NON-PROFITS:
How
independent is the American Academy of Family
Physicians?
NEWS:
The
American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP)
is one of the largest national
medical organizations, representing more
than 94,300 family physicians, family practice
residents and medical students nationwide. AAFP
charges $3,000 ($200 for nonprofits) to endorse
educational material (judgments made by
a panel of 3). (AAFP/Cheryl Denslow, 11/97)
A partial list of corporate partners
includes ($40,000 plus)
AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, Eli
Lilly and Company, Purdue Pharma LP, and
Schering; and ($25,000) Forest
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Janssen Pharmaceutica,
McNeil Consumer & Specialty Pharmaceuticals,
Ortho Biotech, Pharmacia Corporation, Roche
Laboratories, Wallace Pharmaceuticals, and Wyeth
Pharmaceuticals.
(See longer
list)
How
independent is the non-profit American Cancer
Society?
NEWS:
According
to a story in the New York Times,
"The American Cancer Society . . . has
endorsed Florida orange juice . . . ."
(8/13/97) . See also World Tonight News With
Peter Jennings (8/13/97); The Osgood File, CBS
News (8/13/97). An editorial in the New
England Journal of Medicine stated:
"And why should the American Cancer
Society endorse only SmithKline Beecham's
antismoking products?" Jerome P.
Kassirer & Marcia Angell (9/4/97, p. 700) See
also, Los Angeles Time (8/13/97). The ACS,
however, denies that its actions are
endorsements. Rather, it characterizes such
transactions as a license for the
"nonexclusive use of its logo on Florida
orange juice and SmithKline Beecham's antismoking
products" in "exchange for monetary
grants and other considerations used for the
fight against cancer." (e-mail to CSPI from
William J. Dalton, Chief Counsel, ACS, 5/30/01)
The ACS's "Cancer Facts &
Figures - 1998" acknowledges on the front
and back cover "a generous grant" by
Glaxo Wellcome drug company. According
to Advertising Age, the ACS was involved in a
deal with General Mills to include information on
packages of Wheaties (1/17/00; p. 54).
(See Longer
List)
How
independent is the American Heart Association?
NEWS:
The
American Heart Association was paid $450,000 by
the Florida grapefruit growers for \softline
exclusive grapefruit use of the association's
heart-healthy endorsement. (Philadelphia
Inquirer, 5/7/97) American Heart
Association has received $1.1 million (and an
annual renewal potential of about $300,000) from
food manufacturers as license fees to use the
"heart check mark."
(Philadelphia Inquirer, 5/7/97) AHA charges
$2,500 (plus a yearly renewal charge of $650) for
a company to put the association's heart-check
symbol on a package. Florida Dept. of
Citrus paid $450,000 for exclusive promotion and
advertising contract from 1994 until early 1997.
The National Cattlemen's Beef Association paid
$25,000 for its arrangement with the AHA to
promote lean cuts of beef. For an
agreement with ConAgra in 1992-93, the AHA
received $3,500,000 for a TV program on nutrition.
For companies that want an exclusive agreement
with the AHA like that of the Florida citrus
growers, the cost is $55,000 a quarter or
$200,000 a year. Without exclusivity the cost is
$25,000 a quarter or $90,000 a year. (New York
Times, 10/22/97)
National Livestock and Meat Board gave $189,000
to the AHA to sponsor the HeartRide cycling
series. AHA says the program will help ensure
that people don't think that AHA recommends
abstaining from meat. (IEG Sponsorship Report) Merck
is spending $400,000 to finance an AHA program
teaching 40,000 doctors to treat cholesterol
according to guidelines. (Wall Street
Journal, 6/14/98) American Heart Association has
endorsed only Bayer aspirin. (NEJM 9/4/97, p.700)
According to Kramer Laboratories, Inc. (Miami),
"Bayer, as we understand it, contributes
over $500,000 a year to the American Heart
Association." (Letter to AHA,
9/23/96) Web site is sponsored by Pfizer,
Campbell, ConAgra (Healthy Choice), and Hoechst
(Tufts Nutrition Navigator web site).
(See Longer List)
The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation
(Johnson & Johnson Company) was
$100,000 plus Excalibur Contributor to the
American Cancer Society in 2000. And instrumental
in the "Smokeless States" program.
(More about that under Drug Companies)
What
about the American Medical Association (AMA)?
NEWS:
AMA
planned a campaign to remind doctors of ethical
guidelines limiting their acceptance of gifts
from pharmaceutical companies. The campaign was
to be sponsored by Eli Lilly's Corporation.
(USA Today, 4/27/01, "Drug makers bankroll
ethics guidelines on 'freebies'")
According to a New York Times story, the AMA made
a deal with Sunbeam to endorse the company's
health products in return for royalties.
Publicity scotched the deal in 1997. Sunbeam
suing the AMA for breach of contract. (NYT,
8/13/97 and subsequent weeks)
|
NON-PROFITS:
American
Medical Asso., Con't
The Chicago
Sun-Times reported that in early 1996
Procter & Gamble/olestra, through its PR
agency, gave the AMA a check for $900,000 in
partial support of an AMA fitness program; the
check came after the AMA issued a statement
endorsing the FDA's approval of olestra.
(AMA press release, Jan. 1996; Chicago Sun-Times,
11/26/97, p. 70)
(See Longer
List)
The
American Medical Women's Association?
NEWS:
AMWA’s
Advanced Curriculum on Women’s Health Part I
and Part II were sponsored by educational
grants from The Upjohn Company,
which were instrumental in developing the
curriculum, and by contributions from Aetna
Health Plans, Astra/Merck, Bristol-Meyers Squibb
Company, Marion Merrell Dow, Mead Johnson
Division, Trylon Corporation, and Zeneca
Pharmaceuticals. Contributions are being
solicited for the 1998 program.” (Source the
AMWA Web site, December 18, 1997)
(See Longer List)
The
American Medical Writers Association?
NEWS:
The American Medical Writers
Association (AMWA), founded in 1940, is the
leading professional organization for biomedical
communicators. Benefactors are
Eli Lilly and Company and Takeda
Pharmaceuticals North America. Patrons
are Abbott Laboratories Fund, Greenberg News
Networks, J&J Pharmaceutical Research
& Development, and Pfizer,
Inc.
(See Longer
List)
Breast
Cancer Awareness Month?
NEWS:
According to the
Progressive Magazine, this event ". .
.happens to be sponsored by Imperial
Chemical Industries (ICI), one of the world's
largest manufacturers of organochlorines. ICI has
approved every poster, pamphlet, and
advertisement used for Breast Cancer Awareness
Month from the beginning. And BCAM
literature has never mentioned the link between
breast cancer and organochlorines..."
(Molly Ivins, Progressive, January, 1998, p. 46)
These are examples
of the close association many of the non-profit
health organizations share with the
pharmaceutical industry. In her book, "The
Truth About the Drug Companies," Marcia
Angell, M.D. exposes the incredible links between
the medical profession, research facilities and
the pharmaceutical industry. I purchased
her book and am reading it. The truth is
shocking. The profits made by the pharmaceutical
industry are astronomical and the influence the
industry has on Congress, medical institutions
and physicians is appalling.
FACT:
The claim has been
made by those in favor of a "Smoke-Free
America" that the epidemiological studies
done that show little to no relative risk are
sponsored by the tobacco industry.
WHO'S HIDING WHAT?
What about the studies
where the pharmaceutical industry,
non-profits and U.S. government agencies have
worked together, often using public money, to
promote a "Smoke-Free America"
through studies, public health announcements and
advertising, which are too often taken as the
truth without investigation by the media, public
health programs and days, such as a
"smoke-free day. Let's look at some of the
major financial winners of such an agenda:
DRUG COMPANIES:
Drug Companies
Involved With "Cessation"
Products in 2000: Johnson & Johnson;
GlaxoSmithKline: Pharmacia (also Pharmacia &
Upjohn) Hoechst Marion Roussel; Novartis; and
Pfizer.
In her 2001
article, "Pharmaceutical Players,"
found on www.forces.org, Wanda Hamilton wrote:
"Johnson & Johnson -
Under the banner of its subsidiary, McNeil
Consumer Products, J&J markets the
Nicotrol nicotine patch and nicotine inhaler. The
Robert Wood Johnson Foundation is the
biggest single shareholder in J&J and began
its massive funding of tobacco control in the
U.S. in 1991, the same year the FDA approved the
nicotine patch as a prescription drug.
Pharmacia reacquired the rights to market the
Nicotrol Inhaler in North America from J&J's
McNeil in July 2000."
She goes on to
say, "In 1999, SmithKline Beecham
Consumer Healthcare's combined U.S.
sales of Nicorette and NicoDerm CQ
reached $570 million. The
company also markets its nicotine patch under the
trade name "NiQuitin CQ" in
Belgium, France, Denmark, Mexico and Brazil and
under "Nicabate" in Australia
and New Zealand, where it was the number one
smoking cessation product in 1999."
(Read the
full article)
|
DRUG
COMPANIES:
JOHNSON & JOHNSON
Johnson &
Johnson knows how to put its money where its
profit lies. For instance, The Robert Wood
Johnson Foundation has made a commitment to the SmokeLess
States National Tobacco Policy Initiative based
at the American Medical Association
(AMA) of more than $52 million."
(Read more:
Johnson & Johnson)
FACT:
Studies have NOT
proved that secondhand smoke causes any diseases.
This report could
go on and on marking the cozy deals between the
pharmaceutical industry, private non-profits
believed by many to be pure and charitable, yet
shown through research to be otherwise, and
federal government agencies acting supposedly in
the public's best interest.
It could also show
a number of articles by the national media that
clearly demonstrate the reporter or publication's
bias when compared with the actual study done
that is being reported on in the story.
Anti-smoking
advocates see the tobacco industry as a cash cow.
Occasionally,
thinking minds prevail.
In February of
this year, the U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia
declared that the government may not seek
the taking of illicit profits in civil suits
filed under the racketeering statute known as
RICO.
The
government was hoping to wrest $280 billion from
the tobacco industry.
Norman E. Kjono
puts the money amount into perspective in a
February 6, 2005, article on www.forces.org.
Kjono writes:
"To get a handle on the economic hubris and
sheer financial chutzpah of tobacco control
advocates, consider that the $280 billion
in alleged damages sought by the federal
government through this lawsuit in its
War on Tobacco is greater than funding
requested to date by the Bush's administration or
appropriated by Congress for the War in Iraq.
Putting that sum together with
Governor Gregoire's 1998 MSA (master
settlement) there would be
enough money in the anti-tobacco war chest to
fund two Iraq wars.
(See full
article)
Again, I suggest
that if you have any doubts about my report that
you spend your time looking at both sides of the
issue with an open mind. TRACE THE MONEY.
Look at the pharmaceutical industry , the
non-profits, the federal government, the court
actions. Learn how to read an epidemiological
study. Read everything. Not just one side. Draw
your own conclusions as I have drawn mine.
TAXES: THE PRACTICAL MATTER
Anti-smokers:
Are you ready to pay increasing
individual taxes if the United States
becomes smoke-free and tobacco is no longer a
legal substance? Almost all of the money
paid on a package or carton of cigarettes is tax.
Taxes, once levied, don't vanish.
State taxing
entities and the national government will be dipping
into your pockets to make up the lost revenue.
The same holds
true for alcohol. If you know anything about U.S.
history, you may recall the damage
prohibition caused and the
illegal activities it promoted.
Tobacco is no
different, except the pharmaceutical
industry has found a way to make a huge profit
off smoking and smokers and is aided in doing so
by the FDA, EPA, the Surgeon General, some
members of Congress, a number of charitable
non-profits and fanatical anti-smokers who care
not a whit about your pocketbook or your rights.
Anti-smokers:
Are you aware your actions now are
setting the precedent for increasing individual
restrictions in all areas of our lives?
Is this
the legacy you want to leave for your
children and grandchildren: a nation of
think alikes, look alikes and do alikes with
individual liberty forgotten in the quest for
health?
These are serious
questions. The answers will define
whether liberty and freedom and the pursuit of
happiness survive the 21st century.
CONCLUSION:
We are in trouble
in this country. Our liberties and freedoms are
being erased in the so-called cause of public
health.
Secondhand
smoke is only the beginning. Other
issues on the agenda \that will also feed the
pharmaceutical industry, the non-profits, some
medical institutions and physicians, members
working within the federal government, and
various special interest groups are obesity,
alcohol consumption and high cholesterol, to name
a few.
Sound far-fetched?
Do the research.
|
