Pfizer Chief Blows The Whistle On Pharmaceutical Industry

[charlie]

The video below is taken from the film “One More Girl” in which former Pfizer Vice President, Dr. Peter Rost, exposes the truth behind the insidious medical and pharmaceutical industry.

Dr Rost is a whistleblower of Big Pharma and author of “The Whistleblower, Confessions of a Healthcare Hitman.” He says that the public cannot believe any clinical research that is published or trust their physicians.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrCizlAOBAo

“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of the New England Journal of Medicine.” – Dr. Marcia Angell, a physician and longtime editor-in-chief of the New England Medical Journal (NEMJ)

“The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness.” – Dr. Richard Horton, the current editor-in-chief of the Lancet – considered to be one of the most well respected peer-reviewed medical journals in the world.

Rest of article at link:
http://yournewswire.com/pfizer-chief-bl ... -industry/

 

[Such_Saturation]

So basically he said

1. Give grants for research
2. Develop research together
3. Make friends
4. Develop "favor credit"
5. Pay people to go speak
6. Fund the education programs of institutions that support your cause

You can look out for these things.

 

[XPlus]

In business school school we get taught that businesses exist to maximise shareholders' wealth but the extent of which corporates go to fool, rob and enslave people systematically is just unbelievable.

 

[Stuart]

That's amazing Charlie. Hardly surprising, given the profit motive driving all economic endeavor. Nothing else seems to even come close to as efficiently allocating resources as market capitalism does -so far, anyway. But greed certainly has a devastating downside too. Lying and cheating improves the bottom line. Particularly when it is so easy to convince yourself that you aren't lying and cheating. I don't think there are too many big Pharma employees who are knowingly and deliberately doing so much damage to human health. I think on the whole they are good, honest people. Self deception is an intellectual trap waiting to ensnare all of us.

I guess Peter Ross won't be getting too many Christmas cards from Pfizer any more though.
Most human beings eat crap, because food technology can make crap taste wonderful. It would be so nice to think that our taste buds automatically lead us to dietary choices that promote our health.
Alas, t'isn't so!
Our tastebuds are stuck in an evolutionary endpoint that modern food science runs rings around.
Which kind of makes a mockery of the concept of universal healthcare (which I wholeheartedly believe in) , if your tax dollars are being used to prop up people's self destructiveness.

 

[burtlancast]

I guess Peter Ross won't be getting too many Christmas cards from Pfizer any more though.

Of course, he will.

Just like Marcia Angell.

These people still work for their employer, and all these confessions hoopla is just smoke and mirrors destined to make people go in circles without ever finding the solution.

 

[GAF]

They always fund both sides of every conflict.

 

[Such_Saturation]

But what if the confessions about the confessions are also smoke and mirrors

 

[Stuart]

But what if the confessions about the confessions are also smoke and mirrors

Trust nobody.

 

[burtlancast]

My original post about the real Marcia Angell (from another topic):

Marcia Angell, Stephen Barrett (of Quackwatch)' darling , was heavily involved in bashing alternative medecine.

In this not-so-old 2005 interview given to Quackwatch, she basically says:

- the FDA is protecting us
- homeopathy doesn't work
- acupuncture doesn't work
- herbal therapy doesn't work
- Aryuveda doesn't work
- Chinese medecine doesn't work
- the DHSEA bill protecting supplements from the FDA regulations should be abolished
- no published study about ANY alternative therapy has shown effectiveness
- Dr Gonzalez, using a modified Gerson therapy, preys on the desperate

Therapeutic touch, homeopathy, magnet therapy, herbal remedies, you name it. That's what they have in common: they have not been adequately tested scientifically..

So I think we have a real reason to be concerned. And since the FDA has no regulatory authority--except after the fact, if they find out that there have been deaths or severe side effects--you are not protected, nor do you necessarily know if people have been harmed because there's no surveillance system, there's no requirement that the FDA be informed, so if the FDA does get wind of serious side effects or death it's only accidentally that somebody thinks to tell them.

Well, there's a certain libertarian right-wing view that there should be no FDA, that people can decide for themselves whether medicines are safe and effective. That's nonsense.

I think there will be. I think DSHEA is going to have to be changed sooner or later, because we're seeing increasing reports of interactions. St. John's Wort for example, interacts with many drugs. … It interferes with drugs for AIDS. It interferes with drugs for cancer. … I think people are beginning to realize that there is a downside to this unregulated market. That maybe they were a little bit too fast on this. So I believe sooner or later, particularly as we see more of these side effects, sooner or later DSHEA will have to be modified in some way. …

Alternative medicine plays into this exaggerated notion that you can prevent disease simply by doing the right thing. And they advertise that if you take ginseng you won't get a cold.

I think that medicine and doctors have too often--and let me say this loud and clear--been too arrogant, too busy and too highly specialized and technologically focused. So I think there's a lot to be said for the complaints on the side of complementary and alternative medicine in that department. Nevertheless you have to say that they're offering all of these touchy-feely things cause that's all they've got. Whereas you can get more if you have appendicitis or a heart attack or cancer from your standard doctor.

I know of no good study that has shown an alternative remedy to work. They've been flawed in some way, the ones that I've read that show that they work

I have never seen a good study that shows that acupuncture works.
It's generally accepted as, it works. And yet it's based on a philosophy so primitive that it's amazing to me that people could imagine that it does. I mean, these meridians of electrical fields and so forth. It's based on a philosophy that goes back to the period of time in which it developed. Which is quite primitive.

You have to ask yourself about these old traditional medical treatments. Ayurveda, Chinese traditional medicine, that started thousands of years ago, what life was like for the people who relied on those therapies. Well, it was nasty, brutish and short. That's what life was like. And yet somehow they're presented now as sort of exotic chic, as traditional chic that because they're old and because they come from a different culture, there must be something to them. …

It's totally implausible; it's like angels dancing on the head of the pin, it has a sort of fussiness, and yet at bottom it's a belief in vitalism, and energy fields, the same thing you see in therapeutic touch and some of the other more implausible mechanisms. And I think that appeals to people. I think in a sense the more implausible it is for some people, the better. It satisfies a craving for spirituality, settles some old scores with conventional medicine, it makes people think that they're rising above themselves.

What do you say to people who believe that acupuncture works?

Well it speaks to the power of the placebo effect, which is extremely powerful when it comes to subjective complaints like pain or nausea, particularly if they're not terribly severe. If you were in agony because your leg was crushed, probably the placebo would not work. But I suspect in most cases, acupuncture works through a placebo effect.

What do you know about Dr. Nicholas Gonzalez and his controversial cancer treatment regimen?

I read the New Yorker story about the Gonzalez therapy and I've read some about what it is. And this is, it seems to me, another instance of preying on desperate people

the alternative medicine gurus get letters from people who say, "I had cancer, my doctor gave me six months to live, and I drank carrot juice and now I'm alive and it's three years later," and maybe he's dead, that always adds to the story. You don't know whether he had cancer in the first place. You don't know what other treatment he was getting. So that's not documented, that's more of a testimonial. And a lot of complementary and alternative medicine is testimonials. Just "I know somebody who knew somebody who said this," without any effort to find out whether it's true.

The anecdote is a little bit different. It can be very well documented, and reputable medical journals--the New England Journal of Medicine occasionally would publish an anecdote if it's very well documented. If we got a study that said I have a patient and, just an anecdote, but he had cancer of the pancreas and I gave him carrot juice the tumor shrank and he's well and it's three years later, and they could document all of those facts, we might publish it. We would ask questions: how many people with cancer of the pancreas did you give carrot juice to? Who didn't get better? We would want a lot of documentation of it, but we might publish it. But we wouldn't publish it as evidence that carrot juice cures cancer of the pancreas. We would publish it as something that had to be looked at in a proper study. You would say this is a hypothesis-generating anecdote. It means this is something worth looking at, let's design a study. Say a small trial of people with cancer of the pancreas, and add carrot juice to the usual regimen in one half of the population, and don't do it in the other half and see how they do. And you would begin to look at something. A lot of accepted treatments come about in exactly this way. Theory, anecdote, and then the proper studies. So that's what an anecdote is good for. It is not proof of an effect at all. It's what it is.

The Gonzalez therapy is being studied now.

I don't think that's fair to patients. I really don't. People shouldn't have to spend what may be their last months taking a hundred and sixty pills and having coffee enemas and, and things that may be unpleasant, uncomfortable and debilitating. You'd have to have some prior probability that was pretty strong for me to think that that was a good way to go, that that was a good study to do. I don't know what the prior evidence was before this study was launched. I'd want to look at that very carefully. …

I think there's something sad about standing back in a way and watching desperate people spend what may be the last months of their life chasing after treatments that may be very unpleasant, very uncomfortable, very onerous on the belief that it might work. I mean nobody's going to do that unless they think it might work. And I think doctors have an obligation to talk honestly, compassionately but honestly with their patients about such wild goose chases. It doesn't seem kind to me. …

If somebody said to me, you have a devastating disease, cancer of the pancreas and you're probably going to survive no more than six months. And if you want, you can spend this six months having two coffee enemas a day and taking 160 pills a day, and I think there's a diet that didn't sound very palatable to me, on which you would probably lose weight, because it wouldn't taste very good, and going through a regimen that would take most of your waking hours--you can do this, there is zero evidence that it works. There is even less plausibility that it works. Or you can live your life with your family and your friends and going to Venice. Which would you rather do? Well it's, it's a no-brainer. But it's never presented to people quite like that. The way it's usually presented is, this might work, it's a chance, we don't know for sure, but it's tilted in that way so that people feel guilty unless they do do this.

Certainly new treatments are now almost always demonstrated in a clinical trial. New drugs by law are demonstrated to be effective before the FDA.

there are practices and theories that are not only wildly implausible, but impossible. One of those is homeopathy. If you dilute a substance to the point that there is not one single molecule left of that substance, it can't have an effect, period. Over and out. It can't. To imagine that it did would mean that you overturned all the laws of physics and chemistry, and that's simply not going to happen.

http://quackfiles.blogspot.be/2005/07/w ... ngell.html

This hack is now giving herself a brand new facelift, using the distrust of the public for her own self-promotion.

How low can one sink ?

 

[Such_Saturation]

But what if the confessions about the confessions are also smoke and mirrors

Trust nobody.

Who do you work for? Weetabix? All-bran?

 

[answersfound]

http://youtu.be/CBJtzEKetBM

 

[EnoreeG]

So basically he said

1. Give grants for research
2. Develop research together
3. Make friends
4. Develop "favor credit"
5. Pay people to go speak
6. Fund the education programs of institutions that support your cause

You can look out for these things.

Nice summary. Big business has been in the "University Control" business since way before the development of modern medicines. The AMA started in the mid 19th century and so did the phosphate fertilizer industry. The fertilizer interests were actually first at moving into the colleges once the US government passed the Morrill Act in 1862, providing funding for new "land grant" colleges to be built by the states.

What the Land Grant funds did was insure that colleges would be successful. Funding was from the feds. There was a focus on agriculture. The fertilizer industry was just beginning and what better way to get the word out to the poor farmers than to train the new agriculture consultants that would come out of these colleges. The first corporate funds were provided to get the text books written such that fertilizer was emphasized. As the industry changed, the texts changed. Science was another program to infiltrate, once the science programs were developed.

The same pattern was followed by the medical and drug industry in medical schools. Write the texts, fund the research. The AMA began in 1847 and it took only 2 years before they were funding a version of "Quack Watch" to suppress competing professions. Some of their next moves were to get into universities and exert influence.

AMA History Timeline

If one wants to see some of the material that has been purged from university use, though it often provides more cost effective solutions to soil and health conditions than anything promoted by "modern science", there is a collection of this valuable, "ahead of it's time" wisdom in the free "Soil and Health Library". Downloads are available for over 100 books and articles that have actually been put out of print by big Ag and big Pharma, thanks to their determined efforts to dominate the writing of college texts in these and other fields of education. Many of these volumes are a century old, and have been out of print for most of that time, having been "nixed" shortly after their publication, though often authored by current college professors or respected practitioners.

Soil and Health Library

This is a beta-test version of the library. If for some reason the link is dead, please use the following link which currently will provide only an earlier version of the website.

Soil and Health

 

[pboy]

I think its a problem that's been since the dawn of civilization or before. You have humans eating a diet that promotes constipation and hypertension, which pretty much all for all time have eaten, it closes off the higher faculties, makes you feel like an alien in the world against nature, and shuts down your heart. So then men develop a hierarchical system, no one is really happy or satisfied, but if you're the guy on top its less bad cause you can get others to do the itch work for you, but they still feel pretty alien and like ***t most of the time, they can just escape in 'luxeries' more, but the real release everyone is looking for is to lose all the toxicity and tension in their body mind and soul.

Everyone in all business...I don't see how people don't put 2 and 2 together, people do whatever behind closed doors in all arenas to gain advantage. People check each other just so their competitors cant dominate them, not really for the 'morals or values' of it. People don't want to me caught and shamed but its not like the people calling them out aren't basically the same kind of people, they are just like engaged in competition. But then out of no where theres the medical establishment that supposedly is like priests or messiahs out to do nothing but save people and do good...lol. Just look at the names of the drugs they sell and the commercials, its the same thing as anything else, and the doctors use basic car salesman scare tactics to attract 'patients' (clients) and get you to agree to expenesive procedures. Lawyers are just as bad, but they at least get to act like the 'good guy' while really just going for their cheese also. Its good to have all this competition checking going on or things would be worse, but lets face it, everyone is the same, and are pretty heartless across the board, at all levels. Its not like poor people are better either, they just cant display the type of potential they'd do in the public eye. It all comes down basically to diet and how that effects your body and mind, and no one from the top to bottom has any reference or knows this...so they assume life is just a game of ruthless competition, theyre abandoned here in this alien world, and they want to fight for survival and the ability to wield power so other people can clean up their ***t after them, wipe for them, and serve them.

You do judge a book by its cover, if someone isn't like as fit and healthy looking as a deer, you know what I mean, and not just like someone whos muscular or uses drugs and looks aggressive, but a healthy peaceful very healthy fit person, without a gut, receding hair, bad skin, ect ect, in the case of girls, without any make up or fake appendages, you basically can assume they are suffering inside the basic human condition and unless you are on their team, they cant be trusted and don't actually have anyones best interest in mind but their own, and maybe their kids.

Kids under the age of like 18 still have...maybe 20%, have some level of heart left because they dotn realize how the world is yet, so its kind of an illusory happiness, but as soon as they gotta fight for cheese, they lose that

welcome to the current world

its not gonna change until the diet of the whole world and food availability changes. Currently you have huge cities of millions of people with like...a handful of fruit trees around. What do you expect

 

[pboy]

I just wanna add to the above ^^ its true, but at the same time, everyone has the seed of truth and their heart within them. If you give off that vibe and behave in such a way, everyone responds to it, so its not like just a bad pessimistic world. Its actually beautiful to watch how the subconscious forces in people and life respond to and allow one of higher mind, heart, and word to pierce through the BS and armor. It doesn't mean you're gonna change people, but you'll be treated with their best behavior that they can muster

 

[Such_Saturation]

So basically he said

1. Give grants for research
2. Develop research together
3. Make friends
4. Develop "favor credit"
5. Pay people to go speak
6. Fund the education programs of institutions that support your cause

You can look out for these things.

Nice summary. Big business has been in the "University Control" business since way before the development of modern medicines. The AMA started in the mid 19th century and so did the phosphate fertilizer industry. The fertilizer interests were actually first at moving into the colleges once the US government passed the Morrill Act in 1862, providing funding for new "land grant" colleges to be built by the states.

What the Land Grant funds did was insure that colleges would be successful. Funding was from the feds. There was a focus on agriculture. The fertilizer industry was just beginning and what better way to get the word out to the poor farmers than to train the new agriculture consultants that would come out of these colleges. The first corporate funds were provided to get the text books written such that fertilizer was emphasized. As the industry changed, the texts changed. Science was another program to infiltrate, once the science programs were developed.

The same pattern was followed by the medical and drug industry in medical schools. Write the texts, fund the research. The AMA began in 1847 and it took only 2 years before they were funding a version of "Quack Watch" to suppress competing professions. Some of their next moves were to get into universities and exert influence.

AMA History Timeline

If one wants to see some of the material that has been purged from university use, though it often provides more cost effective solutions to soil and health conditions than anything promoted by "modern science", there is a collection of this valuable, "ahead of it's time" wisdom in the free "Soil and Health Library". Downloads are available for over 100 books and articles that have actually been put out of print by big Ag and big Pharma, thanks to their determined efforts to dominate the writing of college texts in these and other fields of education. Many of these volumes are a century old, and have been out of print for most of that time, having been "nixed" shortly after their publication, though often authored by current college professors or respected practitioners.

Soil and Health Library

This is a beta-test version of the library. If for some reason the link is dead, please use the following link which currently will provide only an earlier version of the website.

Soil and Health

Why does it need my name?

 

[pboy]

great interview btw, he summed it up simply