We as spiritual beings or souls come to earth in order to experience the human condition. This includes the good and the bad scenarios of this world. Our world is a duality planet and no amount of love or grace will eliminate evil or nastiness. We will return again and again until we have pierced the illusions of this density. The purpose of human life is to awaken to universal truth. This also means that we must awaken to the lies and deceit mankind is subjected to. To pierce the third density illusion is a must in order to remove ourselves from the wheel of human existences. Love is the Answer by means of Knowledge and Awareness!

Scandal of scientists who take money for papers ghostwritten by drug companies
Doctors named as authors who may not even have seen the raw raw data.

Sarah Boseley, Health Editor
Guardian (London), 7 Feb 2002

Scientists are accepting large sums of money from drug companies to put 
their names to articles endorsing new medicines that they have not written - 
a growing practice that some fear is putting scientific integrity in 
jeopardy. Ghostwriting has become widespread in such areas of medicine as 
cardiology and psychiatry, where drugs play a major role in treatment. 
Senior doctors, inevitably very busy, have become willing to "author" papers 
written for them by ghostwriters paid by drug companies.

Originally, ghostwriting was confined to medical journal supplements 
sponsored by the industry, but it can now be found in all the major journals 
in relevant fields. In some cases, it is alleged, the scientists named as 
authors will not have seen the raw data they are writing about - just tables 
compiled by company employees. The doctors, who may also give a talk based 
on the paper to an audience of other doctors at a drug company-sponsored 
symposium, receive substantial sums of money. Fuller Torrey, executive 
director of the Stanley Foundation Research Programmes in Bethesda, 
Maryland, found in a survey that British psychiatrists were being paid 
around $2,000 (£1,400) a time for symposium talks, plus airfares and hotel 
accommodation, while Americans got about $3,000. Some payments ran as high 
as $5,000 or $10,000.

"Some of us believe that the present system is approaching a high-class form 
of professional prostitution," he said. Robin Murray, head of the division 
of psychological medicine at the Institute of Psychiatry in London, is one 
of those who has become increasingly concerned. "It is clear that we have a 
situation where, when an audience is listening to a well-known British 
psychiatrist, you recognise the stage where the audience is uncertain as to 
whether the psychiatrist really believes this or is saying it because they 
them selves or their department is getting some financial reward," he said.

"I can think of a well-known British psychiatrist I met and I said, 'How are 
you?' He said, 'What day is it? I'm just working out what drug I'm 
supporting today.'"  Marcia Angell, former editor of the New England Journal 
of Medicine, wrote a year ago that when she ran a paper on antidepressant 
drug treatment, the authors' financial ties to the manufacturers - which the 
journal requires all contributors to declare - were so extensive that she 
had to run them on the website. She decided to commission an editorial about 
it and spoke to research psychiatrists, but "we found very few who did not 
have financial ties to drug companies that make antidepressants." 

She wrote: "Researchers serve as consultants to companies whose products 
they are studying, join advisory boards and speakers' bureaus, enter into 
patent and royalty arrangements, agree to be the listed authors of articles 
ghostwritten by interested companies, promote drugs and devices at 
company-sponsored symposiums, and allow themselves to be plied with 
expensive gifts and trips to luxurious settings. Many also have equity 
interest in the companies."  

In September her journal joined the Lancet and 11 others in denouncing the 
drug companies for imposing restrictions on the data to which scientists are 
given access in the clinical trials they fund. Some of the journals propose 
to demand a signed declaration that the papers scientists submit are their own.
...

rest of the article is at: 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/medicine/story/0,11381,646078,00.html