MANEKA GANDHI ON US ROLE IN BIRD FLU HYSTERIA

[Guest guest]

*

http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_allen_l__060510_avian_bird_flu__2f_rea.h\

tm

*

**

*May 10, 2006*

 

*AVIAN BIRD FLU / REALITY OR SCAM ?*

[image: Tell A Friend]

<http://www.opednews.com/tellafriend.php?page=http://www.opednews.com/articles/g\

enera_allen_l__060510_avian_bird_flu__2f_rea.htm>

*Never trust the Cheney/Bush administration when it comes to pandemics or

terrorist threats.*

 

*by Allen L Roland <http://www.opednews.com/author/author8.html>*

<http://www.usalone.net/cgi-bin/oen.cgi?qnum=443>

 

http://www.opednews.com

 

" The Secretary of Defense, the man who allegedly supported the use of

contrived intelligence to justify the war on Iraq, is now poised to reap

huge gains for a flu panic his Administration has done everything it can to

promote: " Maneka Gandhi

 

I've learned some time ago to never trust anything that the Cheney/Bush

administration says ~ particularly if it involves a world wide pandemic or

terrorist scare.

 

It was with that in mind that I looked into the potential Avian Bird Flu

epidemic ~ and found some more than interesting connections with US

pharmaceutical giant Roche and yes, our own defense secretary, Donald

Rumsfeld.

 

Internationally renowned activist, Meneka Gandhi, pulls no punches and calls

the bird flu " the latest scam perpetrated by the American Government and

pharmaceutical companies. "

 

Excerpt: " The Secretary of Defense, the man who allegedly supported the use

of contrived intelligence to justify the war on Iraq, is now poised to reap

huge gains for a flu panic his Administration has done everything it can to

promote... This is not the first time that Rumsfeld has been involved in

pharmaceutical scams. It was after all Rumsfeld, as chairman of G.D. Searle,

who pressured the FDA to get Aspartame approved. The FDA blocked its

approval for ten years, stating it was toxic, before Rumsfeld twisted arms

at the FDA ... Bush and Rumsfeld, the people who led America into the Iraq

decimation based on those mythical " weapons of mass destruction " have found

another WMD as mythical - Avian flu. "

 

Allen L Roland

 

THE SCARE OF EPIDEMICS: What is the reality of the avian flu?

By Maneka Gandhi

 

Money makes not just the world go around but turns it topsy-turvy all the

time. America needed a war to keep its armament companies happy - especially

since the Vice president, Dick Cheney, himself had headed one of the largest

government contracting companies. So they invented the bogey of Iraq. They

destroyed Afghanistan before that, complaining that there were not enough "

targets " to shoot at from the air (so they bombed schools and hospitals).

 

But the most money in the world does not come from just armament sale. It

comes from creating scares of epidemics. Then the world's purses open up

readily.

 

Do you remember the scare created by the Americans just seven years ago when

they declared that all computers would stop on New Year as the new

millennium came and planes and trains would crash and stock markets would

fall and the world would come to an end. Who made money out of that?

 

Those computer companies that were brought in to " repair " this looming

disaster. Not a single computer stopped, nothing happened.

 

What about the SARS " pandemic " which eventually faded away. A high pitched

media campaign had convinced the world it was facing a great threat when in

reality SARS turned out to be a comparably minor disease .

 

Do you remember the Foot and Mouth scam in which lakhs of cows were killed

brutally in Britain and there was the smell of burning flesh throughout the

countryside. Foot and Mouth is not communicable to humans, it does not

affect the meat, it is easily curable.

 

But farmers who could not sell their cows for lack of orders and who wanted

to get out of the cow-selling business created this scare and picked up

thousands of pounds as compensation and insurance from the government for

killing their cows.

 

Bird Flu is like that. It is the latest scam perpetrated by the American

Government and pharmaceutical companies. Let us look at the facts.

 

Avian Flu is a virus strain that is found only in birds in badly kept

poultries. It affects some birds that are already ill fed, suffering from

lung and bone diseases and kept on a steady diet of hormones and antibiotics

and other bird carcases.

 

It does not spread to human beings and since the virus is already 8 years

old and has not mutated as yet, there is no reason to believe it ever will.

There are at least 15 different types of avian influenza that routinely

infect birds around the world. The current outbreak is caused by a strain

known as H5N1 and it has created a worldwide panic.

 

What is the reality of avian flu? This " global threat " that has led so many

countries to kill their chickens, turkeys and other birds for no reason (

One Hong Kong member of Parliament has asked for each citizen of Hong Kong

to be given a gun so that they can shoot any birds coming to Hong Kong)?

 

In 8 years, since the H5 N1 virus was supposedly detected in poultry birds,

53 people have died - 37 people in Vietnam, 12 in Thailand and four in

Cambodia. 7000 people die of lightning struck deaths every year. Have you

heard of a lightning epidemic? Are 54 deaths in 8 years an epidemic or even

worse a PANDEMIC ?

 

Where did the panic generated by the media originate from?

 

The United States of America. President Bush goes on television to say that

between 200,000 to 2 million people will die in America and he asks for

billions of dollars to be allocated for this pandemic.

 

On October 28 the American Senate passes an $8 billion emergency funding

bill to address Avian Flu. Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt,

during the debate on the Senate bill, told the press, 'If it isn't the

current H5N1 virus that leads to an influenza pandemic, at some point in our

nation's future, another virus will. " Number of people dead - Zero.

 

The UN catches on and declares that they will ask for 500 million dollars

from all the countries to stop this flu by sending a vaccine to all the

countries.

 

What is 3.1 billion dollars spent on immediately? To buy 80 million vials of

Tamiflu at $ 100 per dose - a drug that has no relationship to the virus.

According to the authors of the " Total Health program " which looks into

scams perpetrated in the name of medicine " Tamiflu, is a worthless drug that

in no way shape or form treats the avian flu, but only decreases the amount

of days one is sick "

 

Dig a little deeper and you will understand the reality of Avian flu.

 

Tamiflu (oseltamivir phosphate ) was developed and patented in 1996 by a

California biotech firm, Gilead Sciences Inc, a listed stock company in

California. Due to lacklustre sales for many years Gilead Sciences licensed

the marketing of oseltamivr to the Swiss-US pharmaceutical giant Roche

Holdings of Basle getting a royalty for each vial sold.

 

Roche holds the sole licence to manufacture the only medicine we are told

which 'possibly' might reduce symptoms of Avian Flu, .

 

Due to the media panic, the order books at Roche today are filled to

overflowing. Roche recently refused a request from the US Congress to lift

its exclusive patent rights to allow other drug manufacturers to produce

Tamiflu.

 

Gilead which gave the marketing rights to its patented discovery to Roche

makes as much money from its royalties.

 

According to the Gilead website, " Roche has worldwide commercial rights to

Tamiflu, and Gilead receives payments from Roche for the successful

completion of program milestones and royalties on product sales. "

 

In 1997, Donald H. Rumsfeld was named Chairman of the Board of Gilead

Sciences, where he remained until early 2001 when he became Defence

Secretary in Bush's Cabinet. Rumsfeld had been on the board of Gilead since

1988.

 

He is also a major, if not the largest, stockholder in Gilead Sciences Inc.

His 2004 financial disclosure indicates that he owned between 5 and 25

million dollars in equity in Gilead as of Dec 31, 2004; Since then , he has

sold some of his holdings.

 

Next year's disclosure will show the value range of any remaining holdings

Rumsfeld stands to make a fortune on royalties as governments scramble to

buy this company's drug.

 

The model suggests the parallel to the brazen corruption of Halliburton

Corporation whose former CEO is Vice President Dick Cheney. Cheney's company

has so far gotten billions worth of US construction contracts in Iraq and

elsewhere.

 

Who else stands to benefit ? Bush campaign-funders, Bilderberger spokesman

Etienne F. Davignon and Reagan-Bush former Secretary of State George P.

Shultz, both of whom are also on the board of directors of Gilead.

 

Another member of the Bush circle is Lodewijk J.R. de Vink, who sits on the

board of Hoffman-La Roche, Gilead's partner. In other words, " Bird Flu " will

generate outrageous profits for insiders like Shultz, Rumsfeld, Davignon,

and de Vink.

 

The Secretary of Defence, the man who allegedly supported the use of

contrived intelligence to justify the war on Iraq, is now poised to reap

huge gains for a flu panic his Administration has done everything it can to

promote.

 

It would be useful to know whether the Pentagon's successor to Douglas

Feith's Office of Special Plans developed the strategy of bio-warfare behind

the current Avian Flu panic. Perhaps some Congressional committee might look

into the entire subject of plausible conflicts of interest regarding

Secretary Rumsfeld.

 

This is not the first time that Rumsfeld has been involved in pharmaceutical

scams. It was after all Rumsfeld, as chairman of G.D. Searle, who pressured

the FDA to get Aspartame approved. The FDA blocked its approval for ten

years, stating it was toxic, before Rumsfeld twisted arms at the FDA.

 

Now that the Bush government has bought all these vials, how many people

have been vaccinated. None. According to President Bush's national strategy

he is protecting the American people by stockpiling vaccines in case there

is an outbreak!

 

What does the American Centre for Disease Control say?

 

" A specific vaccine for humans that is effective against avian influenza has

not yet been approved. Based upon LIMITED data, the Centers for Disease

Control have suggested that the anti-viral medication Oseltamavir (brand

name-Tamiflu) MAY be effective in treating avian influenza. "

 

What does Bush say on this replacement of the Osama bin Laden bogey?

 

" If left unchallenged, this virus could become the first pandemic of the

21st century. We must not allow that to happen. It is essential we work

together, and as we do so, we will fulfil a moral duty to protect our

citizens, and heal the sick, and comfort the afflicted. "

 

He announces the International Partnership on Avian and Pandemic Influenza

during the UN General Assembly in September 2005. and the first meeting of

the Partnership takes place October 6-7 in Washington, DC, hosted by the U.S.

Department of State attended by officials from 88 countries, the World

Health Organization, the Food and Agricultural Organization and the World

Organization for Animal Health.

 

The goals of the International Partnership conceived by Bush are to Elevate

the avian influenza issue on national agendas; Coordinate efforts among

donor and affected nations; Mobilize and leverage resources; Build local

capacity to identify, contain and respond to an influenza pandemic.

 

After Bush announces that he is going to give funds to any country that has

any signs of Avian flu($251 million to detect and contain outbreaks before

they spread around the world) and starts off by giving 25 million dollars

for prevent the spread of Avian Flu in " affected " South Asian countries and

$ 13 million for " technical assistance promising millions more, suddenly

each country that has a low GDP discovers strains of Avian Flu.

 

Not in poultry because then people will stop buying and eating chicken, but

in wild migratory birds!

 

Everyone wants a piece of the money. The Secretary-General of the World

Meteorological Organization (WMO), Mt Jerraud has suggested that his

organization be given more money to expand its studies to the correlation

between climate the spread of avian flu!

 

Where is the Avian flu?

 

Simple- 53 people have died of it. However they have not died of this virus

as it cannot spread to humans - which every scientist has admitted. So what

have they died of? Look at the poultries in these and any country.

 

The chickens are overcrowded, kept in filthy conditions and killed in the

most filthy manner possible. They regularly suffer from cholera and most all

of them get salmonella related bacterial diseases. The victims are poultry

workers - people who live amongst filth and disease and work in the killing

fields with their bare hands. How many people who work in the poultries in

any Asian country die of salmonella poisoning . Thousands - including in

India.

 

Look at the words used by the media:

 

" A bird flu virus may mutate to a human form that becomes as deadly as the

ones that killed millions during three influenza pandemics of the 20th

century. " Bird flu could become epidemic - 2/22/2005

 

" Hundreds of thousands of people may die and one quarter of the work force

could be absent if Britain were hit by a bird flu pandemic... " Bird flu

epidemic could kill as many as 750,000 - March 22

 

" The European Union's health commissioner called on Europe to protect itself

from a possible epidemic of bird flu. " EU warned to protect against bird flu

epidemic - May 27

 

" The virus that killed hundreds of thousands of birds and dozens of people

in recent years is about to mutate and cause a worldwide epidemic. " WHO

warns of worldwide deadly flu epidemic - June 12, 2005

 

" International experts fear that bird flu is mutating into a strain that

will cause a worldwide pandemic. " Fears that new strain of bird flu will

kill millions - 12 June 2005

 

" A flu pandemic would be triggered if the lethal H5N1 strain mutated into a

form that could jump from human to human. " China to shut borders if struck

by bird flu " - October 28

 

" If, could, may, fear that bird flu is mutating, about to mutate, may

mutate, could become epidemic " . Just " shock-n-awe " material to grab your

attention. Our neighbours have it, say the Indian papers, regularly.

 

Which neighbour? Duh... Which is the one paper that has taken this the most

seriously? The one newspaper that sells every inch of its space - including

the " news " . Most newspapers ignore this nonsense - occasionally putting it

in as a space filler.

 

Why does India which sells the largest amount of eggs in Asia and exports

the largest number of chickens all of which are kept in the same conditions

as anywhere in Asia not have it?

 

Because we don't have the money to import the vaccines. Once they are

locally made by Ranbaxy, no doubt we will suddenly develop Avian Flu as well

! It is to the credit of India that we have not fallen prey to this scamming

as yet.

 

Here is the actual truth.

 

On October 28th the Chinese Ministry of Health and Ministry of Agriculture

reiterated that China has experienced no human bird flu infection. The two

children that fell sick with on Oct. 17 with symptoms of fever and cough of

which one died (and this led to the killing of millions of birds) were later

diagnosed with bronchial pneumonia.

 

On January 24, 2005, newspapers in Vietnam reported that " three brothers in

northern Vietnam who MAY have contracted bird flu all drank raw duck blood

at a family feast " . Raw duck blood could give any disease - try it.

 

One human bird flu victim reported in Siberia. " We cannot say now if

something out of the ordinary has occurred. The reason behind the accident

could be bad water, feed poisoning, Newcastle disease or bird flu. More

investigation is needed, " ~ The Moscow News

 

Even WHO Director-General Dr. Jong Woo Lee, urging the world to prepare

itself for the outbreak, betrays himself " The burning question is, will

there be a human influenza pandemic. I believe, on behalf of WHO, that there

will be. And right now the only one condition missing is the virus that is

rapidly transmitted from human to human, " said Dr. Lee.

 

WHO warns of human flu pandemic. How many cases reported in Europe so far by

WHO? Not one. The only thing that is mutating is the propaganda line, and

the resulting fear factor

 

Let us presume that flu which has been in pandemic form for about several

hundred years (how many times a year do you get it ? does the rounds again.

Big deal.

 

Flu ( influenza ) is a viral infection that has a relatively short lifespan

and causes problems for its victim in the form of several minor effects

(chills, high fever, aches and pains, headaches, sore throat, mucosal

irritation). 35,000 people get flu daily. Some die anyway if they have other

complications.

 

The great Global Threat is closer to what Spain's Agriculture Minister

describes it as - " science fiction "

 

Scientists in America are increasing airing their opinions about this

" vaccine " . A prominent radio show, The Diane Rehm show, was entirely about

the " U.S. Strategy for Flu Pandemic. " [ http://www.wamu.org/programs/dr/ ]

 

Some excerpts " This whole 'bird flu' issue is a total fraud. These tests are

not for the virus but for the anti-bodies to the virus. This is a totally

different thing. If an animal or person has antibodies to a virus it means

that that animal or person has successively fought off the virus at some

earlier time. If they are healthy they will still show the antibodies in

future tests. That certainly does not mean they have the flu.

 

If avian flu becomes more than a threatened pandemic, it will have done so

by political and economic design.

 

This thesis is supported by current massive media misrepresentations,

profiteering on risky and valueless vaccines, gross neglect of data showing

earlier similar man-made plagues including SARS, West Nile Virus, AIDS and

more; continuance of genetic studies breeding more mutant flu viruses ,

inside trading scandals involving pandemic savvy White House and drug

industry officials, curious immunity of these pharmaceutical entities over

the past century to law enforcement and mainstream media scrutiny.

 

If Avian Flu is that serious and Tamiflu is the answer, why is Tamiflu only

been sold to governments and not to the public?

 

The answer lies here: About the time that President Bush was buying the

" vaccine " he also announced that the United States must approve liability

protection for the makers of lifesaving vaccines as American vaccine

manufacturers had been hit with a flood of lawsuits.

 

So government not only buys the drugs but they protect the manufacturers

when the drugs are found to be useless !

 

Is there any other clue that this scam is mainly designed for pharmaceutical

companies at taxpayer expense.

 

Bush and Rumsfeld, the people who led America into the Iraq decimation based

on those mythical " weapons of mass destruction " have found another WMD as

mythical - Avian flu.

 

Bush outraged Americans on both sides of the political spectrum when he

announced his intention to have the U.S. military take over American cities

hit by the avian flu! Bush has said no one knows when or where a deadly

strain of flu will strike but " at some point we are likely to face another

pandemic. "

 

Avian Flu has become the new " terrorism " in place of Osama bin Laden and as

usual bemused scientists and an easily led media will carry on with the game

till the next bogey.

 

Why have research scientists in the Western biogenetic field welcomed this

fiction of Avian Flu.

 

The Microular Virology at Cambridge University and the Roslin Institute in

Scotland are involved in developing 'transgenic chickens' which would have

small pieces of genetic material inserted into chicken eggs to allegedly

make the chickens H5N1 resistant.

 

This is what they say: " Once we have regulatory approval, we believe it will

only take between four and five years to breed enough chickens to replace

the entire world (chicken) population. We will have the patents on these

chickens and control their products. " It is increasingly clear that the

entire saga of Avian Flu is one whose dimensions are only slowly coming to

light.

By the time you discover this fraud, taxpayer billions will have gone.

 

Indictments being handed down to Scooter Libby, the Chief of Staff of the

Vice President of the United States for lies and cover-up of information

used deliberately to suppress the fact the Bush Administration had no

'smoking gun' to prove Saddam Hussein was building a nuclear arsenal.

 

This new scandal is as outrageously criminal.

 

Maneka Gandhi is a renowned activist who works on behalf of animals, poor

people and the environment .

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

*Dear AAPN members,*

* With reference to Ms Maneka Gandhi's

article, I wanted to post an investigative report on the pharmaceutical

industry in the US carried out by the Center For Public Integrity in

Washington, DC. Although the report is not directly connected to animal

issues, it is important since it is apparent that the aggression of the

pharmaceutical companies have a lot to do with the bird flu hysteria in Asia

as well as the sale of spurious medicines. The pharmaceutical companies are

also involved in funding repetitive and needless animal research in animal

laboratories. Indeed, Glaxo is now under pressure for funding animal

experimentation at the Huntingdon Life Sciences, one of the world's largest

animal experimentation centres in Britain. More information on the American

pharmaceutical companies is available on the website of the Center For

Public

Integrity(**http://www.publicintegrity.org/rx/*<http://www.publicintegrity.org/r\

x/>

*). As far as I reckon, the role of pharmaceutical companies in promoting

animal research in India remains contentious. I recently had occasion to

discuss this with several doctors at a national medical conference and was

informed that the role of pharmaceutical companies in promoting medicine

remains far from ideal, to put it very mildly.*

* Best wishes and kind regards,*

**

* Sincerely yours,*

* *

 

 

 

**

 

**

 

*http://www.publicintegrity.org/rx/report.aspx?aid=794*

 

*Industry Puts $44 Million into State Lobbying*

 

*Campaigns push back against moves to cut prices, spending on medication*

 

*By M. Asif Ismail <http://www.publicintegrity.org/about/staff.aspx#17>*

 

*WASHINGTON, April 6, 2006 — Fighting a flurry of legislative and public

policy initiatives aimed at reducing prices and slicing drug budgets, the

pharmaceutical industry spent more than $44 million on lobbying state

governments in 2003 and 2004, a Center for Public Integrity analysis of

lobbying records has found. *

 

*The industry also funneled more than $8 million to the campaigns of

candidates for various state offices over the same period, according to a

Center analysis of state campaign money. (See Deep Pockets Contribute to

Success <http://www.publicintegrity.org/rx/report.aspx?aid=795>) *

 

*At the time, many state governments were seeking to reduce spending on

prescription drugs, one of their fastest-growing expenses. States are among

the pharmaceutical industry's biggest customers; through Medicaid and other

aid programs they purchase about 16 percent of all prescription drugs sold

in the country, and also finance drug coverage for state employees, retirees

and prison inmates. *

 

* " The industry spent tremendous sums to defeat [legislative efforts in

states] because they have so much at stake, " said Bernie Horn, policy

director for the Center for Policy Alternatives, a Washington,

D.C.-basednonprofit that works with state legislators.

*

 

*According to a 2003 study by management consulting group A.T. Kearney, drug

industry revenues could drop by $2 billion to $4 billion by 2008 if states

were to take full advantage of their purchasing power to push for price

reduction. *

A top-dollar effort

 

*States that have expensive prescription drug programs were hotbeds of

industry lobbying activity. More than 40 percent of all of the reported

lobbying expenditures over the period were in California, Texas and New York;

together, those states' combined Medicaid drug spending accounts for almost

30 percent of the nationwide total. *

 

*The governments of states where the pharmaceutical industry's presence is

prominent, such as Massachusetts, New Jersey and Indiana, also were among

the most heavily lobbied. *

 

*The trade group Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America

(PhRMA<http://www.publicintegrity.org/rx/profile.aspx?orgid=892>)

led the lobbying efforts, alone spending more than $4.5 million. Four

pharmaceutical giants — Eli Lilly,

GlaxoSmithKline<http://www.publicintegrity.org/rx/profile.aspx?orgid=109>,

Pfizer <http://www.publicintegrity.org/rx/profile.aspx?orgid=155> and Johnson

& Johnson <http://www.publicintegrity.org/rx/profile.aspx?orgid=206> — each

spent at least $3 million. The combined $38 million spent by PhRMA and 14

large drug firms accounted for more than 80 percent of the nationwide total.

*

 

*Lobbying disclosure filings, PhRMA documents and the Center's interviews

with current and former state representatives revealed that most of the

lobbying efforts were directed at blocking the implementation of cost-saving

plans, which the group dubbed " attempts to impose price controls " in its

2003-2004 annual report. *

 

*According to legislative data compiled by the National Conference of State

Legislatures, 33 states have enacted at least 66 separate pieces of

legislation related to cutting drug costs since 2003. In addition, almost

every state has tried to implement one or more pharmacy cost-saving measures

since 2000. *

 

*It was in 2000 that Maine adopted Maine Rx — a program that requires

companies to provide rebates on medication to state residents who don't have

prescription drug coverage. In 2004, Illinois implemented I-SaveRx, which

allows consumers to buy three-month supplies of prescription drugs from

other countries; the program later was expanded to include Wisconsin, Kansas,

Vermont and Missouri residents. *

 

*Other cost-saving measures have included bulk purchasing of medication,

promoting the use of generic drugs and creating " preferred drug lists "

(PDLs) — inventories of drugs that are found to be the most cost-effective —

for programs such as Medicaid. *

 

*With the industry facing many such efforts, PhRMA designated 15 states as

" priorities " where the trade group would " advocate against any attempt to

impose price controls or other onerous restrictions on drugs that dilute the

incentives to discover and develop new medicines, " its annual report stated.

*

 

*PhRMA would not identify which states those were when asked and declined

the Center's request for an interview. However, lobbying spending records

show its primary targets were the states where most prescription-drug

dollars were at stake. *

 

*The most industry lobbying reported was in California, the state with the

largest prescription drug budget in the nation. Medi-Cal, the agency that

administers the state's Medicaid program, doles out about $4 billion a year

for prescription drugs. Drug interests reported spending $8.9 million

lobbying in the state in 2003 and 2004, 20 percent of their nationwide

total. *

 

*Pharmaceutical interests also spent $1 million or more in 10 other states

over the two-year period the Center analyzed, including $6.1 million in

Texas and $4.3 million in New York. The Medicaid programs of those 10 states

and California spent a combined $11 billion in 2003, about 40 percent of the

total spent by all states that year. *

 

*Drug firms also lobbied heavily on their home turf, disclosure filings

show. *

 

*In New Jersey, where nearly half of the major U.S.-based drug companies

have headquarters, companies disclosed spending $2.3 million. In

Massachusetts, home to a number of biomedicine firms and research

facilities, the industry spent nearly $3 million. In Indiana, more than $1.1

million was spent by drug interests — roughly half of it by

Indianapolis-based Eli Lilly. *

 

* " We are being backed up and squashed by the pharmaceutical industry money….

They have killed lots and lots and lots of legislation in Massachusetts and

across the country. " — Mark Montigny, Massachusetts state senator*

Legislative roadblocks

 

*State lawmakers told the Center that such targeted lobbying blitzes helped

the industry block or slow down legislative efforts. *

 

* " We are being backed up and squashed by the pharmaceutical industry money.

They have killed lots and lots and lots of legislation in Massachusetts and

across the country, " said Massachusetts state Sen. Mark Montigny, who last

year chaired the National Legislative Association on Prescription Drug

Prices. The group is a consortium of legislators from more than a dozen

states that campaigns for low-cost drugs. *

 

*Montigny said the drug industry has defeated at least 10 different

bulk-pricing and fair-pricing bills during his stints both on the

Massachusetts Senate's now-defunct health care committee and on the Ways and

Means Committee. *

 

*West Virginia** was another state where pharmaceutical interests lobbied

heavily to thwart cost-saving measures. Its Legislature passed the landmark

Pharmaceutical Availability and Affordability

Act<http://www.legis.state.wv.us/Bill_Text_HTML/2004_SESSIONS/RS/House/H_BILLS/h\

b4084%20enr.htm>in

March 2004 after a string of budget shortfalls threatened the state's

ability to deliver health care services to needy residents. *

 

*The law's provisions included creating a discount plan and a " state

prescription drug assistance clearinghouse program " to help low-income and

uninsured residents, and forming a " pharmaceutical cost management council "

to explore lower-cost drug options — among them importation from Canada. But

the state has been slow to implement the legislation in the face of heavy

industry opposition. *

 

*PhRMA's chief lobbyist in West Virginia is Phil Reale, who also represents

Wyeth <http://www.publicintegrity.org/rx/profile.aspx?orgid=434>. Reale, who

also serves as general chairman of the state party's Democratic Legislative

Council, declined to grant an interview about his work, saying that his

PhRMA contract does not allow him to speak with reporters. *

 

*In the opinion of Del. Don Perdue and other lawmakers, Reale has been quite

effective in his lobbyist role. " He has done a good job of obstructing what

we do, " said the Democrat, who chairs the House Health and Human Resources

Committee. *

 

*The frustration of Perdue and other West Virginia legislators was echoed by

their counterparts in many other states. *

 

* " They [the drug industry] kill everything when it comes to bottom line….

" We can't get anything done because of [lobbying by] Pfizer, Squibb and

Bayer. " — Edith Prague, Connecticut state senator*

 

* " They kill everything when it comes to [the] bottom line, " said

Connecticutstate Sen. Edith Prague, who has tried unsuccessfully to

pass legislation

legalizing foreign drug importation. " We can't get anything done because of

[lobbying by] Pfizer, Squibb and Bayer. " *

 

*PhRMA is hardly secretive about its lobbying successes. In its 2003-2004

annual report, the organization claimed that it defeated " legislative

proposals that would have restricted Medicaid patients' access to medicines

by creating preferred drug lists and imposing supplemental rebates " in at

least seven states — New York, New Jersey, Maryland, North Carolina, South

Carolina, Kansas and Washington. *

Profitable victory on Medicare

 

*The industry's statehouse successes were not the only hurdles for

lawmakers; its federal lobbying campaigns also routinely have impacted their

efforts. *

 

*Securing approval of the Medicare Prescription Drug Improvement and

Modernization Act of 2003, legislation termed " historic " and " breakthrough "

by PhRMA, is considered to be among the pharmaceutical industry's most

substantial victories. The law yielded the first prescription drug coverage

under Medicare — a benefit that according for 2006 through 2015 is likely to

cost the government more than $1 trillion according to March 2006

Congressional Budget Office estimates. The legislation was passed after a

sustained lobbying campaign in the states and in Washington, D.C. *

 

*One of the law's controversial aspects is a provision that bars the federal

government from negotiating price discounts with drug companies. An October

2003 study by two Boston University researchers found that 61 percent of

Medicare money spent on prescription drugs becomes profit for pharmaceutical

companies. *

 

*Lawmakers contacted by the Center said state governments had very little

input in drafting the Medicare Modernization Act. As a result, its passage

left states scrambling to be able to comply with the federal legislation

that was to go into effect Jan. 1, 2006, to ensure a smooth transition.

According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, 14 states passed

Medicare-related laws in 2004; another 31 enacted legislation last year. *

 

*Yet, when the drug coverage began in January, the process was anything but

smooth. Within the first month at least half the

states<http://www.kvue.com/news/local/stories/012506ccklrkvuemedicare.3c16f425.h\

tml>were

forced to bypass the new system, pay the bills themselves and seek

federal reimbursement. *

Low disclosure standards

 

*The Center for Public Integrity has used a stringent methodology for

calculating lobby spending totals, excluding expenditures by all firms that

are not primarily drug manufacturers, by wholesale pharmacy dealers and by

pharmacy benefit managers. For this reason, as well as because of minimal

lobby reporting required by some states, the actual totals might be larger.

*

 

*The quality of lobbying disclosure rules

varies<http://www.publicintegrity.org/hiredguns/nationwide.aspx>by

state. Several states have very loose reporting standards: 21 do not

require lobbyists or their employers to report compensation or fees paid to

lobbyists, and 14 do not include executive branch lobbying in their spending

totals. *

 

*Minimal disclosure requirements make it difficult to paint an accurate

picture of the lobbying activities in many states.*

 

*Alabama** requires lobbyists to report spending only if more than $250 was

spent in a 24-hour period, and doesn't require salaries or compensation to

be reported. As a result, the pharmaceutical industry didn't report spending

any money on lobbying there in 2003 and 2004. *

 

*In neighboring Tennessee, lobbyists or employers had not been required to

disclose lobbying activities beyond their campaign donations, but stricter

rules will take effect later this year that require more disclosure —

including reporting of expenditures for meals and gifts, as well as

compensation for lobbying. Such minimal disclosure requirements make it

difficult to paint an accurate picture of the lobbying activities in many

states. *

 

*In West Virginia, passage of a landmark prescription drug law in 2004

triggered a heavy industry lobbying campaign. But because the state requires

limited lobbying disclosure, the industry reported spending little more than

$7,000 on lobbying in 2003 and 2004. *

 

*That amount hardly reflected the reality, state legislators say. *

 

* " It's far, far more than that amount, " state Sen. Dan Foster, a physician

and one of the legislators behind West Virginia's 2004 law. " It's clearly

the tip of the iceberg. Clearly a lot of what they spent is not being

reported. " *

 

*Similarly, the industry reported spending only a combined $17,000 in

Ohiofor 2003 and 2004, and $26,000 in

Illinois, according to the disclosure documents reviewed by the Center.

However, Illinois implemented a drug importation program in 2004 that drug

companies strongly opposed; that year the industry also campaigned

successfully against an Ohio ballot initiative, which PhRMA had said was one

of its major focuses. *

Grassroots efforts a key strategy

 

*Grassroots lobbying efforts, a key part of the industry's strategy, are

also not reported at all in state lobbying disclosures.*

 

*PhRMA spent a total $4.5 million on lobbying in states in 2003 and 2004,

according to disclosure documents submitted by its lobbyists. But citing

PhRMA's internal documents, The New York Times reported in June 2003 that

the trade group had planned to allocate almost $49 million for lobbying

efforts in states for that year alone. It is not clear, however, how much

was actually spent. *

 

*Grassroots lobbying efforts, a key part of the industry's strategy, are

also not reported in state lobbying disclosures. In its 2003 annual report,

PhRMA claimed to have: *

 

- *organized " more than 800 state and local allies and more than 40

national organizations to support the industry's federal legislative agenda "

*

- *formed " more than 20 state-based patient coalitions " *

- *organized " support for state legislation to enhance patient

protections in the Medicaid program " *

- *held " more than 60 events with lawmakers to promote access to

quality health care and generate media coverage of the topic. " *

 

Statehouse 'revolving doors'

 

*The disclosure forms filed by lobbyists also offer a glimpse into the

pharmaceutical industry's strategy in the states — one that mirrors its

federal lobbying in many ways. *

 

*As the Center reported in its July 2005 report " Drug Lobby Second to

None<http://www.publicintegrity.org/rx/report.aspx?aid=723>, "

a third of the federal lobbyists hired by the pharmaceutical and health

product industries from 1997 through 2004 were former federal officials. The

drug industry has used the same " revolving door " strategy at the state

level, hiring numerous former government officials — including dozens of

former lawmakers — to lobby on its behalf. *

 

*In September 2004, Massachusetts state Rep. Thomas Finneran was serving as

House speaker when he resigned to take the job of president of the

Massachusetts Biotechnology Council, a trade group that represents the

state's biomedical companies. State law kept him from registering as a

lobbyist for a year. *

 

*Before joining the organization, Finneran had been one of the industry's

biggest legislative allies. During his multiple terms as speaker, the

conservative Democrat had helped to torpedo several drug cost-saving bills.

*

 

* " Every piece of fair-pricing [legislation passed by the Senate] was killed

by the House leadership under Tom Finneran, " said Montigny, the

Massachusetts state senator. *

 

*In 2002, the trade group the Biotechnology Industry

Organization<http://www.publicintegrity.org/rx/profile.aspx?orgid=3478>even

honored Finneran as its " State

Legislator of the

Year<http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104 & STORY=/www/story/04-0\

4-2002/0001699793 & EDATE=>, "

recognizing him for his help in defeating " harmful pharmaceutical price

control measures. " *

 

*In Georgia, meanwhile, the drug industry worked both sides of the state

Senate aisle, tapping former Majority Leader Pete Robinson (1992 through

1993; president pro tem, 1994) and former Minority Leader Arthur " Skin " Edge

IV (1992 to 1996) to become lobbyists. Robinson, a Democrat, is registered

to lobby for Merck<http://www.publicintegrity.org/rx/profile.aspx?orgid=227>.

Edge, a Republican, represents PhRMA. *

 

* " Conflict of interest is in the eyes of the beholder. " — Stephen Mulloney,

Massachusetts Biotechnology Council policy director*

 

*Former legislators who went on to work for the industry rejected the

charges that their new jobs posed a conflict of interest. *

 

* " There's no law prohibiting the former speaker from taking a position in

the private sector, " Stephen Mulloney, a spokesman for Finneran and director

of policy for Massachusetts Biotechnology Council, told the Center. *

 

* " Conflict of interest is in the eyes of the beholder, " Mulloney said,

noting that he himself has been a lobbyist for several years since having

worked as a legislative staffer in the state capital. " It's part of the way

we do business in the United States. " *

Lobbying largesse

 

*Another practice common in Washington, D.C., that the industry is employing

in the states is the use of expensive meals and gifts to help woo

legislators. *

 

*In analyzing disclosure statements from the handful of states that require

lobbyists to submit itemized expenditures — a group that includes

California, Maryland and Illinois — the Center found that dozens of

lawmakers, their aides and other top government employees were treated to

lunch and dinner at posh restaurants, flown to resorts and given tickets to

sporting events, as well as invited to receptions, and to golf and bowling

outings. *

 

*For example, a PhRMA lobbyist reported flying then-Del. John A. Hurson of

Maryland, who until October 2005 was chairman of the House Health and

Government Operations Committee, to Harbor Beach Marriott Resort in Ft.

Lauderdale, Fla., to participate " in a panel or speaking engagement. " Hurson

could not be reached for comment. *

 

*In California, where 20 percent of all reported lobbying nationwide

occurred in 2003 and 2004, drug interests seemed to be competing with each

other in showering lawmakers with gifts. Disclosure documents show a wide

array of perks for Golden State officials: *

 

- *Pfizer

reported<http://cal-access.ss.ca.gov/Lobbying/Employers/Detail.aspx?id=1147181 & s\

ession=2003 & view=activity>hosting

meals and receptions for no fewer than

50<http://cal-access.ss.ca.gov/Lobbying/Employers/Detail.aspx?id=1147181 & session\

=2003 & view=activity>California

lawmakers, aides and other state officials.

*

- *Pfizer reported that it took Republican Caucus Chairman Russ Bogh

(the Assembly's second-highest ranking Republican) and his wife; GOP

colleague Assemblywoman Sharon Runner, her daughter and her husband,

then-candidate for state Senate George Runner; and two aides to a New York

Yankees baseball game during the lawmakers' trip to New York City as

delegates to the 2004 Republican National Convention. Just days before the

outing, Runner called a news

conference<http://republican.assembly.ca.gov/members/index.asp?Dist=36 & Lang=1 & Bo\

dy=PressReleases & RefID=2242>to

denounce drug importation. " Importing drugs not subject to our

countries

regulations is a dangerous practice, " she said echoing the drug industry's

campaign on the subject. *

- *Pfizer also reported buying Sacramento Kings playoff game tickets

for Assemblywoman Rebecca

Cohn<http://cal-access.ss.ca.gov/PDFGen/pdfgen.prg?filingid=1031233 & amendid=0>,

her chief of staff, and the aide of another lawmaker. At the time Cohn

chaired the Health Committee; the Democrat now serves as assistant majority

leader. *

- *Eli Lilly paid $1,050 in entry fees and other expenses for four

state officials to play in a golf tournament in Lahaina, Hawaii. *

- *AstraZeneca, which reported spending $465,000 on lobbying in the

state, paid for the food and beverage expenses of

dozens<http://cal-access.ss.ca.gov/Lobbying/Employers/Detail.aspx?id=1146941 & ses\

sion=2003 & view=activity>of

state officials, including meals for Medi-Cal officials and for

several

groups of prison physicians and social workers. The total includes hosting a

May 2004 lunch at a Phoenix, Ariz., restaurant for state Sen. Deborah

Ortiz. She had been named one of three " Legislators of the Year " in March

2003 by the Biotechnology Industry Organization trade group and received

more than $26,000 from the industry in campaign donations from 2001 through

2004. *

- *Amgen reported hosting a dinner for top Medi-Cal officials,

including heads of its pharmacy policy and contracting units. *

 

* " Anytime any industry is treating legislators whose actions are impacting

that industry's operations, it raises eyebrows. " — Theis Finlev, Common

Cause California policy advocate*

Drawing more scrutiny

 

*At the federal level, lobbyists' gifts have received increased scrutiny

since the Jack Abramoff scandal, with both Democratic and Republican

lawmakers pushing for stricter regulation of lobbyists. But some states are

already ahead of the curve. Some, such as Florida, have enacted more

aggressive ethics laws that ban gifts from and travel sponsored by

lobbyists. *

 

*But state lawmakers contacted by the Center denied that such perks had any

influence on their decisions. *

 

* " In my mind, there's no connection between the gift [Runner] received and

her position [on pharmaceutical issues], " David Lynch, a spokesman for the

lawmaker told the Center. " Any gift that she received, that was equally

distributed; it is safe to assume that others also received similar gifts. "

*

 

*Companies also maintain that such gifts were not meant to curry favor. But

Theis Finlev, a policy advocate for the watchdog group Common Cause

California, said that the offer of perks raises serious concerns no matter

how lobbyists and legislators rationalize it. *

 

* " Anytime any industry is treating legislators whose actions are impacting

that industry's operations, it raises eyebrows, " Finlev said. *

 

*Victoria Kreha contributed to this story.** *

 

*This project was supported by funds from the Nathan Cummings Foundation,

the Joyce Foundation and the Ford Foundation.*

 

* *

 

*

http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D8HGU7I00.htm?campaign_id=apn_home_\

up & chan=db

*

By JANE WARDELL

AP Business Writer

 

*Glaxo gets injunction vs. animal activists*

 

*

MAY. 10 8:59 A.M. ET GlaxoSmithKline PLC said Wednesday it has been granted

a High Court injunction against animal rights activists who sent threats to

the drugmaker's shareholders, barring them from sending more letters or

revealing private information about the investors. *

 

*The company revealed Tuesday that at least 50 of its small shareholders had

received letters demanding that they sell their shares in Glaxo within 14

days or have their personal details published on the Internet. *

 

*Police are investigating the letters, which are believed to have been sent

by an animal rights group that targets Huntingdon Life Sciences, a medical

research company used by Glaxo that tests drugs and household products on

animals.

 

Glaxo said it was " greatly concerned " that its shareholders had been

targeted, but said it would continue to work with Huntingdon " as long as

they continue to meet their current high standards of animal welfare. " *

 

* " For ethical, regulatory and scientific reasons, research using animals

remains a small but vital part of the research and development of new

medicines and vaccines, " it said in a statement. *

 

*It was supported by pro-research group Pro-Test, which bought Glaxo shares

as a " gesture of solidarity. " *

 

*Glaxo said it respected the " legitimate animal welfare concerns " but

" deplores the long-term campaign of violence, intimidation and harassment

run against people associated with HLS. " *

 

*The injunction means that anybody who further harasses Glaxo shareholders,

or publishes their details on a Web site, would face prosecution for

contempt of court -- an imprisonable offense. *

 

*Protesters against Huntingdon have often used campaigns targeted directly

at individual workers or company shareholders. *

 

*Previous campaigns were credited with forcing Huntingdon to delist from the

London Stock Exchange and postpone the New York Stock Exchange listing last

year of its parent company, Life Sciences Research Inc. *

 

*In March, a U.S. federal jury convicted Philadelphia-based Stop Huntingdon

Animal Cruelty and six of its members of using their Web site to incite acts

of intimidation against employees of both Huntingdon and companies that do

business with Huntingdon. The defendants were convicted of animal enterprise

terrorism, stalking and other offenses. *

 

*Glaxo encouraged all shareholders who have received letters to report them

to the local police. It added that stockholders wanting to protect their

privacy could transfer their shares, free of charge, into a corporate

nominee account. *

 

*Shares in Glaxo dipped 0.6 percent to 1,547 pence ($28.82) on the

LondonStock Exchange.

*

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.publicintegrity.org/about/about.aspx

About Us

 

 

 

The Center for Public Integrity is a nonprofit organization dedicated to

producing original, responsible investigative journalism on issues of public

concern. The Center is non-partisan and non-advocacy. We are committed to

transparent and comprehensive reporting both in the United States and around

the world.

 

The Center is headed by Executive Director Roberta Baskin, an award winning

reporter, who has been honored more than 75 times – including two

duPont-Columbia University Awards and two George Foster Peabody Awards –

during her long journalism career. The Center was founded in 1989 by Charles

Lewis following a successful 11-year career in network television news.

 

Since 1990, the Center for Public Integrity has released more than 275

investigative reports and 14 books. In just the last eight years the

organization has been honored more than 31 times by, among others, PEN USA,

Investigative Reporters and Editors (IRE) and the Society of Professional

Journalists (SPJ). The Center's " Windfalls of

War<http://www.publicintegrity.org/wow> "

report on U.S. government contracts in Iraq and Afghanistan won the highly

prestigious George Polk award (online category) in 2004.

 

The Center's publication, *The Buying of the President 2004*, built on the

success of its 1996 and 2000 predecessors and again focused on the

relationships between major presidential candidates and their " career

patrons. " The book appeared on *The New York Times* bestseller list several

times since its January, 2004 publication. In the summer of 2004, the Center

published *The Corruption Notebooks*, a hard-hitting collection of essays by

leading investigative journalists around the world on the status of

corruption in 25 countries.

 

The Center extends its dedication to public policy journalism around the

world. Created in 1997, the International Consortium of Investigative

Journalist network includes 92 leading investigative reporters and editors

in 48 countries. The group has collaborated on numerous online and printed

reports on corporate crime, arms trafficking, terrorism, U.S. military

policy and human rights issues. Global Access, another international

project, was launched in 2001 to systematically track and report on

openness, accountability and the rule of law in various countries.

 

The Center for Public Integrity remains independent by building a strong and

sustainable financial base of support, including a community of committed

individuals and foundations.

 

The Center is located at 910 17th Street, NW, Suite 700, Washington, DC

20006. The telephone number is (202) 466-1300.