Side Effects: Death – Confessions of a Pharma Insider

Side Effects: Death is the true story of corruption, bribery and fraud written by Dr. John Virapen, who has been called THE Big Pharma Insider. During his 35 years in the pharmaceutical industry internationally (most notably as general manager of Eli Lilly and Company in Sweden), Virapen was responsible for the marketing of several drugs, all of them with side effects.

Pharmaceutical companies want to keep people sick.
They want to make them think that they are sick.
They increasingly target our children and they are killing them!
And they do this for one reason: Money!

Why do I know this? – I was a culprit myself.

During my 35 years in the pharmaceutical industry internationally, most notably as general manager of Eli Lilly and Company in Sweden, I was responsible for the market of several drugs, all of them with side effects.

My book Side Effects: Death is the true story of corruption, bribery and fraud.

I bribed a Swedish professor to enhance the registration of Prozac in Sweden ~ John Virapen

Pharmaceutical companies want to keep people sick. They want to make others think that they are sick. And they do this for one reason: money.

Did you know:
• Pharmaceutical companies invest more than 35,000 Euro (over $50,000) per physician each year to get them to prescribe their products?
• More than 75 percent of leading scientists in the field of medicine are “paid for” by the pharmaceutical industry?
• Corruption prevailed in the approval and marketing of drugs in some cases?
• Illnesses are made up by the pharmaceutical industry and specifically marketed to enhance sales and market shares for the companies in question?
• Pharmaceutical companies increasingly target children?

Listen to my true story…

For more information, click this link.

http://www.virtualbookworm.com/mm5/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Product_Code=Side_Effects_Death

Advertisements

Doctors and Drug Companies

David Blumenthal, M.D., M.P.P. wrote: When a great profession and the forces of capitalism interact, drama is likely to result. This has certainly been the case where the profession of medicine and the pharmaceutical industry are concerned.

In response to Blumenthal’s article, Laura A. Lambert, M.D. of the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, wrote:

  • Blumenthal’s article (Oct. 28 issue) about the complex and controversial relationships between doctors and drug companies should provoke soul-searching on the part of all physicians who rationalize accepting gifts from the pharmaceutical industry.
  • The author invokes the social-science literature to illustrate how even the smallest gifts can be influential.
  • Despite the confidence expressed by many physicians that they are not influenced by the marketing efforts of pharmaceutical companies, an obvious indictment of their vulnerability is the annual $12 billion to $15 billion pharmaceutical marketing budget.
  • Doctors and drug companies justify these relationships by insisting that they benefit patients by means of physician education.
  • Blumenthal himself rationalizes that physician education by the pharmaceutical industry may lead to increased dispensing of drugs that are currently under-prescribed, thereby correcting “major adverse consequences for public health.
  • If the honest objective of these relationships is to benefit patients, then why are gifts from pharmaceutical companies necessary for physicians to do the right thing?

 

 

 

Doctors and Drug Companies: Still Cozy after All These Years

In an article: Doctors and Drug Companies: Still Cozy after All These Years, David Henry of the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, and the School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, New South Wales, Australia, said:

The relationships between doctors and drug companies are controversial and have long been scrutinized by researchers, ethicists, professional bodies, and legislators.

In response to widely voiced concerns, drug companies are trying to reduce some of their more egregious activities, such as provision of lavish gifts and entertainment, and overly generous travel support, open-ended activities such as “unrestricted” research grants, “educational” grants, membership in speakers’ bureaus and advisory panels, consultancies, and stock-holding.

There is evidence that these types of ties are common among specialist physicians. Such activities have long been the focus of those who have questioned the relationships between doctors and drug companies.

Underlying all of these concerns is a belief that close ties between doctors and pharmaceutical companies have been shown to create the following negative effects:

1) they lead to inappropriate prescribing that can harm patients;

2) they create divided loyalties for doctors between the health system, their patients, and manufacturing companies, which is a conflict of commitment as well as a conflict of interest;

3) they lead to use of unnecessary and expensive medications with consequent costs falling on health care systems and patients;

4) they may lead to medicalisation of human variation, i.e., “disease-mongering”; and

5) they diminish the professional standing of doctors in the eyes of the public and governments, which leads to a reduced ability to advocate for the health of patients, for the public, and on behalf of the profession.