A Totalitarian Society Has Totalitarian Science

drugs
Source: NoMoreFakeNews.com | JonRappoport.wordpress.com
By: Jon Rappoport
August 23, 2017

Over the past 35 years, I’ve exposed as least as much fraudulent science as any reporter around. That’s just a fact.

I mention it, because one would expect I’ve learned a few lessons in the process.

And I have.

Government-backed science exists because it is a fine weapon to use, in order to force an agenda of control over the population.

We aren’t talking about knowledge here. Knowledge is irrelevant. What counts is: ‘How can we fabricate something that looks like the truth?’

I keep pointing this out: we’re dealing with reality builders. In this case, they make their roads and fences and buildings out of data, and they massage and invent the data out of thin air to suit their purposes. After all, they also invent money out of thin air.

Since 1987, one of my goals as a reporter has been to educate the public about false science.

Between then and now, I have found that, with remarkably few exceptions, mainstream reporters are studiously indifferent to false science.

They shy away from it. They pretend “it couldn’t be.” They refuse to consider facts. They and their editors parrot “the experts.”

Official science has a stranglehold on major media. It has the force of a State religion. When you stop and think about it, official science is, in a significant sense, a holy church. Therefore, it is no surprise that the church’s spokespeople would wield power over major information outlets.

These prelates invent, guard, and dispense “what is known.” That was precisely the role of the Roman Church in times past. And those professionals within the modern Church of Science are severely punished when they leave the fold and accuse their former masters of lies and crimes. They are blackballed, discredited, and stripped of their licenses. At the very least.

Totalitarian science lets you know you’re living in a totalitarian society.

The government, the press, the mega-corporations, the prestigious foundations, the academic institutions, the “humanitarian” organizations say:

“This is the disease. This is its name. This is what causes it. This is the drug that treats it. This is the vaccine that prevents it.”

“This is how accurate diagnosis is done. These are the tests. These are the possible results and what they mean.”

“Here are the genes. This is what they do. This is how they can be changed and substituted and manipulated. These are the outcomes.”

“These are the data and the statistics. They are correct. There can be no argument about them.”

“This is life. These are the components of life. All change and improvement result from our management of the components.”

“This is the path. It is governed by truth which our science reveals. Walk the path. We will inform you when you stray. We will report new improvements.”

“This is the end. You can go no farther. You must give up the ghost. We will remember you.”

We are now witnessing the acceleration of Official Science. Of course, that term is an internal contradiction. But the State shrugs and moves forward.

The notion that the State can put its seal on favored science, enforce it, and punish its competitors, is anathema to a free society.

For example: declaring that psychiatrists can appear in court as expert witnesses, when none of the 300 so-called mental disorders listed in the psychiatric literature are diagnosed by laboratory tests.

For example: stating that vaccination is mandatory, in order to protect the vaccinated (who are supposed to be immune) from the unvaccinated. An absurdity on its face.

For example: announcing that the science of climate change is “settled,” when there are, in fact, huge numbers of researchers who disagree. —And then, drafting legislation and issuing executive orders based on the decidedly unsettled science.

For example: officially approving the release and sale of medical drugs (“safe and effective”) which go on to kill, at a conservative estimate, 100,000 Americans every year. And then refusing to investigate or punish the agents of these drug approvals (the FDA).

For example: permitting the widespread use of genetically modified food crops, based on no studies of their impact on human health. And then, arbitrarily announcing that the herbicide, Roundup, for which many of these crops are specifically designed, is non-toxic.

For example: declaring and promoting the existence of various epidemics, when the viruses purportedly causing them are not proven to exist or not proven to cause human illness (SARS, West Nile, Swine Flu, etc.)

A few of you reading this have been with me since 1988, when I published my first book, AIDS INC., Scandal of the Century. Among other conclusions, I pointed out that HIV had never been shown to cause human illness; the front-line drug given to AIDS patients, AZT, was overwhelmingly toxic; and what was being called AIDS was actually a diverse number immune-suppressing conditions.

Others of you have found my work more recently. I always return to the subject of false science, because it is the most powerful long-term instrument for repression, political control, and destruction of human life.

As I’ve stated on many occasions, medical science is ideal for mounting and launching covert ops aimed at populations—because it appears to be politically neutral, without any allegiance to State interests.

Unfortunately, medical science, on many fronts, has been hijacked and taken over. The profit motive is one objective, but beyond that, there is a more embracing goal:

Totalitarian control.

On the issue of vaccines, I’ve written much about their dangers and ineffectiveness. But also consider this: the push for mandatory vaccination goes a long way toward creating a herd effect—which is really a social construction.

In other words, parents are propagandized to think of themselves as a kind of synthetic artificial “community.”

“Here we are. We are the fathers and mothers. We must all protect our children against the outliers, the rebels, the defectors, the crazy ones who refuse to vaccinate their own children. We are all in this together. They are the threat. The enemy. We are good. We know the truth. They are evil.”

This “community of the willing” are dedicated to what the government tells them. They are crusaders imbued with group-think. They run around promoting “safety and protection.” This group consciousness is entirely an artifact, propelled by official science.

The crusaders are, in effect, agents of the State.

They are created by the State.

Androids.

They live in an absurd Twilight Zone where fear of germs (the tiny invisible terrorists) demands coercive action against the individuals who see through the whole illusion.

This is what official science can achieve. This is how it can enlist obedient foot soldiers and spies who don’t have the faintest idea about how they’re being used.

This is a variant on Orwell’s 1984. The citizens are owned by the all-embracing State, but they aren’t even aware of it.

That’s quite a trick.

One of my favorite examples of double-think or reverse-think is the antibody test. It is given to diagnosis diseases. Antibodies are immune-system scouts sent out to identify germ-intruders, which can then be wiped out by other immune-system troops.

Prior to 1985, the prevailing view of a positive antibody test was: the patient is doing well; his body detected the germ and dispensed with it. After 1985, the view was suddenly: this is bad news; the patient is sick or he is on the verge of getting sick; he has the germ in his body; it does harm.

Within the medical community, no one (with very few exceptions) raised hell over this massive switch. It was accepted. It was actually good for business. Now, many more people could be labeled “needs treatment,” whereas before, they would have been labeled “healthy.”

While I was writing my first book, AIDS INC., in 1987-8, I wrote the FDA asking about a possible AIDS vaccine. I was told the following: every person given such a vaccine would, of course, produce antibodies against HIV. That is the whole purpose of a vaccine: to produce antibodies.

However, I was informed, patients receiving this vaccine would be given a letter to carry with them, in case they were ever tested for HIV and came up positive. The letter would explain that the antibodies causing the positive test were the result of the vaccine, not the result of “natural” action inside the patient’s body.

In other words, the very same antibodies were either protective against AIDS (good) or indicative of deadly disease (bad).

This was the contradictory and ridiculous and extraordinary pronouncement of official science.

It carries over into every disease for which an antibody test is administered. If a vaccine against disease X is given, it delivers immunity, because it produces antibodies. But if a diagnostic test for disease X reveals the presence of the same antibodies, naturally produced in the body, this is taken as a sign of illness.

Extrapolated to a more general level, the Word is: synthetic medical treatment is good; the action of the body to heal itself is incompetent.

This is a type of superstition that would astonish even the most “primitive” societies.

It no longer astonishes me. I see it everywhere in official science.

From the medical establishment’s point of view, being alive is a medical condition.

The most useful politicians—as far as official science is concerned—are those who automatically promote its findings. Such politicians are lifted into prominence. They are champions of the Science Matrix. They never ask questions. They never doubt. They never make waves. They blithely travel their merry way into new positions of power, knowing they have enormous elite support behind them. When they need to lie, they lie. They are taught that those who question or reject official science are a tiny ‘demographic’ who can be ignored during election campaigns. ‘Don’t worry about them. They don’t count.’ These politicians are never in the trenches with the people on issues of health.

The elite Plan is universal collectivism, in which all citizens are atoms of a giant molecule. Many lies need to be told in order to make that dream/nightmare come true. If some of those lies are about science, so much the better. People believe in science.

Think about the agendas behind universal vaccination, climate change, universal psychiatric treatment, GMO food, and other ‘science-based’ frauds. They all imply a model, in which individuals give up their power in exchange for ‘doing good’ and becoming members of the largest group in the world: ‘disabled’ people with needs that must be addressed and satisfied.

Instead of supporting the liberation of the individual, the controllers want to squash it. Why? Because they fear individual power. It is forever the unpredictable wild card. They want a society in which every thought an individual thinks connects him to a greater whole—and if that sounds attractive, understand that this Whole is a fiction, intentionally faked to resemble a genuine oceanic feeling. The elite Whole is ultimately a trance-like fiction that will slow down time to a crawl, and shrink space to a sliver, and focus attention on a single mandate: wait for the next instruction from above, content in the knowledge that it will benefit all of humanity.”

This program has many agents.

Some of them are agents of official science.

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

California Senate Passes Bill Banning Drug Company Gifts to Doctors

California doctors receive $1.4 billion in gifts each year

Source: NaturalSociety.com
Mike Barret
May 25, 2017

On May 18, the California Senate passed a bill that would ban pharmaceutical companies from giving gifts to doctors. The Senate voted 23-13 in favor of sending the bill to the Assembly. [1]

For the bill, SB 790, California lawmakers used a similar 2009 Vermont law enacted in 2009 as a template.

If the bill is signed into law, doctors would no longer be able to receive perks, such as airline tickets and lavish meals, from drug companies. According to Sen. Mike McGuire, the bill would lower healthcare costs, in part because doctors who receive gifts are more likely to prescribe costly drugs. [2]

Drug companies unload more than $1.4 billion a year on California doctors in the hopes they will promote and prescribe their products, said McGuire, a Democrat who represents a district west of Sacramento.

McGuire said that in 2014, doctors in his state received more gifts and payments from pharmaceutical companies than in doctors any other state. [3]

“While we have witnessed the cost of drugs rise over the past decade, industry profits have also grown significantly. We should be all standing for seniors and taxpayers to drive down the cost of prescription drugs.” [1]

According to a recent study by researchers at UC San Francisco, doctors who receive gifts from drug companies are 2 to 3 times more likely to prescribe name-brand drugs over cheaper, generic drugs. [2]

An even more recent study found that doctors at teaching hospitals are more likely to prescribe generic drugs when pharma reps are kept at bay.

Source: Pro Publica

Others have a different take on SB 790. State Sen. Ted Gaines argued that drug company gifts “provide the funding for research, for cures.”

He added:

“Why would we do anything to diminish the ability of pharma companies to be successful in providing these new products?” [3]

Senate minority leader Patricia Bates said the bill would discourage physicians from participating in clinical trials or restrict California’s access to experimental drugs.

However, the bill would still permit doctors to receive salaries for participating in clinical trials, and would allow for the payment of meals up to $250 per year for individual doctors.

The bill is headed to the state Assembly, the California lower Legislature, for consideration.

Read More At: NaturalSociety.com

Sources:

[1] Associated Press

[2] Daily Health Post

[3] RT

Pro Publica

Hazmat Birth

Hazmat Birth
Source: GreenMedInfo.com
Dr. Stuart Fischbein
May 2, 2017

When it comes to pregnancy, the bowing to the false god of safety has become the standard.

On the header of my blog are a few of my favorite historical quotes. I think my favorite has become Albert Camus’, “The Welfare of humanity is always the alibi of tyrants!” Fear is the easiest way to manipulate. And claiming safety is a perfect way to shut down any discussion. It’s good for you. It’s safer for the children. You don’t want to put your baby in danger, do you? We live in a world where ACOG admits that 2/3’s of its guidelines are not based on good scientific evidence. Yet they put them out anyway. In my world, on a daily basis, I am told directly or from print media about manipulation of women through skewed or even overtly false information. When it comes to pregnancy the bowing to the false god of safety has become the standard. Your baby is too big. Your baby is too small. Your pelvis is inadequate. The head is smaller than the shoulders which might get stuck. The fluid is decreasing. The cord is around the neck. You are 3 days overdue and your placenta is getting weak. VBAC is too dangerous. Your breech baby’s head might get stuck. Hospitals are safer. Induction is easy. Cesarean sections are routine.

Then there is the mockery of choosing an alternative to the fear based standard birthing world. Home delivery is for pizza! Having your baby at home is like driving your child without a seatbelt (This is the latest flippant simile from a doctor in Australia. Which, by the way, was how my generation grew up and I don’t recall massive death on the highway). Or as Jim Gaffigan, the comedian, quips, “when I told my friends we were having a home birth they said, Yeah, we were going to do that but we wanted our baby to live!”. Choosing a home birth is selfish! Why would you pick a lesser trained midwife? How would you feel when something goes wrong!

Ah, the something goes wrong theory of birth. Perfectly understandable in today’s fear based, litigious world. Risk management is something we all do every day. As individuals we just don’t have departments staffed with lawyers to do our personal risk management. Even if you could afford one can you imagine your life with every decision being scrutinized for safety and risk? Susie, you are not allowed to have that chocolate chip cookie because we have calculated that the risk/benefit ratio is adverse to your long term health and the viability of your family unit. Laughable? Far-fetched? Maybe, but this is the climate of the standard medicalized world we now live in. You cannot eat in labor because there is a 1/100,000 chance you might aspirate in an emergency. You must have an IV just in case. Please sign these consent forms about surgery and death after your next contraction. Sorry, hospital policy says you have to wear those belts continuously.

This past week I came upon a top secret correspondence from a local hospital that read something like this: “The OBGYN Department and the Infection Control Division would like to remind you that eye protection (e.g. glasses, goggles) and a face mask are required for all providers participating in a delivery.  We thank you for your cooperation with this important safety issue.”  The last sentence is the sinister one. Putting that tagline on anything gives it the appearance of concern and reasonableness. This may seem like a small thing but its insidious message is a continuation of the threat to all of us who value individual autonomy and see vaginal birth as something beautiful. This hospital, likely complying with some edict from some committee or oversight organization and almost certainly without a single adverse event in their institution, has turned the birth of a baby into a hazmat situation. My call to the author of this correspondence for clarification went unanswered. For those who have actually attended an un-medicated birth, a home birth or a water birth, can you imagine what the mother must think if she were to look down at a goggled and masked face catching her baby? I understand for an unscreened mother wearing protection would be a reasonable choice. But most women are screened and, unless there has been a series of incidents, universally requiring this garb is not about safety. It is about protecting the institution from liability. Plausible deniability should a worker catch something who was not wearing the hazmat protection hospital policy required. The risk managers are just doing their job. However, I believe minimizing risk must be weighed against common sense and personal choice in a free society. Sadly, common sense is losing and will continue to do so until the masses lose enough services or are inconvenienced enough that finally tort reform becomes a hot political topic.

Why have they come forth with this new rule now would be a logical question. Has there been some epidemic of exposures? I mean, vaginal birth without mask and goggles has been going on for millennia. No, it’s simply a symptom of the micromanaged and over-regulated reality we are now living in. I also just read an editorial about getting rid of the doctor’s white coat. Why now? Has there been an epidemic of disease spread by the hospital lab coat? Changing dirty coats makes good sense but banning them? Will the next suggestion be changing clothes between hospital wards, between rooms? And why won’t your own clothes be carriers of bad humours and thus need to be banned. And I can tell you that wearing scrubs from home and all day and night from the ward, to the call room to the cafeteria does not sound exactly hygienic. Wearing disposable gown and gloves makes sense in an infectious disease setting but in the maternity ward, really? So the why now question is really that someone somewhere just thought it up in response to usually an isolated incident. There are legions of administrative personnel whose job it is to try to diminish risk. The foolishness is they believe they actually can in every case no matter what the consequences down the road. Their job is to protect their job and their institution and their tyranny is always justified by safety.

There are two realities in the birthing world as I see it. One is fear based, often absurd, seeing pregnancy as illness, believing that interventions make benefit greater than risk and using safety as a canard for control. The other is trusting of nature, understanding of the imperfections of life and looking at pregnancy as wellness and a normal function of the female body. I have lived in both worlds and have a unique perspective. The first is uncomfortable and often riddled with self-deceit cloaked in cognitive dissonance. The latter is my choice and I try to be a vanguard for it. This past week I had the good fortune to attend a beautiful home VBAC in the hostile birth world of Santa Barbara and an inspirational water birth in Beverly Hills. I wore a t-shirt and sweat pants and was goggle-less and mask-less and I am delighted to report I am well and happy.  All good things, Dr. Stu.

Read More At: GreenMedInfo.com

#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.

Dr. Suzanne Humphries Discusses Why Most Doctors Miss Vaccine Reactions

Source: iHealthTube.com
April 5, 2017

Do vaccine reactions get reported enough? How do you know if it’s a reaction to a vaccine or something else? Dr. Suzanne Humphries discusses the difficulty in noticing reactions, but also what she’s noticed in her career.

Think Your Doctor Reports Reactions to Drugs and Vaccines? Watch This

Source: iHealthTube.com
March 23, 2017

Many of us assume that our doctors will report any reactions we may have to certain prescriptions or vaccines in the hopes of ensuring safety down the road. But Dr. Suzanne Humphries shares the reality of what it happening when most doctors see problems with patients on certain drugs or after getting vaccinated. You’ll think twice about the safety of these things.

Preventable Medical Errors Are The Third Leading Cause Of Death In The United States

bigpharmamoney

TheBreakaway | BreakawayConciousness
Zy Marquiez
March 22, 2017

“Probably as much as 75% of the medicine of sickness is unnecessary and its cost can be avoided.”
–  Dr. Ghislaine Lanctot, Author Of The Medical Mafia

It was reported by the British Medical Journal [BMJ] – although it had already been reported for quite some time by various researchers who outlined Dr. Barbara Starfield’s study for more than a decade – that preventable medical errors were the third leading cause of death in the United States.

Its quite unfortunate downright disturbing that such a system kills 250,000 [conservative estimate] a year, like clockwork, and still fosters so much trust even though prescription drugs are in fact 16,400% deadlier than terrorists.

There are many things that Big Pharma doesn’t want you to know.  And given that the Big Pharma literally pays the Mainstream Media’s bill, we can’t expect decent coverage of such deleterious issues.  Furthermore, coverage of Big Pharma’s dirty laundry would crack the reality egg and wake people up.  The establishment will always make sure that doesn’t happen.

Think about it, if terrorists were killing 250,000 Americans EVERY YEAR, people would be out for blood, asking for war, justice, everything. 

But the medical establishment killing 250,000 people EVERY YEAR?  That’s standard procedure.

That’s really no big deal.  It happens. Nothing to see here, move a long now.  That’s standard procedure.

And if you happen to still believe that the mainstream media reports the truth, where are they now covering this?  This was published in arguably the most prestigious medical journal in the world. Where is the coverage?

Nothing but crickets.

There should be some serious discussions taking place considering that people are dropping like flies at hospitals.

What’s more, disturbingly, Newsweek reported:

“The researchers for the study from Johns Hopkins say their findings suggest the CDC’s method for collecting data on causes of death is flawed, leading to inaccurate estimates on just how dangerous a visit to your local hospital has become.

Death certificates currently don’t have a separate coding classification for medical errors, which means estimates are not accurate.

The medical coding system used by the CDC was originally developed for physicians and hospitals to determine what to bill health insurance companies for individualized patient care. The authors recommend an overhaul of how cause of death data is collected.”[Bold Emphasis Added]

That’s overwhelmingly significant, considering that this could mean there are even more big-medica-caused deaths that are not being counted.

Furthermore, with prescription drugs being doled out at the tune of 4 Billion per annum, it’s no wonder that medications are also injuring 1.5 Million people a year.

Not only are there 400,000 injuries that can be prevented each year at hospitals, but there are also 800,000 injuries that occur in long-term care facilities. 

When does this stop?

By becoming aware that there is a problem, first.  Secondly, this begins to change when the individual decides to not become a statistic.

There are alternatives, which is why alternative medical care, which usually has no side effects, keeps growing at an unprecedented rate.

Don’t allow what happened to my family, losing two family members and nigh becoming a third loss myself, happen to yours.

Awareness is the key.  And awareness of this issue might just saved your life, or that of your loved one.
___________________________________________________________
This article is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Zy Marquiez and TheBreakaway.wordpress.com.
___________________________________________________________
About The Author:

Zy Marquiez is an avid book reviewer, researcher, an open-minded skeptic, yogi, humanitarian, and freelance writer who studies regularly subjects like Consciousness, Education, Creativity, The Individual, Ancient History & Ancient Civilizations, Forbidden Archaeology, Big Pharma, Alternative Health, Space, Geoengineering, Social Engineering, Propaganda, and much more.

His own personal blog is BreakawayConsciousnessBlog.wordpress.com where his personal work is shared, while TheBreakaway.wordpress.com serves as a media portal which mirrors vital information usually ignored by mainstream press, but still highly crucial to our individual understanding of various facets of the world.