Tuesday, 13 April 2010

Are Pharmaceutical Companies all about the money?

I am sorry for the delay in getting this next article out for everyone but I’ve been busy volunteering on the island of Madeira since the freak flood of the 20th February.

On my last post, about the adverse effects of a vaccine called Gardasil, a friend of mine in Facebook, posed a very good question. He asked if the motive behind pharmaceutical companies injecting people with vaccines that are potentially harmful to human beings, or that haven’t been sufficiently tested under clinical conditions, was purely monetary.

My immediate response was to say yes. Money equals power. Power equals control. Control is the basis all politics and all governments are founded on.

Personally, I see pharmaceutical companies making billions and billions of dollars a year in profits from people’s malaise; no longer with the good intentions of helping people, but by actually being a part of the cause; in order to guarantee “long term” sales of their products. The way I see it is, it’s not in Pharmaceutical companies’ nor Governments’ best interest to have entire populations of healthy individuals. Why?

Well, there are actually a lot of factors at play here in a chain of events that are all related and interconnected with one another.

Governments (Politicians)

Pharmaceutical Companies


Health officials (Including all Health establishments)



Work Places

Working from the highest to the lowest, at the top of the food chain, we have governments who profit the most from our illnesses. They gain money from the pharmaceutical companies by way of campaign donations (at least in the USA.) They gain money by way of taxes - ours, the pharmaceutical companies and those of their employees - and they gain money via health insurance policies or national health contributions.

Second in the chain, and just under governments, are the pharmaceutical companies who, as we all know, make enormous profits from our discomforts. The more we have wrong with us, the more products they can potentially sell us.

Underneath them, I’ve put Health officials including all health establishments, because they are next in the food chain. They are usually our first point of contact when we’re not feeling well. Naturally, we go to our doctor or we end up in hospital. However, as I mentioned in my last report, in a lot of countries doctors and health establishments get kick backs (commissions) from pharmaceutical companies for prescribing their drugs.

Underneath Health officials I’ve put Universities. It’s natural that, the more patients there are in the world, the greater the demand is for health officials. Education and training are of the essence. We also need to remember that universities are responsible for a great deal of research that takes place. Hence, universities stand to financially gain from illness as well.

A lot of university research is either government funded or funded by pharmaceutical companies, but since one is in bed with the other (so to speak) it’s hard to tell where the money is ultimately coming from.

However, there is a a reverse side to every coin. The reality is, there aren’t enough placements at universities to cater for everyone. So, in a twisted way, it’s actually convenient to have fewer candidates. This leads me into the next category on the chain: the workforce.

With a third (or whatever percentage it may be) of the population unable to work, present employees can continue to work for a longer number of years. The retirement age has already being extended; at least in some countries.

On another level, it also means the status quo of things doesn’t have to be altered. This is greatly beneficial for those who are in high power jobs or in Scale A jobs; higher up the Socio-political Economical chain. Potentially, they can’t be challenged or so they think. The key players are in place and will continue to be there until they have had sufficient time to train a whole new team to replace themselves accordingly.

You may be thinking that it costs governments more to have someone unemployed, but does it? Some countries pay sick benefits or unemployment benefits and other don’t. Whatever they do pay, if they pay, is recovered in many ways as explained above.

Since there are a lack of jobs around the world, at this present time, it seems very convenient to have a percentage of people unemployed through some form of illness; especially certain age groups. Furthermore, since the world economy has slowed down considerably over the last couple of years, it also seems very convenient to give it a boost through extra worldwide sales of pharmaceutics.

However, since the EU parliamentary commission did take the pharmaceutical companies to court over the H1N1 vaccine, we might assume here that not all countries were behind the swine flu vaccine scam.

However, there could be two underlying reasons why, at least Merck, are desperate to sell their vaccines. In 2009, it was announced - I quote -

Merck and the Wellcome Trust will initially put up equal cash contributions — a total of $130 million over the next seven years.

Other funding could come from grants for specific projects, donations from governments and charities, or investments and licensing fees from for-profit pharmaceutical or biotech companies, said Merck spokeswoman Amy Rose. - End quote -
These funds have to come from somewhere.

This leads me to a very interesting fact that I came across on the Internet; donation records from Merck’s CEO to the Republican Senatorial and Congressional campaigns between 2006 and 2008.

Merck, Pfizer Inc and Sanofi Aventis US, three major names in Pharmaceuticals, still Patron Mary Pallin and her Gala events, as well as various other Republican events. It’s funny to also note how Merck’s income from US federal contracts has sky-rocketed since their contributions to the republican campaigns. You can see for yourself by following the link provided in the resources and further reading section.

I think it would be safe to assume and draw the conclusion here that, on the basis of these facts, both the US Senate and Congress, therefore, fully condone pharmaceutical companies’ actions.

My friend (on Facebook) also wondered if there was some darker, deeper, sinister element at play; like trying to wipe out half the world’s population. I’m less likely inclined to believe that. It’s far more profitable to make people suffer, on a long term basis, than to have them (putting it bluntly) die in the short term. Although, this too may have some advantages.

Let’s explore this in a little more detail:

Most vaccine manufacturers use substances like: Polysorbate 80 (also known as Tween 80) - As I’ve already explained, and it’s a well documented fact, it’s an infertility substance. Governments know this. The FDA knows this. We can, therefore, assume that its use in vaccines could be threefold:

To control the population count. As we have all heard, the world is getting over-crowded. So, somebody somewhere has decided we need to slow our growth down a bit. Instead of enforcing a child number policy per family, (like China or Tibet), which, let’s face it, most countries wouldn’t accept, governments happily let us be injected with something that might help solve the problem quietly. That way, there’s no need for social reform, no new legislations, no referendums, no social unrest and well, what the public doesn’t know can’t hurt them.

To subsequently provide future fertility treatments to infertile couples who want to have a child. As I mentioned in an earlier article, at between 2,000 to 5,000 US dollars per treatment, the pharmaceutical companies stand to gain tremendous wealth. If we examine it a little closer, it’s also another way of controlling the population count. Since it is such an expensive treatment, and not always successful, many couples wouldn’t be able to afford it. So, eventually, just the act of having a child would become a luxury for those who are financially better off.

To ensure that some of the millions of orphans around the globe find parents willing to adopt them. That’s not such a bad thing, right? Except that, most major adoption agencies are government organisations (or affiliates thereof,) and if they’re not, you can rest assured governments around the world are trying to shut them down. So, from a cynical point of view, is this another way of redirecting more money into government funds? - Also, adoptions come with a high price tag. So, one has to question whether even adopting a child is, or will solely be, for the financially privileged. Are children really being thought of, or would this just be another form of legalised human commerce?

A lot of pharmaceutical companies are using substances like Mercury, Thimerosal, Aluminum and its derivatives. None of these have ever been proven safe for human

With the ever increasing number of people getting better health education and turning to alternative methods of Health Management, such as: Naturopathy, Homeopathy, Holistic Nutrition, Ayurveda, Chinese Medicine, Tibetan Medicine, Aromatherapy and an in-exhaustive list too great to mention here, it’s fair to say the pharmaceutical market suffered losses.

These same pharmaceutical companies have tried to ban natural supplements on a worldwide scale. They have tried to shut down, discredit and ban natural health remedies and all kinds of Natural Health Specialists. We should be asking the question; why?

If this doesn’t prove that it’s all about the money and the politics; nothing does. Don’t take my word for it. Check it out for yourself. I am not showing you anything that isn’t public intellectual property and readily available out there.

Resources and further reading:


No comments: