Re: A Drug Industry / NMSS Connection

[Guest guest]

Thanks.

Also, last night I started working my way through the list of board

members for NMSS, seeing what connections they might have to the

pharmaceutical industry. There are a little over 30 board members

for the Society. It looks like at least 1/4 of them might have such

connections, including the chairman. I will post all of the names

and connecting relationships in a day or two.

ff

> > Do the drug companies control the NMSS and other societies?

> >

> > I am new to the group and maybe this has been discussed before.

> > However, the following material is intriguing.

> >

> > I went to the NMSS home page at http://www.nmss.org

> >

> > Near the bottom right bottom right edge of the page is a tiny

> button

> > labled " About the society. " I clicked on that button.

> >

> > On this page, the left side scroll shows " Board of Directors. "

> > This intrigued me. Could they have any pharmaceutical companies

> > represented on their board? It seems that that might be too

> obvious,

> > but it is worth a look.

> >

> > On looking over their directors, it appears that most are

lawyers,

> > accountants, or doctors.

> >

> > Of course, we know who seems to control the doctors.

> >

> > But, going beyond that, there were no obvious connections to the

> > drug companies.

> >

> >

> > Then, out of curiousity, I thought I might do some research on

> one

> > of the lawyers listed as a director. I have had time to look at

> only

> > one.

> >

> > The first and only one I looked at was A. Bogdonoff,

> Esq.

> > He is a partner with Dechert, LLP. This sounds innocent enough.

> >

> > Next I do a search on Dechert, LLP and go to their home

page

> at

> > http://www.dechert-price.com/

> >

> > Their " about us " button leads to a page indicating that they are

a

> > huge international law firm with over 700 lawyers on their staff.

> >

> > Their " practice areas " button leads to a scroll. Scrolling

down,

> I

> > find " pharmaceuticals " listed. All of a sudden, this is getting

> > interesting.

> >

> >

> > This button leads to a list of their activities in the

> pharamceutical

> > industry. It takes more than 500 words to describe their work in

> > this area, per the word counter in MS Word.

> >

> > So, Dechert is apparently a law huge international law firm with

a

> > group of attorneys specializing in meeting the needs of the drug

> > companies.

> >

> > Next, I look at lawyers specializing in pharmaceuticals. He is

> not

> > listed. I didn't really expect to find him here, that might be

too

> > obvious. BUT—his firm list 38 attorneys specializing in the

> > pharmaceutical industry. This is HUGE.

> >

> > Next, I look at lawyers specializing in the chemical industry.

Ah

> > ha. There he is. However, what is really interesting is that

> there

> > are 17 lawyers listed as having the chemical industry as their

> area

> > of practice. NINE of these lawyers are also listed as having a

> > pharmaceutical industry specialty.

> >

> > So, while A. Bogdonoff, Esq. of Dechert, LLP. does

> himself

> > not represent the drug companies, his law firm does in a large

> scale

> > manner, with a department of 38 attorneys dedicated to the

> > industry. He himself works within a specialty which shows over

> > half of the attorneys in his own area of practice as also working

> > with the industry.

> >

> > I have no idea how Mr. Bogdonoff votes. He may actually be a

lone

> > voice crying out for the benefit of you and me against others on

> the

> > board who seem more concerned about protecting the drug companies

> > than the interests of those with MS. That I cannot say. However,

> > what I can say is that there is a very direct, public connection

> > between the drug companies and the NMSS through Mr.Bogdonoff.

> >

> > I have not taken the time to research the other attorneys on the

> > board. I do not know if this kind of information is available

for

> > them or what their situation might be.

> >

> > However, we know there is at least one major link between the

> NMSS

> > Board of Directors and the drug companies.

> >

> > Now, in the light of this, is anyone surprised at the NMSS

> response

> > to LDN?

[Guest guest]

FF,

Some of the most interesting research I've seen posted. Hope you

will continue to detail what you discover.

LDN no doubt is only one of the many victims of business versus

wellenss. I am not anti-business but do think priorities have been

allowed to get comnpletely out of line.

This is great timing given recent Pharma news (fraud etc.) and the

planning of an LDN conference (and hopes for generating publicity

for LDN).

Thanks and Best,

Alan

[Guest guest]

Whilst interesting this doesn't demonstrate any link

between NMSS and the pharmaceutical industry.

It would be difficult to find a partner in a large law

or accountancy firm where the firm has no

pharmaceutical clients.

This board member could be no more than a community

minded person who has been personally affected by MS

and wants to contribute by being on the Board of NMSS.

Good luck with your research though - it will be

interesting if you do find a more solid connection!

Audrey

--- full_futurist <full_futurist@...> wrote:

---------------------------------

Do the drug companies control the NMSS and other

societies?

I am new to the group and maybe this has been

discussed before.

However, the following material is intriguing.

I went to the NMSS home page at http://www.nmss.org

Near the bottom right bottom right edge of the page is

a tiny button

labled " About the society. " I clicked on that button.

On this page, the left side scroll shows " Board of

Directors. "

This intrigued me. Could they have any pharmaceutical

companies

represented on their board? It seems that that might

be too obvious,

but it is worth a look.

On looking over their directors, it appears that most

are lawyers,

accountants, or doctors.

Of course, we know who seems to control the doctors.

But, going beyond that, there were no obvious

connections to the

drug companies.

Then, out of curiousity, I thought I might do some

research on one

of the lawyers listed as a director. I have had time

to look at only

one.

The first and only one I looked at was A.

Bogdonoff, Esq.

He is a partner with Dechert, LLP. This sounds

innocent enough.

Next I do a search on Dechert, LLP and go to

their home page at

http://www.dechert-price.com/

Their " about us " button leads to a page indicating

that they are a

huge international law firm with over 700 lawyers on

their staff.

Their " practice areas " button leads to a scroll.

Scrolling down, I

find " pharmaceuticals " listed. All of a sudden, this

is getting

interesting.

This button leads to a list of their activities in the

pharamceutical

industry. It takes more than 500 words to describe

their work in

this area, per the word counter in MS Word.

So, Dechert is apparently a law huge international law

firm with a

group of attorneys specializing in meeting the needs

of the drug

companies.

Next, I look at lawyers specializing in

pharmaceuticals. He is not

listed. I didn't really expect to find him here, that

might be too

obvious. BUT—his firm list 38 attorneys specializing

in the

pharmaceutical industry. This is HUGE.

Next, I look at lawyers specializing in the chemical

industry. Ah

ha. There he is. However, what is really interesting

is that there

are 17 lawyers listed as having the chemical industry

as their area

of practice. NINE of these lawyers are also listed as

having a

pharmaceutical industry specialty.

So, while A. Bogdonoff, Esq. of Dechert,

LLP. does himself

not represent the drug companies, his law firm does

in a large scale

manner, with a department of 38 attorneys dedicated to

the

industry. He himself works within a specialty which

shows over

half of the attorneys in his own area of practice as

also working

with the industry.

I have no idea how Mr. Bogdonoff votes. He may

actually be a lone

voice crying out for the benefit of you and me against

others on the

board who seem more concerned about protecting the

drug companies

than the interests of those with MS. That I cannot

say. However,

what I can say is that there is a very direct, public

connection

between the drug companies and the NMSS through

Mr.Bogdonoff.

I have not taken the time to research the other

attorneys on the

board. I do not know if this kind of information is

available for

them or what their situation might be.

However, we know there is at least one major link

between the NMSS

Board of Directors and the drug companies.

Now, in the light of this, is anyone surprised at the

NMSS response

to LDN?

[Guest guest]

NMSS is a public organization, one should be able to document the

organizations which support them financially. This info may be

available in their annual financial disclosure statements.

It would be naive to give NMSS the benefit of the doubt.

A

>

> ---------------------------------

> Do the drug companies control the NMSS and other

> societies?

>

> I am new to the group and maybe this has been

> discussed before.

> However, the following material is intriguing.

>

> I went to the NMSS home page at http://www.nmss.org

>

> Near the bottom right bottom right edge of the page is

> a tiny button

> labled " About the society. " I clicked on that button.

>

> On this page, the left side scroll shows " Board of

> Directors. "

> This intrigued me. Could they have any pharmaceutical

> companies

> represented on their board? It seems that that might

> be too obvious,

> but it is worth a look.

>

> On looking over their directors, it appears that most

> are lawyers,

> accountants, or doctors.

>

> Of course, we know who seems to control the doctors.

>

> But, going beyond that, there were no obvious

> connections to the

> drug companies.

>

>

> Then, out of curiousity, I thought I might do some

> research on one

> of the lawyers listed as a director. I have had time

> to look at only

> one.

>

> The first and only one I looked at was A.

> Bogdonoff, Esq.

> He is a partner with Dechert, LLP. This sounds

> innocent enough.

>

> Next I do a search on Dechert, LLP and go to

> their home page at

> http://www.dechert-price.com/

>

> Their " about us " button leads to a page indicating

> that they are a

> huge international law firm with over 700 lawyers on

> their staff.

>

> Their " practice areas " button leads to a scroll.

> Scrolling down, I

> find " pharmaceuticals " listed. All of a sudden, this

> is getting

> interesting.

>

>

> This button leads to a list of their activities in the

> pharamceutical

> industry. It takes more than 500 words to describe

> their work in

> this area, per the word counter in MS Word.

>

> So, Dechert is apparently a law huge international law

> firm with a

> group of attorneys specializing in meeting the needs

> of the drug

> companies.

>

> Next, I look at lawyers specializing in

> pharmaceuticals. He is not

> listed. I didn't really expect to find him here, that

> might be too

> obvious. BUT—his firm list 38 attorneys specializing

> in the

> pharmaceutical industry. This is HUGE.

>

> Next, I look at lawyers specializing in the chemical

> industry. Ah

> ha. There he is. However, what is really interesting

> is that there

> are 17 lawyers listed as having the chemical industry

> as their area

> of practice. NINE of these lawyers are also listed as

> having a

> pharmaceutical industry specialty.

>

> So, while A. Bogdonoff, Esq. of Dechert,

> LLP. does himself

> not represent the drug companies, his law firm does

> in a large scale

> manner, with a department of 38 attorneys dedicated to

> the

> industry. He himself works within a specialty which

> shows over

> half of the attorneys in his own area of practice as

> also working

> with the industry.

>

> I have no idea how Mr. Bogdonoff votes. He may

> actually be a lone

> voice crying out for the benefit of you and me against

> others on the

> board who seem more concerned about protecting the

> drug companies

> than the interests of those with MS. That I cannot

> say. However,

> what I can say is that there is a very direct, public

> connection

> between the drug companies and the NMSS through

> Mr.Bogdonoff.

>

> I have not taken the time to research the other

> attorneys on the

> board. I do not know if this kind of information is

> available for

> them or what their situation might be.

>

> However, we know there is at least one major link

> between the NMSS

> Board of Directors and the drug companies.

>

> Now, in the light of this, is anyone surprised at the

> NMSS response

> to LDN?

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Audrey, I absolutely agree. Any one person could very well be

motivated by true humanitarian interests to serve on a board and even

if pressure were placed on him to act in a corrupt manner, he could

defy it because of his personal integrity.

However, the drug companies have a reputation for being extremely

aggressive in pursuing their own profits motives above everything

else.

Drug companies can use any law firm, accounting firm, stock firm (for

new stock issuance), or insurance firm they desire. Just because of

human nature, these various supporting firms will want to please

their major customers. If you understand anything about back door

politicking, either in politics or business, you will understand the

subtle but powerful pressures that can be put on someone to go along

with the desires of those bringing money to his organization. So, a

person could be a member of such a firm, have humanitarian motives

for Society board membership at first, and still be subject to a

tremendous peer pressure to please the customers of his firm. This

is life.

I also find it interesting that there are over 30 board members of

the NMSS. This is far too many for a responsive board in most

situations. The larger the group, the harder it is for a person to

stand against a group of outspoken advocates of a position,

particularly if the one running the meeting also advocates the

position. I have been in board meetings of a different industry

where the goal seemed to get through agenda items as quickly as

possible, and anything beyond a rubber stamp of management was not

really appreciated. I have no personal knowledge of how NMSS

meetings are run, I am just saying that such a large board would make

it very difficult for someone to " nit pick " an issue contrary to

management's desires.

An isolated board member with a drug industry connection could be

incidental, without much significance. However, when you start to

get a long list of those with such a connection, then it looks to be

possibly deliberate. Remember, the drug companies are the ones who

have used research grant money to completely control the attitude of

the medical schools. With a reputation of seeking to control schools

and doctors to favor them, do you really believe they will not pursue

every means they could get to pressure an organization like the NMSS

to favor them?

It is true that the connection is indirect and speculative. However,

a connection of some sort does exist and is public. Easily obtainable

records show a path between the drug companies to the NMSS board.

If the NMSS showed an aggressive, true interest in readily available,

low cost treatments like LDN, then I would not care about who was on

their board.

However, when the NMSS seems to be trying to squelch LDN, then the

situation is different.

The financial records show the NMSS spends around 30 million dollars

a year on " MS " research. Why won't they jump on something like

LDN?

As I said earlier, I am new to the group. I was skimming through the

archives when I came across post 10245 titled " Boycott MS Societies? "

The author said,

" Just reading about the MS societies, I wonder if they have the

interests of MS patients as their foremost priority. Various attempts

by MS'ers to discuss LDN with them have not made any headway. The

only voice they support is of the drug companies. "

There were almost a dozen replies to this post.

After reading this, I wondered who the board members of the NMSS were

and what connection, if any, any of them had to the drug industry.

So, my work has been done to see whether or not the concerns of post

10245 might have any basis. It appears that they do.

I hope to post something tomorrow showing more of what I have found.

ff

>

> ---------------------------------

> Do the drug companies control the NMSS and other

> societies?

[Guest guest]

FF, Aegis is onto you now, you cant escape, hehehee. But its a good

idea, join LDNers group by clicking the link provided if you haven't

already. Great reading material in the 'links' or files section.

Get your teeth into them when you have time.

Also, MS societies, at an executive level or boardroom level are

difficult to penetrate, but if everyone who is a registered member of

the society votes, VOTE intelligently and study the candidates up for

election every year?

Also, how many of you are actively involved in a 'People with MS'

group? Or can you be involved in an MS Advisory committee and put

suggestions to the board every time they meet?

What kind of influence or pressure are other independent MS

organisations having on the MS Societies and keeping them honest?

I know the 'This IS MS' group is a good force, and so is Boston Cure

Project, and also the British MS Group - Mirc? can remember the

abbreviation. But how are these groups pressuring the MS Societies

or the Research and Scientific world as a voice for US all?

Any body know how much weight these independent groups carry in

the 'real MS world' of movers and shakers? How strong is their

credibility and influence?

Friday

[Guest guest]

Excellent work - money is the root of this evil. Thanks for

this information.