|
SneezingPenis
ACHOOOOOOOOO!!!!!111!

Registered: 01/15/05
Posts: 15,427
Last seen: 6 years, 9 months
|
Let us look at Partnership for a Drug-Free America... (part 1) (part 2 added)
#7090988 - 06/25/07 01:57 PM (16 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
lets look at its funding first.
PRIMARY CORE SUPPORT The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation
ADDITIONAL CORE SUPPORT Nonprescription Drug Manufacturers Assn. State of California Dept. of Alcohol Drug Programs U.S. Department of Education Chemical Specialties Manufacturers Assn.
I will come back to these later, but lets continue... here is a breakdown of the companies that fund the PDFA.
Quote:
FOUNDATION, CORPORATE and INDIVIDUAL GIFTSUP TO $100,000 PER YEAR American Home Products Corporation - (wyeth pharmaceuticals) Bayer Corporation - (pharmaceutical company) Bristol-Myers Squibb Foundation - (yeah, you guessed it: pharmaceutical company) Mr. & Mrs. James and Didi Burke Chrysler Corporation Fund Joseph Drown Foundation Eastman Kodak Company William Randolph Hearst Foundation H.J. Heinz Company Foundation Johnson & Johnson - (see any pattern?: pharmaceutical) Metropolitan Life Foundation McNeil Consumer Products Company - (pharmaceuticals) Novartis Consumer Health, Inc. - (pharmaceuticals) Perrigo Company - (pharmaceuticals) Pharmacia and Upjohn Company - (pharmaceuticals) The Procter & Gamble Company - (hand in everything) Schering-Plough Foundation - (pharmaceutical) SmithKline Beecham Consumer - (pharmaceutical) Healthcare The UPS Foundation Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz Warner-Lambert Company
FOUNDATION and CORPORATE GIFTS UP TO $30,000 PER YEAR BankAmerica Foundation BellSouth Corporation BMG Entertainment Capitol Records Chevron Corporation Exxon Corporation Ford Motor Company General Electric Foundation General Motors Foundation Kimberly-Clark Corporation Merck Company Foundation Merrill Lynch & Co. Foundation Morgan Stanley Group PACCAR Foundation Sears, Roebuck and Co. State Farm Companies Foundation Thompson Medical Company, Inc. Whitehall-Robbins Company The Xerox Foundation
FOUNDATION, CORPORATE and INDIVIDUAL GIFTSUP TO $15,000 PER YEAR Avon Products Foundation Carter-Wallace Foundation Chase Manhattan Bank, NA Citibank, NA Hallmark Corporate Foundation Hoffman-LaRoche, Inc. Omega Advisors OZ Records, LLC The Pfizer Foundation, Inc. Carl and Lily Pforzheimer Foundation Mr. Richard Reiss Rockwell International Corporation Ann and Herbert Siegel Fund
FOUNDATION, CORPORATE and INDIVIDUAL GIFTSOF $500 TO $5,000 PER YEAR Atlantic Mutual Company Automatic Data Processing Baltimore Life Insurance Company Bloomberg LP Buhl Foundation Caterpillar Foundation Chubb Corporation The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints Foundation Colgate-Palmolive Company Cologne Life Reinsurance Company Corning Foundation Nathan Creaser Memorial Fund Arie and Ida Crown Memorial Dailey and Associates John Deere Foundation EG & G Foundation Forbes Magazine GenCorp Foundation Glaxo-Wellcome, Inc. Greenwich Academy, Inc. Hershey Foods Home Box Office J & H Marsh & McLennan KABC-TV KFWB & KTWV - FM Kings Care Foundation Mr. Thomas Lister Mark Family Foundation McGraw-Hill Meadowlark Foundation New York City Transit Authority Noware Productions Ohio National Foundation PepsiCo, Inc. RoNetco Supermarkets, Inc. S. Matthews, Inc. Sealy Corporation Simon & Schuster Springs Industries, Inc. Mr. Charles B. Stiles, Jr. Michael Swickey, Jr. Memorial Fund Mr. David Versfelt, Esq. VF Corporation John L. Weinberg Foundation
Now, that is just for the year 1998, but looking at the fiscal years between then and now results in the exact same thing.
Im going to let that roll around for a little bit before going any further. Part 2 gets better!!!11!
Edited by psilocyberin (06/26/07 02:19 PM)
|
Gastronomicus
3-0-G



Registered: 03/31/05
Posts: 9,732
Last seen: 16 minutes, 19 seconds
|
Re: Let us look at Partnership for a Drug-Free America... (part 1) [Re: SneezingPenis]
#7091022 - 06/25/07 02:11 PM (16 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Fuckers...
-------------------- Make my Funk the P Funk, I wants to get Funked up
LAGM2024
|
jewunit
Brutal!

Registered: 01/11/07
Posts: 34,264
Loc: Ohio
|
Re: Let us look at Partnership for a Drug-Free America... (part 1) [Re: SneezingPenis]
#7091035 - 06/25/07 02:14 PM (16 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
There's a pretty big Bristol plant like 5 minutes away. I should go bomb it.
-------------------- !
|
Gastronomicus
3-0-G



Registered: 03/31/05
Posts: 9,732
Last seen: 16 minutes, 19 seconds
|
Re: Let us look at Partnership for a Drug-Free America... (part 1) [Re: jewunit]
#7091099 - 06/25/07 02:35 PM (16 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Sounds like a good idea to me
-------------------- Make my Funk the P Funk, I wants to get Funked up
LAGM2024
|
SneezingPenis
ACHOOOOOOOOO!!!!!111!

Registered: 01/15/05
Posts: 15,427
Last seen: 6 years, 9 months
|
Re: Let us look at Partnership for a Drug-Free America... (part 1) [Re: Gastronomicus]
#7091198 - 06/25/07 03:09 PM (16 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
I forgot to highlight Merck as well.
Part two will come either late, late tonight, or tommorrow. There may be a part 3 as well... I dont know how deep i feel like getting.
But over the course of these segments, I am going to show everyone that The Partnership for a Drug-Free America is nothing more than a "non-profit" conglomeration of all the Pharmaceutical companies, designed to create propaganda against "street" drugs.... sometimes, even the drugs that these companies themselves invented and distributed! To come: Who is Robert Wood Johnson? is it a coincidence his last name is the same as the PDFA's largest financial contributor: Johnson & Johnson? Why did the PDFA have to stop taking contributions from the Tobacco and Alchohol companies? Why doesnt PDFA advocate decriminalization? (think really hard about this one ) Is the PDFA truly a non-profit company acting in the interest of the American populous as it mounts a 6 billion dollar media campaign?
stay tuned....
|
SneezingPenis
ACHOOOOOOOOO!!!!!111!

Registered: 01/15/05
Posts: 15,427
Last seen: 6 years, 9 months
|
Re: Let us look at Partnership for a Drug-Free America... (part 1) [Re: SneezingPenis]
#7095047 - 06/26/07 02:19 PM (16 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
OK! Part II....
So lets look at the primary funding.... The Robert Wood Johnson foundation. The name Robert Wood Johnson has been passed down for 4 generations in the family that created Johnson and Johnson. Now, the RWJF (Robert WOod Johnson Foundation) gets its money from Johnson and Johnson... they own over 5 million dollars worth of stock in the company.
Quote:
1) Increasing public debate and demand for smoke-free environments and advancing state and local smoke-free policies. (links) Awarded to: The Institute of Medicine and Public Health of New Jersey, Inc $150,000.00 +
2) Awarded to: Kids Involuntarily Inhaling Secondhand Smoke $399,950.00 So what are kids doing in the bars anyway?....this argument is a red herring.
3) Enhancing and sustaining smoke-free environments. Awarded to: American Nonsmokers' Rights Foundation $1,000,000.00
4) Awarded to: Health Research Incorporated $1,500,000.00
5) Awarded to: Duke University Center for Health Policy, Law and Management $399,997.00
6) Public awareness campaign to increase the number of smoke-free communities in Illinois Awarded to: American Lung Association $138,900.00
7) Awarded to: Mission City Community Network Inc. $49,998.00
8) Center for MultiCultural Health $50,000.00
9) University of California, San Francisco, School of Medicine $399,000.00 Project Director Stanton Glantz
10) Tobacco Control Resource Center Inc. $300,000.00
11) Increasing the number of smoke-free sites in the Denver metropolitan region through collaborative educational activities Awarded to: Colorado Tobacco Education and Prevention Alliance $149,500.00
12) University of Minnesota School of Public Health $250,000 .00
13) Promoting an increase in smoke-free workplaces and protection of Master Settlement funds for tobacco control Awarded to: American Medical Association $10,896,463.00
14) Effort to lobby lawmakers for asmoking ban in Delaware Awarded to: American Lung Association of Delaware (Wilmington, DE) Amount: $ 793,552.00 and $ 654,953.00
You can find all 497 grants here. The non-profits demand smoking ban legislation because once they accepted hundreds of millions of dollars from RWJF they became marketing spokesmen for Nicoderm & Nicoderm CQ.
http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2005/09/for-those-still-naive-enough-to-think.html
Here is me spelling it out for you: The RWJF is a philanthropy front that is spending millions of dollars each year to mount smoking ban campaigns, by buying ads and lobbying, which in turn positively effects revenues for companies that make products like Nicoderm.... which company makes Nicoderm? Johnson&Johnson.... which in turn makes money for the RWJF... but it doesnt stop there...
Quote:
Company Accused of Improprieties in Marketing Risperdal Jim Rosack The Texas attorney general says TMAP was just one part of an elaborate marketing scheme to increase psychotropic drug sales.
The Texas state attorney general joined a whistleblower lawsuit this past December accusing the pharmaceutical and consumer goods giant Johnson and Johnson inc. of exaggerating the benefits and minimizing the known adverse effects associated with its second-generation antipsychotic Risperdal (risperidone), marketed by subsidiary Janssen L.P.
The suit further alleges the company and its subsidiaries "improperly influenced" at least one Texas state mental health program official through the payment of "substantial financial contributions" aimed at ensuring a preferred position for Risperdal during the development and implementation of the Texas Medication Algorithm Project (TMAP).
The lawsuit was originally filed in 2004 by Allen Jones, a former employee in Pennsylvania's Office of the Inspector General (OIG). as an OIG investigator, Jones had investigated allegations of impropriety during Pennsylvania's efforts to implement PENNMAP, a slightly modified version of TMAP.
As a result of Johnson and Johnson's alleged improper influence of state officials through illegal payments of significant sums of money, the lawsuit claims that Risperdal became a widely prescribed "preferred" first-line medication in the TMAP and PENNMAP algorithms for the treatment of schizophrenia.
To assure Risperdal a first-line spot in the algorithms, the suit alleges that Johnson and Johnson overstated Risperdal's effectiveness in treating patients with schizophrenia and downplayed the drug's side effects. The suit states that the company also manipulated data collected during development of TMAP, so that Risperdal would appear to be more effective and safer than it actually was.
As a result of Risperdal's preferred position in TMAP, the state mental health and Medicaid programs were said to have paid "dollars per pill" for Risperdal when it could have paid "pennies per pill" for generic first-generation antipsychotics that were equally effective.
Neither Johnson and Johnson nor Janssen responded to inquiries by Psychiatric News for this article.
Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott was quoted by the Austin American-Statesman newspaper as saying, "We believe Texas has been defrauded of some money, and we're going to be looking to get our money back."
Stephanie Goodman, a spokesperson for The Texas Health and Human Services Commission, defended TMAP's development and implementation. The TMAP algorithms, she said in a prepared statement, are "firmly grounded in the latest research and science."
The central issue in the lawsuit is the pharmaceutical company's alleged improper involvement in the development and implementation of TMAP.
Developed in 1997, TMAP is composed of a series of flow charts that lead physicians through evidence-based decision trees to help them determine which psychotropic medication is most appropriate for patients with specific mental illnesses (Psychiatric News, August 6, 2004). As a result of a series of consensus conferences that included noted experts in each field, separate TMAP algorithms were developed for adult patients with schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and depression.
After the adult algorithms were completed, Texas state employees began development of the Texas Children's Medication Algorithm Project, which the lawsuit alleges was also unduly influenced by Johnson and Johnson.
Development of TMAP cost the state of Texas a reported $5.6 million; however, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (founded by a Johnson family member and a former comapny executive) gave the state $1.8 million in the form of "unrestricted educational grants" toward the development of the algorithms.
In addition to those grants, the lawsuit alleges, Johnson and Johnson improperly influenced an unnamed "Texas mental health program decision maker" by paying that individual to promote the placement of Risperdal as a first-line medication in the TMAP schizophrenia algorithm.
Johnson and Johnson allegedly also paid the state official to further promote the TMAP program by funding trips to various states, including Pennsylvania, to promote the adoption of TMAP. As a result of those activities, the suit claims, 16 other states, in addition to Texas, formally adopted TMAP or a closely related version of the algorithms.
The lawsuit asks for a jury trial. No trial date has been set.
More information on TMAP is posted at <www.dshs.state.tx.us/mhprograms/TMAPtoc.shtm>.
now, some of you may remember my thread a while back in the health forum which showed what exactly TMAP was, and how the Bush administration was involved... http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/5918747#5918747 ... But, to put things in perspective for those of you too lazy to read all of this: TMAP is the guidelines initially used by Texas for deciding which drugs should be given priority for mandatory guidelines of prescribing. Now, TMAP is used by almost every single state in America. TMAP basically ensures that the most expensive, non-generic drugs are bought by these states to be distributed in their health care plans... This is why in recent years, so many state healthcare plans have become bankrupt.
here is a paper written in 1992 which is very, very interesting.
Quote:
One study did find "reduced gas exchange capacity" in the lungs of fifteen women who were chronic pot smokers. As for reproductive risks, scientists have injected a lot of pregnant monkeys with THC, the key psychoactive chemical in marijuana, but they've yet to come up with hard evidence. In fact, the health issue is "nebulous," Grant concedes, so the Partnership is switching its tack on marijuana. Future ads won't tell you it's dangerous, just that it's uncool.
Like its mentors in the pharmaceutical industry, the Partnership has learned to backpedal. In the fall of 1990 the campaign sent ads to Alaskans for a Drug-Free Youth, a parent group that was campaigning to put recriminalization of marijuana on the ballot. Recriminalization was passed that November, and the Partnership crowed about the victory in its Winter 1991 newsletter.
When asked about the Partnership's effort, Grant denies a political motive. "It wasn't any different than if we provided messages to a community group in Iowa," she says. "I must be remiss, because I never looked at it from the perspective of assisting in a political campaign."
To maintain its good reputation, the Partnership has to offer hard proof of advertising's impact on drug abuse. So, even though experts have concluded that media campaigns do not in themselves change behavior, Burke goes around trumpeting the power of the media to save children from drugs. Burke is echoed by Mathea Falco, a former Assistant Secretary of State for International Narcotics Matters, who is now writing a book on drug prevention programs. The Partnership's greatest achievement, says Falco, is to convey the message that using drugs is silly. They're making it socially unacceptable, and that's the best way to bring about social change"
No one can prove that the ads are responsible for declining drug use or indeed that all drug use is down. The latest government surveys show a rise in the use of cocaine and heroin by urban youth, and in the use of LSD by college students nationwide.
When he needs proof Burke can quote the Partnership Attitude Tracking Survey (PATS), conducted annually at the Partnership's behest by the Gordon S. Black Corporation. The PATS research suggests a correlation between teens who have seen the anti-drug ads, teens who disapprove of drug use and teens who say no to drugs. But when Burke cites PATS, he doesn't mention that Gordon Black is a market research firm, or that PATS is based on "mall intercepts." That is, participants fill out questionnaires anonymously at shopping malls in sample locations. Confidentiality is thus guaranteed, but accuracy is not.
The Partnership ignores cigarettes, alcohol and pills.
At the University of Michigan, Dr. Lloyd Johnston, a research scientist, conducts an annual survey of high school students for N.I.D.A. According to Johnston, the mall intercepts are an inexpensive method of measuring trends, but they lack the sampling precision of a household survey. Nonetheless, Johnston's surveys do bolster the PATS conclusions.
Most teens remember the anti-drug ads and report being influenced by them. "There's no guarantee advertising did it per se" says Johnston, "but it's clear things have moved in the right direction. "The PATS five-year summary reports that illegal drug use by students is dropping, but falls to mention that tobacco and alcohol are still teenagers' drugs of choice. Johnston's latest statistics show that 40 percent of tenth graders report drinking within the past month and getting very drunk within the past year. "The other thing that comes out of our surveys," says Johnston, "is that smoking has not dropped among young people for almost a decade." Nineteen percent of high school seniors are dally tobacco smokers, and hundreds of thousands of them, Johnston sadly predicts, will die of lung cancer one day.
The Partnership has traditionally attacked marijuana, cocaine and crack, drugs deemed widely available to schoolchildren. But if the Partnership's mission is to stop kids from experimenting in the first place, why not go after cigarettes and beer? The answer is obvious. According to Falco, "It would be suicidal if the Partnership took on the alcohol and tobacco industries. The Partnership is living off free advertising product and space, and the media and ad agencies live off alcohol and tobacco advertising." Theresa Grant acknowledges that the decision to focus on illegal drugs was "pragmatic." based on the desire to "get the airtime and space and not alienate the people who are making this possible." The Partnership's condoning of legal drugs doesn't bother Falco. "The message may not be complete"' she chirps, "but it's better than nothing!" Many public health researchers, however, are concerned about a new generation of teens who smoke' drink and pop pills. Experts believe that children begin using drugs in the order of availability, and they're more likely to try marijuana if they've already tried alcohol and cigarettes. "The natural thing in a prevention campaign," says Dr. Botven, "would be to focus on the three gateway substances: alcohol, tobacco and marijuana. The Partnership starts with marijuana, and my concern is they're skipping the most important ones in terms of fatality." Johnston believes the Partnership has the ability to target legal drug abuse, and says he "would be delighted if they would." When asked if he thinks that could happen, he pauses. "A betting man would say no."
In the Partnership's early days, its primary supporter was the American Association of Advertising Agencies. That group knew better than to alienate the legal drug industry. But the mandate must have been reinforced in 1989, the year Burke came from Johnson & Johnson, bringing with him a $3 million grant from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, a prominent health care philanthropy. The foundation described its unusually handsome grant to the Partnership as "pivotal in leveraging ... support from other private foundations."
On cue, the other foundations rolled over. In 1989 and 1990, the ten largest foundation grants for alcohol and drug abuse totaled $12.4 million. The Partnership took $4.7 million from that pool, or 38 percent. Many an individual donor gave its largest anti-drug grant to the Partnership. In other words, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation accelerated a trend: the channeling of foundation money into public awareness, which is considered a less effective form of drug-abuse prevention than school-and community-based programs.
The Partnership's funders are usually kept secret, says Grant, to protect them from other grant seekers and from the legalization lobby. But the Partnership's 1991 tax return reveals another motive for secrecy: conspicuous support from the legal drug industry. From 1988 to 1991, pharmaceutical companies and their beneficiaries contributed as follows:
the J. Seward Johnson, Sr, Charitable Trusts ($1,100,000) Du Pont ($150,000) the Procter & Gamble Fund ($120,000) the Bristol-Myers Squibb Foundation ($110,000) Johnson & Johnson ($110,000) Smith Kline Beecham ($100,000) the Merck Foundation ($75,000) and Hoffman-La Roche ($30,000) Pharmaceuticals and their beneficiaries alone donated 54 percent of the $5.8 million the Partnership took from its top twenty-five contributors from 1988 to 1991. That 54 percent is conservative. It doesn't include donations under $90,000, and it doesn't include donations from the tobacco and alcohol kings: The Partnership has taken $150,000 each from Philip Morris, Anheuser-Busch and RJR Reynolds, plus $100,000 from American Brands (Jim Beam. Lucky Strike).
Coincidence? Hardly. The war on drugs is a war on illegal drugs, and the partnership's benefactors have a huge stake in keeping it that way. They know that when schoolchildren learn that marijuana and crack are evil, they're also learning that alcohol, tobacco and pills are as American as apple pie.
If you had read that, maybe you are wondering how the PDFA would be given money from Alchohol and tobacco manufacturers. Well...
Quote:
PDFA was the subject of criticism when it was revealed that their federal tax returns showed that they had received several million dollars worth of funding from major pharmaceutical, tobacco and alcohol corporations, an issue which has been linked to the organization's lack of media discouraging the misuse of legal drugs. From 1997 it has discontinued any fiscal association with tobacco and alcohol suppliers, although it still is in receipt of donations from pharmaceutical producers.
AND IT DOESNT STOP THERE!!!! guess who manufactures the majority of home drug testing kits? Johnson&Johnson!
Stay tuned folks.... Part III tomorrow.
|
mr_kite
The Watcher



Registered: 09/16/02
Posts: 2,577
Loc: shambhala
Last seen: 11 years, 7 months
|
Re: Let us look at Partnership for a Drug-Free America... (part 1) [Re: SneezingPenis]
#7095245 - 06/26/07 03:05 PM (16 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Johnson&Johnson!
Unbelievable. I thought that they were only interested in increasing the softness of babies bottoms.
-------------------- let yourself be silently drawn by the stronger pull of what you really love
|
SneezingPenis
ACHOOOOOOOOO!!!!!111!

Registered: 01/15/05
Posts: 15,427
Last seen: 6 years, 9 months
|
Re: Let us look at Partnership for a Drug-Free America... (part 1) [Re: mr_kite]
#7095265 - 06/26/07 03:10 PM (16 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
In the fall of 1990 the campaign sent ads to Alaskans for a Drug-Free Youth, a parent group that was campaigning to put recriminalization of marijuana on the ballot. Recriminalization was passed that November, and the Partnership crowed about the victory in its Winter 1991 newsletter.
When asked about the Partnership's effort, Grant denies a political motive. "It wasn't any different than if we provided messages to a community group in Iowa," she says. "I must be remiss, because I never looked at it from the perspective of assisting in a political campaign."
that is from my previous post... i figured maybe this will cause more
|
OneMoreRobot3021



Registered: 06/06/03
Posts: 61,024
Loc: the sky
|
Re: Let us look at Partnership for a Drug-Free America... (part 1) [Re: SneezingPenis]
#7095270 - 06/26/07 03:11 PM (16 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
"I must be remiss, because I never looked at it from the perspective of assisting in a political campaign."
-------------------- Acid doesn't give you truths; it builds machines that push the envelope of perception. Whatever revelations came to me then have dissolved like skywriting. All I really know is that those few years saddled me with a faith in the redemptive potential of the imagination which, however flat, stale and unprofitable the world seems to me now, I cannot for the life of me shake. -Erik Davis
|
SneezingPenis
ACHOOOOOOOOO!!!!!111!

Registered: 01/15/05
Posts: 15,427
Last seen: 6 years, 9 months
|
Re: Let us look at Partnership for a Drug-Free America... (part 1) [Re: OneMoreRobot3021]
#7095290 - 06/26/07 03:16 PM (16 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
yeah, i was wondering how funding a campaign to get marijuana recriminalized would be considered non-political.
|
makaveli8x8
Stranger


Registered: 02/28/06
Posts: 21,636
Last seen: 7 years, 8 months
|
Re: Let us look at Partnership for a Drug-Free America... (part 1) [Re: OneMoreRobot3021]
#7095291 - 06/26/07 03:16 PM (16 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
I never looked at it as rape, I felt I was assisting her with aerobic exercises against her will for the greater good
pain is gain pain is gain!
wait im just being an idiot again
--------------------
  We were sent to hell for eternity Ø h® We play on earth to pass the time Over-population the root of all Evil-brings the Elites Closer to the gates.
|
|