How Much Does Your Money Cost?

Have you ever wondered why college tuitions keep rising? It seems that the ‘higher’ in ‘higher education’ is increasingly referring to the cost of attaining it rather than the level of edification one can achieve by it. Or have you ever asked yourself why the prices of food, fuel, rent, and other costs of living continue to steadily increase even as wages remain virtually flat? Are these things really increasing in value or is there simply more demand for them? In ancient Rome, if you had a 1 oz. gold coin, you could buy the finest toga, a belt, and a nice pair of sandals (Fiat Empire). Today, if you have a 1 oz. gold coin, and you convert it into U.S. Federal Reserve notes (the paper dollars we use as cash), you could walk into almost any department store and buy a smart looking suit, a leather belt, and a fine pair of shoes; the same was true a hundred years ago as well. Why has gold retained its purchasing power but the dollar has not? The answers to many of these questions are relatively simple but not entirely obvious, especially since they involve an institution that one Congressman has called “more secretive than the CIA” (Mad Money).

Fluctuations in prices, or the value of any currency, are always a function of these factors: a change in the supply of, or demand for, goods and services or currency; a change in the money supply relative to the goods or services you can purchase with it; or some combination of these. The picture becomes somewhat more complex when stocks, bonds, derivatives, credit default swaps, etc., are introduced, however, the essential dynamic remains the same. Changes in supply and demand are relatively self-explanatory, but to understand how changes in the money supply are affected, we need to introduce ourselves to the Federal Reserve.

The Federal Reserve system was created by the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 and was ostensibly a response to the Bank Panic of 1907 in which some of the large banks in New York called in loans and refused to make new loans, causing a chain reaction of bank runs and severe economic turmoil in the financial sector that then rippled out to the rest of the economy. But what, exactly, is the Federal Reserve System and why do we need it?

Technically speaking, the Federal Reserve System is a banking cartel formed by twelve central banks in partnership with the government for the purpose of regulating the money supply, interest rates, and credit – a cartel being any group of individuals, institutions, and/or businesses that join together in order to fix prices, limit competition, and regulate production of goods by the members (“cartel,” def. 2); OPEC, for example, is an oil cartel. The member banks own the Federal Reserve but are not allowed to sell their shares, nor vote for their board of governors, and are limited to a 6% dividend per year (Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, FAQ). The US government’s role is to protect these large member banks from competition and to appoint the board of governors, who then select bankers and other business leaders to serve on the boards of directors of the member banks.

Some politicians and critical observers see this set-up as an unconstitutional, government sanctioned monopoly of currency by a cadre of independent banks. Others – generally the central banks themselves – argue that a system of central banks is necessary to prevent, or at least soften the blow of, the busts of the business cycle that inevitably follow the booms, because “money doesn’t manage itself” (The Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco par 3). While it is true that federal statutes do not permit the use of anything other than Federal Reserve notes to pay debts or taxes, does that really constitute a monopoly on currency issuance? Congress may have abdicated its constitutionally mandated responsibility of creating the nations money supply to private central banks, but does that really mean the Federal Reserve System is unconstitutional? The answer to these questions, in a word, is yes.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 5 of the Constitution states: “The Congress shall have Power…To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin...” The Constitution does not give Congress the power or authority to transfer any powers granted under the Constitution to a private corporation and specifically states that "all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people”(12th amendment). It is as if an FBI agent asked a private citizen – someone not sworn in or hired by the Bureau – to take her gun and badge and do her job for her while she goes shopping. Instead of controlling the currency, as it is stated in the Constitution, Congress has handed over the power to create money to a cadre of private banking corporations. But how does the Federal Reserve “create” money? Doesn’t the US Mint issue our currency?

It all begins with Congress. Politicians pass legislation to spend money in their district or state because it helps get them re-elected. They generally don't like to raise taxes because that often gets them un-elected, so they borrow the budgetary shortfall from the Federal Reserve and this is mostly where the national debt comes from (Griffin 78). Borrowing money, however, doesn’t necessarily create money; if you borrow from someone that has money, the money supply hasn't grown, you have just moved money around from one person to another. So the Federal Reserve creates the money out of thin air by simply entering the transaction into a ledger sheet and “lending” it to the federal government, or other banks, plus interest (Griffin 95).

Now, if you or I did this it would be called counterfeiting or check fraud, but the Federal Reserve has an agreement with the US government to provide this service for a price; the price is interest and the result is the national debt. Each Federal Reserve note is essentially an I.O.U. – a promise to pay. Imagine that the bank loans you money by writing you a check made out to Cash for $20,000 but post-dated by one year. Instead of waiting a year to cash it, you buy a car with it, the dealership accepting it because it is a check from a reputable bank that “verifies” the funds are legitimate. The dealership can then take that check to the bank and get a series of checks for lesser amounts totaling $20,000, but also post-dated by a year, in order to pay their employees. This can go on and on so long as no one actually cashes in their checks, at which point it would become evident that the funds were never really there to begin with – a phenomenon that is presently occurring in our economy on a massive scale.

"When you or I write a check there must be sufficient funds in our account to cover the check, but when the Federal Reserve writes a check there is no bank deposit on which that check is drawn. When the Federal Reserve writes a check, it is creating money."
- Putting it Simply, Boston Federal Reserve Bank

But it doesn’t end there; if someone, say a federal employee, deposits a $1000 paycheck in a commercial bank, banking regulations dictated by the Federal Reserve stipulate that said bank can then loan out $9000, based on that $1000 dollars as reserves, in a process dubbed fractional reserve banking. Thus, $8000 dollars has just come into being as if out of a magician’s hat. When money is created in this way at a faster rate than the expansion of production and services in the economy, the result is inflation.

Inflation is effectively a reduction in purchasing power. When prices rise across the economy it is generally not because the intrinsic values of goods and services have increased, but rather that the value of the dollar has decreased. When there are more dollars in circulation, it requires more of them to buy the same number of things. That loss of purchasing power is value the consumer should have but it has been taken from them without their consent or even their knowing how, why, or by whom. Inflation therefore is a hidden tax, with no exemptions or deductions, that disproportionately and adversely affects the poor and the middle class; it is a direct result of having the power to create money out of nothing.

To the average person, with a relatively healthy dose of common sense but only a modest understanding of economics, creating money out of thin air may sound not only unsustainable, but like a scam of unimaginable scale and consequence. From the point of view of those receiving a dividend based on the amount of money generated in this way – the owners of the central banks – it is more likely viewed as the most lucrative and desirable business model possible. If the present System is actually unconstitutional, one might ask, how was Federal Reserve Act ever passed in the first place?

Historically, centralized banking has been extremely unpopular with many politicians because it concentrates so much power in the hands of bankers – people who are not elected officials and are therefore not beholden to act in a manner consistent with the public good. After the previously mentioned Bank Panic of 1907, however, a general consensus formed among most politicians that some kind of regulation of the banking system was necessary. As head of the commission set up to examine the issue, Senate Republican leader Nelson Aldrich helped author the Federal Reserve Act and ushered it through the legislature. Aldrich’s objectivity, however, was somewhat suspect because of his daughter's marriage to John D. Rockefeller, Jr., and Aldrich’s close association with J.P. Morgan, two of the most powerful and wealthy bankers in the world. The bill was passed December 22, 1913, after its staunchest opponents had already left Washington for the Christmas holiday thinking that it wouldn’t come up for a vote until the next years session (Griffin 67). One of those opponents was Senator Robert LaFollette, who once stated publicly that fifty men, comprising what many called the “money trust,” controlled the United States. When asked by reporters if this was true, a partner of J.P. Morgan, George F. Baker, replied that LaFollette was “absolutely in error. I know from personal knowledge that not more than eight men run this country” (Griffin 74).

Having understood this situation, many people have spoke out, decrying the unconstitutionality and seemingly criminal nature of the whole system. Louis T. McFadden, a Congressman from the early part of the 20th century who was Chairman of the Committee on Banking and Currency for twelve years from 1920 -1931, stated:

Some people think the Federal Reserve Banks are the United States government's institutions. They are not... They are private credit monopolies which prey upon the people of the United States for the benefit of themselves and their foreign swindlers... The Federal Reserve banks are one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever seen... Every effort has been made by the Federal Reserve Board to conceal its powers, but the truth is that the Federal Reserve System has usurped the government. It controls everything in congress and it controls all our foreign relations. It makes and breaks governments at will. (Congressional Record, 12595-12603)

If these were merely the musings of a lone, over-zealous Congressman, his scathing indictment could be more easily dismissed as the ravings of a rabid conspiracy theorist. When taken together with the testimony and opinion of some of the most brilliant and sober political and business leaders of the last hundred years, however, the picture becomes somewhat more disturbing. Indeed, some of the most vocal critics have been U.S. Presidents, among them Woodrow Wilson, who was duped into signing the Federal Reserve Act into law by representatives of the bankers behind the creation of the Federal Reserve. He remarked:
“I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men... no longer a Government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men.”

James Garfield, 20th President of the United States put it thusly: “Whoever controls the volume of money in our country is absolute master of all industry and commerce... when you realize that the entire system is very easily controlled, one way or another, by a few powerful men at the top, you will not have to be told how periods of inflation and depression originate.”

Not long after saying this in 1881, President Garfield was assassinated.

And President Franklin D. Roosevelt, in a letter written Nov. 21, 1933 to Colonel E. Mandell House commented: "The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the large centers has owned the government of the U.S. since the days of Andrew Jackson.”

A few educated and courageous members of the present Congress have even offered legislation, such as the Federal Reserve Abolition Act, (H.R. 2755, 2007), that would begin to transition our nation away from a fiat currency based on nothing but faith in the government and controlled by a monopoly of private banking interests, to an open market system in which currencies backed by precious metals, commodities, or any other unit of actual productivity that could compete for consumer confidence and utility. As it stands, Article I, Section 10, Clause 1 of the Constitution states that: “No State shall…coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debt.” This article has never been changed and is still the law of the land, so using currencies backed by gold and silver should still be allowed, yet our unconstitutional central bank monopoly will not permit it.

It may be reasonably asked, “What could I possibly do about this situation? I am only one person.” It is often true that, acting alone, we as individuals are powerless to affect meaningful change in a system so enormous that beneath it we are dwarfed into irrelevance; yet if we become an educated and motivated population unified in opposition to a shared destiny of modern serfdom, we can accomplish this monumental task. Paul Grignon, producer of the film “Money as Debt,” suggests that asking these four questions is pivotal to resolving this issue:

- “Why do governments choose to borrow money from private banks at interest when governments could create all the interest-free money they need themselves?

- Why create money as debt at all? Why not create money that circulates permanently and doesn't have to be perpetually re-borrowed in interest?

- How can a money system, dependent on perpetual growth, be used to build a sustainable economy? Perpetual growth and sustainability are fundamentally incompatible.

- What is it about our current system that makes it totally dependent on perpetual growth? What needs to be changed to allow the creation of a sustainable economy?”

Thus, we should educate ourselves and each other about these issues, demanding change from our representatives in government, and not electing those that do not share our outrage and concern. We can also begin to use gold, silver and other commodities in trade and business amongst ourselves, in this way subverting the Federal Reserves stranglehold on real money. The control of money belongs in the hands of the people and if we do not take responsibility for it, we will continue to get the economy and the government we deserve.

Quotes About the Federal Reserve and Banking

“...if you want to remain slaves of the bankers and pay for the costs of your own slavery, let them continue to create money and control the nation’s credit.”
- Sir Josiah Stamp

"Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes it's laws."
-Mayer Amschel Bauer Rothschild

“It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning.”
- Henry Ford

"We are completely dependant on the commercial banks. Someone has to borrow every dollar we have in circulation, cash or credit... We are absolutely without a permanent money system.... It is the most important subject intelligent persons can investigate and reflect upon... our present civilization may collapse unless it becomes widely understood and the defects remedied very soon."
- Robert H. Hamphill,
Atlanta Federal Reserve Bank

"Paper is poverty,... it is only the ghost of money, and not money itself."
-Thomas Jefferson to Edward Carrington, 1788

"From now on, depressions will be scientifically created."
- Congressman Charles A. Lindbergh Sr.,
1913, upon learning of the passage of the Federal Reserve Act.


Works Cited

Fiat Empire. Dir. James Jaeger. 2006. Online:

Griffin, G. Edward. The Creature from Jekyll Island. American Media, 1998.

Jefferson’s Opinion on the Constitutionality of a National Bank:1791. Yale Law School. 2008.


Mad Money. U.S. Representative Paul, Ron. Television, CNBC. Dec. 14, 2007.

"cartel." Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. 2008. Merriam-Webster Online. 20 October 2008


The Federal Reserve. Wikiprotest, July 24, 2007.

The Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco. The Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco website, 2008. <>



More Quotes

"The Federal Reserve bank buys government bonds without one penny..."

- Congressman Wright Patman,
Congressional Record, Sept 30, 1941

“I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.“

- Thomas Jefferson, 1802

"Most Americans have no real understanding of the operation of the international money lenders. The accounts of the Federal Reserve System have never been audited. It operates outside the control of Congress and manipulates the credit of the United States."

- United States Senator Barry Goldwater

“The financial system has been turned over to the Federal Reserve Board. That board administers a finance system by authority of a purely profiteering group. That system is private, conducted for the sole purpose of obtaining the greatest possible profits from the use of other people's money. This (Federal Reserve) Act establishes the most gigantic trust on Earth. When the president signs this bill, the invisible governments by the monetary power will be legalized. The people may not know it immediately but the day of reckoning is only a few years removed, the worst legislatives crime of the ages perpetrated by this banking bill.”

- Charles A. Lindbergh, Representative, MN

Dying to Feel Better

Do you ever feel lonely...tired...sad? You may be depressed and in need of medication. How do I know? In 1997, the Food and Drug Administration relaxed guidelines that regulate how pharmaceutical companies can advertise, resulting in an escalating stream of television commercials that are almost impossible to avoid or ignore. It is unlikely that one could watch any significant amount of TV without seeing several ads for prescription medications - everything from Allegra to Zyrtec.

Using the “carrot and stick” of sex and fear is the most widely used tool of the trade in modern advertising; except in the most gratuitous ads, they are so ubiquitous as to be almost completely taken for granted by the viewing public. Some Viagra ads, for example, openly and directly address one of the most compelling male insecurities - sexual impotence. Ads for Axe Body Spray are notoriously over-the-top in their lascivious and fantastical depictions of otherwise hopelessly socially-challenged young men instantaneously becoming the objects of beautiful, statuesque women immediately upon anointing themselves with Axe products. Though eschewing the sex component of the equation, an ad for Effexor nevertheless uses emotionally exploitative language and pictures to prey on human anxieties, pushing the drug on vulnerable people. Commercials for cars, breakfast cereals, body sprays, and other products may employ psychologically manipulative words and imagery as well, but those employed by television ads for prescription drugs have the nasty distinction of increasing the incidence of iatrogenic death. ("Iatrogenesis" being the term used for inadvertently induced adverse side effects or complications, including death, which result from medical treatment or diagnostic procedures performed by a physician or surgeon.)

Every successful ad campaign requires effective “branding.” Branding works by creating an association in the mind of consumers between the particular product being sold and its intended use, the image it projects, or feeling it produces – an association so strong that, in the case of some brands, such as Kleenex, Jacuzzi, Q-Tip, Google, etc., the name actually becomes synonymous with an entire class of products. This phenomenon was well demonstrated by a British study that used four different treatment groups to determine the effectiveness of a popular painkiller. Each group received one of four pills: a widely advertised, or “branded,” aspirin; the same drug in plain packaging; a branded placebo; or an unbranded placebo tablet. The study found that aspirin worked better than placebo, but even more interesting was that branding was more effective in pain relief for both the real drug and the placebo (Greider 112).

In a commercial for Axe Body Spray, a buxom woman in a skimpy, red string-bikini seems to be on the prowl, hunting for some as-yet unseen prey, while an epic and vaguely operatic score sets the mood. Running in slow motion through the woods, breasts bobbing, she is gradually joined by hundreds of attractive, similarly endowed and ravenous, bikini-clad young women. The hundreds become thousands, streaming over hills and scrambling down craggy outcroppings of rock. From the sea, still more thousands surge toward the shore, swimming through the surf. As the music crescendos, the horde begins converging on the beach where a scrawny, twenty-something male is shown spraying cans of Axe body spray, double-fisted and gleefully, all over his torso. The shot pans out before we can see what fate befalls the women's quarry, as a seductive, Australian-accented, female voice admonishes the viewer, “Spray more, Get more” – these words appear on the screen with “The Axe Effect” underneath (Axe Body Spray Ad).

Implying that the women were whipped into a feral frenzy of insatiable desire by the scent of the young man's Axe body spray, it is somewhat obvious that the ad is self-consciously intended to be over-the-top. No one but the most immature or mentally delayed person could rationally expect to achieve similar results from using this product. Yet the ad is effective precisely because the seductive quality of the imagery largely affects the subconscious, sub-rational parts of the consumer's psyche, which is the driving force behind many purchases. Thus, the product becomes linked, or branded, with the promise of sexual fulfillment and gratification. If the ad were to be taken at face value and the product delivered the results depicted, perhaps Axe body spray would be responsible for even more deaths than prescription medications.

An ad for Effexor is much more subdued.  The scene is set by the opening shot of the turbulent surface of a lake in the fading light of dusk, while melancholy piano music plunks along.  The metered, tenor voice of the narrator asks the viewer, “Do you feel alone?”  As the view switches to a forest scene and an out-of-focus person walks away from the camera, the narrator continues, “Do you feel like everyone is far away from you?” Switch to a profile shot of a solitary, white daisy, waving in front of a watery background. “You could be depressed,” the voice offers as the scene changes to an empty picnic table. “Ask your doctor about the all new Effexor, because feeling alone,” switch to the out-of-focus back of someone sitting alone by the water, “might not be normal.”  Product face and logo appear, “Effexor, the feel better solution” (Effexor Ad).

While the allure of this ad is definitely not sex, it is using specific language, tone, and imagery to create a depressive resonance, even among those who are not clinically depressed - so much so that many people may ask their doctors to prescribe an unnecessary drug for treatment of experiential phenomena that are not the results of disease states. Apart from being used for the very real conditions of clinical depression and anxiety for which it is approved, this ad for Effexor seems to suggest that even these relatively mild range of emotions are actually symptoms we should seek to mitigate with a powerful, and potentially dangerous, prescription drug.

Television advertising reaches the widest consumer audience of any medium, and sales of the prescription drugs most heavily marketed on television have seen the most dramatic rise. Now factor in that, more often than not, patients get the prescriptions for which they ask, and it is easy to see why spending on direct-to-consumer advertising, or DTC, increased almost tenfold from $266 million in 1994 to $2.6 billion in 2001 (Greider 88). The majority of that increase took place in the area of television ads (More Prescription Drug par 5). The dramatic rise in spending is reflected in the record profits being raked in by big pharmaceutical companies. The pharmaceutical industry argues that consumers of their products, and the public in general, have profited also with increased well-being and quality of life. Yet when the numbers are tallied, this becomes a rather dubious assertion.

As fantastic and unlikely as it sounds, a conservative estimate of how many people die every year from biomedical intervention in the United States is equivalent to six jumbo-jets full of passengers, crashing with no survivors, every day for a year (Null 3). At 783,936 a year, iatrogenic death nosed out heart disease at 699,697, and cancer at 553,251, to make it the number one killer in America in 2001 (Null 2). Of those deaths, 106,000 were the result of “reactions to properly prescribed and administered medications” that occurred after being hospitalized. When the 80,000 deaths caused by “improperly prescribed or administered medication” are added, “adverse drug events become the number-three leading cause of death in this country” (Strand 8). Only a fraction of iatrogenic events are ever reported and these numbers are conservative estimates. The actual numbers for iatrogenic deaths are probably much higher and on the rise (Null 3). Thanks to ads for prescription drugs like Effexor, more and more people are “asking their doctors” about them.

In the words of Larry D. Sasich of Public Citizen, a non-profit health research group, pharmaceutical ads have one purpose: "to drive patients into doctors' offices and ask for drugs by brand name”(Belkin par 14). An FDA survey found that patients asking for a specific brand name got the prescription they asked for 75 percent of the time (Aikin 17). One consequence of branding in pharmaceuticals is that the branded drugs get associated with feeling better, looking better, performing better, in the same way as do cars, clothes, or body sprays. A major difference is that drugs, even when properly prescribed, have a significantly higher chance of killing you.

Pharmaceutical companies often argue that DTC ads for prescription drugs educate the public, creating a more informed and therefore empowered consumer.  They point out that millions of Americans go undiagnosed for a whole host of diseases and serious health conditions like depression and high blood pressure – estimating that for every million men who asked for a Viagra prescription, their doctors found that 30,000 had untreated diabetes, 140,000 had untreated high blood pressure, and 50,000 had untreated heart disease (Belkin par 9). Still more people, however, are visiting their doctor because a television commercial has convinced them that they may need medications when they actually do not. There is sufficient evidence to prove that the ads are working – both to educate consumers, and to persuade an increasingly neurotic public that there is something wrong with them. Proponents argue the ads are a public service; detractors see DTC ads as unethical, dangerous and a practice we should ban like the rest of the world (except for New Zealand, an ignominious distinction).

Yet the figures for iatrogenic deaths quoted above linger like a host of specters, imploring us to re-examine the way we practice medicine in this country, as well as why and how we commercialize it. Some radical public interest groups have suggested that all emotionally manipulative television advertisements, not just those for prescription drugs, should be outlawed for many of the same reasons already listed. Though there may be compelling arguments for this point of view, clearly some ads are more dangerous to public health than others. Vioxx, after all, is estimated by some to have killed over 60,000 people – as many as the number of US service men that died in the Vietnam War (Herper par 4). Though the Axe ads may be repugnant to some, and also have far-reaching and serious negative social implications - sexual and physical violence against women, body image issues, to name just a few - it is doubtful that anyone could claim that body sprays are equally lethal.

Yes, television commercials can educate the public, and responsibly administered pharmaceuticals help millions, but at what cost? When biomedical intervention is the leading cause of death, and ads for prescription medications invite consumers to take powerful drugs for practically any reason at all, it is time to accept that our health care system is broken and the commercial culture that drives it is steering us towards a very steep precipice. No doubt we shall soon see marketing for Effexe, the prescription pill that changes body chemistry such that pores emit cologne, or Axfexxor, the anti-depressant medicated body spray, which yields mood elevating effects for everyone within range of its odor. At that point, all bets are off for the future of our species.

Many people - usually those inhabiting the so-called "first-world" countries - are experiencing a downward spiral of neurosis, hypochondria and declining health. To move away from such a trend towards something more healthy and sustainable, we need to understand that making good choices is seldom just an issue of discerning right form wrong but is more often than not a matter of choosing between what is right and what's easy.

Perhaps if we begin to disengage from the cannibalistic consumerism that is slowly turning us into a race of zombie-sheep – we might be more able to take care of ourselves and each other, as both a means of preventative medicine, and as a recognition that we as individuals are solely responsible for our health. Then we might have more time, energy, and peace of mind to actually be able to enjoy life, medication-free.

I'm not suggesting that the answer to our collective and individual problems will simply disappear overnight because we start thinking positively and hugging each other more often (though that wouldn't hurt). Rather I am asserting that the decision remains open for each of us to abdicate responsibility for our well-being to the multifarious commercial-industrial interests of our consumerist society, or take it back into our own hands, seeking the help of physicians when necessary, but also by consuming wholesome foods in place of unnecessary products, exercising our bodies instead of our credit cards, and caring for one another – as if our lives depended on it.



Works Cited

Aikin, Kathryn, PhD J. United States of America. Division of Drug Marketing, Advertising and Communications. Food and Drug Administration. 13 Jan. 2003. 29 July 2006


Axe Body Spray Ad. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NnmDhr_ZnSI.

Belkin, Lisa. "Prime Time Pushers." Mother Jones Magazine Mar.-Apr. 2001. 28 July 2006.  

Effexor Ad.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gSD5bK1Zgo.


Greider, Katharine. The Big Fix: How the Pharmaceutical Industry Rips Off American Consumers. 1st ed. New York: Public Affairs, 2003. 

Herper, Mathew. “David Graham On The Vioxx Verdict.” Forbes Online. Aug. 18, 2008.

"More Prescription Drug Ads on TV." Harvard Gazette 21 Feb. 2002. 29 July 2006


Null, Gary, PhD, Dean, Carolyn, Md Nd, Feldman, Martin, Md, Rasio, Debora, Md and  Smith, Dorothy, PhD.  Death by Medicine. Nutrition Institute of America. 2003. 28 July 2006


Strand, Ray, Md D. Death by Prescription: the Shocking Truth Behind an Overmedicated Nation. 1st ed. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2003. 

-