The Biotech Puppeteers.

The Congressional Record:

...is the official record of the proceedings and debates of the United States Congress. It is published by the United States Government Printing Office, and is issued daily when the United States Congress is in session. Indexes are issued approximately every two weeks. At the end of a session of Congress, the daily editions are compiled in bound volumes constituting the permanent edition.

...

By custom and rules of each House, Members also frequently "revise and extend" the remarks they actually made on the floor before the debates are published in the Congressional Record. Therefore, for many years, speeches that were not actually delivered in Congress appeared in the Record, including in the sections purporting to be verbatim reports of debates. In recent years, however, these revised remarks have been preceded by a "bullet" symbol or, more recently and presently, printed in a typeface discernibly different from that used to report words actually spoken by Members.

But are you so sure?

In House, Many Spoke With One Voice

In the official record of the historic House debate on overhauling health care, the speeches of many lawmakers echo with similarities. Often, that was no accident.

Statements by more than a dozen lawmakers were ghostwritten, in whole or in part, by Washington lobbyists working for Genentech, one of the world’s largest biotechnology companies.

E-mail messages obtained by The New York Times show that the lobbyists drafted one statement for Democrats and another for Republicans.

The lobbyists, employed by Genentech and by two Washington law firms, were remarkably successful in getting the statements printed in the Congressional Record under the names of different members of Congress.

Understand now?

The article continues:

Genentech, a subsidiary of the Swiss drug giant Roche, estimates that 42 House members picked up some of its talking points — 22 Republicans and 20 Democrats, an unusual bipartisan coup for lobbyists.

Wanna bet this barely scratches the surface?

Look what's happening to our science journals:

Ghost-writers Hired by Drug Companies Write Journal Articles, Then Find the Medical Authors

An amazing series of documents were unsealed by a court in a dangerous drug injury case involving Prempro, a hormone drug. Injured plaintiffs argue that the drug causes breast cancer and other medical problems, but the bomb drop is not the allegations, but what drug giant Wyeth did to "help" create medical journal articles about the safety of its drug.

But the court documents reveal scandalous email and correspondence which purportedly shows that Wyeth "fraudulently and intentionally polluted the scientific literature related to hormone therapy in general and their hormone drugs in particular" in that Wyeth hired ghostwriter physicians or scientists to “author” biased scientific and medical journal articles-but the articles were largely written before the “author” was on board.

A medical journal PLoS Medicine posted about 1,500 of the documents on a website (www.plosmedicine.org/static/ghostwriting.action ). It was through the action of the medical journal and the New York Times that the court decided to unseal a massive number of documents which reveal exactly how the ghostwriting was done for the drug manufacturer-reaching the suggested conclusions well before a “reputable” doctor was ever part of the “study” findings as the study's author.

"the story told in these documents amounts to one of the most compelling expositions ever seen of the systematic manipulation and abuse of scholarly publishing by the pharmaceutical industry and its commercial partners in their attempt to influence the healthcare decisions of physicians and the general public."

So here's how it works:

1. A drug manufacturer hires a professional medical writing or communications company which prepares a preferred title, outline and a possible draft of an article;

2. The drug company or its ghostwriters later find the names of proposed medical or scientific authors for the pre-determined article including its slant or bias;

3. The outline or draft is sent to the selected author for approval.

Ta da! Instant printed 'truth'.

Happy reading!

[edit on 17-11-2009 by loam]

Very good article, loam, I knew the deceptions and the corruption but to think that this fat rats are allowed by our own government to do this without repercussions of any kind only shows how corrupted our government is.

For a long time I keep telling about the corruption of our own government when it comes to congress whores selling themselves for campaign money and more.

But when the safety of our nations population hangs in the hands of this corrupted trash all for profits I am dismay to the disregard of life.

It was a time when brave people used to keep the populations informed about the dirty tricks of those that pay our government but now you have to dig to find the true as is not longer free media anymore.

Big pharma is one of the biggest contributors to campaign money along with oil companies and private insurances.

I am becoming more vocal about when we as people will stand up and take to the streets to take back our government from all this corruption, after all is our duty as votes and citizens.

It's funny how the source article says:

The statements were not intended to change the bill, which was not open for much amendment during the debate. They were meant to show bipartisan support for certain provisions, even though the vote on passage generally followed party lines.

or, this from an OpEd on the subject:

The comforting news is that none of the ghostwritten material sought to change the contents of the bill, which was not open to much revision during the debate.

But what they don't tell you is that the courts *USE* legislative history (ie, the congressional record) to determine legislative intent in order to decide what stuff really means.

No wonder they can repeatedly get away with nonsense like this. Not even the New York Times or its OpEd contributors can get this right.

Morons.

[edit on 17-11-2009 by loam]

I wonder why such an interesting topic is getting many stars but not posting, common people everybody have something to say.

reply to post by marg6043


Maybe people are just resigned to the fact that it's all lies. It's a given. Expected.

When real conspiracies fail to impress even people on a conspiracy board, you know we have become about as jaded as one can possibly become.

Incidentally, what do you think that means with respect to ever fixing the problem?


[edit on 17-11-2009 by loam]

More:

Ghost Management: How Much of the Medical Literature Is Shaped Behind the Scenes by the Pharmaceutical Industry?

There are many reports of medical journal articles being researched and written by or on behalf of pharmaceutical companies, and then published under the name of academics who had played little role earlier in the research and writing process [2–14]. In extreme cases, drug companies pay for trials by contract research organizations (CROs), analyze the data in-house, have professionals write manuscripts, ask academics to serve as authors of those manuscripts, and pay communication companies to shepherd them through publication in the best journals. The resulting articles affect the conclusions found in the medical literature, and are used in promoting drugs to doctors.

...

Because ghost management is hidden, we cannot tell how common it is from published exposés. Current practices in the medical sciences legitimately allow people to serve as authors on the basis of narrow contributions. Therefore many near-honorary authors find little reason to feel uncomfortable with their roles. Fully honorary authors may not see enough of the process of the production of their articles to know that they are ghost managed. Finally, it is not in the interests of writers, authors, or sponsors and their agents to reveal ghost management processes; hence a number of the published accounts of ghost management have stemmed from legal proceedings and investigative journalism. So how common is ghost management?

Much of the information on ghost writing does not help to answer this question. Surveys to quantify rates of ghost writing do not address the ghost management phenomenon, because management may not involve writing, and writing may not be managed [20,21]. However, information about ghost authors, people who should be receiving author credit, strongly suggests that ghost management is common. A study comparing protocols and corresponding publications for industry-initiated trials approved by the Scientific-Ethical Committees for Copenhagen and Frederiksberg in 1994–1995 found evidence of ghost authorship in 75% of these publications (95% confidence intervals, 60%–87%) [22]. Company statisticians were common unacknowledged contributors, but so were the creators of trial designs and protocols, and the writers of manuscripts. The study also found that most (172 of 274) trials for which protocols had been submitted were never begun, completed, or published.

More...

Disgusted yet?



[edit on 18-11-2009 by loam]

reply to post by loam


Yes I am disgusted, have been since I learned that our good for nothing government doesn't protect the practices of this crocks.

The only way you find out about their deceiving practices is when they go after the littler people that try to do the same promoting products that compete with the big guys.

reply to post by marg6043


When you see a system this broke, it makes you wonder if it can ever be fixed?

Lies and distortion everywhere you look.

reply to post by loam


Is been like that for may years, while the population was deprived from the voices of the independent media that used to warn about the evils of man and politics with their prophetic voices.

Now we are spoon fed what particular groups wants us to digest with the blessings of government.

You know what will take to fix the problem, is just that nobody wants to do the job.

Originally posted by loam
So here's how it works:

1. A drug manufacturer hires a professional medical writing or communications company which prepares a preferred title, outline and a possible draft of an article;

2. The drug company or its ghostwriters later find the names of proposed medical or scientific authors for the pre-determined article including its slant or bias;

3. The outline or draft is sent to the selected author for approval.

Ta da! Instant printed 'truth'.

Happy reading!

When a publicist writes a press release for his client, he will usually include 'quotes' from real-life client spokespersons or senior employees that he has, in fact, made up himself. The spokesperson or employee in question then vets the 'quote' in the context of the release and approves it. This is regarded, both legally and in practical terms, as equivalent to the spokesperson or employee having actually uttered or written those words. It is quite a common public-relations technique.

This is a more elaborate version of the same technique. The endorser is an authoritative (supposed) independent. In allowing the ghostwritten article to be attributed to him, he is understood to assume any legal or reputational risks involved.

Those risks are considerable. If the drug or treatment is found to be ineffective or dangerous, the endorser's professional reputation is badly compromised (and he certainly won't be receiving any more ghostwritten articles to authorize). If he is found to have endorsed the product in the absence of sufficient clinical information of whose provenance he is certain, that is the end of his career. And if he is found to be on the take as well, then not only is his career shot but the company whose products he is pushing is also in serious trouble.

The threat of such consequences and the pressure they exert on behalf of careful oversight and scrutiny of claims is thought by many to be an adequate safeguard against abuses. Clearly this is not always the case.

I agree that it's a shabby and deceptive way of doing things, but saying 'it's all lies' is perhaps going a bit too far. This is not, strictly speaking, any different from the use of speechwriters by politicians or corporate CEOs, something the public accepts without demur.

The world of affairs is more complicated and a great deal cloudier than most ordinary citizens, even relatively well-educated and -informed ones, are wont to imagine. I don't believe this will ever change; indeed, it takes constant vigilance pro bono publico to ensure that abuses are kept to a minimum. But demonizing the rich and powerful helps no-one, for doing so begs the vital question we should all ask: what would I do in the same situation? The answer, for all but ideologues, fools and the insane, is all too often 'the same as you'.

* * *

I may as well declare my own 'interest': I spent twenty-odd years working in advertising and a few in public relations; I even once taught a course in the latter. I believe my own behaviour in these wicked trades was always honest and conscientious, though it may be that I was naive at times. At any rate, I know something about the business. I've never done PR for a pharmaceutical company, though I have worked for a presidential commission on health reform in my own country. This was mainly about promoting policy decisions concerning state medical provision that had already been made. I have also made a miniscule contribution to helping groups of HIV-positive activists in Asia avoid cultural stigmatization and gain greater visibility for their efforts to change the WTO patent rules as applied to antiviral drugs, rules these groups oppose because they price the drugs beyond the reach of patients in poor countries.

As you will divine from that rigmarole, I am not American and have never taken Big Pharma's dollar. And no-one fees or rewards me in any way for posting on ATS--apart, that is, from the odd flag or star and the occasional spatter of applause from a moderator.

reply to post by Astyanax

Originally posted by Astyanax
This is a more elaborate version of the same technique.

I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with you. This thread is not about the ghost writing process, but rather about a pharmaceutical company writing the position of "both" sides of a political argument and having the congressional record speciously amended to favor its own best interest, impacting the manner in which laws are interpreted or enforced.

I don't call that elaborate. I call that corruption.

Originally posted by Astyanax
But demonizing the rich and powerful helps no-one...

I have done no such thing-- nor have I ever, as my posting history clearly demonstrates.

I simply demonize the deceptive and corrupt... BIG difference.

I do not wish to live in a Banana Republic. Do you?

When governance happens through deception, you become a slave. This is a historical fact that fortunately can't be rewritten.

I hope you understand my position better now.

[edit on 22-12-2009 by loam]

Originally posted by loam
This thread is not about the ghost writing process, but rather about a pharmaceutical company writing the position of "both" sides of a political argument and having the congressional record speciously amended to favor its own best interest, impacting the manner in which laws are interpreted or enforced.

I'm not arguing. My post concerned a specific component of that process, not the whole nine yards. I think we both agree that the pharmaceutical industry has done many inhumane and unscrupulous things in its quest for profit.

Originally posted by Astyanax
But demonizing the rich and powerful helps no-one...

I have done no such thing-- nor have I ever, as my posting history clearly demonstrates.

I'm not familiar with your posting history, loam, but I'm sure you weren't trying to demonize anyone. Many on Above Top Secret will, however, use the matter of your post to do precisely that. I was simply applying a mild prophylactic.

I do not wish to live in a Banana Republic. Do you?

Sadly, my poor yet beloved country bears many resemblances to one.

When governance happens through deception, you become a slave. This is a historical fact that fortunately can't be rewritten.

Here we must disagree, you and I. Deception has ever been a tool of governance and always shall be, as it must. If the demos could be trusted to do the right thing on every occasion, then neither deceit nor governments would be necessary. But that day will never come, so there must be governments, and governments, to do their job, must lie judiciously from time to time.

[edit on 23/12/09 by Astyanax]

reply to post by Astyanax

Here we must disagree, you and I. Deception has ever been a tool of governance and always shall be, as it must. If the demos could be trusted to do the right thing on every occasion, then neither deceit nor governments would be necessary. But that day will never come, so there must be governments, and governments, to do their job, must lie judiciously from time to time.

Wow, I never thought I would meet someone that thinks this way. To believe that the governed should ever be lied to by the governors, just speaks to the mindset of the elitist intellectuals out there.

I think I vomited a little.

Loam, excellent presentation and S&F for you. Congressional record SHOULD NEVER be modified. Talk about ALTERING history as it's being written. I guess in the future they will believe this depression and the theft by the corporate/bankers never happened.

Those who do not study HISTORY are doomed to REPEAT it.

Originally posted by endisnighe

Originally posted by Astyanax
Governments, to do their job, must lie judiciously from time to time.

Wow, I never thought I would meet someone that thinks this way. To believe that the governed should ever be lied to by the governors, just speaks to the mindset of the elitist intellectuals out there.

I'm delighted to have helped increase the breadth of your experience, endisnighe. And yes, I cheerfully admit to being an elitist. The term is not automatically derogatory; and seeing how intractable the combination of mass media and universal franchise have made the problems of the world, a little elitism--in my view--is just what we need.

Originally posted by endisnighe
I think I vomited a little.

Emetics are often used in therapy, as in this case. Again, I am delighted to have been of service.

Originally posted by endisnighe
Those who do not study HISTORY are doomed to REPEAT it.

Possibly. That wouldn't include me, though; I am pretty good at history.

We can continue this conversation later, if you wish. I shall take great pleasure in showing you, kindly but firmly, just how misguided your ideas are.