Daily Dose - A conspiracy so vast

[Guest guest]

" WC Douglass " <realhealth

 

 

Daily Dose - A conspiracy so vast

Fri, 08 Apr 2005 09:51:43 -0500

Daily Dose

****************************************************

April 08, 2005

 

G.I. Joe's Woes, part two

 

In the first installment (last Daily Dose), I told you about how

thousands of our brave servicemen and women in Iraq are being forced

to take a psychosis-inducing malaria drug called Lariam - and how some

of them are likely having hallucinations, suicidal and murderous

impulses because of it.

 

But what I want to tell you today is that if you look at the Lariam

" case " objectively, it all points to a giant conspiracy of both profit

and denial of liability. But don't take my word for this - you can

make up your own mind in a minute. Right now, let's start with the

facts, as reported in a CBSNews.com article...

 

The Armed Forces KNOWS this drug is deadly. Here's the proof:

 

* Written military guidelines on the use of Lariam urge commanders

to order an immediate medical evaluation of any soldier exhibiting

behavioral changes after taking the drug. In the guide's own words:

" Delay could put the service member or your unit at risk. "

 

* The Armed Forces expressly prohibits pilots from taking Lariam,

a supposedly " perfectly safe " drug with few side effects. What other

reason could there be for this policy except the possibility of

dangerous reactions?

 

* Lariam's manufacturer (Roche) warns of rare, yet severe side

effects including paranoia, confusion, motor impairment, and

hallucinations.

 

* Even the slow-to-condemn-a-drug FDA released a strong

recommendation that doctors caution Lariam users against the

possibility of severe anxiety, paranoia, depression, hallucinations

and suicidal thoughts. Despite this, the government has apparently

failed to warn soldiers of these risks, if CBSNews' sources are correct.

 

* A Department of Veterans Affairs review of the drug located MORE

THAN 30 articles in medical journals about behavioral or psychotic

side effects of Lariam.

 

Clearly, the Armed Forces know Lariam's dangerous. Even they aren't

that thickheaded. So why aren't they simply stopping the use of the

drug? Why are they covering this up? There could be two reasons that I

can think of how a " conspiracy " angle could come into play. Keep

reading...

 

****************************************************

 

 

I know what you're thinking: All right, Doc, we get it - the military

fouled it up. End of story. Where's the conspiracy?

 

It's right here for anyone with a mind open enough to see it:

 

Theory #1: The Money Motive

 

Government contracts mean millions (maybe billions) in profits for

drug companies. But a lot of the money the Feds spend on drugs

trickles right back into the government's pockets in the form of

corporate, income and other taxes. Plus, losing a big government

contract could hinder a drug-maker's ability to shell out for the

hefty approval fees on new drugs - that's even more money. If these

contracts stay in place, everybody wins. What's my evidence for this

motive? Right here:

 

According to the article, unnamed military officials have admitted

that Lariam WASN'T NEEDED IN IRAQ. Typically, Lariam is used in areas

known to have malaria strains that are resistant to the military's

first-line anti-malarial drug, chloroquine. In July 2003, the armed

Forces had determined no such malaria strain in Iraq. And so far, not

one case of malaria has been recorded among the 150,000 plus troops

we've sent to Iraq.

 

Why would the military continue to dispense a drug it knew wasn't

necessary? There are millions of reasons, and they all have " E.

Pluribus Unum " written on them.

 

Theory #2: Avoidance of Liability

 

According to the piece, Lariam is somewhat of an oddity: It's one of

the relatively few drugs the U.S. military has actually developed.

After the Vietnam Conflict, the need for powerful anti-malaria drugs

was obvious: Lariam is the result. This means that if the drug is

determined to be unsafe, the feds can't just point a finger at the

manufacturer and leave them to pay the huge liability claims. Also,

it's one thing if a private company is found to be deceiving the

public - they can just disappear in a blaze of bankruptcy hearings

while the government remains blameless. It would be quite another can

of worms if an agency or branch of the Federal government is found to

be covering something like this up. Remember Watergate?

 

Here's my evidence for this theory: As I reported in installment one,

the military directly controverted its own written policy when they

shipped a soldier home to face a court martial for the humiliating

charge of " cowardice " after he showed classic Lariam-related symptoms.

Why would they do that? Could it be to discredit him? To hush him up

somehow so he couldn't alert other soldiers experiencing similar symptoms?

 

Sounds pretty cut and dried, doesn't it? It must to some, because at

least one high-profile Senator is calling for the public release of

the Pentagon's own investigation into Lariam-related complaints.

However, even if these records implicate the drug, the Armed Forces

will always have what's called " plausible deniability. " Why? Because

the extreme side effects of Lariam happen to be close enough to the

symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder, combat fatigue, and other

war-related mental symptoms that the military will be able to pawn one

off as the other, if push comes to shove. This is a stroke of luck for

the military and for the drug's maker...

 

But the unluckiest possible scenario for the families of those touched

by Lariam-related murders, suicides, court-martials and dishonorable

discharges. These poor people will get nothing in the end but a bunch

of unanswered questions, psychotherapy, lost benefits, an official

disgrace of the highest order - or worse, a great big hole in their

hearts where someone special used to be.

 

Pulling back the curtain on the enemy within,

 

William Campbell Douglass II, MD

 

************