|
from PRN Website
Again, Americans will spend more money on diagnostic tests, surgeries and other medical procedures, and patients will consume more drugs and receive more treatments than any other time in US history.
We will continue to be inundated with television drug advertisements with the reassuring message,
There will be images of laboratories, medical research and happy patients to strengthen viewers' faith that medical science is progressing and working on our behalf.
We will be promised that new cures for life-threatening
diseases are on the horizon.
There are more doctors, more hospitals, more pharmaceutical drugs and medical procedures than ever before and yet we have not conquered nor made any significant progress in curing any major disease. Instead of making efforts to fund disease prevention and educate the public, prevention has been abandoned altogether.
There are volumes of excellent peer-reviewed studies documenting research and clinical experience showing a healthy diet, physical exercise and stress management regimens can either prevent disease or be incorporated into existing medical treatment protocols successfully. However, there is no profit to be made in prevention.
Modern medicine is
solely devoted to disease management.
Fraudulent research has been used to justify nuclear power as a clean green energy.
Political officials working on behalf of fossil fuel interests convince us with junk science that hydro-fracking poses no health risks and is environmentally friendly.
A single Big Pharma corporation with thousands of employees and billions of dollars in sales and profits is deeply connected to investors, public relations firms, federal health officials and the media.
All of these externally-invested parties are in turn dependent upon the corporation's revenue stream.
Money that trickles down is spent bribing medical schools to push the conventional drug agenda's regime, or funneled to front groups and foundations to buy off so-called experts to debunk critics.
Revenues received by the
mainstream media networks for drug advertisements are payoffs
assuring that no reporting appears that might show the company and
its medical products in a bad public light.
Never is a drug executive prosecuted. Vioxx sales earned Merck $18 billion and they only had to pay a $5 billion settlement. Everyone who knew Vioxx was a defective product had engaged in malice aforethought with no deleterious consequences.
The company merely
paid a fine and returned to business as usual, and the media simply
whitewashed the seriousness of Merck's crimes. These are held up as 'great' achievements...
We never hear anything about their downsides from mainstream media, and private corporations will not disclose evidence of their risks and dangers. If a scientific invention appears in the peer-reviewed literature, it has already reached a gold standard. Any controversy has been settled.
However, we are now finding that the entire peer-reviewed journal system is utterly corrupt. In fact, as we will recount, it is all a fraud, and it will worsen without any efforts made to reform it.
Quite simply, there is neither concerted will nor
ethical standard to improve the peer-reviewed system because it
generates too much profit.
Imagine being healthy and
told that starting
chemotherapy will prevent cancer. That would be
insane...
Yet Wikipedia editors state with authority that there are no proven health benefits from non-conventional and natural medical therapies. After reading any Wikipedia entry about,
...the reader will walk away believing it is all pseudoscience or fraud.
However, collectively there are hundreds of thousands of studies to support these therapies' efficacy and safety.
Legitimate scientific inquiry has already shown their efficacy.
Independent board-certified physicians have been using complementary and alternative medicine for a long time with excellent results, but you will not find any of these qualified physicians being invited to lead a committee at the FDA, CDC or any other national health agency or department.
Nor do we find special reports about successful advances in natural health regimens appearing on,
So where exactly in the cesspool of modern medicine, food science, and the agro-chemical industry are we to find truth?
No one in the scientific and federal health agencies can be trusted anymore. They are all compromised. No mainstream journalist is trustworthy, and no one can be certain whether a paper appearing in a peer-reviewed science journal is reliable.
Even the clinical physicians on the front lines of healthcare work in the dark.
It is only after large
numbers of deaths and injuries, such as with
Agent Orange, DDT,
aspartame, mammography, etc, that a light goes on
- and even then
only for a short time before returning to the dark.
How is it that the pharmaceutical industry and medical establishment has killed more Americans than those who died in Vietnam without any serious consequences?
Now wrap your mind around this: if we take a conservative figure of preventable deaths from medicine, 500,000 per year during the last four decades, that would account for approximately 20 million deaths.
That is more than all those killed
in wars throughout America's history.
The Surgeon General, the heads of federal health agencies, drug makers, the insurance industry, medical schools and professional associations, and the media operate as a single army waging a war on health against Americans.
Corporate interests control everything. Modern medicine has morphed into a religious cult which cannot contemplate the potential of its own vulnerabilities. And numerous patients have been played for fools.
As we will see, medicine
profits from keeping patients sick.
Private industry and government know this perfectly. The checks and balances separating private and public interests have collapsed.
Today, a sincere person who blows the whistle on government and corporate malfeasance and crimes can find him or herself going to jail. The medical regime is now a single entity.
All of its parts are consolidated and entwined into a
monolithic behemoth dedicated to protecting its bottom line.
...it requires little effort to look back upon history and witness a long legacy of scientific horrors and tragedies.
Yet today, matters have worsened. Ever since the Rockefellers privatized American healthcare back in the 1930s, science in the hands of powerful private interest groups and corrupt government agencies has spiraled downward to its current state today:
If medical corruption had been conducted with the results of vastly improved health in the nation, we might close our eyes.
However, as corruption throughout the medical establishment and federal health agencies increases, so has the health of the nation substantially decreased.
The monster the Carnegie Foundation unleashed in its Flexner Report to set the standard for medical education back in 1910 has since opened its jaws wider to swallow the little integrity that might remain in American medicine.
The nation's health
statistics and annual rise in preventable diseases proves the case.
A Consumer Report survey estimates that 55 percent of Americans regularly take a prescription drug, and among those, the average person takes four drugs.
In 2016, over 4.5 billion prescriptions were filled, earning the pharmaceutical industry over $200 billion. [1]
An earlier estimate conducted and published by the Mayo Clinic found that 70 percent of Americans are on at least one prescription drug and over 50 percent are on two. Twenty percent of patients are on five or more. [2]
Over 17 percent of citizens 45 years and older take antidepressants, including one in four women. [3]
A multi-year population-based survey conducted by the University of Illinois at Chicago found that 32 percent of adults diagnosed with depression were taking medications with depression listed as an adverse effect!
These drugs include
proton pump inhibitors, analgesics, beta blockers and synthetic
hormone contraceptives. [4]
So then why do they so often emerge out of the end of the institutionalized treadmill as proponents of products that do more harm than good?
In his 1924 essay "Icarus or the Future of Science," the British mathematician and moral philosopher Bertrand Russell wrote,
Later in his essay Russell continues,
For Russell, those who can sincerely call themselves scientists pursue their discipline out of a love for knowledge.
Science is supposed to improve conditions necessary to foster our well-being and happiness, and to preserve the planet's environment in an ethical manner. A scientist who truly pursues knowledge out of love, Russell argues, will desire the fruits of his work and craft to be expressions of kindness for the greater good.
On the other hand, science is perverted when knowledge is pursued solely for power and domination over others.
He warned about the trends of his day increasing whereby the holders of scientific knowledge become "evil" and science solely serves the ambitions of the powerful and those who control scientific inventions' utility.
Since the days when science broke free from religion during the European Renaissance, the blind faith in perpetual scientific progress as humanity's best of fortunes has persisted to the present day.
In fact, in the 21st century, scientific materialism has largely replaced religious beliefs and morals altogether.
This is especially evident in the contemporary regressive movements of Skepticism, the New Atheism, Science- and,
...which have all been chained to corporate capital and science's bureaucracies.
This myth of perpetual scientific progress, says Russell,
In the end, Russell foresaw that science may be the ultimate cause behind,
From
our own perspective, given our governments' and corporations' utter
disregard towards climate change, insensitive destruction of the
natural world and other species, medical abuse of prescription
drugs, and brushing off the lives of those in dire economic and
social straits, we have to agree.
Modern Medicine - The Exemplar of Scientific Nepotism
In modern times, we assume that medical science is serving us to find new miracles to save our lives. In ancient systems, medicine was perceived as a divine art and knowledge brought down to humans by the gods.
A healer who lived by the ethical codes of his craft was held in high esteem by rulers and peasants alike.
Although there have always been medical pretenders who took advantage of the ignorant, the medical arts themselves retained their integrity... until our modern era. Before outlining the many ways that conventional corporate medicine has become the paragon of a science turned enemy against its essential moral code and the people it is supposed to serve, we might begin with a recent example depicting just how low the medical discipline has sunk into Hades.
The state of modern American medicine was accurately summarized in April 2018 when Goldman Sachs released its financial projection report, "The Genome Revolution," to biotechnology companies.
The report doesn't hesitate to state clearly that for
future investment, corporate profits far outweigh the curing of
disease.
The report presents the frightening question,
Even for the most hardened proponents of natural medicine and opponents of Big Pharma, there are times when a drug developer hits the nail on the head.
Such is the case with Gilead Sciences' drugs Harvoni and Epclusa, which have achieved over a 90 percent cure rate for hepatitis C. This is an extraordinary cure rate. But for Goldman, this is a bad sign for investors and shareholders. The drugs' success has steadily drained the pool of patients requiring treatment.
At their peak in 2015, these drugs earned $12.5 billion. Three years later, they are expected to earn under $4 billion, and revenues will continue to decline.
Goldman writes,
Goldman's report confirms an observation that we have been voicing for many years.
That is, modern medicine is no longer about treating
disease; rather, it is all about disease management to keep patients
on drugs for life. How did this trend of an amoral medical
philosophy and a betrayal of Hippocratic principles come about,
since billions of dollars are spent annually to discover cures for
disease?
Certainly there were serious oversights and failures costing many lives, such as Quaalude-300, PTZ for convulsive therapy, thalidomide and the acellular pertussis vaccine.
There were also cases of gross conspiracy and scandal that destroyed numerous lives, such as the 1932-1972 Tuskegee experiment to secretly withhold penicillin from untreated African American males with syphilis.
However, it was only during the past three
decades that private corporations were able to successfully and
rapidly subdue the nation's health agencies in order to control
their executive functions and administrations.
On the global scene, private industry and civil society would have to wait to grab a seat at the table of governance until American global hegemony was established. Therefore, the collapse of the Soviet bloc opened the floodgates for commercial interests. Large corporations serving primarily domestic interests went international.
New markets increased exponentially and private corporations and investment banks took advantage of the openings in these markets.
Exploitation of these opportunities commenced unimpeded. Once-national corporations morphed overnight into transnational behemoths, with values competing with national economies, resulting in widespread commercial influence over practically all of our institutions in government, higher education, professional associations and the media.
In addition, science became embedded in private economic interests and the governments of the developed nations, notably the US and Britain, were eager to throw in their support to assure unlimited corporate growth could continue.
The emerging corporate aristocracy were not perceived so
much as uncontrollable rogue entrepreneurs necessitating strict
government oversight and regulation to stay in line; rather they
became partners as their agendas melted into one and the same.
According to Leslie Janka, a former White House deputy press secretary under Reagan, his entire presidency "was PR."
Reagan, who consulted astrologers for decision-making, was a scientific illiterate who favored private economic growth over altruism and consumer safety.
This meant
gutting the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), stripping it of its
ability to combat industries' propensity to evade regulatory hurdles
and pollute the environment.
Before this bill, only a few firms continued to manufacture vaccines; the financial risks and compensation burden from vaccine injuries were too high for most drug companies.
Reagan is therefore credited for launching the current vaccine boom, estimated to be worth $60 billion by 2020, with no legal liability placed upon companies for pushing unsafe and minimally effective vaccines.
This trend entered hyperdrive under President Clinton, who perceived himself as the first "biotech president" and invited more corporate executives with conflicts of interest into his administration than any previous president.
If the
proliferation of GMOs is regarded as a contagion and curse on human
and environmental health, then Clinton is ultimately to be blamed.
These include:
This latter trend has been termed "scientism," an incoherent ideology that identifies rationality and reason with science itself.
Scientism embraces the premise that science can explain everything.
One of the more common criticisms against scientism is its,
This scientific hubris
particularly plagues the biological disciplines such as mental
health, immunology, drug-based conventional medical therapies,
neurobiology, the genetic etiology of disease, nanomedicine and
genetic modification of plants for industrial agriculture.
By tossing aside philosophical and ethical considerations over natural scientific discoveries and findings, scientific truths stand alone as sterile and amoral tools that can be used as economic weapons of destruction.
This is most
evident in the pharmaceutical industry that pushes questionably
effective and unsafe drugs to treat physical and mental disorders,
or the agro-chemical corporations poisoning the public with
carcinogenic pesticides and environment-damaging genetically
modified crops.
In order to achieve their goals, private interests make every attempt to win over the White House, Congressional legislators, senior federal agency officials and even the judicial courts.
One of science-generated industry's
greatest threats is independent evaluation of the scientific
research supporting their products. Winning over or buying the
allegiance of the heads of congressional committees and the
executive tiers of federal agency regulators is therefore a high
priority in order to ensure the gears of bureaucracy remain oiled,
the licensing channels for product approval stay wide open, and
regulatory due diligence and scientific scrutiny don't intrude on
profits.
This includes manipulating and fudging
scientific data, preserving and exerting control over scientists,
and taking control of peer-reviewed scientific literature. Although
these tactics are found in many industries, it is the medical and
food sectors that are today the most corrupt, acting with blatant
criminality.
How often do federal health officials discover flagrant and intentional misconduct and subsequently decide to bury the evidence out of sight of the medical community?
Seife discovered such actions were an official pattern within the agency. Given the high rate of content deleted or blacked out from the documents the FDA provided, the investigators could only determine which pharmaceutical company or drug was involved in 1 of 6 of the reviewed trials.
For one trial alone, where FDA inspectors found significant fraud and misconduct, 78 different medical publications printed articles based upon that single study.
In an article for Slate, Seife writes,
In one case, a new anti-blood clotting drug, rivaroxaban, was tested in four large trials, which recruited thousands of patients in clinical sites in over a dozen countries.
According to Seife, one of the trials "was a fiasco."
In half of the sixteen clinical sites, the FDA discovered,
One Colorado site falsified data. In the Mexican site, there was,
Despite these overwhelming problems, the drug trial was published favorably in the prestigious British journal The Lancet.
The FDA found similar problems in the three other trials; in one the data was ruled "worthless." The FDA advisory committee of "expert" reviewers were only informed that inspectors discovered "significant issues" at two sites in one of the trials. Rivaroxaban was nevertheless approved in 2011.
Since then, lawsuits for wrongful death from rivaroxaban
have piled up. [11]
Although the FDA
uncovered this fraud, it has refused to make these 100 drugs known
to the professional medical community and public. [12]
A decade ago, Jessica Washburn reported on the dire situation at the NIH's Center for the Evaluation of Risks to Human Reproduction for Discover Magazine.
The Center is responsible for the evaluation of chemicals and their impact on reproductive health. With continual deregulation following the Koch Brothers agenda to permit private industries to flood the environment with toxic substances, this is an enormously important department tasked with assuring the health of pregnant women and protecting their fetuses.
Yet the Center only employed three people, one of whom was part-time. The vast majority of the workload was outsourced to a private consulting firm, Sciences International.
For almost ten years, this firm, which had been receiving funding from over forty chemical companies, was the primary evaluator of the environmental toxins mothers-to-be were being exposed to. [13]
Publication Prejudice, Fraud and Deceptive Favoritism
Medical journals have been thoroughly hijacked by the pharmaceutical industry, as have university departments and research institutions that are principally funded by private interests.
It is no longer a secret that industry-funded studies inordinately convey positive results.
Positive research is published; negative research is suppressed and
buried. Consequently, the reality of robust and honest medical
research is skewed and distorted. Physicians and medical clinics
thus get only a peek into the actual safety, efficacy and
contraindications of the drugs later peddled to them by
pharmaceutical sales reps.
Later, the editor of The Lancet, Dr. Richard Horton stated,
A large percentage of published studies and trials cannot be reproduced.
For example, in 2012, a scientist and his team at Amgen attempted to reproduce 53 published cancer studies and only succeeded in reproducing six. In another project published in Nature, only 39 of 100 psychology studies could be replicated. [15]
Although Horton is optimistic that the proverbial cat is out of the bag and the medical community has been warned, he despairs that,
Doctors at Children's Hospital Boston undertook the task of reviewing 546 drug trials listed in the government's Clinical Trials database.
They found that
industry-funded trials showing positive results were 70 percent more
likely to be published than research funded by federal health
agencies. [17]
The group, representing researchers from Oregon Health and Science University, Harvard, the University of California Riverside and others, identified a deeply biased and deceptive trend in publication of these drugs' respective trials that was highly selective. Thirty-six of the 37 favorable studies were published.
On the other hand, only 3 of 36 unfavorable trials found their way into print. [18]
The
consequences are obvious. By giving the false impression that over
90 percent of studies confirm the value of antidepressant drugs
while burying almost the same number of adverse trials, the entire
risk-benefit ratio of these drugs is skewed.
Ghostwriting has become a global industry. Although generally regarded as improper, it is not illegal.
Parallel to the alarming revelations that scientific journals were publishing increasing amounts of junk science is the problem of scientific authors' personal biases due to their financial ties to private interests, often those behind the very research and products they are writing positively about.
For many decades, this was not considered a serious problem, but authors increasingly hid their financial conflicts of interest. Consequently, the most respected science journals now require authors to reveal their associations and conflicts of interest with private companies and private for-profit institutions that may compromise the objectivity of their articles.
To get around this
requirement, companies reach out to ghostwriters who can paint
themselves as independent and conflict-free to submit favorable
articles.
Unfortunately this millennium-old tenet was forgotten long ago.
Enter the agro-chemical giant Monsanto, which has its fingers in the majority of food products consumed in the US. Monsanto has become notorious for relying upon a wide network of ghostwriting resources to intentionally undermine governments' regulatory agencies and deceive the public.
The company has made a habit of contracting with public relations firms and wooing compromised writers for over a decade.
Following a California court ruling in
favor of a plaintiff who developed cancer, the company's flagship
weed-killing chemical
glyphosate, trade name Roundup, is under
growing international scrutiny as a carcinogen. Monsanto again is
relying upon its army of ghostwriter goons to conduct damage
control.
The World Health Organization (WHO) had already ruled the chemical might cause cancer, and European health officials were seriously deliberating on banning the herbicide from the continent.
However, Gilliam's investigation into manuscripts released during the litigation found this was a complete lie.
One of Monsanto's leading scientists not only reviewed the manuscripts, but also edited them. In one internal email within the company, the Chief of Regulatory Science had admitted he reviewed an entire document with suggestions for omissions and a few edits of his own. Other internal documents identify ghostwriters and strategies for recruiting outside scientists to compose articles giving the weed-killer credibility.
Attempts to have the
papers retracted from the journal have yet to be heeded. [19]
This strategy has been a means to covertly disseminate corporate messages with the misleading impression they are generated by independent scientists. For example, a flurry of studies have appeared in recent years proving that sugar-loaded sodas and beverages are substantially contributing to the nation's obesity and Type 2 diabetes crises. This message is reaching the public.
Soda consumption has dropped by 25 percent.
To counter the scientific assault on its revenues, Coca-Cola - the world's largest manufacturer of junk sugary beverages - teamed up with a corporate sponsored non-profit, the Global Energy Balance Network (GEBN), to promulgate the message that,
GEBN, which has recruited many prominent scientists and health professors, swears by its independence.
However, Coke started the non-profit initiative with a $1.5 million donation. Since its founding, the partnership has unleashed a media blitz across medical journals, professional conferences, mainstream media and social networks to get Coke's message out.
New York University professor of nutrition and food science Marion Nestle has labeled the GEBN as,
While it is easy to blame private industry for producing the junk science appearing in peer-reviewed journals, we mustn't lose sight of the corruption within the publications and among senior editors as well.
The reason is simple:
An article confirming the therapeutic value of a new drug, for example, can go a long way to bring enormous revenues to publishers.
Pharmaceutical firms will order thousands of copies of the article to be disseminated throughout their sales force and sent to physicians, medical schools, clinics and hospitals. The Lancet receives 41 percent of its income from reprints purchased by drug makers.
The American Medical Association's journal gets a
whopping 53 percent.
Fifty percent of editors were identified as playing this corporate game and received payments for services that included preferential treatment towards article submissions and appointing peer reviewers.
Liu and her colleagues estimated that the mean payment for general articles was $28,100; for research submissions, $37,900. [21]
The worst example is the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, with all of its 35 editors on the take. Cumulatively, the journal's editors received almost $15 million in "bribes" from Big Pharma. [22]
Corporate Control of
Scientific Information
This means they have the discretion to decide what data to release. In the case of the pharmaceutical industry, the US government makes no demands for a company to release all its clinical trial data and results for any given drug or vaccine submitted to the FDA or CDC respectively for approval and licensure.
This is also true for "selective publication" of studies in medical journals.
In 2008, the French multinational pharmaceutical company Sanofi completed 92 studies on drugs in their pipeline. Only 14 were submitted and approved for publication. What should we think about the remaining 78 trials that were withheld? [23]
Clearly it would be foolish for financial reasons alone that Sanofi would want its negative trial results to appear in peer-reviewed literature. The professional medical community and institutions rely heavily on the scientific publications to keep abreast of the latest studies and news.
Nevertheless, federal
authorities would not require Sanofi nor any pharmaceutical firm to
submit research data that might jeopardize its approval on issues of
safety, serious adverse effects and clinical efficacy. Consequently,
federal reviewers are only being provided with trials and data
favorable to Big Pharma's bottom line.
Among the targets he has investigated is Glaxo's blockbuster diabetes drug Avandia.
Unable to acquire original patient information from the drug maker, Nissen turned to the internet and "stumbled upon a cache of data belonging to Glaxo," which had been submitted during a lawsuit filed by former New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer. [24]
In addition to discovering that only 15 of 42 clinical trials for Avandia had been published, the company had been suppressing the
data that the drug increased risks of heart attack by 43 percent.
Nissen published his findings in the New England Journal of
Medicine; two days later the FDA slapped a "black box" warning on
the drug.
Among the deplorable tactics corporations adopt to protect their commercial interests, according to the Union of Concerned Scientists, is "scientific coercion." This includes harassing scientists and institutions that bring to light corporate misconduct or raise obstacles to their revenue flow.
Companies will go a long way to silence their opponents in the scientific community, threatening litigation and putting pressure upon institutions and universities to impose demotions, loss of tenure, or blatant censorship.
In retaliation, Glaxo let lose its attack dogs to defame and discredit Nissen. Senior executives at Glaxo, its public relations firm, and even an FDA consultant were pressed into service as reputational hitmen. Scathing articles against Nissen appeared in the Washington Times, Nature and Clinical Practice Cardiovascular Medicine.
A caustic
email was also sent out to the wider media deriding Nissen's
credibility. [25]
Dr. John Virapen, a former Eli Lilly executive in sales, blew the whistle after personally bribing the Swedes. [26]
In 2012 the US SEC slapped the company with a $29 million fine for bribing government officials in,
...through offshore accounts to push its antipsychotic drug Zyprexa and antidepressant drug Cymbalta. [27]
The corporation later
committed a variation on the crime, bribing Chinese physicians to
start prescribing Prozac in 2013. [28]
We mustn't take lightly the extreme measures private corporations will take in order to silence critics and remove barriers to maximizing their economic bottom line.
Even the drugs that are being promoted tell us something about the networks' viewing audience: those in their middle years and older who are aging and at a higher disease risk are more receptive to the drugs being shelled.
There is no law that prevents the mainstream media from taking fees to advertise products from the pharmaceutical industry. Less apparent are the contractual conditions between the private advertisers and the networks concerning journalists reporting health news or negative findings about the specific drugs being plugged in the ads.
Only the US and New Zealand governments actually permit drug advertisements on television networks, so this is once again an example of the special relationship that exists between federal agencies and the drug companies.
Big Pharma had to first succeed in
seducing federal FCC officials to win access to America's airwaves.
Seeking outside comments was forbidden.
The FDA's intention is clear:
Upon hearing of the FDA's repression of journalistic integrity in the science media, the journal Scientific American filed a Freedom of Information Act request.
The publication uncovered the FDA's attempt to mislead the media and public by creating "a coterie of journalists" who would do the FDA's bidding.
These journalists are given the privilege of receiving advance notice about science news before anyone else. Reliable independent journalism relies on pursuing outside sources to receive comments and verification for accuracy. Although the FDA claims it has ceased close-hold embargoes on reporters, the practice has continued unabated and is now integral to the FDA's media strategy.
Many of the medical and health stories coming out of the FDA have followed this principle, and as a result, all of the media outlets parrot the same FDA directive. Journalist watchdogs, according to the article's author, become the FDA's "lapdogs."
Reporters are reduced to
"stenographers." [29]
The film was not intended be an anti-vaccine diatribe.
Rather, it told the true story about a senior vaccine scientist at the Centers for Disease Control, Dr. William Thompson, whose guilty conscience motivated him to turn whistleblower.
Dr. Thompson released thousands of pages of classified documents to an independent professor and House Representative Bill Posey that contained unquestionable evidence that the CDC had intentionally covered up data showing a direct correlation between the MMR vaccine and rising autism rates among African American boys - as much as a 240 percent increase.
In fact, Rep. Posey spent years trying to get Thompson to testify under oath before a House subcommittee and was consistently blocked by CDC pressure on his colleagues. The CDC had committed an enormous crime against the African American community.
If Thompson were permitted to give testimony to the American people, the entire vaccine industry would have been jeopardized.
The
industry's profits and survival are far more important than the
lives of small Black children. And the media was equally criminal in
whitewashing this story.
In addition, beneath all of the media's criticisms, we identified a single suspicious written template that all the journalists had been relying upon for their reports.
What might account for this anomaly?
Clearly, there was no independent journalism being permitted within,
Nor did any of the journalists ever view the film.
The entire case was noxious...
Seeking an explanation for why so many mainstream journalists could pen identical screeds to denigrate the film Vaxxed, as well as vaccine safety and vaccine-autism associations in general, we identified a joint program between the agency and the Association of Health Care Journalists (AHCJ).
Scores of health editors and reporters through the nation's leading mainstream media corporations have passed through the CDC's Atlanta campus through this alliance to be indoctrinated in national public health policies. Journalists who complete the program receive special privileges, including access and instructions to the CDC's surveillance database and publications to assist in their investigative reporting.
In addition, these journalists join the CDC's exclusive club and receive advanced notices about stories to report and prepared scripts to work from.
An example of a CDC
script disseminated to these journalists instructs what and how to
report collective fear during the influenza season in such a way
that people will rush with their kids to their local pharmacies to
get their flu shots. [30]
Monsanto succeeded in this emotional scheme to persuade California's electorate away from voting in favor of GMO labeling. By shifting the debate away from GMO's health issues to an economic threat that would increase families' food bills if labeling were to be approved, people voted on their financial rather than health fears. Political candidates from both parties engage in this practice consistently.
Yet perhaps the largest dose of propaganda to generate fear ritually takes place during every annual flu season.
The media barrage warning the public of their pending death from a
flu infection is completely orchestrated out of the CDC, its
advisers and consultants, and its broad network healthcare
affiliates.
Yet as Dr. Peter Doshi at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine points out, when it concerns the flu vaccine, the CDC's motto couldn't be further from the truth.
Among all public health policies, flu vaccination programs are not only the most aggressively forced upon the public, but also the most scientifically deceitful.
Doshi notes that upon close examination of the CDC's flu vaccine policies,
In his evaluation published in the British Medical Journal, the flu vaccine is an example of government "disease mongering." [31]
During the 2016-2017 flu season, the government purchased as many as 168 million doses of the vaccine; that is a lot of doses of an ineffective drug to dispense.
The emergence of a movement within the medical establishment known as Evidence Based Medicine (EBM) has been touted as one of the great medical advances of the twentieth century. EBM has become a dominant paradigm in the modern medicine and all medical research institutions and medical schools adhere to it.
It is most prevalent
theory in use today to determine the accuracy of peer-reviewed
journal articles, clinical trials and medical claims to improve
healthcare decisions. [32]
As we have detailed, the journals increasingly fail to maintain high standards for the research they publish and are riddled with authorship violations with author conflict-of-interests and ghostwriting that have threatened the integrity of reliable medical literature reaching those who daily diagnose and treat patients.
Although many excellent Cochrane meta-analysis reports were released to show that drugs and medical procedures were in fact ineffective, unnecessary and even dangerous, the citadels of medical bureaucracy and national health ministries paid little heed.
This was the case
for reports on human papillomavirus (HPV) and influenza vaccines,
many antidepressant and anti-anxiety drugs, and statins, which fell
on deaf ears.
A recent scandal indicating that the organization has been hijacked by private pharmaceutical interests is the removal of Cochrane's internationally recognized co-founder, Dr. Peter Gotzsche of the University of Copenhagen in Denmark.
Dr. Gotzsche is the
author of
Deadly Medicines and Organized Crime - How Big Pharma has
Corrupted Healthcare, a devastating and meticulously-documented
condemnation about our broken healthcare system which earned the
British Medical Association's first prize book award in 2014.
Witnessing a trend that Cochrane was progressively becoming less independent, less transparent, and compromised by a growing faction of pro-Big Pharma and its allies in government health ministries, Dr. Gotzsche made efforts to restore the organization back to its founding principles.
The "power struggle between two factions," as he explains, was waged between himself and,
After receiving email correspondence acquired
through the Freedom of Information Act, it was Wilson who
orchestrated Gotzsche's firing in retaliation. [33]
This kept the population in line until brave souls, Russell's lovers of knowledge, staked their lives to publicly expose the delusional world the Church lived within.
Has that much really changed over the
past thousand years now that science has replaced the Church?
Dr. Andrew Wakefield exposed an association between the gastrointestinal inflammation found in autistic children with the MMR vaccine.
He never stated the vaccine actually caused autism; nevertheless he was pilloried, tried in a kangaroo court, and banished by the Glaxo-controlled British health ministry.
And now
there is Dr. Peter Gotzsche, and there are hundreds more whom the
church of medical science has demonized and destroyed for speaking
up about scientific errors and against power and corruption among
medicine's priesthood and its corporate lords.
Repeatedly science and medical news begins with "Experts say," or "Scientists have confirmed," or "All doctors agree…"
Who are these experts, doctors and medical authorities? And why should any of us believe them? Wearing a white coat has become a sign of authority because these people are glorified and idolized to create the impression that they possess an esoteric scientific knowledge beyond the masses' comprehension.
And with mainstream media incessantly bombarding us with this fallacious image, we come to believe in their message.
This is the medical Matrix in which
most Americans find themselves, and the only pill worth taking is
the red one offered by Morpheus to free us from the medical fascism
that is ruling our lives.
If Russell were to witness the rotten state of medicine today, he would undoubtedly conclude that medical science had surgically removed its heart years ago.
This has led to the "collective passions" of our medical aristocracy being "mainly evil" giving rise to "hatred and rivalry directed towards other groups [eg., scientific and medical dissenters]."
He would also acknowledge that
our situation now threatens "the destruction of our civilization" as
he predicted.
NOTES
|
