This article describes the
poisonous nature of pharmaceutical drugs, their
devastating affects on our health and economy, and the
powerful interests behind this deadly industry.
Copyright 1993, 1995 by
Campaign Against Fraudulent
This article may be copied or distributed,
provided the copyright and
disclaimer messages are clearly attached.
Disclaimer: This article is presented for
educational purposes only and is not intended as a
substitute for professional or medical advice. CAFMR
disclaims all liability to any person arising directly
or indirectly from the use of the information provided.
THE ROCKETING COST OF HEALTH CARE
"Medical 'ignorance' is costing us
billions" reads a heading in the Daily Telegraph Mirror
of February 24, 1991, over an article:
"Poor funding and a lack of
knowledge about preventive medicine has led to a $2 billion
blow-out in public health spending, experts say.
"These costs rose nationally from $26 billion to $28 billion [in
one year] - an average of $1700 per person - according to
figures to be released by the Australian Institute of Health."
Writing in an article in the Sunday
Telegraph on October 27, 1991, the Federal Minister for
Community Services and Health, Brian Howe, expresses his
"Health care costs a huge amount of
money: $1796 for every man, woman and child....
"The trouble is that if Medicare becomes too costly, this
country can't afford to keep footing the bill: which means that
individual Australians will have to foot the bill instead or go
without the necessary health care.
"I believe the Federal Government should continue to pay much of
the health care cost, but my concern has been that one day the
Government will have to say it can no longer afford Medicare.
"Medicare is getting increasingly costly. Total government
expenditure on Medicare benefits rose by 70 per cent between
1984-85 and 1989-90, and by another 11.2 per cent in 1990-91.
"Before the changes in the Budget were announced, Medicare
benefits were expected to rise by another 28 per cent in real
terms over the three years to 1994-95: that's approximately $1.3
The rocketing cost of health care in
Australia is not unique to this country, but is typical of all
In his book Limits to Medicine
(1979), prominent medical historian, Ivan Illich, writes:
"During the past twenty years, while
the price index in the United States has risen by about 74 per
cent, the cost of medical care has escalated by 330 per cent.
Between 1950 and 1971 public expenditure for health insurance
increased tenfold, private insurance benefits increased
eightfold, [2a] and direct out-of-pocket payments
about threefold. [2b]
In overall expenditures other
countries such as France [2c] and Germany [2d]
kept abreast of the United States. In all industrial nations -
Atlantic, Scandinavian, or East European - the growth rate of
the health sector has advanced faster than that of the GNP
[gross national product]. [2e] Even discounting
inflation, federal health outlays increased by more than 40 per
cent between 1969 and 1974 [2f]." (2)
CONSUMING TOO MANY DRUGS?
As was reported in the Bulletin, March 24, 1992, one of the
fastest-growing components of Australia's costly health bill is the
pharmaceutical drug trade, which accounts for $2 billion a year for
The Bulletin article reveals that
"Australians are on a drug binge,
consuming twice as many antibiotics per capita as Sweden and far
more than the US and Britain". (3)
The situation in the United States and
Britain sixteen years ago was bad enough for Illich to write:
"In the United States, the volume of
the drug business has grown by a factor of 100 during the
current century: [4a] 20,000 tons of aspirin are
consumed per year, almost 225 tablets per person. [4b]
In England, every tenth night of sleep is induced by a
hypnotic drug and 19 per cent of women and 9 per cent of men
take a prescribed tranquillizer during any one year. [4c]
In the United States,
central-nervous-system agents are the fastest-growing sector of
the pharmaceutical market, now making up 31 per cent of total
sales. [4d] Dependence on prescribed tranquillizers
has risen by 290 per cent since 1962, a period during which the
per capita consumption of liquor rose by only 23 per cent and
the estimated consumption of illegal opiates by about 50 per
cent [4e]." (4)
At the time of Illich writing this
(1976), it is estimated that 50 to 80 per cent of adults in the
United States and the United Kingdom were consuming a medically
prescribed chemical every 24 to 36 hours. (5)
In his book
Confessions of a Medical Heretic
(1980), famed medical writer and pediatrician, Dr Robert
Mendelsohn, accused doctors of having,
"seeded the entire population with
these powerful drugs". Mendelsohn further states that "Every
year, from 8 to 10 million Americans go to the doctor when they
have a cold. About ninety-five percent of them come away with a
prescription - half of which are for antibiotics." (6)
A recent report by the National
Health Strategy (1992) has pointed out that 160 million
prescriptions are being dispensed from Australian pharmacies every
year, and an estimated further 20 million from hospital pharmacies.
(7) This figure represents a 640 per cent increase since
1949, during which 280,719 prescriptions were dispensed. (8)
As reported in Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics (1976),
a study in a large country town in Australia has revealed that
people who reported no illness took as many drugs as those who
reported a chronic and acute illness.
The authors noted that,
"the rate of increase in drug usage
at around 25 per cent per year can only be explained by
increased drug usage of both prescription and OTC
[over-the-counter] drugs by the majority of the population".
At the time of the report Australians
were consuming half the number of prescription drugs compared to
today. (10) Recent figures of how many OTC or
non-prescription drugs consumed by Australians are difficult to
Industry sources are reluctant to
divulge this information.
However, a study by the Health
Commission of NSW in 1979 that stated that,
"at present Australia has one of the
leading rates of per capita consumption of analgesics in the
world", quoted 1973 figures for sales of OTC medications at $166
It is estimated that in 1991 $1.4
billion was spent on OTC medications, (12) which when
added to the $2 billion spent on prescription drugs, (13)
totals a staggering $3.4 billion.
DRUGS IN THE
FOOD WE EAT
Apart from the vast number of drugs taken directly, people are also
unknowingly consuming large amounts of drugs and other chemical
substances indirectly from the food they eat. Most food industries
rely on chemical substances from soil to supermarket and the animal
products industries are by far the most excessive users of these
The avalanche of drug and chemical usage
by these industries occurred with the shift in production methods
from free-range farming to factory and feedlot farming in the last
20 to 30 years. (15)
Over 15 years ago, there were more than 1,000 drug products and as
many chemicals in use by the livestock and poultry producers in the
United States. (16) Also, more than 40 per cent of the
antibiotics and other antibacterials produced every year in the US
were used as animal feed additives and for other animal purposes.
Almost 100 per cent of poultry, 90 per
cent of pigs and veal calves, and 60 per cent of cattle have regular
amounts of antibacterials added to their feed. (17)
Seventy-five per cent of hogs have their feed supplemented with
sulphur drugs (18) and almost 70 per cent of US beef is
from cattle fed on hormones to promote growth. (19)
The amount of drugs and chemical substances used on farm animals in
the industrialized nations is enormous.
As could be expected, one result of the vast over-consumption of
drugs is the astronomical profits generated by the drug
industry. Since the beginning of the sixties, drug industry
profits (as a percentage of sales and company net worth) have
surpassed all other manufacturing industries listed on the Stock
Another result is the inevitable deterioration of public health.
According to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA),
1.5 million Americans were hospitalized in 1978 as a consequence of
taking drugs and some 30 per cent of all hospitalised people are
further damaged by their treatments. Every year, an estimated
140,000 Americans are killed because of drug taking (21)
and one in seven hospital beds is taken up by patients suffering
from adverse drug reactions. (22)
A report by the General Accounting Office in the United States
revealed that 51.5 per cent of all drugs introduced between 1976 and
1985 had to be relabeled because of serious adverse reactions found
after the marketing of these drugs. These included heart, liver and
kidney failure, fetal toxicity and birth defects, severe blood
disorders, respiratory arrest, seizures and blindness.
The changes to the labeling either
restricted a drug's use or added major warnings. (23)
HOW COMMON ARE DRUG
According to the Adverse Drug Reactions Advisory Committee (ADRAC),
the official federal government body responsible for monitoring the
safety of drugs already in use:
"There is a dearth [scarcity] of
published information on the medical and economic importance of
adverse drug reactions in Australia." (24)
However, a recent study (1991), cited by
the National Health Strategy report on drug use, claims that in
1987-88 there were between 30,000 and 40,000 hospital admissions in
Australia because of drug taking and also that adverse drug
reactions (ADRs) would have been a major factor for between 700
to 900 deaths a year. (25)
There are some who are highly critical of the official estimation of
the extent of drug reactions within communities.
Dr Julian Gold, head of the
National Health Surveillance Unit of the Commonwealth Institute
of Health, whose job as a medical epidemiologist is to collate
information on the total health environment, estimates that up to 40
per cent of all patients in Australia may actually be victims of
doctor induced (iatrogenic) illnesses. (26) A 40 per cent
figure has also been estimated for the United Kingdom. (27)
Generally of this amount, half are from
drug reactions. (28)
UNDER-REPORTING OF DRUG REACTIONS
Many drug reactions go unnoticed.
In Controversies in Therapeutics
(1980), Dr Leighton Cluff comments:
"National Health statistics do not
reflect the magnitude of the problem of drug-induced diseases. A
death certificate may indicate that a person died of renal
failure, but it may not state that the disease was caused by a
According to a US Senate Select
Committee, hundreds of victims of the drug chloramphenicol
died undiagnosed in the United States. (30)
Dr Leighton Cluff further states:
"Physicians are currently not
required to report observed cases of drug-induced diseases to a
centralized registry." (31)
In Australia, the reporting by doctors
of adverse reactions is voluntary. Postage-paid forms are provided
to doctors who are asked to report adverse reactions to ADRAC. Due
to complacency, ignorance, and perhaps guilt that their prescribed
treatment has caused harm, most doctors fail to fill in these forms.
Even when doctors are willing to report ADRs, there are significant
problems that add to the under-reporting of drug reactions.
ADRs can sometimes be difficult to
identify and Dr Judith Jones, Director of the Division of
Drug Experience at the FDA in the United States, has listed
three factors that inhibit detection:
Difficulty in distinguishing the
reaction from underlying diseases, or negative placebo
Many ADRs have a silent nature
and if not specifically looked for, they may not be found.
For example, kidney and liver damage.
In multi-drug regimes it is
difficult to identify the particular drug which is causing
the suspected reaction. (32)
Only 5 to 10 per cent of actual cases
are believed to be reported to ADRAC. (33)
In the United Kingdom, which has a
similar reporting system to ours, only 1 to 10 per cent of cases are
revealed. (34) The inadequacy of the reporting system in
the UK was demonstrated by the fact that only about a dozen of the
3,500 deaths, later linked with isoprenaline aerosol inhalers
during the 1960's, were actually reported by doctors at the time.
Because most adverse reactions to drugs go unreported, the official
estimates must be only the tip of the iceberg.
WHO IS TO
BLAME FOR DRUG DAMAGES?
Not only do health officials grossly underestimate the extent of
drug reactions, they also try to convince the unwary public that
drug-related illnesses are largely due to inappropriate drug usage.
Officials try to place the onus on consumers and prescribing
doctors, and reassure the public that problems rarely occur if drugs
are used as prescribed.
To protect the drug industry from blame,
officials purposely ignore the fact that most drugs are harmful;
even if used "appropriately".
On doctor or hospital induced
illnesses, a once active member of the Doctors' Reform Society and
author of the book Medicine Out Of Control (1979), Dr
Richard Taylor, writes:
"In fact, because of the increasing
complexity of medical technology and the increase in the variety
of chemicals available for treatment, iatrogenic disease is on
"Unfortunately iatrogenic diseases may be self-perpetuating.
Many iatrogenic complications require specific treatment, thus
exposing the patient to the possibility of yet another
iatrogenic disease. A patient may even experience an iatrogenic
complication from a diagnostic test which was required to
diagnose the initial iatrogenic disease.
The situation in which an iatrogenic
disease provokes a second iatrogenic complication could be
termed second level
iatrogenesis. In a hospital
setting these situations are not uncommon. It is even possible
for third and fourth level iatrogenesis to occur." (36)
Dr Beaty and Dr Petersdorf write in the
Annals of Internal Medicine (1966):
"...it should be pointed out that
iatrogenic problems are cumulative, and in an effort to
extricate himself from complications of diagnosis and therapy,
the physician may compound the problem by having to employ
maneuvers that are in themselves risky." (37)
Dr Taylor further explains:
"Every drug administered, every
diagnostic test performed, every operative procedure entered
into, carries with it the risk of iatrogenic complications. The
more medication, tests and operations a patient experiences, the
more likely he or she is to develop an iatrogenic disease.
Because of the present
fragmentation of medical care with each sub-specialist
looking after his own particular organ system, the total risk to
which the patient is exposed is often forgotten." (38)
Taylor, Beaty and Petersdorf are not
alone in their criticisms of allopathic medicine, also known as
More and more physicians and other
medical professionals are becoming increasingly disillusioned with
their own profession.
Allopathic medicine has become
more of a band-aid treatment. In their attempts to "patch-up"
symptoms of illnesses, doctors are known to use poisonous
chemical-based drugs, radical surgical operations and dangerous
radiation, which often cause more harm than the original problem.
Apart from introducing more illnesses, allopathic "treatments"
mask symptoms of the underlying causes of the illness, which
inevitably make it more difficult to detect and treat, and thereby
causing it to become more chronic.
Allopathic medicine can be useful and sometimes life-saving for
emergency situations (for example, car accidents), yet its
harmfulness and ineffectiveness cannot be over-stated.
A prominent critic of allopathic medicine has been the late Dr
Robert Mendelsohn, who exposed much corruption in American
Dr Mendelsohn published the following
best-selling books: Confessions of a Medical Heretic (39)
Mal(e) Practice: How Doctors Manipulate Women
(40) (1982), and
How to Raise a Healthy Child...In Spite of
Your Doctor (41) (1987). These books are
In Limits to Medicine, Ivan Illich warns:
"The pain, dysfunction, disability,
and anguish resulting from technical medical intervention now
rival the morbidity due to traffic and industrial accidents and
even war-related activities, and make the impact of medicine one
of the most rapidly spreading epidemics of our time." (42)
DOCTORS STRIKE: DEATH-RATE DROPS
With the above in mind, it is
not surprising that during a one month physicians' strike in Israel
in 1973, the national death-rate reached the lowest ever.
According to statistics by the Jerusalem Burial Society, the
number of funerals dropped by almost half. (43)
Identical circumstances occurred in 1976 in Bogota, the capital city
of Colombia; where there, the doctors went on strike for 52 days and
as pointed out by the National Catholic Reporter; during that
time the death rate fell by 35 per cent. This was confirmed by
the National Morticians Association of Colombia. (44)
Again in California a few years later, and in the United Kingdom in
1978 identical events have occurred. (45)
THE SMALL ROLE OF MEDICINE IN MORTALITY
It is important to understand
that the vast majority of people are born healthy and, if not
tampered with, are "equipped" to remain healthy throughout life. We
seldom require intervention with illnesses because the body, as well
as the mind, is usually able to defend and heal itself against
disease and injury. Only infrequently do we require assistance.
Medical intervention is the least important of the four factors that
determine the state of health. The Centers for Disease Control
analyzed data on the ten leading causes of death in the United
States, and determined that lifestyle was by far the most important
factor (51%), followed by environment (20%), biologic inheritance
(19%), and lastly medical intervention (10%). (46)
According to a classic analysis by Professor Thomas McKeown
of Birmingham University, medicine played a very small role in
extending the average lifespan in Britain over the past few
centuries, the major benefit to people having been improvements in
nutrition and public sanitation. (47,48)
Researchers, John McKinlay and Sonja McKinlay came to
similar conclusions. They showed that medical intervention only
accounted for between 1 and 3.5 per cent of the increase in the
average lifespan in the United States since 1900. (49)
The above statistics prove that health depends primarily on
prevention, through hygiene and proper nutrition.
In the few instances, when therapy of any sort is warranted, it must
deal with the whole person (the holistic approach), treating the
actual cause rather than attempting to isolate and suppress
symptoms. Allopathic medicine fails in comparison to the
holistic approach, and in many instances damages the
patient even more than the illness it intends to treat.
Natural medicines and therapies, such as herbalism, homoeopathy,
naturopathy, osteopathy and acupuncture, to name a few, work on the
holistic approach, and are generally far superior in safety and
efficacy than allopathic "treatments".
A major reason why health care is in such a shambles is that the
medical establishment has allowed itself to be bought off by the
pharmaceutical industry, whose prime motive is profit.
In the book
Dissent in Medicine - Nine Doctors Speak Out
(1985), Dr Alan Levin writes:
"Health care in the United States
has become a megabillion-dollar business. It is responsible for
over 12 percent of the gross national product. Revenues from the
health industry, which currently exceed $360 billion a year, are
second only to those of the defense industry. True profits are
much higher. [In 1991 the US had spent $750 billion on health
care. It has been estimated that by the year 2000, annual health
care costs in the US will have increased to at least 1.5
trillion dollars. (50)]
It is not difficult, then, to see
why this industry is so appealing to corporate investors. Many
industrialists determined to profit from health-care products
have encountered one major obstacle: Practicing physicians
remain the primary distributors of health care products.
Physicians, who have traditionally
existed as independent entrepreneurs do not fit easily into the
corporate mind-set. If corporations did not have control over
their distributors (the physicians) they would not be able to
guarantee profits to their stockholders... Thus, we need not
wonder why senior executives of major health care-oriented
corporations have decided to woo physicians into their camps.
"Pharmaceutical companies have curried the favor of practicing
physicians for many years... As the cost of development and
marketing of pharmaceuticals increased [during the 1960's], the
drug companies efforts to attract the allegiance of practicing
"Not only did drug company operation costs increase markedly,
but the rewards of the marketplace rose tremendously... The
increase in revenues brought competition which led to a
nationwide increase in drug advertising. Advertisements in
medical journals and public magazines were popularized by
carefully controlled news releases associated with 'medical
"These advertising efforts, which began with gifts to practicing
doctors and medical students, have become a massive campaign to
mold the attitudes, thoughts, and policies of practicing
physicians. Drug companies hire detail men to visit physicians'
offices and to distribute drug samples. They describe the
indications for these drugs and attempt to persuade physicians
to use their products.
Like any other salesman, they
denigrate the products of their competitors while glossing over
the shortcomings of their own. Detail men have no formal medical
or pharmacological training and are not regulated by any state
or federal agencies. Despite their lack of training, these
salesmen have been very effective.
Their sales campaigns have been so
successful within the United States that the average physician
today has virtually been trained by the drug detail man. This
practice has led to widespread overuse of drugs by both
physicians in their everyday practice and the lay public... With
the exception of heroin and cocaine, 85 percent of all drugs
currently abused in the streets are manufactured by 'ethical'
drug companies... Gross sales forecasts from these 'ethical'
drug companies deliberately include profits made from illicit
sales to drug peddlers.
"The drug industry woos young medical students by offering them
gifts, free trips to 'conferences', and free 'educational
A double page article titled "$200m
'bribe' to lure our doctors", appearing in the Sun Herald
(August 18, 1992), reported:
$200M 'BRIBE' TO LURE OUR DOCTORS
Author: Shelley Dempsey
Publication: The Sun Herald
Section: News and Features
DRUG companies spend a massive $200 million every year
in Australia on marketing their products. To emphasize
the extraordinary size of that figure consider these
That represents almost
$10,000 a year spent attempting to woo each of
Australia's 21,000 "actively prescribing" GPs,
according to Dr Ken Harvey from La Trobe University
It amounts to roughly
15 per cent of total annual drug sales in Australia
or, if you like, 50pc more than allowed by law in
Britain for marketing
That $200 million ensures
doctors not only receive every conceivable gift from the
drug companies, but their messages are followed up by a
mountain of promotional material mailed to doctors every
day; by glossy advertising in medical journals; and by
personal visits from an average five drug company sales
staff each week.
As a result, industry critics say, it's no wonder a
major new report from the Trade Practices Commission
reveals that Australians spend up to $37 million a year
needlessly on expensive drugs.
The report highlights the power wielded by big-budget
drug marketers on how prescriptions are written by
In the report, the Federal Department of Health and
Community Services is "very critical of advertising
which gives rise to prescribing practices that result in
the use of expensive drugs when cheaper efficient
alternatives are available".
Dr Harvey, senior lecturer in health education at La
Trobe University, confirmed to The Sun-Herald that his
surveys of prescribing practices by Victorian GPs in the
last five years show 40% opted for newer, more expensive
drugs when older, cheaper drugs would work just as well.
The article cited Theo van Lieshout,
secretary of the NSW Doctors' Reform Society as saying that 50 per
cent of drugs on the market did not exist 10 years ago - and doctors
had not learned about them in medical school.
Busy physicians therefore rely mainly on
drug company sales staff to tell them about new medications.
As reported in the Bulletin (March 24, 1991), Dr Ken
"The students concede concern. The
problem is, after five years out in practice, with six drug reps
a week coming in, they have gone away from prescribing sensibly
and by scientific name to prescribing the brand promoted by the
last rep who walked in." (52)
- THE WILLING PAWNS
Drug companies employ many means in bribing doctors and medical
Dr Levin writes:
"Young physicians are offered
research grants by drug companies. Medical schools are given
large sums of money for clinical trials and basic pharmaceutical
research. Drug companies regularly host lavish dinner and
cocktail parties for groups of physicians. They provide funding
for the establishment of hospital buildings, medical school
buildings, and 'independent' research institutes.
"The pharmaceutical industry has purposefully moved to develop
an enormous amount of influence within medical teaching
institutions. This move was greatly facilitated by several
The first was the economic
recession, which caused a marked constriction in federal
funding for research programs. Academic scientists lacked
funding for pet research projects.
The second was the tremendous
interest that academic scientists held in biotechnology, the
stock market, and the possibility of becoming millionaires
The third is the fact that
academic physicians tend to lack real clinical experience.
In the university, the physician is
an expert in esoteric disease, end-stage disease, and animal
models of human disease. He or she has little or no experience
with the day-to-day needs of the chronically ill patient or the
patient with very early symptoms of serious illness.
As the academic physician does not
depend upon the good will of the patient for his or her
livelihood, the patient's well-being becomes of minor
consideration to him or her. All these factors make the academic
physician a very poor judge of treatment efficacy and a willing
pawn of health industrialists.
"Pharmaceutical companies, by enlisting the aid of influential
academic physicians, have gained control of the practice of
medicine in the United States. They now set the standards of
practice by hiring investigators to perform studies which
establish the efficacy of their products or impugn that of their
"Practicing physicians are intimidated into using treatment
regimes which they know do not work. One glaring example is
"Your family doctor is no longer free to choose the treatment
modality he or she feels is best for you, but must follow the
dictates established by physicians whose motives and alliances
are such that their decisions may not be in your best
Dr Alan Levin is an Adjunct
Associate Professor of Immunology and Dermatology at the
University of California.
He is a Fellow of the American
College of Emergency Physicians, the College of American
Pathologists, and the American Society of Clinical
Pathologists. Dr Levin is also a recipient of fellowships and
awards from Harvard Medical School and other medical institutions,
and was Director of various research laboratories.
Ivan Illich echoes Levin's last comment:
"The medical establishment has
become a major threat to health. The disabling impact of
professional control over medicine has reached the proportions
of an epidemic." (54)
THE DRUG STORY
How the pharmaceutical industry took control of the hospitals,
universities, research and other institutions in the early part of
this century is amply demonstrated by world-famous medical historian
and author, Hans Ruesch, in his devastating expose:
Naked Empress or The Great Medical Fraud
The book is an absolute must to read.
Naked Empress exposes massive corruption and fraud in medicine,
science, industries, governments, media, and various organizations.
The importance of this book cannot be overstated.
In Naked Empress, Ruesch cited another important expose
titled The Drug Story (56) (1949), by American
investigative reporter, Morris A. Bealle.
According to Bealle:
"America's largest and most ruthless
the Rockefeller Empire" (which
was built on Standard Oil Company) in the early part of this
century became interested in the drug trade after making
breath-taking profits from palming off bottled petroleum called
Nujol as a supposed cure for cancer and later
In 1939 the Drug Trust was formed by an
alliance of the world's two greatest cartels in world history - the
Rockefeller Empire and the German chemical company, I.G.
Farben). Drug profits from that time onwards curved
upwards into gigantic proportions and by 1948 it became a 10 billion
dollar a year industry. (57)
I.G. Farben's unsavory past is highlighted by the fact that during
the Second World War it built and operated a massive chemical plant
at Auschwitz using slave labour. Approximately 300,000
concentration-camp workers passed through I.G. Farben's facilities
at Auschwitz and at least 25,000 of them were worked to death.
Also, others were brutally killed in I.G.
Farben's drug testing programs. (59) Twelve of I.G.
Farben's top executives were sentenced to terms of imprisonment for
slavery and mistreatment offences at the Nuremberg war crime trials.
Hoechst and Bayer, the largest and third largest
companies in world pharmaceutical sales respectively, are descended
I.G. Farben. In September 1955,
Hoechst appointed Friedrich Jaehne, a convicted war
criminal from the Nuremberg trials, as Chairman of its
supervisory board. Also, a year later, Bayer appointed Fitz ter
Meer, another convicted war criminal, as Chairman of its board.
On the Rockefellers' moves towards "influencing" medical colleges
and public agencies in the United States, Bealle writes:
"The last annual report of the
Rockefeller Foundation itemizes the gifts it has made to
colleges and public agencies in the past 44 years [from 1948],
and they total somewhat over half a billion dollars.
These colleges, of course, teach
their students all the drug lore the Rockefeller pharmaceutical
houses want taught. Otherwise there would be no more gifts, just
as there are no gifts to any of the 30 odd drugless colleges in
the United States." (62)
The Rockefellers did not restrict their
"educational" activities to the US alone. In 1927 they formed the
International Education Board which "donated" millions of dollars to
foreign universities and politicos, with all the usual strings
As these huge amounts of money were being "donated" to
drug-propagandizing colleges, the Rockefeller interests were
It was large enough 40 years ago for
Bealle to state:
"It has long been demonstrated that
the Rockefeller interests have created, built up and developed
the most far reaching industrial empire ever conceived in the
mind of man. Standard Oil is of course the foundation industry
upon which all of the other industries have been built...
"The keystone of this mammoth industrial empire is the Chase
National Bank with 27 branches in New York City and 21 in
foreign countries [now renamed the Chase Manhattan Bank with
over 200 branches in the US and abroad]. Not the least of its
holdings are in the drug business. The Rockefellers own the
largest drug manufacturing combine in the world, and use all of
their other interests to bring pressure to increase the sale of
Instrumental in Rockefellers' moves towards making the world
drug-dependent is their enormous influence on
Commenting on this, Ruesch explains:
"So the stage was set for the
'education' of the American public, with a view to turning them
into a population of drug dependents, with the early help of the
schools, then with direct advertising and, last but not least,
the influence the advertising revenues had on the media.
"A compilation of the magazine Advertising Age showed that as
far back as 1948 the larger companies spent for newspapers,
radio and magazine advertising the sum total of $1,104,224,374,
when the dollar was still worth a dollar. Of this staggering sum
the interlocking Rockefeller-Morgan interests (gone over
entirely to Rockefeller after Morgan's death) controlled about
80 percent, and utilized it to manipulate public information on
health and drug matters - then as now.
"Anybody who tries to get into the mass media independent news,
contrary to the interests of the Drug Trust, will sooner or
later run into an unbreakable wall....
"For big advertisers it is easy not only to plant into the media
any news they wish to disseminate, but also to keep out the news
they don't want to get around. A survey in 1978 by the
Columbia Journalism Review failed to find a single
comprehensive article about the dangers of smoking in the
previous seven years in any major magazine accepting cigarette
"Even the most independent newspapers are dependent on their
press associations for their national news. And there is no
reason for a news editor to suspect that a story coming over the
wires of the Associated Press, the United Press or
the International News Services is censored when it
concerns health matters.
"Yet this is what happens constantly." (65)
Ruesch showed how the above-mentioned
international media were taken over by the Drug Trust and he
"So this sews up the press
associations of the Rockefeller Drug Trust, and accounts
for the many fake stories of serums and medical cures and
just-around-the-corner-breakthrough-to-cancer, which go out
brazenly over its wires to all daily newspapers in America and
"Thus newspapers continue to be fed constantly with propaganda
about drugs and their alleged value, although 1.5 million people
landed in hospitals in 1978 because of medication side effects
in the U.S. alone, and despite recurrent statements by
intelligent and courageous medical men that most pharmaceutical
items on sale are useless and/or harmful." (66)
Among the many publications owned by the
Rockefeller Drug Trust, there are:
These publications are constantly
FOOD AND DRUG
ADMINISTRATION - SERVING WHOM?
Leaving no stone unturned, Ruesch shows how the Drug Trust, in
securing their drug interests, planted stooges into senior positions
of colleges, universities, and government bodies.
Food and Drug Administration,
"When a good law was enacted many
years ago for protecting the American public from spoiled food
and poisonous drugs, the Drug Trust lost little time to get its
hooks into the government bureau that was charged with enforcing
the law." (67)
Ruesch cited Morris Bealle who
wrote that the FDA,
"is used primarily for the
perversion of justice by cracking down on all who endanger the
profits of the Drug Trust". (68)
Ruesch further states:
"Apparently, the FDA doesn't only
wink at the violations of the Drug Trust whose servant it is
(such as the mass deaths in the ginger jake and sulfathiozole
cases), but it is particularly assiduous in putting out of
business all competitors of the Drug Trust, like the vendors of
natural therapeutic devices that improve the health of the
public and thus decrease the profits of the Drug Trust...
"And the situation is practically identical in all the other
industrialized countries, notably Great Britain, France and West
THE UNDECLARED WAR ON NATURAL MEDICINE
The Civil Abolitionist carried an article rightly titled "FDA: The
American Gestapo Prosecutor or Persecutor?", which reported that on
May 6, 1992, the clinic of Jonathan Wright MD, a highly
regarded nutrition specialist, was assailed by 22 armed men because
the doctor had been treating his patients with safe natural
substances that didn't meet the FDA's approval.
During the SWAT type attack the
front door was kicked open, guns were pointed directly at staff and
the shocked patients were herded into a room. Also patient records,
equipment, business records and vitamin supplies were confiscated.
At the time of the article, the FDA had not as yet filed charges
against Dr Wright. (70)
During last year, similar actions have taken place against three
manufacturers of vitamin supplements (Allergy Research, Thorne
Research and Highland Laboratories). (71)
The Nexus magazine, reporting in their Aug.-Sept. 1992 issue,
"This undeclared war on
'unconventional' medicines has been followed up with the
introduction of bills in Congress which are making it difficult,
if not impossible, to obtain vitamins, minerals and herbs, and
which legalize their search-and-seizure techniques."
It revealed that:
"There is a bill currently pending
in the House called H.R. 3642 (written and sponsored by FDA
allies Representative Henry A. Waxman, and Representative John
Dingell) that would:
Make vitamins, minerals and
herbs unavailable except through prescription from Medical
Prevent food supplements from
entering the country.
Make it illegal for anyone to
sell vitamins, mineral and herbs, with a fine of up to US$1
million for each violation, plus a $250,000 against the
Permit the IRS to make
Permit the FDA not only to seize
but to also destroy all vitamins, minerals and herbs found
on the premises.
Permit the FDA to inspect
records, embargo and recall products, and assess civil
penalties for 'serious' violations with any judical review.
Nexus was recently contacted
by an international businessman who mentioned that a bill
identical in nature to the one above has been passed in the UK,
that one similar was on the table in several European countries
and Canada, and that one was being discussed for Australia."
In Australia, a repeal of Schedule 1,
Exemptions of the Therapeutic Goods Act, scheduled for January
1994, would minimize access to natural therapy remedies by natural
therapists and would threaten the existence of the natural therapy
profession and manufacturers of natural therapy remedies. (73)
CORRUPT FDA OFFICIALS
Nexus reported that it
is a matter of public record that the FDA indulges in the following
Many of the so-called "research
grants" that the FDA receives are "donated" by the very drug
companies they were supposed to be regulating.
Mid- and upper-level FDA
officials enjoy "revolving door" status when they leave the
FDA, wherein they go to cushy, well-paying jobs in those
very same drug companies they were supposed to have been
Currently, 150 top FDA officials
hold significant amounts of stock in the pharmaceutical
companies they were supposed to be regulating. (74)
AMERICAN 'MURDER' ASSOCIATION
AMA, once openly declared by Dr
Richard Kunnes at an AMA convention that it shouldn't be the
acronym for American Medical Association but for American
"Murder" Association, is, according to Morris Bealle, the
front for the Drug Trust. (75)
When the FDA has to put an independent
operator out of business, they get the AMA to furnish quack doctors
to testify that while often knowing nothing about the product
involved, it is their considered opinion that it has no therapeutic
Bealle cited an example in which the AMA furnished ten medicos to
testify in court that "vitamins are not necessary to the human
body", in order to close down an independent distributor of natural
J.W. Hodge, MD, of Niagara Falls, New York, writes about the
"The medical monopoly or medical
trust, euphemistically called the American Medical Association,
is not merely the meanest monopoly ever organized, but the most
arrogant, dangerous and despotic organization which ever managed
a free people in this or any other age. Any and all methods of
healing the sick by means of safe, simple and natural remedies
are sure to be assailed and denounced by the arrogant leaders of
the AMA doctors' trust as 'fakes, frauds and humbugs.'
Every practitioner of the healing
art who does not ally himself with the medical trust is
denounced as a 'dangerous quack' and impostor by the predatory
trust doctors. Every sanitarian who attempts to restore the sick
to a state of health by natural means without resort to the
knife or poisonous drugs, disease imparting serums, deadly
toxins or vaccines, is at once pounced upon by these medical
tyrants and fanatics, bitterly denounced, vilified and
persecuted to the fullest extent." (77)
It comes as no surprise that the
Australian counterpart, the Australian Medical Association,
in conjunction with the Royal College of General Practitioners,
as reported in the Australian (July 21, 1992) are pushing for
legislation that would cause medical doctors using natural therapies
to lose Medicare status.
This would mean that their patients
would not be able to have bills rebated by Medicare. (78)
THE MASTERS OF
If to you it seems inconceivable that governments have allowed a
ruthless industry to dictate health matters, consider what
Woodrow Wilson stated during his first presidential campaign in
"The masters of the government of
the United States are the combined capitalists and manufacturers
of the United States. It is written over every intimate page of
the record of Congress, it is written all through the history of
conferences at the White House, that the suggestions of economic
policy in this country have come from one source, not from many
The benevolent guardians, the
kind-hearted trustees who have taken the troubles of government
off our hands have become so conspicuous that almost anybody can
write out a list of them...
The big bankers, the big
manufacturers, the big masters of commerce, the heads of
railroad corporations... The government of the United States at
present is a foster child of the special interests." (79)
"Woodrow Wilson's words have
remained as true today as they were when he pronounced them from
his campaign train. The American Presidents, unless they want to
end up like John Kennedy, do not rule their country anymore than
the official governments of the other so-called democracies, for
the big boys in industry and finance have long since taken over
that task." (80)
Morris H. Rubin, Editor and
Publisher of The Progressive, writes in an article in January
"Corporate power has become the
dominant force in our society... All attempts to check the
mounting power of the corporate giants have failed. Consider the
two most important instruments forged by the progressive forces
of the country in their crusade to curb the march of monopoly:
the regulatory system and the antitrust program...
"The regulatory system lies in shambles, and the corporations
which were intended to be regulated in the public interest now
dominate these regulatory agencies. The betrayal of the public
trust is virtually complete... The antitrust laws are virtually
dead letters. It is clear from recent disclosures that the
Antitrust Division of the Justice Department is almost
immobilized because of deals made over its head and behind its
back in the White House and other corridors of power..."
"The oil lobby, perhaps the most powerful lobby on earth, is
almost matched by hospital owners and doctors."
- President Carter, 1979
Incidentally, in 1980, Exxon became
America's largest corporation. Exxon is the new name for the old
Rockefeller Standard Oil Trust.
For a further insight on how the cartels have turned democracies
into private oligarchies, the books Naked Empress by Hans
None Dare Call It Conspiracy
(83) (1971) by investigative journalist, Gary
Allen, are highly recommended.
HEALTH SYSTEM UNDER THREAT FROM US CORPORATIONS
Because the Australian Government can no longer afford to fund our
ailing public health care system, privatization is inevitable. A
major concern is that the ruthless US corporations will be the
An article appearing in the Daily
Telegraph Mirror (October 1, 1992), titled "U.S. Giants 'Threat
To Hospitals'", reports:
"Huge American corporations soon
will control Australia's public hospitals forcing health care
costs to double, a leading health expert claims.
"Dr Ron Williams says the public health care system is facing a
bleak future because governments can no longer afford to fund
"And as they are forced to sell off hospitals to private
interests, American corporations will step in and take over,
leaving ordinary Australians unable to afford skyrocketing
health care costs.
"'I see little but doom and
gloom,' says Dr Williams, who has spent 11 years researching
the Australian and American health care systems.
"'I wish I could say that if we all pulled together we could
avert the coming brutality... but today's reality is that
for the health industry, compassion will give way at an
increasing rate to profit....
"'As public hospitals are sold to
privates, and as nursing homes join national chains, as nurses
move out of government employment on to contract, as individual
doctors lose ever more control over their practices; no
government will say that the processes it is promoting might
lead to disaster.'"
1. Brian Howe, "The cost of health
care is rocketing", Sunday Telegraph, 27 Oct. 1992.
2. Ivan Illich, Limits to Medicine - Medical Nemesis: The
Expropriation of Health, Pelican Books, 1979, pp. 57-8.
2a. Robert W. Hetherington, Carl E. Hopkins, and Milton I.
Roemer, Health Insurance Plans: Promise and Performance, Wiley,
New York, 1975. Cited in ref. 2, p. 57.
2b. Martin S. Feldstein, The Rising Cost of Hospital Care,
Information Resources, Washington, D.C., 1971. Cited in ref. 2,
2c. CREDOC (Centre de recherches et de documentation sur la
consommation), Evolution de la structure des soins medicaus,
1957-1972, Paris, 1973. Cited in ref. 2, p. 57.
2d. "Krankheitskosten: 'Die bombe tickt'; Das westdeutsche
Gesundheitswesen", 1. "Der Kampf um die Kassen-Milliarden"; 2.
"Die Phalanx der niedergelassenen Arzte", Der Spiegel, no. 19,
1975, pp. 54-66; no. 20, 1975, pp. 126-42. Cited in ref. 2, p.
2e. R. Maxwell, Health Care: The Proving Dilemma; Needs vs.
Resouces in Western Europe, the U.S., and the U.S.S.R., McKinsey
& Co., New York, 1974. Ian Douglas-Wilson and Gordon McLachlan,
eds, Health Service Projects: An International Survey, Little,
Brown, Boston, 1973. Cited in ref. 2, p. 57.
2f. Louise Russell et al., Federal Health Spending, 1969-74,
Center for Health Policy Studies, National Planning Association,
Washington, D.C., 1974. Cited in ref. 2, p. 58.
3. "Drug doctors under fire", Bulletin, 24 Mar. 1992, pp. 20-1.
4. Illich, op. cit., pp. 77-8.
4a. John M. Firestone, Trends in Prescription Drug Prices,
Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, Washington,
D.C., 1970. Cited in ref. 4, p. 77.
4b. Edward M. Brecher and Consumer Reports Editors, Licit and
Illicit Drugs: The Consumers Union Report on Narcotics,
Stimulants, Depressants, Inhalants, Hallucinogens and Marijuana
- Including Caffeine, Nicotine and Alcohol, Little, Brown,
Boston, 1973. Cited in ref. 4, p. 78.
4c. D.M. Dunlop, "The use and abuse of psychotropic drugs", in
Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine (1970) 63: 1279. G.
L. Klerman, "Social values and the consumption of psychotropic
medicine", in Proceedings of the First World Congress on
Environmental Medicine and Biology, North-Holland, Haarlem,
1974. Cited in ref. 4, p. 78.
4d. James L. Goddard, "The medical business", Scientific
American, no. 229, Sept. 1973, pp. 161-6. Cited in ref. 4, p.
4e. Drug Use in America: Problem in Perspective, Second Report
of the National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse, 1972,
1973, 1974, 4 vols, Government Printing Office, Washington,
D.C., stock no. 5266-0003. National Commission for the Study of
Nursing and Nursing Education, An Abstract for Action,
McGraw-Hill, New York, 1970. Cited in ref. 4, p. 78.
5. Illich, op. cit., p. 36.
6. Robert S. Mendelsohn, Confessions of a Medical Heretic,
Warner Books, New York, 1980, p. 56.
7. National Health Stategy, Issues in Pharmaceutical Drug Use in
Australia, Issues Paper no. 4 (Prof. R. Harvey, Chairman),
National Health, Housing and Community Services, Canberra, June
1992, p. 50.
8. "The alternatives to pill-popping", Sydney Morning Herald, 2
9. D. Wade, "The background pattern of drug usage in Australia",
Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics, vol. 19, May 1976, pp.
10. Calculated by comparing statistics provided in refs 7 & 8.
11. Australian Consumers' Association, "Pills for Pain", Choice,
ACA, Marrickville, NSW, June 1991, p. 11.
12. In 1973, $166 million was spent on OTC drugs (see ref. 11)
and $240 million was spent on prescription drugs (Pharmacy Guild
of Australia, Guild Digest, 1991, tables 27 & 31). From this it
was calculated that in 1973 the cost of OTC was 69% of the cost
of prescription drugs. If the rate of increase of OTC drugs is
proportional to the rate of increase of prescription drugs, then
it could be estimated that OTC drugs in 1991 would amount to 69%
of $2 billion (cost of prescription drugs in 1991. See ref. 3),
which equals to $1.4 billion.
13. See ref. 3.
14. Jim Mason & Peter Singer, Animal Factories, Crown
Publishers, New York, 1980, p. 56.
15. John Robins, Diet for a New America, Stillpoint Publishing,
Walpole, 1987, p. 109.
16. Bureau of Veterinary Medicine, Department of Health,
Education and Welfare, FDA 76-6012, "Drug use guide: swine",
B.V.M., Industry Relations Branch, Rockville, Md., May 1976, p.
17. Drugs in Livestock Feed, vol. I, Technical Report, Office of
Technology Assessment, Washington, D.C., June 1979, p. 3.
18. Food Safety and Quality Service, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, "Industry-government 'self-help' sulfa campaign
underway", Northeast Regional Information Office Newsletter, New
York, 15 June 1978, p. 1.
19. Drugs in Livestock Feed, op. cit., vol. I, p. 3.
20. Illich, op. cit., p. 79.
21. Hans Ruesch, Naked Empress or The Great Medical Fraud, CIVIS
(Latin acronym for International Center of Scientific
Information on Vivisection) Publications, POB 152, Via Motta 51,
CH-6900 Massagno/Lugano, Switzerland, 1992, p. 12.
22. R.D. Mann, Modern Drug Use, an Enquiry on Historical
Principles, MTP Press, 1984.
23. FDA Drug Review: Postapproval Risks 1976-1985, U.S. General
Accounting Office, April 1990.
24. Adverse Drug Reaction Advisory Committee, The New Epidemic:
A Collection of Case-Studies by ADRAC, AGPS, Canberra, 1987, p.
25. I. Lamour, R.G. Dolphin, H. Baxter et al., "A prospective
study of hospital admissions due to drug reactions", Australian
Journal of Hospital Pharmacy, 1991, vol. 21(2), pp. 90-95.
26. "A crisis of confidence", Australian Penthouse, April 1983,
27. R.D. Mann, op. cit.
28. Richard Taylor, Medicine Out of Control - The Anatomy of a
Malignant Technology, Sun Books, Melbourne, 1979, p. 46.
29. Leighton Cluff in Controversies in Therapeutics, ed. Louis
Lasagna, Saunders, 1980, p. 44.
30. U.S. Senate, Select Committee on Small Business,
Subcommittee on Monopoly, Competitive Problems in the Drug
Industry, 90th Congress, 1st & 2nd Sessions, 1967-8, pt. 2, p.
31. Leighton Cluff, op. cit.
32. Arabella Melville & Colin Johnson, Cured to Death - The
Effects of Prescription Drugs, Angus & Robertson Publishers,
London, 1982, p. 123.
33. Health Care Reform Group, Compulsory Immunisation - A
Statement of Concern, HCRG, Glebe, NSW, 1991, p. 13.
34. New Scientist, no. 218, 17 July 1980.
35. W.H. Inman in Monitoring for Drug Safety, ed. W.H. Inman,
MTP Press, 1980.
36. Taylor, op. cit., pp. 46-7.
37. H. Beaty & R. Petersdorf, "Iatrogenic factors in infectious
disease", Annals of Internal Medicine, 1966, vol. 65, p. 641.
38. Taylor, op. cit., pp. 47-8.
39. Robert S. Mendelsohn, Confessions of a Medical Heretic,
Warner Books, New York, 1980.
40. Robert S. Mendelsohn, Mal(e) Practice: How Doctors
Manipulate Women, Contemporary Books, Chicago, 1982.
41. Robert S. Mendelsohn, How to Raise a Healthy Child...In
Spite of Your Doctor, Ballantine Books, New York, 1987.
42. Illich, op. cit., p. 35.
43. Ruesch, op. cit., p. 13.
46. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, Ten Leading
Causes of Death in the U.S., 1977, July 1980.
47. T. McKeown, The Role of Medicine, Blackwell Scientific
48. T. McKeown and C.R. Lowe, An Introduction to Social
Medicine, Blackwell Scientific Publications, 1976.
49. J.B. McKinlay & S. McKinlay, Health & Society, Millibank
Memorial Fund, 1977, pp. 405-28.
50. Wisconsin Action Coalition and Citizen Fund of Washington,
D.C., Milwaukee Sentinel, 30 Apr. 1990.
51. Alan S. Levin, "Corruption in American medicine", in Dissent
in Medicine - Nine Doctors Speak Out, The New Medical
Foundation, 36th Floor, 115 South LaSalle Street, Chicago,
Illinois 60603, publ. by Contemporary Books, Chicago, pp. 78-80.
52. See ref. 3.
53. Levin, op. cit., pp. 80-4.
54. Illich, op. cit., p. 11.
55. Hans Ruesch, Naked Empress or The Great Medical Fraud, CIVIS
Publications, Massagno/Lugano, Switzerland, 1992.
56. Morris A. Bealle, The Drug Story, Biworld Publishers, Orem,
Utah, 1949 (original edition titled as The Super Drug Story,
publ. by Columbia Publishing Company, Washington, D.C.; also
retitled as The New Drug Story) , Cited in ref. 55, pp. 98-9.
58. Joseph Borkin, The Crime and Punishment of I.G. Farben, Free
Press, New York, 1978, p. 127.
59. John Braithwaite, Corporate Crime in the Pharmaceutical
Industry, Routledge & Kegan Paul, London, 1984, p. 4.
60. Borkin, op. cit.
62. Bealle, op. cit., reproduced in ref. 55, p. 100.
63. Ruesch, op. cit., p. 116.
64. Bealle, op. cit. repr. in ref. 55, pp. 100-1.
65. Ruesch, op. cit., pp. 101-2.
66. ibid., pp. 103-4.
67. ibid., p. 105.
68. Bealle, op. cit., repr. in ref. 67.
69. Ruesch, op. cit., pp. 105-6.
70. Bina Robinson (ed.), "FDA: The American gestapo protector or
prosecuter?", Civil Abolitionist, P.O. Box 26, Swain, New York
14885, vol., IV, no., 3, Summer 1992, ps 1 & 7.
71. Duncan Roads (ed.), "Alternative medicine beware", Nexus New
Times, vol. 2, no. 8, June-July 1992, p. 9.
72. Duncan Roads (ed.), "Natural medicine in the USA - a warning
to Australia", Nexus New Times, vol. 2, no. 9, Aug.-Sept. 1992,
73. Freedom of Choice in Health Care, circular, FCHC - P.O. Box
2651, Alice Springs, NT. 0870, 1992.
74. See ref. 72.
75. Ruesch, op. cit., pp. 108-9.
76. ibid., p. 106.
77. J.W. Hodge quoted in ref. 75.
78. "Unorthodox medicos to lose rebates", Australian, 21 July
1992, p. 3.
79. Woodrow Wilson in The New Freedom, Doubleday & Co., New
York, 1913, pp. 57-8. Repr. in ref. 55, p. 117.
80. Ruesch, op. cit., p. 118.
81. Morris H. Rubin (ed.), The Progressive, Jan. 1977. Repr. in
ref. 55, p. 119.
82. Jimmy Carter in AMA News, 8 June 1979.
83. Cary Allen, None Dare Call It Conspiracy, Concord Press -
P.O. Box 2686, Seal Beach, California 90740, 1971.
CORPORATE CRIME IN THE PHARMACEUTICAL
The sordid behavior of today's pharmaceutical corporations has been
further demonstrated by Dr John Braithwaite, now a Trade
Practices Commissioner, in his devastating expose,
CORPORATE CRIME IN THE PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY
International bribery and corruption, fraud in the testing of drugs,
criminal negligence in the unsafe manufacture of drugs - the
pharmaceutical industry has a worse record of law-breaking than any
Describing many examples of corporate
crime, which shows the depth and seriousness of the crime problem in
the pharmaceutical industry, Dr Braithwaite's revealing study is
based on extensive international research, including interviews of
131 senior executives of pharmaceutical companies in the United
States, the United Kingdom, Australia, Mexico and Guatemala.
The book shows how pharmaceutical multinationals defy the intent of
laws regulating safety of drugs by bribery, false advertising, fraud
in the safety testing of drugs, unsafe manufacturing processes,
smuggling and international law evasion strategies.
At the time of researching the subject, Braithwaite was a
Research Criminologist at the Australian Institute of
Criminology and a Fulbright Fellow affiliated to the
University of California, Irvine and the United Nations Center on
FRAUD IN DRUG
"Data fabrication is so widespread",
says Dr Braithwaite, "that it is called 'making' in the Japanese
pharmaceutical industry, 'graphiting' or 'dry labeling' in the
He further states:
"Pharmaceutical companies face great
temptations to mislead health authorities about the safety of
their products. It is a make or break industry - many companies
get virtually all their profits from just two or three
"Most of the data that the Australian Drug Evaluation Committee
relies upon in deciding questions of safety and efficacy is data
from other countries, particularly the US. Inquiries into
scientific fraud in the US have shown there is a substantial
problem of fraud in safety testing of drugs in the US, just as
has been documented in Japan." (2)
In his book Braithwaite cited former FDA
Commissioner Goddard expressing his concerns over research
dishonesty at a Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association Meeting
"I have been shocked at the
materials that come in. In addition to the problem of quality,
there is the problem of dishonesty in the investigational new
drug usage. I will admit there are grey areas in the IND
situation, but the conscious withholding of unfavorable animal
clinical data is not a grey matter.
The deliberate choice of clinical
investigators known to be more concerned about industry
friendships than in developing good data is not a grey matter.
The planting in journals of articles that begin to commercialize
what is still an investigational new drug is not a grey matter
area. These actions run counter to the law and the efforts
governing drug industry [sic!]." (3)
Goddard's immediate successor at the
FDA, Dr Ley, spoke before the US Senate hearings of a spot
check that showed up the case of an assistant professor of medicine
who had reputedly tested 24 drugs for 9 different companies.
"Patients who died while on clinical
trials were not reported to the sponsor", an audit revealed.
"Dead people were listed as subjects of testing. People reported
as subjects of testing were not in the hospital at the time of
tests. Patient consent forms bore dates indicating they were
signed by the subjects after the subjects died." (4)
Another audit looked at a commercial
drug-testing firm that had apparently worked on 82 drugs and 28
"Patients who died, left the
hospital or dropped out of the study were replaced by other
patients in the tests without notification in the records.
Forty-one patients reported as participating in studies were
dead or not in the hospital during the studies....
Record-keeping, supervision and observation of patients in
general were grossly inadequate." (5)
Between 1977 and 1980 the FDA have
discovered 62 doctors who had submitted manipulated or downright
falsified clinical data. (6)
A study conducted by the FDA has
revealed that one in five doctors investigated, who carry out field
research of new drugs, had invented the data they sent to the drug
companies, and pocketed the fees. (7)
Citing case examples, Dr Braithwaite states:
"The problem is that most fraud in
clinical trials is unlikely to even be detected. Most cases
which do come to public attention only do so because of
extraordinary carelessness by the criminal physician..."
According to Dr Judith Jones,
Director of the Division of Drug Experience at the FDA, if
the data obtained by a clinician proves unsatisfactory towards the
drug being investigated, it is quite in order for the company to
continue trials elsewhere until satisfactory results and
testimonials are achieved. Unfavorable results are very rarely
published and clinicians are pressured into keeping quiet about such
It is very easy for the drug company to arrange appropriate clinical
trials by approaching a sympathetic clinician to produce the desired
results that would assist the intended application of the drug.
The incentive for clinical investigators
to fabricate data is enormous.
As much as $1000 per subject is paid by
American companies, which enables some doctors to earn up to $1
million a year from drug research, (11) and investigating
clinicians know all too well that if they don't produce the desired
data, the loss of future work is inevitable.
SCIENTISTS - THE MORE THAN WILLING PAWNS
Braithwaite cited an FDA survey of safety testing violations that
have shown that university laboratories had the worst record for
violations than all other laboratories in the survey. (12)
"As one would predict from the
foregoing discussion of how contract labs can be used by
sponsors to abrogate responsibility for quality research,
contract labs were found to have a worse record of GLP [Good
Laboratory Practices] violations than sponsor labs. The worst
record of all, however, was with university laboratories.
One must be extremely cautious about
this finding since there were only five university laboratories
in the study. Nevertheless, it must undermine any automatic
assumption that university researchers, with their supposed
detachment from the profit motive, are unlikely to cut corners
on research standards." (13)
INAPPROPRIATE CLINICAL TRIALS
Even if data obtained from clinical trials is not falsified, it is
of little worth, because they are not performed appropriately.
Trials involve relatively small numbers of people; so many harmful
effects of a new drug appear only when it has been marketed and
Furthermore, the subjects taking part in the trial usually do not
represent those who will use the drug after its approval.
Very young or elderly people, women of
child-bearing age and people with liver or kidney disease are
usually not included in clinical trials, although such people may be
given the drug after it is marketed.
Also, optimal dosages for adults are
calculated on the basis of what is most effective for an average
Many adults differ from this average,
and about 45 per cent of ordinary adults are probably going to
respond atypically to some classes of drugs. (14)
COMPANIES CONCEALING AND MISREPRESENTING DANGEROUS DRUG EFFECTS
Dr Braithwaite cited a number of cases where drug companies
concealed and misrepresented dangerous effects of drugs noted by
their own investigators.
"In 1959 Wallace and Tiernan put a
new tranquillizer, Dornwal, on the market despite the
strenuous objections of its own medical director. Other company
experts warned that Dornwal could cause serious and
possibly fatal blood damage. They were right. Wallace and
Tiernan failed to send to the FDA reports of side-effects which
induced nine cases of bone marrow disease and three deaths from
using the drug (Johnson, 1976) [15a] ....
"One could list a number of similar types of cases. Johnson and
Johnson's subsidiary, McNeil Laboratories, was denounced by the
FDA for concealing information on side-effects of Flexin
which according to Johnson (1976) included the drug being
associated with 15 deaths from liver damage. Such more blatant
cases are merely the tip of an iceberg of selective
"The most dramatic recent case has been the disclosures in the
British Parliament and US Congress that Eli Lilly and Co. knew
of the dangers of Opren, an anti-arthritic drug
associated with 74 deaths in Britain alone, 15 months before the
drug was withdrawn (Sunday Times, 27 February 1983)....
"The problem is not restricted to Anglo-Saxon countries. In
November 1982, a Japanese company, Nippon Chemiphar, admitted to
presenting bogus data to the Japanese Government with its
application to market a pain-killer and anti-inflammation drug
under the brand name of Norvedan.
The company submitted cooked up data
to the Government in the name of Dr Harcio Sampei, chief of
plastic surgery at Nippon University. The good doctor had
accepted 2.4 million Yen in cash from the company in return for
permission to use his name. More disturbing are similar
allegations on another Nippon Chemiphar product.
The company denies cooking data on
this second product. But the worrying aspect of the second
scandal is that a former company researcher claims to have
submitted a written report alleging fraud in drug testing by
Nippon Chemiphar to the Japanese Health and Welfare Ministry;
Ministry officials, he alleges, chose to ignore the report
(Japan Times, 23, 24, 25 November 1982)." (15)
INTERESTS ARE DRUGS TESTED?
The testing procedures of drugs are primarily performed to ensure
the approval and marketing of these substances; despite the fact
they are usually unsafe and ineffective. If drug companies were
truly ethical and responsible, the vast majority of drugs would not
have been allowed on the market in the first place.
West Germany's prestigious weekly, Der Spiegel (June 24,
1985), carried a most revealing article titled, "How The
Pharmaceutical Industry Bought Bonn".
The article, which featured on the front
page and covered several pages, contributes to the real motives
behind drug testing. In essence, the article could just as well
apply to the United States, Britain and most other industrial
The following is a brief excerpt:
"As a rule, the drug companies
didn't pour millions into the coffers of the political parties,
but gave money to individual politicians and public officials
selected among those that determine the health policy. With the
help of congressmen in their employ, they acquired uniquely
favorable marketing conditions that would insure them durable
profits. The pharmaceutical industry, which is worth billions,
has bought up, as it were, the legislature, as the uncovered
"The approval of drugs should henceforth depend on two
conditions: evidence of their 'efficacy' and of their 'innocuity',
provided by chemo-physical tests, animal experiments, and
clinical assays and opinions."
Many of the politicians and public
officials who contributed to the acceptance of these guidelines were
named in the article, and the bribes they pocketed were itemized.
The most blatantly fraudulent procedure of drug testing is the
testing of these substances using animal models; a practice often
To begin with, many of the most common
or life-threatening side-effects cannot be predicted by animal
tests. For instance, animals cannot let the experimenter know if
they are suffering from headache, amnesia, nausea, depression and
other psychological disturbances. Allergic reactions, some blood
disorders, skin lesions and many central nervous system effects are
even more serious examples that cannot be demonstrated by animal
According to one of the world's best known toxicologists, Professor
Gerhardt Zbinden, from Zurich's Institute of Toxicology:
"Most adverse reactions that occur
in man cannot be demonstrated, anticipated or avoided by the
routine subacute and chronic toxicity experiment." (17)
Professor Zbinden has shown that of the
45 most common adverse reactions only 3 may possibly be predicted,
and of the remaining 42,
"only in exceptional cases can they
be predicted from routine toxicologic tests". (18)
Apart from the effects that cannot be demonstrated in animals,
another very fundamental problem exists with testing substances
using animals. Each individual species of animal has a unique
Any genetic differences predetermine
massive variations in histology (structure, composition and function
of tissues), biochemistry (chemistry of living organisms),
morphology (structure of organisms), physiology (function of living
organisms), and other species characteristics. Because each animal
species is different, substances that are tested on them for
"safety" and "effectiveness" will have a different effect on each
This has been amply demonstrated by
Professor Pietro Croce, former animal experimenter, and world
renowned author and medical researcher, in his revealing treatise,
VIVISECTION OR SCIENCE - A CHOICE TO MAKE
Morphine sends cats into a frenzy of excitement yet it calms and
anaesthetizes humans. The amount of opium that can be eaten without
discomfort by the hedgehog would keep the most hardened addict happy
for a fortnight. Arsenic kills humans but is harmless to
guinea-pigs, chickens and monkeys. Chloroform, used successfully for
decades in human surgery, is poisonous for dogs. Digitalis, which
dangerously raises the blood pressure of dogs, is used to lower
blood pressure for humans. (20)
The list can be lengthened at will, but
these few examples should be sufficient to demonstrate that there
could not be a more unreliable test for new drugs than animal
There are five basic stages in which a drug has an effect
when taken internally.
absorption into the bloodstream
distribution to the site of
mechanism of action
Considering that people of different
sexes, ages, health and genetic make-up may react quite differently;
it is obvious that other species often react very differently.
Even a minor change, repeated at each
stage, can accumulate, resulting in a major change of effect. One of
the most important factors is the speed and pattern of metabolism,
or the way in which a drug is broken down by the body. (21)
Scientific reports show that variation in drug metabolism between
species is the rule rather than the exception. (22,23)
Toxic drug effects not predicted by animal testing may be seen in
people if their metabolism is slower, with the potentially dangerous
result from longer exposure. The anti-inflammatory drugs
phenylbutazone and oxyphenbutazone, which have been
responsible for an estimated 10,000 deaths worldwide, (24)
takes 72 hours for people to metabolize.
However, phenylbutazone is
metabolized by rhesus monkeys, dogs, rats and rabbits in eight, six,
six, and three hours, respectively. (25)
Oxyphenbutazone takes only half an hour for dogs to metabolize.
Another fundamental problem that makes animal testing a flawed
process concerns the etiology (cause) of the disease that the drug
under test is supposed to treat. Because animals don't suffer the
same diseases as humans, experimenters attempt to artificially
re-create spontaneous human diseases (naturally occurring diseases
that arise from within) in healthy animals, and then they use these
"models" to attempt to determine the efficacy (effectiveness) of the
drug in question.
This is totally illogical because the
artificially re-created animal disease can in no way approximate a
naturally occurring human disease (nor of the same animal species
for that matter).
Once a disease is "re-created", it
is artificial and is no longer the original, natural disease.
Sometimes it is possible to re-create some of the symptoms of the
disease but never the disease itself. (27,28) The only
exception to this rule is in the case of infectious diseases, but
animal infectious diseases are not the same as human infectious
As well as the routine subacute and chronic toxicity tests (which
involve poisoning by a substance being taken in normal quantities
over a long period of time), drugs are also tested on animals for
acute toxicity (poisoning due to a large amount of substance taken
in a short period of time) and
teratogenicity (ability to
cause fetal malformations).
ACUTE TOXICITY TESTS
The LD50 is an acute toxicity test designed to indicate the human
lethal dose that results from accidental or intentional overdose.
The standard LD50 tests consist of
forcing massive amounts of the test substance down the throat of a
large number of animals to discover at what dosage-level about 50
per cent of them will die. Even if the substance is not poisonous to
the animal, it will cause damaging effects by overpowering the
animal's ability to cope with the sheer quantities. (29)
Most toxicologists and clinicians agree that these tests are
Professor Zbinden writes:
"For the recognition of the
symptomatology of acute poisoning in man, and for the
determination of the human lethal dose, the LD50 in animals is
of very little value." (30)
D. Lorke, from the Institute of
Toxicology, Bayer AG, Germany, states that "even if the LD50
could be measured exactly and reproducibly, the knowledge of its
precise numerical value would barely be of practical importance,
because an extrapolation from the experimental animals to man is
hardly possible". (31)
Despite the fact that the these tests have no scientific validity,
they are used as a crude index of acute toxicity, demanded by
According to one of Britain's largest
contract laboratories, Huntingdon Research Centre:
"Approximately 90 per cent of LD50
tests which are performed by this Contract Research Centre, and
probably by others also, are purely to obtain a value for
various legislative needs." (32)
Supposedly to safeguard pregnant women from the exposure of
potentially teratogenic drugs, these substances are tested on
various species of pregnant animals before being marketed.
However, these tests are also worthless,
because as Dr Robert Sharpe explains in his book, THE
CRUEL DECEPTION (1988):
"In pregnant animals, differences in
the physiological structure, function and biochemistry of the
placenta aggravate the usual differences in metabolism,
excretion, distribution and absorption that exists between
species and make reliable predictions impossible." (33)
The ineffectiveness of the teratogenic
tests is demonstrated by the fact that the malformations caused by
thalidomide (a drug prescribed to pregnant women for morning
sickness that caused over 10,000 grotesque birth deformities) proved
very difficult to duplicate on animals, despite being tested on a
large range of species.
Writing in his book DRUGS AS
TERATOGENS, J.L. Schardein comments:
"In approximately 10 strains of
rats, 15 strains of mice, eleven breeds of rabbit, two breeds of
dogs, three strains of hamsters, eight species of primates and
in other such varied species as cats, armadillos, guinea pigs,
swine and ferrets in which thalidomide has been tested
teratogenic effects have been induced only occasionally."
Further, medical historian, Hans
Ruesch points out in his book, SLAUGHTER OF THE INNOCENT
"Only when the white New Zealand
rabbit was tested, a few malformed rabbit babies were obtained,
and subsequently also some malformed monkeys - after years of
tests [where researchers were constantly increasing the doses
that were force-fed], hundreds of different strains and millions
of animals used.
But researchers immediately pointed
out that malformations, like cancer, could be obtained by
administration of practically any substance in high
concentration, including sugar and salt, which will eventually
upset the organism, causing trouble." (35)
DEFORMITIES ON THE INCREASE
As a result of the
thalidomide tragedy, there has
been a massive increase in the use of test animals but this has
failed to prevent further deformities.
On the contrary, the malformations have
increased, and more than twenty years later, on July 19, 1983, a
headline in the New York Times revealed:
"Physical and Mental Disabilities in
Newborns Doubled in 25 Years."
Furthermore, it has recently been
uncovered that every year more than a quarter of a million babies (1
in 12) are born with birth defects in the United States. (36)
CRITICISMS FROM WITHIN
Because animal testing gives false and misleading data on the
"safety" and "efficacy" of dangerous drug substances, many
toxicologists and clinicians have expressed much criticism.
To quote some of them:
"Even when a drug has been subjected
to a complete and adequate pharmacologic investigation on
several species of animals and found to be relatively non-toxic
it is frequently found that such a drug may show unexpected
toxic reactions in diseased human beings. This has been known
almost since the birth of scientific pharmacology." (37)
(Dr E. Marshall, 1932,
"...most experts considered the modern toxicological routine
procedure a wasteful endeavor in which scientific inventiveness
and common sense have been replaced by a thoughtless completion
of standard protocols." (38)
(Professor G. Zbinden,
World Health Organization toxicologist.)
"Normally, animal experiments not only fail to contribute to the
safety of medications, but they even have the opposite effect."
Fickentscher, 1980, of the Pharmacological Institute of the
University of Bonn, Germany.)
GIVES HINTS, INDICATIONS?
In support of animal testing vivisectionists say:
"We don't expect final answers from
animal experiments, but just hints, indications, which encourage
us to continue in a particular direction."
This is, of course, sheer nonsense;
Professor Pietro Croce explains:
"But what's an indication? An
approximate information, merely orientative. And as the compass
card shows, an orientation can point in the right direction, of
which there is only one, or to one of the many wrong directions.
And an animal experiment only very rarely points to the right
direction, and when it does, it is due to coincidence, and at
any rate verifiable only after the fact. Experimenting on
animals to do medical research is like playing roulette."
HOW SHOULD DRUGS BE TESTED?
Vivisectionists would have the public believe that animal testing is
an essential part of drug testing and evaluation, and that these
tests cannot be dispensed with.
This is also nonsense, as true
scientific methods that are accurate and reliable are available and
in current use.
Drug testing and evaluation should include:
the use of human tissues, cells
and organs (In vitro cultures) (41)
chromatography and mass
spectrometry (which separate drug substances at their
molecular level to identify their properties) (42)
quantum pharmacology (using
quantum mechanics to understand the molecular structure of
properly carried out human
clinical trials (44)
thorough reporting of drug
side-effects by post-market surveillance (45)
The Ames test used in conjunction with
in vitro tests is very effective in determining teratogenic and
carncinogenic (cancer causing) properties of substances. (46)
WHY DO DRUG COMPANIES USE ANIMAL TESTS?
Although the previous methods
have a demonstrated proven worth, drug companies still insist on
using misleading animal tests, because they argue that government
regulations demand them. But why would they?
Bearing in mind the drug companies' criminal reputation in
fraudulent drug testing and other illegal activities, with the
collaboration of corrupt government and medical officials (as
demonstrated by Ruesch and Braithwaite, among others), the following
analysis by Hans Ruesch comes as no surprise:
"It is not only scandalous but also
tragic that the Drug Trust is permitted to flood the market with
its products on the grounds that they have been thoroughly
tested for effectiveness and safety on animals, and that the
Health Authorities, meaning the Government, abet this deception,
which is nothing but confirmed fraud.
For both sides are well aware that
animal tests are fallacious and merely serve as an alibi - an
insurance against the day when it is no longer possible to
conceal the disastrous side effects of a drug. Then they can say
that 'all the required tests have been made' - that they have
obeyed the Law.
"But they don't say that they themselves have imposed those
laws, because the Lawmaker has no choice in all medical
questions but to submit to the dictates of the 'medical
experts'. And who are they? Agents of the Chemo-Medical
Syndicate, whose links to the Health Authorities are so close
that they usually overlap. So they, and no one else, impart
binding orders to that mysterious and omnipotent individual,
identified anonymously as 'The Lawmaker'." (47)
To back his conclusions, Hans Ruesch has
assembled massive damning evidence against the perpetrators of
the phony drug testing fraud.
This has been well documented in his
book SLAUGHTER OF THE INNOCENT, and its sequel, NAKED
EMPRESS OR THE GREAT MEDICAL FRAUD (1992). The documentary film,
HIDDEN CRIMES (48) (1986), which is based on Hans
Ruesch's books and is produced by Javier Burgos, gives a
visual account of the vivisection fraud.
Ruesch cited a criminal trial involving Chemie Grunenthal,
the German manufacturer of Thalidomide. They were incriminated for
having marketed a harmful drug.
"In December 1970, the longest
criminal trial in Germany's judicial history - two and a half
years, 283 days in court - ended with the acquittal of Chemie
Grunenthal, after a long line of medical authorities had
testified that the generally accepted animal tests could never
be conclusive for human beings. This was unprecedented, for the
testimonies came from an impressive array of individuals whose
careers and reputations were practically built on animal
Another example to illustrate the above
point; Ruesch cites the case of Opren (the arthritis drug
responsible for a number of deaths), as reported in the February 12,
1983 issue of Britain's Economist:
"The Labour member of parliament, Mr
Jack Ashley, is campaigning against the refusal of Eli
Lilly [drug company] to pay compensation to the families of
Opren's victims. Eli Lilly says that it complied with all
pre-marketing testing requirements and cannot therefore be held
liable through negligence." (50)
DOCTORS AGREE: VIVISECTION IS SCIENTIFIC FRAUD
The following statements from doctors, not bound to commercial
interests, contribute to the real motives behind the
vivisectionists' methods of drug testing:
"Results from animal tests are not
transferable between species, and therefore cannot guarantee
product safety for humans... In reality these tests do not
provide protection for consumers from unsafe products but rather
are used to protect corporations from legal liability."
(Dr Herhert Gundersheimer,
1988, Baltimore, Maryland.)
"Toxicologists are...pursuing an illusion of safety using
animals to fulfil political and legal obligations. As if to
confirm our suspicions, some drugs are marketed and clinical
procedures undertaken despite 'failing' animal tests!...
"But if animal tests are sometimes ignored, they can also be
used to imply certain advantages of a company's new product over
"On the other hand the fact that animal tests are misleading can
form the basis of a company's defence against claims about one
of its products....
"So, if animal experiments are misleading, they are at least
flexible: they can be deemed inapplicable when necessary,
ignored when convenient and used to imply important advantages
over competing products." (52)
(Dr Robert Sharpe, in THE
CRUEL DECEPTION, 1988.)
"Another basic problem which we share as a result of the
regulations and the things that prompted them is an unscientific
preoccupation with animal studies. Animal studies are done for
legal reasons and not for scientific reasons. The predictive
value of such studies for man is often meaningless - which means
our research may be meaningless." (53)
(Dr James Gallagher, 1964,
Director of Medical Research, Lederle Laboratories, US.)
"There are many ways of producing 'irrefutable' facts in support
of any argument, using different kinds of animals: one just has
to choose the right one.
"Do we want to show that Amanita
phalloides is an excellent edible toadstool? Then we have
only to feed it to the rabbit....
"Do we want to discourage people
from eating parsley? Let us give it to the parrot which will
probably be found lying stone-dead under its perch the next
"Should we wish to rule out
penicillin as a therapeutic drug, we have only to give it to the
guinea-pig which will be dead in a couple of days....
"If we wish to convince the consumers of tinned food that
botulin poison is harmless let us give it to the cat and it will
lick its lips. Let us give it instead to the cat's traditional
prey, the mouse, and it will die as if struck by lightning....
"If we need to show that Vitamin C is useless we withhold it
from the diet of the most readily available animal: the dog, the
rat, the mouse, the hamster...they will continue to thrive
because their bodies produce Vitamin C of their own accord. But
let us not eliminate it from the diet of guinea-pigs, primates,
or humans or they will die of scurvy....
"To sum up, one has only to know how to choose the proper animal
species to obtain the desired results... This is a kind of
science which one can knead like dough. The trouble comes in
believing that with dough one can produce health for human
(Professor Pietro Croce in
VIVISECTION OR SCIENCE - A CHOICE TO MAKE, 1991.
From 1952 to 1982 Croce was head
of the laboratory of microbiological, pathological anatomy and
chemical analysis at the research Hospital L. Sacco of Milan,
"Relying on animal tests means that new products which are
thought to be safe are mass-marketed far too quickly and are
prescribed by general practitioners and hospital doctors for
thousands or even millions of patients without ever being
properly assessed. It is hardly surprising that when problems
occur - as they do all too frequently these days - they occur on
a massive scale.
Animal experiments allow drug
companies to mass-market new drugs without testing them to see
if they are safe and they encourage complacency among
prescribing doctors who are not as alert for side effects as
they should be because they have been told that the drugs they
are prescribing are safe.
"The consequence of our reliance on animal testing is that new
and untried drugs and procedures are being tested on vast
numbers of people simply so that those making those drugs or
pieces of equipment can make massive profits as quickly as
(Dr Vernon Coleman, 1991,
author of a number of books on health and medicine. UK.)
"The great majority of perinatal toxicological studies seem to
be intended to convey medico-legal protection to the
pharmaceutical houses and political protection to the official
regulatory bodies, rather than produce information that might be
of value in human therapeutics." (56)
(Professor D. Hawkins,
Prof. of Obstetric Therapeutics
at the Institute of Obstetrics and Gynaecology and Consultant
Obstetrician and Gynecologist at Hammersmith Hospital, UK.)
"The extensive animal reproduction studies to which all new
drugs are now subjected are more in the nature of a public
relations exercise than a serious contribution to drug safety...
The illogicality of the situation is demonstrated by the
continued use of well-established drugs which are known to be
teratogenic in some mammalian species (e.g. aspirin,
penicillin/streptomycin, cortisone). Conversely a new drug which
comes through its animal reproductive studies with flying
colours may nevertheless be teratogenic in man." (57)
(Professor R.W. Smithells,
Prof. of Paediatrics and Child
Health at the University of Leeds and a former member of the
Committee on Safety of Medicines.)
"The virtue of animal model systems to those in hot pursuit of
the federal dollars is that they can be used to prove anything -
no matter how foolish, or false, or dangerous this might be.
There is such a wide variation in the results of animal model
systems that there is always some system which will 'prove' a
point. Fraudulent methods of argument never die and rarely fade
away. They are too useful to promoters..." (58)
(Dr Irwin Bross, 1982,
former Director of the largest cancer research institute in the
world, the Sloan-Kettering Institute, then Director of
Biostatics, Roswell Park Memorial Institute, Buffalo, New York.)
"The richest earnings occur when a new variety of a drug is
marketed before competing drugs can be discovered. Under this
system it is impracticable to do tests extending over a long
period to establish the range of usefulness and potential
dangers from toxicity... Thus after extensive laboratory tests
on toxicity and pharmacological properties, but sometimes with a
minimum of clinical trial, a drug may be marketed." (59)
(Dr William Bean, 1957, of
the Iowa State University in his testimony to the Kefauver
The inescapable conclusion is that drug companies choose animal
tests over scientific methods because of the utter unreliability of
Because each animal species is unique in
its physiological, biochemical, histological, morphological and
other characteristics, and consequently reacts differently to
substances, drug companies can produce results favorable to their
interests by simply choosing the appropriate species.
If their product is harmless, fine, money rolls in. If it's harmful,
no problem, accusations are disposed of on the grounds that it was
tested and found to be "safe" on animals.
If drugs were tested properly using true scientific methods, the
vast majority of them would not be allowed onto the market because
their harmfulness and ineffectiveness would be all too apparent.
The constant stream of new drugs would
slow to a trickle and within a few years most drug companies would
The problem is that virtually all drugs are toxic to some degree,
Eli Lilly once said,
"a drug without side effects is no
drug at all". (60)
No drug can be pinpointed to affect only
the organ it is designed to treat, and most drugs have broad effects
and some affect virtually every organ system in the body. (61)
Drugs are toxic because they are generally composed of artificial
chemical compounds that have been synthesized in the laboratory.
(62) In the past, before drugs became big business,
nearly all medicines were composed of natural plant-derived
ingredients that were far safer than today's drugs. Unfortunately,
the drug companies today choose to chemically synthesize the
ingredients instead, because they are cheaper to produce and can be
patented, giving the companies monopoly rights on their sales.
For some insight into the toxic nature of the next drug your doctor
tries to prescribe for you, the authors recommend that you ask him
or her to look up the drug for you in their copy of MIMS ANNUAL or
MIMS bi-monthly (64).
These books, which doctors have at their
disposal, give disturbing details on the toxic effects of individual
drugs. You will discover that your doctor would more than likely be
reluctant, because he or she knows that after seeing the details for
yourself you would most probably refuse the drug.
However, be warned, the information in
MIMS is only what the drug companies supply and is not a true
account of how dangerous these chemical substances really are.
HOW MANY DRUGS
DO WE NEED?
Already over 30 years ago, Dr Walter Modell of Cornell
University's Medical College, whom Time had described as "one of
America's foremost drug experts", wrote in CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY
"When will they realize that there
are too many drugs? No fewer than 150,000 preparations are now
in use. About 15,000 new mixtures and dosages hit the market
each year, while about 12,000 die off... We simply don't have
enough diseases to go around. At the moment the most helpful
contribution is the new drug to counteract the untoward effects
of other new drugs." (65)
Since 1961, the number of drug
preparations marketed world-wide has increased to 205,000 with a
proportional rise in new maladies.
Further, Ruesch reveals:
"In 1980, the Geneva based World
Health Organization (WHO)
published a list of 240 drugs that were considered 'essential'
or sufficient for Third World needs. Since the Third World's
health has been touted as being very much in need of Western
help, the 240 drugs should more than suffice for Western
populations as well.
"Considering WHO's report, how come have an estimated 205,000
drugs and combinations thereof been produced - most of which
have long since been withdrawn?...
"On October 14, 1981 the Swiss weekly Weltwoche reported
that UNIDO (United Nations Industrial Development
Organization) had set up in collaboration with WHO a list of
merely 26 drugs that were considered indispensable for the Third
"The UNIDO report emphasized that of the 26 'indispensables', 9
should have special priority.
"And which drug topped the list of these 9 that were considered
even more indispensable than all the other indispensables?
Acetylsalicylic acid, meaning our good old Aspirin, which was
discovered almost 100 years ago and has proved itself less
harmful than most other drugs. Perhaps because it is one of the
few still in use today that had not been developed by animal
"Some people think that even the list of 9 more indispensable
than others is too long." (66)
FRAUDULENTLY TESTED DRUGS THAT INJURED AND KILLED
Accutane (acne) - caused birth
Amydopyrine (pain killer) -
caused blood disease.
Atromid S (cholesterol) - caused
deaths from cancer, liver, gall bladder and intestinal
Chloromycetin (typhoid) - caused
leukemia, cardiovascular collapse and death.
Clioquinol (diarrhea) - caused
blindness, paralysis and death.
Cyclophosphamide (cancer) -
caused liver and lung damage.
Debendox (nausea) - caused birth
DES (prevent miscarriage) -
caused birth defects and cancer.
Eraldin (heart medication) -
caused severe eye and digestive tract damage, and many
Flamamil (rheumatism) - caused
loss of consciousness.
Isoniazid (tuberculosis) -
caused liver destruction.
Isoproterenol (asthma) - caused
3,500 deaths in the sixties.
Kanamycin (tuberculosis) -
caused deafness and kidney destruction.
Marzine (nausea) - damaged
MEL/29 (anti-hypertensive) -
Methaqualone (hypnotic) - caused
severe psychic disturbances leading to at least 366 deaths,
mainly through murder or suicide.
Methotrexate (leukemia) - caused
intestinal hemorrhage, severe anemia and tumours.
Mitotane (leukemia) - caused
Nembutal (insomnia) - caused
Orabilex - caused kidney damages
with fatal outcome.
Paracetamol (painkiller) - 1,500
people had to be hospitalized in Great Britain in 1971.
Phenacetin (painkiller) - caused
severe damages to kidneys and red blood corpuscles.
Phenformin (diabetes) - caused
1,000 deaths annually until withdrawn.
Phenolphthalein (laxative) -
caused kidney damage, delirium and death.
Preludin & Maxiton (diet pills)
- caused serious damage to the heart and the nervous system.
Pronap & Plaxin (tranquillizers)
- killed many babies.
Reserpine (anti-hypertensive) -
increased risks of cancer of the brain, pancreas, uterus,
ovaries, skin and women's breasts.
Stilboestrol (prostate cancer) -
caused cancer in young women.
Thalidomide (tranquillizer) -
caused 10,000 malformed children.
Trilergan (anti-allergic) -
caused viral hepatitis.
Urethane (leukemia) - caused
cancer of liver, lungs and bone marrow.
Valium (tranquillizer) -
addictive in moderate doses.
The preceding list, taken from
VIVISECTION - SCIENCE OR SHAM (67) (by Dr Roy
Kupsinel, 1990) and NAKED EMPRESS (68), is just a very small
sample of a far greater number of therapeutic disasters that have
"In fact, the therapeutic disasters,
steadily on the increase today, did not exist before the
imposition of the safety-tests done on animals. They are a
direct result of widespread animal experimentation." (69)
(Hans Ruesch in NAKED
VIVISECTION - THE
The issue of animal experimentation has been a very contentious one
for well over a century - since the time the French physiologist,
Claude Bernard (1813-1878), founded the modern vivisectionist
Defenders of animal experimentation, through their aggressive
campaigns, with the help of the industry-beholden media, have
largely succeeded in convincing the public that vivisection is
responsible for any medical progress and that the only possible
objection is solely based on animal welfare.
On the contrary, medical historians, such as Hans Ruesch,
(70) Dr Beddow Bayly, (71) Dr Robert
Sharpe, (72) and Dr Brandon Reines, (73)
to name a few, have repeatedly demonstrated that important
discoveries were made through human clinical research, observations
of patients and human autopsies among other human-based research
methodologies, and that vivisectionists have distorted medical
history in their favor.
Animal experimentation has served
primarily to "prove" in animals what had already been demonstrated
Also, contrary to what the proponents of vivisection would have the
public believe; the strongest objection to vivisection has been from
the medical and scientific community. The book,
1000 DOCTORS (AND MANY MORE) AGAINST
VIVISECTION (74) (1989), by Hans Ruesch,
highlights this fact.
1000 DOCTORS is a compilation of
an impressive collection of anti-vivisection statements made by
doctors and scientists from around the world. The professional
verdicts that start as far back as 1824, are a reminder of the fact
that there have always been members of the scientific and medical
profession strongly opposed to vivisection on scientific and medical
With today's medical research being heavily based on fraudulent
animal experimentation, is it any wonder that diseases remain
uncured and are on the increase, diseases such as:
References and Notes
1. John Braithwaite, Corporate Crime
in the Pharmaceutical Industry, Routledge & Kegan Paul, London,
2. "Staff shortages hamper evaluation work", Sydney Morning
Herald, 18 Jan. 1989.
3. Subcommittee on Health of the Committee on Labor and Public
Welfare, Preclinical and Clinical Testing by the Pharmaceutical
Industry, 1976, U.S. Senate, Washington D.C., 1976, pt II, p.
157. Repr. in ref. 1, p. 51.
4. U.S. Senate, Competitive Problems in the Pharmaceutical
Industry, 1969, pts 6, 7 & 10. Repr. in ref. 1, pp. 51-2.
6. Braithwaite, op. cit., p. 53.
7. Science, 1973, vol. 180, p. 1038.
8. Braithwaite, op. cit., p. 54.
9. Arabella Melville & Colin Johnson, Cured to Death - The
Effects of Prescription Drugs, Angus & Robertson Publishers,
London, 1982, p. 119.
11. Braithwaite, op. cit., p. 105.
12. Carl F. Blozan, Results of the Nonclinical Toxicology
Laboratory Good Laboratory Practices Pilot Compliance Program,
Food and Drug Administration, Washington, D.C., 1977. Cited in
ref. 1, p. 82.
13. Braithwaite, op. cit., p. 82.
14. David M. Jackson & Rayner Soothill, Is The Medicine Making
You Ill?, Australian Consumers' Association, Angus & Robertson
Publishers, North Ryde, NSW, 1988.
15. Braithwaite, op. cit., pp. 56-7.
15a. Anita Johnson, Research Conducted by the Drug Industry: A
Conflict of Interest, Public Citizen's Health Research Group,
Washington, D.C., 1976.
16. Robert Sharpe, The Cruel Deception - The Use of Animals in
Medical Research, Thorsons Publishing Group, Wellingborough,
Northamptonshire, 1988, pp. 85-6.
17. Gerhardt Zbinden, Applied Therapeutics, 1966, vol. 8, pp.
18. Gerhardt Zbinden, The Handbook of Biochemistry and
Biophysics, World Publishing Company of Cleveland, Ohio, 1966.
19. Pietro Croce, Vivisection or Science - a Choice to Make,
CIVIS (Latin acronym for International Center of Scientific
Information on Vivisection) Publications, POB 152, Via Motta 51,
CH-6900 Massagno/Lugano, Switzerland, 1991, pp. 13-38.
20. ibid., pp. 22-4.
21. Sharpe, op. cit., p. 92.
22. Gerhardt Zbinden, Advances in Pharmacology, 1963, vol. 2,
23. R. Levine, Pharmacology: Drug Actions & Reactions, Little,
Brown and Co., 1978.
24. Sidney Wolf (director of the Ralph Nader Health Research
Group) in Lancet, 11 Feb. 1984, p. 353.
25. See ref. 23.
26. T. Koppanyi & M.A. Avery in Clinical Pharmacology &
Therapeutics, 1966, vol. 7, pp. 250-270.
27. SUPRESS, Animal Experimentation: No Lie Can Live Forever!
(brochure), Pasadena, California, 1992.
28. Croce, op. cit., pp. 31-7.
29. Hans Ruesch, Slaughter of the Innocent, CIVITAS
Publications, POB 491, Hartsdale, NY 10530, 1991, p. 116.
30. Gerhardt Zbinden & M. Flury-Roversi in Archives of
Toxicology, 1981, vol. 47, pp. 77-91.
31. D. Lorke in Archives of Toxicology, 1983, vol. 54, pp.
32. R. Heywood in The LD50 Test: Evidence for Submission to the
Home Office Advisory Committee, prepared by the Committee for
the Reform of Animal Experimentation, Aug. 1977.
33. Sharpe, op. cit., p. 107.
34. J.L. Schardein, Drugs as Teratogens. Repr. in Drugs and
Pregnancy - Human Teratogenesis and Related Problems, D.F.
Hawkins (Ed.), Churchill Livingstone, 1983.
35. Ruesch, op. cit., p. 361.
36. Statistics from the March of Dimes organisation.
37. E.K. Marshall in Journal of the American Medical
Association, 28 Jan. 1939, p. 353.
38. Gerhardt Zbinden in "The LD50 test. A critique and
suggestions for alternatives", by Andrew N. Rowan in
Pharmaceutical Technology, Apr. 1981.
39. Kurt Fickentscher in Diagnosen, Germany, Mar. 1980.
40. Pietro Croce, "That's why I am against vivisection" in
International Foundation Report, Hans Ruesch (Ed.), CIVIS,
Massagno/Lugano, Switzerland, Autumn 1989, nr 7, p. 1.
41. Croce, Vivisection or Science, op. cit., pp. 164-70.
42. Roy Kupsinel, Vivisection: Science or Sham, People for
Reason In Science and Medicine, PO Box 2102, Anaheim, California
92814, 1990, p. 15.
43. G. Richards, Quantum Pharmacology, Butterworth, 1980.
44. Croce, Vivisection or Science, op. cit., pp. 129-32.
45. Medical Research Modernization Committee, A Critical Look At
Animal Research, MRMC, New York, N.Y., 1990, p. 9-10.
46. Croce, Vivisection or Science, op. cit., pp. 212-3.
47. Hans Ruesch, Naked Empress or The Great Medical Fraud, CIVIS
Publications, Massagno/Lugano, Switzerland, 1992, p. 9.
48. Students United Protesting Research on Sentient Subjects,
Hidden Crimes, produced by Javier Burgos, SUPRESS, PO Box 2560,
Pasadena, California 91102, 1986.
49. Ruesch, Naked Empress, op. cit., p. 361.
50. Economist, Britain, 12 Feb. 1983. Repr. in ref. 47, p. 183.
51. Herbert Gundersheimer. Repr. in 1000 Doctors (and many more)
Against Vivisection, Hans Ruesch (Ed.), CIVIS Publications,
Massagno/Lugano, Switzerland, 1989, p. 29.
52. Sharpe, op. cit., pp. 112-4.
53. James Gallagher in Journal of American Medical Association,
14 Mar. 1964.
54. Croce, Vivisection or Science, op. cit., pp. 22-4.
55. Vernon Coleman, Why Animal Experiments Must Stop, Green
Print, London, 1991, p. 51.
56. D.F. Hawkins, Drugs and Pregnancy - Human Teratogenesis and
Related Problems, Churchill Livingston, 1983.
57. R.W. Smithells in Monitoring for Drug Safety, W.H. Inman
(Ed.), MTP Press, 1980.
58. Irwin Bross, "Animals in cancer research: a multi-billion
dollar fraud" in Fundamental and Applied Toxicology, Nov. 1982,
59. William Bean. Repr. in 1000 Doctors (and many more) Against
Vivisection, Hans Ruesch (Ed.), CIVIS, Switzerland, 1989, p. 87.
60. Repr. in ref. 61.
61. Robert S. Mendelsohn, Mal(e) Practice: How Doctors
Manipulate Women, Contemporary Books, Chicago, 1982, p. 197.
62. Ruesch, Slaugter of the Innocent, op. cit., pp. 269-70.
63. Sharpe, op. cit., pp. 137-8.
64. Intercontinental Medical Statistics (Australasia), MIMS
Annual and MIMS (bi-monthly), IMS Publishing, Crows Nest, NSW.
65. Walter Modell in Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics,
repr. in Time, 26 May 1961; and ref. 47, p. 9.
66. Ruesch, Naked Empress, op. cit., ps 12 & 191.
67. Kupsinel, op. cit., p. 8.
68. Ruesch, Naked Empress, op. cit., pp. 15-28.
69. ibid., p. 14.
70. Ruesch, Slaughter of the Innocent, op. cit.
71. Beddow Bayly, Clinical Medical Discoveries, National
Anti-Vivisection Society, London, 1961.
72. Sharpe, op. cit.
73. Brandon Reines, Masked Men of Medicine, Paragon House, New
74. Hans Ruesch, 1000 Doctors (and many more) Against
Vivisection, CIVIS Publications, Switzerland, 1989.