Tag Archives: big pharma

The TPP, Confederate Flag, & Multinationals

Posted on by

AS ALWAYS —- DO YOUR RESEARCH

ECONOMIC SLAVERY FOR ALL: While we were distracted with the Confederate flag flap, Congress quietly forfeited our entire economic future via fast-track trade authority

Thursday, June 25, 2015

(NaturalNews) While America was distracted by a contrived, pre-planned Confederate flag distraction, the U.S. Congress forfeited the entire economic future of the country by quietly passing so-called “fast-track authority” which will allow President Obama to approve the TPP “free trade” agreement.

The TPP, as you may have heard, outright surrenders U.S. sovereignty to multinational corporations, handing them total global monopolies over labor practices, immigration, Big Pharma drug pricing, GMO food labeling, criminalization of garden seeds and much more. In all, the TPP hands over control of 80% of the U.S. economy to global monopolists, and the TPP is set up to enable those corporations to engage in virtually unlimited toxic chemical pollution, medical monopolization, the gutting of labor safety laws and much more.

Plus, did I mention the TPP will displace millions of American works as corporations outsource jobs to foreign workers? While corporations rake in the profits from new global powers, everyday American workers will lose their livelihoods and their jobs (not to mention their pensions).

Political sleight of hand: It was SOOOO easy to distract the American people with a flag flap!
Essentially, America just got sold out by people like Marco Rubio. And it was incredibly easy to pull off, too. First, America was distracted by a contrived, pre-planned mass hysteria / outrage event now known as the Confederate flag flap. Hilariously, this literal false flag controversy doesn’t even involve the actual Confederate flag. It involves a battle flag that people mistakenly think is the Confederate flag. (But who needs historical accuracy when there’s hysteria to spread?)

While Amazon.com was frantically deleting Confederate flag products from its website and everybody was going bat-crap insane over the 1970’s comedy TV series Dukes of Hazzard and its use of the so-called Confederate flag on a hot rod car, Republicans and the President were busy committing outright treason at the highest levels: surrendering American sovereignty and economically enslaving all of America’s future children.

And that’s the tragic irony of all this: While the political left falsely believed it was denouncing slavery by pressuring every online retailer and government entity to ban the Confederate flag, the U.S. Congress was busy enacting a whole new level of total economic enslavement for everyone, regardless of their skin color.

While ignorant “activists” ran around in mass hysteria, thinking they were banishing a symbol of enslavement to the history books, they were actually providing the necessary public distraction for quiet passage of the TPP’s fast-track authority.

In other words, they played right into the hands of the real slave masters: the globalist, monopolist corporations and their fascist government puppets who betray the People at every opportunity.

Believe me: These corporations don’t care about the skin color of their slave workers. They gladly enslave everyone, including you and me, if we’re stupid enough to allow our own elected representatives to forfeit America’s future (which they just did).

Screw the Confederate flag issue, folks: All Americans are now the “property” of multinational monopolist corporations that have turned national governments against their own people. The Confederate flag flap was merely a useful distraction to trick the population using political sleight of hand to fool everyone about the real agenda being pursued in Washington.

America is now officially a nation of slave workers beholden to multinational corporate interests. How does your silly flag outrage feel now?
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/050199_fast-track_authority_TPP_Confederate_flag.html#ixzz3eHqRC6nV

Ebola Virus – Panic & Vaccine

Posted on by

CAVEAT:  As always, Do your Research, check things out, pay attention, and do not panic:

 

Doctor: ‘There’s Not Enough PANIC and Customers to Make an Ebola Vaccine’ — Oh Really?

Melissa Melton
Activist Post

A short two-minute video Bloomberg News uploaded to YouTube attempts to explain why the world doesn’t already have a widely available Ebola vaccine.

(Trusting the ingredients of such a thing and whether or not you would personally take it is another matter entirely, but hold on a second.)

What’s fascinating about this clip is what Dr. Ben Neuman, University of Reading, says towards the end.

Neuman explains that because viruses easily mutate, “It’s not just one drug we need for Ebola. We need a cocktail of drugs and perhaps a nice vaccine that could be used.”

Hm. Sounds like a Big Pharma hay day pay day, does it not?

But Dr. Ben also goes on to explain why the major pharmaceutical companies haven’t been all that eager to produce this cocktail of drugs and vaccines — which would surely translate to big bucks — just yet.

These all take a lot of money and right now in the history of what we know at least, there have been fewer than 5,000 people who have been infected with Ebola. It sounds scary, but I don’t know that there’s enough…uh…panic or enough people who are potential customers for these drugs to warrant a company — a private company anyway — putting the money it would take to develop this. [emphasis added]

Did you catch that? (Yeah, I know you did, that’s why I added the emphasis.)

Watch the video. The good doctor even struggles to find his words before he says he isn’t sure there is enough panic and customers to warrant developing a vaccine.

This is despite the fact that articles were coming out in scientific circles back in 2008 that Ebola vaccines had been successfully used in animal trials and even on one human patient, a lab worker who accidentally pricked her finger with an Ebola-laced syringe.

There’s not enough panic to go any further with it, though? Well, gee Ben, where can we get some panic from?

This video reveals two fundamental truths.

One: pharmaceuticals and vaccines really aren’t about saving lives…oh no, first and foremost, they’re about making money.

Two: there has to be enough panic to stir up potential customers to necessitate the creation of said pharmaceuticals and vaccines and there just simply was not enough Ebola panic to go around to make it worth it.

Well…there certainly is enough pricey panic now, isn’t there?

It’s a concerted effort. As I wrote earlier in an article questioning this sudden media zoo surrounding Ebola and why, in an unprecedented move, we’re suddenly shipping people infected with Ebola here for the first time ever, a lot of people in the military-medical-media industrial complex stand to make a lot of money off of this virus.

And, right on time, Reuters is reporting that they’re going to fast track a new Ebola vaccine and start testing on human patients as early as next month. Was that quick or what?

The Hegelian Dialectic is such a timeless strategy. Why? Because it works. So they just keep using it over and over and over.

Problem: not enough panic to make the big bucks off Ebola.

Reaction: create a panic to make the big bucks off Ebola.

Solution: problem solved.

It’s basically the same strategy they used to pawn off fast tracked, experimental H1N1 vaccines on people just a few years ago, only this time they’re playing with a much scarier virus to induce even more fear. In fact, next time you see a headline like, ‘Ebola fear going viral’ feel free to keep this in mind.

Melissa Melton is a writer, researcher, and analyst for The Daily Sheeple, where this first appeared, and a co-creator of Truthstream Media with Aaron Dykes, a site that offers teleprompter-free, unscripted analysis of The Matrix we find ourselves living in. Melissa also co-founded Nutritional Anarchy with Daisy Luther of The Organic Prepper, a site focused on resistance through food self-sufficiency. Wake the flock up!

from:    http://www.activistpost.com/2014/08/doctor-theres-not-enough-panic-and.html#!bxnJoD

High Cholestrol can be Good

Posted on by

How Medical ‘Science’ Proves that Black Is White

July 24, 2013

The corruption of medical science continues apace. Dr. Malcolm Kendrick shows how one study draws a conclusion that’s the exact opposite of what its data documents. Apparently, it doesn’t matter how many tricks and twists are applied, as long as the conclusion states what the pharmaceutical corporation wants.

Man Faking Hiding His Eyes

Photo by Cayusa

by Dr. Malcolm Kendrick

Last week I was going through some old files, and presentations, in a vague effort to clean up my computer. Whilst looking a one of many thousands of studies I had filed away I came across this paper: ‘Clarifying the direct relation between total cholesterol levels and death from coronary heart disease in older persons1.’

I read it, and immediately recalled why I kept it. For it came to the following, final, conclusion:

 ‘Elevated total cholesterol level is a risk factor for death from coronary heart disease in older adults.’

I remember when I first read this paper a few years ago. My initial thought was to doubt that it could be true. Most of the evidence I had seen strongly suggested that, in the elderly, a high cholesterol level was actually protective against Coronary Heart Disease (CHD).

However, when a bunch of investigators state unequivocally that elevated cholesterol is a risk factor for heart disease, I try to give them the benefit of the doubt. So I read the damned thing. Always a potentially dangerous waste of precious brainpower.

Now, I am not going to dissect all the data in detail here, but one sentence that jumped out of the paper was the following:

‘Persons (Over 65) with the lowest total cholesterol levels ≤4.15 mmol/L had the highest rate of death from coronary heart disease, whereas those with elevated total cholesterol levels ≥ or = 6.20 mmol/L seemed to have a lower risk for death from coronary heart disease. ‘

Now, I can hardly blame you if you struggled to fit those two quotes together. On one hand, the conclusion of the paper was that .. ‘Elevated total cholesterol level is a risk factor for death from coronary heart disease in older adults.’ On the other hand, the authors reported that those with the lowest total cholesterol levels had the highest rate of CHD; whilst those with the highest cholesterol levels had the lowest rate of CHD.

Taken at face value, this paper seems to be contradicting itself … utterly. However, the key word here, as you may have already noted, is seemed. As in … those with elevated total cholesterol levels ≥ or = 6.20 mmol/L seemed to have a lower risk for death from coronary heart disease. ‘

Now you may think that this is a strange word to use in a scientific paper. Surely those with elevated total cholesterol levels either did, or did not, have a lower risk of death from CHD? Dying is not really something you can fake, and once a cause of death has been recorded it cannot be changed at a later date. So how can someone seem to die of something – yet not die of it?

The answer is that you take the bare statistics, then you stretch them and bend them until you get the answer you want. Firstly, you adjust your figures for established risk factors for coronary heart disease – which may be justified (or may not be). Then you adjust for markers of poor health – which most certainly is not justified – as you have no idea if you are looking at cause, effect, or association.

Then, when this doesn’t provide the answer you want, you exclude a whole bunch of deaths, for reasons that are complete nonsense. I quote:

After adjustment for established risk factors for coronary heart disease and markers of poor health and exclusion of 44 deaths from coronary heart disease that occurred within the first year, [my bold text]elevated total cholesterol levels predicted increased risk for death from coronary heart disease, and the risk for death from coronary heart disease decreased as cholesterol levels decreased.

Why did they exclude 44 deaths within the first year?  Well, they decided that having a low cholesterol level was a marker for poor health, and so it was the poor health that killed them within the first year.

The reason why they believed they could do this is that, a number of years ago, a man called Iribarren decreed that the raised mortality always seen in those with low cholesterol levels is because people with low cholesterol have underlying diseases. And it is these underlying diseases that kill them. (What, even dying from CHD. And how, exactly does CHD cause a low cholesterol levels … one might ask).

In truth, there has never been a scrap of evidence to support Iribarren’s made-up ad-hoc hypothesis. [A bottle of champagne for anyone who can find any evidence]. However, it is now so widely believed to be true, that no-one questions it.

Anyway, without chasing down too many completely made-up ad-hoc hypotheses, the bottom line is that this paper stands a perfect example of how you can take a result you don’t like and turn it through one hundred and eighty degrees. At which point you have a conclusion that you do like.

Young researcher: (Bright and innocent)  ‘Look, this is really interesting, elderly people with low cholesterol levels are at greater risk of dying of heart disease.’

Professor: (Smoothly threatening) ‘I think you will find … if you were to look more carefully, that this is not what you actually found … Is it? By the way, how is your latest grant application going?’

Young researcher: (Flushing red at realising his blunder) ‘Yes, by golly, how silly of me. I think I really found that elderly people with high cholesterol levels are at a greater risk of dying of heart disease.’

Professor: ‘Yes, excellent. Be a good lad, find a good statistician to make sure the figures make sense, and write it up.’

For those who wonder at my almost absolute cynicism with regard to the current state of Evidence Based Medicine, I offer this paper as a further example of the way that facts are beaten into submission until they fit with current medical scientific dogma.

As a final sign off I would advise that any paper that has the word ‘clarifying’ in its title, should be treated with the utmost suspicion. I think George Orwell would know exactly what the word clarifying means in this context. Facts do not need clarification.

You can watch Dr. Kendrick discussing cholesterol and heart disease here.

1: Corti MC et al: Clarifying the direct relation between total cholesterol levels and death from coronary heart disease in older persons. Ann Intern Med. 1997 May 15;126(10):753-60

from:    http://gaia-health.com/gaia-blog/2013-07-24/how-medical-science-proves-that-black-is-white/

Cancer Studies Funded by

Posted on by

Industry-backed studies more prominent at meetings

By Genevra Pittman

NEW YORK | Tue Jun 18, 2013 3:11pm EDT

(Reuters Health) – Studies that are funded by pharmaceutical companies or involve industry-backed scientists tend to be more prominent at cancer meetings than independent studies, a new report suggests.

“Figuring out the reasons behind these findings is critical,” said Dr. Beverly Moy, who led the analysis at Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center in Boston.

She and her colleagues also found the proportion of presentations with a financial conflict of interest increased between the 2006 and 2011 American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) annual meetings.

“As long as the studies are done well, I don’t think there’s any objection to them becoming more prominent,” Moy told Reuters Health.

However, she added, past evidence suggests industry-funded research is more likely to be published if it’s positive – in favor of a product or pill – than if it’s negative, a phenomenon known as publication bias.

So it’s important to make sure relationships between scientists and companies stay “productive,” she said, rather than become untrustworthy.

The researchers analyzed conflicts of interest, ratings and conference prominence for more than 20,700 scientific abstracts, or research summaries, presented at ASCO meetings in 2006, 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011.

Over those years, the proportion of studies reporting a financial conflict of interest rose from 33 percent to 38 percent. Their abstracts were rated as slightly better quality by peer reviewers, on average: 2.76 on a scale from 1 to 5, where lower is better, versus 3.01 for studies without a link to industry.

Abstracts tied to pharmaceutical companies were also more likely to have their own session at a conference, or to be presented during a talk or poster discussion. For example, the ratio of industry-supported to non-supported studies was twice as high among oral presentations as among general posters, which receive less attention.

The findings appear in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, which is published by ASCO.

“With the increase in these relationships, we really need to figure out how to manage them,” Moy said. It’s possible, she said, that such academic-industry teams “yield an alliance that produces better research.”

Alternatively, companies might seek out the most prominent researchers for partnerships, or vice-versa.

“I think a lot of the work that gets a high profile is, of necessity, work that has a relationship with industry. They are, after all, providers of most of the ‘breakthrough’ drugs,” said Dr. David Johnson, chair of internal medicine at the UT Southwestern School of Medicine in Dallas.

But the study does serve as a caution as well, said Johnson, who has studied conflicts of interest in medical research but wasn’t involved in this analysis.

“It again points out that there is this potential for greater and greater influence in the relationship of industry and the direction that biomedical research takes, and we have to constantly be on guard,” he told Reuters Health.

“I think there is a pretty clear influence that industry has on research that’s not always bad, but it’s not always good either … We just have to be really, really cautious.”

SOURCE: bit.ly/128Yg4U Journal of Clinical Oncology, online June 17, 2013.

from:    http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/18/us-health-industry-study-idUSBRE95H16R20130618