Tag Archives: big pharma
“Unless we put medical freedom into the Constitution the time will come when medicine will organize itself into an undercover dictatorship. To restrict the art of healing to doctors and deny equal privileges to others will constitute the Bastille of medical science. All such laws are un-American and despotic.”
~ Attributed to Dr. Benjamin Rush, Signer of the Declaration of Independence
Benjamin Rush accurately foretold a grave possibility facing Americans today, namely, that the art and science of healing be restricted to a select class of allopathic physicians, who have the sole legal right to recommend and administer medicines, and whose pharmacopeia excludes – as a matter of principle – all the healing foods, vitamins and herbs which have been used safely and effectively for countless millennia in the prevention and treatment of disease.
We have entered an era where medicine no longer bears any resemblance to the art and science of healing. The doctor no longer facilitates the body’s innate self-healing capabilities with time, care, good nutrition and special help from our plant allies. To the contrary, medicine has transmogrified into a business enterprise founded on the inherently nihilistic principles of pure, unbridled capitalism, with an estimated 786,000 Americans dying annually from iatrogenic or medically-caused deaths.*
Turning Disease Into Gold With The Drug-Based Printing Press
Many modern diseases are, in fact, created by fiat (not unlike modern currencies): age-old symptoms of nutritional deficiency or chemical poisoning are repackaged and renamed in Latin and Greek as would-be monolithic disease entities, and subsequently rolled out to the consumer as new markets; each disease representing a veritable gold mine of “treatable” symptoms; each symptom providing justification for the prescription of a new set of patented, toxic drug-commodities.
The “medicines” themselves are often devoid of intrinsic value, being nothing more than rebranded and re-purposed chemicals, intended (though all too often failing) to be administered in sub-lethal concentrations. Indeed, many of these chemicals are too toxic to be legally released into the environment, and should never be administered intentionally to a human who is already sick. You need look no farther than a typical drug package insert to find proof that the side effects of most drugs far outnumber their purported beneficial effects.
These chemicals, in fact, are so highly leveraged against their true value (or lack thereof), that they can sell for as much as 500,000% percent from cost! Only medical/pharmaceutical and financial institutions (e.g. Federal Reserve) are legally empowered to generate the illusion that they are creating something of value out of nothing of value, on this scale. This manipulation of perceived value, which is the basis for the global dominance of the drug-based medical model, is not unlike how financial institutions created toxic derivative products (e.g. Credit Default Swaps), essentially creating the illusion of financial wellbeing and prosperity, at the very moment that they were planting the seeds of death within the global economy; ruining the lives of countless millions in the process.
The Undercover Medical Dictatorship
Within our present dominant medical system, healing has not simply been forgotten but intentionally exorcized as it represents the antithesis of perpetual profitability which requires the incurability of the human body. Were the truth be told, and the body’s self-regenerative capabilities acknowledged, the entire superstructure of drug-based medicine and hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue it generates annually, would crumble overnight. When a handful of turmeric has more chemotherapeutic activity than any drug yet to receive FDA approval, or an enzyme from pineapple is superior to a 40 year old blockbuster chemotoxic agent, one begins to understand why the hundreds of studies proving natural substances can destroy cancer are never discussed. You can’t compete with free, effective and safe in a medical marketplace dominated by expensive, ineffective and unsafe drugs.
If this degeneration into quackery and snake-oil salesmanship which is modern drug-driven medicine were simply a lesson in what bad things can happen when health care is no longer a basic human right but strictly a profit-driven commodity, perhaps Americans could find it within themselves to once again free themselves from the shackles of oppression. After all, do we not consider ourselves the very originators of freedom, independence and democracy? Have we not such great faith in these principles that we practically trip all over ourselves (crushing entire countries as we fall) in our Promethean effort to export these values overseas whether we are invited to do so or not? Would we stand for less, when it comes to our own health freedom?
Sadly, the “undercover dictatorship” Benjamin Rush foretold is not simply a homegrown one we can root out from the inside, as it were. Although the American Medical Association (AMA) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) behave as if they are at the top of this pyramid of power relations, they serve far lower on the hierarchy. While the government of the United States and American corporate lobbying groups may appear to be behind the FDA’s shameless pandering to the interests of the drug companies, transnational corporations and organizations — and a hand full of elite governing them — are in fact pulling the strings.
The United States no longer enjoys global economic and cultural hegemony. We are now embedded in an international playing field where multinational and transnational organizations like the drug company Pfizer, or the World Health Organization (WHO) and the World Trade Organization (WTO), have power and influence that overshadows the US or any other particular government or nation-state. These larger organizations blur the divisions traditionally drawn between public and private institutions, insofar as their agendas and mandates are consistent with global economic imperatives which do not account for the self-proclaimed sovereignty of any particular nation-state’s constitution or laws above its own.
For example, the United States may soon no longer be able to allow the over-the-counter sale of many dietary supplements, due to our membership in the World Trade Organization and its ratification of the Codex Alimentarius. We already have prescription-only-vitamins on the US market, and a very dangerous precedent has already been set with the criminalization of herbs like cannabis, and more recently ephedra.
Pharmageddon: The Death of Natural Medicine
What is so remarkable about the present state of affairs, is that it may have been predicted long ago, as evidenced by this passage in Revelations:
At the end of times the merchants of the world will deceive the nations through their Pharmacia.
(sorcery) – Rev 18:23
Some believe we are now on the precipice of a medical end-of-times or “Pharmageddon,” if you will, where medicine is no longer directly associated in any way with healing, rather, is a form of mass control and a highly organized means of defrauding the public of both its wealth and health, simultaneously.
After all, is there any greater absurdity than a medical model that treats the symptoms of disease with sub-lethal dosages of toxic chemicals and in which there is no attempt to uncover, understand or remove the causes of those imbalances?
After all, what disease has ever been found to be caused by a lack of a drug?
Is acid reflux caused by a lack of proton-pump inhibitors?
Is heart disease caused by a lack of statin drugs?
Is osteoporosis caused by a lack of Fosamax?
Is cancer caused by a lack of chemotherapy?
Is depression caused by a lack of Paxil?
Absolutely not! Then why would anyone consider it sound practice to use potentially toxic chemicals as a first-line treatment for conditions that are not caused by a lack of a chemical? To the contrary many diseases are caused exactly by culminative exposures to chemicals that not unlike drugs are biologically alien to the body. i.e we are treating poisoning with poisons!
Can we dignify this approach by calling it medicine? Or, is it more accurately described as a form of sorcery?
Pharmaceuticals and Human Sacrifice
The sole reliance on Pharmaceuticals reveals quite a lot about the largely subconscious agenda underpinning modern medical practice. The Greek word Pharmakon has a wide range of meanings, with “drug” being the most widely recognized one. But the root of this word usage goes back much farther:
“A Pharmakós (Greek: φαρμακός) in Ancient Greek religion was a kind of human scapegoat (a slave, a cripple or a criminal) who was chosen and expelled from the community at times of disaster (famine, invasion or plague) or at times of calendrical crisis, when purification was needed.” [Source]
The sacrificial dimension of the Pharmakós carries on in the nostrums and potions later named after this ritualistic object:
The term “pharmakos” later became the term “pharmakeus” which refers to “a drug, spell-giving potion, druggist, poisoner, by extension a magician or a sorcerer.”A variation of this term is “pharmakon” (φάρμακον) a complex term meaning sacrament, remedy, poison, talisman, cosmetic, perfume or intoxicant. From this, the modern term “pharmacology” emerged, [Source]
Calling pharmaceutically-based medicine sacrifice-based, is not just metaphor. Animal sacrifice, in fact, undergirds the entire evidence-based model of drug development and testing, requiring millions of animals be tortured and destroyed every year. In juxtaposition to Ayurveda, traditional Chinese medicine and countless other traditional, nature-based medical systems, which used living, healthy bodies as the model for preventing and treating disease in the sick, Western medicine took another, quite radically different path in an obsession with pathology.
The karma, if you will, of this divergent path often leads patients, especially later in life, to be cut open themselves on an operating table, or poisoned to death, with the very same chemicals and procedures that the animal testing once done in their name, justifies.
The reality is that medical practice, and the science that informs it, is as much mythos as logos, and one no longer has to look to religion for the absolutist claim to truth. Medical science has laid claim to the body in the same way that religions once laid claim to the soul. The physician today — albeit a glorified “applied pharmacologist” — has become the “priest of the body,” capable of influencing the course of life or death by the quality, or combinations, of nostrums (s)he is able to apply to the problem (i.e. patient) at hand.
Just as monotheism depends on there being “one God,” modern medical science depends on the “evidence-based” concept that there is one truth, and one right way to apply it. This, by implication, gives absolute power to those who would claim to know the difference.
Liberation Through Natural Medicine
In Benjamin Rush’s time the medical dictatorship of which he spoke had not yet come to pass, and though magical potions like mercury and questionable techniques like bloodletting were used in colonial times, herbs were still considered and employed as legitimate medicines. Even if many wise women herbalists were eliminated as competition by being branded witches and sometimes murdered, the herbs themselves were not categorically demonized because no vast armory of pharmaceutical drugs had yet been created to supplant them.
The herbs and foods themselves have now been both vilified as dangerous and lampooned as completely ineffectual, generating the ridiculous contradiction that we are supposed to be dumb enough to accept as truth: namely, that they are both impotent and unsafe.
Given these circumstances confidence in the safety and efficacy of natural substances in the prevention and treatment of disease has not only waned, but the positive association between food and healing has been outright denied by medical authorities. It is illegal for non-doctors to make health claims for natural substances even if thousands of years of use in folk medicine and a vast emerging body of scientific research now confirms their benefits. You can’t say cherries cure gout even if its true. (truth is no longer the criteria that decides what you can or cannot say).
I started the website GreenMedInfo.com in August 2008 in order to provide free and convenient access to the massive amounts of research that have accumulated on the health benefits of natural substances over the past 50 years. The government database known as Medline (which is freely searchable) contains over 20 million biomedical citations from over 5,000 scientific journals, many of which focus specifically on the therapeutic action of foods, vitamins and spices on serious, even life-threatening disease.
I believe that it is only through the free, uncensored and democratic dissemination of health information that we can secure our health freedom and through speaking truth to power, expose the fraud which is strictly profit-driven pharmaceutically-based medicine.
Feel free to explore the 19000 + biomedical citations posted on GreenMedInfo.com that vindicate the safety and efficacy of natural substances in the prevention and treatment of disease.
*Gary Null, PHD recently estimated that 786,000 Americans die annually from iatrogenic or medically caused deaths.
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.
By: Holly Walter |
Martin Shkreli, the CEO of a large pharmaceutical company that recently acquired the rights to a drug used by HIV and cancer patients, has brought the shocking callousness of unchecked capitalism into the spotlight.
Last month, Turing Pharmaceuticals bought the rights to manufacture and sell Daraprim in the United States. Daraprim is used to treat toxoplasmosis, a parasitic and life-threatening disease that affects people with compromised immune systems.
Despite being classified as an essential medicine which should be affordable to the general population by the World Health Organisation (1), Turning Pharmaceuticals has raised the price of Daraprim extortionately, from $13 per 75mg pill to a massive $750 per pill. Each 75mg pill costs only $1 to produce. It is a single source pharmaceutical product (2), which means Turing Pharmaceuticals is the only company in America that has the legal right to produce and sell this potentially life-saving drug. Patients can’t take their business elsewhere.
Let’s really put that into perspective. For each Daraprim pill sold, Turing Pharmaceuticals will make a $749 profit. Around 2,000(3) Americans use the drug every year, with the average treatment course lasting around three weeks, at a dosage of 75mg per day (4). That means Turing Pharmaceuticals stand to make a profit of $27,258,000 from Daraprim sales every year, while the average American earns just $27,000 a year, barely enough to cover the cost of a three-week course of treatment.
Though most Americans who require treatment for Toxoplasmosis will be covered by their health insurance, some won’t, and insurance companies (too motivated by profit), will be forced to raise insurance premiums and/or make their policies stricter so as to avoid paying out huge sums to people in genuine need.
While most people are shocked and disgusted by Martin Shkreli’s brutal, cold, and calculated effort to make obscene profits off the backs of other people’s misfortune, the business of capitalising from human suffering extends far beyond this story.
Another example of big business profiteering from human suffering has been brought to public attention recently through a campaign by Amnesty International. Until their recent advertising campaign, few people were aware that every two years a huge defence and security equipment exhibition called the Defence Security and Equipment International (5) is held in London Docklands. Essentially, this is a trade show where arms dealers can display the latest technology in weaponry to military representatives, some from countries renowned for human rights abuses such as Saudi Arabia. Amnesty International, who have attended the fair a number of times, have reported that illegal torture equipment and weapons such as cluster bombs, leg irons, and electric shock batons have been advertised at the event (6). The trade show, which hosted 1,500 exhibitions in 2013, is owned by Clarion Events (7), a company that organises numerous such trade shows, and reportedly turns over £200 million (8) every year. While arms companies profit from torture and (often illegal) wars, Clarion Events profits from introducing the arms dealers to totalitarian regimes at fairs like DSEI.
Profiteering from war might start with arms dealers, but that is by no means where it ends. One hundred and thirty-eight billion dollars (9) of US taxpayers’ money was spent on securing contracts with private companies during the 2003 Iraq war, for services such as security, feeding troops, and replacing infrastructure that had been destroyed during the US-led coalition invasion.
Private mercenaries played a huge role in the war in Iraq, with companies such as the infamous Blackwater reaping large monetary rewards for providing armed “security personnel”. In August 2008 alone, there were 7,121 armed “private security contractors” deployed in Iraq. (10)
The American company Halliburton was the biggest contract winner, securing $39.5 billion (11) from the US government in exchange for their services during the invasion and subsequent occupation. This included a $7 billion (12) deal for rebuilding Iraq’s oil infrastructure, a contract that would have given Iraq’s economy a huge boost had it been awarded to an Iraqi company or the state, as opposed to a multi-billion dollar US corporation.
What is perhaps most disturbing about these contracts, is that many of them were what is known as “cost-plus” (13). When a company is awarded a cost-plus contract, as well as having all their expenses covered, they are guaranteed to be paid a certain amount on top, in order to ensure that they make a substantial profit. Such contracts provide little incentive for these private companies to minimise costs. In fact, the opposite is true; they provide an incentive for contractors to spend more than necessary, as every extra dollar spent means extra profit.
It seems war is a profitable business. Foreign corporations literally made billions of dollars from the deaths of 224,000 people (14), 165,000 of those being Iraqi civilians.
War is not the only atrocity private companies are profiting from. Private prisons are proving to be another lucrative business.
The US has 5% of the world’s population, but more than 20% of the world’s prisoners (15). It has more prisoners than China, Russia, and Iran. Despite decreasing crime rates, the prison population has grown by 721% since the 1980’s, with over 500 per 100,000 people being incarcerated in 2010 (16). The adoption of draconian “tough-on-crime” laws by the US government in the 1980s (17), such as mandatory minimum sentencing for minor drug-related offences, has been a large contributing factor to the dramatic increase in incarceration rates, with the majority of inmates serving long sentences for non-violent offences.
The private prison industry has been reaping huge rewards from the mass incarceration of US citizens that began in the 1980s, when the complete management of entire prisons began to be handed over to private corporations. Corrections Corporations of America, the biggest private corrections company in the US, was the first private company to be awarded a contract that covered the complete operation of an American jail in 1984. Now CCA manages more than 65 prisons across 19 states, and in 2015, the company’s revenue was more than $1.7 billion (18).
The privatisation of prisons isn’t limited to the United States. In 1992, under John Major’s Conservative government, Wolds Prison was opened as the first privately managed prison in the UK. Under the government’s Private Finance Initiative, 25-year contracts were awarded to private companies for the construction and management of new prisons. Of 150 prisons in the UK, 14 are managed by three private companies, G4S, Sodexo, and Serco (19), and it is estimated that these companies make a 7% return on their investment (20). Privatisation doesn’t seem to lead to efficiency either; in 2013, the Ministry of Justice (21) awarded only one private prison their highest performance rating, while two were awarded the lowest rating and another two the second lowest rating.
These private prison corporations are profiting from people’s suffering. Many people in prison are addicts serving sentences for drug-related crimes, and a large number of those incarcerated in the US have mental health problems and a history of being abused. In 2012, there were an estimated 356,268 people (22) with severe mental health problems locked up in US jails.
Often such problems are only exasperated by a punitive justice system that makes criminals out of vulnerable people. Following release and supposed rehabilitation, ex-convicts struggle to find employment because of their criminal records. In the US, ex –convicts lose their right to vote and are not entitled to state benefits, housing, food stamps, or student loans. This is a recipe for re-offending. Imprisonment not only removes vulnerable people from society, it makes their reintegration following incarceration very challenging.
The rise in the business of profiting from human suffering is a reprehensible result of a society moving away from state ownership to an increasingly privatised money making machine that is the globalised economy. The hands of private businesses are reaching into the darkest corners of our world, grabbing at every possible opportunity to make a profit. But making money from disease, war, and crime is not only immoral; basic economics shows that a growing market is a profitable one. For every sick person, every war, and every crime, there is money to be made, so there is a strong motive for businesses with interests in these “industries” to want the rates of these horrors to proliferate. We will never eradicate disease, achieve world peace, or eliminate crime while corporations are making billions from humanity’s biggest crises.
What can we do?
In a world where corporations are king, we as individuals can feel powerless, believing there is nothing we can do to prevent these opportunists from capitalising on other people’s pain. But small actions can have a big influence. Public outrage and media backlash forced Martin Shkreli to backtrack on his original price hike, though he has not yet confirmed to what extent he will lower the price of Daraprim. As for preventing big business from continuing to profit from war and incarceration, the first step is raising public awareness. The facts I outlined in this article are enough to make anyone angry and indignant, but they rarely make front-page headlines. The next step is to put pressure on our governments and on corporations to stop the modern-day business of war and incarceration. To raise awareness and to make a change, we cannot work alone. Like-minded people must come together, organise, and collectivise in order to find a solution. Change starts with the people, not a person.
(11) (12) http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/about_hal/oilinfra.html
Holly Walter is an English teacher and aspiring writer with a passion for travel and international politics. Following completion of a Bachelor’s degree in Psychology and a Master’s degree in Evolution and Human Behaviour, Holly moved from the UK to Japan, where she lived for a year before moving again to the Costa Blanca, Spain. Living abroad forced her to be more open-minded and to take a different perspective when looking at the world; her ambition is to encourage others to do the same through her writing. Holly’s website is hollywalter.weebly.com, where you will also find her blog. You can also follow her on Twitter (hollywalter0420).
Brandy Vaughan is a former sales rep for Merck & Co. – a vaccine maker – and she details how vaccine companies are using vaccines as a vehicle for massive profit and not public health. Brandy researched the safety of vaccines and found that not only do vaccines contain known toxins that can cause neurological damage, but that vaccine makers do not create the same safety studies for vaccines as they do for other drugs. This lack of true safety research of vaccines combined with the known adverse reactions to vaccination has helped Brandy to decide to never vaccinate her own child. Brandy says giving children a vaccine is like playing Russian roulette with our children and that mandatory vaccination is simply a way for vaccine makers to profit off of our children. Don’t be fooled: we do not need mandatory vaccination.
By: Brandon Turbeville | Activist Post –
The Vaccine industry, Big Pharma, and the mainstream media have some advice for vaccine zealots attempting to bully parents questioning the safety or effectiveness of vaccines into changing their minds – Don’t argue the facts! Show scary pictures!
In what can only be described as an instruction manual as to how to shame, bully, and shout a person down who simply has a different take on the best and safest way to raise their children, it is clear that the religion of vaccines and “scientism” now has the hallmark of any faith determined to spread itself – the presence of evangelicals.
The new vaccine evangelical movement is being provided with a script sheet of what to say and what to avoid when attempting to convert others to their belief system. Like most religions, the goal among the leaders and the zealots is a world where differing modes of thought no longer exist and where other opinions no longer force them to question the way they view that world.
Articles like “How To Change An Anti-Vaxxer’s Mind” by Jeffrey Kloger of TIME, are a perfect example of the recent propaganda blitz coming from the mainstream media. Kloger’s article is being quickly copied and rewritten in mainstream media outlets all across the country with the real vitriol being found in the more trendy hipster markets.
The recent propaganda push is being based upon a study by researchers at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign and published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. It’s not certain exactly how much time and effort was put into the study to discover what most undergraduate marketing students and any remotely successful politician, salesman, or sociopath already knows – that scary pictures are more effective at convincing hordes of people of an idea (true or false) than facts, reasoning, or logic.
In other words, the study and the mainstream media have determined that it is best to go after the emotional vulnerabilities of those who are either under-researched, on the fence, or who have been subjected to bullying and social pressure since hipsters and the cool kids realized it was the “in” thing this year to attack “anti-vaxxers.”
Consider the passage by Jeffrey Kloger of TIME who writes,
That’s a very noble goal, but it’s also one of the things that makes it so bloody hard to change their minds on the topic of vaccines. Public service campaigns don’t work; nor do one-on-one explanations of why the rumors about a vaccine-autism link are wrong. In some cases, there is even a backfire effect: the greater the effort expended to persuade the anti-vaxxers, the more convinced they become that they’re right.
So it’s extremely good news that researchers at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign may at last have come up with a way to cut through the misinformation and get the truth across: Don’t just tell parents to vaccinate their children, show them what happens if they don’t.
In other words: Don’t argue with them! Just show scary pictures! The hope is to catch someone unaware, in a weakened state, or someone who is unfortunately not as well-versed on the subject.
Of course, if you can’t convince someone by providing facts, logic, and reasoning there is always the chance that the person is irrational. But there is also the very real chance that they are quite lucid and that you, in fact, armed with all your talking points, media-induced outrage, and perceived intellectual superiority, are simply wrong.
Kloger does make an important point though. Most “anti-vaxxers” are unconvinced when confronted with the typical pro-vaccine argument. But that is not because they are necessarily rigid of belief, it is mostly because the typical pro-vaccine argument tends to be baseless propaganda, rooted in rhetoric instead of science. As for the social aspect, if “anti-vaxxers” didn’t abandon their beliefs when the first few waves of obnoxious Big-Pharma propaganda came blasting through the airwaves, they are generally not impressed when their friends, family, or even complete strangers take it upon themselves to give them a regurgitation of the talking points they heard about vaccines on NPR, CNN, or read in TIME magazine.
After all, social shaming and bullying – if one’s opinions are strong enough – tend to produce the opposite of the desired effect.
This idea of showing scary pictures, however, is not just a rudimentarily effective propaganda method, it can also be quite dangerous, particularly when the scary pictures are being broadcast over every outlet in the mainstream media.
Take the spate of articles posted in the New York Times, for example. Propaganda narratives like “My Patient Doesn’t ‘Do’ Vaccines,” “The Dangers Of Vaccine Denial,” “A Discredited Vaccine Study’s Continuing Impact On Public Health,” are all aimed at painting the science surrounding the numerous demonstrations of vaccine dangers as pseudo-science and parents who question the safety of vaccines as delusional, obsessive, Luddites. They are designed to produce a false consensus within society that vaccines are safe and effective. Basically, they are designed to create a self-fulfilling prophecy – if enough people read the propaganda and believe it, particularly if they think the majority of others believe it, the victim population will come to believe the propaganda.
Now, apparently, the New York Times and its ilk will be sharing scary pictures to go along with their tripe.
Of course, we all know what happened the last time the New York Times posted scary pictures and emotional words. Maybe one day we will finally leave Iraq….
Image credit: farsight 3
Brandon Turbeville is an author out of Florence, South Carolina. He has a Bachelor’s Degree from Francis Marion University and is the author of six books, Codex Alimentarius — The End of Health FreeBrandon Turbevilledom, 7 Real Conspiracies, Five Sense Solutions and Dispatches From a Dissident, volume 1 and volume 2, and The Road to Damascus: The Anglo-American Assault on Syria. Turbeville has published over 500 articles dealing on a wide variety of subjects including health, economics, government corruption, and civil liberties. Brandon Turbeville’s podcast Truth on The Tracks can be found every Monday night 9 pm EST at UCYTV. He is available for radio and TV interviews. Please contact activistpost (at) gmail.com.
Over the past several weeks no less than seven established doctors have either been killed or died under unusual circumstances (e.g. here and here). What do these physicians have in common and what remedies are they researching or advocating? Do any of their proposed treatments pose a threat to the multi-billion dollar pharmaceutical cartel? If so, would government agencies and/or private contractors be commissioned to harass and perhaps even assassinate such individuals?
The answer may lie in an understanding of nagalese, a protein made by cancer cells and viruses. Nagalese is a primary cause of immunodeficiency given its ability to block the body’s production of GcMAF, otherwise known as “Vitamin D binding microphage activating factor,” a naturally-produced immune regulating compound that aids in fighting what are traditionally considered terminal diseases. Some researchers suggest that nagalese is one of many toxic components found in the immunizations commonly administered to children, including the Measles-Mumps-Rubella vaccine.
Some independently-minded medical practitioners are beginning to acknowledge not only the nagalese-vaccination link, but also that GcMAF possesses great potential for the treatment of cancer and a variety of other illnesses, including autism, inflammation, and viral and bacterial disease.
The most prominent of the seven doctors who’ve been murdered or died under suspicious circumstances is James Jeffrey Bradstreet. As the contents of his blog drbradstreet.org suggest, Dr. Bradstreet has conducted extensive research into the causes of autism. His body was found on June 19 floating in a North Carolina river with a gunshot wound to his chest. Perhaps uncoincidentally, Bradstreet was a strong advocate of GcMAF and had treated over 2,000 autistic children with the substance; 85% exhibited marked improvement under his care.
Dr. Bradstreet’s private practice in Buford, Georgia centered on “treating children with Autism Spectrum Disorder, PPD, and related neurological and developmental disorders.” Bradstreet has also provided expert testimony in federal court for families of the vaccine-injured and was founder and president of the International Child Development Resource Center, which once employed autism expert Dr. Andrew Wakefield as its research director.
Of course, GcMAF is not approved by the Food and Drug Administration as a treatment for any disease. Just three days before Bradstreet’s body was recovered, FDA agents had obtained a court order targeting Bradstreet’s Buford Georgia medical clinic. The document granted the government the right to seize
All Globulin component Macrophage Activating Factor (GcMAF) GC Globulin, and/or any other products or component substances thereof that constitute misbranded drugs under the Federal Food, Drugs and Cosmetic Act.
Even in death Bradsteet and his GcMAF-related work continue to pose a threat to the medical-pharmaceutical-regulatory complex, as evidenced in their flak-generating public relations arms, “Quackwatch” and “Science Based Medicine,” each of which have published vicious broadsides on the deceased physician.
Big pharma, which for decades has exerted vigorous control over the regulatory process while presiding over literally millions of deaths via its products, will stop at nothing to hamper medical scientific progress and protect its bottom line. Perhaps this zealous quest for profits and control now even includes outright murder of alternative practitioners.
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.
By: Mike Masnick
from the but,-fast-track’s-in-place,-so-too-bad,-suckers dept …
The draft text includes provisions that could make it extremely tough for generics to challenge brand-name pharmaceuticals abroad. Those provisions could also help block copycats from selling cheaper versions of the expensive cutting-edge drugs known as “biologics” inside the U.S., restricting treatment for American patients while jacking up Medicare and Medicaid costs for American taxpayers. “There’s very little distance between what Pharma wants and what the U.S. is demanding,” said Rohat Malpini, director of policy for Doctors Without Borders.
In response, the USTR falls back on its standard lame reply, about how draft texts are not “final.” But this is why it’s actually important to post these draft texts publicly, because what the draft Politico saw appears to show is that, whether or not it gets it, the USTR is fighting for policies that would harm poor, sick people, and massively benefit giant pharmaceutical conglomerates.
The highly technical 90-page document, cluttered with objections from other TPP nations, shows that U.S. negotiators have fought aggressively and, at least until Guam, successfully on behalf of Big Pharma.
That bit of information seems rather important in determining whose interests the USTR is truly representing in these negotiations. Remember, that while the final agreement will be posted publicly, the negotiating texts (which show what each side argued for) are being kept secret for four years after ratification — by which point the staff at the USTR will likely have turned over greatly, and whoever is there now can pretend they had nothing to do with the negotiating positions that the US is now locked into.
And, of course, now that fast track is the law, Congress can’t even step in to fix it. They’ll only be allowed an up/down vote on the entire agreement — with tremendous pressure on them to approve the whole thing, even if there are dangerous provisions mixed in the overall agreement.
Of course, we all know that this is why the agreement is secret. It’s not politically feasible for the US government to publicly show that it’s fighting against the health interests of the public and in favor of pharma profits. But it appears that’s exactly what’s happening behind closed doors. And that seems… wrong.
By: Heather Callaghan | ActivistPost.com –
A pharma company with generic drugs meets michrochip and biotech in a marriage of implantable devices that are shockingly close to the finish line of commercialization.
Deals were made. Money exchanged. Development in process – this is actually going to happen.
Is this the next phase of The Singularity? The complete bypassing of pills, injections – things that one actively chooses and takes – to a passive acceptance of remote controlled wireless chips quietly and somehow pumping substance for up to 16 years? Or is it more public relations for the long-time push for the coming ”brain chip”?
But first to roll out will probably be the wirelessly controlled birth-control implanted device backed by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
Rob Matheson of TechSwarm reports:
…Earlier this month, MIT spinout Microchips Biotech partnered with a pharmaceutical giant to commercialize its wirelessly controlled, implantable, microchip-based devices that store and release drugs inside the body over many years.
Invented by Microchips Biotech co-founders Michael Cima, the David H. Koch Professor of Engineering, and Robert Langer, the David H. Koch Institute Professor, the microchips consist of hundreds of pinhead-sized reservoirs, each capped with a metal membrane, that store tiny doses of therapeutics or chemicals. An electric current delivered by the device removes the membrane, releasing a single dose…
Now Microchips Biotech will begin co-developing microchips with Teva Pharmaceutical, the world’s largest producer of generic drugs, to treat specific diseases, with licensing potential for other products. Teva paid $35 million up front, with additional milestone payments as the device goes through clinical trials before it hits the shelves.
Langer was apparently inspired in the 1990s by microchip manufacturing to make a new drug delivery system. Cima, a chip-making expert had said, “…being out-of-this-world is not something that needs to stop anybody at MIT – In fact, that should be the criterion.” Cima recalls the early trial-and-error process saying, “We were trying to find the killer application. We thought, ‘I have a hammer, what’s the right nail to hit?’” Human trials for the wireless capabilities actually took place in 2011 – then Gates got involved.
Apart from providing convenience, Microchips Biotech says these microchips could also improve medication-prescription adherence — a surprisingly costly issue in the United States.
Do you hear that? Non-adherence won’t be tolerated because someone or something else will be calling the shots, so to speak… According to a supportive report by the Annals of Internal Medicine, the estimated unnecessary health costs of people who don’t stick to their meds is up to $100 billion to $289 billion annually.
Incidentally, that report goes on to say that a failure to follow prescriptions causes around 125,000 deaths annually and up to 10 percent of all hospitalizations. Is that on top of the 200,000 or so annual deaths caused by FDA-approved prescription drugs and more from the 200,000 – 400,000 annual deaths from medical mistakes at the hospital? (source)
While its first partnership is for treating chronic diseases, Microchips Biotech will continue work on its flagship product, a birth-control microchip, backed by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, that releases contraceptives and can be turned on and off wirelessly.
Cima, who now serves on the Microchips Biotech board of directors with Langer, sees this hormone-releasing microchip as one of the first implantable “artificial organs” — because it acts as a gland. “A lot of the therapies are trying to chemically trick the endocrine systems,” Cima says. “We are doing that with this artificial organ we created.”
Also, is this not an all too real metaphor for alchemy? Gold alloy for “this artificial organ we created”?
So there we have it, three or so avenues with which the “new medicine order” will be rolling out devices that mesh us with nanotech, biotech and wireless tech all in one. Who needs individuality and choice when one can let someone else take the medical wheel – from some remote location…
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
Sen. Ed Hernandez*
Sen. Holly Mitchell*
Assemblyman Brian Maienschein*
Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de León
Sen. Isadore Hall
Sen. Jerry Hill
Assemblyman Henry Perea
Assemblywoman Shirley Weber
Assemblyman Mike Gatto
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*
Assemblyman Richard Gordon
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
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. 
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. 
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.
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 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.
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!
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
Two Alabama parents are currently suing the pharmaceutical giant Johnson & Johnson for knowing the dangers of the schizophrenia medication Risperdal five years prior to the corporation’s admission that it could cause some unusual side effects. They have also been accused by an FDA whistleblower of manipulating data to continue selling the drug. This lawsuit is one out of hundreds awaiting trial for similar damages caused by J&J, specifically this drug.
Among several other side effects known to be caused by Risperdal, it caused growth of significant sized breasts in about 1000 young males. The number of people effected by the drug is much higher than 1000 — because theses numbers account for Pennsylvania alone.
It gets more intense; former FDA chief David Kessler testified against Johnson & Johnson in the suit, providing strong evidence to the claims that the corporation actually manipulated data to sell the drug.
Kessler testified and cited a 2001 study that showed “3.8% of boys using Risperdal in a clinical trial developed breasts,” in “a condition known as gynecomastia.”
Predictably, the study was funded by the pharmaceutical corporation Johnson & Johnson itself. That “certainly was a red flag,” according to David Kessler. Kessler was FDA commissioner from 1990 to 1997, and oversaw the FDA approval of this drug, and the apparent agenda to expand the use of the drug by any means practical and possible to the corporation J&J.
The suit in which he testified revolved around two parents from Alabama and their severely autistic son who is now 20. Their son was prescribed the drug when he was 7 and a half. Eventually, he had to have large breasts surgically removed as a result of using Risperdal.
The mother of the Risperdal victim, Benita Pledger, understandably did not have much to say. As she wiped tears from her face outside a courtroom in Philadelphia, she said,
“I’m just having a hard time right now […] hearing what the pharmaceutical company was doing.”
Previously, the pharmaceutical corporation paid 2.2 billion dollars as a result of their actions concerning the drug Risperdal. The twisted part is, it was not paid to victims of the drug, but to the federal government.
“Johnson & Johnson some time back agreed to pay $2.2 billion to settle federal claims that it improperly marketed the anti-psychotic drug Risperdal.”
It doesn’t exactly make sense that J&J gave the federal government 2.2 billion dollars following the settlement when the US Government is not the victim in this case. We all know how inefficient the government bureaucracy is. These kind of settlements should not be administered by the government, rather an independent third party intermediary.
Some details about this case may not be completely clear yet, but as it continues to unfold it will surely give valuable perspective to those paying attention.
Please share this with as many people as possible who could gain some perspective from it, or who may be affected by this drug.
Cassius Methyl is a Writer, Activist for Voluntaryism, Experimental Musician / Artist, and the founder of record label/media site Irrelevant Paradigm Media (www.IrrelevantParadigmMedia.com) Irrelevant Paradigm Media can be found here on Facebook www.facebook.com/irrelevantparadigmmedia.
To most of us, the word “drug” conjures varied, if not diametrically opposed images and connotations. On the one hand, “drugs” are illegal substances, associated with addiction, bodily harm, crime, and other unpleasant experiences. These drugs include cocaine, amphetamine, marijuana and heroin, and are generally not considered to have medicinal effects.
On the other hand, prescribed or over the counter “drugs” are associated with treating or preventing disease, regulated by the FDA and administered legally to the public in carefully meted doses by doctors. No matter which way you slice it, Americans have the most voracious appetite for drugs on the planet, consuming approximately 700 billion dollars worth of prescribed, over-the-counter and illegal drugs, annually.
The distinction between these two meanings of the word drug may hold hard and fast from the perspective of politics, the law, media imaging and ordinary parlance, but not necessarily from the perspective of biology and pharmacology. Take amphetamine, for instance. Although amphetamine is one of the most addictive and metabolically poisonous drugs found on the street today and responsible for thousands of deaths a year, it is approved by the FDA for the treatment of attention deficit disorder, weight loss, depression and narcolepsy in branded forms such as Adderall, Ritalin and Dexedrine.
Marijuana, on the other hand, which has an extraordinary safety profile, and which has been studied for decades for its extensive medical applications, remains illegal throughout the United States and is not approved for prescription as medicine. Politics, economics and social prejudices are the primary reason why certain substances attain approval or disapproval as drugs, not the inherent nature of the substance itself, as one would expect in a civilized society.
The difference between a “good” and a “bad” drug can depend entirely upon the social context within which a chemical like amphetamine is ingested. If acquired on the street within the context of the drug dealer/junky relationship it is a “fix” (albeit self-medication, no matter how misguided). If ingested upon a doctor’s request for a diagnosable disorder, it is considered “medicine.” The former context is socially sanctified; the latter is socially vilified.
Ultimately, neither situation can transcend the fact that amphetamine will only offer temporary relief from whatever emptiness or imbalance the drug was supposed to fix or cover up. Nothing within the amphetamine itself will address the underlying food allergies, nutritional deficiencies, emotional issues that may be causing the deficit in attention, sluggish metabolism, inability to sleep or depressive emotional state. In fact, long term amphetamine use is notorious for causing the very thing that it would temporarily remedy: suicidal depression, exhaustion to the point of sudden death, inability to focus, etc.
In some cases the street form of a drug is actually safer than its prescribed form. For instance, the synthetic opioid known in prescription form as Fentanyl is 40 times MORE powerful/addictive than heroin. However the main point of this article is not to decompose the rather essential boundaries that exist between “good” and “bad” drugs, as without them, society as we know it today would drift into greater chaos. Rather, we are going to focus on the way in which the positive sense of the word drug as medicine has been effectively removed from the grasp of foods and dietary supplements – as far as the FDA is concerned – forever.
According to the FDA’s legal definition of a drug, anything that “diagnoses, cures, mitigates, treats, or prevents a disease” is defined as a drug. The problem with this definition is that there are numerous substances, as readily available and benign as found on our spice racks, which have been proven to mitigate, prevent and in some cases CURE disease, and which CAN NOT be called DRUGS according to the FDA.
How can this be? Well, the FDA has Godlike power insofar as it has to grant a healing substance its official approval for it to be considered to have legitimate application in the treatment of disease. And historically the FDA has required very expensive clinical studies (approximately $100 million per drug) which are out of the grasp of any interest who might want to demonstrate the efficacy of a non-patentable and therefore unprofitable herb, food or spice.
“If Hippocrates, the founder of modern medicine, were alive today, he would be forced to qualify himself by saying: “Seek FDA approval for permission to let food be thy medicine.”
The common kitchen spice turmeric is a perfect example of this extraordinary hypocrisy. Although one can find over 400 biomedical citations on PubMed (pubmed.gov) discussing turmeric’s ability to cause apoptosis (programmed cell death) in cancer cells, it has not received the FDA’s approval as a drug in the treatment of cancer.
With over a million cases of cancer diagnosed annually in America, wouldn’t it be sensible for the FDA to approve the use of a substance with such extraordinary scientific backing and consensus on its effectiveness AND safety? And if not as a primary chemotoxic treatment, than at the very least as an adjunctive therapy? Sadly, the likely reason this miraculous substance has not been made available to cancer sufferers today is because it can be grown in one’s back yard for free!
Here we have the fundamental point. The FDA’s definition of a drug is not descriptive, but is a persuasive definition which purports to describe the “true” or “commonly accepted” meaning of a term, while in reality stipulating a meaning that serves only the interests of the drug companies it so spinelessly serves. If an herb can not be converted into a proprietary, profitable, patentable commodity, it will forever be barred from attaining the legitimacy of a “drug,” no matter how effective it is at treating disease.
When drug companies do manage to produce an extract of a whole herb, they almost invariably make the same fatal error: they equate the healing force of the whole plant with only certain decomposed isolates or ‘mono-chemicals’ found within this living, infinitely complex totality. Even worse, they tinker with these isolates to ensure that they are unique enough to derive a patent, with the unfortunate outcome that the new chemical analog is now biologically unprecedented.
This folly results in profound side effects and toxicity, and serves only one objective: to ensure the 20 year market exclusivity that a FDA awarded patent affords. One can play God by isolating and reproducing facsimiles of a component of a complex living organism such as turmeric.
But the isolate will never compare to the safety and healing power of the whole herb, produced by other nature herself; rather, it is more likely to behave like Mary Shelly’s Frankenstein, with uncontrollable and violent side effects.
And this is another key point: Mother Nature does not grant patents, even though her formulas are proprietary. She will never lend herself to rampant profit making and outlandish claims, nor will she make the mechanism of her healing perfectly intelligible vis-à-vis the scientific method. It is commodity and profit driven medicine, with its underlying emphasis on perverting the scientific method to serve economic objectives that concerns itself with patent exclusivities, hyperbolic claims and profit as an end unto itself. Rather than lament this fact, I have decided to celebrate it.
If whole food supplements, herbs and vitamins are forever exiled from the would-be legitimacy of the allopathic pharmacopeia, then so be it! This can not obviate the healing gifts that issue prolifically and freely from the lap of Nature herself; nor does it negate that birthright of health which we all participate in, knowingly and unknowingly.
Rather, this exclusion of what works and is right, and good, from the compass and concern of orthodox medical principle and practice, is an indication of a complete failure in credibility of the allopathic system as a whole, and which has earned it its disgraceful nickname: the Disestablishment.
Until food is allowed to be considered medicine once again, orthodox medical can not rightly claim to be interested in healing disease. Thomas Edison left us with a sage premonition of a possible future that may still remain within our grasp, when he wrote:
“The doctor of the future will give no medicine but will interest his patients in the care of the human frame, in diet, and in the cause and prevention of human disease.”
Article Contributed by Sayer Ji, Founder of www.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.