Big Pharma’s Target Market: Anything With a Heartbeat

Sunday, February 21, 2010
Posted in category Big Pharma, Health Tyranny

On the LewRockwell.com blog, David Kramer links to a story about Prozac and its use for ….. dogs.

The pharmaceutical companies, once upon a time, had a semi-honorable quest to cure diseases and improve the quality of life for the very ill. That all went away with the proliferation of the almighty state and the growth of profit-seeking special interests that wished to manipulate political channels to curry favors and serve their own profitability.The revolving doors between Big Government and Big Pharma were built upon a corrupt foundation. Along came the modern Patent State and a ginormous web of governmental health agencies whose purpose was to empower their compadres in the quasi-governmental pharmaceutical industry and make personal health a public-collective issue, with the rules being set by so-called established experts and “trusted” advisors in the medical-pharmaceutical community.

The powerful propaganda machine created by the government-Big Pharma alliance has the job of lying to the citizenry, and making them dependent on their products and services by creating and selling sickness. This grows the governmental public health sector and empowers the public-private sector alliance. The result is political power, profits, and job creation. This consortium of health tyrants re-define the parameters of sickness so that, eventually, we are all a high risk for some potentially disastrous health debacle, and thus we become lifelong patients.

Remember about thirty years ago, when Merck’s CEO Henry Gadsden told Fortune magazine that it was a shame that the company’s products could only be limited to “sick people.” As cited in the book Selling Sickness: How the World’s Biggest Pharmaceutical Companies Are Turning Us All Into Patients, by Ray Moynihan and Alan Cassels:

Suggesting he’d rather Merck to be more like chewing gum maker Wrigley’s, Gadsden said it had long been his dream to make drugs for healthy people. Because then, Merck would be able to “sell to everyone.”

Be Sociable, Share!
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

3 Responses to Big Pharma’s Target Market: Anything With a Heartbeat

  1. liberranter says:

    February 22nd, 2010 at 11:55 am

    And proof positive that your doctor (or their corporate HMO employers) is getting kickbacks from one or more of the Big Pharma bullies can be gauged by their reaction to your refusal to be treated with their poisons. I just told my new GP that under NO circumstances will I ever take statins for my congenital blood cholesterol problem and that if natural supplements such as RYR and diet modification don’t do the job, then it’s a problem I will simply live with. Almost immediately I was treated to a patronizing and nonsensical lecture about how “natural supplements have side effects worse than synthetic drugs” and that “natural supplements won’t treat a congenital cholesterol condition.” I would have probably ended the consultation right then and there and told him that he had seen the last of me were it not for the fact that every other GP in the medical mainstream will trot out some variation of his screed, so what would be the point in changing doctors on that basis alone?

    Remember, folks, you are under NO obligation whatsoever (at least not YET) to put anything into your body that you don’t want put into it. A doctor’s prescription is merely a professional recommendation, not a legal writ. Once more patients begin to understand this and come to comprehend the counter-productive and often life-threatening toxicity of most of Big Pharma’s product, that industry’s criminal recklessness will finally be put in check.

  2. Karen De Coster says:

    February 22nd, 2010 at 3:31 pm

    Great comment, liberranter.

  3. Bryant says:

    March 17th, 2010 at 12:07 am

    You suggest that government entwinement with the pharmaceutical industry drives drug sales to patients who may not need these drugs.

    But what about the many obvious ways in which government intervention *restricts* drug sales? Most notably, consider the effects of state licensure of prescribers and laws on prescribing rights. Such laws and restrictions greatly reduce drug sales. For example, if the state did not intervene in such ways, you would expect there to be far greater sales of the phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitors (e.g., Viagra). This would create a market somewhat comparable to Wrigley’s gum.

    If the pharmaceutical industry is so heavily entwined with the government, why haven’t we seen a loosening of these types of restrictions? Even some of the most basic drug classes–like ACE-inhibitors, which could easily be prescribed and monitored by a pharmacist instead of a physician, thereby expanding public access to such therapies–still require physician oversight to prescribe.

    Government intervention does a reasonable job of restricting drug sales only to those patients who need them. I would contend that it even goes too far.

Leave a Reply