.

DRUG COMPANY PROFITS RUN ABOVE 90% IN THE US
   evidenced by sales 80% lower in south america..same drug

Much of the 'research' and sales pitch on these drugs is shown
to be BOGUS...forcing these drugs off the market.     now
THATS real Quackery you see.

Into the trillions of dollars a year.  Below is an article on
the issue of how this lucrative quackery and rip off is
established and maintained.

  This Piece dedicated to our Anon Drug company supporter and
trasher of
  independent research and study by the public... that ONE
and ONlY 'Robert',,
  true contender.

From www.nofreelunch.org/comments

For T. Comeau: to bookend your article posted today re: Merck
Pfizer
benefits. Zee

Subject: You missed the biggest problem
Date: Sat, 27 Nov 1999 18:53:51 -0600
From:  <gorby@wt.net>
To:    <justsayno@nofreelunch.org>
The worst problem with drug promotion lies not with the sales
reps but
with industry-funded research. I personally witnessed the
excesses for
8 years while on the faculty of a major medical school. This
operates
at several levels.

First, one must understand that in academics teaching is like
catching
fly balls and publishing is like hitting home runs. They
didn't pay
Hank Aaron for his fielding. It isn't just the publishing and
reflected glory to the institution that drives academicians to
do
research. The institution takes a cut of every grant, whether
it's
industry money or an NIH grant. The percentages vary, but they
are
rather large; a $10MM grant yields several million for the
hospital,
school, or whatever institution the grantee works for. Those
who bring
in grant money have *power*. What can they get with that
power? A
raise, a bigger office, private secretary, less time actually
having
to teach residents or touch a patient (when I was in academics
it
seemed to be a matter of prestige to *not* carry a pager).
Also,
although it is difficult to directly gain monetarily from
grant money,
one can usually buy a few new computers or other toys that may
find
their way home.

Publishing favorable articles leads to invitations to speak at
fun
places - all expenses paid - and receive nice honoraria to
boot. Yes,
the drug companies fly private practitioners to nice places,
but who
are they listening to? Impartial lecturers? No - they are
listening to
the drug whores who will say nice things about the product.
Some of
the drug whores I met during my own march in the bullshit
parade were
big names in the field, including departmental chairmen. Some
of the
biggest names in my specialty are, in my opinion, on the take.
The
people who really get wined and dined at these meetings are
the
"mouthpieces", not the attendees.

One time I was even mailed a lecture, complete with slides to
present,
at a sponsored meeting at a very nice resort. When I balked
and
insisted on giving my own lecture with my own slides it caused
a major
storm. Another time, one of my colleagues asked another
colleague to
do the statistics for his drug company data. When the results
came
back unflattering he asked if perhaps a different statistical
test
might be tried.

If a researcher plays the game well, publishing flattering
studies and
giving lots of positive lectures, he might get a real plum: a
"consultant's contract", or a position on the "advisory
board". This
can mean tens ofthousands of dollars of income per year for
very
little actual work.

Therefore the real danger is in the poisonous influence the
private
sector has on the generation of scientifi studies. Bad results
and
balanced lectures are not rewarded. Sadly, with the drying up
of
public funds for research in the past two decades, academic
institutions have had to rely more and more on private
funding. When I
graduated medical school in 1979 medical journals did not
require
financial disclosure. Now you see it everywhere - a sad
reflection of
the influence of commercial research funding, and the closest
anyone
will come to actually admitting we have a serious problem.

When a drug rep buys you lunch you know you are being fed a
sales
pitch. The truly insidious aspect of all this is that
published
peer-reviewed articles funded by drug companies are usually
taken at
face value, and the lectures are given by drug whores (after
all, they
are the ones with funding and have written all the articles -
they are
the "authority" by virtue of the sheer volume they have
published).
The damage done by this misinformation takes years to undo.

--------------------------------------------------------------

  Hey Robt?   Yer employer is going to LOVE this, no?

 :)

 Phil Scott