text:
Category Archives: Big Pharma
Forced Vaccine Bill Author Sen. Pan Was Top Recipient Of Big Pharma Cash
By: Heather Callaghan | NaturalBlaze.com –
Big Pharma Donated Millions to California Lawmakers Before Launching Vaccine "Debate".
A push for mandatory vaccination continues as SB277 makes its way through California's Capitol. It is a shining monument to Big Pharma's coffers and medical control as the bill removes religious and philosophical exemptions for student vaccination, leaving only medical exemptions signed by MDs. Since medical exemptions are rare, it forces parents to take their child into the doctor's for jabs or be removed from school – a violation of the right to attend public school.
Perhaps by stirring a national "debate," the pharmaceutical companies made people forget that there is no crisis and that California's children have been above a 97% vaccination rate. Yet, at least as early as February, simultaneous bills cropped up across the states to remove the ability to decide, and in many cases the ability to decide scheduling/spacing. That last note has frustrated and unnerved parents who vaccinate but like to have some oversight on the amount of injections given per visit.
Recall that six months ago the paradigm was completely different. Online arguments about vaccination were different. Emotions were controlled. Division tactics were subtle. The term "anti-vaxxer" wasn't really part of the collective lexicon – at least not spat out in viciousness or disdain. No one called for personal calamity, sickness or death on anyone else. No one shunned their neighbors or their neighbors' children as walking germ bombs or leper terrorists.
As I've written before – this vaccine "debate" we keep hearing about is a joke. A real debate involves two consenting parties and suggests some kind of civil discourse. It is not a "corporament" attempting to seize power and remove another person's rights by forcing their will. There was never a debate for people who were hurled into the witch hunt.
Sadly, the "debate" requires people who can write and push these bills – and they have ravenous appetites…
A Sacramento Bee reporter didn't initially find a strong link between the pharmaceutical companies and legislators readily on paper and certainly not admitted by pharma reps.
However (emphasis added),
Other legislation has a more direct bearing on the industry, and it is an active political player. Pharmaceutical companies and their trade groups gave more than $2 million to current members of the Legislature in 2013-2014, about 2 percent of the total raised, records show. Nine of the top 20 recipients are either legislative leaders or serve on either the Assembly or Senate health committees. Receiving more than $95,000, the top recipient of industry campaign cash is Sen. Richard Pan, a Sacramento Democrat and doctor who is carrying the vaccine bill.
Also see: Senator Pan's Outrageous Vaccine Lies
Reporter Jim Miller also found that "the industry donated more than $500,000 to outside campaign spending groups that helped elect some current members last year."
Look what else the Bee found for 2013-2014
Sen. Richard Pan*
Assembly Speaker Toni Atkins
D-San Diego
Sen. Ed Hernandez*
Sen. Holly Mitchell*
D-Los Angeles
Assemblyman Brian Maienschein*
R-San Diego
Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de León
D-Los Angeles
Sen. Isadore Hall
Sen. Jerry Hill
D-San Mateo
Assemblyman Henry Perea
Assemblywoman Shirley Weber
D-San Diego
Assemblyman Mike Gatto
D-Los Angeles
Assemblywoman Susan A. Bonilla*
Sen. Andy Vidak
Assemblyman Tom Daly
Assemblyman Kevin Mullin
D-South San Francisco
Assemblyman Adam Gray
Assemblyman Rob Bonta*
Assemblyman Anthony Rendon
Assemblyman Jimmy Gomez*
D-Los Angeles
Assemblyman Richard Gordon
D-Menlo Park
See the amounts Big Pharma directly lobbied: http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article24913978.html#storylink=cpy
Did you hear a cha-ching! every time you saw the dollar amount next to member's name who had direct involvement in the bill? Remember these pharma gifts were given before there was "debate" about vaccines, before any outbreak.
Personal rights are not up for debate, and they certainly don't go to the highest bidder. They don't go away so that corrupt politicians can count money and take extra vacations after we've already provided their retirement.
Please act now and don't let the world's second largest* corporate conglomerate call the shots on children's health and seal the deal for all the vaccines they have waiting in the pipeline.
A removal of choice now is a removal of all medical choice later…
*The largest industry is the arms industry – i.e. war
Heather Callaghan is a natural health blogger and food freedom activist. You can see her work at NaturalBlaze.com and ActivistPost.com. Like at Facebook.
Leaked TPP Trade Bill Healthcare Annex
Proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade legislation and its companion Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) are anti-consumer stealth corporate coup d'etat freedom and ecosystem-destroying measures – nightmarish by any standard.
They let corporate predators establish unrestricted supranational global trade rules overriding national sovereignty and domestic laws.
They serve investor rights at the expense of public ones. They permit anything goes for profit. They create a world more unfit to live in than already.
On June 10, WikiLeaks published the draft TPP Healthcare Annex (so-called Annex on Transparency and Procedural Fairness for Pharmaceutical Products and Medical Devices).
It establishes pharmaceutical and medical device procurement and reimbursement rules government healthcare authorities must follow.
Vague language creates opportunities for drug and medical device companies to challenge Medicare and healthcare program procedures of the 12 TPP-bloc countries.
Consumer friendly policy reforms would be constrained – including the ability of governments to contain rising prices making them unaffordable for millions.
Big Pharma wants profits protected over public health, said WikiLeaks. It wants them maximized.
An earlier Healthcare Annex was released in 2011. Some harmful provisions were removed in the latest version. Global Trade Watch (GTW) says serious questions remain unanswered – vital for people to know, including:
"What guarantees are there that the TPP's requirements would not override existing procedures for Medicare?"
The US Trade Representative's Office (USTR) claims Medicare fully complies with TPP provisions.
"Yet (their) ambiguous language…leaves our domestic healthcare policies vulnerable to attack by drug and (medical) device manufacturers," said GTW.
Could companies use Healthcare Annex provisions to cover expensive products "without a corresponding benefit to public health," GTW asked?
Medicare reimburses for "reasonable and necessary" products and treatment. TPP "recognize(s) the value (of drugs and medical devices through the) operation of competitive markets (or their) objectively demonstrated therapeutic significance" – regardless of effectiveness or affordability.
Medicare permits limited reimbursement appeals only. Companies might argue TPP rules permit unrestricted reviews.
"Would the TPP constrain pharmaceutical reform efforts in the US," asked GTW? Healthcare Annex provisions apply to future coverage determinations as well as current ones.
Healthcare reform advocates want soaring drug prices curtailed by establishing a "national formulary" enabling the government to get substantial discounts passed on to consumers. TPP won't allow it.
"Could the inclusion of this Annex in the TPP bolster the case of a pharmaceutical company that is suing the United States," asked GTW?
Investor-State Dispute Settlement procedures have been included in US trade agreements since the 1990s. Foreign companies may challenge government policies – claiming they potentially curtail future profits. In return, they demand "unlimited sums in taxpayer compensation."
GTW asked if the Healthcare Annex boosts their case – at the expense of the public interest. Companies could claim government policies compromised their profit expectations and demand compensating reimbursement at taxpayers' expense.
Much about TPP remains secret – vital information people have a right to know. If enacted, Washington wants it extended to all Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) members – about 40% of the world's population.
Attorney Judit Rius Sanjuan for Doctors Without Borders says TPP "will increase the cost of medicines worldwide, starting with the 12 countries that are negotiating" TPP.
Hugely profitable drug companies want unconstrained rights to charge whatever the market will bear. They claim high prices are needed to compensate for billions of dollars spent for research – without acknowledging how much governments in America and elsewhere pay for, passing on scientific research information to drug companies cost-free.
GTW director Lori Wallach calls the Healthcare Annex leak "the latest example of why fast-tracking the TPP would undermine the health of Americans and the other countries and cost our government more, all to the benefit of pharma's profits."
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at [email protected]. His new book is titled "How Wall Street Fleeces America: Privatized Banking, Government Collusion and Class War". www.claritypress.com/Lendman.html Visit his blog site at www.sjlendman.blogspot.com.
Is CPS Kidnapping Children For Pharma Drug Trial Experiments?
By John P. Thomas | Medical Kidnap –
The U.S. federal government has mandated drug research with children. The need for children to participate in drug company research is high, and the temptation to overstep parental rights to force children to participate is great. Researchers publicly admit using money and other rewards to obtain participation of children in their drug trials.
Organizations that advocate for the rights of parents to make decisions regarding their children's healthcare are finding that foster children in CPS custody are being enrolled in drug experiments without parental approval. State Child Protective Services are enrolling children in drug experiments without parental approval or court orders. However, those who conduct these drug experiments for pharmaceutical companies, and those who are charged with monitoring such research, do not see a problem with their recruitment methods.
Since 1994, federal guidelines have called for the inclusion of children in clinical studies. Related federal incentives and laws such as the "pediatric rule" (the Pediatric Research Equity Act) and the pediatric exclusivity provision have also been passed to increase the number of pediatric clinical trials launched by pharmaceutical companies. Despite these mandates, the allocations to pediatric clinical trials in federal and private research and development budgets have remained limited. In addition, pediatric researchers continue to experience difficulty locating children and families who are willing to enroll in clinical trials.
Recruitment for pediatric studies is hampered by several factors including ethical concerns with using children as subjects, regulatory oversight that is significantly more restrictive for child trials than for adult trials, a lack of research infrastructure, the need to obtain consent from parents, and the challenge of determining appropriate payments for participation that are not coercive. [1]
These researchers were struggling with ethical considerations concerning the use of money to entice parents to enroll their children in research studies. These researchers didn't think that parents should see the enrollment of their children in drug experiments as a money-making proposition. On the other hand, they realized that money and gifts were very useful for bringing more children into pharmaceutical drug research.
They also noted that the number of pediatric research participants has been increasing. In 2006, they found that there were approximately 45,000 children participating in experiments. There has also been an increase in the number of Phase I studies with normal healthy children. In their review, only 9,817 of the 39,628 studies listed on ClinicalTrials.gov included children.
The researchers indicated that one of the most pressing challenges in doing pediatric clinical research is the limited number of participants. Researchers often must network across sites or countries to gain adequate numbers of participants. They often must expend significant energy and resources locating potential subjects.
Dr. Tishler, and Dr. Staats Reiss discussed how money is often given in exchange for voluntary participation. They stated:
One review of the Centerwatch.com clinical trials listing service published in 2002 revealed that nearly 25% of pediatric trials offered payments to participants that ranged from $25 for an investigation of influenza medications to $1500 for a psoriasis-medication study. In another study, [researchers] sent surveys to the IRB chairs [institutional review boards] at member institutions of the National Association of Children's Hospitals and the Office for Protection From Research Risks.
Sixty-six percent of these institutions used paid participants, and there was wide variation in payment practices across the sites (ranging from $1 to $1000 in cash and $500 in savings bonds). Many of the institutions in the Weise et al study (42%) used a combination of incentives and/or payments for both the children and parents. [2]
CPS Violates Parental Consent and Freedom of Speech.
Isaiah Rider suffers from a rare condition called neurofibromatosis. When his mother took him to a hospital in Chicago that specializes in his condition, they ended up taking custody of him over the objections of his mother. Is Isaiah part of a drug trial? More on Isaiah Rider.There are two factors that normally limit child participation in medical and drug company research. The first is the requirement for parental consent. Children normally cannot participate unless a parent gives written consent. The second is the normal right that people have to publically speak out in situations where parents and their children are being coerced and compelled to participate in drug company experiments.We would expect that these two constraining factors would keep children safe from becoming unwilling participants in drug research. However, there are situations in which state agencies are able to avoid both of these constraints and force children to become human guinea pigs.
The network of state operated child protective service agencies (CPS) routinely circumvent the rights of parents and children, and give permission for physicians/researchers to force children to participate in drug company experiments.
Children who are in the foster care system and who are under the control of Child Protective Services are easily targeted for involuntary inclusion in drug experimentation. Ideally, even if children are under CPS control, their natural parents should retain the right to give consent for medical treatment for their children whether it is routine or experimental.
In practice, however, once CPS steps into a family's private life and takes children out of the home and places them in foster care, then parental oversight regarding the healthcare of their children is routinely violated. Because these cases are involved in State Juvenile or Family Courts (as opposed to Civil Courts), records are sealed and kept secret, supposedly to protect the children.
The Big Business Of Cancer: 100 BILLION Dollars Was Spent On Cancer Drugs Last Year Alone
If you are an American, there is a 1 in 3 chance that you will get cancer during your lifetime. If you are a man, the odds are closer to 1 in 2. And almost everyone in America either knows someone who currently has cancer or who has already died from cancer. But it wasn't always this way. Back in the 1940s, only one out of every sixteen Americans would develop cancer. Something has happened that has caused the cancer rate in this nation to absolutely explode, and it is being projected that cancer will soon surpass heart disease and become the leading cause of death in the United States. Overall, the World Health Organization says that approximately 14 million new cases of cancer are diagnosed around the globe each year, and the number of new cases is expected to increase by about 70 percent over the next 2 decades. There are very few words in the English language that cause more fear than the word "cancer", but despite billions spent on research and all of the technological progress we have made over the years this plague just continues to spiral wildly out of control. Why is that?
In America today, more money is spent to treat cancer than to treat any other disease by far. In fact, according to NBC News, 100 BILLION dollars was spent on cancer drugs just last year alone…
As drug prices continue to fall under ever-increasing scrutiny, spending on cancer medicines has hit a new milestone: $100 billion in 2014.
That's up more than 10 percent from 2013, and up from $75 billion five years earlier, according to a report published Tuesday from the IMS Institute for Healthcare Informatics.
100 million dollars would be an astounding amount of money to spend on these drugs. But 100 billion dollars is 1,000 times as much money as 100 million dollars. And the IMS Institute for Healthcare Informatics is projecting that the amount of money spent on cancer drugs will continue to grow at a rate of 6 to 8 percent a year.
Needless to say, there are a lot of people out there that are becoming exceedingly wealthy treating this disease.
And the cost of some these drugs is absolutely absurd. According to NBC News, two of the latest cancer drugs to be developed "are priced at $12,500 a month"…
Forty-five new drugs for cancer hit the market between 2010 and 2014, including 10 last year alone, IMS said. Two of those are so-called immunotherapies, a hot new class that harnesses the immune system to fight cancer. They are Opdivo from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Keytruda from Merck. Both are priced at $12,500 a month.
Yes, I understand that drug companies are in business to make a profit.
But how can anyone possibly justify charging cancer patients that much for their medicine?
If you are diagnosed with cancer in America today and you choose to trust the medical system with your treatment, you can say goodbye to your financial future. Even if you have health insurance, you will probably end up flat broke one way or the other. Either you will survive and be flat broke, or you will die flat broke.
And despite all of our ultra-expensive treatments, the survival rate for cancer is still not very good. At this point, the five year survival rate for those diagnosed with cancer is just 65 percent. That means that 35 percent of those diagnosed with cancer are going to end up dead within five years, and for certain forms of cancer that percentage is much, much higher.
Sadly, as I mentioned at the top of this article, the percentage of the population getting cancer just continues to go up…
We have lost the war on cancer. At the beginning of the last century, one person in twenty would get cancer. In the 1940s it was one out of every sixteen people. In the 1970s it was one person out of ten. Today one person out of three gets cancer in the course of their life.
We live in a society that is highly toxic, and it is getting worse with each passing day.
And once you do develop cancer, doctors are not allowed to prescribe any "alternative treatments" for you. They are only permitted to offer you the treatments that the system tells them that they must offer.
One of these is chemotherapy. It is an absolutely nightmarish treatment that often kills the patient before it kills the cancer. The following is how one woman described her experience with chemo…
This highly toxic fluid was being injected into my veins. The nurse administering it was wearing protective gloves because it would burn her skin if just a tiny drip came into contact with it. I couldn't help asking myself "If such precautions are needed to be taken on the outside, what is it doing to me on the inside?" From 7 pm that evening, I vomited solidly for two and a half days. During my treatment, I lost my hair by the handful, I lost my appetite, my skin colour, my zest for life. I was death on legs.
Many patients go through round after hellish round, hoping that it will do something about their cancer. Have you ever known someone who has gone through this ordeal? It can be absolutely heartbreaking.
But in the end, there is a tremendous amount of doubt regarding whether chemo does much good at all. Just consider the words of Dr. Ralph Moss, the author of a book entitled "The Cancer Industry"…
In the end, there is no proof that chemotherapy actually extends life in the vast majority of cases, and this is the great lie about chemotherapy, that somehow there is a correlation between shrinking a tumour and extending the life of a patient.
So why do oncologists push chemo so hard?
Well, it is because they make a tremendous amount of money doing it…
According to the research of Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner of Freakonomics fame, "Oncologists are some of the highest paid doctors, their average income is increasing faster than any other specialist in the medical field, and more than half their income comes from selling and administering chemotherapy."
Yes you read that right. Oncologists make a huge profit, as much as two-thirds of their income in some cases, from chemotherapy drugs.
Their business model is very different from other doctors because you can't buy chemotherapy drugs at your local pharmacy.
Oncologists buy these drugs direct at wholesale prices, then they mark them up and bill the insurance companies. This legal profiting on drugs by doctors is unique to the cancer treatment world. They're making money off the drugs that they insist you take to save your life. That's a HUGE conflict of interest. They're selling you the drugs, and charging you for the privilege of putting them in your body. No other doctor can do that.
Our system is deeply corrupt and deeply broken.
But nothing is going to change any time soon because hundreds of billions of dollars are being made.
So what do you think? Do you have an experience with the cancer industry that you would like to share? Please feel free to add to the discussion by posting a comment below…
Michael T. Snyder is a graduate of the McIntire School of Commerce at the University of Virginia and has a law degree and an LLM from the University of Florida Law School. He is an attorney that has worked for some of the largest and most prominent law firms in Washington D.C. and who now spends his time researching and writing and trying to wake the American people up. You can follow his work on The Economic Collapse blog, End of the American Dream and The Truth Wins. His new novel entitled "The Beginning Of The End" is now available on Amazon.com.
The Medical Cartel: Too Big To Fail, Too Evil To Expose
By: Jon Rappaport | No More Fake News –
There are several reasons why the medical cartel is too big to fail: the enormous amount of money at stake; its aim to control populations.
In this article, I want to examine a related reason.
Suppose it was discovered that thousands of bridges around the US were in imminent danger of collapsing? Not because maintenance and repair were lacking, not because the materials used to build them were cheap and shoddy. But because the original designs were inadequate and broke basic rules of engineering.
Suppose five or six major manufacturers built their automobiles so the vast majority of power derived from the engines was transferred to one wheel?
Suppose the US Dept. of Agriculture recommended that all farmers spray their crops with heavy chlorine instead of water?
In other words, the science itself is fraudulent.
This revelation, above all, is what the medical cartel tries to guard against. Their profession has shoved in all its chips on the propaganda proposition that it does impeccable science.
Science sells. The appearance of it sells. It's the foundation stone of many industries.
Were that stone to crack and shatter, all bets would be off. A titanic fraud would come to light. The kind of fraud that would both freeze people's minds and blow them away.
Science is the most powerful rationalization in the modern world. Consensus reality would fail and disperse without it.
As I've covered before, the most conservative mainstream estimate of medically caused death in America is 225,000 people per year. Every credential behind that figure is immaculate.
The author of the paper that presented the statistics was the late Dr. Barbara Starfield, a revered public health expert who worked for many years at the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health.
Her review, "Is US health the best in the world?", was published on July 26th, 2000, in the Journal of the American Medical Association.
Starfield's breakdown was as follows: the medical system kills 119,000 people a year in the US as a result of maltreatment in hospitals. The other 106,000 people are killed by FDA-approved medicines.
The FDA must approve every drug as safe and effective before it is released for public use.
It's the medicines I want to focus on in this article. 106,000 deaths a year translates to an astonishing 1,060,000 deaths per decade.
How are these drugs approved?
Clinical trials are conducted. Reports of those trials are written. The reports, the studies, are published in peer-reviewed medical journals. The studies ARE the science.
If a million people per decade are being killed by the drugs, then a huge number of published studies proclaiming the drugs are safe are sheer fraud. There is no other way to put it.
This statement from Marcia Angell, former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, echoes the fact:
"It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment 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."
(Marcia Angell, MD, The New York Review of Books, January 15, 2009, "Drug Companies & Doctors: A Story of Corruption")
The medical cartel rests on cataclysmic fraud, scientific fraud.
Imagine what would happen if just one major media outlet decided to take on this story and push it for all it's worth. Not merely an article or two—an ongoing campaign of relentless exposure.
The silence from that quarter speaks volumes about the controlled press and what it stands for.
Over the years, I've written much about the the FDA. I thought I'd assemble a small fraction of it in one place, to reveal what this federal agency is really all about and why it should be dismantled, amid a blizzard of prosecutions and convictions for negligent homicide and, yes, murder.
The discovery of a page, on the FDA's own website, proves the FDA is fully aware that:
the drugs it certifies as safe have been killing Americans, at the rate of 100,000 per year.
The FDA website page is available under the heading, "Why Learn About Adverse Drug Reactions." You can search for it using the Startpage.com search engine.
The FDA takes no blame, no responsibility for its own actions, and yet it admits the death statistics are accurate.
Understand this very clearly. No medical drug in America can be released for public use until and unless the FDA states it is safe. The FDA is the agency that makes every such decision on every drug. The buck stops there.
Yes, the FDA has a "special relationship" with the pharmaceutical industry. Yes, the FDA utilizes doctors on their drug-approval panels that have ties to the pharmaceutical industry. But, in the end, it is the FDA official seal that opens the gate and permits a drug to be prescribed by doctors and sold in the US.
In all my research on this medical-drug holocaust, I have never found a case in which any FDA employee was censured, fired, or criminally prosecuted for the killing effects of these drugs.
That is a track record Organized Crime would be proud of, and the comparison is not frivolous.
On this FDA website page, the FDA also readily admits that medical drugs are the fourth leading cause of death in America, ahead of pulmonary disease, diabetes, AIDS, pneumonia, accidents, and automobile fatalities.
The FDA website page also states there are 2 million serious adverse reactions (ADRs) from the ingestion of medical drugs, annually, in the US. That would be 20 million ADRs per decade.
When the FDA says "serious," they aren't talking about headaches or slight dizziness or temporary nausea. "Serious" means stroke, heart attack, neurological damage; destruction of that magnitude.
Examining these figures for death and debilitation, can you find any comparable documented crime in the American landscape? This is the kind of story that would make Watergate look like a Sunday-school picnic.
If a paper like the New York Times let loose their hounds to relentlessly explore the horror, I assure you that, in time, doctors and medical bureaucrats and even drug-company employees would come out of the woodwork with confessions, and the resultant explosions and outcries would shake the medical/pharmaceutical foundations of America and the planet.
It would shake and destroy the SCIENCE.
But these major media outlets are an intrinsic part of the Matrix that protects and sustains the crimes and the criminals. It isn't just drug-advertising profits that keep the leading newspapers and television networks silent. It's collusion to protect "a revered institution"—the medical system.
Also at stake is Obamacare. The connection is vivid and unmistakable. Millions more Americans, previously uninsured, will be drawn into the system and subjected to the very drugs are killing and maiming people at such a horrific rate.
Where has the US Department of Justice been all these years? Is there any way, under the sun, that a million deaths per decade can be excused? Is there any way the FDA and the drug companies can float safely in the upper atmosphere of privilege, while the concept of justice retains any meaning? Where are criminal prosecutions?
Meanwhile, the FDA pursues an agenda of attacking nutritional supplements, and the latest federal regulations classify these supplements as "potentially dangerous"—despite the fact that supplements have a record of safety that is astonishing.
It is time for the public to realize that 100,000 people dying every year in the US, because they take medical drugs, is the equivalent of 33 airliner crashes into the Twin Towers, every year, year after year.
If you were a medical reporter for a major media outlet in the US, and you knew the above fact, wouldn't you make it a priority to say something, write something, do something?
I'm talking about people like Sanjay Gupta (CNN, CBS), Gina Kolata (NY Times), Tim Johnson (ABC News), and Thomas Maugh II (LA Times).
And with that, let's get to another smoking gun. The citation is: BMJ June 7, 2012 (BMJ 2012:344:e3989), Anticoagulants cause the most serious adverse events, finds US analysis. Author, Jeanne Lenzer.
Lenzer refers to a report by the Institute for Safe Medication Practices:
"It calculated that in 2011 prescription drugs were associated with two to four million people in the US experiencing 'serious, disabling, or fatal injuries, including 128,000 deaths.'"
The report called this "one of the most significant perils to humans resulting from human activity."
And here is the final dagger. The report was compiled by outside researchers who went into the FDA's own database of "serious adverse [medical-drug] events."
Therefore, to say the FDA isn't aware of this finding would be absurd. The FDA knows.
Since the Department of Homeland Security is working its way into every nook and corner of American life, hyper-extending its mandate to protect all of us from everything, maybe DHS should stop tracking every move we make and simply raid and arrest all employees of the FDA as terrorists. The details could be sorted out later.
How many smoking guns do we need before a sitting president shuts down the FDA buildings, fumigates them, and builds a monument to dead Americans the FDA has driven into their graves?
Do we need 100,000 smoking guns? Do we need relatives of the people who've all died, in the span of, say, merely a year, from the poisonous effects of FDA-approved medical drugs, to bring their corpses and coffins to the doors of FDA headquarters?
And let me ask another question. If instead of drugs like warfarin, dabigatran, levofloxacin, carboplatin, and lisinopril (the five leading killers in the FDA database), the 100,000 deaths per year were led by gingko, ginseng, vitamin D, niacin, and raw milk, what do you think would happen?
I'll tell you what would happen. SEALS, Delta Force, DHS-HSI SRT, SWAT teams, snipers, predator drones, tanks, and infantry would be attacking every health-food store in America. The resulting fatalities would be written off as necessary collateral damage in the fight to keep America safe and healthy.
BTW, who are the video editing specialists that DHS hired to 'sex up' this video?
But you see, the routine deaths of 100,000 Americans a year, after the FDA has certified the drugs are SAFE, isn't a "recognized political issue."
Such is the power of the medical cartel. All those phony stories in the press, reported dutifully by so-called medical reporters? The stories about maybe-could-be-possible-miracle breakthroughs just over the horizon of state-of-the-art research? Those stories are there to obscure the very, very hard facts of medically-caused death on the ground.
The buck stops at the FDA.
Imagine this. You go to an FBI web page and read the following: "Killings committed by FBI agents are the third leading cause of death in America every year."
Yet somehow, the FDA gets away with its crimes, its homicides. There are no alarm bells, no arrests, no hearings, no public statements, no press reactions, no shakeups at the Agency.
The power of the medical cartel is gigantic.
When I was running for a Congressional seat from the 29th District of California, in 1994, and during my participation in the Health Freedom movement of that period, I insisted we had to take the attack to the FDA. We had to make their crimes public.
I was told by the people who were leading the charge for Health Freedom that priority had to be given to passing a law that would protect us all from attacks on nutritional supplements. Then, when we had that law, we could think about going after the FDA.
Well, we got the law, which only gave us temporary protection, and afterward there was no "going after the FDA." It was suddenly a dead issue.
I remember the people who said, "Don't attack the FDA." I remember their attitudes, their faces, their words. They were not my friends, and they weren't your friends. Some of them were yuppies selling "let's be nice" New Age sentiment. A few were most likely plants who had infiltrated the Health Freedom movement to water it down.
Various liars sell their lies through various strategies.
I assure you, there are doctors out there who know the statistics on medically caused death in the US. They know about the drugs that kill. They know what's going on. They know the FDA is accountable. They remain silent. They feel no pressure to make a public statement. They're living under the umbrella of protection provided by the government and the press and the medical system.
These doctors are silent witnesses to ongoing mass murder. Just as the FDA is a silent witness to its own mass-murdering practices. And of course, the doctors write the prescriptions for the drugs.
Obama, Bush, Clinton; none of these men have indicated the slightest awareness of the "problem." Did they know? Do they know? Just as I predicted, correctly, that the FDA knows, I say these men do know. They prefer to remain silent as well. They don't want to touch this genocidal crime. They don't have the character or the courage.
Presidents and deans of medical schools know. Teachers at these schools know. Pharmaceutical executives know. Medical researchers know. The CDC knows. The World Health Organization knows. Editors and reporters at major press outlets know. The DEA knows. The US Dept. of Justice knows.
As far as the public is concerned, a matrix of hypnotic effect and cognitive dissonance is the obstacle. People find it extremely difficult to believe that a federal agency, in broad daylight, year after year, countenances and sustains the unnecessary deaths of 100,000 people.
People find it extremely difficult to believe that, were such a story true, they would not have heard about it already.
People want to believe that a crime of this boggling magnitude would already have been prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
People want to believe the secular religion known as Medicine is devoted to healing in all its forms.
People want to believe that, since doctors can put accident victims back together in one piece and can set broken bones and temporarily reduce inflammation, the practice of medicine must be uniformly successful across the board.
People want to believe in SCIENCE.
In a stunning 2012 interview with Truthout's Martha Rosenberg, former FDA drug reviewer, Ronald Cavanagh, exposed the FDA as a relentless criminal mafia protecting its client, Big Pharma, with a host of mob strategies.
Cavanagh: "…widespread [FDA] racketeering, including witness tampering and witness retaliation."
"I was threatened with prison."
"One [FDA] manager threatened my children…I was afraid that I could be killed for talking to Congress and criminal investigators."
Cavanagh reviewed new drug applications made to the FDA by pharmaceutical companies. He was one of the holdouts at the Agency who insisted the drugs had to be safe and effective before being released to the public.
But honest appraisal wasn't part of the FDA culture, and Cavanagh swam against the tide, until he realized his life and the life of his children was on the line.
What was his covert task at the FDA? "Drug reviewers were clearly told not to question drug companies and that our job was to approve drugs." In other words, rubber stamp them. Say the drugs were safe and effective when they were not.
Cavanagh's recalls a meeting where a drug-company representative flat-out stated that his company had paid the FDA for a new-drug approval. Paid for it. As in bribe.
He remarks that the drug pyridostigmine, given to US troops to prevent the effects of nerve gas, "actually increased the lethality" of certain nerve agents.
Cavanagh recalls being given records of safety data on a drug—and then his bosses told him which sections not to read. Obviously, they knew the drug was dangerous and they knew exactly where, in the reports, that fact would be revealed.
As I mentioned above, the original study-review on medically caused death in America was written by Dr. Barbara Starfield and published in the Journal of the American Medical Association.
Three years ago, shortly before her death, I interviewed Dr. Starfield. I asked her whether any government agency had ever contacted her about her findings, in the nine years since publication
"No," she said.
I asked her whether she was aware of any federal agency undertaking action to remedy the horrific killing effects of the US medical system.
"No," she said.
Try this image: you are a gatekeeper. Your job, on the first day of every year, is to unlock the gate and leave it open, so people can pass through. But you know that, when you open the gate, 100,000 people who pass through will die in the following year. Yet, every January 1, you keep opening the gate.
That's what the FDA is. That particular gatekeeper.
But of course, the people at the FDA are just like us. They wouldn't do THAT, they wouldn't do THAT, they wouldn't do that…
But they did. They do. They continue to do it.
Jon Rappoport is the author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at NoMoreFakeNews.com or OutsideTheRealityMachine.
Original article: https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2015/04/19/the-medical-cartel-too-big-to-fail-too-evil-to-expose-2/
Tylenol Kills Emotions As Well As Pain, Study Reveals
For decades Tylenol has been used as a pain-killer, but new research reveals it has psychiatric side effects including dulled emotional responses to both positive and negative stimuli.
The public is beginning to understand that many over-the-counter painkillers do more than just kill pain, but sometimes kill those taking them.
For instance, A 2013 review of 754 clinical trials published in Lancet found that NSAID use was associated with roughly double the heart failure risk. Ibuprofen, in particular, has been estimated to cause thousands to die of cardiovascular events each year, and according to the lead researcher of the Lancet review, equally as dangerous for long-term users as the drug Vioxx which was estimated to cause 30,000 excess heart attacks and sudden cardiac deaths between 1999-2003 alone.
Popular over-the-counter painkillers include acetaminophen (Tylenol) , ibuprofen, napoxen (Alleve) and aspirin, and many pop them like candy to reduce pain and inflammation without ever looking to identify and resolve the root causes of their symptoms.
Now, a new study finds that not only does the Tylenol affect the body, but it also dulls the emotional responses of users as well.
(click image to enlarge)
The groundbreaking new study published in the journal Psychology Science titled, "Over-the-Counter Relief From Pains and Pleasures Alike: Acetaminophen Blunts Evaluation Sensitivity to Both Negative and Positive Stimuli"", found that:
"Participants who took acetaminophen evaluated unpleasant stimuli less negatively and pleasant stimuli less positively, compared with participants who took a placebo."
In the study, participants were randomly assigned to take either an acute dose of 1,000 mg of acetaminophen or a placebo, both in a liquid form. As a double-blind study, neither the experimenters nor the participants were aware of which they received. After a 60-minute waiting period to allow the Tylenol to enter their brain, participants were shown pictures depicting positive and negative events to ascertain the intensity of their responses.
The researchers discussed the implications of their findings:
"Across two studies, we demonstrated that acetaminophen attenuates individuals' evaluations and emotional reactions to negative and positive stimuli alike. These results build on recent psychological research illustrating that acetaminophen can blunt the intensity with which individuals experience negative events that originate from physical, social, or cognitive sources (DeWall et al., 2015; DeWall et al., 2010; Randles et al., 2013). Further, these findings expand on the research to date to show that acetaminophen blunts positive evaluations in like fashion."
They noted that their research has significant implications for Tylenol's psychotropic properties:
"That a drug purported to relieve negative evaluations of pain also reduces positive evaluations of pleasant stimuli suggests the existence of a common evaluative psychological process that influences a wide range of thoughts and behaviors. This might mean, for instance, that certain methods designed to specifically alter individuals' reactivity to negative stimuli (e.g., treatment of phobias) could, if too broadly applied, potentially change their sensitivity to emotionally evocative stimuli more generally, including positive events (e.g., causing them to feel less joy at a wedding). It is interesting that such diminished evaluation sensitivity could also presumably cause people to feel less conflicted, indecisive, or uncomfortable when they experience ambivalence toward individuals or experiences that elicit both negative and positive reactions (e.g., Priester & Petty, 1996; Rydell & Durso, 2012)."
Clearly, this study opens up a disturbing possibility that commonly used pain-killers, work both physically and emotionally, to blunt the intensity of both physical and psychological experiences. Were these drugs safe, and not causing thousands of deaths a year, perhaps this 'side effect' could be considered justifiable. But considering that they do indeed have lethal side effects, it is important for consumers to know that they also may come with psychiatric ones.
Considering it took the FDA 32 years after its own expert panel told the agency in 1977 that it was "obligatory" to put on the warning label of Tylenol products that it caused "severe liver damage," we are doubtful that this information will be disseminated widely any time soon.
For more information on the dangers of Tylenol, read the recent ProPublica expose titled, "Use Only As Directed," or review our Tylenol and NSAID databases for hundreds of articles linking these drugs to dozens of serious health problems.
Also, for those looking for natural alternatives, you can review the following articles on the topic:
- The Powerful Aspirin Alternative That Grows On Trees
- The Evidence Against Aspirin And For Natural Alternatives
- Ibuprofen Kills Thousands Each Year, So What Is The Alternative?
- Turmeric Beats Ibuprofen for Arthritis of the Knee
- Thyme Oil Beats Ibuprofen for Relieving Menstruation Pain
- Eating Sesame Seeds Superior To Tylenol for Knee Arthritis
- Painkillers that Kill: Tylenol and the Silent Epidemic
- Turmeric Extract Puts Drugs For Knee Osteoarthritis To Shame
Article Contributed by Sayer Ji, Founder of GreenMedInfo.com.
Sayer Ji is an author, researcher, lecturer, and advisory board member of the National Health Federation. He founded Greenmedinfo.com in 2008 in order to provide the world an open access, evidence-based resource supporting natural and integrative modalities. It is internationally recognized as the largest and most widely referenced health resource of its kind.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s "No On SB277″ Speech (VIDEO)
In this address given on the California Capitol steps in Sacramento Robert Kennedy Jr. provides an inspired and detailed analysis of the extent to which the powerful pharmaceutical cartel has effectively captured the nation's scientific, regulatory, and law-making processes. Combined with the corporate news media's dependence on drug advertising, this has put big pharma in a position where it is running roughshod over informed choice and dictating vaccine policies that have little-if-any basis in scientific research yet will greatly contribute to that industry's already gargantuan profits.
Kennedy offers an example of scientist and pediatrician Paul Offit, the developer of the rotavirus vaccine, whose personal stake in that vaccine's development and adoption is emblematic of the monied practices tending to corrupt vaccine science in America today. "In 1999 he sat on the [CDC] committee that added the rotavirus vaccine to the schedule." Kennedy notes,
At the time he was working on his own rotavirus vaccine. Opening that gateway, by adding that vaccine to the schedule, made his patent extremely valuable. Six years later he sold that patent for $182 million and pocketed about $40 million for himself. So, that kind of financial entanglement by the people to who are deciding what vaccines to add to the schedule makes it difficult, I think, for all of us to think that the only thing they're thinking of is our children's health. The Inspector General's report said that 97% of the people who sit on those panels have the same kinds of financial entanglements and conflicts of interest as Paul Offit.
He concluded his remarks by emphasizing that legislation such as California's SB277 takes away the last barrier between the pharmaceutical companies' bottom line mentality and children's health–parental discretion itself.
All of the barriers that are meant to protect our children–the government, the lawyers, the regulatory agencies, and the press, the checks and balances in our democratic system that are supposed to stand between corporate power and our little children–have been removed, and there's only one barrier left, and that's the parents, and we need to keep that in the equation.
Professor James F. Tracy is an Associate Professor of Media Studies at Florida Atlantic University. James Tracy's work on media history, politics and culture has appeared in a wide variety of academic journals, edited volumes, and alternative news and opinion outlets. James is editor of Union for Democratic Communication's Journal Democratic Communiqué and a contributor to Project Censored's forthcoming publication Censored 2013: The Top Censored Stories and Media Analysis of 2011-2012. Additional writings and information are accessible at memoryholeblog.com.
The Hidden History Of Vaccination (VIDEO)
As the national conversation ensues concerning vaccination, health rights researcher and advocate Catherine J. Frompovich is this week's guest on Real Politik. A frequent contributor to ActivistPost, Frompovich discusses the steadfast pharmaceutical corporate and regulatory agenda moving toward mandatory vaccination policies in the US.
Catherine has been a consumer healthcare researcher for 35 years. She is a retired natural nutritionist with advanced degrees in Nutrition and Holistic Health Sciences, Certification in Orthomolecular Theory and Practice, in addition to Paralegal Studies.
Catherine has authored numerous books on health issues, along with co-authoring papers and monographs with physicians, nurses, and holistic healthcare professionals. Her latest book is Vaccination Voodoo: What YOU Don't Know About Vaccines.
Interview Highlights
In the dialogue Frompovich begins by providing a historical overview of vaccination and the eventual adoption of statist policies toward the practice since the early 1900s. She explains how the practice of "holistic health modalities" that have been around for centuries are now being borne out in scientific studies. "When I was in early practice in what was called the vanguard of the holistic movement, yet I was called a quack. The very things they're now starting to say about diet, nutrition, food composition, now everybody is starting to talk the way I was talking. It's very, very gratifying to find that out."
As far back as the year 900 AD, both infectious diseases, measles and smallpox, were known and described. According to the literature, around 1000 AD a Chinese boy is though to have been innoculated, or "vaccinated," by having powdered smallpox scabs blown into his nostrils … Smallpox ravaged through the centuries. In 1545 it killed 8,000 children in India. There was a smallpox epidemic in 1633 in Massachusetts. So, yes, in the past there have been very serious problems where there was not proper sanitation, good food, and so on and so forth.
As populations increased with poor sanitation, closed and cramped living quarters, no refrigeration and food or other sanitary improvements that we have today in Western cultures, whooping cough, yellow fever, and measles became normal occurrences. It wasn't until 1770 that Edward Jenner, an Englishman, learned from a milkmaid that she thought she got protection from smallbox because she caught cowpox from a cow. Cowpox belongs to the orthopox–a genus of pox viruses isolated from mammals. So there are several kinds of poxes; cowpox, camel pox, monkey pox, mouse pox, and the variola virus, which is smallpox.
On May 14, 1796 Edward Jenner tested his hypothesis that the smallpox infection could be prevented with cowpox pores. So he innoculated an eight year old boy with a cowpox pore from a milkmaid's hand. That boy suffered a reaction to that procedure, but he did live. That's what is traced back to the beginning of today's vaccination program.
However, in 1800 physician Benjamin Waterhouse performed the first vaccination on children in the newly-formed United States. Waterhouse learned of Jenner's work while studying in Holland. In 1802 the state of Massachusetts became the first state to encourage vaccination against smallpox, and the term vaccination came in to use in 1803. However, in 1813 President James Madison signed "an Act to Encourage Vaccination," which in effect established a vaccine agency within the United States.
It was in 1891 that English physician S. Monckton Copeman showed that by adding glycerin to animal lymph it acted as a germicide in vaccines made using lymph. Now contrast that procedure with today's manufacture. Today there are hundreds of chemicals, toxins, antigens, preservatives, foreign DNA from other species, neurotoxins like ethyl mercury and aluminum in four different formulations, and numerous other ingredients that I've listed in Vaccination Voodoo.
So how were vaccines first produced in the USA? In 1876 a vaccine-producing farm was established in Lakewood, New Jersey, where lymph from cows infected with cowpox virus was harvested and used as vaccine. That was the genesis of the strain of vaccines for the smallpox vaccine.
There was much research of sorts going on for vaccine production for various childhood infectious diseases between the late 1800s and early 1900s. However, the key event that has galvanized vaccinations legally in the United States occurred February 20, 1905, when the US Supreme Court held in the case Jacobson V. Massachusetts the constitutionality of mandatory smallpox vaccination programs to preserve the public health.
Currently, there are religious, philosophical, and medical exemptions to the USA. The Jacobson v. Massachusetts case was based on a Swedish minister–he was an immigrant to the United States–who based his refusal of the smallpox vaccine on a personal medical problem. He said that he had [suffered an adverse reaction to a vaccine] and he wasn't getting another one. He was fined $5.00 for not submitting to the vaccine. And was the first, I guest what you would call informed conscientious objector to vaccinations.
Currently only two states, Mississippi and West Virginia, have only the medical exemption. Other states have religious, philosophical, and medical exemptions. Mississippi takes great pride in its 99.7% vaccination rate for kindergarten age children. However, on health ratings for states in the US Mississippi ranks 50th.
With drastic improvements in sanitation, food production, and preservation of food, all infectious communicable diseases waned dramatically both in occurrence and mortality.
Frompovich then provides the following figures illustrating how such public health and sanitary improvements decreased the incidence of communicable diseases before the introduction of mass vaccination:
200 deaths per 100,000 infants in 1900
< 10 deaths per 100,000 in 1960
(Tuberculosis vaccine rarely used in US)
Pertussis (whooping cough)
16 deaths per 100,000 in 1918
< 2 deaths per 100,000 in 1948
(Pertussis vaccine introduced in 1948)
Scarlet fever
12 deaths per 100,000 in 1910
0 deaths per 100,000 in 1958
(No vaccine for scarlet fever in US)
180 deaths per 100,000 in 1933
10 deaths per 100,000 in 1949
2 deaths per 100,000 in 1965
(Influenza vaccinations first introduced widely in US when senior citizens were targeted)
Measles (England and Whales, where death rates were high)
1,200 deaths per 100,000 in 1850
< 25 per 100,000 in 1950.
(Measles vaccinations didn't began in those countries in 1965)
Frompovich argues that the intensified vaccine regimen in the US began in 1986 when Congress passed the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Public Law 99-660. This legislation
created the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, which basically gave vaccine makers a "get out of jail free" card. This meant that no one could sue vaccine makers for any damages to health or for death, occurring from vaccines they make.
Congress also set up what's called a vaccine court … which administers a no-fault system of what I would call "injustice for damaged vaccinees," because more are rejected than are paid. As of fiscal 2015, the awards paid for vaccine damages by the vaccine court totaled $3,090,780,181.43. Do you think vaccines cause damage? Are they safe?
As the production of vaccines has increasingly become opaque, so too have the number of hidden ingredients, none of which have been tested together to determine their effect on human physiology or neural functioning. "There's no reason to have formaldehyde, ethyl mercury, aluminum, Polysorbate 80–Polysorbate 80 takes chemicals and other things across the blood brain barrier to the brain. And that Polysorbate 80 is in just about every one of the vaccines given to kids at two, four, and six months."
Along these lines, present regulations stipulate that every article used as a component of a drug is classified as a drug, and must be tested as such. Yet the substances found in modern vaccines have not been subjected to any testing. "They have never done studies of how all of the ingredients in one vaccine interacts with each other," Frompovich explains.
Or how all the ingredients in each vaccine of nine vaccines given at one time interact with each other. They've never done those studies! What kind of science is that? Furthermore, every package insert for a vaccine has this specifically printed on it: This vaccine has not been tested [for carcinogenesis] birth defects, or interfere with fertility or reproduction. If every parent knew that, do you think they would allow their child to have those things pumped in to them?
With this in mind, it is ironic that some parents who vaccinate their children are calling for parents who question vaccination to be arrested. "Who are the child abusers?" Frompovich asks. Perhaps those "allowing their children to be innoculated with 35-to-45 admixtures of chemicals, toxins, aborted fetal cell linings, foreign DNA, formaldehyde, aluminum, and ethyl mercury."
Professor James F. Tracy is an Associate Professor of Media Studies at Florida Atlantic University. James Tracy's work on media history, politics and culture has appeared in a wide variety of academic journals, edited volumes, and alternative news and opinion outlets. James is editor of Union for Democratic Communication's Journal Democratic Communiqué and a contributor to Project Censored's forthcoming publication Censored 2013: The Top Censored Stories and Media Analysis of 2011-2012. Additional writings and information are accessible at memoryholeblog.com.
Known Carcinogen Used In Intravenous Chemotherapy
By: The Real Agenda News –
Adriamycin is part of intravenous chemotherapy supposedly aimed at hindering the growth and spread of cancer cells
The Dutch Health Council, an independent scientific body which advises the government and parliament of the country, has advised the Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment a substance known as adriamycin, which is marketed as Doxorubicin or Rubex, is in the list of products considered carcinogenic.
According to experts, manufacturing, administration and subsequent cleaning of the remains of the substance and material used to administer it to patients by qualified personnel "increases the risk of developing cancer."
Although members of the Board of Health do not talk about percentages because they "still lack enough data on animal experiments and human clinical trials," they still recommend adding adriamycin to the so-called Category 1B pharmaceuticals.
The classification that has been established by the Health Commission of the European Union include the use of the "substance capable of causing cancer." In Category 1A the list includes other "known carcinogenic" compounds.
"While epidemiological studies to date are inconclusive, we do have sufficient evidence in animals about adriamycin being a carcinogen", said experts from the Dutch entity.
Elsewhere in the report, which was referred to the Government, scientists explained that exposure of medical personnel may occur by contact with the skin, ingestion or inhalation. "The likely moments of contact are during handling in pharmacies and hospitals, or even in research laboratories."
Adriamycin is part of intravenous chemotherapy supposedly aimed at hindering the growth and spread of cancer cells in the body. It is classified as an antitumor antibiotic, and among others, it is used to treat cancer of the breast, ovary, uterus, bladder, thyroid, stomach, liver, lung, pancreas, prostate, Hodgkin's disease and some leukemias.
It is known that the use of adriamycin can affect the heart, cause tissue damage if it escapes from the vein, and increase the possibility of developing various cancers treated at source. The latter sometimes happens with other treatments.
The analysis was carried out at the request of the Ministry of Social Affairs himself, who wanted to know the risk from occupational exposure, and concentrations of hazardous substances.
Given the lack of laboratory tests, the Health Council has been unable to estimate the annual number of cancers that could result from contact with adriamycin. Social Affairs will now report its findings to different Dutch medical authorities.
Luis R. Miranda is an award-winning journalist and the founder and editor-in-chief at The Real Agenda. His career spans over 18 years and almost every form of news media. His articles include subjects such as environmentalism, Agenda 21, climate change, geopolitics, globalisation, health, vaccines, food safety, corporate control of governments, immigration and banking cartels, among others. Luis has worked as a news reporter, on-air personality for Live and Live-to-tape news programs. He has also worked as a script writer, producer and co-producer on broadcast news. Read more about Luis.
5 Alarming Facts About Prescription Drugs
Prescription drugs are prevalent in today's society. While many drugs may be necessary in some situations, the fact that there are some drugs that carry health risks that exceed their perceived benefit is very real. Of course, this post is not to turn anyone off from taking their meds; in fact, it is simply here to educate you so you can be more informed when you and your doctor are making decisions regarding your health.
5 Facts about Prescription Drugs
While it's never a good idea to stop taking your prescriptions without your doctor's approval, there are things you should know if you want to practice a natural lifestyle. I don't want to share this to scare you, but merely to increase your awareness. With that said, let's move on to 5 fairly alarming facts you might not know about prescription drugs.
1. You Might Be Getting a Huge Dose of Someone Else's Drugs
There are a lot of people and businesses—yes, even some hospitals—that still flush unused and expired medicine down sinks and toilets. [1] Flushing those means they enter into our water supply. Although no one's really sure what that means for human and animal health, it's probably not good. One researcher looked at the effects of birth control pills in our waters and noticed higher levels of estrogen ultimately making male fish infertile. [2] Another found alarmingly high levels of metformin, a diabetes drug, in Lake Michigan. [3] You could be getting a medicine you don't need, and it seems it's all in the water.
2. Counterfeit Drugs Are Common and Deadly
The latest scandal from China saw the seizure of over 440,000 chromium-laced capsules. [4] Normally made from edible gelatin, medical capsules are safe to eat, but these used industrial gelatin, something that left the toxic metal behind. Chromium can build up in the body causing organ damage, so the biggest problem now? Tracking down the other 90 million capsules sold by the illegal workshop. But this problem is nothing new; counterfeit drugs are disturbingly common in this day and age.
3. Approved Doesn't Mean Safe
Antibiotics can have serious—sometimes, unintended—side effects. Many times, antibiotics are over prescribed; this overuse leads to antibiotic resistance, and ultimately to new bacterial strains that can't be treated. These "superbugs" are even responsible for deaths, with the CDC reporting in 2013 that the U.S sees "at least 2 million infections and more than 23,000 deaths each year" from "highly-resistant bacteria." [5] There's even evidence that broad-spectrum antibiotics — those prescribed for major infections—could even be a factor in early childhood obesity. [6]
4. Antidepressants May Harm Newborns
Recent studies suggest that pregnant women taking antidepressants can pass the medications along to their unborn children via the placenta. [7] The biggest worry here is medicine that blocks a mother's serotonin levels may affect the child's development. [8] While you should never just stop taking these medications without a doctor's consent, prenatal exposure to these pills can double a child's chances for ADHD and lead to a number of developmental delays—even raise a child's risk for autism. [9] [10]
5. Even Legitimate Drugs Aren't Immune from Safety and Sanitary Issues
But it's not just the counterfeit drugs I mentioned earlier that are unsafe. Compounding pharmacies — companies that mix unique or hard-to-find drugs — have been the subject of an FDA crackdown ever since an outbreak of fungal meningitis in 2012. [11] With 1-3% of medication coming from these pharmacies, the prescriptions can often be meant for cancer patients, so it's nice to know the FDA is regulating these groups.
Further Facts
Unfortunately, prescription abuse is a growing concern. Recently, the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) announced a plan to allow you to return unused pills to pharmacies in an effort to cut down on this issue. The program also sounds like a great plan to curb unintended pollution in our water supply!
Did you know about these facts? Tell us what you think in the comment section!
- Sutherly, B. Unused meds go down the drain, worrying environmentalists. The Columbus Dispatch.
- Kidd, K. Direct and indirect responses of a freshwater food web to a potent synthetic oestrogen. Philosophical Transactions B.
- Klaper, R. et al. Metformin exposure at environmentally relevant concentrations causes potential endocrine disruption in adult male fish. Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry. 34 (2).
- Gao, K. 90 million pill capsules laced with toxic metal are sold in China; 11 arrested. South China Morning Post.
- Centers for Disease Control & Prevention. Antibiotic Resistance Threats in the United States, 2013. Centers for Disease Control & Prevention.
- Bailey, L. C. et al. Association of Antibiotics in Infancy With Early Childhood Obesity. JAMA Pediatrics. 168 (11).
- Ewing, G. et al. Placental Transfer of Antidepressant Medications: Implications for Postnatal Adaptation Syndrome. Clinical Pharmacokinetics.
- Rabin, R. Are Antidepressants Safe During Pregnancy? New York Times.
- Clements, C. et al. Prenatal antidepressant exposure is associated with risk for attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder but not autism spectrum disorder in a large health system. Molecular Psychiatry.
- Harrington, R. et al. Prenatal SSRI use and offspring with autism spectrum disorder or developmental delay. Pediatrics. 133 (5).
- U.S Food & Drug Administration. Multistate outbreak of fungal meningitis and other infections. U.S Food & Drug Administration.
Dr. Edward F. Group III, DC, NP, DACBN, DCBCN, DABFM has studied natural healing methods for over 20 years and now teaches individuals and practitioners all around the world. He no longer sees patients but solely concentrates on spreading the word of health and wellness to the global community. Under his leadership, Global Healing Center, Inc. has earned recognition as one of the largest alternative, natural and organic health resources on the Internet.
Medical Fascists Declare Ownership Over Your Body (VIDEO)
David Icke explains how the foundation of liberty, self-ownership, is under direct assault in the United States by a system of medical fascism. If we can't choose what we put into our own bodies, we are the opposite of free.
Specialty Drugs Push Prescription Spending To Highest Increase In More Than A Decade
The nation's largest pharmacy benefits manager says prescription drugs spending rose 13 percent last year, the largest annual increase since 2003.
Express Scripts says the gains were fueled by pricey specialty drugs that accounted for about 31 cents of every dollar spent on prescriptions even though they represented only 1 percent of all U.S. prescriptions filled.
Specialty drugs are advanced medications that treat complex or chronic conditions like hepatitis C and multiple sclerosis.
Express Scripts Holding Co. and several insurers have warned for more than a year about the growing financial impact from specialty drugs like Gilead Sciences' hepatitis C treatment Sovaldi.
Express Scripts also says in an annual report on prescription spending that the specialty drug trend will slow to more sustainable levels over the next three years.
source: foxbusiness
'Bought' Documentary Now Streaming For Free Until Mar. 15 (VIDEO)
Conspiracy theories relating to the government and our health have existed for years, but it's only now that they're beginning to be discussed in public mediums. The new riveting documentary 'Bought' explores how the vaccine, food, insurance, and health industry has literally bought your health, forcing citizens into a healthcare system that is primarily run for profit. Its revealing claims have provided a wake-up call for everyday individuals unaware of what's going on behind the scenes in our healthcare.
If you are wanting to see Bought, the documentary, you can now watch it for free until Sunday, March 15, 2015. Share with your family, friends, and colleagues in order to spread this message. The more people who watch, the greater chance we have of expanding our vision on the current healthcare system and protecting our health!
Click this link to watch the documentary for free.
Dr. Edward F. Group III, DC, NP, DACBN, DCBCN, DABFM has studied natural healing methods for over 20 years and now teaches individuals and practitioners all around the world. He no longer sees patients but solely concentrates on spreading the word of health and wellness to the global community. Under his leadership, Global Healing Center, Inc. has earned recognition as one of the largest alternative, natural and organic health resources on the Internet.
The Massive Flaw With The Scientific Hierarchy Of Evidence
The much-vaunted hierarchy of evidence is regularly referred to by scientists and doctors as a central part of the scientific method. It is the purported gold standard by which we can arrive at the truth of something, and by which we can weigh different kinds of evidence, and determine which should be given more credence, and which should be given less. The hierarchy of evidence is often brought into debates by those pushing the vaccine, GMO and fluoride agendas as a way to prove that the "science" behind those agendas is sound. However, there is one rather colossal problem with invoking the hierarchy of evidence to prove your case, but before we get to that, let's take define what the hierarchy of evidence is.
What is the Hierarchy of Evidence?
In a nutshell, the hierarchy of evidence, although different people and institutions construct it slightly differently, gives most weight to RCTs (Randomized Controlled Trials), then next to other kinds of controlled trials, then to other studies such as cohort and case-control studies, and lastly to expert opinion, case reports and anecdotal evidence. Wikipedia uses the writing of Greenhalgh to frame the hierarchy of evidence as follows:
- Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of "RCTs with definitive results".
- Randomised controlled trials with definitive results (confidence intervals that do not overlap the threshold clinically significant effect)
- Randomised controlled trials with non-definitive results (a point estimate that suggests a clinically significant effect but with confidence intervals overlapping the threshold for this effect)
- Cohort studies
- Case-control studies
- Cross sectional surveys
- Case reports
Here is another rating system for the hierarchy of evidence from Melnyk and Fineout-Overholt, 2005:
- Evidence from a systematic review of all relevant RCTs, or evidence-based clinical practice guidelines based on systematic reviews of RCTs
- Evidence obtained from at least one well-designed RCT
- Evidence obtained from well-designed controlled trials without randomization, quasi-experimental
- Evidence from well-designed case-control and cohort studies
- Evidence from systematic reviews of descriptive and qualitative studies
- Evidence from a single descriptive or qualitative study
- Evidence from the opinion of authorities and/or reports of expert committees
So basically what it all means is this: if you are a corporation trying to push a certain product that is harmful to people, if you can get enough RCT reviews and RCTs on your side, you can legally and scientifically claim your product is safe, and get enough scientists, doctors, politicians and the public on your side to either repeat your point of view or defend it. Most of them don't even need to be in on the secret, because they have been trained to obediently trust the hierarchy of evidence.
And how would a devious corporation or cabal achieve this? One word: fraud.
Fraud Vitiates All
There is a well-known maxim in law that fraud vitiates all, meaning that if fraud is involved in any way in an agreement, it destroys the whole thing. You can't have partial fraud and expect the rest of a contract to be trustworthy. If someone has lied, omitted relevant information or deceived you in any way, the whole thing collapses. Such is the case with so much of the "science" behind the chemical agendas. Fraud has rendered it as nothing more than corporate junk science, a pale imitation of real science that would serve humanity.
Listen to what Marcia Angell, the former editor of The New England Journal of Medicine and a veteran in the field of medical research, had to say about this issue she says in Drug Companies & Doctors: A Story of Corruption:
"It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment 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."
Fraud is everywhere. For starters, take vaccines. What a colossal amount of fraud that has been committed to push them! Look at the recent case of CDC (the US Center for Disease Control) whistleblower William Thompson, who bravely decided to step forward to tell the truth about the willful obfuscation of data he had committed while working there. Thompson participated in hiding statistically significant data on the MMR (Measles, Mumps and Rubella) vaccine showing that it was linked with a higher incidence of autism for black boys under 3 years old. Thompson wrote:
"I regret that my coauthors and I omitted statistically significant information in our 2004 article published in the journal Pediatrics. The omitted data suggested that African American males who received the MMR vaccine before age 36 months were at increased risk for autism. Decisions were made regarding which findings to report after the data were collected, and I believe that the final study protocol was not followed."
So Thompson used fraud to hide a vaccine-autism link for his boss the CDC, who work hand in hand with Big Pharma to push vaccines across America. He later authored many other papers, such a 2007 one where he "found" that mercury in vaccines played no role in neurological damage to children.
Merck, one of the Big Pharma companies, got caught using fraud to ensure it could keep selling its MMR vaccine:
"Without demonstrating that its mumps vaccine continued to be 95% effective, Merck would lose its exclusive license to manufacture and sell its MMRII vaccine. Relators Krahling and Wlochowski participated on the team that conducted this supposedly enhanced test. Each of them witnessed firsthand the falsification of the test data in which Merck engaged to reach its 95% efficacy threshold. In fact, each was significantly pressured by Krah and other senior Merck personnel to participate in this fraud."
Did you hear about the study that found that 57 clinical trials received an "official action indicated" violation (the most serious type of violation), for reasons such as falsifying the data? When GSK got fined a gigantic $3 billion, part of the reason was they were found guilty for fabricating drug safety data and lying to the FDA. What about the researcher who faked lab results to obtain millions in grant money for AIDS research? The hierarchy of evidence simply cannot handle fraud like this; it's not designed to.
What Point is the Hierarchy of Evidence When Scientists Can Omit and Distort Data at Will?
The question needs to be asked: what is the point of having a hierarchy of evidence when it's so easy for scientists to scoot around via back-door methods? When scientists can (and so often do) omit and twist data to suit their agenda, how can we believe it when some government agency or corporation comes out and tells us that their product is safe because the science has settled it? How do we know it isn't just more junk science, fake science or corporate science disguising itself as real science?
The Hierarchy of Evidence Disregards Real Stories of Suffering
Apart from the rampant fraud, the hierarchy of evidence has another major problem: it disregards real stories of suffering as "low level evidence". This means that in cases where something like vaccines, Big Pharma drugs or chemotherapy kill or seriously harm people, the stories are treated as unprovable or unimportant anecdotes and swept under the carpet.
Yet I would suggest that both our minds and our hearts need to take into account, in a much more serious way, the colossal tide of killed and injured individuals. Here are just a handful out of many, all of whom died or got sick right after a vaccine:
– Hilary Wilkinson, who contracted GBS (Guillain Barre Syndrome) which paralyzed her after taking the swine flu vaccine;
– Ayushi, who died after taking "routine" vaccinations for Hepatitis B, DPT and oral polio;
– Katie, who became chronically ill after taking the Gardasil vaccine;
– Malcolm Brabant, who became mad after taking the yellow-fever vaccination;
What about the 13 people who died after taking the flu vaccine? What about the 17 children who died after receiving the Hepatitis B vaccine? What about the 749 deaths linked to the administration of the Hib vaccine?
It is so saddening to hear about how many real people have been harmed by corporate science and its slavish devotion to the "hierarchy of evidence", but it will always argue that those harmed are basically within "acceptable parameters" because we need to think of how many hypothetical people were saved. How do you prove how many were saved? You can't. So in the end it would appear the hierarchy of evidence is very much a faith-based structure, not a reason-based one.
Makia Freeman is the editor of The Freedom Articles and senior researcher at ToolsForFreedom.com, writing on many aspects of the global conspiracy, from vaccines to Zionism to false flag operations and more, and also including info on natural health, sovereignty and higher consciousness.
The Out-Of-Control Growth Of Fictitious "Mental Illness" (VIDEO)
Mental illness has the become the slapped-on label increasingly applied to many people all over the world in the last few decades, thanks to the unholy alliance between Psychiatry and Big Pharma. The trend is shockingly apparent in America, but it's happening all over the globe. For the most part, ordinary people with ordinary feelings of ups and downs, highs and lows, are being told there is something wrong with them, that they are "mentally ill", and that they need psychiatric medication. These days, if you occasionally feel down or depressed, watch out: Big Pharma is targeting you for its latest mind-altering chemical concoction.
What is Psychiatric Medication?
First of all, let's define what is meant by psychiatric medication. It is a synthetic drug, designed to treat mental illness, which has a psychoactive effect, i.e. it alters the chemical makeup of your brain and nervous system. These include:
– Antidepressants (such as the common SSRI drugs like Prozac, Paxil, Celexa and Zoloft);
– Antipsychotics (such as Abilify);
– Stimulants (such as Ritalin or methamphetamine);
– Anxiolytics (such as Valium);
– Mood stabilizers; and
– Depressants.
The Rise of Psychotropic Drug Use
A 2010 Medco report found that around 1 in 5 American adults took at least 1 psychiatric medication in 2010; in women, the rate was 1 in 4. The US spent around $2.24 billion in 1986 on psychiatric medication, but over $30 billion in 2005 – and it keeps rising.
Psychiatry Uses Behavior and Peer Consensus, Not Symptoms, As Basis for Diagnosis
The DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual) of psychiatry is a listing of all known psychiatric diseases. Yet did you know that all the listed diseases are arrived at by voting and peer consensus? The diagnostic criteria are voted into existence. This is politics, not science.
Psychiatrists have yet to conclusively prove that a single mental illness has a biological or physical cause, or a genetic origin.
Let's pause for a minute on that one. The implications are staggering.
The DSM uses behavior, not physical and measurable symptoms, as the basis for its diagnosis. It does not determine whether someone is mentally ill, or suffers from mental illness, by standard diagnostic tests such as a blood test, saliva test, urine/stool sample, x-ray, brain scan or chemical imbalance test. It has admitted as much through numerous channels:
"There are no objective tests in psychiatry-no X-ray, laboratory, or exam finding that says definitively that someone does or does not have a mental disorder." — Allen Frances, Psychiatrist and former DSM-IV Task Force Chairman
"There is no definition of a mental disorder. It's bull. I mean, you just can't define it." — Allen Frances
"There is no blood or other biological test to ascertain the presence or absence of a mental illness, as there is for most bodily diseases. If such a test were developed … then the condition would cease to be a mental illness and would be classified, instead, as a symptom of a bodily disease." — Dr. Thomas Szasz, Professor Emeritus of Psychiatry, New York University Medical School, Syracuse
Busting the Idea of a "Chemical Imbalance"
For decades psychiatrists have claimed that mental disorders are the result of a "chemical imbalance" in the brain. But what does that mean exactly? Is there one perfect chemical balance or standard of health by which they measure disease? If so, what is it? What are the perfect levels of every chemical and hormone we must have to be "mentally sound"? Clearly it would be impossible to define this, so what are the ranges? Wouldn't the range depend on many factors such as age, gender, environment, etc.? Who decides when someone's chemical level leaves a certain range and becomes pathological? What is the basis for this?
Too many questions, and not enough good answers.
In truth, the idea of a "chemical imbalance" underpinning "mental illness" is really an attempt to try to make invented psychiatric diseases sound scientific. Listen to the words of some of the doctors below discussing psychiatry:
"At present there are no known biochemical imbalances in the brain of typical psychiatric patients—until they are given psychiatric drugs." — Peter Breggin, Psychiatrist
"While there has been no shortage of alleged biochemical explanations for psychiatric conditions…not one has been proven. Quite the contrary. In every instance where such an imbalance was thought to have been found, it was later proven false." — Dr. Joseph Glenmullen, Harvard Medical School psychiatrist
"Virtually anyone at any given time can meet the criteria for bipolar disorder or ADHD. Anyone. And the problem is everyone diagnosed with even one of these 'illnesses' triggers the pill dispenser." — Dr. Stefan Kruszewski, Psychiatrist
Mental Illness is Essentially an Invented Disease
The bottom line in all of this is that mental illness is essentially an invented disease. If there is no way to prove that anyone has it, through the normal means of a blood test, saliva test, urine/stool sample or any other standard diagnostic test, how do we know it even exists as an illness or phenomenon? Without any scientific or objective way to test the label of mental illness, how can we know that doctors are not unintentionally – or intentionally due to bribery – falsely diagnosing people and turning them into patients?
At one point homosexuality was considered a mental illness. It has since been voted in and out of existence.
Now, in fairness to Western Medicine and Big Pharma, there are undoubtedly people who need mental help. But how we can trust doctors and psychiatrists to tell us who they are, when bribery and corruption is so rife in the industry, and billions of dollars are at stake?
Not so long ago, psychiatrist Leon Eisenberg confessed on his deathbed that ADHD (Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder) was a fictitious disease. Yes, he admitted that "ADHD is a prime example of a fictitious disease." Due to this deception, millions of children have forced to ingest the psychoactive drug Ritalin (chemically similar to amphetamine or speed) with a slew of dangerous side effects such as heart palpitations, headaches, stomach aches, nervousness (including agitation, anxiety and irritability), insomnia, decreased appetite, nausea, dizziness and addiction. It's legal speed – so of course it's addictive.
We can only hope that when enough people become aware of Big Pharma's attempt to pathologize normal behaviors, they will seek other means to heal any mental disturbances they are experiencing, especially by the tried-and-tested psychotherapy (counseling), which is completely non-invasive.
And lastly … did you ever wonder why the elite through (Big Pharma/Psychiatry) are so focused on mental illness? To get normal people on pills and/or locked up, but also to institute a system by which dissenters and free thinkers can be declared mentally ill or unstable and be "legally" removed from society.
Makia Freeman is the editor of The Freedom Articles and senior researcher at ToolsForFreedom.com, writing on many aspects of the global conspiracy, from vaccines to Zionism to false flag operations and more, and also including info on natural health, sovereignty and higher consciousness.
The Largest Medical Conspiracy Ever
Today, 100 million people around the world are on psychiatric drugs. How did we come to this?
The largest medical conspiracy is not the one that causes physical disease to hundreds, thousands or millions of people, but the one that is set in motion to control the minds of people.
For a long time, the psychotropic industry not only makes billions of dollars a year through the sale of pharmaceutical products used by psychiatrists and psychologists to "treat" their patients, but also, knowingly and purposely deplete the minds of those who use such products.
The way in which Psychiatry as a pseudo-science became relevant in modern society is one story in itself.
Large medical organizations, academia and powerful foundations are responsible for the adoption of "curing" techniques that originated back in the early 20th century which sought to treat patients with archaic, torturous procedures that were nothing more than live human experiments whose effectiveness were based on nothing but hunches.
With the advancement of science, psychiatrists saw an opportunity to achieve the goal they had not been able to achieve despite multiple trials with their insane physical treatments.
In 1967, psychiatrists met in the island of Puerto Rico to conspire and create what they thought was the best way to make people mental servants of the medical-scientific-pharmaceutical industry.
Their plan was to create, provide and even mandate people to take a whole new range of psychotropic products that they'd recommend as the only solution for a list of nonexistent mental diseases that people would be made to believe they actually had.
During their meeting, these so-called medical experts and men of science, such as Heinz Lehmann, Joseph Zubin, Nathan Kline, Charles Savage and others, expressed their desire to control people's minds. They produced a document or report called "Psychotropic Drugs in the Year 2000″ where they outline their plan for the future.
The purpose of these psychiatrists was clear, as it was expressed by Wayne O. Evans. "We see a developing potential for nearly a total control of human emotional status, mental functioning, and will to act."
What Evans described was the medical establishment's complete plan to bring people under control with the use of pharmaceutical products that would be pushed through trusted scientists, medical journals and ultimately with the help of medical doctors who were to a great extent indoctrinated into believing the drugging someone for life was the best way to cure their mental and physical illnesses.
Psychotropic drugs used to treat problems like dementia, stress, depression and other supposed mental conditions aren't safe at all. In fact, they are responsible for a wide range of side effects including violence, desire to commit suicides and homicide in addition to making patients addicted.
In the best case scenario, psychotropic drugs have managed to kill more people; not help them, than cure them of their physical ailments. Their side effects are almost never studied before they are put out and the addiction they cause is simply referred to as dependence.
Psychotropic drugs, which are legally sold and recommended by health practitioners are responsible for more deaths than illegal street drugs. According to research, over half of the people who commit suicide in the United States are patients or users of psychotropic drugs prescribed to them.
A short list of these drugs include: Zoloft, Paxil, Prozac, Wellbutrin, Effexor, Seroquil and Ultram, among others.
Multiple reports in the media have pointed to abuse of psychotropic drugs by soldiers who are sent to the battle field even though they are mentally unprepared to face the reality brought to them when in combat situations.
Psychotropic drugs are even given to soldiers as a way to mentally flush their brains and eliminate any fear, phobia or intolerance to the crude reality of a combat zone, so they can be deployed 3, 4 or more times.
Psychotropic drugs are responsible for military suicides, and warnings about the consequences of their use and abuse have been issued by psychiatrists themselves, the ones not committed to use prescription drugs to cure anything and everything.
They've said that "the risk from side effects is too great." The calls to stop using prescription drugs to make soldiers tolerant to the stress of the battlefield have become louder and louder. "There's no way on earth that these boys and girls are getting monitored on the field," said Dr. Peter Breggin, a New York-based psychiatrist. "The drugs simply shouldn't be given to soldiers."
But the use and abuse of psychotropic drugs doesn't only happen in the army. It also occurs in mental institutions, which in most cases are places filled with people who were forced by their doctors to be imprisoned in such places "for their own good", and who are then submitted to long and painful medical treatments that include the intake of prescription drugs for the rest of their lives.
Many of these patients are children who are deemed by their doctors as troubled, which qualifies them to become lab rats in a mental institution where they are loaded with psychotropic drugs — that are often in their experimental phase — in order to calm down or in theory eliminate the origin of the trouble pointed by the medical expert.
Children as young as 7 suffering from neglect, abuse or who simply were not raised by two parents, are prescribed antipsychotic drugs for the rest of their lives, and are taught that only the continuous use of pharmaceutical drugs will take them out of their supposed mental illness.
Drugs like Lexapro and Vyvanse are responsible for children suicide. Others are prescribed Symbyax, a drug that supposedly works as an anti-depressant, even though its label clearly states that it may lead to suicide.
Today, 100 million people around the world are on psychiatric drugs. How did we come to this? Their doctors convinced them that they were mentally sick. They talked them into believing that every mental or emotional experience was an example of a mental or emotional disease. They told them that stress, anxiety, depression and every other reaction to their lives experiences were treatable diseases and that they had the solutions and the cures for them.
Although more and more psychiatrists confess that their profession lacks the science they often claim to have, that their analysis and treatment of patients is a trial and error process, when they are in front of their patients, many of these professionals do not hesitate to recommend drugs that will only worsen any mental or physical medical problem.
"We don't have any blood tests, or any other medical tests that are definitive for any mental disorder," said a psychiatrist from New Jersey, outside and medical convention venue.
This statement was similar to what another psychiatrist from Mexico City said: "If you come to my office and tell me you are depressed, there is no medical test or blood test…" And the testimonies about the medical uncertainties of psychiatry and their so-called medical cures continue: "There aren't currently any available tests to verify your diagnosis," said a psychiatrist from Greece.
Even when psychiatrist and drug makers know that their products have dangerous side effects and that the scientific base for the manufacturing of these products is faulty to say the least, they have no problem whatsoever to wake up every morning to go to their offices and recommend the pharmaceuticals to their unsuspecting patients.
Many of these patients often become part of the list of at least 3000 people a month who directly die because of the use of psychotropic drugs recommended by their doctors. Many people were shocked on September 11, 2001, when around 3000 people were murdered during the terrorist attacks in New York and Pensilvannia.
Most people fail to realize that as bad as 9/11 was, the kind of crime committed that day is actually replicated monthly or perhaps more often by doctors prescribing pharmaceutical drugs to their patients.
According to publicly available data, 70% of the psychotropic drugs used by people with supposed mental disease are prescribed by their trusted medical doctors.
"They use what I call statistical contortionism. They manipulate the numbers to make them look fantastic and hide the bad numbers," says Shane Ellison, an organic chemist who used to work for as a drug researcher for pharmaceutical giant Eli Lilly.
According to the film Making a Killing: The Untold Story of Psychotropic Drugging, the number of psychotropic drugs has grown exponentially since 1966.
Back then there were a total of 44 different products. Today, the number reaches 176 different pharmaceutical drugs available for doctors to sell to their patients. It is through this direct relationship between doctors and patients together with clever marketing directed to medical professionals — in seminars and conferences — that the pharmaceutical industry managed to do exactly what elite psychiatrists had planned 40 years ago.
The top five pharmaceutical drugs sold around the world bring in about $18 billion dollars for Big Pharma every year. This is about the same amount obtained when we add up the GDP of half of the nations of the world. As a whole, the psychiatric industry, says the film, makes a grand total of $330 billion dollars a year of the health and well-being of millions of people around the world.
This article is just a quick summary about how the pharmaceutical industry's unholy alliance with the medical industry helped drive the goals planned for many decades ago. We recommend you watch the film Psychiatry: An Industry of Death, in order to obtain a strong background about the origins, workings and goals that the pseudoscience of Psychiatry has for all of us.
For a more contemporaneous view on what is the Psychiatry Industry doing right now and how the unholy alliance works, please watch the film Making a Killing: The Untold Story of Psychotropic Drugging. Furthermore, pass the information contained in this article and the films cited above to as many people as possible.
Luis R. Miranda is an award-winning journalist and the founder and editor-in-chief at The Real Agenda. His career spans over 18 years and almost every form of news media. His articles include subjects such as environmentalism, Agenda 21, climate change, geopolitics, globalisation, health, vaccines, food safety, corporate control of governments, immigration and banking cartels, among others. Luis has worked as a news reporter, on-air personality for Live and Live-to-tape news programs. He has also worked as a script writer, producer and co-producer on broadcast news. Read more about Luis.
EXPOSED: Viral Pro-Vaccine Campaign Tied To Big Pharma (VIDEO)
It turns out that Jennifer Hibben-White who posted a viral Facebook post worried that her new born baby may have contracted the measles do to the "anti- vaxxers" has large ties to big pharma. In this video Dan Dicks of Press For Truth exposes the links that prove that this was nothing more than a marketing campaigned designed to counter the work of the so called "anti-vaxxers". It's also interesting that Facebook allows certain hate-filled rants to go viral while mere skepticism seems to be squashed.
Visit PressForTruth.ca

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Google Bringing Scrumptious Eclair To Android
Android 1.6 was released a little over two weeks ago and now we have screen-shots of the new Android 2.0 (a.k.a Eclair). BoyGenius managed to get screen-shots of the new Android 2.0, which includes built-in Microsoft Exchange compatibility, Maps which has been updated to include Layers, a new and improved UI with a redone URL entry bar which includes a Favicon, a YouTube widget, Haptic feedback, text-to-speech, and much more! BoyGenius has a nice walkthrough on … [read full article]