Of course there are
several factors responsible, but first off this spray is rapidly becoming
accepted. Either this
year, 2004, or next it will likely become the highest selling single item in
health food stores in America. Why many doctors are not familiar with it is best
explained by analogy.
is caused by a vitamin C deficiency and used to be a significant problem
for sailors because
fruit would not keep for the duration of the voyages. The British were the first
maritime power to incorporate the use of citrus fruits to prevent this problem.
It earned their sailors the nickname of "limeys." But accepting such
change took a long long time.
The first British captain
to look at preventing scurvy was James Lancaster. In 1601
he took four ships from England to India. He gave the crew of one ship three
teaspoons of lemon juice every day. Half way through the voyage none of these
sailors died, compared with 40% of the 278 other crew members. But nothing
changes with these startling findings. One hundred and forty six years later
(1747) James Lind did a similar study with several different remedies; finding the best
to be citrus juice. He wrote the results of his experience in A Treatise on
Scurvy that was published in 1753. Still nothing changed until 48 years
later (1795), when
Gilbert Blane made the use of oranges and lemons in the British Navy mandatory
and scurvy was dramatically reduced. But it took yet
another 70 years (1865) before the merchant marine followed suit.
Why the lack of interest
in such a simple treatment, both then and now?
hard to see into people's motives. Certainly changing the way we think and
accepting the fault of
our wrong headed practices is difficult. But there also may be economic
were not paid until return to home port. If 40% of them died before returning
home that translated into more profit for the shippers.
with lives at stake change is hard, and even harder if it costs.
There were no
economic reasons to change.
the end of the 17th Century crews for naval vessels were obtained by press
gangs (England) and conscription (France), but such crews had more value
because the family or the manor was paid for the seaman's time even if he
died. And healthy manpower was of value when it came to battles. Further
investment into the sailor occurred in 1835 when Sir James Graham imposed
the rule that no pressed man could be required to serve more than 5
1853 employment in the Navy became the standard. The Navy, which had spent some time and money
training sailors, and had an investment in them, was the first to change.
situation today is not that different:
companies that pollute the streams from which we drink and the air that we
breathe lobby heavily against mandated restraints against such pollution,
even though lives are in the balance.
a perverse argument tobacco lobbyists recently pointed out the savings that
would accrue to the Czech government from the early death of smokers that
would thus decrease the government's social spending: "When people smoke," they pointed out, it's "good for the
economic balance in a country."
situation is not that different in health care:
James M.D., quality improvement officer for Intermountain Health Care, says: “The
system is perverse. . . .The payments are perverse. It pays us to harm patients,
and it punishes us when we don’t."
March 10th 2004 Jerry Pappert, Attorney General
for the state of Pennsylvania, sued 13 major drug companies for entering
into a complex scheme to artificially inflate the costs of their drugs.
matters when the goal is profits!
communication is much better today than it was 300 and 400 years ago and more
people that count, the patients themselves, are finding out about the
perverseness of the system and realizing the benefits
of honoring our own defenses rather than blocking them.
on the perverseness of our system is at Common
Science. 1981 Feb 27;211(4485):881-6.
Innovation and evaluation.
Social, medical, and technological innovations are discussed, first with
reference to historical examples and then with modern studies. I show the
need for evaluating both the innovations themselves and the research
processes leading to them. I suggest some kinds of research that need to be
carried out if we are to continue to have a vigorous program of scientific
and technological innovation. Finally, I explain the new initiative by the
AAAS in science and engineering education.
Abelson, Reed. “Hospitals say they’re
Penalized by Medicare for Improving Care.” New
York Times. Dec. 5, 2003.
Accessed 4 March, 2004
sues 13 major drug companies for unlawful and deceptive pricing and sales
practices; alleges illegal conduct caused Pennsylvanians to pay higher
prices for prescription medications
Issued: Wednesday, March 10, 2004
HARRISBURG - In an effort to curb the skyrocketing
costs of prescription drugs in Pennsylvania, Attorney General Jerry
Pappert today sued 13 major pharmaceutical companies accusing them of
unlawful and deceptive pricing and sales practices in a complex scheme to
raise drug prices and capture market share by artificially inflating the
cost of their drugs, some of which were used by cancer patients and others
with life-threatening illnesses.
"This scheme cost our citizens and the Commonwealth hundreds of
millions of dollars in overcharges for prescription drugs," Pappert
said at a news conference. "I am seeking to return those dollars
to consumers and state programs, put a stop to these practices and thereby
lower the cost of prescription drugs for all of us."
Pappert said the 42-page lawsuit, filed today in Commonwealth Court,
accuses the drug companies of participating in an unfair and deceptive
marketing scheme and conspiracy that provided improper incentives to
medical providers to gain market share. The lawsuit alleges that the
scheme forced consumers and state agencies to pay significantly higher
prices for prescription drugs as drug companies purposefully inflated the
cost of those drugs.
Pappert explained that many Pennsylvania consumers purchase drugs,
either by themselves or through a health plan or insurer, and are
financially harmed when drug companies intentionally raise the prices of
their drugs to manipulate the market. Pappert said many older
Pennsylvanians, under the federal Medicare program, pay 20 percent of the
cost of their drugs and thus also pay more for prescription drugs when the
drug companies raise their prices.
In addition, Pappert said, Commonwealth programs and agencies that
purchase drugs, including Medicaid, the Pharmaceutical Assistance Contract
for the Elderly (PACE) and the Pennsylvania Employees Benefit Trust Fund,
all pay for prescription drugs based on a price set by the drug companies.
When the drug companies intentionally inflate that price, the companies
increase the amount paid by the Commonwealth.
Pappert identified the main defendants as: TAP Pharmaceutical Products,
Inc.; AstraZeneca; Bayer AG; GlaxoSmithKline, PLC; Pfizer Inc.; Amgen
Inc.; Schering-Plough Corporation; Bristol-Myers Squib Company; Johnson & Johnson;
Baxter International Inc.; Aventis Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Boehringer
Ingelheim Corporation, and Dey Inc. The lawsuit also lists
several subsidiaries and affiliates as defendants. Pappert said he
would reserve the right to take action against other companies who
in similar alleged schemes to defraud consumers.
Pappert said the lawsuit accuses the defendants of four broad actions
that constituted their illegal marketing scheme and conspiracy:
-- Establishing and promoting "spreads" between what drug
companies actually charge for the drugs and what consumers and state
programs are billed for the drugs.
-- Providing free goods and drug samples knowing that consumers and
state government would be charged the full price for the products.
-- Providing other financial incentives and inducements, including cash
payments and free trips, to promote the sales of their drugs at exorbitant
-- Engaging in efforts to fraudulently conceal and suppress the illegal
conduct in an effort to maintain the scheme and conspiracy.
Promotion of "Spreads"
Pappert said the lawsuit accuses drug companies of inflating the "average wholesale price" (AWP)
of prescription drugs to create a financial incentive for medical providers
to use their drugs over a
competitor's drugs. Pappert explained that federal and state programs
base their reimbursement rates on the AWP, which in turn is the price
to private insurers and consumers for prescription drugs.
Pappert said the AWP is supposed to represent the average price that
drug companies charge for a drug. In reality, he said, drug companies
set the AWPs without basing them on average prices. Pappert added that
companies often sell drugs to medical providers at costs well below the
AWP, creating a "spread" between what a medical provider
actually pays for a drug and what that provider charges consumers and
Pappert said the lawsuit accuses drug companies of "competing" on
spreads - purposefully inflating the AWP to provide incentives for providers
to choose their drugs - in order to
capture market share.
"This conduct perverted competition in the marketplace by
rewarding companies that charged the most for their drugs," Pappert
said. "Competition is supposed to result in lower prices for
consumers, not higher prices. This illegal scheme turned that market
principle on its head."
In explaining the problem of spreads, the lawsuit provided an example
of the prostate cancer drugs Lupron and Zoladex, which are manufactured,
distributed, marketed and sold by TAP Pharmaceutical Products and
AstraZeneca PLC respectively.
The lawsuit explains that Lupron in the 1990s commanded the greater
market share over other prostate cancer drugs, despite the fact that its
actual cost traditionally had been much higher. The lawsuit explains that
Lupron's AWP was higher than other drugs, giving it a larger spread. The
lawsuit alleges that Lupron garnered its large market share because of its
high cost, which gives providers a financial incentive to prescribe it.
"Consumers lose when drug companies compete for higher
prices," Pappert said.
Provision of Free Goods and Drug Samples
Pappert said the lawsuit also accuses the drug companies of providing
free samples to medical providers as another financial incentive for them
to choose their products. Pappert said the companies gave the free samples
knowing that medical providers would bill consumers and the Commonwealth
for the products.
Pappert noted that TAP Pharmaceuticals pleaded guilty to federal
conspiracy charges for providing free samples of Lupron to medical
providers. As a result of the plea, the company paid more than $890
million in fines and civil penalties to the federal government. However,
Pappert noted no Pennsylvania consumers or state programs, with the
exception of Medicaid, received reimbursements for the illegal activity.
In addition, Pappert noted, AstraZeneca pleaded guilty to federal
conspiracy charges for providing free samples of Zoladex to medical
providers. The company paid $345.9 million to the federal government.
However, no Pennsylvania consumers or state programs, with the exception
of Medicaid, received reimbursements for the illegal activity.
Other Financial Incentives
Pappert said the lawsuit also accuses the drug companies of the
widespread practice of offering trips, consulting opportunities, seminars,
gifts, meals and cash payments to medical providers in return for
prescribing their products.
Pappert said the complaint accuses the drug companies of fraudulently
concealing the process and methodology used for determining the AWPs.
Pappert said the companies also prevented the Commonwealth and consumers
from knowing the actual price paid by medical providers for the
Pappert said the recent federal criminal investigations uncovered a
pattern of unlawful conduct by drug companies involving the promotion of
spreads and the provision of free goods and samples, but the Commonwealth
and consumers did not learn what the spreads currently are and have been
for these products.
In the complaint, Pappert asks Commonwealth Court to:
-- Issue a permanent injunction stopping the drug companies from
committing the illegal conduct.
-- Return to Pennsylvania consumers and the Commonwealth overpayments
for drugs as a result of the scheme and conspiracy during the period the
unlawful conduct took place.
-- Award a $1,000 civil penalty for each offense against Pennsylvania
consumers under 60 years old and $3,000 for each offense against
Pennsylvania consumers 60 years old and older, as required under the
Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law.
-- Award punitive damages against the drug companies.
-- Require the drug companies to pay attorneys fees, expert witness
fees, costs of investigation and other related costs.
Pappert noted that the Commonwealth's litigation will be handled by
Kline and Specter, P.C., of Philadelphia. Pappert noted that the lawsuit
does not concern the effectiveness or quality of any of the prescription
drugs involved in the case.
"As Attorney General, I am committed to doing everything I can to
reduce the price of prescription drugs for the Commonwealth and its
citizens," Pappert said.
The spray described in these pages
is not a drug. This means that the people manufacturing this spray
cannot advertise what the spray does to prevent disease and illness.
The spray only helps to clean your nose. The benefits come from
a clean nose. The only way people will learn about this practical
and sensible way to help the immune system wash pollutants from
the back of the nose is by interested people, like you, sharing
If you have family or friends with any of these problems, they
may benefit greatly from your sharing this information with them.
Links in the other sections, referring to a person or study, will
take you to a Medline summary, from the National Library of Medicine,
of the article in question.
This spray is protected by United States and international patents.
While careful reading of these pages will tell you how to mix this
spray yourself we request that you do not sell such spray on the
open market. Such sales would be prohibited by the above mentioned
Disclaimer: All material provided in this web site is provided
for educational purposes in the hope of improving our general health.
Access of this web site does not create a doctor-patient relationship
nor should the information contained on this web site be considered
specific medical advice with respect to a specific patient and/or
a specific condition. Copy sections of this page and discuss them
with your physician to see if they apply to your own symptoms or
Dr. Jones specifically disclaims any liability, loss or risk, personal
or otherwise, that is or may be incurred as a consequence, directly
or indirectly, of use or application of any of the information
provided on this web site.
A. H. 'Lon' Jones D.O.
812 West 8th St. Suite 2A
Plainview, Texas 79072
Phone (806) 291-0700
Fax (806) 293-8229