CCHR

Udarnik

Gold Meritorious Patron
Before you start taking pot shots at people without doing the proper research because you don't like them, you should read this thread from years ago that shows there is a Scientology connection to pharmaceuticals.

You should apologize.

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthre...d-trade-marks-for-drugs&highlight=trade marks

I think it's no secret now that I worked in Big Pharma for over a decade. Let me set some things straight, starting with the thread above.

A trademark is not a patent.

A trademark is not a patent.

The Co$ had no, zip, nada, none, nothing to do with Sandoz.

What you see there could possibly be an early application of the tech of buying up URLs that are likely to be used by a future company because the names are so catchy / common / plausible sounding, and that probably should have been the first guess as to what is going on.

But it's not. The real world is even more complicated.

Did anyone stop to ask why these trademarks are in New Zealand? Fucking New Zealand? (Sorry Kiwis, I love your country, but you are waaaaaaay down in the minor leagues when it comes to economics). As a conspiracy? Are you kidding me? The population is one quarter that of Greater NYC. A conspiracy to capture what is quite possibly the smallest drug market in the developed world now that Liechtenstein and Luxembourg are part of the EMA? Why did they trademark in New Zealand, and not, for example in the fucking United States? I mean, when did the Co$ ever not go for the big money? Ever?

This shows up in Kiwiland because of the peculiarities of the New Zealand drug approval system. They only allow each individual company to introduce to their market new drugs every few years, and the company has to pick their most lucrative ones, because they only allow each company a few slots. So a very large number of drugs are never marketed in New Zealand, and given the costs, the drug companies never patent the chemical entity OR trademark in New Zealand. I will bet you that some Sea Ogre in New Zealand saw that the names were trademarked in the rest of the world, and got the bright idea of patenting those names so that if Sandoz ever did launch them in New Zealand, the Co$ could sue Sandoz for trademark infringement, or at least extort some money from them to use those names.

Next, brainwashing psychs in med school. Puhleeeez. Obviously you've never been in the system. I do not know of a single med school in the US that allows Pharma companies access to their interns and residents. It's totally verboten. I once gave a talk as a Pharma Clinical Development Director at a major medical school - and the residents were allowed in. I was invited by the Chair of the department concerned. But I had to submit my topic over 3 months in advance and my slides a month in advance to be vetted to make sure there were no advertising or marketing claims in them. I spoke only about basic science, and the Dean of the school was there to make sure I didn't stray from that. He actually chuckled when I explained some nuances of the science and said that they ought to push back with to sales reps who only barely understand what they are selling - I'm sure my marketing colleagues' heads would have exploded no hearing that, but they were not even allowed in the building to talk to the professors (which is usually kosher at med schools) the entire day I was there.

Now don't get me wrong: Pharma often behaves badly. They lobby like hell and they don't spend enough on research. That being said, I've worked on over 3 dozen projects and drugs, one of which I took from preclinical to launch. The cost of developing that drug was over $1.5 billion dollars. That's a lotta dough to recoup when the bean counters start doing ROI calculations.

Furthermore, in their marketing and sales, I think Pharma acts badly by pushing psych meds for temporary conditions such as divorce or death of a loved one that should not be medicated. But for major depressive disorder, what, besides an SSRI or and SNRI would you use? Electroshock? Lobotomy? There are some old meds called tricyclic antidepressants with horrible side effects. Want to go back to those? What, exactly, is in a psych's armamentarium besides drugs? Because they use what's really the only tools at their disposal, doesn't mean they're brainwashed.

Now a psychologist? They are there to help you talk through things. For real, chronic, medical conditions, a wise patient consults both, and like EC, determines - with their doctor's advice - when and if it's appropriate to titrate down the dosage or go off altogether.

I'd love to see some genetic therapies that make many drugs obsolete. In fact looking into that is part of my current job description. But wishing for that doesn't make it so, just as the PETA loonies who claim that we could use computer models instead of animal models are living in a world of make believe.

The Pharma industry is constrained by law to operate within evidence based medicine. There have been fines in the billions of dollars for several companies for going "off label" and making claims that were substantiated by only one study instead of the replicate ones required for the FDA to place that evidence on the label. Part of my job description was designing the studies that would eventually go into a submission package, and the MDs, Ph.D.s and Pharm Ds who design studies actually do ask themselves "would I put my mother in this study". In one case I remember, one of our basic scientists actually did have her mother go to the nearest clinical trial site and apply to get in the study her daughter was working on. This woman had tried everything and nothing had worked, and our drug did. It was a miraculous thing. This is the back end of the industry that never gets talked about. Sure the marketers go overboard in many instances. But the drug itself HAS to work, and has to work so that the risk to benefit ratio is satisfactory to both the FDA and an independent panel of experts.

The medical community is not brainwashed, it's not out to get you, and if you pay for a drug, there are mountains of evidence on file with the world's regulatory agencies that the drug works and the side effects are well characterized. Whether you think you're getting good value on what you pay for is another matter, and we can debate the ethical boundaries in Pharma marketing all day. Personally, I want to see DTC and non-science trained sales reps banned. But that doesn't mean I don't take the drugs that are prescribed by my doc. I just got over a bout of pneumonia after the flu a few months ago, and I was damn glad that GSK put in the time and money to develop Augmentin.
 
Last edited:
hmmmm.....I think I have to nominate that for 2015's worst post of the year, to date.

sweeping generalities. . .

black pr.

bizarre illogical conclusions. . .

conspiratorial cultic certainty. . .

"Doctors don't like SOLUTIONS, only PROBLEMS"? Sorry, that's straight out of the L. Ron Hubbard Paranoia & Propaganda Playbook.

I'm surprised you don't call them "medicos" like Dr. Hubbard.



ps: Because much of my R&D and entrepreneurial work involves collaboration with medical researchers, surgeons and medtech visionaries, I have had the enormous and inspiring pleasure to work with many doctors quite directly for many years. I have personally witnessed extraordinary dedication, selflessness and a profound love and respect for their patients and the sincere wish to help them in any way possible. As far as I can tell, you say you went to one doctor years ago and drew all these dark conclusions about the noble gentlemen practicing the medical arts. I find the truth to be quite the opposite of what you are reporting. You complain about doctors's "arrogance"---try reading your own post again honestly and see if your own towering arrogance doesn't come up and smack you directly in the face.

Wot he said.
 

Helena Handbasket

Gold Meritorious Patron
But starting with the predicate that all doctors cannot be trusted because they only want PROBLEMS not SOLUTIONS is utter lunacy. I usually ignore Helena's formulas for success because (for starters) they never work out for her and her posts are a testimony to a virtually non-stop cascade of bad results and bad things that others did to her (according to her). Today I did say something because I found it genuinely repulsive and badly informed that she so arrogantly dismissed doctors as untrustworthy and ill-intentioned.
Not trustworthy and ill-intentioned, just arrogant. And uncooperative. I had to argue with this one doctor for about 10 minutes just to get him to give me my regular iron infusion.

I'm much more of a "do it yourselfer" these days on medical matters.

Most doctors I've known like to have their egos stroked. I stand by my comments.

From one HH to another
 
Sure, it is wise to learn all that one can and collaboratively work with one's health care providers.

But starting with the predicate that all doctors cannot be trusted because they only want PROBLEMS not SOLUTIONS is utter lunacy. I usually ignore Helena's formulas for success because (for starters) they never work out for her and her posts are a testimony to a virtually non-stop cascade of bad results and bad things that others did to her (according to her). Today I did say something because I found it genuinely repulsive and badly informed that she so arrogantly dismissed doctors as untrustworthy and ill-intentioned.

Reminds me of those characters that sometimes show up in criminal cases where the murderer choses to represent themselves at trial. None of this kind of delusional shit ever ends well.

Wot he said again!
 

eldritch cuckoo

brainslugged reptilian
I myself am on the "Mrs. Spratt" diet -- I don't watch my fat intake at all.

Half-hearted. I don't watch my WHOLE FOOD INTAKE at all! :biggrin: :melodramatic:

(1) Low-fat food has SUGAR added to it to make it palatable.

That's right. I especially know it's true for yoghurt products; there are articles out there about that scam for people interested in reading up on that. Low fat products tend to have all the more sugar in them. :yes:

Sweeteners (including the substance in stevia, lest the "chemistry haters" are waving with stevia leaves) are another problem. They actually are causing appetite flashs by making the body "expect" sugar (glucosis, that is) that but doesn't get delivered. Somehow this discrepancy then causes even more appetite. I don't know the details of the involved mechanisms, they likely have to do with insulin; one will have to read up on it.

(3) Food can be made that is both low-fat and low-carb but it invariably tastes like sawdust.

:hysterical: :thumbsup:

While cutting down on fat is self-defeating, cutting down on sugar is smart -- because sugar stimulates the appetite, is easily converted to fat in the body, and slows down the burning of fat that's already stored.

:yes:

Finally, if the diet people are so smart, where are all the skinny people that got that way because of following the recommended diets? They have a "here are the results" history that is nearly as bad as Scientology's.

How naive. They are much too shy and decent to brag with their wins of gaining loss! (For explanation of the rhetoric of this term that I just made up entirely, please look, for example, at "the dizzy thread". :giggle: ) There are lots of thin people having loss gains from ingenious diets - they are just hiding behind trees (while hugging them)! :omg:


"The fat problem" is to a large degree a problem of genetic disposition in combination with our "western food" that literally has become "too good", at last regarding calories... Ever since, there have been humans whose bodies are, due to subtle details of their biochemistry, most "efficient" with quickly processing all the calories in food into fat stored in their fat cells. In the past, the carriers of such mutations and variants always were the ones most likely to survive famines or, even earlier, simply times without luck at hunting. When food was scarce and not available all the time, these people weren't obese (nobody was) but stayed just a bit more healthy during the bad thimes than other people, with a bit more reserves of energy to be able to hunt properly, to feed their children, etc. - while some of the others starved to death. They have been the ones who can process food, when available, most efficiently and quickly "store away" the superfluous calories in their bodies. Others, who had access to the same amount of food (game), didn't process it that efficiently. Over millions of years, natural selection has favored these genetic variants. The people with a tiny bit more "efficient" biochemistry that would have supported them during stone age are now the large percentage of the population who are becoming obese when exposed to our calory-rich food - but they are not necessarily eating more, or less "healthy", than others around them. :bigcry:
In some indigene populations, like the Australian Aborigines, the percentage of people becoming obese when exposed to "western food" is even much larger than our 30-50% - this is a very striking (and unfortunate) result of the natural selection that has happened to their gene pool while living under extreme conditions for ages.

I'm relatively disinterested in diets and "food optimization", because, aside from being increasingly pissed about thin people indirectly having to pay for fat people's medical problems, I have no personal need for diets or low-carb food. I'm one of the people who are "thin as straw" and will stay so no matter what I eat or how much - my appetite stays "healthy", which also means it stays "healthily moderate". If I eat a whole bar of chocolate for breakfast, which I do occasionally, :blush: that likely means I won't feel the need to eat anything for half a day. :omg: Ofcourse I would get problems with deficiencies of vitamins etc if doing things like that all the time ... but regarding calories, my inner regulations are obviously working optimal. :rolleyes:
Occasionally, I do have days with strong appetite ... mostly following several days where I either had little food at home or had no time to eat properly. Then I can eat large amounts of food every few hours, apparently as soon as the stomach is emptied again, I get seriously hungry, which is very unusual. :omg: But the next days, the little fat that has been built up in the existing fat cells, gets depleated... At last I assume that's what's happening, because otherwise, how can I go for days without feeling hungry, eating not much at all, just so much that the stomach gets filled from time to time and doesn't growl? Usually, when I get seriously hungry and cannot eat right now, my stomach starts to cramp and I even get nausea and dizzyness, but not on these days... :screwy:
The above would certainly be unwise behavior for anybody prone to weight problems, since that actually encourages the body to build up fat cells... Like "flash diets", it is just the wrong thing to do... Yet I am still barely weighing "enough", some five kilos less and I would scratch the official definition of underweight for my body height - despite of being a huge fan of food! :p I don't know whether I should, despite of not being obese, worry about bad cholesterol orso, but I know from occasional tests that I don't have any deficiencies of vitamins ("D" aside :blush: ) or whatever...

The incessant and seemingly never satisified appetite that other persons are showing all the time, while indeed growing obese, worries me - just as people are worrying me who swear they don't eat more or different than others and are still growing obese. :unsure:
The solution to the "fat problem" is likely to be complex and multi-faceted - from making the food healthier (basically, not "less-carb" but "more-vitamins" (and other stuff)), to steering children's eating habits (known to strongly influence later preferences) into the right direction. The food served in schools certainly has to change. A time ago (or still/again?), Jamie Oliver had a good project about that, which was a great success and actually resulted in a change of the food menu in several schools. :yes:
 
Last edited:

Little David

Gold Meritorious Patron
Some doctors are without conscience but like everyone else most of them have a conscience.

The pharmaceutical company Johnson & Johnson has indirectly given CCHR a lot of money recently by way of their partner, Bob Duggan of Pharmacyclics. They bought a half interest from Duggan in the drug that has made him a billionaire. He is Scientology's biggest, most generous whale.

From one of Robert "Bob" Duggan's web sites:

"He is also a strong supporter of human rights and improving the level of ethics in society. He is a large donor to three major human rights initiatives. Furthermore, he supports and advocates The Way to Happiness, which helps reduce crime rates and improves human conditions in communities and even entire countries."

http://www.bobduggan.org/

DugganInvictus2-e1417143742557.jpg
 

Little David

Gold Meritorious Patron

I no longer trust doctors. I'd much prefer a system where you just say what you want and you get it (narcotics excepted, of course).

Helena
If you Dr. shop you will find doctors that will do that. Personally I wouldn't go to a Dr. who would Rx something if he thought it could do more harm than good but prescribes it anyway because I told him to.
 

Intelligence

Silver Meritorious Patron
I think it's no secret now that I worked in Big Pharma for over a decade. Let me set some things straight, starting with the thread above.

A trademark is not a patent.

A trademark is not a patent.

The Co$ had no, zip, nada, none, nothing to do with Sandoz.

What you see there could possibly be an early application of the tech of buying up URLs that are likely to be used by a future company because the names are so catchy / common / plausible sounding, and that probably should have been the first guess as to what is going on.

But it's not. The real world is even more complicated.

SNIP

You're right. I applied for a PDF FILE of: >IP Number: 87645 - Mark Name: SERENTIL

Just received by EMAIL a two page Report and nothing LINKED to the COS that I can see:

Intellectual Property Office of New Zealand - Case Details Report

Date and Time: 02 Feb 2015 04:53:37 p.m.

IP Number: 87645

Client Reference: Filing Date: 09 Aug 1968
Status: Expired
Mark Nature: Trade Mark
Mark Type: Word Under Proceeding: No
Series: No

Mark Name: SERENTIL

Intended use: Being used by the proprietor(s), (being the applicant)
Nice Classification Schedule: 4
Pre-approved: No
Classes and Specifications:
Class Goods and Services Descriptions
5 pharmaceutical products
Priority : None

Agent :

AJ PARK Postal : DX SX10007, Wellington, NZ
Postal : PO Box 949, Wellington 6140, NZ
Physical : State Insurance Tower, Level 22, 1 Willis Street, Wellington
6011, NZ
Service : State Insurance Tower, Level 22, 1 Willis Street, Wellington
6011, NZ
Email Address: [email protected]

Applicant(s) :

SANDOZ LTD Physical : Lichstrasse 35, Basle, CH
Postal : Lichstrasse 35, Basle, CH
Contact Details : AJ PARK, State Insurance Tower, Level 22, 1 Willis Street, Wellington 6011, NZ
Linked Cases: None

History:

Type Description Journal Published
TM App submitted ARev conversion 09 Aug 1968
Intellectual Property Office of New Zealand - Case Details Report
Date and Time: 02 Feb 2015 04:53:37 p.m.
Number: 87645

Page 2 of 2
This search facility provides information from the intellectual property registers administered and
maintained by IPONZ. Whilst IPONZ takes all reasonable care in the provision of its services, IPONZ and
the Ministry of Business, Innovation & Employment do not accept any responsibility or liability for any action
taken in reliance on this information or for any error, inadequacy, deficiency or flaw in or omission from the
information provided. This site is not intended to be a comprehensive or complete source of intellectual
property information. To obtain further assistance on the use of this Internet site please contact us.
 

Udarnik

Gold Meritorious Patron
You're right. I applied for a PDF FILE of: >IP Number: 87645 - Mark Name: SERENTIL

Just received by EMAIL a two page Report and nothing LINKED to the COS that I can see:

Intellectual Property Office of New Zealand - Case Details Report

Date and Time: 02 Feb 2015 04:53:37 p.m.

IP Number: 87645

Client Reference: Filing Date: 09 Aug 1968
Status: Expired
Mark Nature: Trade Mark
Mark Type: Word Under Proceeding: No
Series: No

Mark Name: SERENTIL

Intended use: Being used by the proprietor(s), (being the applicant)
Nice Classification Schedule: 4
Pre-approved: No
Classes and Specifications:
Class Goods and Services Descriptions
5 pharmaceutical products
Priority : None

Agent :

AJ PARK Postal : DX SX10007, Wellington, NZ
Postal : PO Box 949, Wellington 6140, NZ
Physical : State Insurance Tower, Level 22, 1 Willis Street, Wellington
6011, NZ
Service : State Insurance Tower, Level 22, 1 Willis Street, Wellington
6011, NZ
Email Address: [email protected]

Applicant(s) :

SANDOZ LTD Physical : Lichstrasse 35, Basle, CH
Postal : Lichstrasse 35, Basle, CH
Contact Details : AJ PARK, State Insurance Tower, Level 22, 1 Willis Street, Wellington 6011, NZ
Linked Cases: None

History:

Type Description Journal Published
TM App submitted ARev conversion 09 Aug 1968
Intellectual Property Office of New Zealand - Case Details Report
Date and Time: 02 Feb 2015 04:53:37 p.m.
Number: 87645

Page 2 of 2
This search facility provides information from the intellectual property registers administered and
maintained by IPONZ. Whilst IPONZ takes all reasonable care in the provision of its services, IPONZ and
the Ministry of Business, Innovation & Employment do not accept any responsibility or liability for any action
taken in reliance on this information or for any error, inadequacy, deficiency or flaw in or omission from the
information provided. This site is not intended to be a comprehensive or complete source of intellectual
property information. To obtain further assistance on the use of this Internet site please contact us.


Jeezus, that thing dates back to 68. Drug laws have significantly changed in the last 50 years. It could also be that when the trademark expired the Co$ went after it on some sort of black PR op. If you have to go to the developed world's smallest drug market and back 47 years to find a purported link, I think the first thing you would suspect is some Kiwi Sea Ogre saw a trademark loophole or expiry and pounced on it, rather than jumping to the conclusion that the company, whose products more than any other were bullbaited by the cult at the time, was getting into bed with Laffy.
 

cleared cannibal

Silver Meritorious Patron
I don't know about residents and interns but I personally know a GP that got approximately 25K in trips and rebates from Pfizer last year for prescribing a lot of their products. A lot of this came in the form of gift cards in which the GP didn't have to report.

As I have said the drug companies always have this good deal for the practitioner. Sometimes it is but it always is for the company. The biggest problem I have with drug companies is the mass marketing along with the fact that they sometimes manufacture a disease which may or may not be a danger but of course they have the cure for it and usually the drug needs to be taken for life.
 

oneonewasaracecar

Gold Meritorious Patron
You're right. I applied for a PDF FILE of: >IP Number: 87645 - Mark Name: SERENTIL

Just received by EMAIL a two page Report and nothing LINKED to the COS that I can see:

Intellectual Property Office of New Zealand - Case Details Report

Date and Time: 02 Feb 2015 04:53:37 p.m.

IP Number: 87645

Client Reference: Filing Date: 09 Aug 1968
Status: Expired
Mark Nature: Trade Mark
Mark Type: Word Under Proceeding: No
Series: No

Mark Name: SERENTIL

Intended use: Being used by the proprietor(s), (being the applicant)
Nice Classification Schedule: 4
Pre-approved: No
Classes and Specifications:
Class Goods and Services Descriptions
5 pharmaceutical products
Priority : None

Agent :

AJ PARK Postal : DX SX10007, Wellington, NZ
Postal : PO Box 949, Wellington 6140, NZ
Physical : State Insurance Tower, Level 22, 1 Willis Street, Wellington
6011, NZ
Service : State Insurance Tower, Level 22, 1 Willis Street, Wellington
6011, NZ
Email Address: [email protected]

Applicant(s) :

SANDOZ LTD Physical : Lichstrasse 35, Basle, CH
Postal : Lichstrasse 35, Basle, CH
Contact Details : AJ PARK, State Insurance Tower, Level 22, 1 Willis Street, Wellington 6011, NZ
Linked Cases: None

History:

Type Description Journal Published
TM App submitted ARev conversion 09 Aug 1968
Intellectual Property Office of New Zealand - Case Details Report
Date and Time: 02 Feb 2015 04:53:37 p.m.
Number: 87645

Page 2 of 2
This search facility provides information from the intellectual property registers administered and
maintained by IPONZ. Whilst IPONZ takes all reasonable care in the provision of its services, IPONZ and
the Ministry of Business, Innovation & Employment do not accept any responsibility or liability for any action
taken in reliance on this information or for any error, inadequacy, deficiency or flaw in or omission from the
information provided. This site is not intended to be a comprehensive or complete source of intellectual
property information. To obtain further assistance on the use of this Internet site please contact us.

Thank you. I like evidence.

I also think you have balls of steel talking so frankly about your medical issues when you know your enemies are watching.
 

Lermanet_com

Gold Meritorious Patron
Some doctors are without conscience but like everyone else most of them have a conscience.

The pharmaceutical company Johnson & Johnson has indirectly given CCHR a lot of money recently by way of their partner, Bob Duggan of Pharmacyclics. They bought a half interest from Duggan in the drug that has made him a billionaire. He is Scientology's biggest, most generous whale.

From one of Robert "Bob" Duggan's web sites:

"He is also a strong supporter of human rights and improving the level of ethics in society. He is a large donor to three major human rights initiatives. Furthermore, he supports and advocates The Way to Happiness, which helps reduce crime rates and improves human conditions in communities and even entire countries."

http://www.bobduggan.org/

DugganInvictus2-e1417143742557.jpg


Anyone know how much he has donated ?
 

Helena Handbasket

Gold Meritorious Patron
How naive. They are much too shy and decent to brag with their wins of gaining loss! ... There are lots of thin people having loss gains from ingenious diets - they are just hiding behind trees (while hugging them)!
You may have a point there. But I myself have no problem saying this: I lost 100 lbs. of excess weight by having weight loss surgery. One of the best things I ever did!

"The fat problem" is to a large degree a problem of genetic disposition in combination with our "western food" that literally has become "too good", at last regarding calories... Ever since, there have been humans whose bodies are, due to subtle details of their biochemistry, most "efficient" with quickly processing all the calories in food into fat stored in their fat cells. In the past, the carriers of such mutations and variants always were the ones most likely to survive famines or, even earlier, simply times without luck at hunting. When food was scarce and not available all the time, these people weren't obese (nobody was) but stayed just a bit more healthy during the bad thimes than other people, with a bit more reserves of energy to be able to hunt properly, to feed their children, etc. - while some of the others starved to death. They have been the ones who can process food, when available, most efficiently and quickly "store away" the superfluous calories in their bodies. Others, who had access to the same amount of food (game), didn't process it that efficiently. Over millions of years, natural selection has favored these genetic variants. The people with a tiny bit more "efficient" biochemistry that would have supported them during stone age are now the large percentage of the population who are becoming obese when exposed to our calory-rich food - but they are not necessarily eating more, or less "healthy", than others around them.
This is so true.

Helena
 

eldritch cuckoo

brainslugged reptilian
You may have a point there. But I myself have no problem saying this: I lost 100 lbs. of excess weight by having weight loss surgery. One of the best things I ever did!
OMG, about the diets (especially the crazier ones) being "widely successful", I was joking! :omg:
(On the other hand - maybe you were?? :blush: )
But anyways, congrats to the successful surgery. :thumbsup:
I may be thin ... but the fat cells I do have, I wish they would "reside" somewhere else. :blush: Well, at last I can sit comfortably over long periods of time. Such abilities are important nowadays. :p
 

Type4_PTS

Diamond Invictus SP
Anyone know how much he has donated ?

Just with IAS donations (and none others), Duggan is the top donor on the planet. Last March, Tony O guestimated 42 million in IAS donations.

But just a couple months ago Tony wrote:

The new issue of Impact magazine is out, and the publication — from the international Association of Scientologists — includes this great photograph of Bob and Trish Duggan with their newest piece of hardware from Scientology leader David Miscavige, given to them at the October IAS gala in England. They’ve reached yet another new donation status (which had to be invented for them) — Patron Invictus! And look at that trophy shine!

<snip>

Bob and Trish Duggan, a super-wealthy couple we wrote about at some length in a rather bizarre story earlier, have given so much money, the IAS keeps having to come up with new status names to award them with! And what does Patron Invictus mean? Have they now reached something like $55 million in giving to the IAS? $60 million? We’ll keep working our sources to see if we can get the amount nailed down. (And this is just for donations to the IAS. The Duggans have also given to numerous Scientology building projects around the world.)

Full Story: http://tonyortega.org/2014/11/28/the-richest-scientologists-in-the-world-get-a-new-trophy/
 
Last edited:

Boojuum

Silver Meritorious Patron
I think it's no secret now that I worked in Big Pharma for over a decade. Let me set some things straight, starting with the thread above.

A trademark is not a patent.

A trademark is not a patent.

The Co$ had no, zip, nada, none, nothing to do with Sandoz.

What you see there could possibly be an early application of the tech of buying up URLs that are likely to be used by a future company because the names are so catchy / common / plausible sounding, and that probably should have been the first guess as to what is going on.

But it's not. The real world is even more complicated.

Did anyone stop to ask why these trademarks are in New Zealand? Fucking New Zealand? (Sorry Kiwis, I love your country, but you are waaaaaaay down in the minor leagues when it comes to economics). As a conspiracy? Are you kidding me? The population is one quarter that of Greater NYC. A conspiracy to capture what is quite possibly the smallest drug market in the developed world now that Liechtenstein and Luxembourg are part of the EMA? Why did they trademark in New Zealand, and not, for example in the fucking United States? I mean, when did the Co$ ever not go for the big money? Ever?

This shows up in Kiwiland because of the peculiarities of the New Zealand drug approval system. They only allow each individual company to introduce to their market new drugs every few years, and the company has to pick their most lucrative ones, because they only allow each company a few slots. So a very large number of drugs are never marketed in New Zealand, and given the costs, the drug companies never patent the chemical entity OR trademark in New Zealand. I will bet you that some Sea Ogre in New Zealand saw that the names were trademarked in the rest of the world, and got the bright idea of patenting those names so that if Sandoz ever did launch them in New Zealand, the Co$ could sue Sandoz for trademark infringement, or at least extort some money from them to use those names.

Next, brainwashing psychs in med school. Puhleeeez. Obviously you've never been in the system. I do not know of a single med school in the US that allows Pharma companies access to their interns and residents. It's totally verboten. I once gave a talk as a Pharma Clinical Development Director at a major medical school - and the residents were allowed in. I was invited by the Chair of the department concerned. But I had to submit my topic over 3 months in advance and my slides a month in advance to be vetted to make sure there were no advertising or marketing claims in them. I spoke only about basic science, and the Dean of the school was there to make sure I didn't stray from that. He actually chuckled when I explained some nuances of the science and said that they ought to push back with to sales reps who only barely understand what they are selling - I'm sure my marketing colleagues' heads would have exploded no hearing that, but they were not even allowed in the building to talk to the professors (which is usually kosher at med schools) the entire day I was there.

Now don't get me wrong: Pharma often behaves badly. They lobby like hell and they don't spend enough on research. That being said, I've worked on over 3 dozen projects and drugs, one of which I took from preclinical to launch. The cost of developing that drug was over $1.5 billion dollars. That's a lotta dough to recoup when the bean counters start doing ROI calculations.

Furthermore, in their marketing and sales, I think Pharma acts badly by pushing psych meds for temporary conditions such as divorce or death of a loved one that should not be medicated. But for major depressive disorder, what, besides an SSRI or and SNRI would you use? Electroshock? Lobotomy? There are some old meds called tricyclic antidepressants with horrible side effects. Want to go back to those? What, exactly, is in a psych's armamentarium besides drugs? Because they use what's really the only tools at their disposal, doesn't mean they're brainwashed.

Now a psychologist? They are there to help you talk through things. For real, chronic, medical conditions, a wise patient consults both, and like EC, determines - with their doctor's advice - when and if it's appropriate to titrate down the dosage or go off altogether.

I'd love to see some genetic therapies that make many drugs obsolete. In fact looking into that is part of my current job description. But wishing for that doesn't make it so, just as the PETA loonies who claim that we could use computer models instead of animal models are living in a world of make believe.

The Pharma industry is constrained by law to operate within evidence based medicine. There have been fines in the billions of dollars for several companies for going "off label" and making claims that were substantiated by only one study instead of the replicate ones required for the FDA to place that evidence on the label. Part of my job description was designing the studies that would eventually go into a submission package, and the MDs, Ph.D.s and Pharm Ds who design studies actually do ask themselves "would I put my mother in this study". In one case I remember, one of our basic scientists actually did have her mother go to the nearest clinical trial site and apply to get in the study her daughter was working on. This woman had tried everything and nothing had worked, and our drug did. It was a miraculous thing. This is the back end of the industry that never gets talked about. Sure the marketers go overboard in many instances. But the drug itself HAS to work, and has to work so that the risk to benefit ratio is satisfactory to both the FDA and an independent panel of experts.

The medical community is not brainwashed, it's not out to get you, and if you pay for a drug, there are mountains of evidence on file with the world's regulatory agencies that the drug works and the side effects are well characterized. Whether you think you're getting good value on what you pay for is another matter, and we can debate the ethical boundaries in Pharma marketing all day. Personally, I want to see DTC and non-science trained sales reps banned. But that doesn't mean I don't take the drugs that are prescribed by my doc. I just got over a bout of pneumonia after the flu a few months ago, and I was damn glad that GSK put in the time and money to develop Augmentin.

Great post and thanks!!!

I agree with much of what you said.

It's easy to demonize "the psychs", "the military", "organized religion", "New Yorkers", "Congress", "politicians", as long as you're on the outside.
 

Udarnik

Gold Meritorious Patron
I don't know about residents and interns but I personally know a GP that got approximately 25K in trips and rebates from Pfizer last year for prescribing a lot of their products. A lot of this came in the form of gift cards in which the GP didn't have to report.

As I have said the drug companies always have this good deal for the practitioner. Sometimes it is but it always is for the company. The biggest problem I have with drug companies is the mass marketing along with the fact that they sometimes manufacture a disease which may or may not be a danger but of course they have the cure for it and usually the drug needs to be taken for life.

What you described there is a violation of law: to whit, the Sunshine Act. The Industry is not allowed to spend more than $50 per physician unless the physician is performing a service such as speaking in front of a group or being an investigator for a clinical trial. And everything must be disclosed, even a $2 cup of coffee. I filled out reams of such disclosures when I was at Pharma, and I refused to bring lunch to an office if I was giving a talk - I was NOT a sales rep, and if they wanted to be bribed to hear someone who designed the trial they were interested in, they could damn well look it up on Clinicaltrials.gov.

PM me the physician's name and I will look it up on Pfizer's site. Or you can look it up yourself - but the sites are deliberately hard to navigate, and in Pharma we all took training to navigate the competitors' sites in order to see what they were (or were not) paying the same docs. S/he's bullshitting you - there is no way that Pfizer would risk another huge fine (the last one was $2.3 Billion) for that kind of violation for a GP - GPs simply don't see enough patients or have enough prestige to get that kind of legitimate treatment, to say nothing of the risk of going to jail for the kind of illegitimate treatment you are describing (which is what the DOJ told Pfizer and BMS was going to happen if they pulled any more shenanigans).
 
Last edited:

Intelligence

Silver Meritorious Patron
Thank you. I like evidence.

I also think you have balls of steel talking so frankly about your medical issues when you know your enemies are watching.

I'm well aware of OSA bots monitoring my posts, and they already know my medical issues. My physician assured me that any of
the Meds could not be used against me if/when we do end up in a Deposition or Court Hearing in Montreal about the lawsuits I
filed against the COS/NN. LOL - at a previous case where I was interviewed and signed Affidavits, the investigator showed me
some Forum Posts, and asked, "Is this you, 'Intelligence' posting these comments?" I replied, "Of course it is, and here is one
of their documents I was referring to."

On another note, Tony Ortega published something related this morning:

http://tonyortega.org/2015/02/02/th...eatment-of-the-mentally-ill-you-havent-heard/

Hubbard hated psychiatry, and to this day one of Scientology’s most active front groups, the Citizens Commission on Human Rights (CCHR) maintains a facility on Sunset Boulevard in Hollywood called Psychiatry: An Industry of Death Museum.
 
Last edited:

RogerB

Crusader
Err, on the issue of the Registered Trade Marks . . . .

Owning those names would prevent the product bearing that registered trade mark from being marketed under that name if the owner was other than the maker of the product . . . ditto if the name was an invented word able to be copyrighted.

What the motive or other actuality of the Cof$ for owning the Trade Marks it registered was, I and none outside the cult would know except the drug company/ies who later re-aquired the rights/ownership of the names (Sandoz is one from memory). Were $$$$ involved? Who knows?

In other parts of the history of ESMB at the time of the exposing of Cof$ violations of its Charter in Oz before the Ozzie Senate Inquiry into charities (in which Senator Xenophon played a key part) it was revealed the Cof$ had many, many more such ownerships of trade marked/registered drug names.

That little list that was linked above was just a part of it, and it seems linked by Free because it is an easy little piece of info to see . . . the other traffic on this is rather vast with this particular item buried under something like 40-50 pages (and my pages are set at 40 posts per page!

It all happened 3+ years before you joined us here Urdarnik . . . thus you are doing a "know best" on only a small part of the info.

The key traffic on this was Jan-Feb in 2010

Rog
 

wigee1

Patron with Honors
Udarnik, A "Trade mark is not a Patient", years ago in NZ about 81 I did a Business Course , The very Young Tutor,One day confessed that he and a few mates had registered nearly every overseas successful Name that wasn,t operating in NZ yet. And Promptly got in early,
I thought what a scam, but a very expensive one ,Never seen him since , To find out if it worked , or was it a dream or the usual BS that he came up with. ........ Granitt
 
Top