(NaturalNews) You’ve heard it before, how the pharmaceutical industry has a giant “revolving door” through which corporations and government agencies frequently exchange key employees. That reality was driven home in a huge way today when news broke that Dr. Julie Gerberding, who headed the CDC from 2002 through 2009, landed a top job with Merck, one of the largest drug companies in the world. Her job there? She’s the new president of the vaccine division.

How convenient. That means the former head of the CDC was very likely cultivating a relationship with Merck all these years, and now comes the big payoff: Heading up a $5 billion division that sells cervical cancer vaccines (like Gardasil), chickenpox vaccines and of course H1N1 swine flu vaccines, too.

So what’s the problem with all this? The problem is that private industry and government health offices such as the CDC or FDA should never be so cozy. When they are, it creates an environment of collusion between Big Government and Big Pharma. We’ve already seen this with the government-led push for swine flu vaccines that are manufactured (and sold) by drug companies like Merck.

You might even say that the CDC already functions as the marketing division of the pharmaceutical industry. It was the CDC that pushed so hard for swine flu vaccines, even amid the obvious realization that swine flu was no more dangerous than seasonal flu. To this day, the CDC still hasn’t bothered to recommend vitamin D for the prevention of either seasonal flu or swine flu. It remains heavily invested in the lucrative vaccine approach — an approach that just happens to financially benefit the very corporations that are hiring ex-CDC employees like Dr. Gerberding.

How to triple your salary by selling out to industry

Getting a job offer from Big Pharma, by the way, is one of the most-desired career paths for many CDC employees (and FDA workers, for that matter). It’s easy to accomplish it, too: Just operate in your government position as if you were a Big Pharma lackey. If you produce enough good business for the drug industry, sooner or later they’ll offer you a lucrative position that doubles or triples your government salary (or even better).

Now, I don’t want to lump all CDC employees in this same pathetic group, because there are indeed a great many bright, honest scientists working at the CDC who do excellent work tracking pandemics and trying to save lives. They are overshadowed, however, by those ambitious profit seekers who see their CDC job as merely a stepping stone for a far better-paying job at a major drug companies. And by any measure, Dr. Gerberding just cashed in big.

Her actual salary at Merck hasn’t been publicly released yet, but given that she’s heading up a $5 billion vaccine industry, it’s probably not chump change. I’d bet she’s now making at least ten times the salary of the President of the United States (and probably a lot more).

So now, Dr. Gerberding’s new job involves the incessant promotion of yet more vaccines — a job not very different from the one she held at the CDC, come to think of it. More vaccines for more diseases afflicting more people… it’s just another day at Merck, where the world is never so healthy that it doesn’t need one more mandatory vaccine.

As a special bonus to Merck in all this, Dr. Gerberding has a wealth of contacts not merely throughout the CDC, but also at the World Health Organization. When you’re the former head of the CDC, the top public health officials of the world are literally just one call away. But starting today, that call is a commercial, corporate-sponsored call, not a public health call. There’s a huge difference.

Does Dr. Gerberding suffer from an “ethics deficiency?”

My question in all this is whether Dr. Gerberding has any real ethics when it comes to issues like vaccines and public health. If she does have such ethics, why would she accept a job with a company that has been engaged in outright scientific fraud? (http://www.naturalnews.com/027582_M…)

Why would she go to work for a company that maintained a “hit list” of doctors to attack and “neutralize?” This is true — it came out in recent court documents (http://www.naturalnews.com/027116_M…).

Why would she take a job with a company that has a pattern of threatening doctors who speak out against its drugs? (http://www.naturalnews.com/026420_M…)

Why would she be okay with the idea of working for a company that commits scientific fraud by hiding documents showing its drugs to be dangerous? (http://www.naturalnews.com/024072_Z…)

Why would she feel okay about working for a company that dumps chemicals and vaccine waste products into the public water system? (http://www.naturalnews.com/023124_w…)

Why would she want to collect a paycheck from a company that has been caught hiring ghost writers to pen “independent” science papers submitted to science journals, when they were actually crafted by Merck? (http://www.naturalnews.com/023052_M…)

Why would she feel comfortable representing a company that committed blatant scientific fraud with its Vytorin cholesterol drug study? (http://www.naturalnews.com/022485_s…)

Maybe Dr. Gerberding is fine with all this. Maybe she has really “flexible” ethics. Or maybe she suffers from an “ethics deficiency” — an epidemic disease for which Merck apparently has no vaccine at all.

In any case, she’s now allied herself with a company engaged in so many repeated acts of fraud that in my opinion all its executives should be arrested and prosecuted for crimes against humanity. Those executives will now include Dr. Gerberding, it seems.

Did the CDC cover Merck’s back?

You might say, though, that she hasn’t done anything yet for Merck. But check this out: As a previous NaturalNews story explains, when a fourteen-year-old girl named Jessica died following a cervical cancer vaccine injection (made by Merck), the CDC covered for Merck and pointed the finger at the girl’s birth control pills.

Care to guess who was heading the CDC at the time of this maneuver? Dr. Julie Gerberding, now a top Merck executive.

You pat my back and I’ll pat yours.

For years, under the lead of Dr. Gerberding, the CDC has maintained a rather bizarre position that Merck’s vaccines are so safe that all side effects should be dismissed outright. This is explained in a Dallas Morning News article (http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcon…), among other places.

The CDC, in other words, has been running defense for Merck for many years, downplaying vaccine side effects and insisting that Merck’s vaccines are safe. Now that the president of Merck’s vaccine division and the former chief of the CDC are one and the same, it brings up obvious questions of whether there was some level of ongoing collusion between the CDC and Merck and how deeply Dr. Gerberding might have been involved.

Some of the word games played by Dr. Gerberding demonstrate amazing Clintonian-like speech patterns designed to deflect blame from Merck’s vaccines. Listen to this exchange where Dr. Gerberding indirectly admits that vaccines can cause autism (or as she says, “Autism-like symptoms,” which is exactly the same thing, as the symptoms define the disease in the first place). Watch it yourself in this segment on YouTube — this is a must see video segment on the link between vaccines and autism:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dh-n…

Who else is on the Merck team at the CDC?

That the CDC’s chief would be offered one of the very top jobs at Merck now makes me wonder just how deep the culture of collusion between Merck and the CDC really goes. How many other CDC employees are in line for future job offers from Merck — and what might they do in order to win those jobs?

There’s a solution to all this, of course: Pass a law that bans employees of the CDC, FDA, FTC, EPA or USDA from ever working for pharmaceutical companies. The people who run the regulatory agencies and public health offices should never be allowed to leap into employment at the very same companies they were once regulating. There’s just too much risk of cross-contamination of influence, which is why we have the corruption and collusion problems we’re seeing today with the FDA, FTC and CDC, all of which seem to be operating as marketing extensions of the pharmaceutical industry.

As long as the revolving door remains wide open between Big Pharma and Big Government, there will be a strong tendency towards corporate collusion that betrays the people whom government is supposed to serve. Instead of our government serving the People, in other words, it increasingly exists to serve the interests of Big Business. And big business doesn’t get much bigger than Big Pharma.

After all, inventing fictitious disease, creating pandemic panics, then selling questionable patented drugs to gullible consumers is a lucrative business model. And now the official job of the former head of the CDC is to make sure it all stays that way. So roll up your sleeves, folks: There’s a vaccine with your name on it, and Dr. Gerberding is here to make sure Merck sticks it to ya.

Sources for this story include:
http://www.naturalnews.com/023792_H…

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcon…

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUS…

(Here is my final term paper for a legal studies course in ethics and morality – yes, it’s long, I know.  I figured I’d let you have it, though.  Comment if you have questions about the sources/original arguments.  The paper assumes some familiarity with the concepts.  Enjoy)

Onchocerciasis – more commonly known as river blindness – affected over 18 million people in South America, Africa, and the Middle East in the 1980s (World Health Organization).  The disease is spread by the bite of the black fly, an insect that tends to gather along riverbanks in the developing world.  The flies host a microscopic worm in their bodies, which they pass onto humans through their bite.  These worms mature and grow inside the human body before making their way through the host body until they reach the skin, where they will be ingested once again by black flies (WHO).

As these worms grow inside the body, the people they are infecting begin to experience excruciating itching and cannot help tearing at the unseen infection.  Eventually, their skin will lose its pigmentation, covering their bodies with spots and blemishes.  Soon after this occurs, the worms will begin to grow again, triggering a reaction from the immune system.  But the body cannot differentiate these “microfilaria” from much of the rest of its internal tissue, and so the immune system overreacts and begins defending the body from itself.  The focus of these attacks tends to be on the area in and around their eyes.  Evidently, the tissue located here is most easily confused for the microfilaria, and the immune system destroys it.  This leads to irreparable blindness (WHO).

Thankfully, river blindness is preventable and curable – as long as the treatment is received prior to the onset of blindness, all the ill effects can be erased (WHO).  But there was a problem: how could those being affected pay for the drugs needed to combat the disease?

The treatment was expensive to manufacture, and there wasn’t a pharmaceutical company willing to incur the profit loss that would come from producing it; no feasible market equals production costs but no offsetting sales.  And so, river blindness would continue to run rampant.

This all changed in 1987, when Merck & Company – one of the largest pharmaceutical companies in the world – announced that it would begin producing the necessary drugs to cure the disease and it would distribute them for free at the request of any country (Merck). By the early 2000s, over 200 million people at risk for the disease had either been spared or cured and projections now target 2020 for the complete eradication of the disease (WHO).

The actions of Merck & Company – actions of pure social conscience – have benefited millions, offering hope to those that had lost it, new life to those that had theirs shattered.  It literally gave sight to the blind.  And it did so without concern for profits or earnings.  Many felt this an admirable thing, the “right” thing to do in the situation.

But according to Milton Friedman’s argument for shareholder primacy, detailed in his 1970 article “The Social Responsibility of a Business is to Increase Its Profits,” Merck had acted irresponsibly by giving away the drugs and taking a loss.  It had violated the terms of its existence; for a corporation – according to Friedman – is not a social entity and therefore has no responsibility to increase social welfare.  Rather, corporations have “one and only one social responsibility [...] to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits” (Friedman).

Whether this is exactly precise is debatable – yes, a corporation is intended to make a profit, but is its sole objective to maximize profit, thereby rendering any social act as a violation of its existence?  Viewing this argument through a moral looking glass raises many objections.  By examining Friedman’s argument against a corporation acting socially responsible through both business and moral frameworks and then comparing their merits with those of Friedman’s own argument, it can be reasonably ascertained that the actions Merck & Company took concerning river blindness were morally justifiable, and ultimately correct.

Friedman argues that a corporation’s sole purpose – as an extension of its owners, the stockholders – is to maximize profits for those stockholders.  To do anything less, he argues, is to essentially steal from them.  He targets his argument at corporate executives, who, for all intents and purposes, are the decision makers placed in that position in order to increase the value of the shareholders.  Since those owners technically employ the executive, it is his duty to then act as an agent of their interests (Friedman).

This is crucial to Friedman’s theory – since executives are not the principal actors, but merely agents of the owners, they have no right to perform any act which, at the time of performing, they do not believe will maximize the wealth of those that they represent.  With this in mind, Friedman’s theory charges Dr. Roy Vagelos (then Merck’s CEO) for effectively stealing from the owners of Merck & Company by adversely affecting profits due to his decision to provide the drugs free of charge.  According to Friedman, Vagelos’ decision as an agent of the shareholders was the equivalent of either stealing from them or imposing a tax on their decision to place him in charge.  And since this does not comply with the notion of maximizing profits for the stockholder, Merck acted incorrectly and unethically.

Friedman also makes the argument that it is ridiculous to even consider the notion that a corporation should act responsibly.  After all, responsibility is strictly concerned with people, and while a corporation is an “artificial” person, it has no “artificial” responsibility.  Even in vaguest of conceptions, corporations share none of the legitimate responsibilities that a person does – it can only be concerned with what it was created for: the pursuit of profit.

While this argument does not necessarily apply to the decision that Merck made, it is useful in analyzing the initial demand or outcry that a corporation should even step to the task of providing drugs at a loss.  After all, this is not the “responsibility” of a corporation, as business, in general, has no responsibilities.  It’s futile to even consider the notion.  Therefore, Friedman’s argument criticizes Merck for even initially contemplating the decision that was eventually made.

Friedman’s argument can be challenged in a variety of ways.  In evaluating Merck’s decision strictly from a business perspective, one can turn to the American Law Institute to refute Friedman’s initial argument that a corporation’s sole reason for existence is to maximize profits.  According to the institute, a corporation “should have as its objectives the conduct of business activities with a view to enhancing corporate profit and shareholder gain” (American Law Institute).  The law, therefore, does not coincide with Friedman’s view that a corporation should only be concerned with maximizing profits and shareholder wealth, but rather simply enhancing them.  This is a subtle – but distinct – difference.  To argue that performing a socially responsible act in lieu of the steadfast, dogged pursuit of profits is wrong is legitimate only to the extent that such a pursuit is the be-all-end-all reason for existence.  The law, however, does not make this point.  Yes, a corporation should act in a manner that will enhance – that is, increase either wealth or equity – but not necessarily maximize.  As such, performing a socially responsible act such as Merck is not unethical, nor incorrect, as long as that decision stayed within the realm of enhancing shareholder gain.  Hence, Merck’s decision to donate the drugs is ethical and within the realms of corporate responsibility as defined by the American Law Institute.

Friedman’s first argument can also be contended in the realm of business by using Edward Freeman’s Stakeholder Theory.  According to Freeman, corporations are not simply responsible to act in the best interest of its shareholders, but also its stakeholders.  These stakeholders are defined as “groups and individuals who benefit from or are harmed by, and whose rights are violated or respected by corporate actions” (Freeman).  With this in mind, an evaluation of Friedman’s argument demonstrates that the single-minded goal of strictly pursuing profits violates the relationship a corporation has with the rest of its stakeholders (of which shareholders are included).  By neglecting doing something socially responsible, a corporation may be violating the rights of its stakeholders.  Therefore, performing a socially responsible act such as Merck’s decision to give away the needed drugs is perfectly legitimate, insofar as that action does not neglect the stakeholders.  In the case of Merck, no stakeholder outside of the shareholder could argue against its decision to offer aid where aid was needed.  Its employees would not willingly allow people to perish or be disfigured, the suppliers of its research in which its drugs are based would agree with the decision to use the research to its fullest extent, its customers would support the decision – no reasonable and rational person would deny the same treatment if they happened to be in a similar situation – and the communities that Merck is integral to would understand and willingly accept its decision.

Finally, at a moral level, Friedman’s argument would fail Kant’s Categorical Imperative.  Kant’s moral framework operates under the notion that “an action is morally right for a person in a certain situation if, and only if, the person’s reason for carrying out the action is a reason that he or she would be willing to have every person act on, in any similar situation” (Velasquez).  Under this concept of moral law, Friedman’s argument against social responsibility is of no value, as in a situation such as the one faced by those infected by river blindness, there is no reasonable stockholder or executive that would willingly denounce Merck’s action.  Rather, they would accept the drugs, and being as it is, they would respect that action if it were performed in each and every situation.  If, on the other hand, they were denied the treatment, they could not reasonably extrapolate such an action and accept it in all similar situations.

Kant’s second formulation of the Categorical Imperative also poses a problem for Friedman.  “An action is morally right for a person if, and only if, in performing the action the person does not use others merely as a means for advancing his own interests, but also both respects and develops their capacity to choose freely for themselves” (Velasquez).  This is much more difficult an argument for Friedman to circumvent, as the notion of solely pursuing profits inherently violates this maxim, as people are never the ends in such a situation: they are always the means.  And in applying this argument specifically to the Merck case, Shareholder Primacy again violates the principle.  By deliberately refusing help when they themselves can offer it, Merck would have limited the capacity for the sick individuals to freely choose for themselves, as a debilitating illness inherently limits this.  Therefore, Merck had to provide the drugs – anything less would have violated Kant’s Categorical Imperative.

As for Friedman’s contention that a corporation has no responsibilities, as it is not a person, it is an argument based solely in semantics, with no relevant facts to strengthen the claim.  In fact, a corporation is defined as “a body formed and [...] to act as a single person although constituted by one or more persons” (Merriam-Webster).  Regardless, a corporation is merely the name given to a collective of persons operating with the same pursuits – it is still a reflection of those persons, and therefore retains all of the responsibilities those particular individuals have in regards to their pursuit of business.  Being so, it is difficult to give weight to Friedman’s initial argument concerning the actual responsibilities of a corporation.

Now, Friedman’s argument addresses each of these contentions in a particular way, framing the issue in order to negate their points.  Friedman would contend with the American Law Institute’s remarks that a corporation is not necessarily meant to maximize profits, but rather enhance them, is merely another example of semantics in terminology.  Moreover, the American Law Institute’s objectives are not binding, and therefore, maximizing profits is technically enhancing them.  And since no investor would reasonably purchase shares in a company that was not going to maximize their own value, the very act of investing is an indication that the owners of the company are seeking optimized gains.

This is not necessarily true – how is it that anyone can truly ascertain why a shareholder invests?  Yes, it may be reasonable that it is strictly for financial gain, but again, this can never be certain.  With that said, it still remains the basis for the original founders of the corporation to set its goals – therefore, if they did not originally state that their objective through incorporating was to maximize profits, no investor can argue with an act that is deemed socially responsible that does not optimize their gains.  After all, they freely and willing chose to invest in the company, and hence have no reason to feel “cheated” or “robbed” if said company chooses to act in a manner that doesn’t necessarily pursue only revenue.

In response to Freeman’s Stakeholder Theory, Friedman’s Shareholder Primacy simply asks: whose money is it?  By all accounts, executives are in charge of what the shareholders technically own.  As such, they answer to those owners, and those owners alone.  There are no stakeholders, as the stake they have in the company is moot: all additional stakes are contingent solely upon the stake held by the shareholders.

With that said, since a corporation is a representation of a group of people, should it not actually act in such a way that people would?  A person that strictly lives his life according to what is best for him – disregarding those he depends upon and those that depend on him – lives a shallow life indeed.  At whatever heights he reaches, he could have always climbed higher by being sensitive to those around him, being supportive and humanistic, so that his relationships achieve synergy.  If that occurs, he will be better in the end than otherwise.  Under this notion, Stakeholder Theory operates under the notion that profits are strictly the means to support and develop those relationships, whereas in Shareholder Primacy, the profits are the ends themselves.

Finally, Freidman would find fault with Kant’s argument, citing the fact that anyone in a position to be stolen from would find that action unjust, each and every time.  Therefore, the reverse argument is true: executives must act in a way that maximizes shareholder value – anything else would effectively be stealing, and this act can never be condoned.  Therefore, according to Kant, by acting in a socially responsible manner that influences the bottom line, corporations are being unethical.

Kant would have struggled to defend this line of reasoning due to the Categorical Imperatives difficulty in accounting for sly universalizers – those that frame acts within Kant’s system to strictly benefit themselves and their thinking.  However, no reasonable person could compare the two concurrent acts – to cure millions or to take some money from investors – and conclude that the latter bests the former.  Even so, Kant’s argument is not intended to provide guidance in the case of conflicting rights, but rather lay the framework for acting morally correct.  That being said, it seems unethical to claim equality or more for the two competing acts; it is undoubtedly clear that drastically saving millions of lives outweighs the cost of a few cents or dollars on a stock trade.

In the end, the arguments from existing theories are ample enough to cast some doubt on Friedman’s reasoning.  However, his argument still appears to hold some merit, especially when one strictly concentrates on the economics of the argument.  It cannot be determined definitively whether acting purely for profits or acting for the good of stakeholders ensures the continued existence of a corporation more efficiently, and the laws concerning the objectives of a corporation are flexible enough to allow Shareholder Primacy.  So is Friedman’s argument ultimately correct?

It is without a doubt that Friedman’s argument is reasonable, but if, and only if, it is the pure choice of the corporation.  It is not, however, something set in stone, something that corporations must do, as he contends.  The aforementioned arguments are enough to conclude as much.  But the issue can be looked at yet another way in order to surmise whether or not Friedman’s principle is a rule rather than an option.

First and foremost, when did economics become the basis for existence?  Human nature is intrinsically concerned with a variety of things – economic security being just one of them.  And since corporations are, for all intents and purposes, reflections of those that run and own them, should they not have the ability to exercise those other needs?  Altruism has a place in society and business – and if a business operates responsibly solely to maximize its profits (something Friedman accepts within his argument, though he condemns it as “approaching fraud”), so be it (Friedman).  But it must have the freedom to choose to act so either way.  It is a fundamental aspect of humanity to serve humanity, and if that entails decreasing the bottom line, that is perfectly acceptable.  Whether or not a corporation does so is irrelevant, but it must have that option.  Friedman’s argument does not allow that to happen.

Shareholder Primacy also ignores the financial implications a socially responsible act may have.  Sure, Friedman would cite any socially responsible act taken to increase profits as being within his proposed framework, but that argument resides in the motivation for acting.  If profits were the main goal of the act, then Friedman would agree with it.  But what if any profits – equal or not to the profits of inaction – were simply the result of acting socially responsible, even if they were not the intention?  In that case, Friedman argues that the act was unethical and unacceptable.

But this seems to be a narrow view.  Since it is difficult to measure the public relations boost that comes from performing a social act, it can be reasonable to assume that any corporation acting responsibly is doing so because it believes that action is the right action, rather than believing profits will be the result.  If that is the case, Shareholder Primacy rejects almost all socially responsible acts: Merck’s actions (which seem to have benefitted them financially in the long run) would be unacceptable.  This seems peculiar.  And since it cannot be truly known whether or not corporate responsibility has long-term financial implications, should such acts not be done, all things being equal (Vogel)?

In the end, does it not seem unreasonable that the sole purpose of business is to earn profit?  It seems that this is incorrect.  Rather, the purpose of business is to provide products or services to benefit people, with profits being the result of providing said products efficiently.  If a company makes profits in excess to those needed to continue to provide and develop its services, then this is perfectly fine.  But that is auxiliary to its actual purpose.  Yes, it is the means to provide those services, but the services themselves are not intended to maximize profits.  This appears to be a trivial distinction, but it is not.  If a corporation was intended to do the latter, then Friedman’s argument is correct: social responsibility is only acceptable in situations that performing such acts optimizes earnings.  But if a corporation’s intent is the former, then performing such acts is acceptable and even encouraged, so long as being socially responsible allows them to provide the best services and products to its customers.

If Friedman’s argument were to be trusted, then Merck & Company would not have engaged in the operations that have nearly eradicated river blindness in the world.  Over 200 million people would be in dire positions today.  But they aren’t, owing to Merck recognizing it was in a position to help and acting with the best interests of society in mind.  Now no company should be forced to do what Merck did willingly, but to claim that corporations should do nothing but maximize profits is ridiculous.  It doesn’t make infallible business sense, and it certainly will lead business into moral grey areas.  And when it’s all said and done, isn’t that the more relevant factor?  Conducting operations that are unethical and immoral simply because there is the belief that pursuit of profit is the only basis for business ignores countless other factors.  It’s similar to saying that a person’s only true purpose is to ensure the survival of the human race, so he should ignore all other social norms in order to procreate as much as possible.  After all, that is the true, biological purpose of a person.  But that definition is too narrow, as is Friedman’s definition of a corporation.  Sure, a person can live solely to breed, if he so chooses.  But he must have the choice to act in all other matters.  So must business.

Milton Friedman’s Shareholder Theory does not offer this choice – it does not allow for Merck & Company to take it upon itself to rid the world of river blindness.  And by limiting that choice, Friedman ignores the rules of the free market capitalism he so loudly trumpets: if there is such regulation that a company is acting irresponsibly by not single-mindedly pursuing profits, is it not still regulation?  Friedman’s argument doesn’t acknowledge this fact, and in doing so fails to offer a reasonable argument.  Whether or not a business chooses to act responsibly is irrelevant: it is its choice and its choice alone.  Friedman would limit this choice, and no matter the argument, it can be certain that to do so is to act unethically and incorrectly.

The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments recently overheard oral arguments for a proposed statute of limitations for shareholder suits stemming from Merck’s withdrawn painkiller, Vioxx.  Attorneys for Merck argued that the plaintiffs waited too long to file their securities fraud class action.

The Supreme Court justices did not seem persuaded by Merck’s arguments and pointed out that it would have been difficult for the plaintiffs to detect the alleged fraud within the time period as argued by Merck.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, noting that Merck initially insisted there were other explanations for the increased risk, said, “How would the most diligent plaintiffs have gone about finding out whether Merck really had no good-faith belief” in those alternate theories.

Justice Antonin Scalia also suggested that in the early stages there was “simply substantial evidence of inaccuracy,” not of the kind of fraud needed to trigger a securities suit.

FULL STORY

A New York federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit against Merck in which the plaintiff alleged the drug Fosamax causes damage to the jaw bone.   A Mississippi woman claimed Fosamax caused her to develop osteonecrosis of the jaw.

Merck is defending over 900 lawsuits where plaintiffs allege Fosamax causes osteonecrosis of the jaw.

FULL STORY

Our firm represents consumers damaged by dangerous drugs.  If you or a loved one have taken Fosamax and have been diagnosed with osteonecrosis of the jaw, or similar bone loss disease, contact one of our products liability attorneys for a free legal consultation.

The American Heart Association conference was held this week in Orlando.  If you’ve never been, AHA is a monumental event for any life sciences company that focuses on anything related to cardiology:  drugs, devices, equipment, etc.  It’s also used as a pulpit to release any substantial news about your cardiology products to the media.

So, Sunday night Abbott Labs released the findings of a small clinical study of its cholesterol drug compared to Zetia, from Merck.  In short, the study showed little or no clinical benefit for one of the largest cholesterol drugs on the market and, in turn, created a nightmare for Merck.  This is the second such study in the past year that has called Zetia’s efficacy into question.

The news had everyone scrambling.  First, the media was supposed to hold their reporting until Monday morning before the markets opened.  Well, that was quickly compromised as news leaked out from Orlando, starting a huge cat fight amongst reporters trying to scoop the story.  The Today Show, GMA, Squawk Box all led with the story Monday morning adn the newspaper had it across their front page.  Secondly, the FDA is now answering questions about why a drug with little to no benefit is generating $4B a year in revenue. And, finally, Merck is scrambling to contain a double whammy that affects not only Zetia, but also Vytorin, the combination therapy which it now wholly controls due to its recent $41B acquisition of Schering Plough (which was largely driven by the drug).

To its credit, Merck is doing a large scale study to determine Zetia’s true benefit.  One problem:  results will not be available until 2012.  If you’re looking for a Big Pharma controversy, they don’t get much bigger than this.  Merck has some damage control to do.  The FDA has questions to answer.  And, millions of patients are taking pills this morning that may offer nothing more than a placebo effect in treating their cholesterol.

November 17th, 2009 – A widely prescribed and expensive cholesterol drug is not as effective as niacin, a cheap vitamin, in helping to unclog coronary arteries in people already taking statins, the standard medicines used to lower cholesterol, according to a new study.

The research, which appears Monday in the New England Journal of Medicine, is sending rumbles through the medical community because it is the third recent study to raise questions about the effectiveness of Zetia and its sister drug, Vytorin, highly profitable pharmaceuticals made by Merck & Co.

Introduced in 2002 and 2004 amid heavy direct-to-consumer marketing, Zetia and Vytorin became blockbusters for Merck and Schering-Plough, which had collaborated on their development. The companies recently merged.

Last year, a study released by Merck showed that Zetia did not reduce plaque in arteries compared with patients taking only statins, which are much less expensive and available in generic form. Although released in January, the study had been completed in 2006, prompting a class-action lawsuit alleging that Merck intentionally withheld unfavorable results of a clinical trial. The company paid $41.5 million in August to settle the claims.

Another study published last year showed a potential increase in cancer among patients taking Zetia and Vytorin, compared with those taking only statins.

So what does this have to do with medical marijuana? Everything. Understand that these same profit-making mega-corps of Big Pharma are desperately trying to create cannabinoid-based medicines that can’t be grown in your back yard or closet. While we rejoice that the AMA reversed its position and urged the rescheduling of cannabis, keep your mind focused on why they might have done that. Is it the pure altruism of realizing a mistake and returning to a rational scientific approach to cannabis moderated by compassion for suffering people and the benefit herbal cannabis would provide?

Or is it the realization that the people are crusading for legal marijuana and succeeding, and if herbal cannabis becomes truly legal their friends in the pharmaceutical industry lose all the profits off of cannabinoid pills, sprays, and inhalers to the ultimate “less expensive generic”?

Remember that drug companies only make money if you take drugs. If you’re not sick, you don’t take drugs, so they need to keep finding new drugs to push on you for new ailments you never knew you had. If you go about relieving your unhealthful stress with a joint after a long day, you’re not going to get those stress-related diseases for which you’ll need a lifelong regimen of drugs.

Beware the medicalization of marijuana. I can forsee a ruling where herbal cannabis is placed in Schedule II so research is then allowed to take place. At Schedule II, your doctor could prescribe it to you, but since Schedule II drugs are tightly controlled (no refills, for instance) perhaps he won’t. Meanwhile, Big Pharma identifies and synthesizes the medically-effective compounds in cannabis (taking out the pesky “high”, of course) and these expensive drugs are packaged and mega-hyped on TV. These drugs are placed, like Marinol, at Schedule III or lower. With effective alternatives to herbal cannabis found (and lobbying pressure from Big Pharma looking to protect their investments), states have no reason to begin or continue their herbal cannabis programs.

Next thing you know, the “medical marijuana era” is a relic of the history books, “crude” marijuana is rejected, and those who grow it are busted just like now (remember, possession and manufacture of an unauthorized Schedule II substance can get you in as much trouble as Schedule I.) By: Radical Russ. Source.

Pretty revealing what the motive is here.  When is someone going to do something about this??  You would think that the insurance companies that have to cover paying the medical bills for Big Pharma causing so many families children to get autoimmune diseases, cancers, diabetes, asthma, arthritis… and the rest of the gammet caused by childhood vaccines, would finally put a stop to this madness. 

<a href = “http://www.naturalnews.com/Report_HPV_Vaccine_0.html”>The Great HPV Vaccine Hoax Exposed</a>

Best,  Sandy & Mike     http://TheRealParents.tumblr.com

Deutschland ist sich uneinig: Impfen oder lieber sterben? Gegensätzliche Aussagen der Fachleute tragen zur Verwirrung bei. Der Bundesminister für Gesundheit, Dr. Phillipp Rösler (FDP) rät zur Impfung. Er folgt dabei den Empfehlungen der Ständigen Impfkommission (STIKO). Nun gibt es erste Anzeichen dafür, dass Pharmaunternehmen die Erkrankung der Expertenrunde mit zu verantworten haben.

Rösler, seines Zeichens kein Augenarzt, sondern Allgemeinmediziner, müsste schon von Berufswegen ein verantwortungsvoller Mann sein. Pflichtbewusst verwies er im Zusammenhang mit der Schweinegrippe in den vergangenen Tagen auf die Kompetenz der STIKO. Das angeschlagene Image der Kommission konnte ihn dabei nicht bremsen. Bestimmt handelte es sich hierbei um Hetzkampagnen einiger namenloser Zeitungen, oder er hatte es einfach nicht mitbekommen. Wohlmöglich so, wie viele Journalisten in ihm einen Facharzt für Augenheilkunde sehen, und keinen einfachen Arzt, wie er seinen beruflichen Status bescheiden nennt. Ja, dafür ist die FDP bekannt: Sie setzt sich stets für die einfachen Leute ein.

Ähnlich engagiert sind bekanntermaßen Pharmaunternehmen. Wie oft hab ich sie mit vor Glück strahlenden Augen gesehen, wenn sie Menschen durch ihre Medikamente retten konnten. Nicht selten wurde ich Zeuge von dicken Kullertränen auf den Pustebäckchen der Firmenchefs, weil sie gerade die Stückproduktionszahlen vor Augen hatten und sich die Anzahl derer ausmahlten, denen sie damit helfen konnten.

Nur gut, dass uns die Ständige Impfkommission mit Tat und Rat zur Seite steht. Selbstlos und ohne jeden Hintergedanken raten sie der Bevölkerung zur Immunisierung. Leider ist es der Menschheit bis heute nicht möglich, sich gegen sämtliche Formen von Erkrankungen impfen zu lassen. Andernfalls gäbe es ebenso ein Mittelchen gegen die Gefahr des oftmals tödlichen Virus der Interessenkonflikte an dem die STIKO leidet. Aufgrund der Ähnlichkeit zum Virus H1N1 sprechen Mediziner auch von der Allerneusten Schweinegrippe. Die Ursache sehen die Fachleute in den Nebentätigkeiten der Mitglieder. Aber ist es denn verwerflich, dass diejenigen, die den nationalen Pandemie-Plan aufstellen, gleichzeitig für Impfmittelhersteller arbeiten?

Ihr ohnehin angeschlagenes Image droht weiter zu bröckeln. Infizierte Impfexperten passen vermutlich nicht ins Bild des gutbürgerlichen Durchschnittbürgers. Führende Wissenschafter können sich das Phänomen des Imageverlustes nicht erklären.

Nach zahlreichen Stunden im Labor scheint die Kommission jetzt auf die Lösung des Problems gestoßen zu sein: Schönreden und Ignorieren.

FAKTEN:

Seit Oktober 2009 empfiehlt die Ständige Impfkommission eine Impfung gegen die Schweine- bzw. Neue Grippe⁶. (Robert Koch Institut 2009/2) „Die Mitglieder [der Kommission] werden vom Bundesministerium für Gesundheit im Benehmen mit den obersten Landesgesundheitsbehörden berufen.“ (Bundesministerium der Justiz 2009) Bei mindestens der Hälfte aller 16 Kommissionsmitglieder weisen deren Nebentätigkeiten auf Interessenkonflikte hin. (Robert Koch Institut 2009) So arbeiten beispielsweise einige von ihnen bei der Firma GlaxoSmithKline, die den Grippeimpfstoff Pandemrix herstellt. Es folgen einige ausgewählte Beispiele.

Prof. Dr. Fred Zepp:

Mitglied in Übersichtsgremien des Pharma- und Medizintechnik-Unternehmens Baxter¹ (2002/2003); Berater des Pharmakonzerns GlaxoSmithKline (GSK)² (2003-2005, 2007); Mitglied im Expertenteam zur Überwachung klinischer Studien der Firmen GSK und Sanofi Pasteur MSD³; Teilnahme in der Pandemie-Beratungsstelle des Biotechnologie- und Pharmaunternehmens Novartis⁴ (2007); Teilnahme an Beratungsstelle der Firma GSK (2007); Mitglied im internationalen Redaktionsausschuss der Firma GSK (seit 2008); Gutachtertätigkeit für Impfstoffe der Firma Merck (2004/2005) und der Firma GSK (2003/2004)

Prof. Dr. Frank Falkner von Sonnenburg:

Vorsitzender des Fachbeirats „Forum Impfen“, welches durch den Impfstoffhersteller Sanofi Pasteur MSD³ und Wyeth (heute das Pharmaunternehmen Pfizer)⁵ finanziert wird; Sicherheitsausschuss zu Impfstoffen gegen pandemische Influenza und FSME des Pharma- und Medizintechnik-Unternehmens Baxter¹ (seit 2002); Beratungsstelle beim Pharmakonzern GlaxoSmithKline (GSK)² bis 2003; Beratungsstelle beim Biotechnologie- und Pharmaunternehmen Novartis⁴ seit 2008; Klinische Studie zur H5N1/Grippe-Impfstoffentwicklung (GSK, Novartis)

Dr. Ursel Lindlbauer-Eisenach:

Beratungsstelle des Impfstoffherstellers Sanofi Pasteur MSD³ (2005/2006); Mitglied des Fachbeirats “Forum Impfen”, welches durch Sanofi Pasteur MSD³ und Wyeth (heute das Pharmaunternehmen Pfizer)⁵ finanziert wird.

Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Jilg:

Mehrere Zulassungsstudien für den Pharmakonzern GlaxoSmithKline (GSK)² von 2000 bis 2008; Mitglied des Fachbeirats “Forum Impfen”, welches durch Sanofi Pasteur MSD³ und Wyeth (heute das Pharmaunternehmen Pfizer)⁵ finanziert wird.

Prof. Dr. Christel Hülße:

Beratungsstellen beim Impfstoffhersteller Sanofi Pasteur MSD³ (2005-2007); Mitglied im wissenschaftlichen Beirat einer Projektgruppe (2006-2007), welche u.a. vom Pharmakonzern GSK² und Sanofi Pasteur MSD³ finanziert wird; ebenfalls Mitglied des Fachbeirats “Forum Impfen”, welches durch Sanofi Pasteur MSD³ und Wyeth (heute das Pharmaunternehmen Pfizer)⁵ finanziert wird.

Prof. Dr. Dr. Friedrich Hofmann:

Auch Mitglied des Fachbeirates „Forum Impfen“ (siehe oben); Ausschüsse der DVV (Deutsche Vereinigung zur Bekämpfung der Viruskrankheiten) (bis 2005 bzw. 2002), die von den Firmen GSK² und Sanofi Pasteur MSD³ finanziert wurde

Prof. Dr. Hartmut Hengel:

Beratung des Unternehmens Rhein Biotech GmbH im Jahre 2006

Prof. Dr. Ulrich Heininger:

Beratungsstellen von 2002-2007 bei Baxter¹ sowie von 2005-2007 bei Wyth⁵ und Sanofi Pasteur MSD³; von 2004-2007 Beratungsstelle bei GSK², seit 2008 GSK in Belgien

Nachfolgende Quellen setzen sich ebenfalls kritisch mit der Ständigen Impfkommission auseinander:

Arznei-Telegramm 2007, die tageszeitung (taz) 2007, Sueddeutsche 2008, Transparency International 2009

Glossar

1: Baxter 2009; Hersteller des Impfstoffs Celvapan (European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control 2009) 2: GlaxoSmithKline 2009 3: “Als einziges Unternehmen in Europa hat sich Sanofi Pasteur MSD ausschließlich auf die Herstellung und den Vertrieb von Impfstoffen spezialisiert. Durch die Gründung von Sanofi Pasteur MSD im Jahre 1994 haben die beiden weltweit zu den größten Pharmaunternehmen zählenden Shareholder Sanofi-Aventis, S. A. und Merck & Co., Inc. ihre umfangreichen Forschungs- und Entwicklungsprogramme im Impfstoffbereich auf die Bedürfnisse in Europa abgestimmt. Beide Shareholder halten je 50% der Anteile an Sanofi Pasteur MSD.” (Sanofi Pasteur MSD 2009) 4: Novartis 2009; Produzent des Impfstoffs Focetria (European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control 2009) 5: Pfizer 2009 6: Virus H1N1

Quellenverzeichnis

Arznei-Telegramm (Hrsg.), 2007: Ständige Impfkommission (STIKO) – Transparenz tut Not. http://www.arznei-telegramm.de/html/2007_04/0704033_02.html [Stand 12.11.2009].

Baxter (Hrsg.), 2009: Baxter. http://www.baxter.com/ [Stand 12.11.2009].

Bundesministerium der Justiz (Hrsg.), 2009: Gesetz zur Verhütung und Bekämpfung von Infektionskrankheiten beim Menschen (IfSG). § 20 Schutzimpfungen und andere Maßnahmen der spezifischen Prophylaxe. http://bundesrecht.juris.de/ifsg/__20.html [Stand 12.11.2009].

die tageszeitung (taz) (Hrsg.), 2007: Kontakte zu Pharmafirmen – Impfkommission im Interessenkonflikt. http://www.taz.de/1/zukunft/wissen/artikel/1/impfkomission-im-interessenskonflikt/?src=SZ&cHash=6d6e4b4776 [Stand 12.11.2009].

European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) (Hrsg.), 2009: Pandemic influenza A (H1N1) 2009 vaccines in the European Union. Eurosurveillance. Volume 14. Issue 41. http://www.eurosurveillance.org/ViewArticle.aspx?ArticleId=19361 [Stand 13.11.2009].

GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) (Hrsg.), 2009: Our company – About GSK – GlaxoSmithKline. http://www.gsk.com/about/company.htm [Stand 12.11.2009].

Novartis (Hrsg.), 2009: About Novartis. http://www.novartis.com/about-novartis/index.shtml [Stand 12.11.2009].

Pfizer (Hrsg.), 2009: Pfizer Timeline 2000-Present. http://www.pfizer.com/about/history/2000_present.jsp [Stand 12.11.2009].

Robert Koch Institut (RKI) (Hrsg.), 2009: Ständige Impfkommission – Selbstauskünfte zu möglichen Interessenkonflikten. http://www.rki.de/cln_179/nn_1007512/DE/Content/Infekt/Impfen/STIKO/Selbstauskuenfte/selbstauskuenfte__node.html?__nnn=true [Stand 12.11.2009].

Robert Koch Institut (RKI) (Hrsg.), 2009: Epidemiologisches Bulletin. Nr. 41. http://www.rki.de/cln_179/nn_200120/DE/Content/Infekt/EpidBull/Archiv/2009/41__09,templateId=raw,property=publicationFile.pdf/41_09.pdf [Stand 13.11.2009].

Sanofi Pasteur MSD (Hrsg.), 2009: Das Unternehmen Sanofi Pasteur MSD Deutschland. http://www.spmsd.de/impfstoffe/das-unternehmen/ [Stand 12.11.2009].

Sueddeutsche (Hrsg.), 2008: Ständige Impfkommission – Experten mit den falschen Freunden. http://www.sueddeutsche.de/wissen/303/431054/text/ [Stand 12.11.2009].

Transparency International (Hrsg.), 2009: „Schweinegrippe“- Impfung: Transparency kritisiert potenzielle Interessenkonflikte und intransparente Entscheidungsprozesse bei der ständigen Impfkommission STIKO. http://www.transparency.de/2009-09-14-Schweinegrippe.1494.0.html?&no_cache=1&sword_list[]=STIKO [Stand 12.11.2009].

Michelle Obama puts herself at the mercy of an "External Locus of Power"...

Bite me: global newswire Reuters’ third most-read story at the moment is a long feature on the debate over agricultural production titled “The Fight Over the Future of Food“. It’s a topical issue, no doubt.

Lord Stern, a former chief economist of the World Bank and UK climate change advisor ensured it got even more attention when he told everyone to give up eating meat last month, claiming:

Meat is a wasteful use of water and creates a lot of greenhouse gases. It puts enormous pressure on the world’s resources. A vegetarian diet is better.

The old hippy: you can be as Stern as you like, M’lud, you won’t tear me away from my bacon and eggs…

But Reuter’s piece, for all its topicality and apparent attempt to provide “balance” through comparing and contrasting — like some undergrad essay — organic and biotech approaches to increasing food production, smells a little funny. It starts with the lead:

Giuseppe Oglio’s farm near Milan looks like it’s suffering from neglect. Weeds run rampant amid the rice fields and clover grows unchecked around his millet crop….

… Nearly 5,000 miles away, in laboratories in St. Louis, Missouri, hundreds of scientists at the world’s biggest seed company, Monsanto, also want to feed the world, only their tools of choice are laser beams and petri dishes.

While this may be a mere literary device for the sake of an eye-catching juxtaposition, note the derogatory choice of adjectives for the organic farmer from the very off: “unchecked”, “rampant”, “neglect” and the choice of instruments — lasers, petri dishes — that epitomise scientific neutrality for Monsanto.

This supposed division between submission to the essential anarchy of nature (letting weeds run rampant) and the innovative scientists working around the clock to feed the hungry seems to be becoming — if you’ll excuse the pun — a staple of the debate between “conventional” and “organic” farming method. A few examples:

An article in Farmer’s Weekly entitled “Take Charge of your own Destiny” in which author Matthew Naylor posits a division between conventional farmers who have an ‘Internal Locus of Control’ and take charge of their own destiny and “hippies” who believe in an ‘External Locus of Power’ and put themselves at the mercy of fate.

Dr. Matt Ridley, who in his laughable essay “Genetically modified crops and the perils of rejecting innovation” written for the Policy Exchange think tank claims that “Nostalgic urban dwellers would prefer farmers to leave fields fallow, to grow oats for horses, to tolerate cornflowers in wheat and bees in clover, and not to pollute streams with nitrate run-off.” (A straw man if ever there was one; and would Ridley prefer to pollute streams then?)

I’ll return to point out briefly what a false dichotomy Ridley, Naylor and now Reuters are positing, but first things first, that whole Monsanto petri dish thing…

Photo courtesy of Nic Ut. Agent Orange courtesy of Monsanto.

Lets get one thing crystal clear from the offset: there is nothing remotely detached, scientifically neutral or altruistic about Monsanto; in fact its track record shows it is dedicated, essentially, to destruction.

It was heavily involved in the Manhatten Project to create the first atomic bomb; it manufactured the Agent Orange used extensively throughout the Vietnam War (that iconic picture of the little naked, napalmed girl running down the street? Thanks in part to a Monsanto product) and it now provides DynCorp with Round Up Ultra to spray on the rainforests of Colombia, killing coca plants but also Ecuadorian children. Feel the love.

“Want to feed the world” and “the petri dish” indeed… What utter bullshit. (For more comprehensive, less polemical background on Monsanto’s Machiavellian ways on everything from PCBs to Dioxins and GM Cotton, check out Crocodyl’s page on them here.)

To return to Reuters’ article: Whilst I don’t have time to deconstruct it paragraph by paragraph, along with the points I’ve noted above, a few examples of a narrative that is superficial at best, mendacious at worst stand out:

Affluent consumers may prefer the Oglios of the world to the Monsantos, but their skittishness about high-tech agriculture is making it more difficult to grapple with the mounting crisis over the lack of food.

This is (or should be) a debate about the long-term efficacy of agricultural production and its broader knock-on effect on the biosphere, not the “skittishness” of affluent customers, which is another straw man and utterly irrelevant. It is not a handful of a few rich consumers who are hampering the ability of scientists to grapple with the food crisis Monsanto to maximise it’s profits (would that the simple consumer were that powerful) but legitimate concerns about the threat posed by GMOs to biodiversity and the ability of farmers to have control of their own seed supply.

Meanwhile, neglected by Reuters, there is a growing consensus in the scientific community that industrial agricultural production has wreaked havoc on soil quality and must be curtailed or vitiated with organic/non traditional methods before further damage is done and yields drop significantly.

Drought in the central India state of Madhya Pradesh

The authors of the article turn to India:

India sorely needs another Green Revolution,” said Kushagra Nayan Bajaj, joint managing director of Bajaj Hinduthan, India’s top sugar producer, which is importing raw sugar after a drought hit the domestic cane crop. But a second green revolution would face a strong counterinsurgency, even in a place like India that benefited so profoundly from the first one…

India’s Green Revolution is actually on the verge of collapse as water tables drop massively, pests increase resistance to herbicides and the amount of fertiliser they need triples as soil quality drops. As National Public Radio reported in April this year:

[Farmers] gathered on a recent morning in a stone-paved courtyard to explain why the famed “bread basket” of India is heading toward collapse. Their comparatively small region, Punjab, grows far more wheat and rice for India than any other region.

But now these farmers are running out of groundwater. They have to buy three times as much fertilizer as they did 30 years ago to grow the same amount of crops. They blitz their crops with pesticides, but insects have become so resistant that they still often destroy large portions of crops.

“That benefited so profoundly from the first one”? That’s a little unbalanced then, isn’t it? The authors also go on to claim that “India has so far allowed GM seeds only for cotton, which has boosted productivity”. Well… if you’re a Monsanto researcher, that’s what you claim anyway.

Bt Cotton can actually be argued to have been a major fuck-up and has attracted considerable controversy in India, with some blaming the debt incurred by farmers from buying the seed for a spate of suicides. As Crocodyl’s backgrounder notes:

Farmers around the world have experienced problems with Monsanto’s Bt cotton. Researchers from Cornell University reported in July 2006 that Chinese GM cotton farmers are losing money due to ’secondary’ pests: “After seven years, populations of other insects — such as mirids — have increased so much that farmers are now having to spray their crops up to 20 times a growing season to control them, according to the study of 481 Chinese farmers in five major cotton-producing provinces.”

In India, Bt cotton is prohibited in Kerala and Orissa. After crop failures were reported in the Indian state of Andhra Pradesh, the Genetic Engineering Approvals Committee (GEAC) refused to renew the company’s license for 3 varieties. In addition, the office of director general of investigation and registration (DGIR) submitted a preliminary investigation report to the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practicies Commission on March 29, 2006 charging Monsanto for setting unreasonably high rates for Bt cotton.

Just three examples plucked at random after a very cursory read of the article, but enough to convince me that it is framing the debate in an entirely unsatisfactory way. The reporters, by setting the parameters of a discussion and giving the illusion of balance by weighing up two approaches, in actual fact are serving to neutralise the broader debate; for if we are going to talk dichotomies, the “fight” for the future of food is more one between people and profit than Monsanto and the weeds.

Just for the record, Thomson Reuters’ CEO is also a director of Merck Co., a pharmaceutical major that has been actively seeking out biotech acquisitions… food for thought, no? While he would no-doubt never interfere in the editorial process of a reputable newswire, one wonders if a more cogent critique of the biotech industry would find its way into print at the firm given the above fact…

Monsanto: feeding the poor and hungry... napalm.

-> A mother’s story of saving her baby from a heart attack by carrying her in a wrap. A MUST READ!

Hospitals to crack down on induced labors

Medical risks of epidurals

Taye Diggs on Jimmy Kimmel talking about home birth

Why Babies Should Not Sleep Alone

Dr. Sear’s research on co-sleeping

Merck admits Gardasil protects against basically nothing

Benefits of a natural approach to the third stage of labor

Pre and Perinatal Psychology video, part one

Bishop Scores and what they mean

The Labor Market, an article by TIME

Breaking water does not speed labor

Diagnosing Tongue-Tie

An OBGYN’s thoughts on long labors

http://kl.am/4Gt2

RapidFire attended the 57th annual ASMS conference in Philadelphia, PA, with an exhibit booth in the Pennsylvania Convention Center and a hospitality suite in the Philadelphia Marriott Downtown. The ASMS conference was the perfect venue to announce and celebrate the launch of the new RapidFire 300 System.

In the hospitality suite we hosted a RapidFire User Symposium and Launch Party for customers and guests attending the conference (photos). At the RapidFire User Symposium Debbie Zink from Merck spoke about P450 Inhibition (DDI) Assays, Andreas Luippold from Boehringer Ingelheim spoke about High-throughput ADME, Metabolic Stability and Caco- Assays and Matt Olsen from Johnson & Johnson spoke about Screening Difficult HTS Targets using RapidFire.

(View the presentations).

At the Launch Party there was plenty of food, networking, foosball, basketball and many door prizes awarded to gracious ASMS attendees. Thank you to everyone who came and made this event fun and educational!

While at the conference RapidFire also presented three posters:

Label Free High-Throughput Whole Protein Kinase Screening Assay,

Discovery of Novel Inhibitors of Serine Palmitoyltransferase (SPT) by Mass Spectrometry-Based High-Throughput Screening (HTS), and

Evaluation of accurate mass TOF-MS for use in high throughput CYP450 inhibition screening

View the RapidFire posters presented at ASMS 2009.

many waterways that eventually flow into the Chesapeake Bay.

During its meeting in Richmond this week, the state Water Control Board approved a recommendation from the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality to raise the limit on the amount of nutrients Merck is allowed to discharge into the river.

Currently, the pharmaceutical manufacturer is permitted to discharge 14,619 pounds of nitrogen and 1,096 pounds of phosphorous from its wastewater-treatment facility each year.

The new limits will allow the plant to discharge 43,835 pounds of nitrogen and 4,384 pounds of phosphorous per year, according to the DEQ.

While the allocation is higher, Merck’s discharge will still decrease significantly compared to previous years. In 2007, Merck discharged 110,700 pounds of nitrogen, according to DEQ records. That’s about 66,900 pounds more than the new allocation.

“Merck did demonstrate that they did need an increased nutrient allocation,” said W. Shelton Miles, chairman of the Water Control Board. “We worked out a formula that’s good for Merck and that protects the integrity of the [Chesapeake] Bay Program.”

The Chesapeake Bay Program is an interstate partnership that includes Virginia working to reduce toxins in the estuary that has been heavily polluted over the years, resulting in marine dead zones unable to support life.

Merck Must Find Credits

To receive the increased allocation, Merck must identify other companies that are no longer releasing nutrients, or are discharging fewer nutrients than they are permitted to release.

Merck must then obtain the allocations, or offsets, that are no longer being used or work out deals with companies releasing fewer nutrients to get their extra allocation credits, Miles said.

With Merck offsetting its increased discharge with unused credits from other companies, the total amount of nutrients going into the river, and in turn the bay, will not increase, he said.

“We really aren’t in the position to hand out any additional allocations,” Miles said. “If you come to us for additional allocations, you’re going to need to identify where the offset will come from.”

State and federal officials are working to actually decrease the amount of nutrients going into the Chesapeake Bay. Nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorous create algae blooms in the water, which can choke off aquatic species and endanger other wildlife.

Merck shouldn’t have any trouble getting credits because several companies in the area are either no longer discharging nutrients or are releasing fewer than permitted, Miles said.

“We’re optimistic they will be able to find [the credits] and they’re optimistic they’ll be able to find them,” he said. “They can have the business confidence to go forward; the hurdles have been cleared.”

If Merck has difficulty obtaining enough credits to offset its allocation, it must put the money it would have spent on credits into a fund to reduce nonpoint source pollution, such as agricultural runoff, in the Shenandoah Valley.

Barbara Wunder, director of safety and environment for Merck, said the company is satisfied with the board’s ruling and will do what it can to protect the environment.

“Under the board’s guidance, we will work with the DEQ,” Wunder said. “Merck strives to be a responsible …  environmental steward. It’s really a part of our corporate DNA.”

In addition to obtaining credits and offsets, Merck has committed $16 million to upgrade the Stonewall Wastewater Treatment Plant in an effort to decrease the amount of nutrients discharged, Wunder said.

“They are still doing some technical upgrades at their plant,” Miles said. “There may be a possibility they don’t need as many nutrient credits as they think.”

Mistakes Made In Past

Merck asked the water board in January 2007 to authorize an increase in the plant’s discharge levels.

At that time, the company asked the board to allow its Elkton plant to discharge about 30,000 pounds of nitrogen and about 3,000 pounds of phosphorous per year.

Merck officials have said they made the request because company engineers made mistakes when calculating the plant’s discharge needs.

Those miscalculations then went to the DEQ, which set a 2011 deadline for Merck to reduce its nutrient discharges by 80 percent. Wunder has said those limits were unreasonable because they were based on erroneous calculations.

After studying the situation, the water board recognized that Merck and DEQ officials made mistakes in the process, and the 2011 requirements were unfair, Miles said.

“There were mistakes made on both sides …  [so] the adjustment seemed warranted,” Miles said.

He added that Merck’s standing and economic impact in the state also played a role in the board’s decision.

Jeff Kelble, Shenandoah riverkeeper for the Waterkeeper Alliance, opposed Merck’s request for two years, but he changed his position after the company agreed to take measures to protect the river.

“From the Shenandoah River’s perspective, Merck has done everything that we can conceive of to get us as close to their original allocation as possible,” said Kelble, who neither opposes nor supports the water board’s final resolution. “Merck has done more than most of the other industries.”