#BigPharma #FDA – Famous Medical-Journal Editor Torpedoes Medical Journal

FakeNews
Source: NoMoreFakeNews.com | JonRappoport.wordpress.com
By: Jon Rappoport
May 1, 2017

“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.

Read More At: JonRappoport.wordpress.com
_______________________________________________________________

Jon Rappoport

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.

Advertisements

[Documentary] All The Plentary’s Men

Source: Best Evidence
May 1, 2017

“The King can do no wrong.”

—William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England

“When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal.”

—Ex-President Richard Nixon, interview with David Frost

The question at bar is why the U.S. Department of Justice has failed to prosecute any too-big-to-fail banks or—more importantly—their bankers, even for admitted crimes. It’s a crucial question, because after eight straight years of unremitting prosecutorial failure, it looks very much as if a select group of top banks can, in fact, do no wrong. If that’s the case, then our constitutional republic isn’t merely in trouble. It’s dead. A person or group of people who satisfy Blackstone’s criterion for ultimate sovereign power—the power to commit crimes with impunity—can’t exist in a nation where the law reigns supreme. And yet here we are a decade after the financial crisis began in earnest, and not one TBTF bank executive has gone to jail. Legally, the TBTF banks are indistinguishable from the King, since the power to commit crimes with impunity swallows all other sovereign powers; such a power isn’t even supposed to exist in the U.S., and yet it does. Moreover, since there can’t be two kings in a kingdom, the entire U.S. government, from the president on down, is just one of the King’s men under this formulation of power. The real job of the U.S. government, then, isn’t to represent the will of the people at all, it’s to do the King’s bidding. A nation that isn’t governed by law is governed by instead by a king—it’s one or the other—and the president’s inferiority to such an above-the-law sovereign was confirmed over 40 years ago with Nixon’s ouster. The president, unlike the King, answers to the law (despite Nixon’s opinion). Now, you may say that while the TBTF banks might arguably have the de facto power of the King, that’s a far cry from wielding such power formally (i.e., having de jure criminal immunity). The reply to that objection is set forth in this film, “All the Plenary’s Men,” which is a sequel to “The Veneer of Justice in a Kingdom of Crime.” Another objection, raised by the DOJ itself, is that it HAS prosecuted TBTF bankers, citing cases like that of Raj Rajaratnam. These cases, however, in fact reveal the DOJ acting on behalf of the criminal global banking cartel. On that score, the DOJ’s abysmal track record is by now so extensive and so thorough that it’s possible to spot legal patterns in the DOJ’s protracted miscarriage of justice, and, as you’re about to see, those patterns are very deeply disturbing indeed. What’s been going on cuts right past a garden variety constitutional crisis like Watergate straight to a crisis of sovereignty. The backdrop for all of this is HSBC’s exoneration in December of 2012 for laundering money for drug dealers and terrorists, about which the House Financial Services Committee issued a report in July of 2016. Whether it was due to the political circus in town at the time, or to the Republican authorship of that report (albeit without dissent), it didn’t get nearly the scrutiny it deserved. You see, prosecutors working on the HSBC case were actually going to indict the bank, but they got overruled, and HSBC and its team of criminals skated. The story of how exactly that reversal came about reveals, if not the King himself, then certainly many of the King’s top men. Make the coffee extra strong before viewing. Lots of ground gets covered, quickly. And don’t mothball those pitchforks and torches just yet.

Actual Hacking: Every Reporter Needs To Understand Sharyl Attkisson’s Case Against The US Government

QuestionEverything2
Source: NoMoreFakeNews.com | JonRappoport.wordpress.com
Jon Rappoport
January 31, 2017

Sharyl Attkisson was a star investigative reporter for CBS News. After two decades at the network, she resigned on March 10, 2014.

Among the controversial stories she covered: the Fast and Furious gun-walking program, in which the government “purposely allowed licensed firearms dealers to sell weapons to illegal straw buyers, hoping to track the guns to Mexican drug cartel leaders and arrest them” (LA Times, 10/3/11); the Benghazi attacks and murders; the CDC fraud in grossly overestimating the number of Swine Flu cases in America.

Attkisson now hosts a weekly television news program, Full Measure, for the Sinclair Broadcast Group. She writes at sharylattkisson.com.

Attkisson is also engaged in a struggle with the federal government.

Attkisson writes: “I just filed my latest appeal to the FBI’s improper withholding of my FBI file. You may not know it, but every American citizen—even a lowly reporter—is entitled to see his FBI file, if one exists.”

I queried Attkisson about this yesterday, and she replied: “I find it unacceptable that the federal government, and specifically the nation’s top law enforcement agency (DOJ), would be party to improperly—and I believe unlawfully—withholding public and personal materials that we (not they) own.”

For some reason, Attkisson isn’t permitted to see her FBI file. Why? The answer may lie in the government’s role as a hacker. A hacker of Attkisson’s computers.

Attkisson writes at her website: “I have a separate federal lawsuit underway against the federal government over illegal surveillance of my work and home computers by intruders using software proprietary to a U.S. intelligence agency. The intrusions were detected and confirmed by three independent forensics exams in 2013.”

“So far, the government has not cooperated with my lawsuit. For example, without even filing the required motion, government officials failed to show up for a properly-noticed deposition in the case.”

Here, from a press release, are details about the hack of Attkisson’s computers:

“On December, 27, 2014, Investigative Journalist Sharyl Attkisson filed administrative claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act against the U.S. Department of Justice, the U.S. Postal Service, and certain unnamed employees and/or agents of the federal government. Shortly thereafter, a lawsuit was filed in the District of Columbia alleging certain violations of Attkisson’s constitutional rights based on information implicating the federal government in illegal electronic monitoring and surveillance of her home and business computers and phones.”

“As outlined in the claims, three separate computer forensics exams revealed that intruders used sophisticated, remote capabilities to monitor Attkisson’s work. The intruders installed and periodically ‘refreshed’ software used to exfiltrate data, obtain Attkisson’s passwords to various personal and work accounts, access the CBS News computer system, and monitor Attkisson’s audio using a Skype account. Forensics also revealed evidence of U.S. government-related involvement in the surveillance.”

“Through a Freedom of Information Act request, Attkisson learned that the F.B.I. opened a case on her computer intrusions in 2013, listing her as the victim, but the agency failed to interview her in the investigation or even notify her that one had been opened. To date, U.S. government officials have failed to fully cooperate with Attkisson’s efforts to learn about the intrusions, and have failed to fully respond to numerous requests to help provide information necessary to learn the truth. As a consequence of the government’s choice to ignore Attkisson’s requests, Attkisson and her family have chosen the only available option left to them.”

Yesterday, I asked Attkisson: in your opinion, why were your computers hacked?

She wrote: “On the lawsuit over the hacking: The reason I had my computers analyzed in the first place is because government sources had approached me and told me I was likely being ‘surveilled’ due to the reporting I had been conducting, especially some of my CBS News stories that were published online. They specifically mentioned my Benghazi reporting, which I began in fall of 2012. The forensics analyses were able to determine multiple unauthorized remote intrusions of my computers using software (proprietary to a federal government agency) that occurred prior to my Benghazi reporting, however. One such intrusion, for example, occurred in February 2012 (we have the date, time and method of entry) and another in July 2012. Stories I covered during this time period included Green Energy Waste stories that the Obama administration worked very hard to stop from airing on CBS, as well as Fast and Furious reports, among others. Among other details, the forensics exams were able to determine that the intruders not only accessed the CBS system, and used Skype to surreptitiously listen in on conversations, but also examined several files and photos related to Fast and Furious.”

“In addition to two separate forensics exams that I had conducted, CBS hired a forensics company that confirmed the remote intrusions. The analyst informed CBS, among other things, ‘I have definitive evidence that shows commands were run from Sharyl’s user account that she did not personally authorize during the timeframe of concern’ and ‘This history has been deliberately removed from Sharyl’s hard drive’ by a third party.”

—Read Attkisson’s next paragraph carefully. It’s explosive. It indicates Dept. of Justice (DOJ) lying and cover-up:

“A fourth forensics exam conducted by DOJ Inspector General of a different computer (only my personal computer that I asked them to examine in hopes they would recognize the government software, CBS would not give them the CBS computers in question) also confirmed the suspicious activities and that a third party deliberately removed files from my personal computers to cover their tracks. However, this information was omitted from a summary the DOJ IG released, which instead made it incorrectly sound as though intrusions had been ruled out. (The DOJ IG will not lawfully respond to FOIA requests for the documentation showing the investigators confirming the suspicious activities. I know the documents exist because the investigators let me review them during the investigation and briefed me on their findings.)”

“The 2012 intrusion dates I mentioned were NOT the sum total of intrusions—they were two dates we know of during which software was planted in my computers. The software was then used on an ongoing basis to access files, watch my keystrokes, etc.”

CBS agrees that Attkisson’s computers were hacked. Here is an excerpt from an August 7, 2013, article posted at the CBS news site:

“CBS News announced Friday that correspondent Sharyl Attkisson’s computer was hacked by ‘an unauthorized, external, unknown party on multiple occasions,’ confirming Attkisson’s previous revelation of the hacking.”

“CBS News spokeswoman Sonya McNair said that a cybersecurity firm hired by CBS News ‘has determined through forensic analysis’ that ‘Attkisson’s computer was accessed by an unauthorized, external, unknown party on multiple occasions in late 2012’.”

“Evidence suggests this party performed all access remotely using Attkisson’s accounts. While no malicious code was found, forensic analysis revealed an intruder had executed commands that appeared to involve search and exfiltration of data. This party also used sophisticated methods to remove all possible indications of unauthorized activity, and alter system times to cause further confusion. CBS News is taking steps to identify the responsible party and their method of access.”

“Several months ago, Attkisson had reported suspected intrusions of her computers, including her CBS News work computer, prompting CBS News to hire a firm to look into the hacking.”

My comment: As indicated at the beginning of this article, Attkisson is unable to see her FBI file. The FBI won’t show it to her. This is a breach of law. They won’t show it to her because it would reveal the FBI and DOJ stance on her investigative work at CBS. They didn’t like her work. They considered it a threat. They considered it an exposure of truths they wanted kept under wraps, relating to Fast and Furious, Benghazi, Green Energy Waste, etc.

That FBI file would lend further strength to Attkisson’s claim that the Dept. of Justice has been lying about what they found when they investigated the hacking of her computers.

For example: They found that some of their own people (FBI/DOJ) and/or people at other government agencies had done the hacking.

Major media consider this story “dead until further notice.” But independent journalists all over the world shouldn’t. They should cover it aggressively and keep the pot boiling, and make sure the public understands what is at stake: the right to report actual news, free from government interference and intimidation.

And the right to call government on the carpet, in court, under oath, to account for their crimes.

Read More At: JonRappoport.wordpress.com
_______________________________________________________________

Jon Rappoport

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.