it was an odd thing for her to say since she had been in the business for over 15 years. However, over the past five years or so, several high-profile drugs that were heavily promoted by DTC advertising had to be withdrawn from the market. To that end, while DTC advertising may be ‘great for business,’ it may not always be in the best interest of American consumers who use prescriptions.”
The site also noted that DTC advertising is allowed in only two countries—New Zealand and the United States.
The ever-increasing predominance of DTC drug advertising has prompted several members of Congress to introduce legislation to curtail the ads. Legislators were disgusted with tax deductions for drug marketers using DTC advertising and commercials offering products that gave four-hour erections during prime-time television hours.
Not only did drug advertising trouble the public, but so did the disproportion of actual drug costs to retail sale price. In 2003, the website ThePeoplesVoice.org posted this chart of the actual price of active ingredients used in some of the most popular drugs sold in America.
Brand Name: Celebrex 100 mg
Consumer Price per 100: $130.27
Cost of General Active Ingredients Per 100 tab/cap: $0.60
Percent Markup: 21,712%
Brand Name: Claritin 10 mg
Consumer Price per 100: $215.17
Cost of General Active Ingredients Per 100 tab/cap: $0.71
Percent Markup: 30,306%
Brand Name: Keflex 250 mg
Consumer Price per 100: $157.39
Cost of General Active Ingredients Per 100 tab/cap: $1.88
Percent Markup: 8,372%
Brand Name: Lipitor 20 mg
Consumer Price per 100: $272.37
Cost of General Active Ingredients Per 100 tab/cap: $5.80
Percent Markup: 4,696%
Brand Name: Norvasc 10 mg
Consumer Price per 100: $188.29
Cost of General Active Ingredients Per 100 tab/cap: $0.14
Percent Markup: 134,493%
Brand Name: Paxil 20 mg
Consumer Price per 100: $220.27
Cost of General Active Ingredients Per 100 tab/cap: $7.60
Percent Markup: 2,898%
Brand Name: Prevacid 30 mg
Consumer Price per 100: $44.77
Cost of General Active Ingredients Per 100 tab/cap: $1.01
Percent Markup: 34,136%
Brand Name: Prilosec 20 mg
Consumer Price per 100: $360.97
Cost of General Active Ingredients Per 100 tab/cap: $0.52
Percent Markup: 69,417%
Brand Name: Prozac 20 mg
Consumer Price per 100: $247.47
Cost of General Active Ingredients Per 100 tab/cap: $0.11
Percent Markup: 224,973%
Brand Name: Tenormin 50 mg
Consumer Price per 100: $104.47
Cost of General Active Ingredients Per 100 tab/cap: $0.13
Percent Markup: 80,362%
Brand Name: Vasotec 10 mg
Consumer Price per 100: $102.37
Cost of General Active Ingredients Per 100 tab/cap: $0.20
Percent Markup: 51,185%
Brand Name: Xanax 1 mg
Consumer Price per 100: $136.79
Cost of General Active Ingredients Per 100 tab/cap: $0.024
Percent Markup: 569,958%
Brand Name: Zestril 20 mg
Consumer Price per 100: $89.89
Cost of General Active Ingredients Per 100 tab/cap: $3.20
Percent Markup: 2,809%
Brand Name: Zithromax 600 mg
Consumer Price per 100: $1,482.19
Cost of General Active Ingredients Per 100 tab/cap: $18.78
Percent Markup: 7,892%
Brand Name: Zocor 40 mg
Consumer Price per 100: $350.27
Cost of General Active Ingredients Per 100 tab/cap: $8.63
Percent Markup: 4,059%
Brand Name: Zoloft 50 mg
Consumer Price per 100: $206.87
Cost of General Active Ingredients Per 100 tab/cap: $1.75
Percent Markup: 11,821%
Fortunately, the government has acted in response to the growing public awareness of Big Pharm malfeasance. In September 2009, Pfizer Inc., the world’s largest drug manufacturer, was ordered to pay a record $2.3 billion civil and criminal penalty after the government found the firm guilty of unlawful prescription drug promotions. Prosecutors charged the company with promoting four prescription drugs, including the pain-killer Bextra (taken off the market in 2005), after studies indicated that the drugs increased the chances of heart attack and had been used as a treatment for medical conditions different from those for which federal regulators had approved.
A spokesman for the Justice Department said the fine, which included both criminal and civil penalties, was the largest criminal fine in U.S. history.
Authorities noted that this was the fourth settlement involving false and misleading advertising claims in the past ten years. They called Pfizer a “repeat offender” and said the company’s conduct would be monitored for the next five years.
Previously, Pfizer was accused of inviting doctors to all-expense-paid meetings at resorts as consultants. U.S. attorney for Massachusetts Mike Loucks said, “They were entertained with golf, massages, and other luxuries.” He added that Pfizer continued to violate the same laws with other drugs even while negotiating the Bextra settlement with Justice Department attorneys.
New York attorney general Andrew Cuomo told the media, “Pfizer ripped off New Yorkers and taxpayers across the country to pad its bottom line. Pfizer’s corrupt practices went so far as sending physicians on exotic junkets as well as wining and dining health care professionals to persuade them to prescribe the company’s drugs for patients in taxpayer-funded programs
.”
Another Big Pharm giant’s consolidation efforts point to high-level connections with both the globalists and the Nazis. GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), the second-largest pharmaceutical company in the world after Pfizer, was founded in London in 1880 by two American pharmacists—Henry Wellcome and Silas Burroughs—as Burroughs Wellcome & Company. Glaxo Laboratories, originally a baby food manufacturer, went multinational in 1935. After the postwar acquisition of other companies, including Meyer Laboratories, Glaxo merged with Burroughs Wellcome in 1995. The new name of the company was GlaxoWellcome. In 2000, after merging with SmithKlineBeckman, the firm became GlaxoSmithKline.
The original Burroughs Wellcome drug firm was wholly owned by Wellcome Trust, whose director was the British lord Oliver Franks, a man described as “one of the founders of the post-war world.” Franks was ambassador to the United States from 1948 to 1952 and was also a director of the Rockefeller Foundation and its principal representative in England. He was a director of the Kurt von Schroeder Nazi Bank, which at one time handled Hitler’s personal bank account. Franks also was a director of the Rhodes Trust, which was used in the late 1800s by the African diamond magnate Cecil Rhodes to create his Round Table Groups, a forerunner of the Council on Foreign Relations. As a Rhodes director, Franks was in charge of approving Rhodes scholarships such as the one awarded Bill Clinton in 1968.
According to former intelligence officer Dr. John Coleman, members of Rhodes’s Round Tables, armed with immense wealth gained from control of gold, diamonds, and drugs, fanned out over the world to take control of fiscal and monetary policies and political leadership in all countries where they operated. This conspiratorial network was confirmed by President Clinton’s academic mentor, the Georgetown University historian Carroll Quigley, who wrote, “There does exist, and has existed for a generation, an international Anglophile network which operates, to some extent, in the way the radical Right believes the Communists act. I know of the operations of this network because I have studied it for 20 years and was permitted for two years, in the early 1960s, to examine its papers and secret records. I have no aversion to it or to most of its aims and have, for much of my life, been close to it and to many of its instruments…. [I]n general my chief difference of opinion is that it wishes to remain unknown, and I believe its role in history is significant enough to be known.”