Industry News


NL- A lot of you are upset with me for posting this interview. Please understand that it is the opinion of Clark Baker,  and he has every right to inform us of his thoughts on HIV & AIDS. (And I thank him very much for taking the time to do this interview, and respond to comments on this board)  I would be happy to have Jeremy interview someone from AHF and AIM and any other side of the coin. Reading different opinions, not just the “status quo” helps you make your own informed decision on this issue that is so important to our industry. 


An exclusive Interview with Office of Medical & Scientific Justice Founder Clark Baker
By Jeremy Steele
Depending on who you work for, prepare to read the following and rejoice, or read it and weep… It turns out that AHF has been using junk science in its attempt to push mandatory condom use on the porn industry!  
The dirty little secret is that HIV test manufacturers admit that their tests are not reliable for the diagnosis of, and do not test for, HIV.
Strangely, this story has been kept out of the major news media. I would venture to guess for economic and political reasons, which we intend to briefly examine.
Even in their newest test label information, Abbot Labs inserts their hard-to-find disclaimer on page 9 of their 28-page packaging information that:
(an) individual who has antibodies to HIV is presumed to be infected with the virus.
Why we’re expected to presume is not clear.
But because the presumption of being HIV-positive does not equate with actually being HIV-positive, two judges and eleven prosecutors have dropped all HIV-related criminal charges against 13 US and Canadian defendants during the past 13 months.
The ramification of these revelations are considerable.  After all, if HIV tests don’t detect HIV – a premise that these judges and prosecutors are now uncertain of; is ANYONE actually HIV+?  And if we don’t know, why are people taking deadly HIV drugs if they aren’t even sick?
I am privileged to speak with Mr. Clark Baker – a licensed private investigator and retired member (20 years) of the Los Angeles Police Department.  He is the founder and principal investigator of the Office of Medical & Scientific Justice (OMSJ).  Since 1980, he has conducted thousands of criminal and civil investigations from drug cases to murder.  The evidence collected by OMSJ’s HIV Innocence Project has helped to convince prosecutors and judges that 13 criminal HIV cases were meritless, at best.
JS:  Thank you for speaking with all of us today. First of all, how and why did you end up getting involved with HIV-related criminal cases?
CB:    I’ve been investigating corruption surrounding what I call AIDS Inc. since May 2008.  Since that time, corrupt PhDs and MDs have tried to dissuade and discredit me as a street cop who knows nothing about medicine or science.  For this reason, I created the HIV Innocence Project so that I could compel self-described experts to render their sermons in a real court where they are subject to penalties of perjury.  And as you said, prosecutors and judges in 13 HIV cases during the past year have been unimpressed by tests and clinicians.
JS:  Please explain what “HIV-related crimes” means.
CB: Well Jeremy, most states require individuals who are diagnosed as HIV+ to report their status to prospective partners before engaging in sexual relations.  These laws were mostly drafted by drug industry lobbyists, pharmaceutical reps or other recipients of pharmaceutical funding who neither understand or care about the ramifications of their legislation.  On their face, these laws seem like a good idea.  They do, however, exacerbate the severe psychological and social isolation that comes with being misdiagnosed in the first place:
“Hi Jim – it’s nice to meet you.  Oh, by the way, I’m HIV+ so I just wanted you to know that before you decide to kiss me, have sex, marry or raise a family with me…”
So if you’re a young man or woman, the misdiagnosis can have results more toxic than the alleged disease itself.  And if you try to get to the bottom of the diagnosis on your own, you’ll go crazy trying to track down the evidence among the millions of pages of gibberish that HIV clerics call “proof”.
JS: Why do you call HIV clinicians “CLERICS”?
CB:  Because that’s what they are.  While good science speaks for itself, HIV clinicians and experts expect us to BELIEVE what they say about HIV and AIDS.  BELIEF and FAITH are theological exercises that have nothing to do with real science.  If you BELIEVE them, you’ll BELIEVE that you’re HIV+ and you’ll take the deadly drugs like bread and wine.
JS: It sounds like you’re saying that the diagnosis is the only thing that can kill, along with, I suspect, the “therapy”, but not the thing itself which is claimed to kill us.
CB:  That’s somewhat correct.  An HIV+ diagnosis can screw up your life without killing you.  If you take the drugs you have a good chance of suffering an unnecessary and untimely death.  I’ve met people who were diagnosed years ago but stopped the treatments or never took them.  Today, most are as healthy as their peers who never took HIV tests or drugs.
JS: Can you give us some examples of so-called “HIV-related crimes”?
CB: Sure.  Our first case involved a woman named Eneydi Torres.  This Florida woman had an argument with her boyfriend, who retaliated by telling police that she failed to disclose her HIV status before sex.  Police arrested her and identified three previous boyfriends as well.  Prosecutors appeared to have a slam-dunk case.  OMSJ forced prosecutors to produce all of the evidence they planned to use against Torres and had the evidence reviewed by a scientist who was involved in the development of HIV testing technologies.
His examination revealed that prosecutors had no evidence to corroborate HIV infection.  Prosecutors then had to decide whether to expose the clinicians who made the diagnosis to cross-examination by OMSJ-approved attorneys.  Rather than go through that trouble, prosecutors simply dropped all HIV-related charges against the woman and reduced their initial offer of fifteen years in state prison to five days of unsupervised probation for something akin to “disturbing the peace.”
Prosecutors typically use these kinds of pleas to maintain their “100 percent conviction” record for political reasons.  Although the arrest and the media wrecked her life, Ms. Torres is a free woman today.  She is also healthy because she doesn’t take HIV drugs.
JS:  And you’re saying that charges have been dropped in all cases because they can’t prove these people are HIV-positive?
CB:  It’s more complicated than that but yes, that’s essentially true.
JS:  What other factors would lead to cases being dismissed, if you can explain briefly?
CB: Well, if an alleged victim recants the case could be dismissed; but so far none have recanted.  And remember, these are felonies so prosecutors initially believe that all they require is an HIV+ test result and a sexual partner.  Once prosecutors know how weak their cases are, they drop the charges.  Some trial attorneys have convinced their clients to plead guilty to HIV charges, but this usually happens in small towns where small-town lawyers and small town judges don’t want to upset voters and neighbors.  In those cases, defense lawyers don’t want us involved – and understandably so.
JS:  How does any doctor have the right to tell anyone they are HIV-positive?
CB:  They certainly have no moral right.  No competent doctor has ever explained to me how they can use meaningless tests to diagnose HIV infection, nor have they explained how prescribing drugs that cause cancer and compromise immune function actually protect patients whose immune function is allegedly compromised.
The first drug ever used – AZT – is now listed as a carcinogenic mutagen by the California Environmental Protection Agency.  Although it cannot legally be flushed down a toilet (for fear of polluting our waterways), it is still given to allegedly HIV+ patients.  If a healthy non-HIV+ person takes the drug, the drug will eventually compromise their immune system and the individual will acquire an immune deficiency syndrome – most often in the form of liver cancer.
During the first day of medical school, students internalize the motto primum non nocere – “first, do no harm.”  Unfortunately, too many doctors and clinicians now weigh that quaint notion against their need to make a profit.  A “good doctor” is defined by patients as someone who helps us stay healthy.  To a hospital or clinic administrator, a good doctor is one that generates profits.
JS: Well said, although I would say the reason (why they push drugs that comprise the immune system on people with compromised immune systems) probably has something to do with money, power, jobs, etc., having more influence over people than truth. I know that for years, when I first started, the porn industry use to rely upon the $35.00 Eliza antibody test. Then it was admitted by the testing labs to pornland during the 1997 HIV scare that the test basically wasn’t worth the paper it was written on. So, today we instead take $135.00 PCR DNA HIV tests (which includes tests for gonorrhea and Chlamydia) and I think because we spend more money it’s generally assumed the test is more accurate.
CB:  Yup – you pay more so it must be better, right?  Although PCR is a legitimate invention, it has nothing to do with detecting HIV.  When it comes to HIV tests, PCR is just the latest marketing gimmick.
In many ways, doctors are trained to be dumb.  I say this not pejoratively, but they are required to accept and do what they are told to avoid deviating from the “standard of care.”  Doctors who deviate from this standard risk the loss of their license and career – not because they’ve done anything wrong but for entirely political reasons.  If doing something wrong is the “standard of care,” deviating to do things right threatens all of those who’ve done it wrong – which can lead to malpractice lawsuits and liability.  Quack doctors avoid liability by following the deadlier standard of care while those who deviate generally keep quiet about it.
Most of what doctors read is published by a drug industry that has, since 2004, spent nearly $9 billion to settle thousands of criminal and civil complaints related to the illegal marketing of drugs that killed or injured thousands of people around the world.  Also, the drug industry pays universities and researchers to conduct studies that require specific kinds of outcomes that will help companies sell products.
Drug companies pay Reed-Elsevier to publish their reports in the journals that doctors rely on to form opinions and prescribe medications.  This results in unindicated (unnecessary) prescriptions to millions of patients who are injured or killed from adverse drug reactions (ADRs) every year.  In fact, the American Medical Association (AMA) reports that if tracked like real diseases, ADRs would rank somewhere between the fourth and sixth leading cause of death in the US.  The AMA also reports that infectious diseases became statistically irrelevant in the US by 1955.  It’s hard to imagine why taxpayers pay billions to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) when infectious disease is statistically irrelevant.
But if you’re the NIH, CDC, a hospital or a drug company, ADRs, disease, and fear of disease are good for business.  If the drug I prescribe to you makes you sick, it’s likely that I can sell you five more drugs that might mask the toxic effects of the first drug that I probably should not have prescribed to you in the first place.
JS: It sounds like Big Pharma rules the medical world. How can physicians be telling us, as the general public, that HIV tests for HIV but then say in court that it doesn’t?
CB:  It’s all about marketing – and illegal marketing pays.  For example, Astra Zeneca paid a $500 million fine last April for illegally marketing Seroquel – a drug that killed or injured thousands.  Seroquel generated about $4 billion in sales in 2007 alone.  No one went to jail and Astra simply paid off prosecutors with a fraction of their profits – a tax if you will.
It’s nothing personal – it’s just business.  As Shannon Brownlee explained in “Overtreated”, drug companies routinely pay physicians to push drugs as marketed by the pharmaceutical reps that visit them.  It’s an important part of pharmaceutical marketing.  They use doctors you trust to push their tests and drugs.  These reps are not scientists or doctors and typically misrepresent the dangers to doctors who simply parrot the propaganda.  With the ever-increasing costs of healthcare, doctors are vulnerable to reps and drug companies that offer cash, travel and prestige to doctors who willingly sell their diplomas.
JS: Sell their diplomas?
CB:  When we think of doctors, we often think of Doogie Howser, Hawkeye Pierce or House.  But what about the thousands of doctors whose licenses have been suspended or revoked because they molested, assaulted or killed their patients with incompetent care?  Those doctors often find work pitching drugs at pharmaceutically-funded medical conferences, earning hundreds of thousands of dollars every year.  Shannon Brownlee calls them drug whores – I call them pharmasluts. Whatever we call them, they’re a vital part of pharmaceutical marketing.
JS:  Doesn’t it come down to a willingness to either lie or state “common knowledge” (in other words, repeat what they’ve been told), but when it comes to testifying under oath, under threat of prison if they perjure themselves, it’s no longer a sales pitch they can tell us but the “inconvenient truth”?
CB:  Before OMSJ, these doctors simply brought their theological gibberish into courtrooms where defense lawyers and judges were too intimidated to ask the right questions and didn’t want to look stupid.  Today, OMSJ is holding these doctors accountable.  So when OMSJ is involved, doctors who rely on science have nothing to fear.  But if the doctor relies on theology, they have much to be concerned about – including malpractice lawsuits, class action and mass tort complaints that could result in the bankruptcy and closure of their clinics, the revocation of their licenses and financial ruination.  All of this sounds pretty harsh, but just as we wouldn’t want cops who murder walking our streets in uniform, it’s hard to imagine why we’d want dangerous doctors treating patients.
JS: Why is the general population not aware of such Earth shaking revelations?   Why has this news not been presented by the major news media?
CB:  There are several reasons.  Although investigative reporters like Celia Farber, John Crewdson, John Lauritsen and others have written much on the topic, they’ve been battered by the pharmaceutical goons.  Shannon Brownlee’s book “Overtreated” is also a must-read.
The politics are a long story, but here are some examples:
Bob Navarro was a long-time reporter on a major LA news TV station and eventually became the editorial director there.  During the 1990s, he questioned the HIV theology in a report.  The next day, gay activists threatened to stage protests at the station unless they stopped their homophobic reporting.  As a result, the station killed the report and they stopped editorials shortly thereafter.  The station didn’t want the political heat.
In 2008, HIV discoverer and Nobel Laureate Luc Montagnier MD of the Pasteur Institute admitted in the documentary “House of Numbers” that HIV can be cured within a few weeks without drugs, but that the drug industry pushes drugs and vaccines because they cannot profit from clean water or good nutrition.  Montagnier even implicated NIAID Director Tony Fauci by name!
Think about that for a moment: The discoverer of HIV (the other one, Robert Gallo, was found guilty of scientific misconduct in 1993) says he has the cure for HIV and the New York Times won’t report it?  So if the media won’t report that, why would we expect them to report the findings of a licensed agency with 30 years of investigative experience?
In 2006, pharmaceutical goons (including Kaiser) hosted one of many conferences to teach journalists how to destroy the careers of doctors like Peter Duesberg and Nancy Banks.  So if you’re a reporter, chances are that you don’t want your career destroyed the way other reporter’s careers were destroyed.  No one gets into trouble when they report what Reed-Elsevier publishes for the drug industry.
Check out what Cornell University’s resident AIDS Cleric John P. Moore PhD wrote to filmmaker Brent Leung after his documentary House of Numbers began winning awards at film festivals around the world:
“Your friend Celia Farber learned what happens to the career of individuals in the communications media whose judgment of the facts is so poor that they promote AIDS denialism. Your future experiences will surely be similar to hers. You have, in effect, destroyed your career for nothing.”
This missive is consistent with the threats he made to a friend of Christine Maggiore in 2007:
“This IS a war, there ARE no rules, and we WILL crush you, one at a time, completely and utterly (at least the more influential ones; foot-soldiers like you aren’t worth bothering with).”
Not very professorial, huh?
Clerics like Professor Moore expect us to believe what he says, just as Pope Urban demanded that the world believe the Earth is the center of God’s universe.  When Urban accused Galileo and his little telescope of heresy, Galileo was forced to recant to avoid torture and death.  Professor Moore demonstrates how little some scientists have not evolved since the 17th century.  But what should we expect from the profession that conducts human experiments in places like Tuskegee?
These are the clerics who enforce HIV theology.  And if you’re a news reporter at the New York Times, the last thing you want is Professor Moore writing letters to your editor on Cornell letterhead.
JS: I’ve been privy to the HIV/AIDS controversy for years. I met Christine Maggiore in 1996 and did volunteer work for her. What do you think about her case?
CB: I was Christine’s principal investigator from May 2008 until she passed away in December.  She’s an example of what happens when you take an HIV test.  From the time she identified the fraud until she died, she became the target of drug industry propagandists and gay activists.  When her daughter died of anaphylactic shock (allergic reaction to antibiotics), the drug industry shamelessly blamed Christine for her daughter’s death – going as far as getting the LAPD to investigate a child neglect/abuse complaint against her.  They wrote countless stories and generated countless crank telephone calls and unwanted magazine subscriptions and even used shows like “Law & Order” to discredit her with pharmaceutical propaganda.  As a licensed investigator, I looked at her with great skepticism at first but I quickly determined that she was an honest woman fighting an industry that pays more than a billion dollars every year settling illegal marketing cases.  We were close to discrediting the LA County Coroner when she died and the county settled the case in 2009.
Although Christine died unexpectedly of adverse drug reactions, the clerics and goons called it an AIDS death months before the pathology report established that ADRs were the actual cause of death.  Christine was a loving mother who fearlessly challenged the drug industry.  In the end, the industry killed her and continues to market and celebrate her death.  I’ve met more psychopaths in the drug industry past two years than I met during my 20 years as a street cop.
JS: Have you been aware or following the current AHF case against the adult industry?
CB:  Yes, at least what has been published by the media.
JS: In your opinion, what is AHF’s motivation for pushing condoms? Is it based on the foundational spirit of altruism and “saving lives” as they love to advertise?
CB:  Condoms are part of the $174 million in revenues AHF generated in 2009 alone.
JS: How did they acquire these revenues?
CB:  According to their website, they push “cutting edge medicine” e.g. (AIDS tests, medication and condoms) and advocacy (marketing propaganda) to 100,000 people in 22 countries around the world.
In the beginning (1981~1988), AIDS was about homosexual politics.  From the time the NIH started to market the carcinogen AZT as a lifesaving drug in 1987, it was about drug company patents and profits.  During the 1990s, it was about enlisting an army of drug addicts and homosexual activists “to educate” the public about AIDS.  With billions of dollars at stake, it’s easy to see how the theology saturates the media. AHF simply wants their cut.  If I convince you that you have cooties and that you will die unless you buy my drugs, would you buy them?
AHF pushes condoms because they are an intrinsic part of AIDS marketing and hysteria.  If AHF can compel the adult industry to incorporate their condoms into a spontaneous sexual fantasy (Hey Baby… here we are in paradise… just you, me and this AHF condom), they will get the best product placement money can buy.  In this way, AHF is a pharmaceutical shill that pushes fear and hysteria to sell tests, drugs and condoms all over the world.  Once this scam is discovered, AHF will collapse like Enron and Bernie Madoff – and for the same reasons.
But for now, if you don’t believe the clerics, they will dispatch hoards of meth-trannies and gay activists to disrupt your life and write nasty things about you.  And why NOT?  This model has worked pretty well since the 1980s.
JS:  This is very important news for adult stars who have been told they are HIV-positive, as well as the adult industry in total, which is already reeling from economic hardships.  What do you recommend adult performers who have been told they are HIV-positive do now?  Can you help them?
CB:  You raise issues for actors and the industry.
1.    First of all, no one should EVER submit to HIV tests until manufacturers prove that their tests detect HIV AND that HIV causes AIDS.  Despite the theology, this has yet to be proved.
2.    Actors who have been diagnosed HIV+ should consider filing lawsuits forcing their clinicians to show exactly how they diagnosed them as HIV+.
3.    If actors have taken drugs like AZT or highly addictive psychotropic drugs like Sustiva, they should consider filing claims against their clinicians and clinics for malpractice and fraud and join future lawsuits that will hold drug companies accountable.
4.    Actors who are on the meds should use caution when getting off of them.  Although some are poisonous and easily stopped, some – like Sustiva – are highly addictive psychotropic drugs that can cause horrible withdrawal effects, including suicidal and homicidal ideation when suddenly stopped.  Those effects produce symptoms that are virtually identical to symptoms clinicians use to identify the onset of “full-blown AIDS”.  The withdrawal symptoms won’t last forever but can take a few months to recover from.  Some former HIV patients reported that reduced doses of benzodiazepines like valium or xanax can make the withdrawal less painful.  I’m no doctor – it’s what they report.  But those reports are consistent with my considerable experience and training related to drug addiction and withdrawal.
As for the industry, adult movie makers might consider forcing agencies to make arrests and close studios so that the accused can compel agencies to prove what we’ve discussed.  OMSJ can help the industry fight the AIDS clerics just as we have helped HIV defendants prevail in court.
JS:  Please clarify “agencies”. Porn performers might think you’re talking about their porn agents.
CB:  Agencies meaning local law enforcement, the Health Department and possibly OSHA.  But the right strategy will require a dialogue between filmmakers, their lawyers and OMSJ before decisions can be made.  Actors should consider taking immediate action.
JS:  Regarding your point that the drug companies own the AHF and other “non-profit’ organizations, this is based on what facts?
CB:  Although the drug industry has begun to launder their support through organizations like Tides and Open Society, their connection is clear.   For example, the Treatment Action Group (TAG) was founded by gay meth addict Peter Staley, ostensibly to generate funding for AIDS research and treatment.  A glance at their annual report shows that most of their funding still comes from the drug industry.  Their records show that TAG funds South Africa’s Treatment Action Campaign (TAC), which denies receiving any pharmaceutical funding.  TAC has their own cadre of meth trannies and activists.
AHF works on a different model.   In 2009, they sold $174 million in so-called HIV “healthcare services,” using fear and hysteria to market HIV tests, drugs and condoms all over the world.  Remember, they’re using HIV tests that manufacturers admit do not detect HIV and then they are treating patients based upon questionable test results.  So they use these meaningless tests to tell people they’re sick and convince them to take toxic and addictive drugs that eventually cripple and kill.  After a while, these people get sick and die and AHF and affiliates then use their mortality as evidence that HIV is killing people around the world.
If HIV tests were suddenly known to be meaningless, how would clinics like AHF push tests and drugs dangerous?  How long would they stay in business?  What kind of work would corrupt clinicians be able to find in an honest world?  The drug industry needs AHF to market hysteria and drugs and AHF need the drug industry to keep them in business.
JS: So they use meaningless tests used to push expensive and deadly drugs. And when you say they sold $174 million, do you mean they received that much from drug companies?
CB: AHF reported $174 million in revenues in 2009.  They generate profits by marking up drugs, selling services and billing Medi-care, Medi-cal and insurance companies.  They also receive funding from the LA County Health Department and the federal government.  Simply stated, the more patients they test, the more they can bill.  Thanks to the “Magic (Johnson) Effect,” the more hysteria they create the more people will come in to get tested and the more patients they’ll get.  The hysteria they generated in the adult industry is good for AHF and the makers of HIV tests and drugs.
AHF sues companies like Abbott to increase their profit margin.  But until someone compels AHF to prove that HIV tests detect HIV and that HIV causes AIDS, AHF should be forced to stop all operations until they deliver that proof.  For the drug industry, AHF is a necessary evil – AHF markets fear and hysteria that drug companies profit from.  The lawsuits are simply a way of extorting additional profits from the drug industry itself.  AHF just wants a bigger cut from the scam.
AHF belligerence comes from the marketing that would come with adult films that use condoms and products.  If the adult industry decides to make movies that market HIV theology and treatments, AHF would be happy.  Forcing actors to wear condoms is just part of the extortion.  When actors wear condoms, it perpetuates the myth and helps AHF and other clinics market their products.
JS: What should the adult industry now do, in lieu of these revelations, and how can you help?
CB:  The adult industry should continue to make movies without condoms and ignore the rants from AHF.  When AHF pressures officials (like health departments and OSHA) to make laws or enforce condom use and HIV testing, the industry should compel the AHF and government officials to produce evidence (not CDC theology) that HIV tests detect HIV and that HIV causes AIDS.  Since manufacturers admit that tests don’t detect HIV, all policies built upon the assumption that they detect HIV should be suspended and ignored until that proof is delivered.  OMSJ has legal, medical and scientific experts who can assist with the evaluations of that evidence and the preparation of any subsequent legal challenges.
JS: How may performers, production companies or anyone else reach you?
CB:  Anyone can reach us by visiting our website at
JS: I’m sure everyone reading this is stirring. Do you think the adult industry needs to continue testing for HIV?
CB:  NO.  HIV tests are a marketing scam – PERIOD.  Testing was originally designed to “raise awareness” and educate.  It’s simply been marketed as a reliable test.  Until manufacturers can establish verifiable proof and standards for HIV testing, the tests are entirely meaningless.  People are in prison for life today simply because they took HIV tests and had sex.  Until tests mean something, no one should risk their freedom by taking these tests.  And here’s a promise – if you never take an HIV test, you’ll never suffer or die from an HIV infection – even if you’re an actor in an adult movie.
JS: It appears based on your consecutive successful court cases that porn performers who have been declared HIV-positive have the right to sue, am I correct? And presume you can assist with that, and successfully, as well?
CB: HIV theology is comprised mostly of pharmaceutical gibberish that takes years to sift through and understand.  OMSJ’s cadre of medical, scientific and legal experts can help litigants mount effective complaints.  I personally know of no other licensed investigative agency that offers those kinds of resources.
JS:  I noticed that you made a short comment in response to a piece by Brooke Ashley.  Shortly after posting that comment, a critic posted an article that called you a homophobic ex-cop.  Do you know what I’m talking about?
CB: Yes.  This is part of what Christine Maggiore and others endure.  The fact is that, if the allegations were true, the California Department of Consumer Affairs wouldn’t have issued two investigator licenses to me.
Since a large portion of our clients are homosexual, the claim is preposterous.  But if I hated homosexuals, I can’t think of a better way to torture and kill them than to convince them that they’re dying from a fake disease and that they need to take carcinogens like AZT to survive.  Next to boxcars and camps, I can’t think of anymore more efficient.
But seriously, readers will have to weigh my untarnished credibility against the defenders of an industry that has paid $9 billion in criminal fines since 2004.  Cops are accustomed to felons and their families writing nasty things about them.  It comes with the territory.
JS: So, in quick summation, can you explain once again, if it’s proper to say this, how the drug companies literally own or hire the not-for-profit foundations to generate testing so the drug industry can continue to reap enormous profits at the expense of human lives which are sickened, murdered, not to mention terrorized and ruined? Or have I said it as succinctly as it can be said?
CB: Since 2004, the drug industry has paid $9 billion to settle thousands of criminal and civil complaints related to the illegal marketing of drugs that killed or injured thousands of people around the world.  Those fines represent a small fraction of the profits that the industry reaps by illegally marketing drugs.  The drug industry owns the theology.  They need marketers like AHF to “spread the word” and AHF needs industry pharmasluts to lend AHF credibility and influence.  There are hundreds – if not thousands of for-profit and non-profit clinics and activist groups that rely on pharmaceutical funding.  Without it, those groups would collapse.
JS: Thank you very much, indeed. And I hope and expect we will be having more conversations…
CB:  I look forward to it.

You Might Also Like