For more details, please see investigative reporter Jon Rappoport’s piece on this very subject:
February 10, 2017
“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.”
–Marcia Angell, MD, New York Review of Books, 2009
Below follow 22 facts, each of which is individually disturbing enough, but when taken in conjunction paint a very ominous picture of the state of the medical establishment in America.
Embedded within the bowels of Big Pharma lie little known details most individuals are unaware of.
Most of these details rarely get reported by the mainstream media, and when they do, the slant is always in favor of Big Pharma, and if not, what the individual gets is a limited hang out, which barely even amounts to the ghost of the truth.
The following are some of the many issues that do not get to see the light of day, but should be spoken at length about:
#1: Did you know that the FDA frequently misleads the public regarding long term studies and health?
According to Dr. Peter Breggin, in his landmark book Toxic Psychiatry [review here]:
“People assume that FDA approval and the widespread distribution of a drug – with many patients taking it for months or years – means that long–term studies have found it safe in regard to side effects, drug interactions, dependency, addition, and withdrawal. Thus, FDA approval grossly misleads the public, lulling it into an unfounded security.
The PDR admits that Prozac’s effectiveness has not been tested in controlled trials of “more than 5 or 6 weeks” and that “long-term” usefulness has therefore not been demonstrated.”[Bold Emphasis Added]
#2: Did you know that the U.S. and New Zealand are the only countries which allow drug companies to advertise directly to consumers?
Prior to 1997, there was a ban in place that restricted pharmaceuticals from advertising to consumers – known as drug-to-consumer-advertising, or DTCA- but this ban was removed, to the detriment of the populace.
Why is this important? Because that law was in place to protect individuals from the highly specialized, and yet misleading advertising of all drugs.
#3: The great majority of prescription drugs sold is due to DTCA. As Dr. Kelly Brogan notes in her landmark book, A Mind Of Your Own, The Truth About Depression [review here], in which she touches upon this specialized advertising:
“It’s been calculated that DTCA [drug-to-consumer advertising] is responsible for nearly half (49 percent) of requests for drugs. And fully seven out of ten times doctors prescribe based on appeal by patients who learned through their computers and televisions that they have an “imbalance” that must be fixed with a pill.”[Bold Emphasis Added]
#4: Coupled with the already disturbing above information, and with prescription drugs being doled out at 4 Billion per annum, it’s no wonder that Medical Errors are the third leading cause of death.According to a new John Hopkins study, which is covered by the Washington Post:
“Their analysis, published in the BMJ on Tuesday [, shows that ‘medical errors’ in hospitals and other health care facilities are incredibly common and may now be the third leading cause of death in the United States — claiming 251,000 lives every year, more than respiratory disease, accidents, stroke and Alzheimer’s.”[Click here for the study named Medical Error – The Third Leading Cause Of Death In The US]
#5: Unsurprisingly, given how Big Pharma & Big Medica have had no qualms in overstepping traditional boundaries, it’s no wonder that in many instances money from pharmaceutical companies sway Doctors’ prescriptions, which shows the serious conflict of interest.
As Dr. Mercola elucidates:
“Not only was the receipt of drug-company money associated with a higher percentage of brand-name drug prescriptions, but the prescriptions rose with the amount of money received.”[Bold Emphasis Added]
#6: Did you know, the FDA only requires two studies for drugs to be approved?
“…only two studies are required for FDA licensure of most pharmaceuticals, essentially leaving the population to participate in a post-marketing experiment in which adverse effects – casualties – are monitored passively. It’s a fabrication of science to think these drugs have a place in medicine, what is meant to be the art of healing.”
But there’s more. Most drug research is in fact short term. Dr. Brogan cautions:
“Their patients have never consented to the long-term effects of these medications because pharmaceutical research is, by nature, short term. There is no incentive on the part of the pharmaceutical companies to take a good look at what happens to the average individual when she takes a medication for a decade or so.”[Bold Emphasis Added]
#7: This hyper-drugging of the populace has lead to prescription drugs in fact being 16,400% deadlier than terrorists. But you won’t hear that in the mainstream media.
#8: Not only is our corrupt for-health for-profit medical system unsurprisingly the most expensive in the world, but our life expectancy is worse than that of a third world country.
#9: Heart surgery is 70 times more expensive in the US.
#10: Of course, with billions of prescriptions being filled yearly, it’s no wonder that 70% of Americans take prescription drugs.
#11: In fact, expensive treatment requests have predictably gotten so bad that Doctors are even calling for a ban for the duplicitous practice of DTCA.
#12: A large study, which was published in The Lancet, further debunks high cholesterol myths, admitting statin drugs are essentially worthless.
#13: Another study shows that combining multiple childhood vaccines isn’t safe, according to an article in the Journal Of American Physicians and Surgeons.
#14: The same statin drugs that were found to be worthless against cholesterol, are now going to be used as anti-cancer drugs. You can’t make this stuff up!
#15: Although the US has merely 5% of the world’s population, it consumes 80% of the world’s pain killers.
#16: A great portion of this is in large part to what is called “Disease Mongering” and the creation of disease.
#17: Pharmaceutical companies Genentech and OSI Pharmaceuticals have even been caught concealing adverse effects of drugs, and were ordered to pay a $70 million dollar fine.
#18: America has the worst infant mortality rate of all developed nations. Let that disturbing fact sink in.
#19: Since 1986 Big Pharma has had liability shielding preventing it from being prosecuted for endangering public health. And some wonder why the medical establishment is so corrupt.
#20: Not long ago, medical conglomerate, Pfizer, paid over $2 BILLION Dollars for criminal and civil charges due to illegally promoting the use 4 of its drugs. 
#21: Merely months ago, a study proving that vaccinated children are 3 times more likely to be diagnosed with autism and other neurological issues was banned from the internet.
#22: Because of all of the reasons mentioned above, and more, Americans are spending over $30 billion dollars in out-of-pocket costs on alternative health. Thankfully!
This overall pattern of dwindling care, that’s overly expensive, and only serves to fill the coffers of Big Pharma will only change when individuals quit buying in to the propaganda from the medical establishment.
And for all the technology, public schooling, and billions spent, our medical system isn’t even top 3 in the world, and the statistics prove it.
Instead of purchasing health insurance, perhaps individuals should focus on attaining health assurance.
The system in its current state sees people as nothing but cash cows, and the sicker they are, the more money they make. And they also aren’t coming up with cures since that, also, will cut into their profits.
One must wonder, seeing that they have no virtues and are willing to throw the people under the bus with lies and fraud, what else are they willing to do?
Take control of your health, while you still got time.
Education will eviscerate ignorance; nutrition will beat disease; corruption will continue to be exposed; but only if the individual chooses to make it so.
Be mindful, stay aware.
Individuals can go with the flow, and take the tides as they come, or they can choose to rise to the occasion.
Pierce the veil.
Cast light on the shadows.
And become the solution you’ve always waited for.
Sources & References:
 Dr. Peter R. Breggin, M.D., Toxic Psychiatry, pp. 168-169
 Dr. Joseph Mercola, The Great Bird Flu Hoax, p. 39.
 Dr. Kelly Brogan M.D., A Mind Of Your Own – The Truth About Depression, p. 52.
 Dr. Kelly Brogan M.D., A Mind Of Your Own – The Truth About Depression, p. 49.
 Ibid., p. 35.
February 9, 2017
Scientists are worried about the Trump administration: His pick for the Environmental Protection Agency doesn’t seem interested in protecting the environment, his energy secretary lacks the publication record of his highly academic predecessors, and the president himself once tweeted that global warming is a Chinese hoax. In light of such issues, they’re planning a march to advocate the use of scientific evidence in political decision-making. Was there ever an alternative to evidence? -Bloomberg
The march is going to take place on April 22, and chances are it will receive a great deal of coverage, much as the protest by women did. The march is not going to divorce science from political decision-making, only advocate its proper use.
The article says that people in the march may not understand the difference between fact-based scientific evidence and marketing material. “Along with a march, maybe we need better education on the difference between science and politicized pseudoscience.”
Additionally, the march is scheduled for Earth Day , which comes with its own set of confusions. The article tells us that the first Earth Day was less of a celebration and more of an obituary. This was because researchers at the time were very firm that human being were about to deplete the earth’s remaining resources and “wipe themselves off the planet.”
Stanford University biologist Paul Ehrlich predicted that between 1980 and 1989, 4 billion people, including 65 million Americans, would starve to death. Nobel Laureate George Wald estimated that civilization would end within 15 or 30 years unless humans took immediate action.
Life magazine ran a terrifying cover story, saying that “scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence” to predict that “by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half,” and “increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will affect the earth’s temperature, leading to mass flooding or a new ice age.”
It was more hype than science. None of the predictions had testable hypotheses. They simply coupled historical population growth rates with an absurd doomsday model. Ridiculous as the claims were, no one really wanted to refute them or argue against the conservation of natural resources.
The article goes on to point out that statistics can be used by both sides to make points about an industry. Cigarette manufacturers were assaulted by lung cancer victims accounting for 3.3 percent of over 15,000 deaths but only .9 percent of 3,726 deaths among non-smokers.
But the cigarette companies turned this around and claimed that because the number was very low, there actually was no causation. The larger point of the article is that science is not always conclusive but that it doesn’t have to be to communicate a possible dangerous trend.
For us, this is a controversial notion. We tend to believe that just because science indicates something doesn’t mean that the result should be an inevitable legal tarnishing or outright banning of the product in question.
The first Earth Day is a good example. It is probably true that human beings have used up or diminished at least some resources. But in a market place, other resources will be discovered to take their place.
The insistence of trying to control these resources while not allowing their continued use makes it difficult for an industry to move from one resource to another in a somewhat seamless fashion. Additionally, such resources often do not run out. They are simply banned even though they are in existence, perhaps plentifully so.
Coal is a good example. Not only is it plentiful, it is easy to get. For this reason many people like to use it. One could argue that its very popularity makes it unacceptable to globalists who want to ration energy.
Likewise, the kind of energy that is popular today requires vast “farms.” These farms are not easily available to individuals, and that is part of the larger plan. The idea is to deprive people of the wherewithal to take care of themselves. Whether it’s food, water or even air, the idea is that the individual will have to turn to the state or a state affiliate for a properly purified and legal alternative.
Companies are so swollen these days as a result of court decisions that they are virtually part of the state. So companies provide what the state dictates.
And the state dictates the use of resources it can control for whatever reason. As the state makes more and more less available, people’s living standards decrease. That too is part of the plan.
Science really has very little to do with it except insofar as science can be used to diminish what is available. And often this sort of science is downright shoddy.
Conclusion: That’s the real problem with science these days. It’s often inaccurate and configured for certain purposes. In other words, it’s not real science at all.
October 20, 2016
There should never be a situation where a pharmaceutical company that has spent hundreds of millions of dollars – and sometimes billions – developing a new drug is allowed to conduct its own self-controlled clinical trials, because the financial incentives to skew the outcomes of those trials in the company’s favor are far too great.
And yet it happens all the time, according to a recent report by NPR.org.
The publicly funded broadcast company says that doctors often turn to specially crafted studies when they are attempting to understand what is often confusing and contradictory findings in scientific literature. That’s because such studies are considered to be the “gold standard” for research.
However, a leading advocate for such studies is warning that they are increasingly being subverted by commercial interests, meaning their accuracy, too, is now in question as drug makers and the scientists they utilize improperly influence outcomes.
NPR.org notes that for years these studies, which are called meta-analyses and systematic reviews, appeared to fill information gaps with more complete findings. Doctors who once relied on each other for expert advice increasingly turned to crafted studies.
But over the years the number of such reviews ballooned and began offering contradictory findings. So in the 1990s doctors and medical advisory boards began to utilize studies that combined several different research projects that analyzed all of the available data to come to a general conclusion. That helped fast-track searches for answers.
Commercial interests taint 8 in 10 studies
Such studies are “extremely important,” Dr. John Ioannidis, a professor of medicine health research and policy at Stanford University, told NPR.org, adding that he himself has conducted several meta-analyses over his career. “They’re trying to make some sense out of a very convoluted scientific medical literature.
However, he said, now “there are just too many meta-analyses.”
Indeed, in a recent study on the issue, titled “The Mass Production of Redundant, Misleading and Conflicted Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses,” Ioannidis chose example studies involving antidepressants.
He said that there were 185 published in academic literature over a period of just seven years, which translates into roughly 25 such meta-analyses per year, for the same drugs and the same indication for those drugs – major depression.
Worse, those studies are being conducted by scientists who have financial interests in the outcome, Ioannidis found. About eight-in-10 of them “have been funded or have some other conflicts of interests with manufacturers of these drugs,” he said.
Further, if one were to examine their conclusions, nearly all – with one exception – claim there are no issues or caveats with taking antidepressants.
If any downsides are mentioned at all, he said, you have to read deep into the studies to find, say, warnings about increased risk of suicide.
The problem is actually worse
That, of course, is very misleading to doctors who are turning to such analyses in order to get a quick take on what works and what does not, as well as the risks-versus-reward. Ioannidis told NPR.org that Big Pharma has begun using such analyses for commercial reasons rather than as an unbiased examination of the evidence. That, of course, represents a danger to the public.
Ioannidis said that drug makers can produce results or give the interpretation that most fits their interests and needs with self-funded analyses.
“So you can have the most power and prestigious design in current medical evidence, and it can be easily manipulated as an advertisement, as a marketing tool,” he said, noting that defeats the primary reason for such studies in the first place – making an over-abundance of findings more comprehensive and understandable.
Clinical professor emeritus Peter Kramer of Brown University, author of “Listening to Prozac,” delved deeply into the conduct of meta-analysis studies when writing his latest book, “Ordinarily Well.” What he discovered was even worse than Ioannidis claims.
In addition to finding commercial interests, Kramer also said he found many cases of academic bias among researchers, further skewing results.
Has it occurred to you that virtually no college in America teaches a course in individual freedom?
September 13, 2016
Fingers pointed like a gun. A pop tart chewed into the shape of a gun. A toy gun. A screen shot of a gun.
For several years now, all over America, schools have been exercising what they call zero tolerance policy to suspend young children packing “suggestions of guns.”
Behind this practice is the idea that populations can be conditioned against owning real guns. Start early, indoctrinate the kids, and society will change.
In turn, such thinking rests on the premise that human beings are Pavlovian dogs. Programmed biological machines. If the program currently running is faulty, and fails to obey the mandate of “greatest good for the greatest number,” change the program.
As this Pavlovian approach expands and spreads, people begin to believe that a model of radical reconstruction is viable and good.
For instance, how many people would now respond favorably to the idea that “everyone can be programmed to forget guns even exist”?
Too far-out? Try this:
How many people would agree to a program that “guaranteed” racial prejudice would be wiped from human memory?
How many people would happily respond to the notion that environmental destruction, as an impulse, could be removed from the brain?
How many of these people would even notice that such programs eliminate freedom and choice? And if they did notice, how many would care?
The idea that you can obliterate “bad parts” of the brain and preserve the good parts is now embedded in standard science. It is childish, absurd, and dangerous to the extreme.
Brain researchers are, on the whole, disinterested in law. They aim to create a new species for whom no laws will be needed. People will do the right thing, because their upgraded brains tell them to.
Make no mistake about it, the technocrats/social engineers have a plan. They intend to program brains to fit their values-agenda. Whatever opposes that agenda is called a “mental disorder,” which needs to be corrected and erased.
Selling their work as social progress, these self-appointed elites will attempt to shape brain activity so it fulfills a goal of “cooperative impulse.” That means people would never think of their own desires, but instead would “serve the greater need of all.” Automatically.
No contemplation or independent thought necessary. Or required. Or possible.
All present attempts to achieve this goal—peer pressure, legislation, coercion, politically correct language, surveillance, dumbed-down education—are crude stopgaps, and pale by comparison to brain reprogramming.
The holy grail is a brain that can’t consider consequences, or even choices. It merely responds to stimuli along narrow channels.
For example, a clumsy indoctrination program which currently lasts four years in a “progressive” college could be installed in hours.
The enemy of all this is:
Not only laws that protect it, but, more importantly, the understanding of it within the individual BY the individual.
Has it occurred to you that virtually no college in America teaches a course in individual freedom?
When you step back and think about that, you know how far the nation has descended into a morass of “altruistic” derangement.
Continue Reading At: JonRappoport.wordpress.com
The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.
August 30, 2016
Anthropocene: Planet Earth has entered new man-made epoch, experts say … dubbed the Anthropocene because of the extent of humanity’s impact on the planet. An international working group set up to consider the question voted by 34 to zero, with one abstention, that the Anthropocene was real in a geological sense. –UK Independent
Good Lord, the earth is about to have a new geological time frame foisted on it. Thanks to our longtime feedback contributor alaska3636 for alerting us to this latest, comprehensive insanity. In a recent thread, he wrote the following:
Did you see this great, big portmanteau meme … The Anthropocene Epoch … How many memes does it attempt to fit?
“Humanity’s impact on the Earth is now so profound that a new geological epoch – the Anthropocene – needs to be declared, according to an official expert group who presented the recommendation to the International Geological Congress in Cape Town on Monday. The new epoch should begin about 1950, the experts said, and was likely to be defined by the radioactive elements dispersed across the planet by nuclear bomb tests, although an array of other signals, including plastic pollution, soot from power stations, concrete, and even the bones left by the global proliferation of the domestic chicken were now under consideration.”
Of course, there is also global warming. But, wait! A weird meta-explanation of meme-distribution? “The 35 scientists on the WGA – who voted 30 to three in favor of formally designating the Anthropocene, with two abstentions – will now spend the next two to three years determining which signals are the strongest and sharpest.”
Once the data has been assembled, it will be formally submitted to the stratigraphic authorities and the Anthropocene could be officially adopted within a few years.” The Guardian: Making the world safe for technocratic globalism.
Alaska’s excerpts are from the Guardian (here). In fact, this is a major meme that has just exploded in the UK media (and soon the US?). Each UK daily had their own take and tone. The Guardian reported on this planned, new epoch more poetically than the Independent, as follows:
On Christmas Eve 1968, the Apollo 8 astronaut William Anders took a photograph of the view outside the window as his spaceship orbited the moon. The now iconic Earthrise image shows our half-moon blue planet under a decoration of clouds rising from the blackness of space over the lunar surface. The picture encapsulated Earth’s precariousness in the cosmos and, for many, contained a message of humility and stewardship for our home.
Now geologists have decided … changes have been so profound, so global and so permanent that our catalogue of the Earth’s history needs to change accordingly. Since the last ice age, around 11,000 years ago, human civilisation has flourished in the climatically benign Holocene. Now they believe that epoch has come to an end and we have entered a new human-influenced age, the Anthropocene.
As you can see from the introductory excerpt, the Independent article (here) gets to the point more quickly. But both articles treat the “new epoch” as immensely significant event.
The UK Daily Mail (here) is perhaps the most clinical, seeking to define the “new” epoch as follows:
WHAT IS THE ANTHROPOCENE? This is from from anthropo, for ‘man,’ and cene, for ‘new’. Experts remain divided on when mankind caused a lasting impact on the Earth’s geology but seem to have settled on a time near 1950. The atomic bomb is a popular marker.
Alaska is absolutely correct about this being a portmanteau meme. We borrowed the term portmanteau from Lewis Carroll who used it to describe the intermingling of two or more words: Fog and smoke to make smog, for instance.
An elite portmanteau meme – as we use it – is one that intermingles two or more forms of propaganda in a single presentation. The elite over-population meme could be considered a portmanteau meme because its examination inevitably embraces various kinds of scarcity memes including an impending lack of food, water, etc.
Several basic characteristics identify elite memes. They usually deal with basic survival issues of some sort and postulate that human existence is threatened by enormous difficulties . The inevitable conclusion is always the same: Government – the bigger, the better – must step in to alleviate the impending disaster.
This “Anthropocene” meme is even more obnoxious than usual. For instance, it is presented within a scientific context that is intended to provide credibility to a broad spectrum of propaganda. Pollution, environmental degradation, global warming, etc.,these are all elements intended to receive an endorsement from this larger meme.
The warming temperature, higher sea levels, ash from fossil fuels, plastic waste, a dramatic increase in erosion, the spread of animal species around the world and radioactive particles left around the world from nuclear bomb tests would all contribute to permanent changes in the Earth’s rocks, the scientists said.
Do you notice the inclusion of “nuclear bomb tests?” We’ve been running a series of articles (here) showing how the Pentagon and related facilities have surely faked various nuclear blasts and generally utilized phony stories about “nuclear weapons” as a way to keep people terrified for three-quarters of a century.
It should be obvious to anyone who takes a serious look at the evidence that the Pentagon and other countries released films of nuclear bomb tests that either never happened or took place in ways that were not nearly as dramatic as the films purporting to document them (here).
Yes, nuclear weapons may exist in some form or other, but they are surely a classic example of fear-based propaganda. And as with so many other such elite memes, only government has the authority and power to save us. As we’ve pointed out previously, your average sociopathic political grifter can be arranging a sordid embezzlement in the morning and addressing an attentive group of fellow politicos in the afternoon on ways that he intends to save humanity from total destruction with the latest “nuclear treaty.”
Anyway, this is one humdinger of a meme. It’s the proverbial gift that keeps on giving. The only major memes that likely cannot be crammed into this bouquet of bullshit are the economic ones such as central banking. But when it comes to scarcity memes, this “new epoch” nonsense is fairly all encompassing … and thus more obnoxious than usual.
The reality in our view is that man has “done” nothing to earth of any consequence. Take a drive through Russia, Canada, Alaska, Australia, Brazil or even the Western US. You can go days, perhaps, without seeing a single person. Overpopulation is nonsense. You could reportedly fit the world’s entire population in New Zealand (here).
And of course we heard for years about “peak oil” and the looming catastrophe of energy scarcity. These days we’re virtually drowning in oil. Meanwhile, they’re shutting down wind farms and solar plants because they are too expensive to operate and the energy is too intermittent (here).
Predictably, this meme uses “experts” to apply “science.” But, increasingly, we discover in this Internet era that “science” is whatever elites deem it to be. And the “experts” that deliver such science, often with expensive and impressive-sounding degrees, are actually flim-flam artists of a sort. If someone tells you he’s an expert, our advice would be to run the other way. (See here and here.)
Here’s some additional information from the Daily Mail on the meme’s formal evolution:
“Our working model is that the optimal boundary is the mid-20th century,” said Jan Zalasiewicz, a geologist at the University of Leicester. “If adopted – and we’re a long way from that – the Holocene would finish and the Anthropocene would formally be held to have begun.”
… If the Anthropocene is voted into existence, scientists will have to pick a ‘golden spike’ to mark the transition. The spike nails down a date, but also pinpoints a primary ‘signal’ at a specific location. The working group was divided on what that essential signal might be, but traces of nuclear bomb explosions emerged as a favourite.
Conclusion: Of course it has! This epochal lie is therefore to be anchored by another lie: the pervasive and oft-tested savagery of Weapons of Mass Destruction. Yes, there may such weapons, but the Pentagon controlled narrative is as full of untruths as this upcoming multi-meme production will be. We’re sick of it and it hasn’t even really begun.
August 21, 2016
[Note: All Underlines Are Hyperlinked For Those Seeking Additional Information]
What would happen if everyone stopped funding crooked corporations that throw the population under the bus tomorrow?
What would happen if people took responsibility for their health, rather than hand off that responsibility to the Medical establishment?
What would happen if individuals begun vetting all the information from every single source, rather than take everything at face value?
What would happen if individuals quit supporting corrupt politicians?
What would happen if we quit eating unsafe genetically modified foods, that have never been proven to be safe? Why do you think they want to keep you from knowing what foods are GMOs? If genetically modified foods were safe, why aren’t they labeled? Ever ruminate on that?
What would happen if we just quit giving the system our consent [silence is consent], for every illegal, inhumane and brutal action carried out on the populace?
What would happen if people quit drinking fluoridated water that causes neurological issues and countless others, that just happens to make it easier for people to be controlled, which was why the Russians and Nazis used it? [For More Info Click Here]
What would happen if people asked what toxic substances were in their food, besides genetically modified foods?
What would happen if people knew that when a label says it’s natural, it’s anything but? [If you want something that is real you need to look for Organic/Non-GMO labels on food packages, not “natural”]
What would happen if people quit running for the cure and people began searching for the cause? Better yet, what would happen if people took a look at Dr. Burzynski’s work? [Watch His Documentary Here] Or have you seen the documentary on Forbidden Cures? [You Can Watch It Here]
What would happen if individuals knew preventable medical mistakes are the third leading cause of death in the United States? Would they still trust the medical system? [That doesn’t count the many more [1.5 Million a year, every year, at last estimate] that end up getting run over by Big Medica who don’t get killed by these mistakes.]
What would happen if people knew that key vaccine studies to prove vaccines are safe are funded almost entirely by Big Pharma? That’s called conflict of interest.
What would happen if people knew the CDC covers up vaccine issues, as one of their very own scientists admitted, but which the mainstream media won’t touch?
What would happen if people knew there’s a vaccination reaction system that has paid out billions even though vaccinations are claimed to be ‘safe’?
What would happen if we quit allowing ourselves to be divided and began standing together?
What would happen if people quit taking excuses for answers from those at the top, and began finding – or better yet, creating! – solutions themselves?
What would happen if individuals decided a better world starts with them?
The point of asking those questions is to show that we, whether we like it or not, are the largest component of the system.
If we merely begun acting on everything that is in our best interest, truly our best interest and not in the interest of the corrupt corporations/politicians then everything would begin to change.
Examples of what happens when individuals begin acting in their best interest follow:
Please note, those are merely a handful of the stories available, and that’s only the change taking place regarding people wanting real food.
What would happen if…individuals realized they are the solutions to their very problems, and the time to act is now?