(NaturalNews) The Los Angeles Times recently reported that the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) is planning to sue fast-food giant McDonald's if the company does not comply with its demands to remove toys from "Happy Meals". CSPI claims that marketing unhealthy food with toys is contributing to the childhood obesity epidemic and should be stopped immediately.
The announcement by CSPI comes just weeks after a California county banned not only toys but all other promotions aimed at children that involve McDonald's Happy Meals. By doing this, the county believes that children will be less attracted to fatty foods that are high in salt and calories.
According to the same article, back in April, Santa Clara County, California, also banned toy promotions from fast food meals sold in unincorporated parts of the county.
Spokesmen from McDonald's denied that Happy Meals are inherently unhealthy, citing the fact that the meals are of an appropriate size and that children have the option to swap out the fries and soda for apples and juice. They also explained that giving away toys with children's meals is part of the fun of a family dining experience.
Since 2008 when apples were first introduced as an option in Happy Meals, customers have ordered them more than 100 million times, illustrating that when given healthier options, customers often choose them for their children instead.
But those opposed to the toys insist that including them in Happy Meals is contributing directly to the obesity epidemic because it makes the generally unhealthy meals highly attractive to children who do not know any better.
And while acknowledging that parents ultimately bear the responsibility of controlling their children's food choices, CSPI believes that using toys to lure kids into McDonald's is so powerful and "predatory" as a form of marketing that parents often have a difficult time resisting their children's nagging
Still others say that placing heavy restrictions on what McDonald's can include in Happy Meals may be a bit severe and overbearing, and that it will do little to effectively reverse the nation's obesity epidemic.
Some are even suggesting a compromise in which McDonald's limit its new toy offerings to once a month rather than once a week, in order to reduce the number of times children want to go to McDonald's to get a new toy.
Sources for this story include:
http://www.latimes.com/news/health/...
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ch...
Showing posts with label lawsuit. Show all posts
Showing posts with label lawsuit. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Lawsuit likely over 'baby DNA' being secretly stored in military database
(NaturalNews) A civil rights lawyer is threatening to sue the Texas Department of State Health Services for secretly handing over genetic data on 800 newborns to the U.S. military for a law enforcement database.
Jim Harrington, director of the Texas Civil Rights Project, only recently settled a lawsuit with the department for collecting the DNA in the first place without parents' consent. After it became known that hospitals were taking blood samples from the heels of newborn infants and storing them indefinitely, Harrington and four parents took the state to court over unlawful search and seizure. The case was settled when the department agreed to destroy 5.3 million blood samples.
After the case became public, the Texas Legislature passed a law requiring health workers to inform parents before taking such blood samples, giving them a chance to opt out.
According to Harrington, the Department of Health Services never admitted during negotiations that any off-site use had been made of the blood samples.
"I can't tell you how many times we sat there, and they said no law enforcement," Harrington said. "They said, 'It's only about medical research, it's only about medical research."
"This is the worst case of bad faith I have dealt with as a lawyer," he said.
Recently, however, the Texas Tribune discovered information on the department's web site indicating that 800 of the samples had been sent (without identifying information) to the Armed Forces DNA Identification Laboratory database project.
The genetic material might help identify "ethnic or ancestral origins of unidentified corpses using mitochondrial DNA," said department spokesperson Carrie Williams, defending the decision to participate in the program. "We believed it was an important research project that could potentially help in missing persons cases."
Regarding why no one was notified that DNA collected without consent was being sent to the military, she said, "We don't publicize every agency initiative or contract, and obviously this is a sensitive topic."
Harrington has threatened another lawsuit unless the samples are destroyed.
Sources for this story include: www.statesman.com/news/texas-politi....
Jim Harrington, director of the Texas Civil Rights Project, only recently settled a lawsuit with the department for collecting the DNA in the first place without parents' consent. After it became known that hospitals were taking blood samples from the heels of newborn infants and storing them indefinitely, Harrington and four parents took the state to court over unlawful search and seizure. The case was settled when the department agreed to destroy 5.3 million blood samples.
After the case became public, the Texas Legislature passed a law requiring health workers to inform parents before taking such blood samples, giving them a chance to opt out.
According to Harrington, the Department of Health Services never admitted during negotiations that any off-site use had been made of the blood samples.
"I can't tell you how many times we sat there, and they said no law enforcement," Harrington said. "They said, 'It's only about medical research, it's only about medical research."
"This is the worst case of bad faith I have dealt with as a lawyer," he said.
Recently, however, the Texas Tribune discovered information on the department's web site indicating that 800 of the samples had been sent (without identifying information) to the Armed Forces DNA Identification Laboratory database project.
The genetic material might help identify "ethnic or ancestral origins of unidentified corpses using mitochondrial DNA," said department spokesperson Carrie Williams, defending the decision to participate in the program. "We believed it was an important research project that could potentially help in missing persons cases."
Regarding why no one was notified that DNA collected without consent was being sent to the military, she said, "We don't publicize every agency initiative or contract, and obviously this is a sensitive topic."
Harrington has threatened another lawsuit unless the samples are destroyed.
Sources for this story include: www.statesman.com/news/texas-politi....
Monday, June 7, 2010
7-year-old girl dies after Botox injections
(NaturalNews) A 7-year-old girl died after a Botox injection paralyzed her lungs, her family says, and they are suing pharmaceutical company Allergan for wrongful death.
Botox is the trade name for the botulinim toxin, which is produced by the botulism bacteria. Botulinim toxin blocks nerve signaling, leading to muscle paralysis, and has been called the single most toxic protein known. In small doses, it is approved for use to smooth away facial wrinkles. Although it is not approved in the United States for the treatment of muscle spasms such as those caused by cerebral palsy, U.S. law allows doctors to prescribe drugs for unapproved uses if they wish.
Kristen Spears began Botox treatment for cerebral palsy-related spasms at age six. In November 2007, Spears died from pneumonia and respiratory failure, which her family claims was caused when the botulinim toxin spread to her lungs and weakened her breathing muscles.
Spears' case is the first Botox-related wrongful death lawsuit to reach trial. The company claims that the drug actually improved Spears' breathing, and that she died from complications of her underlying cerebral palsy. To counter this claim, the plaintiffs' lawyers will seek to prove that the Botox spread beyond its injection site in Spears' body.
According to the nonprofit watchdog group Public Citizen, there have been at least 180 reported cases of serious side effects from Botox and at least 16 related deaths. Concern over these side effects led the FDA to mandate a "black box" label for Botox in April 2009, warning that improper injection may allow the toxin to spread to other parts of the body, with potentially fatal consequences.
Records unsealed as part of the lawsuit show that as early as 2005, Allergan knew that serious side effects could result from use of the drug.
Allergan makes $1.3 billion a year in Botox sales, $47 million from its use as a cerebral palsy treatment alone.
Sources for this story include: www.ktla.com/news/landing/ktla-boto... http://www.webmd.com/skin-problems-....
Botox is the trade name for the botulinim toxin, which is produced by the botulism bacteria. Botulinim toxin blocks nerve signaling, leading to muscle paralysis, and has been called the single most toxic protein known. In small doses, it is approved for use to smooth away facial wrinkles. Although it is not approved in the United States for the treatment of muscle spasms such as those caused by cerebral palsy, U.S. law allows doctors to prescribe drugs for unapproved uses if they wish.
Kristen Spears began Botox treatment for cerebral palsy-related spasms at age six. In November 2007, Spears died from pneumonia and respiratory failure, which her family claims was caused when the botulinim toxin spread to her lungs and weakened her breathing muscles.
Spears' case is the first Botox-related wrongful death lawsuit to reach trial. The company claims that the drug actually improved Spears' breathing, and that she died from complications of her underlying cerebral palsy. To counter this claim, the plaintiffs' lawyers will seek to prove that the Botox spread beyond its injection site in Spears' body.
According to the nonprofit watchdog group Public Citizen, there have been at least 180 reported cases of serious side effects from Botox and at least 16 related deaths. Concern over these side effects led the FDA to mandate a "black box" label for Botox in April 2009, warning that improper injection may allow the toxin to spread to other parts of the body, with potentially fatal consequences.
Records unsealed as part of the lawsuit show that as early as 2005, Allergan knew that serious side effects could result from use of the drug.
Allergan makes $1.3 billion a year in Botox sales, $47 million from its use as a cerebral palsy treatment alone.
Sources for this story include: www.ktla.com/news/landing/ktla-boto... http://www.webmd.com/skin-problems-....
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Lawsuit seeks to ban genetically modified sugar beets
(NaturalNews) A group of Oregon farmers are seeking an injunction against this year's planting of Monsanto's genetically engineered sugar beets. The groups of organic farmers, food safety advocates and conservationists, is seeking to persuade a judge to ban the crop until the USDA provides a proper environmental impact statement proving that the crops are safe and that they will not cross-contaminate nearby fields.
The debate over whether or not to allow GE crops into the food supply has been a hotly debated one, but the biotech industry has been the side unable to prove that its products are safe. Those concerned about the negative consequences of GE crops have plenty of unresolved questions that demand answers prior to any GE crop being approved. Yet in reality, the USDA has succumbed to industry pressure instead, jeopardizing the entire food industry.
Nearly half of the nation's sugar beets are genetically modified. They can be found planted on more than one million acres across ten states. The beets have been engineered to be resistant to Monsanto's "RoundUp" herbicide, but their components are not limited to the fields in which they are planted, spreading across the landscape via pollen and seeds carried in the wind. Because it is impossible to track where GE plant fragments end up, there is no ensuring that any crop is truly non-GE or organic.
Concerned groups already won a previous lawsuit that required federal officials to reevaluate their 2005 approval of unrestricted GE beet plantings in light of allegations that the government agencies failed to properly evaluate their environmental impacts. Now they hope to stop any further plantings of the crop until the USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service conducts a proper analysis, a process which could take upwards of three years.
Until then, the plaintiffs hope to eliminate all sales of GE beet sugar because it was unlawfully deregulated in the first place. "Legally, they shouldn't be on the market," explained Paul Achitoff, an attorney for Earthjustice, in an AP article.
"The sugar beets were unlawfully deregulated," he opined. "The court has already found that."
Frank Morton, one of the Oregon farmers who is suing the USDA, explained that he has already found GE pollen on his own crops. He grows organic seed for vegetables on his farm, but because of the pollen contamination, his crops are now worthless in the organic market.
Sprouts from GE sugar beets are also randomly showing up in people's farms and gardens, including in compost sold at local garden centers in Oregon.
Sources for this story include:
http://www.organicconsumers.org/art...
The debate over whether or not to allow GE crops into the food supply has been a hotly debated one, but the biotech industry has been the side unable to prove that its products are safe. Those concerned about the negative consequences of GE crops have plenty of unresolved questions that demand answers prior to any GE crop being approved. Yet in reality, the USDA has succumbed to industry pressure instead, jeopardizing the entire food industry.
Nearly half of the nation's sugar beets are genetically modified. They can be found planted on more than one million acres across ten states. The beets have been engineered to be resistant to Monsanto's "RoundUp" herbicide, but their components are not limited to the fields in which they are planted, spreading across the landscape via pollen and seeds carried in the wind. Because it is impossible to track where GE plant fragments end up, there is no ensuring that any crop is truly non-GE or organic.
Concerned groups already won a previous lawsuit that required federal officials to reevaluate their 2005 approval of unrestricted GE beet plantings in light of allegations that the government agencies failed to properly evaluate their environmental impacts. Now they hope to stop any further plantings of the crop until the USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service conducts a proper analysis, a process which could take upwards of three years.
Until then, the plaintiffs hope to eliminate all sales of GE beet sugar because it was unlawfully deregulated in the first place. "Legally, they shouldn't be on the market," explained Paul Achitoff, an attorney for Earthjustice, in an AP article.
"The sugar beets were unlawfully deregulated," he opined. "The court has already found that."
Frank Morton, one of the Oregon farmers who is suing the USDA, explained that he has already found GE pollen on his own crops. He grows organic seed for vegetables on his farm, but because of the pollen contamination, his crops are now worthless in the organic market.
Sprouts from GE sugar beets are also randomly showing up in people's farms and gardens, including in compost sold at local garden centers in Oregon.
Sources for this story include:
http://www.organicconsumers.org/art...
Thursday, May 13, 2010
FDA finally sued over its illegal suppression of raw milk
(NaturalNews) Recently the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund, a non-profit organization devoted to protecting family farms and their customers from unconstitutional government intrusion, has filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Food and Drug Administration over its unconstitutional ban on the interstate sale of raw milk. The case is one of the largest the FTCLDF has ever initiated, particularly against the FDA which has been leading the unlawful crusade against raw milk for many years.
Ironically, in 1987 when the FDA first established guidelines that restricted interstate raw milk sales, the agency did so reluctantly at the behest of a court ruling prompted by a consumer group. Things have changed dramatically since that time, as the agency now aggressively leads the charge to disrupt and eliminate all raw milk sales wherever it can.
The FDA, USDA, and other local public health officials have shifted their tactics in recent years as well, targeting consumers who purchase raw milk rather than farmers who sell it. A recent case of this involved an unlawful search and seizure by Georgia officials who forced a man to destroy 110 gallons of raw milk from South Carolina that he was delivering to customers who had already paid for them.
The crux of the case alleges that the FDA is overstepping its constitutional bounds by banning interstate raw milk sales. Customers who travel to nearby states to purchase raw milk are doing so legally, but once they cross the border back into their home state where sales are illegal, they are essentially being forced to break the FDA's rules, which themselves violate the constitutional right to travel, the constitutional right of privacy, and the substantive due process clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Whenever it is challenged on its position regarding raw milk, the FDA typically does not have much, if anything, to say in response. The agency typically resorts to an outdated, deceptive slideshow presentation available on its website that supposedly indicts raw milk as being unsafe for human consumption. This is besides the fact that its rules violate the U.S. Constitution.
Statistical data actually reveals that raw milk is far safer than not only pasteurized milk, but also a lot of other processed foods that are implicated foodborne illness outbreaks. Lunchmeat, for instance, has a far worse track record of being contaminated with bacteria like salmonella and E. coli than does raw milk. The FDA has yet to participate in an honest debate concerning these facts.
Additionally, the FTCLDF case presents alternatives to the FDA's existing policy, including simply requiring labeling that indicates the milk is unpasteurized. Considering that raw milk is legal in roughly half of the United States, there is no legitimate reason why the FDA continues to vilify it, especially since it is far safer than many other foods available on the market.
Sources for this story include:
http://www.grist.org/article/raw-mi...
Ironically, in 1987 when the FDA first established guidelines that restricted interstate raw milk sales, the agency did so reluctantly at the behest of a court ruling prompted by a consumer group. Things have changed dramatically since that time, as the agency now aggressively leads the charge to disrupt and eliminate all raw milk sales wherever it can.
The FDA, USDA, and other local public health officials have shifted their tactics in recent years as well, targeting consumers who purchase raw milk rather than farmers who sell it. A recent case of this involved an unlawful search and seizure by Georgia officials who forced a man to destroy 110 gallons of raw milk from South Carolina that he was delivering to customers who had already paid for them.
The crux of the case alleges that the FDA is overstepping its constitutional bounds by banning interstate raw milk sales. Customers who travel to nearby states to purchase raw milk are doing so legally, but once they cross the border back into their home state where sales are illegal, they are essentially being forced to break the FDA's rules, which themselves violate the constitutional right to travel, the constitutional right of privacy, and the substantive due process clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Whenever it is challenged on its position regarding raw milk, the FDA typically does not have much, if anything, to say in response. The agency typically resorts to an outdated, deceptive slideshow presentation available on its website that supposedly indicts raw milk as being unsafe for human consumption. This is besides the fact that its rules violate the U.S. Constitution.
Statistical data actually reveals that raw milk is far safer than not only pasteurized milk, but also a lot of other processed foods that are implicated foodborne illness outbreaks. Lunchmeat, for instance, has a far worse track record of being contaminated with bacteria like salmonella and E. coli than does raw milk. The FDA has yet to participate in an honest debate concerning these facts.
Additionally, the FTCLDF case presents alternatives to the FDA's existing policy, including simply requiring labeling that indicates the milk is unpasteurized. Considering that raw milk is legal in roughly half of the United States, there is no legitimate reason why the FDA continues to vilify it, especially since it is far safer than many other foods available on the market.
Sources for this story include:
http://www.grist.org/article/raw-mi...
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Heparin blood thinner caused man to lose his toes, claims lawsuit
(NaturalNews) A recent report in the West Virginia Recorddetails a lawsuit filed against Baxter Healthcare Corp. for damage caused by their blood thinning drug, heparin. After being prescribed the drug in 2007, James Bradley quickly developed severe bodily injuries that resulted in having to have his toes amputated. He and his wife Shirley are seeking compensation for his loss and the intense pain and suffering that he experienced from the drug.
Heparin is known to cause a severe blood platelet disorder called thrombocytopenia that can cause patients to develop gangrene. The Bradley case is one of many in which patients have had to undergo amputation due to heparin-induced disease and decay.
The Bradley case is alleging that Baxter and other drug companies that market heparin are doing so falsely. They believe it is clear that the drug is not safe and that it does not work. The suit is claiming that the drug is defectively designed and fraudulent in its purpose and the claims being made by its manufacturers and marketers.
In 2008, heparin was recalled for being contaminated with a counterfeit active ingredient that was causing serious allergic reactions and even death in some patients. Chinese manufacturers that produce the drug for Baxter were found to have been using a spurious active ingredient that injured and killed hundreds of people.
Hollywood actor Dennis Quaid and his wife almost lost their twin newborn babies when multiple doses of heparin were given them rather than a more diluted form of it called HepLock. Heparin and Heplock are commonly mixed up by medical professionals which has caused many injuries and fatalities.
Nearly all of the 450,000 Americans who are on dialysis use heparin. Its listed side effects are already highly severe and are known to be possibly fatal. However the rate of amputations and death directly caused by the drug is unacceptable and demands justice.
The list of personal injury cases and class action lawsuits being filed against Baxter and the other producers of heparin is growing as increasing numbers of injured people are seeking remediation for damage caused by the drug. As the primary manufacturer of heparin prescribed in the United States, Baxter will have a lot of explaining to do concerning their apparent negligence in disclosing the truth about the dangers of heparin.
Some natural blood thinners and clot prevention nutrients include omega-3 fatty acids, vitamin E, ginseng, methyl sulfonyl methane (MSM), and white willow bark. Some foods with blood thinning properties include ginger, garlic, and onions.
Sources for this story include: http://www.attorneyatlaw.com/2009/1...
Heparin is known to cause a severe blood platelet disorder called thrombocytopenia that can cause patients to develop gangrene. The Bradley case is one of many in which patients have had to undergo amputation due to heparin-induced disease and decay.
The Bradley case is alleging that Baxter and other drug companies that market heparin are doing so falsely. They believe it is clear that the drug is not safe and that it does not work. The suit is claiming that the drug is defectively designed and fraudulent in its purpose and the claims being made by its manufacturers and marketers.
In 2008, heparin was recalled for being contaminated with a counterfeit active ingredient that was causing serious allergic reactions and even death in some patients. Chinese manufacturers that produce the drug for Baxter were found to have been using a spurious active ingredient that injured and killed hundreds of people.
Hollywood actor Dennis Quaid and his wife almost lost their twin newborn babies when multiple doses of heparin were given them rather than a more diluted form of it called HepLock. Heparin and Heplock are commonly mixed up by medical professionals which has caused many injuries and fatalities.
Nearly all of the 450,000 Americans who are on dialysis use heparin. Its listed side effects are already highly severe and are known to be possibly fatal. However the rate of amputations and death directly caused by the drug is unacceptable and demands justice.
The list of personal injury cases and class action lawsuits being filed against Baxter and the other producers of heparin is growing as increasing numbers of injured people are seeking remediation for damage caused by the drug. As the primary manufacturer of heparin prescribed in the United States, Baxter will have a lot of explaining to do concerning their apparent negligence in disclosing the truth about the dangers of heparin.
Some natural blood thinners and clot prevention nutrients include omega-3 fatty acids, vitamin E, ginseng, methyl sulfonyl methane (MSM), and white willow bark. Some foods with blood thinning properties include ginger, garlic, and onions.
Sources for this story include: http://www.attorneyatlaw.com/2009/1...
Friday, January 22, 2010
Johnson and Johnson engaged in elaborate drug profit kickback scheme, says Dept. of Justice lawsuit
(NaturalNews) Drug maker Johnson & Johnson paid tens of millions of dollars in kickbacks to nursing home pharmacies in order to boost the sale of its drugs, says a Justice Department lawsuit.
The payments were often disguised as grants or "educational funding," says the lawsuit, and they were directed to Omnicare, a prominent nursing home pharmacy company.
The elaborate kickback scheme caused sales of Johnson & Johnson drugs to skyrocket. Sales of the antipsychotic drug Risperdal, for example, helped J&J drug purchases from Omnicare nearly triple from $100 million to $280 million a year.
An email released by the Justice Department shows an Omnicare executive writing:
"WE ARE SELLING MORE HIGH PRICED DRUGS (read Risperdal here) FOR THE PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY!!"
Omnicare is already steeped in other accusations of fraud. The company agreed to pay the U.S. government $98 million in a settlement reached a few months ago (while admitting no guilt, of course). (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009...)
Johnson & Johnson medications are used as part of this "chemical restraint" recipe, which is actually a form of chemical abuse of senior citizens. J&J and Omnicare, of course, are far more concerned with selling medications than actually improving the quality of life for nursing home patients, so the more drugs are sold and consumed, the more "success" these companies think they have.
But what's the cost in human lives? What is the real human impact of drugging our senior citizens to the point where they're barely human?
Companies like Johnson & Johnson only seem to care about their own profits. They appear to have no compassion whatsoever for the lives of the people impacted by their patented chemical pharmaceuticals. They also appear to have no respect for the law: Bribing Omnicare with kickbacks, if proven by the Justice Department, is a felony crime.
But as usually happens in these cases, Johnson & Johnson will probably get off with a slap on the wrist: An affordable fine and a bit of bad press. Then, like most other pharmaceutical companies, they'll likely go right back to violating the law in order to sell more high-profit medications. Why? Because it works.
Pharmaceutical companies rarely face any real consequences for their crimes, even when they're caught red-handed. It's a curious thing, really. In any other industry, companies engaged in such blatant fraud would be shut down, their CEOs arrested and prosecuted in federal court. But when it comes to Big Pharma, all they have to do is pay a small fine, after which they're free to continue committing crimes.
It's nice to see the Justice Department finally going after these corporate crooks. Just last year, Pfizer was hit with a record $1 billion settlement with the Justice Department for engaging in fraudulent drug advertising. (http://www.naturalnews.com/027276_P...)
It was a rare victory, however. Most of the time, drug companies get away with their crimes and face no real consequences for bribery, corruption, marketing fraud, scientific fraud, intimidation of scientists or elaborate financial kickback schemes that put extra dollars into the hands of doctors or pharmacies that push their drugs.
The pharmaceutical industry, in case you haven't noticed, is a criminal world where those who commit the boldest and most egregious crimes generate the highest profits. The risk of getting caught is so low -- and the financial rewards for committing crimes are so great -- that drug companies fully realize it pays to break the law.
That's why they'll keep breaking the law until something changes. As I've said before, I think it's time the Justice Department marched into the offices of these drug companies with pistols drawn and arrested the top CEOs for their crimes against humanity. Only by showing these drug companies that their executives are going to be prosecuted for their crimes can we hope to put an end to the criminal activities that have now become routine across the pharmaceutical industry.
Sources for this story include:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...
The payments were often disguised as grants or "educational funding," says the lawsuit, and they were directed to Omnicare, a prominent nursing home pharmacy company.
The elaborate kickback scheme caused sales of Johnson & Johnson drugs to skyrocket. Sales of the antipsychotic drug Risperdal, for example, helped J&J drug purchases from Omnicare nearly triple from $100 million to $280 million a year.
An email released by the Justice Department shows an Omnicare executive writing:
"WE ARE SELLING MORE HIGH PRICED DRUGS (read Risperdal here) FOR THE PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY!!"
Omnicare is already steeped in other accusations of fraud. The company agreed to pay the U.S. government $98 million in a settlement reached a few months ago (while admitting no guilt, of course). (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009...)
Drugging the seniors
Today's nursing home patients are often treated much like prisoners, mentally shackled with chemical restraints known as pharmaceuticals. The mass-drugging of senior citizens in nursing homes has now reached criminal proportions. Rather than actually treating patients in ways that make them healthy, nursing home staff in some facilities have discovered it's much easier to just drug patients into a zombie-like state where they don't ask questions or cause trouble.Johnson & Johnson medications are used as part of this "chemical restraint" recipe, which is actually a form of chemical abuse of senior citizens. J&J and Omnicare, of course, are far more concerned with selling medications than actually improving the quality of life for nursing home patients, so the more drugs are sold and consumed, the more "success" these companies think they have.
But what's the cost in human lives? What is the real human impact of drugging our senior citizens to the point where they're barely human?
Companies like Johnson & Johnson only seem to care about their own profits. They appear to have no compassion whatsoever for the lives of the people impacted by their patented chemical pharmaceuticals. They also appear to have no respect for the law: Bribing Omnicare with kickbacks, if proven by the Justice Department, is a felony crime.
But as usually happens in these cases, Johnson & Johnson will probably get off with a slap on the wrist: An affordable fine and a bit of bad press. Then, like most other pharmaceutical companies, they'll likely go right back to violating the law in order to sell more high-profit medications. Why? Because it works.
Pharmaceutical companies rarely face any real consequences for their crimes, even when they're caught red-handed. It's a curious thing, really. In any other industry, companies engaged in such blatant fraud would be shut down, their CEOs arrested and prosecuted in federal court. But when it comes to Big Pharma, all they have to do is pay a small fine, after which they're free to continue committing crimes.
It's nice to see the Justice Department finally going after these corporate crooks. Just last year, Pfizer was hit with a record $1 billion settlement with the Justice Department for engaging in fraudulent drug advertising. (http://www.naturalnews.com/027276_P...)
It was a rare victory, however. Most of the time, drug companies get away with their crimes and face no real consequences for bribery, corruption, marketing fraud, scientific fraud, intimidation of scientists or elaborate financial kickback schemes that put extra dollars into the hands of doctors or pharmacies that push their drugs.
The pharmaceutical industry, in case you haven't noticed, is a criminal world where those who commit the boldest and most egregious crimes generate the highest profits. The risk of getting caught is so low -- and the financial rewards for committing crimes are so great -- that drug companies fully realize it pays to break the law.
That's why they'll keep breaking the law until something changes. As I've said before, I think it's time the Justice Department marched into the offices of these drug companies with pistols drawn and arrested the top CEOs for their crimes against humanity. Only by showing these drug companies that their executives are going to be prosecuted for their crimes can we hope to put an end to the criminal activities that have now become routine across the pharmaceutical industry.
Sources for this story include:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
