« Back to RenewAmerica

FOX News Pimps Vaccines

Wide-open discussion

Re: FOX News Pimps Vaccines

Postby Truthismymiddlename » May 31st, 2016, 3:40 pm

Truthismymiddlename
 
Posts: 7797
Joined: September 27th, 2013, 7:07 pm

Re: FOX News Pimps Vaccines

Postby Sgt. Stryker » June 4th, 2016, 8:11 am

"You are never too old to set another goal or to dream a new dream."~C.S. Lewis

solvitur ambulando

Vir prudens non contra ventum mingit
User avatar
Sgt. Stryker
 
Posts: 1958
Joined: September 19th, 2013, 1:50 am
Location: A place in PA that defeated the KKK

Re: FOX News Pimps Vaccines

Postby Truthismymiddlename » June 6th, 2016, 12:59 pm

Use of term "FDA" should always trigger a warning
by Jon Rappoport
June 6, 2016

"In 1957, the FDA burned all the books of dissident physician Wilhelm Reich, M.D., smashed his laboratory equipment with axes, and threw him in jail, where he died."---Robert Anton Wilson, High Times, March 2001.

Unless you've been living in cave on a remote mountain, you know the FDA has been coming down harder on nutritional companies that publish health claims for their products. Such claims trigger investigations and harassment.

But you see, this arrangement is backwards.

The use of the term "FDA" should be the trigger for immediate investigation, whenever it appears. For example, "The FDA has ruled (name of drug) is safe and effective." Boom. Probe.

Why? Obviously, the FDA is a rogue criminal organization, which is guilty of massive RICO felonies. That's why.

A news story mentioning the FDA appears in a major newspaper? The paper, if it has an approximation of ethical concern, should print this:

"Warning: any action attributed to the FDA should be considered criminal. Accepting an FDA opinion on something more serious than 'H2O=water' endangers life and limb. This news outlet accepts no responsibility for the health consequences of any FDA decision."

Now we'd be on the right track.

July 26, 2000, Journal of the American Medical Association, Dr. Barbara Starfield, Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, "Is US health really the best in the world?": Medical drugs kill 106,000 Americans per year. That's a million killings per decade.

Every one of the killer drugs is certified as safe and effective by the FDA, the Agency tasked with protecting the health of the American people.

Example: Vioxx was approved for use by the FDA on May 20, 1999. Eventually, it caused 88,000-140,000 cases of heart disease. Conservative death-toll number? 60,000. (An estimated 58,000 American troops died during the Vietnam War.)

"Warning: If you accept the FDA's advice on a health matter, you're risking death. In case there is any confusion, death means death."

"Did you just read a statement from the FDA? Your life is in imminent danger."

Perhaps you recall the original approval of GMO crops and their associated highly toxic Roundup pesticide? No? Let me summarize it for you.

When you cut through the verbiage, you arrive at two key statements. One from Monsanto and one from the FDA, the agency responsible for overseeing, licensing, and certifying new food varieties as safe.

Quoted in the New York Times Magazine (October 25, 1998, "Playing God in the Garden"), Philip Angell, Monsanto's director of corporate communications, famously stated:

"Monsanto shouldn't have to vouchsafe the safety of biotech food. Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is the FDA's job."

From the Federal Register, Volume 57, No.104, "Statement of [FDA] Policy: Foods Derived from New Plant Varieties," here is what the FDA had to say on this matter:

"Ultimately, it is the food producer who is responsible for assuring safety."

The buck-passing, the direct and irreconcilable clash of these two statements, is no accident. It's not a sign of incompetence or sloppy work or a mistake or a miscommunication. It's a clear signal the fix was in.

"Warning: The relationship of an FDA certification of safety to actual science is coincidental. Run for the hills."

In a stunning interview with Truthout's Martha Rosenberg, former FDA drug reviewer, Ronald Kavanagh, exposed the FDA as a relentless criminal mafia protecting its client, Big Pharma, with a host of mob strategies ("Former FDA Reviewer Speaks Out About Intimidation, Retaliation and Marginalizing of Safety," 7/29/2012).

Kavanagh: "...widespread racketeering, including witness tampering and witness retaliation."

"I was threatened with prison."

"One [FDA] manager threatened my children...I was afraid that I could be killed for talking to Congress and criminal investigators."

Kavanagh reviewed new drug applications made to the FDA by pharmaceutical companies. He was one of the holdouts at the Agency who insisted the drugs had to be safe and effective before being released to the public.

But honest appraisal wasn't part of the FDA culture, and Kavanagh swam against the tide, until he realized his life and the life of his children was on the line.

What was his secret task at the FDA? "Drug reviewers were clearly told not to question drug companies and that our job was to approve drugs." In other words, rubber stamp them. Say the drugs were safe and effective when they were not.

Veterans of the Armed Forces, take note: Kavanagh remarks that the drug pyridostigmine, given to US troops to prevent the later effects of nerve gas, "actually increased the lethality" of certain nerve agents.

Kavanagh recalls being given records of safety data on a drug---and then his bosses told him which sections not to read. Obviously, they knew the drug was dangerous and they knew exactly where, in the reports, that fact would be revealed.

"Warning: the FDA hammers into submission its own employees who are trying to protect your health. These employees submit, resign, or risk their lives and the lives of their families. Have a nice day."

Of course, the US Department of Justice takes no action against the FDA. Why would they?

In the government lexicon, killer medical drug equals safe and effective, whereas vitamin, mineral, herb equals H-bomb. Didn't you know that?

"Warning: FDA killers resemble ordinary citizens. They appear entirely normal. Their methods have advanced to the point where they can commit their deeds without brandishing visible weapons."

"---Hi, I'm from the FDA. Hey, why are you running away? I'm a public servant doing his job. Gosh o gee, I'm just like you."

Yes, they can affect an entirely average presence. They internally censor remorse for their crimes. They commit those crimes while pretending to believe they're carrying out important work. I don't know why the CIA and DARPA keep researching more advanced forms of mind control. They merely need to study the FDA. That Agency has it down.

"Warning: failing to heed warnings about the FDA is a symptom of advanced dementia."
Truthismymiddlename
 
Posts: 7797
Joined: September 27th, 2013, 7:07 pm

Re: FOX News Pimps Vaccines

Postby Sgt. Stryker » June 9th, 2016, 7:05 am

.facebook_1465470180265.jpg
.facebook_1465470180265.jpg (27.83 KiB) Viewed 12429 times
"You are never too old to set another goal or to dream a new dream."~C.S. Lewis

solvitur ambulando

Vir prudens non contra ventum mingit
User avatar
Sgt. Stryker
 
Posts: 1958
Joined: September 19th, 2013, 1:50 am
Location: A place in PA that defeated the KKK

Re: FOX News Pimps Vaccines

Postby Truthismymiddlename » July 14th, 2016, 2:47 pm

Truthismymiddlename
 
Posts: 7797
Joined: September 27th, 2013, 7:07 pm

Re: FOX News Pimps Vaccines

Postby Truthismymiddlename » August 27th, 2016, 3:48 pm

Grotesquely incompetent judge won't suspend mandatory vaccination

"Hey, let's just make up stuff in court, it's a party."

By Jon Rappoport

I'll keep this as simple as I can.

The infamous SB277, passed into CA law in 2015, made vaccines mandatory for school children in the state.

Last month, a lawsuit was filed, with the purpose of overturning the law. The lawyers asked Federal Judge Dana Sabraw to keep the law from going into effect while the case moves forward.

Sabraw just said no.

Among the reasons he cited for his decision (LA Times, 8/28): "U.S. District Judge Dana Sabraw in San Diego wrote that state Legislatures have 'a long history of requiring children to be vaccinated as a condition to school enrollment, and for as many years, both state and federal courts have upheld those requirements against constitutional challenge'."

I don't see how Judge Sabraw's opinion could be more ridiculous. Or ludicrous. Or incompetent. Or wrong.

Why? Because 'the long history' he refers to is quite different.

The states have always upheld exemptions from vaccination on several grounds: medical waiver, religious objection, philosophical objection. THAT'S the tradition.

SB277 goes against the tradition, to say the very least. SB277 breaks new ground in allowing the state to operate as a medical fascist in the area of vaccinations.

Under SB277, a parent's only option, aside from a hard-to-obtain medical exemption, is to home school her child. And obviously, not all parents can afford to exercise that option, because they have to work to pay the bills.

From what source is Judge Sabraw getting his information about "long history" and tradition? From a CDC PR pamphlet? From a drug company? From aliens on the moon?

His considered opinion in this case is on the order of saying, "Look, all states have always had strict rules about crossing the street on Thursdays. You can't do it or you're breaking the law."

Maybe the Judge just decided to make up his version of history out of thin air.

Actually, it appears he did that in a prior case. The issue there centered on what lawyers can and can't say during their closing arguments. They can't go off and say anything. They definitely can't refer to "facts" that were never presented during the trial. They can't just make stuff up.

The website, abovethelaw.com, has the story. Joe Patrice colorfully writes:

"The case arose in 2010, when a guy was stopped by border agents and Skippy the Wonder Dog managed to uncover 112 sealed packages weighing 321.33 pounds (or 146.06 kilograms if you're Canadian or otherwise a Communist) of marijuana. The defendant claimed he was set up. In the government's rebuttal closing, the prosecutor, Steve Miller, pulled some Hocus Pocus and started telling the jury about a number of reasons why the defendant's story couldn't be believed. That would be par for the course, except none of these 'facts' were brought out during the trial itself.

"When defense counsel objected, Judge Dana M. Sabraw responded 'with the admonition that this is counsel's argument, it is up to the jury to determine the facts.' Stellar judging. I wish I'd known about the "you can assert whatever you want in closing because it's 'up to the jury to determine facts'" rule."

Yes, let's just invent the law as we go along. Make up the law out of thin air. Make up tradition and history out of thin air. Make up whatever you need to make up, in order to deny the people of California a fair hearing on a fascist law that forces them to vaccinate their children with the full CDC load of toxic chemicals and germs.


Well, the rabid pro-vaccine forces have their Judge. He's perfect.

His bias, even before the lawsuit has gotten off the ground, is sufficient reason for him to recuse himself.

"I'm stepping away. I was making up history out of nothing. Let another Judge take over who actually knows a little about the past."

Get Sabraw out of there. He's doing fiction.

Bad fiction
They don't offer us ALL of the details about these vaccines....they just require us to get them. That is NOT informed consent!!! :mad:
Then they take away the ability to seek damages while also leaving many in the population the large expense of maintaining the disease that these vaccines likely caused..... The obamacare exchanges do not cover diabetes supplies, for example. And even if they did....the deductibles are too high.....
People damaged by government mandates don't even have an opportunity to try to prove it at this point.
Science is a wonderful thing....until they remove ethics.
Truthismymiddlename
 
Posts: 7797
Joined: September 27th, 2013, 7:07 pm

Re: FOX News Pimps Vaccines

Postby Sgt. Striker » August 27th, 2016, 7:34 pm

My aunt's grandson had an allergic reaction to a vaccine, so severe it hospitalized him. He never got vaccinated since then and he's in his twenties now.
Sgt. Striker
 
Posts: 1277
Joined: September 18th, 2013, 8:55 am

Re: FOX News Pimps Vaccines

Postby Truthismymiddlename » August 27th, 2016, 11:23 pm


Mandatory vaccination in CA: let's school a Federal Judge

Judge Sabraw: here's something you didn't know about the DPT shot...

By Jon Rappoport

I'll repeat myself a bit here, in case you missed my last article. Then I'll get into something else, something dangerous that a Federal Judge knows nothing about...

Federal Judge Dana Sabraw is overseeing a lawsuit against mandatory vaccination in California.

So far, Sabraw has denied a petition to suspend mandatory vaccination for school children while the case moves forward.

He believes tradition and history are on the side of forced vaccinations. That's because he doesn't know what he's talking about. Or he's just making it up out of thin air.

As the LA Times reports: ""U.S. District Judge Dana Sabraw in San Diego wrote that state Legislatures have 'a long history of requiring children to be vaccinated as a condition to school enrollment, and for as many years, both state and federal courts have upheld those requirements against constitutional challenge'."

I don't see how Judge Sabraw's opinion could be more ridiculous.

Why? Because 'the long history' he refers to is quite different.

The states have always upheld exemptions from vaccination on several grounds: medical waiver, religious objection, philosophical objection. Hello? THAT'S the tradition.

SB277, the new CA law, goes against the tradition, to say the very least. SB277 breaks new ground in allowing the state to operate as a medical fascist in the area of vaccinations.

So...let's look at one of the mandatory vaccines that'll be injected into children in California, whether their parents agree or not. I'm talking about the DTP shot---diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis (whooping cough). Let's give Judge Sabraw a history lesson. You know: actual history.

Buckle up.

"Assistant Secretary of Health Edward Brandt, Jr., MD, testifying before the U.S. Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources, rounded... figures off to 9,000 cases of convulsions, 9,000 cases of collapse, and 17,000 cases of high-pitched screaming for a total of 35,000 acute neurological reactions occurring within forty-eight hours of a DPT shot among America's children every year." (DPT: A Shot in the Dark, by Harris L. Coulter and Barbara Loe Fischer, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich)

"... Based on the only U.S. findings on adverse DPT reactions, an FDA-financed study at the University of California, Los Angeles, one out of every 350 children will have a convulsion; one in 180 children will experience high-pitched screaming; and one in 66 will have a fever of 105 degrees or more [all signs of acute and very serious neurological reaction]." (Jennifer Hyman, Democrat and Chronicle, Rochester, New York, special supplement on DPT, dated April, 1987)

"A study undertaken in 1979 at the University of California, Los Angeles, under the sponsorship of the Food and Drug Administration, and which has been confirmed by other studies, indicates that in the U.S.A. approximately 1,000 infants die annually as a direct result of DPT vaccinations, and these are classified as SIDS (Sudden Infant Death Syndrome) deaths. These represent about 10 to 15% of the total number of SIDS deaths occurring annually in the U.S.A. (between 8,000 and 10,000 depending on which statistics are used)." (Leon Chaitow, Vaccination and Immunization, CW Daniel Company Limited, Saffron Walden, Essex, England, 1987)

"...in 1970/71, there were more than 33,000 cases of pertussis with 41 fatal cases among the very well immunized British child population; whereas in 1974/75, with a declining rate of vaccination, a pertussis epidemic caused only 25,000 cases with 25 fatalities." (Wolfgang Ehrengut, Lancet, Feb. 18, 1978, p. 370)

"... Barker and Pichichero, in a prospective study of 1232 children in Denver, Colorado, found after DTP that only 7% of those vaccinated were free from untoward reactions, which included pyrexia (53%), acute behavioral changes (82%), prolonged screaming (13%), and listlessness, anorexia and vomiting. 71% of those receiving second injections of DTP experienced two or more of the reactions monitored." (Lancet, May 28, 1983, p. 1217)

"Publications by the World Health Organization show that diphtheria is steadily declining in most European countries, including those in which there has been no immunization. The decline began long before vaccination was developed. There is certainly no guarantee that vaccination will protect a child against the disease; in fact, over 30,000 cases of diphtheria have been recorded in the United Kingdom in fully immunized children." (Leon Chaitow, Vaccination and Immunization, p. 58)

"Pertussis (whooping cough) immunization is controversial, as the side effects have received a great deal of publicity. The counter claim is that the effectiveness and protection offered by the procedure far outweigh the possible ill effects... annual deaths, per million children, from this disease over the period from 1900 to the mid-nineteen seventies, shows that from a high point of just under 900 deaths per million children (under age 15) in 1905, the decline has been consistent and dramatic. There had been a lowering of mortality rates of approximately 80% by the time immunization was introduced on a mass scale, in the mid-nineteen fifties. The decline has continued, albeit at a slower rate, ever since. No credit can be given to vaccination for the major part of the decline since it was not in use." (Chaitow, Vaccination and Immunization, p. 63)

Again, the DPT shot will be required and mandatory in California for school children.

It helps to know history, especially since major media refuse to touch the truth with a ten-foot pole.


Shoot your child up with the DPT vaccine?


Go along to get along?


Bury your head in the sand?
Truthismymiddlename
 
Posts: 7797
Joined: September 27th, 2013, 7:07 pm

Re: FOX News Pimps Vaccines

Postby Truthismymiddlename » August 27th, 2016, 11:28 pm


Postby Sgt. Striker » Today, 7:34 pm
My aunt's grandson had an allergic reaction to a vaccine, so severe it hospitalized him. He never got vaccinated since then and he's in his twenties now.
A bit off the subject, but didn't you tell us on the pf that your Aunt had trouble getting decent coverage with obamacare? And wasn't she diabetic?? Sorry if I am wrong about the details--I can't remember exactly.
Is this the same Aunt?
Is this the same one who also went off the grid?
Truthismymiddlename
 
Posts: 7797
Joined: September 27th, 2013, 7:07 pm

Re: FOX News Pimps Vaccines

Postby Sgt. Striker » August 28th, 2016, 10:44 am

Truthismymiddlename wrote:

Postby Sgt. Striker » Today, 7:34 pm
My aunt's grandson had an allergic reaction to a vaccine, so severe it hospitalized him. He never got vaccinated since then and he's in his twenties now.
A bit off the subject, but didn't you tell us on the pf that your Aunt had trouble getting decent coverage with obamacare? And wasn't she diabetic?? Sorry if I am wrong about the details--I can't remember exactly.
Is this the same Aunt?
Is this the same one who also went off the grid?


I'm talking about my Aunt Kay now...
Sgt. Striker
 
Posts: 1277
Joined: September 18th, 2013, 8:55 am

Re: FOX News Pimps Vaccines

Postby Truthismymiddlename » May 8th, 2017, 2:09 pm

Bombshell study proves.......truth had the truth.
https://www.infowars.com/bombshell-stud ... healthier/
Truthismymiddlename
 
Posts: 7797
Joined: September 27th, 2013, 7:07 pm

Re: FOX News Pimps Vaccines

Postby Truthismymiddlename » May 8th, 2017, 2:16 pm

AND.....
It all started with a "feeling"..... :wink:

:grin:
Truthismymiddlename
 
Posts: 7797
Joined: September 27th, 2013, 7:07 pm

Re: FOX News Pimps Vaccines

Postby Truthismymiddlename » May 9th, 2017, 1:37 am

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2017/05/no_ ... e-program/

"This is just the entrance to an entire field of research with so much pertinent info to where we are at today.

With more research, this could lead to strong anecdotal evidence that Merck & Co. used pharmaceutical treatments developed shortly after WWII such as the Polio vaccine against Americans, as bioweapons.

After all, Eli Lilly/Merck’s Polio vaccine (that came a few years after the biowarfare activity) was mysteriously contaminated with the cancer causing virus SV40, which they claimed had accidentally been derived from the Rhesus monkey kidney cells used to prepare the vaccine. We know associated academics had purposefully given people cancer multiple times in the past.

Many people who understand Merck’s Gardasil vaccine for HPV is utterly destroying the lives of thousands of paralyzed, injured, and killed young girls and boys suspect one thing: they suspect Merck is part of an agenda to damage people on purpose, in this same vein of population control we saw in the old age of Merck.

So a question to ask is: could Merck today be complicit with an agenda to poison people? Either deliberate or not, they are undeniably injuring and killing thousands of people, as you can find in VAERS vaccine injury reports or anywhere else you search."
Truthismymiddlename
 
Posts: 7797
Joined: September 27th, 2013, 7:07 pm

Re: FOX News Pimps Vaccines

Postby Truthismymiddlename » May 9th, 2017, 1:57 am

Famous medical-journal editor torpedoes medical journal

By Jon Rappoport

"There is a system designed to affect every human on the planet, from cradle to grave. For each person, I'm talking about 30 or 40 diagnoses of physical and mental conditions, many of which are false; and treatment with toxic chemicals that progressively debilitate, confuse, weaken, and destroy health and life. What would you call this system? Who would you blame?" (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

Her name is Dr. Marcia Angell.

During her 20 years of work, she looked at, perused, and analyzed more medical studies than all mainstream science bloggers in the world put together.

You want to listen to an actual pro? Listen to her:

Marcia Angell, former editor of The New England Journal of Medicine, in the NY Review of Books, January 15, 2009, "Drug Companies & Doctors: A Story of Corruption":

"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."


Before you count Dr. Angell as a hero, consider this: why didn't she blow the whistle loud and clear while she was editing The New England Journal? Why didn't she burn her own Journal down to the ground? After all, she was publishing studies of clinical trials of new drugs, and those fake studies were praising the drugs as safe and effective.

And therefore, The New England Journal was aiding and abetting a crime---unleashing dangerous and ineffective drugs on the public.

Her Journal was responsible for that.

Yes, the dreaded R word. Responsibility. In many circles these days, it's not a popular term.

Take drug companies, for example. As I wrote in a recent piece, when lawsuits are launched against these companies for making drugs that kill and maim, the standard defense is: "Don't blame us. The FDA approved our medicine as safe and effective. We're off the hook. We've discharged our responsibility."

Really? Who created the drug in the first place? Who did the clinical trials? Who sells the drug?

There's an either-or situation here. It needs to be exposed. It goes this way: Either the pharmaceutical company or the FDA is responsible for people dying. You can't accuse both. Pick one.

That's a fool's game. Both entities are responsible; the company that created the drug and the FDA who approved it and certified it as safe and effective. (And the medical journals that published the crooked studies of clinical trials are also responsible.)

The FDA seal of approval doesn't automatically exonerate the company. "Well, the government said our company's drug was fine." So what? Since when does the government have the last word? Would you say the US military-industrial complex is solely the responsibility of the government, and the defense contractors play no role in launching endless wars? That would be naïve to the extreme.

As my readers know, because I've cited the key review dozens of times, pharmaceutical drugs kill 106,000 Americans every year. That's a conservative mainstream estimate. (See Dr. Barbara Starfield, Journal of the American Medical Association, July 26, 2000, "Is US Health Really the Best in the World?")

All those drugs are approved as safe and effective by the FDA. They're also created, developed, tested, and sold by drug companies. Anyone with a shred of understanding of RESPONSIBILITY would correctly point to the FDA AND the drug companies. (And medical journals.)

Therefore, a company arguing in court that they're off the hook for killing people with their drugs, because the FDA approved them, is evading responsibility and trying to shift it to the government. And an honest judge and a reasonably intelligent jury would recognize that in a minute.

From the drug company's point of view, there is a game going on. The company is doing whatever it can to please and satisfy the FDA, and if it can, then it can walk away without shouldering blame.

Obscuring one's own responsibility is one of the major industries in any nation you care to examine. The numbers of people involved, the amount of money, the time, energy---this is a field of endeavor that expands every year.

A simple law would go a long way toward righting the ship: "A government certification of a product does not exempt the creator, developer, and seller of the product from facing legal action in criminal and civil court."

From the street thug, to the highest corporate boardroom, to professional academic fabricators, the theme is the same: "It wasn't me."

Oh yes it was. And is.

Let's break down the word-origin of "responsible." "Respond" comes from the Latin. "Re"="again." "Spondere"="to pledge." This construction eventually morphed into: pledging again for one's actions, standing behind one's actions, re-affirming one's actions. And finally, "responsible" also means "legally accountable."

---As opposed to attributing the cause of one's action to someone else.

"I defend my actions by claiming: 'it wasn't me', someone else was in charge, someone else decided my actions were correct."

No. Not even close.

Of course, the US Dept. of Justice isn't interested in any of these matters. If they were, they would be arresting drug company executives and researchers, FDA executives and drug-reviewers, and medical-journal editors who permit the publication of obviously fake studies of new drugs.

Understand: When you have medical drugs killing 106,000 Americans a year, this necessarily implies that published studies of clinical trials of those drugs---studies that praise those drugs as safe and effective---are a rank fraud.

Medical journals, the FDA, drug companies (and doctors)---a club. And each member of the club is responsible. Accountable. Culpable.

The next time a doctor, or some "science blogger" who loves mainstream published studies, sounds off about "real science," show them this piece. And if they say that Dr. Marcia Angell is just one medical-journal editor, point them to the following:

Richard Horton (another pro's pro), editor-in-chief, The Lancet, in The Lancet, 11 April, 2015, Vol 385, "Offline: What is medicine's 5 sigma?":

"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..."

Two famous editors (Angell and Horton) of two of the most prestigious medical journals in the world torpedo their own corrupt practices.

And if that isn't enough to put a dent in some potato-head, conventional, medical devotee, then just keep going with this, by the same Richard Horton, editor of the Lancet (from the same piece I just quoted:

Horton makes reference to a recent symposium he attended at the Wellcome Trust in London. The subject of the meeting was the reliability of published biomedical research. His following quote carries additional force because he and other attendees were told to obey Chatham House rules---meaning no one would reveal who made any given comment during the conference.

Horton: "'A lot of what is published is incorrect.' I'm not allowed to say who made this remark [at the conference] because we were asked to observe Chatham House rules. We were also asked not to take photographs of slides. Those who worked for government agencies pleaded that their comments especially remain unquoted, since the forthcoming UK election meant they were living in 'purdah'---a chilling state where severe restrictions on freedom of speech are placed on anyone on the government's payroll. Why the paranoid concern for secrecy and non-attribution? Because this symposium---on the reproducibility and reliability of biomedical research, held at the Wellcome Trust in London last week---touched on one of the most sensitive issues in science today: the idea that something has gone fundamentally wrong with one of our greatest human creations [biomedical science]".

Conventional science bloggers, take notice. You're working in a field where studies supporting the general consensus are tainted and stained.

Starting sentences with "the FDA approves" or "the CDC confirms" or "a study published in The New England Journal established" isn't a ticket to the truth. Far from it.


You're wading in a stench-ridden swamp, and you don't know it; or you do know it and you don't care, because you want to be part of the club; or someone is paying you to make absurd assertions. One way or another, you're doomed if you follow the party line.

This is a much different landscape than you think it is. It's a wholesale fabrication of what looks, sounds, smells, tastes, and feels like truth. But it isn't. It's a lying cartoon.

And it has vicious consequences for the health of the millions of people.
Truthismymiddlename
 
Posts: 7797
Joined: September 27th, 2013, 7:07 pm

Re: FOX News Pimps Vaccines

Postby Truthismymiddlename » May 11th, 2017, 2:18 pm

New study: FDA-approved drugs are dangerous

As alarming as the study sounds, it's a limited hangout---I'll explain

By Jon Rappoport

It turns out every new medical drug should contain a warning: "The FDA approved this medicine. Watch out."

Perhaps the warning should be more extreme: "If you're taking this drug, have an emergency medical crew on stand-by."


A new study, published in the Journal of American Medical Association, examined all 222 drugs approved by the FDA between 2001 and 2010. The finding? Years after approval, roughly a third of the medicines were then labeled with warnings about serious adverse effects; and some of those warnings indicated life-threatening complications. For example, cancer and liver damage. For example, death---which, the last time I looked, is life-threatening.

The Washington Post reports: "Among the drugs with added warnings [years after the drugs were approved, as safe, for public use]: Humira, used for arthritis and some other illnesses; Abilify, used for depression and other mental illness; and Pradaxa, a blood thinner. The withdrawn drugs [taken off the market] and the reason: Bextra, an anti-inflammatory medicine, heart problems; Raptiva, a psoriasis drug, rare nervous system illness; and Zelnorm, a bowel illness drug, heart problems."

A pharma trade-group spokeswoman told the Post: "Even with rigorous clinical studies and regulatory review it may be impossible to detect certain safety signals until several years after approval, once the medicine is in broader use."

No doubt. And that's why the public is subjected to the luck of the draw, a roll of the dice, a spin of the roulette wheel.

Of course, as I never tire of pointing out, a landmark review (July 26, 2000) in the Journal of American Medical Association, by Dr. Barbara Starfield, found that, every year in the US, FDA approved drugs kill 106,000 people. Extrapolating to a decade, that would be a million deaths.

The new study confirms only a small part of the overall problem.

And the overall problem is what major media don't want to report on---and what the federal government doesn't want to touch with a 10-foot pole.

The new study is what intelligence agencies would call a limited hangout, which is a public admission of part of a problem or scandal that is, in fact, much bigger. The huge scandal, in this case, is the routine death-by-medicine numbers every year---which is ignored by the press and the government.

106,000 Americans killed by FDA approved medicines every year. That's the big one. That remains hidden and unacknowledged.
NOTE: under Trump, the FDA is urged to speed up the drug-approval process. It's good for business. For patients, it's a disaster on top of the already existing disaster.
Truthismymiddlename
 
Posts: 7797
Joined: September 27th, 2013, 7:07 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Open Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron