Before the bench, now we have accomplice No. 3 : Allopathic Researchers / scientists.
The 6 allegations against them, backed by foolproof proof:-
1. They work as hired hands of the drug makers:
More often than not, the medical faculty serving as investigators in allopathic drug trials are merely collecting test data as per the instructions of the sponsoring company .
Approximately 25% of allopathic faculty has industry affiliations .
The ones that do, are usually the key position holders. Payments can be in the form of pharmaceutical stock ownership or other financial incentives.
Many of the clinical investigators receive more than $1 million annually from the manufacturer of the drug they are supposed to be testing. 
A study conducted by the FDA has revealed that 1 in every 5 doctors carrying out field research of new drugs, had invented the data they sent to the drug companies, and pocketed the fees.
Citing case examples, Dr. John Braithwaite, Ex Trade Practices Commissioner, states:
"The problem is that most fraud in clinical trials is unlikely to even be detected. Most cases which do come to public attention only do so because of extraordinary carelessness by the criminal physician…" .
2. They hijack genuine medical research:
In line with the wishes of their corporate masters, they determine what research is conducted, how it is done and the way it is reported [27, 28].
"Our previous research with faculty has shown us that ties to industry can affect scientific behavior, leading to such things as trade secrecy and delays in publishing research.
It's possible that similar relationships with companies could affect IRB members' activities and attitudes.”- Dr. Erik Campbell .
The NEJM found that 96% of medical journal authors whose findings were favorable to a product had financial ties to the manufacturer .
Informally, medical students know amongst themselves part of what's going on “don't trust this paper because it has been falsified, don't trust that researcher because he/she has a clandestine relationship with so-&-so company” .
3. They include bioethicists sans ethics:
Bioethicists are placed in allopathic research bodies because they “look like watchdogs but behave like show dogs". In so doing, they lend a seal of legitimacy to highly questionable, if not outright unethical research.
A 2003 study found that nearly half of medical school faculty who serve on institutional review boards (IRB) to advise on clinical trial research, also serve as consultants to the pharmaceutical industry.
The process of evaluating clinical trial protocols, including those involving human subjects, is usually rigged to the point that the Institutional Review Board (IRB) members vote to approve it without even examining it .
90% of the protocols approved by the IRB at The National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), failed to meet either ethical and / or scientific justification.
Their corporate affiliations are not publicly disclosed while they rampantly issue press releases to the media, take responsible positions in IRBs or work on government advisory panels. 
4. They adulterate allopathic practice guidelines issued to all Doctors:
Journal of American Medical Association found that 87% of the authors who wrote treatment practice guidelines in all fields of medicine had financial ties with the pharmaceutical industry .
New York Times reporter Brian Deer also thinks they are not as reliable as they pretend to be . Even Harvard researchers have turned out to be cheats .
5. They are intellectually dishonest:
As a university student, I noticed that the lecturers were always under intense pressure to publish something – anything – in some research journal.
Quality doesn't matter as long as their Heads of Departments can meet their annual goals of pushing out so many research papers.
Even amongst the monetarily honest scientists, most are intellectually servile to the unmedical allopathic dogma – they can't think beyond that.
They get their promotions based on the number of research papers published, even though many of them haven't grasped the 'heart' of the healing dynamics, which lies beyond biochemical technicalities.
They are, thus, bereft of an incisive research mindset to come up with some authentic medical treatments.
6. They are neck deep into it :
From their drug lords they receive -
- academic chair endowments,
- grants for professional associations,
- patent royalty fees,
- permission for publication attribution,
- sponsorship for their conferences, etc.
Professional organizations, international scientific bodies, etc. draw their members from any of these 6 gangs operating under the main accused.
With that, I invite the jury's attention towards accomplice No. 4 : The ever-so-charming Doctors, Clinicians, Physicians, GPs, Specialists & Surgeons.
Putting the evidence on record for 8 counts of law-breaking, as follows:
1. They get hooked on to the big pharma vice soon after college admissions, as a freshmen:
Medical students surveyed at 76 medical schools were found to be frequently getting exposed to pharmaceutical marketing, even in their preclinical years .
2. They exploit their own clients:
They are the ones who body-shop credulous patients to be used as guinea pigs in allopathic field trials.
They are paid handsomely for this, but are allocated time bound deadlines many a times. This may tempt them to recruit ineligible candidates .
3. They pocket good money for not-so-good testing :
As per Dr John Braithwaite, it is very easy for the drug company to arrange favorable clinical trials by approaching a compliant Doctor who would produce the figures they desire.
As much as $1000 per subject is paid by allopathic companies, which enables some doctors to earn up to $1 million per year just from drug research.
Hence the incentive to fabricate data is enormous & investigating clinicians know all too well that if they don't produce the desired data, the loss of future work is inevitable .
4. Their palms are greased:
92.8% physicians received gifts from the drug industry during last year. Mean value of gifts received was 900 Euros .
Pharmaceutical companies fund approximately half of the meetings & conferences attended by doctors .
According to an ABC news report, pharmaceutical companies spend over $2 billion a year on over 314,000 events attended by doctors .
The bulk of the approximately $21 billion annual marketing budget of the pharmaceutical conglomerates is targeted towards physicians, doctors in training (residents) and medical students. 
Many doctors are paid consultants, speakers at company-sponsored meetings, ghost-authors of papers written by drug companies or their agents, recipients of free meals, honoraria, global junkets , other out-and-out giveaways.
Drug producers subsidize most of the meetings of professional organizations and most of the Continuing Medical Education (CME) needed by doctors to maintain their licenses. 
5. Their prescriptions are biased:
1 in 3 doctors admitted that free drug samples, left behind by medical reps, influences what they prescribe .
Prescription of promoted meds decreases across the board with a corresponding increase in that of unpromoted ones, when the free samples are removed .
Attending sponsored CME events and accepting funding for travel or lodging for educational symposia were associated with increased prescription rates of the sponsor's medication .
6. They quack unapproved usage of drugs:
A national survey of allopaths revealed that they didn't knew that they were prescribing Off-Label usage of common drugs – even to their child patients .
Off label usage implies, eating the drug for ailments other than the one they have been tested & authorized for .
Doctors "on the take" are encouraged to promote such clinically worthless drugs for untested uses, without regard for the serious harm they cause to their trusting patients. 
7. They mis-educate themselves:
To keep themselves "updated" on the latest medical developments, don't they rely on the "educational" material sent by the drug companies' sales-persons? … along with the usual incentives.
73.7% of the general practitioners (GPs) prescribe based on the commercial information provided by sales representatives of pharmaceutical manufacturers .
This, despite the fact that only 16% of the responding Doctors thought that visits by representatives from pharmaceutical companies were educationally valuable .
Drug company-sponsored Continuing Medical Education (CME) programs preferentially highlight the sponsor's drugs .
62% of the GPs and 71% of the psychiatrists attend at least three industry-organized meetings every year .
90% of the doctors participated in meetings whereby the content was organized by employees of pharmaceutical businesses .
But only 37% of these allopaths found the educational events organized by allopathic companies to be of any value .
Attending presentations given by speakers from the allopathic madhouse is also correlated with irrational prescribing .
8. They are well-paid propagandists:
Drug companies will pay influential doctors up to $400 an hour to act as key opinion leaders .
Some doctors earn more than $25,000 a year in advisory fees, peddling drugs to their fellow doctors & to the public .
Doctors fail to communicate all the side-effects of their prescriptions to you .
"It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgement of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines.
I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine." – Dr. Marcia Angell, MD; Harvard Medical School 
Your "average prescription drug has only 70 side effects" – Dr. Jon Duke, Assistant professor of medicine, Indiana University School of Medicine .
As per 1 study by Dr. Steel –
- 36% of hospitalized patients get manhandled at the hands of their allopathic treatments;
- 50% of them were caused by adverse drug reactions;
- 25% of them died due to it .
But in order to protect their staff, reputation & for fear of lawsuits – hospitals & clinics do not report this widespread health travesty.
The long forsaken father of modern medicine, Hippocrates, may have said 'First, do no harm' but there are no long term studies of drug accumulation & resulting harms to your bio-psyche.
Fortunately, there are better options out there to supervise the ongoing conflict between the legions of helpful & unhelpful microvita forces active inside you.
But before we go there, Your Honor, allow me to present accomplice 5 & 6 in the courtroom to explain their criminal dereliction of duty.
1. Death by Medicine By Gary Null, PhD; Carolyn Dean MD, ND; Martin Feldman, MD; Debora Rasio, MD; and Dorothy Smith, PhD.
4. Public Library of Science (2009, February 26). Extensive Publication Bias For Phase I Drug Trials Found. Retrieved June 6, 2011, ScienceDaily.
6. “Error in Medicine“, Dr. Lucian L. Leape; JAMA
7. Dr. Marcia Angell, former Editor in Chief of The New England Journal of Medicine : Drug Co & Doctors: A Story of Corruption
10. Just how much ‘new research’ can we trust? The Sunday Times May 21, 2006
11. Corporate Crime in the Pharmaceutical Industry. by Dr John Braithwaite
12. European Science Foundation. Online Register To Flag Scientific Papers Tainted By Fraud Or Misconduct. Retrieved June 7, 2011 from ScienceDaily.
14. BMJ-British Medical Journal (2008, June 20). Should Doctors Be ‘Selling’ Drugs For The Pharmaceutical Industry? Retrieved June 6, 2011, from ScienceDaily
15. Indiana University (2007, December 4). Do Medical Schools Affect The Way Future Doctors Interact With Drug Companies? Retrieved June 6, 2011, from ScienceDaily.
16. Public Library of Science (2011, May 25). Medical students have substantial exposure to pharmaceutical industry marketing. Retrieved June 6, 2011, from ScienceDaily.
17. BMJ Specialty Journals (2006, October 2). Free Drug Samples Influence Prescribing, Say One In Three Doctors. Retrieved June 6, 2011, from ScienceDaily
18. Jerome P. Kassirer On the Take: How Medicine’s Complicity With Big Business Can Endanger Your Health. (Oxford University Press, 2005).
28. Angell, M. Is Academic medicine for sale? NEJM, 2000, 342: 1516-1518.
Earlier hearings, in case you missed: