Apotex - contamination   www.apotexterror.homestead.com         www.pharmaholocaust.com
I live like a walking death in twilight zone / some where in between death and a life being deprived of all Human Rights and Constitutional / Law 
protection by habitual offenders. I was assessed by three (3) independent psychiatrists to eliminate offender's speculations about my insanity 
prompting "delusions" etc. All psychiatrists stated clearly, that I am sane /I do NOT have/had any mental illness. No family history of any.
Shouldn't we call Apotex's pharmaceuticals "blood pharmaceuticals"
Dear Sir/Madam,
Shouldn't we call Apotex's pharmaceuticals "blood pharmaceuticals" and stake 
holders' money "a BLOOD MONEY"? :)
Most if not ALL charity donations by Apotex are business investments.
By "donation" Apotex secures own interest /, influence paddling, tool of 
coercion etc....:).
So called "donations" are Tax deductible for Co. so Apotex does not pay to 
the Government Tax amount equal to amount donated and General Public loses.
.... "identified in a litany of lawsuits - filed against competitors and by 
...... "built $4.4-billion (US) fortune - Paul Waldie and Andy Hoffman 
profile one of Canada's richest, and most mysterious, business icons)".
-.. on misery of own employees and on misfortune / tragedy of sick and 
"Dr. Olivieri's case - by
Dr. Jocelyn Downie
In 1996 Toronto hematologist Dr. Nancy Olivieri identified an unexpected 
risk of a drug she was studying in industry-sponsored clinical trials 
involving patients with thalassemia, an inherited, potentially fatal blood 
disorder. When she moved to inform patients, the drug's manufacturer Apotex 
Inc. prematurely terminated the trials. Simultaneously, the company issued 
warnings of legal action against her should she disclose the risk to her 
patients or anyone. Several months later, she identified a second, more 
serious risk through review of patients' charts, and the company again 
issued legal warnings against disclosure. Despite the possible legal action 
by the company and the lack of effective assistance from her university and 
hospital, Olivieri informed her patients and the scientific community of the 
risks she had identified.
The dispute became public in 1998 when Dr. Olivieri published her findings 
on the drug's risks in a leading scientific journal. Since then, she has 
been subjected to a continuing series of public criticisms attempting to 
discredit her -- by the hospital, by Apotex and by individuals.
The dispute has received international attention since 1998, largely because 
it vividly illustrates fundamental problems regarding public safety in 
matters of health care. Some aspects relevant to the case are: the changing 
international political economy of the past quarter century; the rapid 
growth of the pharmaceutical industry; the deteriorating financial 
circumstances of universities and hospitals; the failure of government 
agencies and universities to revise their research policies to address these 
new circumstances; and the remoteness of clinical faculty from the 
improvements in employment procedures gained by other professors during the 
past half century. From 1996 onward, Dr. Olivieri was subjected to a series 
of strongly adverse actions, by senior Hospital staff, the Hospital Board of 
Trustees, officers of Apotex and others, some of them highly public. The 
actions could have resulted in her medical practice licence being revoked, 
with the consequent loss of her positions at the Hospital and at the 
University, and the end of her career. The University publicly acknowledged 
an obligation to defend her academic freedom, yet provided no effective 
support to her until more than two and a half years after Apotex first 
issued legal warnings to her. It was only after the combined interventions 
of the CAUT, the local faculty association and two of the world's leading 
authorities in thalassemia that the University began to provide effective 
support to Dr. Olivieri."
and York University - "Universities were turning increasingly to corporate 
sponsors, and some corporations were prepared to give multi-million dollar 
donations in return for 'naming opportunities' and other considerations. The 
dispute between Apotex and Dr. Olivieri erupted in 1996. At around the same 
time, a disagreement between the administration of the Hospital for Sick 
Children and Dr. Olivieri developed when the Hospital proposed that 
treatment of her largest patient group, those with sickle cell disease, be 
'rationalised' by outsourcing their care to a suburban hospital. Patients' 
families and Dr. Olivieri objected on the basis that patients with this very 
complex disease should be treated in tertiary hospitals with leading 
specialists on staff. Also around this time, the University of Toronto and 
Apotex were in negotiations over a major donation. In 1998, when the 
Olivieri case became public, the University and Apotex had reached agreement 
in principle to what would then have been the largest donation ever received 
by the University -- $20 million for the university and an additional $10 
million for affiliated hospitals." Apotex threatened to withhold donations - 
sample cases).