

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

Among the US government diplomatic cables recently published by the
Wikileaks website were details of a meeting between an official from the
pharmaceutical company, Pfizer, and US Embassy officials in Nigeria in
April 2009.
At the time of the meeting, Pfizer was in the midst of a legal battle
with Nigerian government officials regarding a medically unethical
antibiotic clinical trial in children. The clinical trial took place in
Kano State in 1996 during a massive meningitis outbreak.
Pfizer carried out the trial of the oral antibiotic trovafloxacin,
branded Trovan, even though there had not been any previous medical
evidence that it could be effective against meningitis. The Pfizer
researchers conducted the trial in Kano State Hospital, where a Doctors
Without Borders/Medecins Sans Frontieres (MSF) was treating children
using a preferred and clinically approved antibiotic regimen for
bacterial meningitis.
A US$75 million settlement with the State of Kano was reached July 30,
2009. Other cases are still pending before the US courts and the
Nigerian federal government continues to pursue legal claims against
Pfizer.
It is against this backdrop that Pfizer falsely accused MSF in the US
diplomatic cables of using Trovan. Documented evidence has shown that
these accusations are patently false. MSF did not, at any time,
administer Trovan to patients. Litigation connected to this case and
comprehensive investigative reports on the matter suggest that Pfizer's
attempts to rewrite history are intended to deflect responsibility for
the company's actions.
MSF was not working in the same part of the hospital in Kano State as
Pfizer clinical researchers, and MSF staff had no connection to Pfizer.
When MSF staff became aware of what Pfizer was doing, they were appalled
at the practices of the company's team. MSF personnel on the ground
communicated their concerns to both Pfizer and the local authorities.
"It was not a time for a drug trial," says Jean Herve Bradol, former
president of MSF France, to whom the Kano teams were reporting at the
time. "They were panicking in the hospital, overrun by critically ill
patients. The team were shocked that Pfizer continued the so-called
scientific work in the middle of hell."
Pfizer officials have made no attempt to clear the record as of yet and
retract these unsubstantiated claims against MSF. A handful of internet
reports have adopted the version of events proffered by the Pfizer
official.
An exhaustive Washington Post investigation, drawing on extensive
background information and interviews provided by MSF staff, published
on December 17, 2000, makes clear the distinction between Pfizer's
activities and the work of MSF during the meningitis outbreak:
"Behind a gate besieged by suffering crowds stood two very different
clinics. A humanitarian charity, Doctors Without Borders, had erected a
treatment center solely in an effort to save lives. Researchers for
Pfizer Inc., a huge American drug company, had set up a second center.
They were using Nigeria's meningitis epidemic to conduct experiments on
children with what Pfizer believed was a promising new antibiotic--a drug
not yet approved in the United States."
The article later triggered the various legal proceeding taken by the victims and Nigerian authorities against Pfizer.
With proven treatments at hand, Pfizer instead chose to carry out tests
for an unproven drug on children whose lives hung in the balance. "The
situation...called for using treatment protocols known to be effective
rather than carrying out clinical trials on a new antibiotic, with
uncertain results," said Dr. Bradol.
Pfizer's researchers put at risk not only the children in Kano but also
other clinical trials done under the proper circumstances that could
have a positive impact on sick people in the developing world. Pfizer
never intended to sell Trovan at an accessible price in Africa if it had
been approved.
Further Reading:
The Washington Post: Where Profits and Lives Hang in the Balance
The Guardian: As Doctors Fought to Save Lives, Pfizer Flew in a Drug Trail Team
Interview with Dr. Jean Herve Bradol: Ethical Research Needed on Diseases
Interview with Philippe Guerin of Epicentre: Strict Rules Govern the Conduct of Clinical Trials in Africa
Doctors Without Borders/Medecins Sans Frontieres (MSF) is an international medical humanitarian organization created by doctors and journalists in France in 1971. MSF's work is based on the humanitarian principles of medical ethics and impartiality. The organization is committed to bringing quality medical care to people caught in crisis regardless of race, religion, or political affiliation. MSF operates independently of any political, military, or religious agendas.
"The end of the war will occur when Iran decides it should end, not when Trump envisions its conclusion," said an Iranian official.
Iranian state media reported Wednesday that Iran has rejected the Trump administration's 15-point ceasefire plan, and a senior official outlined five conditions for ending the war, which the US and Israel launched late last month.
As President Donald Trump sent thousands more troops to the Middle East, the ceasefire plan "was submitted to Iran by intermediaries from Pakistan, who have offered to host renewed negotiations between Washington and Tehran," The Associated Press reported early Wednesday, citing an unnamed source briefed on the US proposal.
As experts warn that a global recession could occur if Iran continues to restrict the flow of fossil fuels through the Strait of Hormuz, Reuters highlighted that elevated "oil prices sank about 5% on Wednesday after reports the United States had sent Iran a 15-point proposal aimed at ending the war."
However, "Iran has responded negatively to an American proposal aimed at ending the ongoing imposed war," according to the Iranian state-run Press TV, which spoke with a senior political-security official.
Characterizing previous negotiations with the US—including nuclear talks in the lead-up to the current war—as deceptive, the official said that "Iran will end the war when it decides to do so and when its own conditions are met."
In addition to the Iranian government's demands from the recent negotiations in Geneva, the official said, the five conditions under which Iran would now agree to end the war are:
A ceasefire is contingent upon acceptance of those conditions, and "no negotiations will be held prior to that," the official told Press TV. "The end of the war will occur when Iran decides it should end, not when Trump envisions its conclusion."
The Iranian government this week put the death toll from the US-Israeli assault at over 1,500. According to Reuters, the news agency of the US-based Human Rights Activists in Iran said at least 3,291 people, including 1,455 civilians, are dead. US and Israeli bombings have also damaged tens of thousands of civilian locations, including homes, schools, medical facilities, energy installations, courthouses, and United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization World Heritage sites.
There have also been civilian and military casualties across the region, including more than 1,000 people slaughtered in Israel's bombing of Lebanon, 16 killed in Israel, and 13 confirmed deaths of US service members, according to the AP.
Speaking at UN headquarters in New York on Wednesday, Secretary-General António Guterres renewed his call for the US and Israel to end their war on Iran, which he said is "out of control" and "has broken past the limits even leaders thought unimaginable."
"The world is staring down the barrel of a wider war, a rising tide of human suffering, and a deeper global economic shock. This has gone too far," Guterres said. "It is time to stop climbing the escalation ladder—and start climbing the diplomatic ladder, and return to full respect of international law."
"I have remained in close contact with many from the region and around the world. A number of initiatives for dialogue and peace are underway. They must succeed," he continued. "My message to the United States and Israel is that it is high time to end the war—as human suffering deepens, civilian casualties mount, and the global economic impact is increasingly devastating. My message to Iran is to stop attacking their neighbors that are not parties to the conflict."
The UN chief then turned to Lebanon, which he recently visited: "There, too, the war must stop. Hezbollah must stop launching attacks into Israel. And Israel must stop its military operations and strikes in Lebanon, which are hitting civilians the hardest. The Gaza model must not be replicated in Lebanon."
Trump is considering putting US troops on the ground in Iran. Only 12% of Americans want that to happen, according to a new Associated Press-NORC poll.
Nearly six in ten Americans say President Donald Trump's war in Iran has gone too far, according to a poll out Wednesday from the Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research.
The war launched late last month by the US and Israel has led to the deaths of more than 1,400 Iranian civilians, according to the Human Rights Activist News Agency (HRANA), and the displacement of more than 3 million. It has spiraled out across the region while creating a global economic crisis that has caused gas prices to spike to nearly $4 per gallon in the US.
Now, 59% of American adults say it's "gone too far," compared to just 26% who say it's "been about right" and 13% who say it's "not gone far enough," according to the survey of 1,150 people.
Those opposed to continuing the president's war of choice include 90% of Democrats and 63% of independents. Most Republicans, 52%, say the amount of force used by Trump has been “about right.” Just 20% want him to go further, while 26% say he’s gone too far.
In recent days, as Iran's closure of the Strait of Hormuz has wreaked havoc on global oil prices, Trump has sent thousands more servicemembers to the region and reportedly mulled deploying American ground troops in hopes of reopening the crucial waterway.
Experts have warned that a ground deployment could turn the war into an even greater quagmire. Already, 13 US soldiers have been killed since February 28.
An even larger share of Americans, 62%, said they oppose the idea of deploying US troops on the ground in Iran, while just 12% say they support it and 26% say they have no opinion.
While a minority says it is very important for the US to stop Iran from threatening Israel or to replace its government with one more favorable to the US, Americans are prioritizing issues at home.
Ninety-three percent said it was very or somewhat important for the US to keep oil and gas prices low, which has so far not happened—in less than a month, they have spiked by about a dollar and have not shown signs of coming down, even as Trump has deployed emergency fuel reserves and lifted sanctions on some Iranian oil to juice supply.
A majority of Americans, 65%, also said they felt that preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon—one of Trump's stated objectives for the war—was a very important foreign policy goal.
However, as journalist and commentator Adam Johnson pointed out in a piece for The Real News on Tuesday, the US public is "grossly misinformed" about the subject—25% wrongly believe Iran already possesses a nuke while 45% believe they are working towards developing one, which has been refuted by US intelligence assessments and reporting based on the testimony of US officials.
The unpopularity of the war with Iran is in line with previous polls showing that the majority of Americans believe the war benefits Israel more than the US and want the war to end quickly.
With Trump having returned to office on the explicit pledge to avoid war with Iran and the cost of living already at the center of the president's near-historic unpopularity, Republicans' outlook for this year's midterm elections looks as grim as ever.
Polling aggregators predict Democrats will easily flip the House, and the Senate is now a toss-up, though Republicans still hold a slight edge.
According to polls, Republicans’ midterm chances truly began to tank in January amid outrage over federal immigration agents' killings of two US citizens in Minneapolis. Though surveys haven't shown GOP numbers getting markedly worse since the war began, recent opinion polling suggests it is not a non-factor.
A poll last week from the Institute of Middle East Understanding found that 43% of voters said they're less likely to support Republicans in the midterms as a result of the war, compared to 31% who said they're more likely.
The new estimate comes amid warnings that the war, now in its fourth week, could "cost the US trillions of dollars in the decades to come."
The price tag of US President Donald Trump's illegal war on Iran is on track to surpass $25 billion by the end of this week as more American troops head to the Middle East, signaling a protracted conflict and possible ground invasion that would explode the war's already massive financial and human costs.
The latest estimate of the dollar cost of the Iran assault to US taxpayers, who are also facing significantly higher prices at the pump because of the war, comes from the Center for American Progress (CAP). The liberal think tank noted Tuesday that, based on a combination of official figures from the Pentagon and outside estimates, "the Iran war’s cost has likely surpassed $20 billion already and will likely surpass $25 billion by the end of this week."
CAP found that $25 billion would be enough to provide Medicaid coverage to around 3.1 million people for a year, or fund free school lunches for more than 29 million children for a full school year.
"While the cost of the war is funded through the Pentagon’s budget, and that money could not have been legally spent on domestic social programs, the spending nonetheless reflects a choice both Congress and the president made in allocating the country’s limited resources," wrote Bobby Kogan, CAP's senior director for federal budget policy. "This trade-off is particularly salient as Congress considers the president’s upcoming request."
"Before Congress chooses to provide $200 billion in new funding for the US Department of Defense," Kogan added, "it should seriously consider other ways that funding could be used, including improving people’s lives."
"One of the officials lamented that Americans would be paying off the war for generations."
The updated price tag came amid reports that the Pentagon approved a deployment of around 2,000 elite Army soldiers to the Middle East, heightening concerns that the Trump administration is preparing for a deeply unpopular ground invasion of Iran even as the president publicly declares victory.
Experts believe the true financial cost of the Iran war is likely much higher than what publicly available estimates indicate so far.
The Intercept's Nick Turse reported last week that the Trump administration is "drastically undercounting the price tag of the US war with Iran, peddling fragmentary estimates that offer Americans a skewed understanding of the costs."
Citing analysts, lawmakers, and unnamed US officials briefed on Iran operations, Turse reported that "the war is burning through between $1 billion and $2 billion per day—or roughly $11,500 to $23,000 per second."
"The cost, the officials told The Intercept, could rise to a quarter trillion dollars or more over the coming months," Turse added. "Even that is a drop in the bucket compared to the long-term expenses, which could cost the US trillions of dollars in the decades to come. One of the officials lamented that Americans would be paying off the war for generations."