RSS
Home
The big phama plague: Malicious acts and propaganda
Print
Email
RSS
Subscribe
Centrifuge Man
When the FDA’s Modernization Act of 1997 loosened restrictions for how drugs could be marketed, it changed the landscape for how the pharmaceutical companies could push their drugs Direct to Consumer (DTC) resulting in soaring profits that blossomed in the next 10 years like no other period in history. This is an industry constantly evolving and promoting itself to higher plateaus through various dubious actions, including: influencing political legislation through lobbying, exorbitant advertising campaigns and their relentless methods to create new demand for high-profit drugs even in a world with limited diseased people and limited profit. Big media has also grown dependent on these advertising dollars (over $10 billion annually), so the recent slump (DTC advertising was slowed in 2008 for the 2nd consecutive year) is a concern as marketing companies work desperately to maintain profits unparalleled by any other industry. By setting criteria for fast-track drug development, allowing some drug approvals based on one pivotal trial, providing easier patient access to experimental drugs and devices, and renewing the Prescription Drug User Fee program, the FDA’s new law opened the floodgates for a gigantic leap for drug industry profits.
In the 1980s television and film-making was dominated by blockbuster hits about the glorious drug trade. Miami Vice (1984-89), Beverly Hills Cop (1984), Lethal Weapon (1987), and Licensed to Kill (1989) were highly visible and exciting depictions of the drug trade as it existed in the 80s and were viewed by millions of people. For the most part these were good defeating evil characterizations that ran concurrent with the most widespread, costly anti-drug campaigns in history, led by the first lady, Nancy Reagan. The intentions were to create a lull in the demand of drugs popular in that decade simply by putting a stern authority figure at the helm and offering up simplistic catchphrases through the various media outlets (This is your brain. This is your brain on drugs.), yet there was little in the way of substantive programs offering proper backup to the ballyhooed political propaganda. Now, nearly 3 decades passed and the pharmaceutical industry has grown exponentially into a giant entity and in many ways has revealed itself as a powerful force providing upwards of 40% of the American population drugs of various types.
The history of the war on drugs in America has a lot to do with the National Security Strategy dating back to the 1940s. Somewhere between the beginning of time and the development of big Pharma, it became clear to the government that street drugs would impose a damaging snag in the basic element of the social fabric and needed more intense regulations. Since then, there have been numerous twists in the saga of drugs in America which has led to the pharmaceutical industry and the War on Drugs becoming a massive contradiction in terms, yet both have unique ties to how the government operates, and by what standards these operations are carried out. (1)
Harry Anslinger, America's drug czar from 1930-1962, used to tell some pretty fantastic stories while he traveled on the lecture circuit, talking to church groups, citizens, and schools about the dangers of drugs. He was responsible, in many ways, for the criminalization of marijuana, and was part of a notorious trend that has, over time, shifted massive power to the pharmaceutical companies who have synthesized well-being, and addicted millions, while killing millions of others by their cost, availability (or lack thereof) and safety. In the 1950s, Anslinger declared “We intend to get the killer-pushers and their willing customers out of selling and buying dangerous drugs.” Some of those drugs he was referring to are even marketed on a mass scale by our own government to the general population who believes in what they are prescribed by doctors as being safe. In 2008, according to the DEA, there has been an 80 percent jump in prescription drug abuse in the U.S. The 7 million abusers tops the abusers of cocaine, Ecstasy, heroin and hallucinogens combined. The Justice Department National Intelligence Drug Center also found a stunning 400% increase (786 to 3,849) in deaths related to opioid methadone use in a five year stretch from 1999 to 2004. Many professionals will argue that long-term use of prescription opiates is the only way to function without suffering from chronic pain, and there is a good chance most of these listed deaths were not used per doctor’s instruction, alas. (2)
The way prescription drugs gain notoriety throughout society is controlled, and the pharmaceutical industry’s influence rewards doctors who prescribe drugs based on the flawed info given them by the drug companies. Perhaps the greatest scandal is how the drug companies exert control over medical industry by direct-to-consumer ad campaigns and their influence on scientific studies. Richard Smith, the ex-editor of the British Medical Journal (BMJ), publicly estimates that between two-thirds to three-quarters of the trials published in major journals such as Annals of Internal Medicine, Journal of the American Medical Association, Lancet and New England Journal of Medicine are funded by drug companies. And the way the pharmaceutical industry has become what it is may very well be from a high tech, systematic for of propaganda done with a smoke and mirror bravado backed by billions of dollars, close ties to political agendas and high-tech, modern marketing tactics. (3)
Smoke and Mirrors
Since the earliest known drugstore appeared in the Middle Ages (754 in Baghdad), there were many that appeared throughout the medieval Islamic world, and eventually medieval Europe. The trend continued until reaching North America and by the 19th century many of drug stores developed into pharmaceutical companies. The strongest drug makers were in Switzerland, German and Italy, followed by the UK, US, Belgium and the Netherlands respectively. As their spots in society continued to strengthen, what developed was a realization of a profit motive that has, in modern times, taken over the incentive to cure disease. The “Just Say No” slogan and signs that read “DRUG-FREE ZONE” have become inconsequential to the growth and power of the pharmaceutical industry that spends billions on media advertising annually to get new customers to use their doctor prescribed drugs. The FDA even allowed Eli Lilly to be able to re-name and market Prozac (Sarafem) for two separate sets of disorders, a landmark decision that allowed the company to capitalize big time despite a lack of real evidence the drug was making a positive psychological impact on users.
In the pharmaceutical sector, DTC advertising has been increasing since the late 1990s at a rate of around 30 percent compounded annually. Once prevented by regulation from advertising aggressively, pharmaceutical companies now see DTC advertising as a major source of stimulating demand for their product. “This has had two key effects: (1) it has built brand awareness and product awareness in the minds of end users (consumers), who are increasingly taking medications for chronic conditions in increasingly crowded and competitive therapeutic categories—cholesterol management, cardiovascular diseases, asthma, allergy, and other forms of respiratory ailments; and (2) more directly, it has encouraged users to visit their doctors and ask for the product by name.” says Ian Morrison, author of Health Care in the New Millennium.
The changing landscape of pharmaceutical marketing is evident for the industry that uses its vast resources to stay in touch with political and social trends that might have impacts on their sales and their ability to reach the maximum of potential customers. Questions the big Pharma industry intends to answer include the following:
- Will DTC spending increase or decrease in 2009 compared to 2008? By how much?
- Should all or some forms of DTC advertising be banned in the US?
- Should there be a moratorium on DTC advertising? Should it be mandatory or voluntary?
- Should the business-tax deduction for DTC spending be taken away by legislation?
- Is there adequate risk information presented in DTC ads? Is it effectively communicated and does it balance benefit information?
“I believe that there will be pressure on pharmaceutical companies to be more aggressive or proactive about the discovery of adverse events,” said Senak. “However, whether monitoring blogs or comments to the editor of newspapers, the same adverse event reporting rules apply. By not monitoring the media where consumers are migrating is simply pennywise and pound foolish,” said Senak. (4)
Big Pharma industry giants scramble to answer these questions and implement new methods of controlling how people choose to keep healthy by supporting government control of the dietary-supplement industry. The impact would be having full control over any high-potency, beneficial supplements that are currently available over the counter, raising the prices and restricting their availability. The Codex Alimentarius is hidden by the health industry as a means to consumer protection while in reality it is a real threat to health freedom and is fully supportive of dangerous genetically altered foods. $758 million being spent on Congressional lobbying by Big Pharma in 2007 makes it difficult to have it any other way. The plan is to eradicate organic standards by implementing bills that will ultimately lead to full control over food growers and eventually medicine if more awareness and non-compliance to Codex is not achieved. (5)
Currently there are now more than 200 major pharmaceutical companies jointly said to be more profitable than almost any other industry on the planet, and the industry is employing more political lobbyists than any other. Pfizer alone has 5,000 people in its sales force. Pharmaceutical companies dramatically overprice life-saving drugs and justify doing so by citing research and development costs. (6)
Remember in late 2007 when Robert Jarvik was featured in endlessly re-run ads for Pfizer's blockbuster cholesterol drug Lipitor? Known as the inventor of the Jarvik artificial heart, he is not a cardiologist, not a licensed medical doctor and not authorized to prescribe pharmaceuticals. He's shown in the ads engaged in vigorous rowing activity, but in fact he doesn't row. Pfizer pulled the ads in February of 2008 after controversy started brewing. (7)
For the first time ever, in 2006, global spending on prescription drugs topped $600 billion, even as growth in sales slowed somewhat in Europe and North America. The United States accounts for almost half of the global pharmaceutical market, with $289 billion in annual sales followed by the EU and Japan. Emerging markets such as China, Russia, South Korea and Mexico outpaced that market, growing a huge 81 percent margin. (8)
Military and Prescription Drugs by Force
Amphetamines found their way into the mainstream of the armed forces during WWII. The uses varied from “go” pills to keep to pilots alert and steady at the controls, to the “no-go” pills from fighters unable to sleep. And it didn’t matter what side of the firing lines you were on, as world governments caught wind of this trend and used it effectively to their advantage. Psychosis, paranoia, addiction and insomnia were the side-effects traded in for the use of this drug in wartime.
In the US, where nearly 40% of the troops that return from war show signs of post-traumatic stress syndrome, the Psychological Kevlar Act was passed, allowing the government to distribute yet another drug designed to pre-empt those nasty ailments acting as a psychological heat-shield against PTS. Various drugs have since been administered, and with the help of a well-funded defense-research fund, each passing war carries with it new treatments supported by the pharmaceutical companies lucky enough to be awarded top dollar to develop top drugs. The US Army’s Future Combat Systems is in charge of military modernization, and with budget in excess of $160 billion, of which a good chunk goes toward the development of new drugs for future battles, the types of drugs administered to the armed forces have little to do with the helping veterans be productive, healthy citizens when they return from the trenches. (9)
More Statistics and Political Implications
In 2007, the Center for Public Integrity released a new report finding the pharmaceutical lobby flooded Washington with $155 million from January 2005 to June 2006, employing 1,100 lobbyists. Much of this fund was spent lobbying on a variety of issues ranging from protecting lucrative drug patents to keeping lower-priced Canadian drugs from being imported to the United States. In all, PhRMA has spent $140 million on pharmaceutical lobbying since 1998. PhRMA members include 16 of the industry's 20 largest companies and use their resources as a tool to control acts of congress. (10)
RxHub, an electronic medical prescription company, paid $1.3 million for the services of Schmitz and three associates. During a two-year period, they lobbied for RxHub on only one listed bill: the recently passed Medicare Prescription Drug bill, which got help from Bush in 2003 when he announced support of a proposal to make records and prescription available electronically. This is yet another blatant example of drug company influence in congress that also sent a strong message to the informed consumer. (11)
The healthcare industry has spent 2.4 billion dollars (from 1998 to 2006) in lobbying reform, 2nd only to the real estate sector in total spending. More specifically, pharmaceutical expenditures during this period have spent in excess of $140 million to congress, $20 million of which was filtered to the 2008 elections (51% went to Democrats), tops in the healthcare industry. (12)
FDA bureaucrats, top Big Pharma CEOs, certain physicians and their teams of lawyers have focused their attention on lobbying for the implementation of statin drugs. Statin drugs are “preventative” medicines that have proven unsuccessful in 80% of the people that would take them, but unchecked, could one day be imposed, even by law, on people who would rather choose alternative medical choices.
The Pharmaceutical Industry’s Conspicuous Deceit
The next time you watch television or read a magazine, pay special attention to pharmaceutical advertisements. Notice their promotional hooks and be grateful that you, unlike most consumers, are no longer susceptible to their influence. That's what knowledge, unlike naiveté, brings you. While the drug industry does tend to care for major problems in their policy, they leave a slew of minute details to go unchecked. When these details add up, as they have over the past 20 years, it becomes a major struggle to overcome.
While the FDA encourages DTC advertisements that contain accurate information, the agency also has the job of making sure that consumers are not misled or deceived by advertisements that violate the law. $146.5 billion had been expended on drug control from 1995-2005 (46% of which went toward managing the consequences of drug abuse rather than for trying to control the phenomenon. Though a big portion went toward therapy for drug users, there is a fundamental problem when big pharma money is not being spent on the root of the problems they create. There is so much information, perhaps the best thing that money could buy would be for honest summaries of available drugs and education for the public purchasing them for their ailments. The prices in America for prescription drugs are the highest in the world, so make sure you can afford them, and let’s hope you didn’t take Tamiflu if you developed a cold this year.
Additional Reference:
(6) S. Hadzovic (1997). "Pharmacy and the great contribution of Arab-Islamic science to its development", Medicinski Arhiv 51 (1-2), p. 47-50.
Artwork: (Centrifuge Man) courtesy of: sarahpavsner.com
