A controversial bill in India would create a new regulatory body to serve as the ultimate authority on the introduction of Genetically Modified (GM) crops in that country.  The “Biotechnology Regulatory Authority Bill” would make a mockery of both consumer protection and farmers’ rights.

The bill stipulates that the regulatory body would be made up of five members based within the Department of Biotechnology (DBT) — the same agency that funds GM crop research in the country.

Policy Mic reports:

“In 2010, mass protests across the country stalled the introduction of GM Brinjal (aubergine). The Environment Minister was compelled to take public opinion into account and a moratorium on GM foods crops was installed. In a blatantly undemocratic move, failing to take into account public protests, this bill now allows biotechnology companies to bulldoze the Environment Ministry as well as state governments.”

Dr. Franz Adlkofer recently spoke at Harvard Law School, discussing the difficulties he and other scientists face when researching the carcinogenic effects of cell phones. He said that institutional corruption was obstructing research.

Adlkofer described his experience with the REFLEX study, which demonstrated that low frequency and radio frequency electromagnetic fields, even below the allowed exposure limits, could damage DNA.

According to Harvard Law School:

“In 2004, shortly after releasing those findings, Adlkofer was the target of allegations questioning the validity of the findings and even accusing him of fraud. While an ethics panel eventually dismissed the accusations, his struggle against slander continues”.

Over the last year, the U.S. government has aggressively pushed a $433-million plan to buy an experimental smallpox drug — although there is a good deal of uncertainty over whether it is necessary, and even whether it will work.   Senior officials took unusual steps to secure the contract for Siga Technologies, whose controlling shareholder is billionaire and longtime Democratic Party donor Ronald O. Perelman.

When Siga complained that government contracting specialists were resisting the company’s financial demands, the lead negotiator for the deal on behalf of the administration was replaced.

The Los Angeles Times reports:

“The contract calls for Siga to deliver 1.7 million doses of the drug for the nation’s biodefense stockpile. The price of approximately $255 per dose is well above what the government’s specialists had earlier said was reasonable … [S]mallpox was eradicated worldwide as of 1978 and is known to exist only in the locked freezers of a Russian scientific institute and the U.S. government. There is no credible evidence that any other country or a terrorist group possesses smallpox.”

The relationship between doctors and drug company marketers is finally falling under increased scrutiny, but a new group is stepping in to take drug company money — journalists and media organizations looking for easy funding.  The Australian, a newspaper in Australia run by the Murdoch empire, has accepted an undisclosed amount of sponsorship money from the drug industry for a series of articles on health policy.

The idea was first proposed at a meeting between advertising agents.  Many are saying that such financial closeness between journalists and the companies they report on raises concerns.

According to an article in the British Medical Journal:

“… [W]hat we’re witnessing is a slow and subtle attempt to buy influence and goodwill within the media, which in general have become increasingly rigorous in their coverage of the unhealthy aspects of pharmaceutical marketing … Spreading around cash, free travel, and sponsorship has an effect — if it didn’t, the industry wouldn’t do it.”

A new study finds that more than 20% of articles published in six leading medical journals likely used ghost writers.  For medical journals, ghostwriting usually refers to writers sponsored by a drug or medical device company, who make major but uncredited research or writing contributions.  The articles are instead published under the names of academic authors.

Inappropriate authorship leads to a lack of transparency and accountability.  It has become an important concern for the academic community.

According to the article in the British Medical Journal:

“Evidence of honorary and ghost authorship in 21% of articles published in major medical journals in 2008 suggests that increased efforts by scientific journals, individual authors, and academic institutions are essential to promote responsibility, accountability, and transparency in authorship, and to maintain integrity in scientific publication.”

Have you ever wondered if there was a reason that your child’s
school cafeteria offered foods like Apple Jacks, Pop-Tarts, Giant Goldfish Grahams
and Otis Spunkmeyer muffins?  It turns
out that the manufacturers of those sugar-laden products pay hefty rebates to
giant food service companies to encourage them to purchase their highly
processed goods. In fact, nearly everything that goes into running a public
school cafeteria comes with a rebate check to help make sure the industrial
version of food wins out.

For example, more than 100 companies paid rebates in recent
years to Chartwells, the food service management company hired by D.C. Public
Schools.  The list includes General
Mills, Kraft, Kellogg’s, ConAgra, and Tyson.

According to La Vida Locavore:

“John
Carroll, an assistant New York State attorney general investigating rebating
practices there, has said rebates pose ‘an inherent conflict of interest’ in
school feeding programs because they favor highly processed industrial foods
… Produce vendors can’t afford to pay a rebate for local apples.”

A new study published in the British Medical Journal claims “to show no link between mobile phone use and tumors.” However, the study is seriously flawed, according to experts from the U.K., United States, Austria, Sweden and Australia.

The study uses no direct information on cell phone use, fails to consider the recent and rapidly changing nature of and exposure to microwave radiation from cell phones, cordless phones and other growing sources, and excludes people who would have been the heaviest users — more than 300,000 users of cell phones for business purposes were simply excluded from the analysis.

Anders Ahlbom, the writer of an accompanying editorial commentary supporting the study, has himself come under scrutiny for conflicts of interest.

Ahlbom was dismissed from the WHO’s IARC Expert Panel because he failed to disclose links to the telecom industry.

According to Electromagnetic Health:

“Ahlbom has been a member of the Board of his brother’s telecom consulting company … He also did not declare his industry affiliation to the Swedish Radiation Protection Authority, where he resigned after this disclosure.  Ahlbom is a member of the International Commission on Nonionizing Radiation Protection (ICNRIP), an industry loyal organization, and participated in setting the ICNIRP radiation exposure limits in 1998.  These standards assume that the only biological impact of microwave radiation from cellphones is heat and fail utterly to take into effect non-thermal biological effects thereby greatly underestimating risk.”

RIGGED RESEARCH from NO GMO on Vimeo.

There are two types of research regarding GM food — independent science and corporate science.  It’s not hard to decide which one to trust.

RIGGED RESEARCH from NO GMO on Vimeo.

There are two types of research regarding GM food — independent science and corporate science.  It’s not hard to decide which one to trust.

RIGGED RESEARCH from NO GMO on Vimeo.

There are two types of research regarding GM food — independent science and corporate science.  It’s not hard to decide which one to trust.

Two reports, published merely days apart, present radically different answers to the question of whether or not microwave radiation is harmful. Which one should be believed, and why?

In one publication, which identified studies documenting increase in cancers with microwave exposure, the authors claim no conflict of interest. The other publication presents a conflict of interest statement that mentions they received funding from organizations that include the Mobile Manufacturers’ Forum and the GSM Association, that they hold shares in the telecoms companies Cable and Wireless Worldwide and Cable and Wireless Communications, and many other similar conflicts — and then they, likewise claim that they have no conflicts of interest!

It may come as no surprise that the second study finds that the evidence is against mobile phone use causing brain tumors.

According to Dr. Magda Havas:

“For someone who is intimately familiar with the studies they cite I find it fascinating how they skirt around the ‘inconvenient’ results that don’t fit their conclusions … The studies show that after 10 years of moderate cell phone use … there is a statistically significant increase in ipsilateral gliomas … So who do you believe?  Those with a conflict of interest who claim not to have one or those without?”

Michael K. Loucks used to be the most influential prosecutor of health care fraud in the U.S.  But a year and a half ago, he left his government job and transformed himself into a defender of the corporations instead.

Federal ethics rules prohibit Mr. Loucks from being involved in cases he investigated directly while working for the U.S. government.  But he is not barred from representing clients he prosecuted on other matters, and now he represents many companies he once investigated — such as Pfizer, Merck, Schering-Plough, Bristol-Myers Squibb and Medtronic.

In related news, a multi-billion dollar global health fund backed by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is being probed for widespread fraud. According to Star Talk FM:

“The Global Fund to Fight Aids, Tuberculosis and Malaria (GFATM), which distributes $28 billion in aid, found that two-thirds of the money from some grants had been stolen or misused by recipient countries.”

Scores of documents from executives at Biotronik, a firm that makes pacemakers and defibrillators, portray an implant industry where manufacturers scheme to determine the brand of device that patients receive long before they are actually diagnosed.

The documents show that device makers recruit both implant specialists and general cardiologists who refer patients. The cardiologists, called “feeders” in one document, can earn up to $4,800 per patient they enroll in a company-financed study.

The New York Times reports:

“In recent years, big makers of implants like heart devices and artificial joints, including Johnson & Johnson, Boston Scientific and St. Jude Medical, have settled Justice Department charges that they illegally promoted sales … Biotronik and its consultants have not been accused of wrongdoing … However, sales tactics, rather that scientific data, can determine which company’s device a patient gets because doctors have no independent source of information about which implants work best or last longest”.

Two government veterinarians in Mexico were paid a bribe of more than $90,000 by Tyson Foods to ignore problems at a poultry processing plants. These bribes will now cost the company $5.2 million in fines from the U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The payments were made directly to the veterinarians and their wives — and the wives were listed as being on Tyson’s payroll even though they didn’t work there.

According to DVM 360:

“The estimated profit made by Tyson as a result of the bribes is about $880,000, according to the justice department … Tyson officials say the improper payments began before the parent company acquired interest in Tyson de Mexico.”

Drugmaker Pfizer spent $177 million in 2010 on payments to doctors and other health care professionals. The payments were made for a mix of research, speeches, and other services.

Pfizer reported the amount as part of a movement by drug developers to disclose payments they make to physicians. Drug companies often pay physicians a fee to “educate” their fellow physicians about a company drug.

According to Pharmpro:

“Starting in 2013, companies are required to disclose payments and other transfers of value to U.S. physicians and teaching hospitals under the Affordable Care Act. Pfizer said Thursday it will start making the disclosures on a quarterly basis.”

American prosecutors are attempting to extradite a Danish scientist. Paul Thorsen has been charged with 13 counts of wire fraud and nine counts of money laundering; a federal grand jury alleges that Thorsen stole over $1 million from autism research funding between February 2004 and June 2008.

Thorsen is said to have used the proceeds to buy a home in Atlanta, two cars and a Harley Davidson. He is said to have stolen the money while serving as the ‘principal investigator’ for a program which studied the relationship between autism and exposure to vaccines.

 The Copenhagen Post reports:

“… [O]ver the four-year period he submitted over a dozen false invoices from the CDC for research expenses to Aarhus University, where he held a faculty position, instructing them to transfer the funds to a CDC account, which was in fact his personal account … Thorsen’s research on autism is widely known in academic circles, where he was until this week a highly respected figure. A paper of his on the subject, which is known as ‘The Danish Study’, is quoted extensively to refute the autism vaccine connection.”

After three years, the OC Register has finally issued a retraction of an containing statements by Dr. Paul Offit, well-known shill for the vaccine industry. The article contained disparaging statements by Dr. Offit about CBS News Investigative Correspondent Sharyl Attkisson.

According to Adventures in Autism:

“Upon further review, it appears that a number of Dr. Offit’s statements, as quoted in the OC Register article, were unsubstantiated and/or false. Attkisson had previously reported on the vaccine industry ties of Dr. Offit and others in a CBS Evening News report ‘How Independent Are Vaccine Defenders?’”

The unsubstantiated statements included a claim that Attkisson “lied”, and a claim that CBS News sent a “mean spirited and vituperative” email. Offit also told the OC Register that he provided CBS News “the details of his relationship … with pharmaceutical company Merck”, but documents provided by CBS News indicate Offit did not disclose his financial relationships with Merck.

The 130-page document linked below explains in detail why the American Cancer Society may be far more interested in accumulating cash than curing any disease.  The ACS has close ties to the mammography industry, the cancer drug industry, and the pesticide industry.  It is riddled with conflict of interest.

And in fact, according to the report, the ACS has a reckless, if not criminal record on cancer prevention. Over and over again, they have promoted drugs and screening while ignoring environmental causes.

The report states, in part:

“The ACS … [has] long continued to devote virtually exclusive priority to research on diagnosis and treatment of cancer, with indifference to prevention, other than faulty personal lifestyle, commonly known as ‘blame the victim,’ … Not surprisingly, the incidence of cancer over past decades has escalated”.

Drugmaker Bristol-Myers bribed doctors to prescribe their drugs, according to a whistle-blower lawsuit.  The company’s sales people in California allegedly provided physicians with trips to basketball camps and other kickbacks to boost prescriptions.

California insurance companies spent $3.5 billion to cover the costs of the drugs involved in the lawsuit, which seeks $10,000 for each fraudulent insurance claim caused by the alleged kickbacks, and triple the amount of damages.

Bloomberg reports:

“The lawsuit claims that the company provided illegal kickbacks to doctors in order to increase pharmaceutical sales in California. Bristol-Myers in 2007 agreed to pay $515 million to settle U.S. allegations it overcharged the government for drugs and promoted medicines for unapproved uses.”

Researchers were shocked to discover that financial ties between researchers and drug companies weren’t being declared, not just in some meta-analysis studies, but in the majoirty.

The researchers reviewed 29 such studies which covered a range of drug treatments and were published in major medical journal. Those analyses included results from more than 500 individual drug trials. However, only 2 of the 29 meta-analyses mentioned the funding sources of the original drug trials.

According to Health Habits:

“In fact, when the researchers identified 7 meta-analyses in which every single drug trial was paid for by the maker of the drug — they found that only one of those studies mentioned who funded the trials.”

The use of medical tests such as CTs and MRIs has become so routine that their benefits may have been surpassed by the risks of overuse. The value of so much testing has been widely questioned in scientific literature, and it increases the risk of cancer, false positives, more unnecessary invasive procedures, patient stress and higher costs.

So why do doctors order too many tests? Many doctors say it is “defensive medicine” — the fear of being sued for failing to order a test that turns out to have been necessary.  But there are other motivators for overtesting, such as the simple fact that new doctors can’t function without them. Doctors in training are no longer taught how to tell patients who need testing from those who don’t.

What’s more, according to Time Magazine:

“… [N]o discussion of overtesting would be complete without a mention of the positive incentives doctors have to order tests — such as making money … in instances in which the doctor owns the radiology equipment, as dentists’ offices do … There is actually a more subtle positive incentive: ordering a test — cost aside — takes less effort than spending the time to think about whether it’s really needed.”

It’s hard to find a medical website which contains no hysteria and no drug peddling — just good medicine and good ideas.  In part, this is because the medical web is dominated by WebMD, which, according to the New York Times:

“… has become a panicky byword among laysurfers for ‘hypochondria time suck.’ In more whistle-blowing quarters, WebMD is synonymous with Big Pharma Shilling.”

In investigation into WebMD’s relationship with drug maker Eli Lilly confirmed that WebMD, thanks to its corporate connections, is rife with pseudomedicine and subtle misinformation.

People without heart disease get little or no benefit from cholesterol-lowering statins, researchers have warned.

A review of the medical literature showed that many of the reports they looked at — including all but one of the reports funded by drugmakers — were seriously flawed. Only half provided information on the side effects of the drugs, and there is evidence that the reports cherry-picked the best outcomes for presentation.

According to Reuters:

“[The review] estimated that treating 1,000 people with statins for one year would lower the number of deaths from nine to eight.”

Three oncologists say a major cancer study published in The Lancet, one of the world’s most prestigious medical journals, may have been compromised by the drug company that funded the study.

Publication of the research boosted the perceived value of the drug MabThera (rituximab) to doctors and patients around the world, which helped the manufacturer, Roche, make billions of dollars.  But 27 out of 32 authors of the research had potential conflicts of interest in the form of declared financial links to drug companies, including Roche.  One of the authors was even a paid employee of the company.

According to The Age:

“The research examined the efficacy of Roche’s drug … for patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) … It concluded the drug improved survival rates for patients with the disease, causing the drug to be widely funded and adopted by doctors around the world.”

British families are going to be offered vouchers in an attempt to encourage them to eat healthily and exercise.  The food vouchers, along with nutritional advice and discounted activities, are part of Change4Life’s “Great Swapathon”.

Companies involved in the food and fitness industries are paying for the tokens, as part of the UK government’s plans to involve business in the promotion of healthy living. However, some food policy experts have cast doubt on the wisdom of involving large corporations in public health campaigns.

BBC News reports:

“Companies supporting the government’s scheme include Asda, Birds Eye, Unilever, Nestle, Mars, Warburtons and Weight Watchers.”