Solving the problem (or crime) of reimporting prescription drugs

Why does no-one ever ask the obvious question - why, if these drugs work and are “life-saving”, are there ever-more sick people rather than less?

Pharmaceutical drugs are FULL OF POISONS. That is why.

Please see the article posted at the end of this one for proof from doctors that pharmaceutical drugs are poisons and creating sickness and why:-

Solving the problem (or crime) of reimporting prescription drugs

by J. Daniel Cloud

King of kings’ Bible – Galatians 5:19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are [these]; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
5:20 Idolatry, PHARMACY, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
5:21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told [you] in time past, that they which do such things shall NOT inherit the Kingdom of God.

 The average cost of a month's supply of the stroke prevention drug Ticlid in the United States is $112.92. In Canada, it's $52.35 (U.S. dollars).

 Zocor, a treatment for high cholesterol, costs $106.84 per month in the United States. Canada's cost: $43.97 (U.S. dollars).

 Antidepressant Zoloft costs $195.07 on average in the United States. Cost in Canada: $124.41.

 Even Prilosec, a drug for heartburn, costs almost double here for a month's supply: $105.50, compared to $53.51.

 With prices like these, it's no wonder that thousands of Americans break federal law by crossing the national border to import their prescription drugs. Everyone knows re-importation happens, and the U.S. federal government has done little to stop it for many years.

 That is changing. The federal Drug Enforcement Agency and Food and Drug Administration have joined forces to try to stop such small-scale black market importation of drugs.

 As with the other Drug War, though, the feds are discovering that it's a losing battle; people are thronging across the Canadian (or sometimes Mexican) border, getting a doctor on the other side to issue a prescription for the drugs they've already been prescribed in the States, and coming back home -- having saved hundreds of dollars for their trouble.

 Why is it illegal to re-import drugs to the United States that were made here and sold more cheaply to foreign countries than to American distributors?

 For one thing, the FDA claims that drugs purchased in other countries may not be safe. They could be counterfeits -- fake drugs packaged in such a way that they appear similar to the real thing available in the United States.

 But why would drugs available from Canadian pharmacies be any more likely to be counterfeit than those available at their stateside counterparts? People aren't flocking north to buy prescription drugs in back alleys, but from recognized pharmacies who issue the drugs upon prescription.

 A more likely excuse for not allowing Americans to buy drugs elsewhere is that drug companies want to protect their profits, and some (or many) legislators are willing to help them in that effort. More on that later.

 For several years Congress has flirted with the idea of allowing Americans to re-import drugs.

 But it's not legal yet, even though some government officials here have avidly supported allowing their constituents to buy prescription drugs elsewhere.

 Congressman Bernard Sanders of Vermont actually provided instructions on his Web site for constituents who want to drive to Canada to get their medicine, and others have done similarly -- including officials in Minnesota and Wisconsin, who went so far as to give directions to specific pharmacies in Canada where Americans can buy cheap, reliable prescription drugs.

 The question is, should such purchases be legalized -- or should the process be kept illegal, whether or not the federal government enforces the law! ?

 Interestingly, even some profreedom individuals disagree on the proper treatment of the issue.

 For example, Doug Bandow of the Cato Institute argued in a July 2003 opinion piece for the National Review Online that "re-importation is an all-around bad idea," in part because it "would effectively apply foreign price controls on the American market."

 The main reason drug prices are so high in the United States is that the cost of research and development is generally passed on to American consumers, while the markets overseas reap the benefits of the drugs without having to pay for the creation process. We are penalized for living in the same country where the drugs are produced.

 Some say legalizing re-importation of drugs would force American pharmaceutical companies to lower U.S. drug costs to the artificially low prices in foreign countries -- whose governments impose price controls.

 Bandow quoted U.S. Senator Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) ! as saying: "It is not my intention to have the American people go to a nother country for their drugs. It is my intention to force the pharmaceutical industry to re-price their drugs here in the United States."

 And Congressman Sanders opined that "it is likely that the day after re-importation passes, the pharmaceutical industry will lower their prices in the United States to the same level that they sell their products worldwide."

 Another frequent complaint is that allowing Americans to buy prescription drugs from Canada or other countries would hurt the pharmaceutical companies' bottom lines: If Americans have the opportunity to circumvent the price differential, the drug companies will earn less.

 Opponents of re-importation act as though this is a case of the law of unintended consequences: They're simply trying to save money, not to lower drug company revenues.

 Actually, however, this is the intended consequence. If the drug companies make less money from the sale of drugs at higher American prices, they will! eventually have to start charging more abroad, equalizing the price and eliminating the need to re-import drugs to the United States.

 Some legislators -- like the above-mentioned Dorgan and Sanders -- want to force the drug companies to sell their drugs more cheaply, but legislating price caps would be a distinctly anti-freedom move, no matter how well-intended.

 Besides, it would be unnecessary.

 By allowing Americans to travel across national borders to get their medicine, the federal government would simply be allowing the market forces to take over: Just like any other commercial situation, if a company's not making money in one sector, they'll look to another market to make up the difference.

 But what about those countries that will allow the drugs to be sold there only if they are sold at or below a fixed price? Won't raising the price worldwide effectively eliminate those countries' access to the drugs?

 Not so, argues U.S. Rep. ! Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania.

 "These companies would be forced to present the price-setting countries with an ultimatum: Either liberalize your market or we will leave," Toomey said, as quoted by Edward H. Crane and Roger Pilon of the Cato Institute in a July 2003 policy paper.

 "It's hard to imagine that countries in this situation will deny their citizens access to lifesaving drugs. Instead, they will most likely ease their controls and increase the price they are willing to pay for drugs."

 Some argue that this process would cause the companies to cut costs by doing less research and development on new drugs, resulting in a stagnation of the drug market. Wrong again.

 Despite the claims of pharmaceutical companies in ad campaigns -- which tout their desire to improve the lives of all mankind through medicine -- they exist to make money, just like all other commercial entities.

 Once a drug has been on the market for a period of years, it can be copied and sold, as a generic, at a much-reduced cost. If the c! ompanies try to rest on their laurels and don't bother developing new medications, their initial investment in the existing drugs will cease paying off, as the use of generic equivalents begins replacing use of the brand name product.

 Because generic drugs cost, on average, a third as much as brand name drugs, they now account for 46 percent of the prescriptions sold in the United States, according to the Wall Street Journal.

 The best way to continue ringing a profit lies through R, through bringing "new and improved" products to the market. It's good for business to keep working on new medicines, so the drug companies will continue doing so.

 If the U.S. government allows Americans to re-import prescription drugs from Canada, it won't sound a death knell for the pharmaceutical industry.

 Yes, the pricing of drugs will be more equalized among nations, thus cutting the need for re-importation. Yes, some other countries will begin paying more f! or their medications. But the drug manufacturers will still make their money -- they just won't be making all of it from Americans.

 The federal government could also help with the development and introduction of new medicines -- thereby lessening the cost of medication in all countries and further reducing the need for re-importation -- by simply getting out of the way.

 Some Canadians have discovered this. Their government is even slower than the U.S. FDA to approve new drugs, so many Canadians end up crossing the border to the U.S. to buy them.

 And here, the FDA takes much longer to approve drugs than the regulatory agencies in other countries, making it difficult to get new drugs on the market.

 One drug, for example -- propranolol, "the first Beta-blocker to be used extensively to treat angina and hypertension" -- wasn't approved for use in the United States until several years after it was approved in Great Britain, and "approximately 10,000 Americans died needlessly every year because it was against the law ! for their doctors to treat them with propranolol," said Dr. Mary Ruwart, a renowned pharmaceutical research scientist.

 "The regulatory delay of this single drug may have been responsible for the death of more Americans than all other deaths from drugs in this century," Ruwart wrote in a paper called "Death by regulation: the price we pay for the FDA."

 Ruwart sought in 2001 to be appointed as FDA commissioner, telling President Bush in a letter that she wanted "to facilitate the conversion of the FDA from a bureaucratic regulatory regime into a market-oriented support system that maximizes our access to life-saving medications."

 Even aspirin, she said, causes malformations when given to pregnant animals, and "could not gain FDA approval if tested today."

 What is the best solution to the problem of expensive drugs, which is caused in large part by massive regulation and leads to the need for re-importation? Privatize the FDA, or do away with it! altogether, allowing the drug companies' testing to be done without b ureaucratic interference.

 But wouldn't that result in drugs being prematurely brought to the market, potentially endangering the lives of those who take them?

 Not likely: No drug company wants to give its customers drugs that will be bad for them. "Before the FDA came into being, American drug manufacturers usually gave their customers the best drugs that the state of the art would allow," Ruwart says. "After all, killing the customer is bad business."

 Allowing patients' health to decline because they either can't afford the drugs or because the medicine has been kept off the market by over-zealous bureaucrats is wrong.

 Which is worse for the patient: treating them with drugs from Canada or drugs that may or may not work, in hopes that a life may be saved -- or not allowing them access to the drugs at all?


- Governments tend not to solve problems, only rearrange them. -- Ronald Reagan

5:20 Idolatry, PHARMACY, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,

5:21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told [you] in time past, that they which do such things shall NOT inherit the Kingdom of God.






P.S. See the end portion too, from my article about the Protocols.

 16 Quotes On Drugs



          1. "The cause of most disease is in the poisonous drugs physicians superstitiously give in order to effect a cure." Charles E. Page, M.D.

          2. "Medicines are of subordinate importance because of their very nature they can only work symptomatically." Hans Kusche, M.D.

          3. "If all the medicine in the world were thrown into the sea, it would be bad for the fish and good for humanity" O.W. Holmes, (Prof. of Med. Harvard University)

          4. "Drug medications consists in employing, as remedies for disease, those things which produce disease in well persons. Its materia medica is simply a lot of drugs or chemicals or dye-stuffs in a word POISONS. All are incompatible with vital matter; all produce disease when brought in contact in any manner with the living; ALL are POISONS." R.T. TraIl, M.D., in a two and one half hour lecture to members of congress and the medical profession, delivered at the Smithsonian Institute in Washington D.C.

          5. "Every drug increases and complicates the patient's condition."  Robert Henderson, M.D.

          6. "Drugs never cure disease. They merely hush the voice of nature's protest, and pull down the danger signals she erects along the pathway of transgression. Any poison taken into the system has to be reckoned with later-on, even though it palliates present symptoms. Pain may disappear, but the patient is left in a WORSE condition, though unconscious of it at the time." Daniel. H. Kress, M.D.

          7. "The greatest part of all chronic disease is created by the suppression of acute disease by drug poisoning." Henry Lindlahr, M.D.

          8. "Every educated physician knows that most diseases are not appreciably helped by medicine." Richard C. Cabot, M.D. (Mass. Gen. Hospital)

          9. "Medicine is only palliative, for back of disease lies the cause, and this cause no drug can reach." Wier Mitchel, M.D.

          10. "The person who takes medicine must recover twice, once from the disease and once from the medicine." William Osler, M.D.

          11. "Medical practice has neither philosophy nor common sense to recommend it. In sickness the body is already loaded with impurities. By taking drug - medicines more impurities are added, thereby the case is further embarrassed and harder to cure." Elmer Lee, M.D., Past Vice President, Academy of Medicine.

          12. "Our figures show approximately four and one half million hospital admissions annually due to the adverse reactions to drugs. Further, the average hospital patient has as much as thirty percent chance, depending how long he is in, of doubling his stay due to adverse drug reactions."  Milton Silverman, M.D. (Professor of Pharmacology, University of California)

          13. "Why would a patient swallow a poison because he is ill, or take that which would make a well man sick." L.F. Kebler, M.D.

          14. "What hope is there for medical science to ever become a true science when the entire structure of medical knowledge is built around the idea that there is an entity called disease which can be expelled when the right drug is found?"  John H. Tilden, M.D.

          15. "The necessity of teaching mankind not to take drugs and medicines, is a duty incumbent upon all who know their uncertainty and injurious effects; and the time is not far distant when the drug system will be abandoned."  Charles Armbruster, M. D.

          16. "We are prone to thinking of drug abuse in terms of the male population and illicit drugs such as heroin, cocaine, and marijuana. It may surprise you to learn that a greater problem exists with millions of women dependent on legal prescription drugs."  Robert Mendelsohn, M.D  


Galatians 5:19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are [these]; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,

5:20 Idolatry, PHARMACY, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,

5:21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told [you] in time past, that they which do such things shall NOT inherit the Kingdom of God.



Extract from my article about the Protocols:-


In 1492, Chemor, Chief Rabbi of Spain received the following reply from the Grand Sanhedrin (Elders of Zion) to his plea for advice on how to deal with their threatened expulsion under Spanish Law; it illustrates well how the same ancient agenda was still being adhered to by the elect at this time:

'Beloved brethren in Moses (another lie), we have received your letter in which you tell us of the anxieties and misfortunes which you are enduring. We are pierced by as great a pain to hear it as yourselves.

The advice of the Grand Satraps and the Rabbis is the following:

1. As for what you say that the king of Spain obliges you to become Christians: do it, since you cannot do otherwise.

2. As for what you say about the command to despoil you of your property: make your sons merchants that they may despoil, little by little, the Christians of theirs.

3. As for what you say about making attempts on your lives: make your sons DOCTORS and APOTHECARIES (pharmacists/chemists), that they may take away Christian's lives.

4. As for what you say of their destroying your synagogues: make your sons canons and clerics in order that they may destroy their churches.

5. As for the other vexations you complain of: arrange that your sons become advocates and lawyers, and see that they always mix in affairs of State, that by putting Christians under your yoke you may dominate the world and be avenged on them.

6. Do not swerve from this order that we give you, because you will find by experience that, humiliated as you are, you will reach the actuality of power.

(Signed) Prince of the Jews of Constantinople'

(Julio-Inigrez de Medrano - 'La Silva Curiosa' 1608 my emphasis)


( categories: )