“Anybody can claim to be an expert even when they have no idea what they’re talking about—and it’s very difficult for the general public to distinguish. So, make sure the study is coming from a reputable organization that generally gives you the truth—though even with some reputable organizations, you occasionally get an outlier who’s out there talking nonsense. If something is published in places like New England Journal of Medicine, Science, Nature, Cell, or JAMA—you know, generally that is quite well peer-reviewed because the editors and the editorial staff of those journals really take things very seriously.”
Right you are, Tony.
So, Tony, here is a very serious statement from a former editor of one of those “places,” the New England Journal of Medicine:
“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine.” (Dr. Marcia Angell, NY Review of Books, January 15, 2009, “Drug Companies & Doctors: A Story of Corruption)
And here is another one, from the editor-in-chief of the prestigious journal, The Lancet, founded in 1823:
“The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness…”
“The apparent endemicity of bad research behaviour is alarming. In their quest for telling a compelling story, scientists too often sculpt data to fit their preferred theory of the world. Or they retrofit hypotheses to fit their data. Journal editors deserve their fair share of criticism too. We aid and abet the worst behaviours. Our acquiescence to the impact factor fuels an unhealthy competition to win a place in a select few journals. Our love of ‘significance’ pollutes the literature with many a statistical fairy-tale…Journals are not the only miscreants. Universities are in a perpetual struggle for money and talent…” (Dr. Richard Horton, editor-in-chief, The Lancet, in The Lancet, 11 April, 2015, Vol 385, “Offline: What is medicine’s 5 sigma?”)
Why stop there? Let’s consult a late public-health expert whose shoes Fauci would have been lucky to shine: Dr. Barbara Starfield, Johns Hopkins School of Public Health.
On July 26, 2000, the US medical community received a titanic shock, when Starfield revealed her findings on healthcare in America.
The Starfield review, “Is US health really the best in the world?”, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), came to the following conclusion, among others:
Every year in the US, correctly prescribed, FDA approved medical drugs kill 106,000 people. Thus, every decade, these drugs kill more than a MILLION people.
On the heels of Starfield’s astonishing findings, media reporting was perfunctory, and it soon dwindled. No major newspaper or television network mounted an ongoing “Medicalgate” investigation. Neither the US Department of Justice nor federal health agencies undertook prolonged remedial action.
All in all, those parties who could have made effective steps to correct this ongoing tragedy preferred to ignore it.
On December 6-7, 2009, I interviewed Dr. Starfield by email. Here is an excerpt from that interview.
Q: What has been the level and tenor of the response to your findings, since 2000?
A: The American public appears to have been hoodwinked into believing that more interventions lead to better health, and most people that I meet are completely unaware that the US does not have the ‘best health in the world’.
Q: In the medical research community, have your medically-caused mortality statistics been debated, or have these figures been accepted, albeit with some degree of shame?
A: The findings have been accepted by those who study them. There has been only one detractor, a former medical school dean, who has received a lot of attention for claiming that the US health system is the best there is and we need more of it. He has a vested interest in medical schools and teaching hospitals (they are his constituency).
Q: Have health agencies of the federal government consulted with you on ways to mitigate the [devastating] effects of the US medical system?
Q: Are you aware of any systematic efforts, since your 2000 JAMA study was published, to remedy the main categories of medically caused deaths in the US?
A: No systematic efforts; however, there have been a lot of studies. Most of them indicate higher rates [of death] than I calculated.
Q: Did your 2000 JAMA study sail through peer review, or was there some opposition to publishing it?
A: It was rejected by the first journal that I sent it to, on the grounds that ‘it would not be interesting to readers’!
—end of interview excerpt—
Physicians are trained to pay exclusive homage to peer-reviewed published drug studies. These doctors unfailingly ignore the fact that, if medical drugs are killing a million Americans per decade, the heraldic published studies on which those drugs are based must be fraudulent. In other words, the medical literature is completely unreliable, and impenetrable.
WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT THE TWO ESTEEMED MEDICAL EDITORS I QUOTED ABOVE—MARCIA ANGELL AND RICHARD HORTON—ARE SAYING.
If you know a doctor who enjoys sitting up on his high horse dispensing the final word on modern medicine, you might give him the quotes from Dr. Angell and Dr. Horton, instruct him to read them, and suggest he get in touch with Angell and Horton, in order to discover what has happened to his profession.
As in: DISASTER.
But please, continue to believe everything Fauci is saying. He must be right about the “pandemic.” After all, he has a very important position, and he’s on television.
So what if his policies have torpedoed the economy and devastated and destroyed lives across the country?
So what if he accepted, without more than a glance, that fraud Neil Ferguson’s computer projection of 500,000 deaths in the UK and two million in the US? In 2005, Ferguson said 200 million people could die from bird flu. The final official tally was a few hundred.
Fauci has an important position, and he’s on television.
Well, I suspect that we all suspected that sooner or later this would happen.
Sooner or later, someone involved in researching the Fauci-Lieber-Wuhan virus, was going to end up yet another victim of those strange “health care deaths” that we have blogged about from time to time. Well, it has happened, according to this article shared by C.S.:
And you can color me really skeptical here. Note the following:
A researcher killed in an apparent murder-suicide was close to “making very significant findings” related to the coronavirus, his department said.
Two shootings that happened over the weekend in Ross Township appear to be a murder-suicide, according to police.
On May 2, police said 37-year-old Bing Liu was found dead in his home on Elm Court from apparent gunshot wounds to his head, neck and torso. Investigators say they now believe his death is a homicide.
Liu was a research assistant professor at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, his department said on Monday.
“Bing was on the verge of making very significant findings toward understanding the cellular mechanisms that underlie SARS-CoV-2 infection and the cellular basis of the following complications. We will make an effort to complete what he started in an effort to pay homage to his scientific excellence,” the department said on its website. (Emphasis added)
So we have: (1) a Chinese-American, an assistant professor of medicine at the University of Pittsburg, who is (2) researching corona viruses and particularly (2a) the mechanisms of how they infect people and (2B) the cellular structures or bases of the complications following. Or to put that country simple, Professor Bing Liu’s research might have cracked the mystery as to why some people become horribly ill, and why some remain asymptomatic, or at best, suffer a cold.
Ahhh… but you can relax, because his apparent murderer was found in a car, the victim of an apparent suicide:
A second man was also found dead in his car on Charlemagne Circle, near Elm Court. Police say it appears he died from a self-inflicted gunshot wound to the head.
According to police, the two victims knew each other. Investigators say they believe the male found in his car shot and killed the man in the Elm Court home before coming back to his car and taking his own life.
There you go, Professor Bing Liu and the other man knew each other. It must have been all a friends’ squabble gone horribly wrong. Nothing to see here, move along. But we can relax because Professor Liu’s research will be continued:
“Bing was on the verge of making very significant findings toward understanding the cellular mechanisms that underlie SARS-CoV-2 infection and the cellular basis of the following complications. We will make an effort to complete what he started in an effort to pay homage to his scientific excellence,” the department said on its website. (Emphasis added)
Who wants to lay odds that we’ll never hear any more about Liu’s research?
Of course, there’s not a shred of data, or information, that can support my hypothesis that the unfortunate Professor Liu’s murder was anything more than a friends’ dispute gone wrong. But since virtually everything else about the Fauci-Lieber-Wuhan virus story stinks, not the least malodorous thing about it being the connections between Fauci (rhymes with Grouchy) and Billious Hates, I feel entirely justified in indulging in some high octane speculation. So yes, I would not be honest if I did not admit that my suspicion meter is in the red zone on this one. Somebody wanted this virus out and circulating, and somebody certainly is driving the propatainment media hysteria about the story, and somebody is willing to trash the global economy, and that means that whatever the motivations behind their actions, those motivations are important enough to trash the global economy and to take the risks associated with that action.
And that means in turn that they would do almost anything to anyone threatening whatever their agenda is, like, murdering a medical college professor investigating their virus… why, he might uncover evidence of its bio-engineered nature, and “whodunnit”, or might discover a very simple cure that doesn’t need big pharma. And would “they” make his murder look entirely innocent, like a quarrel between friends gone wrong? Yes. Would “they” plan it so that friend’s gun was used? Yes. Would “they” then turn that friend’s gun on that friend himself, and carefully place the gun in his hand to make it look like suicide (think Vince Foster here)? Yes. Indeed, might these two murders have occurred somewhere else, and the crime scenes staged? Yes. Would “they” be capable of that? Yes.
In this explosive interview, Spiro Skouras is joined by Dr. Sherri Tenpenny. The two discuss the latest developments regarding the coronavirus situation which was declared a global health pandemic by the Gates-funded World Health Organization, as more information comes to light questioning the need for a global lockdown.
Dr. Tenpenny and Spiro examine and explore the motives of the global response by governments, global institutions and private interests, as Dr. Tenpenny exposes perhaps the most alarming aspect of the crisis yet!
No, it is not the virus, it is the blank check issued to the vaccine and drug manufacturers, which not only provides unlimited funding, but also provides blanket immunity to Big Pharma for any harm attributed with the treatments produced during the declared emergency, including all drugs and vaccines.
This blanket immunity is provided by the US government under the PREP Act and provides the drug and vaccine manufacturers the ‘Ultimate Blank Check’ during a declared emergency. As Dr. Tenpenny points out, the vaccine and drug manufacturers have zero incentive to produce a safe product, as the declared emergency not only rolls back regulatory standards and removes them from any and all liability, but it also ensures the government will purchase their products.
This is an unprecedented level of immunity which raises many questions and safety concerns.
The Facts:Professor Didier Raoult has published his early results for Hydroxychloroquine as a treatment for moderate to severe COVID-19 patients. 973 patients out of 1063, according to him, have shown “a good clinical outcome.”
Reflect On:Why is there always so much controversy and politicization of science and treatments? Why are these treatments controversial within the mainstream, but vaccines cannot even be questioned?
In a new study performed at IHU Méditerranée Infection, Marseille, France a cohort of 1061 COVID-19 patients were treated for 3 days with the Hydroxychloroquine-Azithromycin (HCQ-AZ) combination. A follow-up of at least 9 days was investigated and the study found that no cardiac toxicity was observed. According to the abstract which was recently released:
“A good clinical outcome and virological cure was obtained in 973 (out of 1061) patients within 10 days (91.7%)…A poor outcome was observed for 46 patients (4.3 %); 10 were transferred to intensive care units, 5 patients died (0.47%) (74-95 years old) and 31 required 10 days of hospitalization or more…The HCQ-AZ combination, when started immediately after diagnosis, is a safe and efficient treatment for COVID-19, with a mortality rate of 0.5%, in elderly patients. It avoids worsening and clears virus persistence and contagiosity in most cases.”
It’s not clear when the complete study will be made available. But there is another side to this story, Sciencemg points out that:
The popular faith in hydroxychloroquine stands in stark contrast to the weakness of the data. Several studies of its efficacy against COVID-19 have delivered an equivocal or negative verdict, and it can have significant side effects, including heart arrhythmias. Raoult’s positive studies have been widely criticized for their limitations and methodological issues. The first included only 42 patients, and Raoult chose who received the drug or a placebo, a no-no in clinical research; the International Society of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy has distanced itself from the paper, published in the society’s International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents. The second study, published as a preprint without peer review, didn’t have a control group at all.
They go on to mention that:
Raoult has dismissed the criticism and complained about the “dictatorship of the methodologists” who insist on randomization and control groups in clinical trials. In his hospital, every patient diagnosed with COVID-19 receives hydroxychloroquine combined with azithromycin, an antibiotic. Raoult claims this has resulted in a very low death rate, which he says he will document soon in a publication.
Raoult has also found some high-level support in the medical world. An online petition in support of hydroxychloroquine was started by cardiologist and former Minister of Health Philippe Douste-Blazy—France’s candidate to lead the World Health Organization in 2017—and Christian Perronne, head of infectious diseases at the renowned Raymond Poincaré University Hospital in Garches, near Paris. Ten other prominent figures from the medical community, including two members of the Academy of Medicine, have also co-signed the petition, which demands hydroxychloroquine be authorized in hospital settings.
This has become a highly controversial topic that’s been politicized, as with most other medications and drugs. Profit and corporate interests are at stake, and therefore mass perceptions of it are controlled using various tactics and media. Sometimes it can be hard to decipher truth.
These findings also correlate with others that have been gaining attention as well.
For example, Dr. Vladimir Zelenko, a board-certified family practitioner in New York, said in a video interview that a cocktail of Hydroxychloroquine, Zinc Sulfate and Azithromycin are showing phenomenon results with 900 coronavirus patients treated. (source)
In that video he stated that he believes it’s very important to “get this information out to the American people and to the world.”
Dr. Anthony Cardillo, an ER specialist and the CEO of Mend Urgent Care, has been prescribing the zinc and hydroxychloroquine combination on patients experiencing severe symptoms associated with COVID-19. In an interview with KABC-TV, Cardillo stated:
“Every patient I’ve prescribed it to has been very, very ill and within 8 to 12 hours, they were basically symptom-free, […] So, clinically I am seeing a resolution.”
“We have to be cautious and mindful that we don’t prescribe it for patients who have COVID who are well,” he said. “It should be reserved for people who are really sick, in the hospital or at home very sick, who need that medication. Otherwise we’re going to blow through our supply for patients that take it regularly for other disease processes.”
According to Cardillo, it’s the combination of zinc and hydroxychloroquine that does the job. “[Hydrocychloroquine] opens the zinc channel” allowing the zinc to enter the cell, which then “blocks the replication of cellular machinery.”
President Donald Trump has also been quite outspoken about this treatment in some of his recent press conferences. We’ve seen many mainstream media publications, however, downplay the potential of this treatment which may be confusing people.
Cardillo added that the drug should only be prescribed to patients who are on the more severe side when it comes to symptoms. This will help keep the limited supply of the drug ready for those who truly need it.
In New Jersey, Physicians have called for more autonomy in treatment of COVID-19
“An additional group of doctors has contacted a New Jersey State Senator calling on the State to lift restrictions on the use of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) for the therapeutic treatment and prophylactic early treatment of COVID-19. The doctors are echoing Senator Pennacchio’s appeal for New Jersey to accumulate a stockpile of the medication….Pennacchio also wants the State to immediately compile a priority list for the HCQ distribution, ensuring enough medication for those currently prescribed for maladies including Lupus and RA, distribution to patients who have developed COVID-19, and for citizens as a preventive treatment. ‘I am optimistic these measures would decrease the severity and duration of the disease,’ said Pennacchio. ‘The goal must be breaking the pandemic so people can be allowed to return to their normal lives.’ ‘Allow doctors to be doctors. Remove the State’s unnecessary shackles, and let them save lives,’ Pennacchio urged.” (source)
In France, a large study indicates combination of Hydroxychloroquine and Azithromycin to be effective in treating COVID-19
“In 80 in-patients receiving a combination of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin, the team found a clinical improvement in all but one 86 year-old patient who died, and one 74-year old patient still in intensive care unit. The team also found that, by administering hydroxychloroquine combined with azithromycin, they were able to observe an improvement in all cases, except in one patient who arrived with an advanced form…The team went on to say: ‘Thus, in addition to its direct therapeutic role, this association can play a role in controlling the disease epidemic by limiting the duration of virus shedding, which can last for several weeks in the absence of specific treatment.’” (source)
All of this, of course, continues to raise the question: why is there such a strong push for a vaccine, and perhaps a mandated one, when there are other options available now? Why is the world listening to Bill Gates and his calls for further lockdown until the vaccine is ready? Is there something else going on here? Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau expressed that things won’t go back to ‘normal’ until a COVID-19 vaccine is developed.” You can read more about that here.
High-dose intravenous VC has also been successfully used in the treatment of 50 moderate to severe COVID-19 patients in China. The doses used varied between 2 g and 10 g per day, given over a period of 8–10 h. Additional VC bolus may be required among patients in critical conditions. The oxygenation index was improving in real time and all the patients eventually cured and were discharged. In fact, high-dose VC has been clinically used for several decades and a recent NIH expert panel document states clearly that this regimen (1.5 g/kg body weight) is safe and without major adverse events.
Again, all of this information should really raise some red flags and questions about what’s going on within governments, and their connection to pharmaceutical companies. They’re the largest lobbying entity in Washington D.C. They have more lobbyists in Washington D.C. than there are congressman and senators combined. They give twice to Congress what the next largest lobbying entity is, which is oil and gas… Imagine the power they exercise over both republicans and democrats. You can read more about that here.
Why do we continue to turn to and rely on federal health regulatory agencies and companies that don’t make health a priority, and put profits ahead of health?
Pharmaceuticals: A market for producing ‘lemons’ and serious harm, analysis finds
August 17, 2010
American Sociological Association
The pharmaceutical industry is a “market for lemons,” a market in which the seller knows much more than the buyer about the product and can profit from selling products less effective and less safe than consumers are led to believe, according to an analysis that will be presented at the 105th Annual Meeting of the American Sociological Association.
“Sometimes drug companies hide or downplay information about serious side effects of new drugs and overstate the drugs’ benefits,” said Donald Light, the sociologist who authored the study and who is a professor of comparative health policy at the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey. “Then, they spend two to three times more on marketing than on research to persuade doctors to prescribe these new drugs. Doctors may get misleading information and then misinform patients about the risks of a new drug. It’s really a two-tier market for lemons.”
Three reasons why the pharmaceutical market produces “lemons” are: Having companies in charge of testing new drugs, providing firewalls of legal protection behind which information about harms or effectiveness can be hidden, and the relatively low bar set for drug efficacy in order for a new drug to be approved, Light said.
According to his study, independent reviewers found that about 85 percent of new drugs offer few if any new benefits. Yet, toxic side effects or misuse of prescription drugs now make prescription drugs a significant cause of death in the United States.
Light’s paper, “Pharmaceuticals: A Two-Tier Market for Producing ‘Lemons’ and Serious Harm,” is an institutional analysis of the pharmaceutical industry and how it works based on a range of independent sources and studies, including the Canadian Patented Medicine Prices Review Board, the Food and Drug Administration, and Prescrire International.
The foundation for the paper is the work Light did for a forthcoming book he edited, titled ‘The Risk of Prescription Drugs,” which is scheduled for publication this fall by Columbia University Press.
In both his paper and his book, Light describes the “Risk Proliferation Syndrome” that is maximizing the number of patients exposed to new drugs that have relatively low efficacy and effectiveness but have greater risk of adverse side effects. Building on clinical trials designed to minimize evidence of harm and published literature that emphasizes a drug’s advantages, companies launch massive campaigns to sell it, when a controlled, limited launch would allow evidence to be gathered about the drug’s effects. Companies recruit leading clinicians to try using the drug for conditions other than those for which it is approved and to promote such off-label or unapproved uses. Physicians inadvertently become “double agents” — promoters of the new drug, yet trusted stewards of patients’ well-being, said Light. When patients complain of adverse reactions, studies show their doctors are likely to discount or dismiss them, according to Light.
Despite the extensive requirements for testing the efficacy and safety of each new drug, companies “swamp the regulator” with large numbers of incomplete, partial, substandard clinical trials, Light said. For example, in one study of 111 final applications for approval, 42% lacked adequately randomized trials, 40% had flawed testing of dosages, 39% lacked evidence of clinical efficacy, and 49% raised concerns about serious adverse side effects, said Light.
“Just recently, major reports have come out about biased, poor trials for Avandia and Avastin,” Light said, who noted that orphan drugs are tested even less well.
“The result is that drugs get approved without anyone being able to know how effective they really are or how much serious harm they will cause,” Light said. The companies control the making of scientific knowledge and then control which findings will go to the FDA or be published.
“A few basic changes could improve the quality of trials and evidence about the real risks and benefits of new drugs,” Light said. “We could also increase the percentage of new drugs that are really better for patients.”
The paper, “Pharmaceuticals: A Two-Tier Market for Producing ‘Lemons’ and Serious Harm,” was presented on Aug. 17 in Atlanta at the American Sociological Association’s 105th Annual Meeting.
American Sociological Association. “Pharmaceuticals: A market for producing ‘lemons’ and serious harm, analysis finds.” ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 17 August 2010. <www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/08/100817111825.htm>.
True Healing: Beyond “Managing”, “Treating” and “Curing” a Disease
True healing and true health are deep concepts which by their very definition imply oneness and unity (the word heal is etymologically derived from various words such as the Old English hælan meaning “to make whole”).
True healing includes the many levels within you beyond just the physical – the integration of the emotional, sexual, mental, spiritual and other selves or layers. True healing is far beyond just “managing”, “treating” and “curing” disease, which Big Pharma and its lapdog the FDA like to focus so exclusively upon.
Western medicine has its place in society as an excellent tool for specialized surgical or other emergency interventions – however it came into being from the Rockefeller-Big Pharma cartel, whose business model thrives on repeat customers who can’t get off the hamster wheel of drug after drug after drug.
On a deeper level, is it really any wonder that Western medicine can’t deliver true healing, when its approach is narrow and materialistic, rather than broad and holistic – when it’s fixated on managing, treating and curing, rather than healing?
Big Pharma and Western Medicine: Hooked on “Treating” Disease
If you’re wondering where the notion of “treating” come from, look no further than the FDA-mandated disclaimer that many natural health and holistic practitioners and companies are forced to use on their products.
It states that “this product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease” because only a drug can legally make such a claim. And, in a great example of FDA circular logic, if a substance does have an effect on the human body such as preventing or curing a disease – then it must be drug and not a food!
Guess what? The moment something becomes a drug and not a food, it’s regulated differently. If you’re a producer of a food that wants to state its natural effects on the body, now you have to jump through all sorts of expensive hoops just to state the truth.
This is despite the fact that scientific studies have shown, for instance, that cherries have a positive effect on gout and arthritis, coconut oil on Alzheimer’s, and turmeric, spirulina, graviola/soursop on cancer. It is an upside-down, outrageous situation where people are being silent about the clear and scientifically provable effects of foods and other natural medicines out of fear of being sued into poverty, taken down or taken out.
The truth is that managing disease is a Big Pharma specialty. The most profitable customers are those patients who are going to be reliant on prescription drugs – just to exist – for the rest of their lives. In those cases it’s all about managing disease. How interesting that the word itself management is a very corporate word.
Another aspect of the managing of disease is all the unnecessary (but very fancy and impressive sounding) testing that is done to people, under the guise of “early detection”.
In his revealing book Confessions of a Medical Heretic, Dr. Robert Mendolsohn quotes an article entitled “Cleveland’s Marvelous Medical Factory” which boasted of the Cleveland Clinic’s “accomplishments last year: 2,980 open-heart operations, 1.3 million laboratory tests, 73,320 electrocardiograms, 7,770 full-body x-ray scans, 24,368 surgical procedures.”
Seems wonderful … except for the very obvious point that none of these procedures has been proven to have anything to do with restoring health or true healing.
When people get screened for a disease, they are being subjected to dangerous radiation (more money for the Rockefellers) which harms tissue and can end up causing the exact disease it is supposed to be protecting against – as happens daily with the mammogram scam, designed to drum up new breast cancer clients.
Healing vs. Curing
Healing vs curing: there is a difference. Healing takes into account the energetic and holographic nature of our body and reality.
At this stage you may be thinking: well, Big Pharma and Western medicine do a lot of “managing” and “treating”, but aren’t they also in the business of “curing”? Yes – but even in this case, Western medicine is falling short of the ultimate goal of healing. Curing a disease and healing a disease are different things.
“Curing is what medical science attempts to do through medication, treatment and external intervention. It usually is the result of a series of treatments that hopefully lead to an event – the absence of disease.
“Healing is an internal process you do for yourself. Healing restores the balance and harmony to the body, mind and spirit. It can be done without a cure. Healing activities are essential when the negative influences of illness, loss or life changes encompass your life.”
“Curing is a restoration of health, an absence of symptoms, and a remedy of disease. Healing, on the other hand, is a restoration of wholeness — not the level of wholeness before the diagnosis, but a restoration of wholeness that is new, different, and comparatively better than before the onset of disease. Healing is not the removal or cessation of symptoms, but rather an integrative process that transcends the physical and includes mental, emotional, and spiritual vitality and wellness.”
Others have defined curing as the “elimination of all evidence of disease” and healing as “becoming whole”.
There are many ways to conceive and verbalize the difference between curing and healing, but the overall point is that healing is a deeper concept which includes the understanding that we are not just physical beings.
If we want to attain true health, we must address all the levels of our being. Often a “disease” is merely an outer physical manifestation of a psychological, energetic or spiritual blockage which is taking place at a much deeper level.
Big Pharma has (rightly) been accused of making drugs that just mask symptoms without healing the underling cause.
In many cases, they transfer the disease or imbalance from one part of the body to another. From a holistic perspective, this is only minorly helpful or not helpful at all, because as long as you have some imbalance, you’ve still got a health problem you have to deal with.
So, even if Big Pharma actually cures your disease, rather than just treating it or managing it, you still aren’t really at a place of true healing, or real health and balance. If the cause of your disease is happening on an energetic level, how can drugs, surgery or radiation ever address it?
Towards True Healing
In conclusion, if you want true healing, look at all aspects of your entire life. Are you indulging in negative thought patterns? Are you involved in toxic relationships? Are you getting the right type, frequency and duration of exercise? Are you sleeping well? Is your lifestyle too sedentary? Are you allowing questionable food items into your diet? How are you dealing with stress?
Even if you are doing a good job on most of these, being weak in one of these areas may be enough to throw your system off balance and lead to disease. We’re all on a journey of remembering our true selves, and reclaiming our wholeness through true healing is an inseparable part of it.
The Facts:Dr. Asseem Malhotra, a well-known Doctor in Britain had some choice words to say in front of the European Parliment about modern-day medical education and overall knowledge doctors possess. He’s one of many who continues to emerge and speak out.
Reflect On:Why do doctors continue to learn nothing about nutrition? It seems they are trained to prescribe medicine and do not question what they are prescribing. They risk losing their jobs by speaking out and educating themselves.
Dr. Asseem Malhotra is known as one of the most influential cardiologists in Britain and a world-leading expert in the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of heart disease. Currently, he is leading a huge campaign against excess sugar consumption. What also makes him unique is something he recently admitted took him decades to figure out: that our entire medical system, one of the main ‘protectors’ of the human race, is completely corrupt. He now believes that medical education is a state of “complete system failure,” causing “an epidemic of misinformed doctors.” He also stated that honest doctors can no longer practice honest medicine, and that there is also a growing epidemic of patients who are being harmed.
There is no denying that to some extent, medicine and doctors have done a lot of good and saved a lot of lives. However, an over-reliance on doctors for our health and well-being has spawned a serious problem, one that should be in the spotlight and immediately fixed.
The Need To Think For Ourselves
We all have to realize that society has been manufactured in a way where we simply give up our own mind to someone else, who has been given theirs by someone else. We lack the ability to think for ourselves because, from birth, we are programmed to think a certain way by somebody else.
This is something important for us to change, and by ‘us’ I not only mean patients; it should be a priority for all who practice medicine. And there are signs that it has started changing. Why? Because there is a shift in consciousness taking place. People within all societal systems (health, financial, education, government, etc.) are waking up, and starting to investigate what they have been taught. Rather than simply believing the promotional literature, more are pursuing self-education (which Dr. Malhotra stressed was the only real form of education).
Malhotra pointed out seven ‘sins’ that contribute to the lack of knowledge that not just doctors but everyone has, including patients, regarding modern day ‘medicine.’ He made these comments at a recent European Parliament meeting.
Other Prominent Doctors Speak Out
He’s not the only one to speak up about this issue. In fact, it seems that those who represent doctors have been speaking out about this for a long time. Dr. Marcia Angell, a physician and longtime Editor-in-Chief of the New England Medical Journal (NEMJ), considered one of the most prestigious peer-reviewed medical journals in the world, has said that,
“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine.” (source)
Then there is Dr. Richard Horton, the current Editor-in-Chief of another prestigious peer-reviewed medical journal, TheLancet, who says,“The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue.” (source)
There are many examples of statements and documented evidence to choose from, which is why doctors like Malhotra are speaking out. You can watch his full talk below the tweet from November 21st, 2017.
Bernadette Pajer, co-president of Informed Choice Washington, made the most exceptional presentation before the Washington State Board of Health regarding fully informed medical consent and choice, full-disclosure regarding vaccine science and ingredients, plus Big Pharma’s apparently illegal tactics that deprive citizens of their inherent and indisputable rights to self-determination regarding their health, their children’s health and vaccines/vaccinations.
Ms. Pajer’s presentation needs to be studied, and even replicated, regarding what her group found out about the modus operandi of Big Pharma and vaccine manufacturers to deny personal health rights and the obvious collusion that goes on between dozens of groups, if not hundreds, and that Big Pharma foots the bill.
If that is not collusion and something subject to legal action under the RICO and Sherman Anti-Trust laws of the United States, I don’t know what is.
Brave Mom Exposes Vaccine Corruption To Washington State Board of Health
Catherine J Frompovich (website) is a retired natural nutritionist who earned advanced degrees in Nutrition and Holistic Health Sciences, Certification in Orthomolecular Theory and Practice plus Paralegal Studies. Her work has been published in national and airline magazines since the early 1980s. Catherine authored numerous books on health issues along with co-authoring papers and monographs with physicians, nurses, and holistic healthcare professionals. She has been a consumer healthcare researcher 35 years and counting.
In a landmark study conducted by Danish researchers found that antidepressants can cause a person to become twice as likely to commit suicide or engage in violent activity than before they started taking the drugs. The analysis looked at 11 studies in which people without any signs or history of depression were given antidepressants and then afterwards reported their level of anxiety, nervousness, and depression nearly doubled.
Professor Peter Gotzsche, from the Nordic Cochrane Centre and lead author of the study, said such feelings could be considered as “precursors to suicidality or violence.”
These findings indicate that when healthcare professionals assume that heightened anxiety or depression is caused by the person’s already-existing mental illness and not antidepressants, that this is a “potentially lethal misconception.”
Trial phases of the research conducted by drug companies that produce the SSRIs, such as Prozac, Luvox, Paxil, Zoloft, and Celexa, reported that some patients had experienced suicidal thoughts and ideations, and thoughts of violence.
Though antidepressants are seen as dangerous for children because they produce these feelings and thoughts, they are thought of as safe for adults. These findings show that this is not necessarily the case. Professor Gøtzsche told The Express,
“It is well documented that drug companies under-report seriously the harms of antidepressants related to suicide and violence, either by simply omitting them from reports, by calling them something else or by committing scientific misconduct.”
The dangers of antidepressants and the agenda that Big Pharma is pushing is becoming increasingly known, as people fight for their right for safe and affordable healthcare. Though these drugs can produce amazing effects on some of those suffering from depression and anxiety, the likelihood that they are also harming some users is high.
Warning labels on antidepressants do include mention that suicidal thoughts could increase during the initial period, but the results of such trials and how the drugs even affect people without mental illness are not made clear in any capacity.
Despite these findings by Professor Gøtzsche, many are quick to refute the claims. Professor Sir Simon Wessely, President of the Royal College of Psychiatrists and Professor of Psychological Medicine, King’s College London’s Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, said,
“Overall, medications used in any branch of medicine that do good can also do harm. The same applies in psychiatry. Current evidence from large scale studies continues to show that for antidepressants the benefits outweigh the risks. If the evidence changes then so will our advice, but this study changes nothing.”
Though it may change nothing about how pharmaceuticals market and make their antidepressants, it may change how people view the effectiveness and safety of such drugs. Reaching users and citizens is at the core of uprooting corrupt systems, such as pharmaceuticals who are primarily concerned about profit over safety.
What are your thoughts on these findings? Please share, like, and comment on this article!
“Promoting diabolically false science, psychiatry creates a gateway for defining many separate states of consciousness that don’t exist at all. They’re cheap myths, fairy tales.” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)
—Let’s screen everybody to find out if they have mental disorders. Let’s diagnose as many people as possible with mental disorders and give them toxic drugs—
Wherever you see organized psychiatry operating, you see it trying to expand its domain and its dominance. The Hippocratic Oath to do no harm? Are you kidding?
The first question to ask is: do these mental disorders have any scientific basis? There are now roughly 300 of them. They multiply like fruit flies.
An open secret has been bleeding out into public consciousness for the past ten years.
THERE ARE NO DEFINITIVE LABORATORY TESTS FOR ANY SO-CALLED MENTAL DISORDER.
And along with that:
ALL SO-CALLED MENTAL DISORDERS ARE CONCOCTED, NAMED, LABELED, DESCRIBED, AND CATEGORIZED by a committee of psychiatrists, from menus of human behaviors.
Their findings are published in periodically updated editions of The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), printed by the American Psychiatric Association.
For years, even psychiatrists have been blowing the whistle on this hazy crazy process of “research.”
Of course, pharmaceutical companies, who manufacture highly toxic drugs to treat every one of these “disorders,” are leading the charge to invent more and more mental-health categories, so they can sell more drugs and make more money.
In a PBS Frontline episode, Does ADHD Exist?, Dr. Russell Barkley, an eminent professor of psychiatry and neurology at the University of Massachusetts Medical Center, unintentionally spelled out the fraud.
PBS FRONTLINE INTERVIEWER: Skeptics say that there’s no biological marker—that it [ADHD] is the one condition out there where there is no blood test, and that no one knows what causes it.
BARKLEY: That’s tremendously naïve, and it shows a great deal of illiteracy about science and about the mental health professions. A disorder doesn’t have to have a blood test to be valid. If that were the case, all mental disorders would be invalid… There is no lab test for any mental disorder right now in our science. That doesn’t make them invalid. [Emphasis added]
Oh, indeed, that does make them invalid. Utterly and completely. All 297 mental disorders. They’re all hoaxes. Because there are no defining tests of any kind to back up the diagnosis.
You can sway and tap dance and bloviate all you like and you won’t escape the noose around your neck. We are looking at a science that isn’t a science. That’s called fraud. Rank fraud.
There’s more. Under the radar, one of the great psychiatric stars, who has been out in front inventing mental disorders, went public. He blew the whistle on himself and his colleagues. And for years, almost no one noticed.
His name is Dr. Allen Frances, and he made VERY interesting statements to Gary Greenberg, author of a Wired article: “Inside the Battle to Define Mental Illness.” (Dec.27, 2010).
Major media never picked up on the interview in any serious way. It never became a scandal.
Dr. Allen Frances is the man who, in 1994, headed up the project to write the latest edition of the psychiatric bible, the DSM-IV. This tome defines and labels and describes every official mental disorder. The DSM-IV eventually listed 297 of them.
In an April 19, 1994, New York Times piece, “Scientist At Work,” Daniel Goleman called Frances “Perhaps the most powerful psychiatrist in America at the moment…”
Well, sure. If you’re sculpting the entire canon of diagnosable mental disorders for your colleagues, for insurers, for the government, for Pharma (who will sell the drugs matched up to the 297 DSM-IV diagnoses), you’re right up there in the pantheon.
Long after the DSM-IV had been put into print, Dr. Frances talked to Wired’s Greenberg and said the following:
“There is no definition of a mental disorder. It’s bullshit. I mean, you just can’t define it.”
That’s on the order of the designer of the Hindenburg, looking at the burned rubble on the ground, remarking, “Well, I knew there would be a problem.”
After a suitable pause, Dr. Frances remarked to Greenberg, “These concepts [of distinct mental disorders] are virtually impossible to define precisely with bright lines at the borders.”
Frances might have been obliquely referring to the fact that his baby, the DSM-IV, had rearranged earlier definitions of ADHD and Bipolar to permit many MORE diagnoses, leading to a vast acceleration of drug-dosing with highly powerful and toxic compounds.
If this is medical science, a duck is a rocket ship.
To repeat, Dr. Frances’ work on the DSM IV allowed for MORE toxic drugs to be prescribed, because the definitions of Bipolar and ADHD were expanded to include more people.
Adverse effects of Valproate (given for a Bipolar diagnosis) include:
* acute, life-threatening, and even fatal liver toxicity;
* life-threatening inflammation of the pancreas;
* brain damage.
Adverse effects of Lithium (also given for a Bipolar diagnosis) include:
* intercranial pressure leading to blindness;
* peripheral circulatory collapse;
* stupor and coma.
Adverse effects of Risperdal (given for “Bipolar” and “irritability stemming from autism”) include:
* serious impairment of cognitive function;
* restless muscles in neck or face, tremors (may be indicative of motor brain damage).
Dr. Frances self-admitted label-juggling act also permitted the definition of ADHD to expand, thereby opening the door for greater and greater use of Ritalin (and other similar compounds) as the treatment of choice.
So…what about Ritalin?
In 1986, The International Journal of the Addictions published a most important literature review by Richard Scarnati. It was called “An Outline of Hazardous Side Effects of Ritalin (Methylphenidate)” [v.21(7), pp. 837-841].
Scarnati listed a large number of adverse effects of Ritalin and cited published journal articles which reported each of these symptoms.
For every one of the following (selected and quoted verbatim) Ritalin effects, there is at least one confirming source in the medical literature:
* Paranoid delusions
* Paranoid psychosis
* Hypomanic and manic symptoms, amphetamine-like psychosis
* Activation of psychotic symptoms
* Toxic psychosis
* Visual hallucinations
* Auditory hallucinations
* Can surpass LSD in producing bizarre experiences
* Effects pathological thought processes
* Extreme withdrawal
* Terrified affect
* Started screaming
* Since Ritalin is considered an amphetamine-type drug, expect amphetamine-like effects
* Psychic dependence
* High-abuse potential DEA Schedule II Drug
* Decreased REM sleep
* When used with antidepressants one may see dangerous reactions including hypertension, seizures and hypothermia
* Brain damage may be seen with amphetamine abuse.
In the US alone, there are at least 300,000 cases of motor brain damage incurred by people who have been prescribed so-called anti-psychotic drugs (aka “major tranquilizers”). Risperdal (mentioned above as a drug given to people diagnosed with Bipolar) is one of those major tranquilizers. (source: Toxic Psychiatry, Dr. Peter Breggin, St. Martin’s Press, 1991)
This psychiatric drug plague is accelerating across the land.
Where are the mainstream reporters and editors and newspapers and TV anchors who should be breaking this story and mercilessly hammering on it week after week? They are in harness.
Thank you, Dr. Frances.
Let’s take a little trip back in time and review how one psychiatric drug, Prozac, escaped a bitter fate, by hook and by crook. It’s an instructive case.
Prozac, in fact, endured a rocky road in the press for a while. Stories on it rarely appear now. The major media have backed off. But on February 7th, 1991, Amy Marcus’ Wall Street Journal article on the drug carried the headline, “Murder Trials Introduce Prozac Defense.”
She wrote, “A spate of murder trials in which defendants claim they became violent when they took the antidepressant Prozac are imposing new problems for the drug’s maker, Eli Lilly and Co.”
Also on February 7, 1991, the New York Times ran a Prozac piece headlined, “Suicidal Behavior Tied Again to Drug: Does Antidepressant Prompt Violence?”
In his landmark book, Toxic Psychiatry, Dr. Breggin mentions that the Donahue show (Feb. 28, 1991) “put together a group of individuals who had become compulsively self-destructive and murderous after taking Prozac and the clamorous telephone and audience response confirmed the problem.”
A shocking review-study published in The Journal of Nervous and Mental Diseases (1996, v.184, no.2), written by Rhoda L. Fisher and Seymour Fisher, called “Antidepressants for Children,” concludes:
“Despite unanimous literature of double-blind studies indicating that antidepressants are no more effective than placebos in treating depression in children and adolescents, such medications continue to be in wide use.”
An instructive article, “Protecting Prozac,” by Michael Grinfeld, in the December 1998 California Lawyer, opens several doors. Grinfeld notes that “in the past year nearly a dozen cases involving Prozac have disappeared from the court record.” He was talking about law suits against the manufacturer, Eli Lilly, and he was saying that those cases had apparently been settled, without trial, in such a quiet and final way, with such strict confidentiality, that it is almost as if they never happened.
Grinfeld details a set of maneuvers involving attorney Paul Smith, who in the early 1990s became the lead plaintiffs’ counsel in the famous Fentress lawsuit against Eli Lilly.
The plaintiffs made the accusation that Prozac had induced a man to commit murder.This was the first action involving Prozac to reach a trial and jury, so it would establish a major precedent for a large number of other pending suits against the manufacturer.
The case: On September 14, 1989, Joseph Wesbecker, a former employee of Standard Gravure, in Louisville, Kentucky, walked into the workplace, with an AK-47 and a SIG Sauer pistol, killed eight people, wounded 12 others, and committed suicide. Family members of the victims subsequently sued Eli Lilly, the maker of Prozac, on the grounds that Wesbecker had been pushed over the edge into violence by the drug.
The trial: After what many people thought was a very weak attack on Lilly by plaintiffs’ lawyer Smith, the jury came back in five hours with an easy verdict favoring Lilly and Prozac.
Grinfeld writes, “Lilly’s defense attorneys predicted the verdict would be the death knell for [anti-]Prozac litigation.”
But that wasn’t the end of the Fentress case. “Rumors began to circulate that [the plaintiffs’ attorney] Smith had made several [prior] oral agreements with Lilly concerning the evidence that would be presented [in Fentress], the structure of a postverdict settlement, and the potential resolution of Smith’s other [anti-Prozac] cases.”
In other words, the rumors declared: This plaintiff’s lawyer, Smith, made a deal with Lilly to present a weak attack, to omit evidence damaging to Prozac, so that the jury would find Lilly innocent of all charges. In return, the case would be settled secretly, with Lilly paying out big monies to Smith’s client. In this way, Lilly would avoid the exposure of a public settlement, and through the innocent verdict, would discourage other potential plaintiffs from suing it over Prozac.
The rumors congealed. The judge in the Fentress case, John Potter, asked lawyers on both sides if “money had changed hands.” He wanted to know if the fix was in. The lawyers said no money had been paid, “without acknowledging that an agreement was in place.”
Judge Potter didn’t stop there. In April 1995, Grinfeld notes, “In court papers, Potter wrote that he was surprised that the plaintiffs’ attorneys [Smith] hadn’t introduced evidence that Lilly had been charged criminally for failing to report deaths from another of its drugs to the Food and Drug Administration. Smith had fought hard [during the Fentress trial] to convince Potter to admit that evidence, and then unaccountably withheld it.”
In Judge Potter’s motion, he alleged that “Lilly [in the Fentress case] sought to buy not just the verdict, but the court’s judgment as well.”
In 1996, the Kentucky Supreme Court issued an opinion: “…there was a serious lack of candor with the trial court [during Fentress] and there may have been deception, bad faith conduct, abuse of the judicial process or perhaps even fraud.”
After the Supreme Court remanded the Fentress case back to the state attorney general’s office, the whole matter dribbled away, and then resurfaced in a different form, in another venue. At the time of the California Lawyer article, a new action against Smith was unresolved. Eventually, Eli Lilly escaped punishment.
Based on the rigged Fentress case, Eli Lilly silenced many lawsuits based on Prozac inducing murder and suicide.
Quite a story.
And it all really starts with the institution of psychiatry inventing a whole branch of science that doesn’t exist, thereby defining 300 mental disorders that don’t exist.
Here’s a coda:
This one is big.
The so-called “chemical-imbalance theory of mental illness is dead.
Dr. Ronald Pies, the editor-in-chief emeritus of the Psychiatric Times, laid the theory to rest in the July 11, 2011, issue of the Times with this staggering admission:
“In truth, the ‘chemical imbalance’ notion was always a kind of urban legend — never a theory seriously propounded by well-informed psychiatrists.”
However…urban legend? No. For decades the whole basis of psychiatric drug research, drug prescription, and drug sales has been: “we’re correcting a chemical imbalance in the brain.”
The problem was, researchers had never established a normal baseline for chemical balance. So they were shooting in the dark. Worse, they were faking a theory. Pretending they knew something when they didn’t.
In his 2011 piece in Psychiatric Times, Dr. Pies tries to cover his colleagues in the psychiatric profession with this fatuous remark:
“In the past 30 years, I don’t believe I have ever heard a knowledgeable, well-trained psychiatrist make such a preposterous claim [about chemical imbalance in the brain], except perhaps to mock it…the ‘chemical imbalance’ image has been vigorously promoted by some pharmaceutical companies, often to the detriment of our patients’ understanding.”
Absurd. First of all, many psychiatrists have explained and do explain to their patients that the drugs are there to correct a chemical imbalance.
And second, if all well-trained psychiatrists have known, all along, that the chemical-imbalance theory is a fraud…
…then why on earth have they been prescribing tons of drugs to their patients…
…since those drugs are developed on the false premise that they correct a chemical imbalance?
Here’s what’s happening. The honchos of psychiatry are seeing the handwriting on the wall. Their game has been exposed. They’re taking heavy flack on many fronts.
The chemical-imbalance theory is a fake. There are no defining physical tests for any of the 300 so-called mental disorders. All diagnoses are based on arbitrary clusters or menus of human behavior. The drugs are harmful, dangerous, toxic. Some of them induce violence. Suicide, homicide. Some of the drugs cause brain damage.
Psychiatry is a pseudo-pseudo science.
So the shrinks have to move into another model, another con, another fraud. And they’re looking for one.
For example, genes plus “psycho-social factors.” A mish-mash of more unproven science.
“New breakthrough research on the functioning of the brain is paying dividends and holds great promise…” Professional gibberish.
It’s all gibberish, all the way down.
Meanwhile, the business model demands drugs for sale.
So even though the chemical-imbalance nonsense has been discredited, it will continue on as a dead man walking, a zombie.
Big Pharma isn’t going to back off. Trillions of dollars are at stake.
And in the wake of Aurora, Colorado, Sandy Hook, the Naval Yard, and other mass shootings, the hype is expanding: “we must have new community mental-health centers all over America.”
More fake diagnosis of mental disorders, more devastating drugs.
You want to fight for a right? Fight for the right to refuse medication. Fight for the right of every parent to refuse medication for his/her child.