May 22, 2017
May 22, 2017
May 17, 2017
What happened in Flint Michigan, how was it discovered, and how many more Flints are there?
May 17, 2017
You gotta love it when arrogant science devotees defiantly claim they alone have a monopoly on the “settled facts” of our reality. Throughout much of the 20th century, it turns out, these same sort of arrogant scientists claimed smoking was awesome for your health, too.
“More doctors smoke Camels than any other cigarette” was the headline of a full-page ad carried by the Journal of the American Medical Association. Doctors were paid by Big Tobacco to tout the amazing health benefits of smoking cigarettes, and any doctor who dared point out that smoking might be linked to cancer was subjected to the same industry blackballing, scientific censorship and verbal abuse that’s leveled today against honest researchers questioning the safety of GMOs or mercury in vaccines.
The real truth is that science never has a monopoly on facts, and science makes enormous mistakes (such as condoning smoking cigarettes) on a regular basis. Science is also for sale and easy corrupted by corporate interests.
Peer-reviewed science journals, too, are often little more than a collection of corporate-funded make-believe science tabloids. “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,” writes the former editor of The New England Journal of Medicine, Marcia Angell.
“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,” she says in Drug Companies & Doctors: A Story of Corruption.
With that in mind, take a look at the similarities between Big Tobacco science lies and vaccine industry science lies:
May 15, 2017
Brendan D. Murphy
May 9, 2017
Yet another shocking blow has been delivered to people who still ardently claim that vaccines are “safe and effective,” and that the only complications they can cause are “mild.” The US government department for Health Resources and Services Administration has recently released the running tally of the just-past-half-way-complete US Fiscal Year (FY) of 2017 for compensable vaccine injuries. It currently stands at over $142 million dollars. You read that right. That covers the 377 cases that were thus far successful in obtaining compensation in fiscal year 2017 through the heavily biased (to put it politely) system allegedly in place to redress damage done by vaccines in the USA.
At the rate things are going, we might expect the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program to pay out around $220 million or more by the close of FY 2017. To clarify, US Fiscal Year 2017 runs from October 1st, 2016 to September 30th, 2017 – there’s still over four months remaining to rack up more carnage.
Screenshot source: http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/data/monthlywebsitestats04_01_17.pdf
The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 was created to “reduce liability and respond to public health concerns.” It granted immunity to pharmaceutical companies and prevented parents from suing vaccine makers for vaccine injuries or death. What other industry has such exceptional standards applied to it? Why the special privilege a.k.a. license to injure and kill with impunity?
According to the CDC’s website, there are “limitations in our knowledge of the risks associated with vaccines” and vaccinations have “the following problems”:
The above very revealing admissions from the US Centers for Disease Control (CDC) completely undercut the pathological overconfidence exhibited in the extreme portions of the community pushing for mandatory vaccination.
Similarly, the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program compensation numbers are, not only not reassuring, but, frankly astonishing, and should give not just all parents, but all people in general, serious pause. If vaccines are “safe and effective” as our medical practitioners and politicians constantly tell us via mainstream media outlets, then why are there already over 370 compensated cases in fiscal year 2017? Why is there a running payout total from 1988 up to now of “around $3.6 billion,” according to the US Health Resources and Services Administration?
Why, if vaccines are just so gosh darned safe, does the HRSA government website state (see image above) that, “Since influenza vaccines (vaccines administered to large numbers of adults each year) were added to the VICP in 2005, many adult petitions related to that vaccine have been filed, thus changing the proportion of children to adults receiving compensation”?2
It seems to make some sense that the true purpose of the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program is simply to pay lip service to justice and decency, while allowing pharmaceutical companies to receive a minor slap on the wrist (largely in the form of bad PR) before they go right on with business as usual – “pay to play” or something like that (but then I’m a cynic.). The economic losses are affordable and “worth it”; the human losses are an inconvenient public relations issue to be “managed.”
Why, if “many” fully grown adults are seeking injury compensation should we make the blanket assumption that these same vaccines will be “safe and effective” for babies and small children? The doses are not weight adjusted. No vaccines are weight adjusted to account for the much smaller and more fragile physiology of a baby. Why? Why does a baby receive the same amount of heavy metals, carcinogens, and the many other toxic ingredients (such as polysorbate-80) that a full grown 200 pound man receives? Where else in medicine is such a lack of dose control not only tolerated, by blindly promoted and held as sacred?
Why are we not seeing any double-blind randomized controlled trials with true placebo groups demonstrating clearly and honestly that flu (or other) vaccines are safe and not causing children any harm – as well as being “effective”? Until 2005, based on the HRSA document, the ONLY petitions filed for flu vaccine injuries were on behalf of injured children. Where are those safety studies again? Where are the weight adjusted doses again? Why isn’t anyone taking up RFK Jr’s $100,000 mercury challenge if mercury-containing vaccines are so demonstrably safe? Why, why, why, Mr Anderson?
A recent peer-reviewed study published in the Pace Environmental Law Review looked at cases of vaccine injury that have been monetarily compensated by the VICP.
The study investigated approximately 1300 cases of childhood brain injury as a result of vaccines in which the Special Masters ruled for the plaintiffs, looking for references to autism, symptoms of autism or disorders commonly associated with autism. It reports that twenty-one cases actually stated “autism or autism-like symptoms” in the court records. The researchers then identified and contacted 150 more compensated families to find out whether the children had autism. They were able to find an additional 62 cases (greater than 40% of their sample) for a total of 83 cases of autism. In 39 cases (47%) there was confirmation of autism beyond parental report.3 (Emphasis added. Autism is a proven vaccine adverse event. It is also listed in vaccine inserts as one of many possible abreactions.)
Since 1988, when the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program began, 5,353 petitions were assessed as compensable out of the 18,072 filed since then. Nearly 1-in-3 is actually fairly impressive, given the incredible medical, social, and legal bias against recognizing vaccine harm when it occurs, as well as the determined efforts by pharmaceutical companies in court to distort reality and manufacture false doubt in defending their products and controlling perception.
This doesn’t look good at a time when proponents of removing freedom of health choice are campaigning for “no jab no fly” policies that would prevent much of Australia from functioning (particularly economically). This fear-mongering and vaccine hysteria is all the more absurd when one pauses to consider that in Australia, as in the US, the clear majority of adults are FAR from being “up to date” with their shots – and have been for decades. We simply don’t worry about it. And yet, the much-feared epidemics never seem to materialize. In fact, most outbreaks seem to follow in the wake of intensive vaccination campaigns – but that’s just a coincidence, right? Just as it’s a coincidence that within hours of getting your baby home from the doctor’s surgery they were seizing, turning blue, and in the nascent stages of encephalopathy…Right?
Because clearly, after $3.6 billion dollars worth of legal payouts in the US alone since 1988 – and with adverse events being under-reported (in the VAERS) to the extent of 90% or more, and with mature adults and children alike being injured by flu (and the other) vaccines to the extent of requiring compensation, clearly, vaccines are simply “safe and effective.”
Logically, if we mandated vaccination across the board, the only possible outcome is an explosion of vaccine injuries and people seeking compensation. It’s simple math. More vaccines means more vaccine injuries and deaths. Aside from the immeasurable human psychological cost and loss of quality of life, who is going to fund the payouts? Is Big Pharma stepping up to the plate and preparing to own the harm it is causing? Not likely, since pharmaceutical companies are legally immune (at least in America). Vaccine Injury Compensation Program funding comes from an excise tax charged on each vaccine:
Vaccine Injury claims are paid from the Vaccine Injury Compensation Trust Fund, managed by the U.S. Department of Treasury.
The [VICP] Trust Fund receives its money from a 75 cent excise tax on vaccines recommended by the [CDC] for routine administration to children. The excise tax is imposed on each dose, or preventable disease of a given vaccination. (central-pennsylvania.legalexaminer.com)
This reminds me of the carbon tax, which essentially allows “polluters” to simply pay a tax/”penalty” for their emissions and continue with business as usual. It isn’t a deterrent at all for vaccine manufacturers. They would factor it in to their costs of operating.
In September 2014, the CDC notified federal vaccine advisory committees that soon they will no longer be accepting vaccine adverse event reports via phone, fax, or mail. Instead, officials have stated that they will only accept electronic reports of vaccine reactions, injuries, hospitalizations, and death. (vactruth.com)
According to VacTruth, “70 percent of VAERS reports are still filed the old-fashioned way, handwritten and submitted via mail or fax. A mere 30 percent of adverse event reports are submitted to VAERS online.”4 Therefore, the change to adverse event reporting seems designed to make it harder to keep accurate tabs on the true number of significant vaccine injuries by discouraging reporting them in general. Some parents dealing with a severe abreaction in a child may also be too overwhelmed and distressed to have the time or inner resources to file a report, a fact few people even consider. Other factors make obtaining compensation even harder:
…certain adverse reactions from vaccines have been removed from the injury tables, including encephalopathy (swelling of the brain) and seizure disorders resulting from specific vaccines, two very common adverse reactions…and autism as a primary injury. Injuries from anthrax and smallpox vaccines are not covered under the NVICP…Parents who file a report with VAERS must file a separate report if they wish to seek compensation for their child’s vaccine injury or death. Furthermore, if your child was hospitalized from a vaccine, but they did not require surgery, you would not be able to file a claim seeking compensation, unless you can prove with certain kinds of evidence that the effects of the injury have lasted longer than six months.5
You also need an attorney to file on your behalf. And did you know that injury claims may take from two to ten years to resolve through the VICP? Imagine being a bereaved parent and pondering that life-sucking prospect. The system is very clearly weighted against any kind of justice for vaccine-injured people. This is why I say that nearly 1-in-3 cases receiving compensation so far is actually quite an achievement – all things considered.
You may support blanket vaccination on the way IN to the doctor’s surgery, but you may not support it so much when your child is brain-dead (or just dead) 72 hours later. It happens. I personally know many vaccine-injured people – so many I’ve lost count. My partner is one (thank you very much, Gardasil). The media hides it. Politicians lie about it. Doctors parrot fallacious medical dogmas without thinking. Big Pharma continues doing what Big Pharma does best: poisoning us while we pay them for the privilege.
The x-factor is YOU, the wild card, the ghost in the machine, the one who can stop, think, and say “NO.” You have the power to recognise something that doesn’t make sense and to try a different way – and if you have children then, more to the point, you have the responsibility.
Next fiscal year, let’s aim for $0 in compensation payouts through 100% non-compliance – meaning no vaccine injuries and deaths at all – and a public that understands REAL disease risk and how to actually be resistant and robust rationally. Wouldn’t that be something?
Brendan D. Murphy – Co-founder of Global Freedom Movement and host of GFM Radio, Brendan D. Murphy is a leading Australian author, researcher, activist, and musician. His acclaimed non-fiction epic The Grand Illusion: A Synthesis of Science & Spirituality – Book 1 is out now! Come and get your mind blown at www.brendandmurphy.net
“What a wonderful job of collating and integrating you have done! Every person in the field of ‘paranormal’ psychology or related topics should have this book as a major reference.” – Dr. Buryl Payne
“A masterpiece…The Grand Illusion is mind-blowing.” – Sol Luckman, author of Potentiate Your DNA.
“You’ve written the best synthesis of modern science and esoteric science that I’ve seen in 40 years of study in that area. Brilliant!” – Michael K. Wade
Please visit – www.globalfreedommovement.org
May 9, 2017
The move towards mandatory vaccination is no longer a conspiracy theory. California Senate Bill 277 snapped families into a reality where informed consent and health freedom do not apply.
Presently, the American people are facing 173 vaccine-related bills in 40 states. The language of many of the new bills aims to increase tracking, target non-vaccinating families, force vaccine schedules, and further persecute families who choose not to accept vaccines; the private products of for-profit, legally protected pharmaceutical companies. The corporate media and medical industries have thrown their full influence behind Big Pharma’s transparent ‘safe and effective’ messaging. At the same time, both industries are simultaneously censoring discussions around the fraud, dangers, mounting injuries, and criminal behavior inherent within the vaccine industry and those pushing for mandatory vaccination. A central point of contention, and human rights violation, is the fact that historically, no true study has been conducted between vaccinated versus unvaccinated populations. However, such a study has now come to fruition.
Having worked on the study for 15 years, from its original conception to completion, Dr. Anthony Mawson and his coauthors have now had their work published in the Journal of Translational Science.The study, titled, ‘Pilot comparative study on the health of vaccinated and unvaccinated 6- to 12- year-old U.S. children’.  Since long-term health outcomes of the current vaccination schedule haven’t been studied, Dr. Mawson and his coauthors set out to compare vaccinated and unvaccinated children across a broad range of health outcomes. The study was designed as a cross-sectional survey of homeschooling mothers on their vaccinated and unvaccinated biological children ages 6 to 12. It included mothers of 666 children ranging from fully vaccinated, partially vaccinated and unvaccinated. The mothers were asked to indicate on a list of more than 40 acute and chronic illnesses all those for which her child or children had received a diagnosis by a physician among other questions.
The vaccinated children were significantly more likely than the unvaccinated to have been diagnosed with the following: allergic rhinitis, other allergies, eczema/atopic dermatitis, a learning disability, autism spectrum disorder, any neurodevelopmental disorder (NDD) (i.e., learning disability, ADHD or ASD) and chronic illness.
The following is a breakdown of the specific results for vaccinated children:
Vaccinated children were also significantly more likely to be diagnosed with an immune-related disorder. The risk of allergic rhinitis (commonly known as hay fever) was over 30 times higher in vaccinated children, while the risk of other allergies was increased 3.9 fold and the eczema risk was increased 2.4 fold.
Given the current global climate as described in this article’s introduction, the study highlighted three extremely noteworthy conclusions as follows:
- “…the strength and consistency of the findings, the apparent “dose-response” relationship between vaccination status and several forms of chronic illness, and the significant association between vaccination and NDDs all support the possibility that some aspect of the current vaccination program could be contributing to risks of childhood morbidity.”
- “Vaccination also remained significantly associated with neurodevelopmental disorders after controlling for other factors…”
- “…preterm birth coupled with vaccination was associated with an apparent synergistic increase in the odds of neurodevelopmental disorder above that of vaccination alone.”
While all three conclusions should be, and are, resonating deeply within the masses of health professionals and parents, the study’s third conclusion is especially timely and relevant beyond its stated assertion. Over the last year, numerous medical whistleblowers and scientific research papers have warned and demonstrated that routine vaccine injury to preterm infants in hospital neonatal intensive care units (NICU) is occurring. Whistleblower nurses Michelle Rowton James and Joanne [last name unavailable] publicly spotlighted how inhuman and commonplace NICU vaccine injury have rooted in the culture of establishment medicine. While three major studies ,, have corroborated the nurse’s whistleblowing admissions. Meanwhile, in April 2017 The Institute for Pure and Applied Knowledge (IPAK) released a statement asking for all Americans to join them in their call for a ban on vaccination of infants in the NICU. Speaking on the call to action Dr. James Lyons-Weiler, PhD, CEO, and Director of IPAK, stated:
“We’ve asked the biomedical community to produce studies that show ill effect of vaccines on neonates, and they have not produced them.”
There is currently a clash happening between religious-like vaccine dogma and increasingly aware segments of the public, research, and medical communities. In the balance hangs the opportunity for a truly open discussion on vaccines and a rare chance to reform a pharmaceutically-dominated medical community that has lost its way. Giving the current trend, the consequences of not seizing the opportunity for open dialogue appears to lead down a road of mandatory medicine and censorship of exponentially mounting human injury and mortality. Put simply, the battle now rages between openness and transparency versus the protection, through omission and overt censorship, of Big Pharma’s business model and need for ever-expanding bottom lines at all costs.
Read More At: GreenMedInfo.com
 Anthony R Mawson, Brian D Ray, Azad R Bhuiyan, Binu Jacob (2017) Pilot comparative study on the health of vaccinated and unvaccinated 6- to 12- year old U.S children, Journal of Translational Science, DOI: 10.15761/JTS.1000186
 Sen S, Cloete Y, Hassan K, Buss P (2001) Adverse events following vaccination in premature infants, Acta Paediatrica, Aug;90(8):916-20.
 J Bonhoeffer, C‐A Siegrist, and P T Heath (2006), Immunisation of premature infants, Archives of Disease in Childhood, Nov; 91(11): 929–935. DOI: 10.1136/adc.2005.086306
 Stephen D. DeMeo, Sudha R. Raman, Christoph P. Hornik, Catherine C. Wilson, Reese Clark, and P. Brian Smith, (2015), Adverse Events After Routine Immunization of Extremely Low Birth Weight Infants, JAMA Pediatrics, 2015 Aug 1; 169(8): 740–745. DOI: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2015.0418
By: Jon Rappoport
May 9, 2017
Readers have noticed I’ve been redoubling my efforts lately to expose medical crimes. This circus of madmen needs exposing.
Medical criminals are leeches on the public body. They will say and do anything to maintain their position of authority.
They will say their fantasies are fact. They will say their toxic drugs are cures. They will say their useless and fake diagnoses are real. They will, when they work for drug companies, claim their latest maybe-could-be-hope-so breakthrough innovation is right around the corner.
As they work on their victims, they will deny they are sucking the life blood out of them. They will say they are helping them.
And they will defend themselves as scientists.
This is my experience working as an INDEPENDENT reporter for 35 years.
This is my experience investigating the center-stage area of the medical system: the long-term treatment of illness that goes on and on, from one diagnosis to another, one toxic drug to another, as people are brought into the circus, as they are guided through the circus for their whole lives.
The whole circus is fake. It’s a delusion. It’s money. It’s profit. It’s control. It’s poisonous. It’s the rigor of the parasite feeding on its victim.
The way to get out of it is to get out of it.
Over the years, I’ve had the ambition and the determination to document these medical matters. I’ve found evidence by the truckload. I’ve approached readers from many different angles with that evidence. I continue to do so.
What keeps me going is my perception of the circus—that it is a presentation of reality, a whole-hog reality, invented from scratch, by fools and liars and pretenders and psychopathic criminals.
What keeps me going is the understanding that the other side is: revolt—which includes people creating their own reality, the reality they truly want.
These are unshakable things.
The leeches know they need us for their sustenance. They are trying to pass laws that will make it mandatory for us to line up and watch them work on us—new laws, more laws. More binding laws.
So freedom is the clarion call. Freedom dispels the delusions and exposes the fakers. Freedom means people choose how to deal with their own bodies and minds. Freedom is the silver bullet to the vampiric lunatics. Freedom is the imperative. And freedom never goes away, even for the most abject slave. It comes to him in his dreams.
Freedom is the essence. You look at it, you take it. You stand with it. You launch from it.
Mainstream medical reporters—the most entrenched ones—are a low breed. They defend the leeches. They rally the public, who, hypnotically and aggressively (knowing nothing) stand for “science.” This is the great joke in the middle of the circus. The great, cruel, enduring joke.
The drug was approved, by the FDA, for public use in 1993, to treat schizophrenia, a “mental disorder” for which there is no defining diagnostic test. No blood test, no saliva test, no brain scan, no genetic assay.
In 2006, the FDA approved Risperdal to treat “irritability” in autistic children. There is no defining diagnostic test for autism. The neurological damage involved can come from any cause—especially vaccines. But of course, all public health agencies deny this fact.
In 2007, the FDA approved Risperdal to treat bipolar disorder in children between the ages of 10 and 17. Bipolar is another “mental disorder” for which there is no defining diagnostic test.
Risperdal was approved to treat three conditions, which are diagnosed by casually observing a patient’s behavior and comparing it to a menu of behaviors called schizophrenia, bipolar, and autism.
If the drug had no adverse effects, that would be one thing; but it has devastating effects. Tardive dyskinesia, a permanent “movement disorder” that signals brain damage. Suicide. Gynecomastia—boys grow female breasts.
Before I go on, NOTE: Rapid withdrawing from psychiatric drugs can have disastrous effects. See Dr. Peter Breggin on this subject.
Now let’s get to the lawsuits against Johnson & Johnson, Risperdal’s manufacturer:
2012: J&J fined $1.2 billion for hiding adverse effects of the drug. Decision overturned on appeal.
2012: J&J paid out $181 million for actively promoting off-label uses for Risperdal. Doctors are permitted to prescribe a drug for unapproved uses, but drug companies cannot legally promote or urge doctors to wander into that off-label territory.
2015-2016: There are at least 1500 suits against J&J for causing boys to grow female breasts. Thus far, three verdicts have been decided in favor of the boys, for $1.75 million, $2.5 million, and $70 million.
The story of Risperdal expands and explodes when we consider the marketing effort behind it. Basically, the hustle involved claims that the drug could be used to treat a wide array of so-called disorders in children.
I will now quote extensively from a classic article written at madinamerica.com, by Paula J Caplan, PhD. The title of her article (10/30/2015) is “Diagnosisgate: A Major Media Blackout Mystery”:
“Until their identities are widely exposed, and their motives are known, the full story of the [Risperdal] harm will never be known. It is astonishing that despite six stories in the major media — including a recent, groundbreaking Huffington Post series — and the filing of numerous lawsuits, the names and conduct of the culprits have consistently been omitted.”
“The story that has been called ‘Diagnosisgate’ starts in 1995, when the man widely considered the world’s most important psychiatrist split a payoff of nearly one million dollars with two colleagues in exchange for doing two patently unethical and illegal things that created the groundwork for a major drug company to market falsely one of the most dangerous psychoactive drugs [Risperdal].”
“Part one: In return for almost half a million dollars, they ignored what was known about the drug [Risperdal] in order to manufacture a practice guideline holding up that drug as the best drug among two whole classes of related drugs for treating people who were classified as ‘schizophrenic,’ the other drugs being marketed by other drug companies. This created what is widely considered the ‘standard of care,’ the treatment that therapists are supposed to follow and that they can use in the knowledge that they are well protected from lawsuits if they follow it and their patients are harmed. The very foundation of the guideline, that it was about ‘Schizophrenia,’ is illegitimate, because – though this will surprise many people – that category has been shown to be unscientifically created and indeed has been called a wastebasket for a wide variety of feelings and behavior, many of which are caused by psychiatric drugs.”
“Part two: After the triumvirate received a bonus of $65,000 for creating the guideline [‘treat schizophrenia with Risperdal’] speedily, their top psychiatrist wrote to the same drug company, announcing that the three had constituted themselves as an entity that was prepared, in return for about another half million dollars, to create a marketing plan for the drug. The details included finding ‘key opinion leaders’ (KOLs), who were prominent professionals in powerful positions – such as heads of state mental health or prison systems – and having them teach the Continuing Education courses that professionals are required to take, the ultimate message of those courses being that that particular drug [Risperdal] was the best one to prescribe. Another section of their marketing plan was to have a great many articles published in what are considered scientific or medical journals, all concluding that that drug was effective and should be prescribed.”
“It is not clear whether the three psychiatrists were directly involved in choosing the content of the journal articles, but the plan to produce such articles was carried out, leading to publication of pieces recommending use of the drug [Risperdal] to treat not only Schizophrenia but also Childhood Onset Schizophrenia, Schizo-affective Disorder, Bipolar Disorder in Children and Adults, Mania, Autism, Pervasive Developmental Disorder other than Autism, Conduct Disorder, Oppositional Defiant Disorder, Psychosis, Aggression Agitation, Dementia, below average IQ, and disruptive behavior. Thus, a staggering array of psychiatric categories – many of which are as scientifically sketchy as Schizophrenia – was used to promote the drug. This massive marketing campaign proceeded despite the many major negative effects of Risperdal, including drowsiness, dizziness, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, constipation, heartburn, dry mouth, increased saliva production, increased appetite, weight gain, stomach pain, anxiety, agitation, restlessness, difficulty falling asleep or staying asleep, decreased sexual interest or ability, vision problems, muscle or joint pain, dry or discolored skin, difficulty urinating, muscle stiffness, confusion, fast or irregular pulse, sweating, unusual and uncontrollable movements of face or body, faintness, seizures, Parkinsonian symptoms such as slow movements or shuffling walk, rash, hives, itching, difficulty breathing or swallowing, gynecomastia in male children, painful erection of penis lasting for hours…and death.”
“Who are the characters in this mystery? Janssen Pharmaceuticals, a division of Johnson & Johnson, is the drug company, and Risperdal is the drug in question. The marketing term for Risperdal and similar drugs is ‘anti-psychotic,’ but the accurate term is ‘neuroleptic,’ reflecting the mechanism of suppressing the brain’s activity as a powerful tranquilizer. Dr. David Rothman, who wrote the expert witness report for one of the lawsuits about the marketing of Risperdal, revealed after scrupulous examination of vast numbers of internal emails between Janssen staff and the representative of the three psychiatrists, is a specialist in medical ethics and the Bernard Schoenberg Professor of Social Medicine at Columbia College of Physicians and Surgeons, the medical school of Columbia University. He is also director of the Center for the Study of Science and Medicine at Columbia and at the time of writing his expert witness report was president of the Institute on Medicine as a Profession. Rothman stated in his report that the [treatment] guidelines [for Risperdal] were constructed ‘in disregard of professional medical ethics and principles of conflict of interest,’ and that they ‘subverted scientific integrity, appearing to be a purely scientific venture when it was at its core, a marketing venture for Risperdal’.”
“The psychiatrist who spearheaded these [Risperdal marketing] efforts is Dr. Allen Frances, who the year before teaming with Janssen oversaw the publication of the fourth volume of the ‘Bible’ of hundreds of categories of mental illness, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, sales of which topped $100 million as a result of marketing by the lobby group called the American Psychiatric Association, which published it. By virtue of this position, he has been called the world’s most important psychiatrist. At the time, he was also Chair of the Department of Psychiatry at Duke University. The two psychiatrists who with Frances shared the nearly $1 million in payments from Janssen are Dr. John P. Docherty, who was then Professor and Vice Chairman of Psychiatry at Cornell University at the time, and Dr. David A. Kahn, who was Associate Clinical Professor of Psychiatry at Columbia University.”
“Now back to the mystery: Despite five individual stories in major media outlets in 2011, 2012, and 2014 about two huge Risperdal court cases filed by the state of Texas and joined by many other states, neither a single writer of any of these stories nor even the papers filed for the court cases named Frances, Docherty, or Kahn or described the fundamental roles played by their Practice Guideline and their marketing plan in the scandal. The mystery is deepened, because the authors of the media stories and the court documents did name and describe the roles of some of the KOLs [key opinion leaders], who assuredly were guilty of unethical conduct but whose participation was conceived of by Frances and his colleagues. And some of those who reaped huge financial profits from Risperdal’s false marketing – most notably Harvard University’s Dr. Joseph Biederman, who created an empire based on claims that ‘Bipolar Disorder in Children’ had been woefully underdiagnosed and untreated – have been royally outed for the enormous sums they earned. But even respected investigative journalist Steve Brill, who recently completed a unique, 15-part story of the Risperdal scandal for Huffington Post, and who described in detail many of its players and some of the patients who suffered terrible harm from the drug and who elegantly described the way that Janssen covered up data about some of the harm, left out the essential roles the Frances triumvirate played. Activist Vera Sharav of the Alliance for Human Research Protection published an online article about the Rothman Report and included the names of Frances and those two colleagues, her article was apparently picked up by only two or three bloggers and none of the major media reporters who read what she posts.”
There is more. Much more. I suggest you read Caplan’s entire article. In a half-sane world, she would have been awarded the highest possible honors for her work.
Risperdal. The long and winding trail. The severe damage. The hustle, the con. The crimes.
The lack of criminal prosecutions.
Brought to you by high authorities in the psychiatric profession and their allies.
A public revolt against the drugs and the pushers is necessary to stem the tide of poisoning.
Read More 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.