Maybe the “ALTERNATIVE VIEWS” Are the Correct Views

(Or Don’t Believe Everything You Read Without Doing A Little Checking: “THEY just might be trying to Snooker you:)

The delusion called Fauci

by Jon Rappoport.  May 28, 2020

This one was too good to pass up.

In an interview with the National Geographic, Tony Fauci made comments about “alternative views” of the origin of the coronavirus. But he was really talking about all unorthodox medical information:

“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?

A: NO.

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.


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.


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.

So what?

Fauci has an important position, and he’s on television.

And that’s the definition of science, right?


Drugs, Medical Tests, Infections, etc.

Hospital-Acquired Infections, Dangerous Tests and Other Medical Cover-Ups

By Dr. Mercola

March 08, 2016

Story at-a-glance

  • 1 in 4 patients in the U.S. end up contracting some form of infection while in the hospital, and 205 Americans die from hospital-acquired infections every day
  • Hospitals that accept Medicare tend to be riskier than others in this regard, but the FDA does not release the names of hospitals where infections are reported
  • Non-disposable flexible medical scopes can transmit infections between patients, due to the fact that they cannot be properly sterilized. If you must get a colonoscopy, make sure they clean the scope using peracetic acid

Hospital-acquired infections are a significant problem. According to 2011 statistics, 1 in 4 patients in the U.S. end up contracting some form of infection while in the hospital, and 205 Americans die from hospital-acquired infections each and every day.

In just one year (2011), an estimated 722,000 Americans contracted an infection during a stay in an acute care hospital, and about 75,000 of them died as a result of it.

The most common hospital-acquired infections include central line-associated bloodstream infections, catheter-associated urinary tract infections, surgical site infections, and clostridium difficile infections.

Contaminated Medical Scopes Implicated in Spread of Superbug Infections

Last year, Dr. Jeffrey Tokar, director of gastrointestinal endoscopy at Fox Chase Cancer Center, and a paid consultant for a medical scope manufacturer, wrote an article1 discussing strategies to improve patient safety in light of superbug outbreaks traced back to contaminated medical scopes.

Now, Kaiser Health News points out that Tokar’s own cancer center was ground zero for at least three cases in which patients were infected with drug-resistant bacteria.

According to the article:2

“In accordance with federal rules, the hospital reported the possibility to the manufacturer … But the public was none the wiser.

The information only came to light … when a U.S. Senate committee unveiled the results of a yearlong investigation into scope-related infections that sickened nearly 200 patients across the country from 2012 to 2015, including those potential cases at Fox Chase in Philadelphia.

The incident in Philadelphia illustrates a larger problem, experts say: a lack of public disclosure when medical devices are suspected of posing a risk to patients …

[S]aid Lawrence Muscarella, Ph.D., a hospital-safety consultant … ‘Hospitals don’t realize the more transparent they are, the more infection risks would decrease. It looks like important information was missing from this paper.’ …”

Unfortunately, there’s no easy way for patients to determine where these kinds of infections are occurring, and whether your local hospital might be a hotspot.

According to the 2011 Health Grades Hospital Quality in America Study,3 Hospitals that accept Medicare tend to be far riskier than others in this regard, but the FDA does not release the names of hospitals where infections are reported.

Asking the Right Questions Could Save Your Life

Download Interview Transcript

Last December, I interviewed David Lewis, Ph.D., a retired microbiologist, about how non-disposable flexible scopes such as sigmoidoscopes and colonoscopes can transmit infections between patients, due to the fact that they cannot be properly sterilized. Their design simply does not permit it.

Lewis was the microbiologist that uncovered the fact that dentists were spreading HIV by not properly sterilizing their equipment in the 1990s. When he uncovered the problem with scopes however, rather than being rewarded he was fired.

If you’re having a colonoscopy or any other procedure using a flexible endoscope done, you can significantly reduce your risk of contracting an infection by asking the hospital or facility how the scope is cleaned, and which cleaning agent is used.

Some esophagoscopes and bronchoscopes have sterile sheaths with disposable air-water and biopsy channels, but many others do not, and must be cleaned between each use.

If the hospital or clinic uses glutaraldehyde, or the brand name Cidex, cancel your appointment and go elsewhere. About 80 percent of clinics use glutaraldehyde because it’s a less expensive alternative, however it does not do a good job of sterilizing the equipment.

If they use peracetic acid, your likelihood of contracting an infection from a previous patient is very slim.

So making a phone call or two before scheduling your appointment, asking what kind of scope will be used; whether it’s fully disposable or must be cleaned, and what they use to clean it with, could be a lifesaving strategy.

The ultimate long-term solution would be to create flexible scopes that can be autoclaved (heat sterilized). But manufacturers have not been pressured to come up with such a design. As noted by Lewis, it really boils down to federal agencies failing to take the contamination issue seriously enough.

Canadian Experts Dissuade Patients From Colonoscopies

While contamination risk was not cited as a reason for Canada’s updated recommendation to not use colonoscopy as a screen for colon cancer, it’s certainly a consideration that needs to be taken into account, no matter where you live.

Canada’s Task Force on Preventive Health care now recommends4 using guaiac fecal occult blood testing (gFOBT) or fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) when testing for colon cancer in adults over the age of 50 who have no symptoms of cancer and who are not in a high risk category.

According to Reuters:5

“Opposition to colonoscopy as a primary screening test for colon cancer stems from the lack of evidence showing it to be any better than other screening methods, the Task Force says …

These recommendations differ from those published by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force in 2008, which support the use of FOBT, flexible sigmoidoscopy, or colonoscopy for colon cancer screening in adults aged 50 to 75.

‘Regardless of age, primary care providers should discuss the most appropriate choice of test with patients who are interested in screening, considering patient values and preferences as well as local test availability,’ the [Canadian] recommendations conclude.”

Antibiotic Resistance Likely to Reach Epidemic Proportions Worldwide

In the CDC’s 2013 report “Antibiotic Resistance Threats in the United States,” no less than 18 superbugs were identified as “urgent, serious and concerning threats” to humankind.6

The majority of these dangerous bacteria are in the gram-negative category, because that variety has body armor that makes it extremely resistant to the immune response.

Most disturbing of all, an increasing number of bacteria are now exhibiting “panresistance” — meaning, resistance to every antibiotic in existence. One of the latest multi-drug resistant bacteria gaining ground is Carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae(CRE), which produce an enzyme that breaks down antibiotics.

Hospitals are the most common source of this infection, which is lethal in about 9 percent of all cases. When the CRE infection affects your blood, the death rate jumps to 50 percent.7

In January, Canadian researchers issued a warning saying that antibiotic use in farming must be stopped if we’re to gain the upper hand against antibiotic-resistant disease. Canada recently began a surveillance program covering all Canadian hospitals, following reports that China had discovered a drug-resistant gene (MCR-1) with epidemic potential in animals, meat, and human patients.

MCR-1 is a gene mutation that makes bacteria resistant to a last-resort antibiotic called colistin, and the rate of transfer of this genetic mutation between bacteria is exceptionally high.

While colistin has not been used much in human medicine in recent decades, it is widely used in China’s agriculture industry. This heavy use may have triggered the acquisition of MCR-1 by E. coli and other bacteria. As a member of the Antibiotic Resistance Action Center at George Washington University said in a National Geographic interview, “It’s real world, empiric evidence that this thing can spread very widely. It’s almost like it possesses a universal key.”8

As noted by CBC News,9 “scientists in England and Wales, Denmark, Thailand and Laos, among others, have published similar findings.” Canada has also found the gene in three human cases. According to Michael Mulvey, Ph.D., head of antimicrobial resistance at the National Microbiology Laboratory in Winnipeg, “It’s the first such finding of the gene in North or South America, which confirms its global dissemination.”

Antibiotic Resistance Is Not the Only Cover-Up in Medicine

As reported by STAT News,10 “the regulatory system for reporting side effects caused by prescription drugs is producing its own kind of side effect — incomplete information about injuries that patients may have suffered.”

According to an analysis11 published in Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety, drug companies frequently fail to file comprehensive reports on side effects, thereby preventing the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) from assessing the scope of the threat to consumers.

Doctors and consumers can report drug side effects to the FDA’s Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), and drug makers are required to not only report but also investigate side effects associated with their drugs and medical appliances. However, while drug makers file the vast majority of reports of serious or fatal side effects, compared to those filed by doctors and consumers the majority of their reports do not include key data.

As noted by STAT:

“For this reason, one of the study authors contends there are still wider implications … The analysis found that in 2014, the FDA received 528,192 new reports of a serious or fatal side effect, of which 4.7 percent were filed with the agency directly by doctors and consumers. Of those, 86 percent included complete information about four important data points patient age and sex, the date the side effect occurred, and a specific medical term to describe the problem.

By contrast, drug makers filed 95.3 percent of side effect reports, but most were incomplete … nearly 38 percent lacked the patient’s sex and age, and 47 percent did not have the date when the problem occurred. Overall, reports involving patient deaths offered the least amount of complete information for all of the key data points…

‘With increasing pressure for the FDA to approve drugs fast but with less clinical testing, it is a major concern that postmarket surveillance has major problems that are not being addressed,’ said Thomas Moore, a senior scientist the Institute for Safe Medicination Practices …‘It is time for the FDA, the medical community, and industry to start work on a badly needed modernization’ of this ‘critical tool’ for monitoring safety.”

How Drug Ads Fool Consumers

Drug makers are also required to inform consumers about potential side effects in their ads. In another article,12 STAT News discusses how drug narrators “take the scariness out of side effects.” If you think about it, how is it that so many people voluntarily take, let alone ask their doctor for a drug that has very serious and in some cases lethal side effects?

“[T]he actors paid to deliver these warnings … say there’s an art to it. ‘We use the same approach medical professionals do, telling a patient calmly: ‘We’re going to perform this surgery and there’s a 60 percent chance you won’t live,’’ said Joey Schaljo, who has worked as a voiceover actor on drug ads and who has a knack for narrating endless lists of side effects …

Some ads use one narrator to talk about the benefits of the drug and a different actor to recite the risks — in a less engaging voice. Or the warning section may be written with more complex sentence structures, to make it harder for viewers to absorb …

Another common trick: Keep the voice actor who talks about risks off screen. Research has found that consumers absorb the most information when they can see people speaking rather than just hearing them … ‘There’s a shift in how the voice is used to make it easier to understand the benefits and less easy to understand the risks,’ said Ruth Day, a cognitive scientist at Duke University who has studied drug ads for more than a decade.”

Drug Companies Siphon Tax Dollars for Dangerous, Useless, Overpriced Drugs

As if it wasn’t enough that you pay with your health for the drug industry’s lackadaisical approach to side effects — both by their downplaying the risk of death or serious injury in their ads, and by their filing adverse event reports that are useless for predicting risk to other patients — you also pay for their crimes with your tax dollars.

Sovaldi, a hepatitis C drug made by Gilead was under investigation for 18 months by the Senate Finance Committee. In the end, the Committee decided that the price of the drug — $1,000 per pill, or $84,000 per treatment — “did not reflect the cost of research and development and that Gilead cared about ‘revenue’ not ‘affordability and accessibility,’” the Epoch Times13 writes.

In 2014 alone, Medicare and Medicaid shelled out more than $5 BILLION for Sovaldi and another hepatitis C drug called Harvoni.

Writing for the New York Times,14 columnist Nicholas Kristof notes that in the year 2015, the drug industry “spent $272,000 in campaign donations per member of Congress … to bar the government from bargaining for drug prices in Medicare. That amounts to a $50 billion annual gift to pharmaceutical companies.”

“But Gilead is far from the only drug company camping out on our tax dollars,” Epoch Times reports. “Drug companies have devised elaborate schemes for drug sales to states … In 2008, the Texas attorney general’s office charged Risperdal maker Janssen (Johnson & Johnson’s psychiatric drug unit) with defrauding the state of millions ‘with [its] sophisticated and fraudulent marketing scheme,’ to ‘secure … Risperdal, on the state’s Medicaid preferred drug list’ …

The Department of Veterans Affairs spent $717 million on … Risperdal to treat post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in troops deployed to Afghanistan and Iraq only to discover after nine years that the drug worked no better than a placebo

In Texas, a Medicaid ‘decision tree’ called the Texas Medical Algorithm Project was instituted that mandates that doctors prescribe the newest and most expensive psychiatric drugs first. The program was funded … by the Johnson & Johnson-linked Robert Wood Johnson Foundation … Another tactic that drug companies use is ‘helping’ states buy their own brand name drugs …

One such program sends registered nurses to the homes of patients who are on expensive brand drugs to ensure ‘compliance’ — that they have not stopped taking the drugs.”

To Protect Your Health, Avoid Antibiotics — Both in Medicine and Food

The conventional medical system has in many ways created just as many, if not more, problems than it has solved. Drugs are vastly overprescribed and misused, and this is particularly true for antibiotics — more than 80 percent of which are used in agriculture to fatten up livestock.

This routine practice has resulted in a manmade scourge of antibiotic-resistant disease, which is already rendering previously treatable infections lethal, and may soon turn even minor surgery into a dangerous proposition.

So what can you do to protect yourself? Regarding antibiotics, avoid using them unless absolutely necessary, and remember they don’t work for viral infections. Also opt for organic grass-fed and grass-finished meats, to avoid antibiotic residues and, more importantly, antibiotic-resistant bacteria that could kill you. This is a serious issue, so if you chose to eat meat, make sure it’s clean.

Strategies That Could Save Your Life If You’re Hospitalized

to read the rest of the article, go to:


On Pharmaceuticals, Honesty, & Safety

Pulling Back the Curtain on the Organized Crime Ring That Is the Pharmaceutical Drug Cartel

October 16, 2013
By Dr. Mercola

Story at-a-glance

  • Nearly 20 percent of corporate crime is being committed by companies that make products for your health. Crimes committed by some of the top pharmaceutical companies include fabricated studies and hiding damaging research
  • A number of recent articles and books have delved into the practices of the drug industry, concluding it operates like an organized crime ring
  • Corruption of science is one of the most dangerous forms of corruption. Doctors rely on published studies to make treatment recommendations, and large numbers of patients can be harmed when false findings are published
  • A recent study concluded that a majority of American drug commercials—60 percent of prescription drug ads, and 80 percent of ads for over-the-counter (OTC) drugs—are either misleading or outright false
  • Warnings of adverse side effects in drug ads can backfire. While initially making viewers cautious, over the course of time people tend to ignore the warnings; some even see them as indications of honesty and trustworthiness

Even though the video above is a few years old now and bigger fines of $3 billion have been assessed to GlaxoSmithKline two years ago, it is a good summary of how the drug cartels operate.

Did you know that nearly 20 percent of corporate crime is being committed by companies that make products for your health?

Sad but true, no less than 19 pharmaceutical companies made’s Top 100 Corporate Criminals List for the 1990s, and the trend has continued if not increased into the 21st Century. Crimes committed by some of the most well-known drug companies include:

  • Fabricated studies
  • Covering up serious problems with their drugs
  • False claims
  • Bribery, illegal kick-backs, and defrauding Medicare, Medicaid, and even the FDA
  • Immoral threat and intimidation tactics (recall the international drug company Merck actually had a hit list of doctors to be “neutralized” or discredited for criticizing the lethally dangerous painkiller Vioxx. “We may need to seek them out and destroy them where they live,” a Merck employee wrote, according to an email excerpt read in court.)

Pulling Back the Curtain on Organized Crime

Fortunately, organizations like the Bureau of Investigative Journalism,1 the False Claims Act Legal Center,2 and Politicol News3 have all started investigating and publicizing the criminal actions these companies have been getting away with for decades.

Most recently, the British Medical Journal’s blog featured an article4 by former BMJ editor and director of the United Health Group’s chronic disease initiative, Richard Smith, aptly titled: “Is the Pharmaceutical Industry Like the Mafia?”

The piece is also the foreword to the book, Deadly Medicines and Organized Crime: How Big Pharma Has Corrupted Healthcare, written by Peter Gøtzsche, head of the Nordic Cochrane Centre, which is considered the gold standard in terms of independent research reviews.

In related news, a recently published study concluded that most drug commercials are misleading or outright false.5 There’s a literal mountain of evidence proving that pharmaceutical companies are untrustworthy at best, and criminal at worst. And yet they’re the backbone of our modern “healthcare” system…

Even Forbes Magazine6 recently published an article with the provocative headline: “Is Big Pharma Addicted To Fraud?” and asked out loud “whether any aspect of the pharmaceutical business can be trusted.”

Is It Fair to Compare the Pharmaceutical Industry with the Mafia?

If you depend on conventional medical care to address your health problems, then you’re basically entrusting your health to organizations that clearly have far more interest in their bottom line than your health. In his article, Is the Pharmaceutical Industry Like the Mafia? Smith writes:7

“The characteristics of organized crime, racketeering, is defined in US law as the act of engaging repeatedly in certain types of offence, including extortion, fraud, federal drug offenses, bribery, embezzlement, obstruction of justice, obstruction of law enforcement, tampering with witnesses, and political corruption.

Peter [Gøtzsche] produces evidence, most of it detailed, to support his case that pharmaceutical companies are guilty of most of these offenses.

And he is not the first to compare the industry with the Mafia or mob. He quotes a former vice-president of Pfizer, who has said:

‘It is scary how many similarities there are between this industry and the mob. The mob makes obscene amounts of money, as does this industry. The side effects of organized crime are killings and deaths, and the side effects are the same in this industry. The mob bribes politicians and others, and so does the drug industry…’

Smith also notes that many more people are killed by the pharmaceutical industry than the mob. Prescription drugs also kill far more people than illegal drugs, and while most major causes of preventable deaths are declining, those from prescription drug use are on the incline.8, 9

For example, prescription drug fatalities more than doubled among teens and young adults between 2000 and 2008, and more than tripled among people aged 50 to 69.

Legal prescription drug abuse is a silent epidemic, and is part of the reason why the modern American medical system has become one of the leading causes of death and injury in the United States.

An estimated 450,000 preventable medication-related adverse events occur in the US every year. Merck’s painkiller Vioxx alone killed more than 60,000 people within a few years’ time before being withdrawn from the market.

“… [T]he benefits of drugs are exaggerated, often because of serious distortions of the evidence behind the drugs, a ‘crime’ that can be attributed confidently to the industry,” Smith writes.“The great doctor William Osler famously said that it would be good for humankind and bad for the fishes if all the drugs were thrown into the sea.

He was speaking before the therapeutic revolution in the middle of the 20th century that led to penicillin, other antibiotics, and many other effective drugs, but Peter comes close to agreeing with him and does speculate that we would be better off without most psychoactive drugs, where the benefits are small, the harms considerable, and the level of prescribing massive.”

‘Science-Based’ Medicine Has Fallen on Its Own Sword

There are many areas within which corruption can take root, and the drug industry has nurtured corruption in most if not all of them. It would require an entire book to begin to address them all, which is exactly what Peter Gøtzsche has done in his book, Deadly Medicines and Organized Crime: How Big Pharma Has Corrupted Healthcare.

One of the most dangerous forms of corruption is that which occurs within medical science. For example, according to data from Thomson Reuters,10 the number of retractions of scientific studies have increased more than 15-fold since 2001, and a review11 published just last year showed that nearly 75 percent of all retracted drug studies were attributed to “scientific misconduct,” which includes:

  • Data falsification or fabrication
  • Questionable veracity
  • Unethical author conduct
  • Plagiarism

Corruption of science is incredibly serious, as health care professionals rely on published studies to make treatment recommendations, and large numbers of patients can be harmed when false findings are published. The average lag time between publication of the study and the issuing of a retraction is 39 months. And that’s if the misconduct is ever caught at all. What’s worse, about 32 percent of retractions are never published,12 leaving the readers completely in the dark about the inaccuracies in those studies!

to read more, go to: