Would The Government Let Jesus Cure Cancer?

TruthFact

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

As I’ve been telling you for years, it’s easy to keep the public on your side if you regularly tout medical “breakthroughs” in the press. The latest innovation. The promise of a cure around the corner. The maybe-could-be discovery that will change the course of disease treatment forever.

In this case, a start-up called Tilos has one of those, for cancer. They say it’s an antibody their researchers came across while looking for a cure for MS. They stumbled on to it by accident. Aha.

Somehow, this antibody helps the immune system to recognize and wipe out cancer cells. It produces “a memory” in immune-system cells, and they are ready to go to war when cancer arrives. Or something. It’s hard to say.

The people at Tilos are, naturally, very enthusiastic.

So forthwith, I give you an assignment. Keep track of stories about this amazing antibody as time passes, and see whether it ever a) becomes a real cancer treatment, and b) does any good. Or c) disappears down the memory hole, never to be heard from again. I’m betting on c. Why? Because I’ve watched a number of these flashes dim out quickly and recede into nowhere land. And because, in this case, the company is very far from being able to fashion the antibody into a ground-level treatment. Of course, it’s possible that, on the basis of the recent gaudy announcement, Tilos could pick up some investor funding, but funding isn’t a disease treatment the last time I looked.

On the other hand, if a non-pharmaceutical company or researcher actually makes a promising discovery in cancer treatment (read about the troubles of Dr. Stan Burzynski, Dr. Willam Koch, Royal Rife, etc.), all hell breaks loose. The press immediately pounces on the researcher as if he’s working on an H-bomb in his basement. He must be an outright quack and charlatan, “because they all are.”

Corporate drug outfit=potential breakthrough.

Independent non-pharmaceutical researcher=Dr. Nazi.

Good press vs. bad press comes down to: how much can you pay; who do you know; how much advertising can you afford to buy; what official expert can you bring on board to vouch for you; is your product a drug rather than a detested natural non-patentable substance; can you do officially recognized clinical trials; are you connected with a favored group (university, research foundation, federal facility, pharma lab) who can obtain publication in a well-known medical journal.

Or are you a dreaded INDEPENDENT?

In the 1990s, I watched a federal trial in a Los Angeles courtroom. The defendant was charged with selling medical drugs without a license to practice medicine.

The defendant was prepared to argue that a) the substance he was selling was naturally produced in the body and b) it was effective.

The prosecution moved to exclude such testimony, on the grounds that it was irrelevant.

The judge agreed. Therefore, the trial was nasty, brutish, and short. The defendant was found guilty and sentenced to prison for several years.

This is how the federal bureaucracy operates. “Do you have a government-issued license to heal? No? You’re a criminal.”

I believe that if Jesus of Nazareth were walking the Earth today, in the United States, he would be arrested on the same grounds.

This would be particularly so if he were curing cancer.

Imagine this extreme case: in a stadium packed with 50,000 people who have been diagnosed with cancer, Jesus of Nazareth waves his hand and cures all of them in a few seconds.

Now he is threatening the profits of many companies, to say nothing of the power of the government, which backs the chemo-radiation-surgery monopoly to the hilt.

So he is arrested. He is put on trial. He opts to defend himself without an attorney. He tells the court that curing cancer is no crime.

The prosecuting attorney objects. “Your Honor,” he says, “whether or not this man has cured cancer is beside the point. He has no license to practice medicine. That is why we are here today. We are simply establishing that a) he was practicing medicine and b) he has no government-issued license. That is the scope of this proceeding.”

The judge agrees. The verdict is issued. Guilty.

Of course, on another front, the major media, who depend for their existence on pharmaceutical advertising, take the ball and run with it. The networks and major newspapers seek out “experts,” who emphatically state that what Jesus of Nazareth “performed” in the stadium was mere hypnotism. It was all a placebo effect. Whatever sudden “remissions” may have occurred are just temporary. Tragically, the cancers will return.

Not only that, these 50,000 people have effectively been sidetracked and diverted from seeking “real care from real doctors.” With chemo, with radiation, with surgery, they would have stood a chance of surviving and living long normal lives.

Other media pundits send up this flag: “Many of those present in the stadium were bitter clingers to their religion. They refuse to accept science. They are living in the past. They favor superstition over real medical care. In fact, they are threatening the whole basis of healthcare, since other confused and deluded Americans may now turn away from doctors and seek snake-oil salesmen and preachers for healing.”

From the highest perches of political power in this country, the word quietly goes out to the media: don’t follow up on those people who were in the stadium; don’t try to track them; don’t compile statistics on their survival rates; move on to other stories (distractions); let this whole madness die down.

But among the citizenry, an awareness spreads: the government is controlling healing through its issuance of licenses. That’s how the government is essentially protecting one form of “healing” and enabling it to become an all-encompassing cartel.

What would be the alternative or the adjunct to licenses?

Contracts.

Contracts are agreements entered into by consenting adults, who assume responsibility for the outcomes. In the case of healing, a contract would specify that people have a right to be wrong.

Let’s say two consenting adults, Jim and Frank, agree to allow Frank to treat Jim for his arthritis with water from a well on Frank’s land.

The two men acknowledge that no liability will be attached to the outcome. In other words, whether Jim get better or gets worse, no one is going file a suit. No one is going to go to the government for redress of wrongs.

The well water may be wonderful or it may be completely useless. Both men understand and acknowledge that. But they assert a right to try the treatment, because they are free.

Immediately people say, “This is ridiculous. Water can’t cure arthritis. Frank is cheating Jim. Jim is a victim. He needs to see a doctor. He needs to go on arthritis drugs.”

No, Jim doesn’t have to do anything. He is free.

To put it another way, Jim has the right to be right or wrong. It’s his decision, which is beyond the scope of any authority.

If government tries to remove that right from all of us, it is essentially saying it knows what is correct, it knows what is true, it knows what we need and require, and it’s going to give it to us even if it has to shove it down our throats. Does that sound like freedom to you?

If Jesus of Nazareth lived in the United States today, and if he went around curing cancer, he would be arrested. He wouldn’t be charged with blasphemy or treason. He would be charged with something much simpler and more mundane: practicing medicine without a license.

And he would be convicted and sentenced.

Because then and now, the government, in its throne of corruption, wants to protect its proprietary and illegal interests.

Read More At: JonRappoport.wordpress.com

Advertisements

22 Disturbing Facts Big Pharma Doesn’t Want You To Know

bigpharmabigmedica
TheBreakaway
Zy Marquiez
February 10, 2017

“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine.”
–Marcia Angell, MD, New York Review of Books, 2009

Below follow 22 facts, each of which is individually disturbing enough, but when taken in conjunction paint a very ominous picture of the state of the medical establishment in America.

Embedded within the bowels of Big Pharma lie little known details most individuals are unaware of.

Most of these details rarely get reported by the mainstream media, and when they do, the slant is always in favor of Big Pharma, and if not, what the individual gets is a limited hang out, which barely even amounts to the ghost of the truth.

The following are some of the many issues that do not get to see the light of day, but should be spoken at length about:

#1: Did you know that the FDA frequently misleads the public regarding long term studies and health?

According to Dr. Peter Breggin, in his landmark book Toxic Psychiatry [review here]:

“People assume that FDA approval and the widespread distribution of a drug – with many patients taking it for months or years – means that longterm studies have found it safe in regard to side effects, drug interactions, dependency, addition, and withdrawal.  Thus, FDA approval grossly misleads the public, lulling it into an unfounded security.

The PDR admits that Prozac’s effectiveness has not been tested in controlled trials of “more than 5 or 6 weeks” and that “long-term” usefulness has therefore not been demonstrated.”[Bold Emphasis Added][1]

#2: Did you know that the U.S. and New Zealand are the only countries which allow drug companies to advertise directly to consumers?

Prior to 1997, there was a ban in place that restricted pharmaceuticals from advertising to consumers – known as drug-to-consumer-advertising, or DTCA- but this ban was removed, to the detriment of the populace.[2]

Why is this important?  Because that law was in place to protect individuals from the highly specialized, and yet misleading advertising of all drugs.

#3:  The great majority of prescription drugs sold is due to DTCA.  As Dr. Kelly Brogan notes in her landmark book, A Mind Of Your Own, The Truth About Depression [review here], in which she touches upon this specialized advertising:

“It’s been calculated that DTCA [drug-to-consumer advertising] is responsible for nearly half (49 percent) of requests for drugs.  And fully seven out of ten times doctors prescribe based on appeal by patients who learned through their computers and televisions that they have an “imbalance” that must be fixed with a pill.”[3][Bold Emphasis Added]

#4:  Coupled with the already disturbing above information, and with prescription drugs being doled out at 4 Billion per annum[4], it’s no wonder that Medical Errors are the third leading cause of death.[5]According to a new John Hopkins study, which is covered by the Washington Post:

“Their analysis, published in the BMJ on Tuesday [, shows that ‘medical errors’ in hospitals and other health care facilities are incredibly common and may now be the third leading cause of death in the United States — claiming 251,000 lives every year, more than respiratory disease, accidents, stroke and Alzheimer’s.”[6][Click here for the study named Medical Error – The Third Leading Cause Of Death In The US]

#5:  Unsurprisingly, given how Big Pharma & Big Medica have had no qualms in overstepping traditional boundaries, it’s no wonder that in many instances money from pharmaceutical companies sway Doctors’ prescriptions, which shows the serious conflict of interest.[7]

As Dr. Mercola elucidates:

“Not only was the receipt of drug-company money associated with a higher percentage of brand-name drug prescriptions, but the prescriptions rose with the amount of money received.”[Bold Emphasis Added]

#6:  Did you know, the FDA only requires two studies for drugs to be approved?

“…only two studies are required for FDA licensure of most pharmaceuticals, essentially leaving the population to participate in a post-marketing experiment in which adverse effects – casualties – are monitored passively.  It’s a fabrication of science to think these drugs have a place in medicine, what is meant to be the art of healing.”[8]

But there’s more.  Most drug research is in fact short term.  Dr. Brogan cautions:

Their patients have never consented to the long-term effects of these medications because pharmaceutical research is, by nature, short term.  There is no incentive on the part of the pharmaceutical companies to take a good look at what happens to the average individual when she takes a medication for a decade or so.”[9][Bold Emphasis Added]

#7:  This hyper-drugging of the populace has lead to prescription drugs in fact being 16,400% deadlier than terrorists.  But you won’t hear that in the mainstream media.[10]

#8:  Not only is our corrupt for-health for-profit medical system unsurprisingly the most expensive in the world[11], but our life expectancy is worse than that of a third world country.[12]

#9:  Heart surgery is 70 times more expensive in the US.[13]

#10:  Of course, with billions of prescriptions being filled yearly, it’s no wonder that 70% of Americans take prescription drugs.[14]

#11:  In fact, expensive treatment requests have predictably gotten so bad that Doctors are even calling for a ban for the duplicitous practice of DTCA.[15]

#12:  A large study, which was published in The Lancet, further debunks high cholesterol myths, admitting statin drugs are essentially worthless.[16]

#13:  Another study shows that combining multiple childhood vaccines isn’t safe, according to an article in the Journal Of American Physicians and Surgeons.[17]

#14:  The same statin drugs that were found to be worthless against cholesterol, are now going to be used as anti-cancer drugs.  You can’t make this stuff up![18]

#15:  Although the US has merely 5% of the world’s population, it consumes 80% of the world’s pain killers.[19]

#16:  A great portion of this is in large part to what is called “Disease Mongering” and the creation of disease.[20]

#17:  Pharmaceutical companies Genentech and OSI Pharmaceuticals have even been caught concealing adverse effects of drugs, and were ordered to pay a $70 million dollar fine.[21]

#18:   America has the worst infant mortality rate of all developed nations.  Let that disturbing fact sink in.[22]

#19: Since 1986 Big Pharma has had liability shielding preventing it from being prosecuted for endangering public health[23].  And some wonder why the medical establishment is so corrupt.

#20: Not long ago, medical conglomerate, Pfizer, paid over $2 BILLION Dollars for criminal and civil charges due to illegally promoting the use 4 of its drugs. [24]

#21: Merely months ago, a study proving that vaccinated children are 3 times more likely to be diagnosed with autism and other neurological issues was banned from the internet.[25]

#22:  Because of all of the reasons mentioned above, and more, Americans are spending over $30 billion dollars in out-of-pocket costs on alternative health[26].  Thankfully!

This overall pattern of dwindling care, that’s overly expensive, and only serves to fill the coffers of Big Pharma will only change when individuals quit buying in to the propaganda from the medical establishment.

And for all the technology, public schooling, and billions spent, our medical system isn’t even top 3 in the world, and the statistics prove it.

Instead of purchasing health insurance, perhaps individuals should focus on attaining health assurance.

The system in its current state sees people as nothing but cash cows, and the sicker they are, the more money they make.  And they also aren’t coming up with cures since that, also, will cut into their profits.
One must wonder, seeing that they have no virtues and are willing to throw the people under the bus with lies and fraud, what else are they willing to do?

Take control of your health, while you still got time.

Education will eviscerate ignorance; nutrition will beat disease; corruption will continue to be exposed; but only if the individual chooses to make it so.

Be mindful, stay aware.

Individuals can go with the flow, and take the tides as they come, or they can choose to rise to the occasion.

Pierce the veil.

Cast light on the shadows.

And become the solution you’ve always waited for.

________________________________________________________________
Sources & References:

[1] Dr. Peter R. Breggin, M.D., Toxic Psychiatry, pp. 168-169
[2] Dr. Joseph Mercola, The Great Bird Flu Hoax, p. 39.
[3] Dr. Kelly Brogan M.D., A Mind Of Your Own – The Truth About Depression, p. 52.
[4] http://www.naturalnews.com/037226_drug_prescriptions_medical_news_pills.htm
[5] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2016/05/03/researchers-medical-errors-now-third-leading-cause-of-death-in-united-states/?utm_term=.d262ea291b26
[6] http://www.bmj.com/content/353/bmj.i2139
[7] http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2016/04/13/doctors-receiving-pharmaceutical-money.aspx
[8] Dr. Kelly Brogan M.D., A Mind Of Your Own – The Truth About Depression, p. 49.
[9] Ibid., p. 35.
[10] http://www.naturalnews.com/009278.html
[11] http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-06-22/us-healthcare-snapshot-most-expensive-yet-worst-developed-world
[12] http://www.salon.com/2013/10/22/life_expectancy_in_america_rivals_third_world_partner/
[13] http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-07-29/what-does-heart-surgery-really-cost-and-why-it-70-times-more-expensive-us
[14] http://www.cbsnews.com/news/study-shows-70-percent-of-americans-take-prescription-drugs/
[15] http://www.reuters.com/article/us-pharmaceuticals-advertising-idUSKCN0T62WT20151117
[16] http://www.naturalnews.com/054388_statin_drugs_medical_myths_Big_Pharma.html
[17] https://globenewswire.com/news-release/2016/06/14/848493/0/en/Combining-Multiple-Childhood-Vaccines-Not-Safe-According-to-Article-in-the-Journal-of-American-Physicians-and-Surgeons.html
[18] http://www.naturalnews.com/054707_statins_cancer_treatment_Big_Pharma.html
[19] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2142481/Americans-consume-80-percent-worlds-pain-pills-prescription-drug-abuse-epidemic-explodes.html
[20] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-larry-dossey/big-pharma-health-care-cr_b_613311.html
[21] http://edition.cnn.com/2016/06/07/health/genentech-lung-cancer-drug-settlement/index.html
[22] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/09/29/our-infant-mortality-rate-is-a-national-embarrassment/?utm_term=.9f6b6a036ca9
[23] http://www.nvic.org/NVIC-Vaccine-News/November-2016/end-pharma-liability-shield-protect-human-rights.aspx#_edn79
[24] http://edition.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/04/02/pfizer.bextra/
[25] http://investmentwatchblog.com/study-proving-vaccines-cause-autism-banned-from-internet/
[26] http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/06/22/study-americans-spend-billions-non-conventional-health-approaches/86200430/

Doctors agree with censored study that concludes unvaccinated children are healthier than vaccinated children

Image: Doctors agree with censored study that concludes unvaccinated children are healthier than vaccinated children
Source: NaturalNews.com
David Gutierrez
January 9, 2017

The assertion that vaccines may cause systematic changes to children’s immune and nervous systems is accepted as a possibility by a large number of doctors, including many who consider themselves “pro-vaccine.”

“If you don’t ask the right questions, you can’t find the right answers,” said Tommy Redwood, MD, an emergency room doctor in Atlanta, Georgia, with 26 years of medical experience. “If you summarily dismiss the possibility that the increasing rates of childhood illnesses, including ADD, autism, asthma and other auto-immune disorders are connected to vaccines, you can’t figure out if our children’s health problems are vaccine-related injuries.”

Redwood says he suspects that over-vaccination plays a role in the worsening health outcomes seen among children in recent decades.

Chronic disease risk higher

The most recent, peer-reviewed study was accepted for publication by the journal Frontiers in Public Health, according to Jennifer Margulis, PhD. The study was assigned a DOI number and the abstract published on the journal’s website. Several days later, all signs of the study vanished from the site without explanation

Margulis is the author of Your Baby, Your Way and the co-author (with Dr. Paul Thomas, M.D.) of The Vaccine-Friendly Plan.

According to Margulis, the abstract described a study comparing health outcomes of 660 fully vaccinated or fully unvaccinated children between the ages of 6 and 12 living in Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi and Oregon. Information was collected via parental survey in 2012.

The researchers found that while unvaccinated children were significantly more likely to get chickenpox and pertussis (whooping cough), they were significantly less likely to have allergies, ear infections, pneumonia, or central nervous system disorders (including autism) than the fully vaccinated children.

Indeed, vaccinated children had twice the risk of chronic illness and four times the risk of autism, learning disabilities, or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Vaccinated children who had been born prematurely were six times more likely to suffer from autism or other central nervous disorders than unvaccinated children.

Several prior surveys of parents comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated children have shown similar results.

Doctors call for more research

The reality of vaccine injury is obvious to many doctors, such as integrative physician Kelly Sutton MD of Fair Oaks, California. Sutton says she sees vaccine-injured patients every day.

“It’s not a rational thing to think that we can just give an ever-increasing number of vaccines without causing damage,” Sutton said. “There’s a tipping point for many people in terms of the toxins that they can handle.”

Sutton says she regularly hears from parents who chose to leave younger children unvaccinated that the unvaccinated children in the same family have better health, social adjustment and academic performance than their vaccinated siblings.

Bose Ravenel, MD, of Winston-Salem, North Carolina, used to scoff at the idea of a connection between vaccines and autism. But after examining the scientific data for himself, the 78-year-old doctor said he could no longer support the party line.

“There is clearly a relationship between vaccines and autism,” Ravenel said. “But to say that ‘vaccines cause autism’ is an inaccurate, non-nuanced statement. At the same time, to say that ‘vaccines don’t cause autism’ is also inaccurate. In certain conditions, like with mitochondrial dysfunction, vaccines certainly can cause autism or contribute to it.”

Ravenel supports research into the risks of vaccines in order to find ways to improve their safety.

Such perspectives are common among “pro-vaccine” doctors who are willing to examine the research without bias. A similar line is taken by neuroscientist Rene Anand of Ohio State University.

Anand, who says vaccines have saved millions of lives, researches genetic susceptibility to brain disorders. And he rejects as scientifically inaccurate the claim that vaccines do not contribute to autism.

The large numbers of parents who saw immune and cognitive function decline immediately after vaccination are indicative of something, Anand says. And that needs to be investigated.

Read More At: NaturalNews.com

Sources:

HealthImpactNews.com

NaturalNews.com

Vaccine-Autism Study “Depublished”

conflictofinterest

Source: GizaDeathStar.com
Dr. Joseph P. Farrell
December 15, 2016

The news this past few days hasn’t been all geopolitical. If you’ve been following the increasingly controversial issue of the relationship between vaccination and autism over the years, an important story emerged on Dec. 5 that once again demonstrates the utter uselessness of corporate controlled media and the dangers of big pharma. This article was shared by Mr. V.T.:

Study Proving Vaccines Cause Autism Banned From Internet

The abstract of this study demonstrating a relationship between the cocktails of vaccinations now given to young children, and autism, says it all:

Results: A total of 415 mothers provided data on 666 children, of which 261 (39%) were unvaccinated. Vaccinated children were significantly less likely than the unvaccinated to have been diagnosed with chickenpox and pertussis, but significantly more likely to have been diagnosed with pneumonia, otitis media, allergies and NDDs (defined as Autism Spectrum Disorder, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, and/or a learning disability). After adjustment, the factors that remained significantly associated with NDD were vaccination… male gender… and preterm birth. In a final adjusted model, vaccination but not preterm birth remained associated with HDD, while the interaction of preterm birt and vaccination was associated with a 6.6-fold increased odds of NDD….

Conclusions: In this study based on mothers’ reports, the vaccinated had a higher rate of allergies and NDD than the unvaccinated. Vaccination, but not preterm birth, remained significantly associated with NDD after controlling for other factors. However, preterm birth combined with vaccination was associated with an apparent synergistic increase in the odds of NDD.

The article adds that this study was peer-reviewed:

The paper was peer-reviewed by Linda Mullin Elkins, a chiropractor at Life University, and Kelly Hsieh from the University of Illinois at Chicago. It was edited by Amit Agrawal at Gandhi Medical College in India.

 There was the usual backlash about shoddy methodology and “fake science”:

The initial backlash was significant. Public comments included, “this study is of poor design, though not impossible results. Study relies of self-report of moms, inducing bias,” and threats of commercial sabotage, “Another garbage vaccine study in Frontiers journal. Scientists, stop reviewing/publishing there.

Science Blogs also weighed in to discredit the results of the study, quickly posted an article titled, “Antivaccinationists promote a bogus internet “survey.” Hilarity ensues as it’s retracted.
This was followed by scrubbing the paper from the internet, but not before a screen shot of the abstract – which appears in the article – was saved:
Not only has the first study into vaccinated versus unvaccinated children been unpublished by Frontiers In Public Health, but a cached version available on internet archives has also been removed, suggesting there is a serious campaign to stop members of the public from viewing the study. However a screenshot of the abstract was saved before it was scrubbed from the internet.
What is amazing to me here is the duplicitous nature of “big medicine” itself. Doctors rely on a day-to-day basis of the reports of their clients, or their clients’ parents, on the nature of symptoms, and through careful question and answer, arrive at diagnoses. In other words, in the daily practice of medicine, doctors rely on the anecdotal testimony of their patients. Most patients won’t walk into their doctors’ offices and relate that they need an x-ray because they suspect they have a crack in their right femur that is causing them pain, or announce that their headaches are due to the beginnings of a glioblastoma multiform. But they will relay information of an informal nature, and that informal nature of the information is not dismissed simply because it is relayed by a “non-professional” without medical credentials or peer review.
But “big medicine” and “big pharma” would have us believe that when several such stories are relayed – by mothers whose children were vaccinated and who ended up on the autism spectrum – that this is merely anecdotal and of no evidentiary value at all. Merely to collect and publish such information is now apparently “fake science” and to be “scrubbed” from people’s ability to scrutinze and evaluate the evidence from themselves, thus removing one key component- the patient him- or herself – from the entire process, making ‘big medicine’s” own pronouncements rather moot.
There’s another criticism that can be leveled here as well, for big medicine and big pharma, by so brazenly scrubbing such reports, open themselves and their own studies to the criticism of a “conflict of interest.” The fact that this study was initially peer-reviewed and then subsequently withdrawn speaks volumes about that conflict of interest. When the peers of ultimate censure are the big corporations and their controlled media, then actual free flow of ideas is stopped, and with it, all science and all medicine. What has happened here is that big pharma and big medicine have gone in front of families struggling to care for autistic children, as if they were all gathered in a room together to share their experience and stories, and told them there’s no relationship between their vaccines and their suffering children, “and we don’t care what you think to the contrary.”
That’s how brazen – and illogical and irrational – they have become. (The greed was always there.)
We’ll see how long that story lasts when the first class action suits start to hit them, and juries, rather than bought-and-paid for “science” in journals, have to decide the question.

See you on the flip side…

Read More At: GizaDeathStar.com
________________________________________________________________

Profile photo of Joseph P. Farrell

About Joseph P. Farrell

Joseph P. Farrell has a doctorate in patristics from the University of Oxford, and pursues research in physics, alternative history and science, and “strange stuff”. His book The Giza DeathStar, for which the Giza Community is named, was published in the spring of 2002, and was his first venture into “alternative history and science”.

Disclosing Conflicts of Interest in Medical Research

Source: NutritionFacts.Org
Dr. Greger
August 30, 2016

DESCRIPTION: Billions in fines for bribery and suppressing data may just be the cost of doing business for drug companies, but surely doctors themselves have more integrity.

Monsanto Strong-Armed Science Journal To Retract Seralini Study Showing Liver, Kidney Toxicity In Rats Fed Genetically Modified Foods & Glyphosate

Seralini
Source: NaturalNews.com
Ethan A. Huff
July 27, 2016

Corporate collusion and secret backroom dealings between at least two editors from the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology (FCT) and biotechnology giant Monsanto are what ultimately led to the unwarranted retraction of a major study showing that Monsanto’s NK603 “corn” and corresponding herbicide glyphosate (Roundup) cause cancer in mammals, new Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests reveal.

The groundbreaking paper by French biologist Gilles-Eric Seralini, which was published and then unpublished by FCT, contained no errors and wasn’t fraudulent or plagiarized, and yet FCT’s chief editor, A. Wallace Hayes, made the unprecedented decision to pull it, after a second and mysterious peer review, using the excuse that the paper’s findings were “inconclusive.”

Never before has a paper been pulled for this reason, so naturally many have speculated as to the possible outside influences that may have swayed this unconventional decision. Now, thanks to the probing efforts of Stephane Foucart from the French paper Le Monde, it’s become apparent that Hayes, along with fellow “associate editor” Richard E. Goodman, rigged the second peer-review process that led to the paper’s withdrawal, all for the purpose of placating Monsanto.

Goodman, Hayes conspire with Monsanto to take down Seralini paper

Goodman, a former Monsanto employee, was mysteriously hired on at FCT not long after Seralini’s paper was first published, and roughly a decade after he supposedly parted ways with Monsanto. But FOIA documents show that Goodman never really left Monsanto, according to a now-uncovered email showing that about half of his salary was still coming from biotechnology companies for private consulting work years after his departure.

Even in the years leading up to the Seralini study’s publishing, Goodman had maintained close ties with Monsanto, working as one of its henchmen to keep tabs on articles and studies that questioned its products, which included the Seralini paper. Goodman’s now-released private emails show that he had asked Monsanto for talking points on refuting the paper just days before he was hired on at FCT under the appointment of Hayes.

Hayes had apparently helped keep this appointment a secret until February 2013, and we now know that during that time he worked alongside Monsanto to set up a new, non-transparent peer-review group to rip apart the Seralini paper so that it could be pulled from the journal. GM Watch explains how Hayes essentially played a “double role” in ensuring the paper’s retraction.

“My request, as editor, and from Professor Goodman, is that those of you who are highly critical of the recent paper by Seralini and his co-authors volunteer as potential reviewers,” Hayes wrote in an email to Monsanto.

We don’t know for sure whether or not Hayes extended this request to toxicologists outside the Monsanto fold, but one thing is clear: Hayes and Goodman worked in tandem to serve the interests of Monsanto in taking down the Seralini paper, and all under the guise of “science.”

FCT ‘editors’ reject other GMO-critical studies following Seralini conspiracy

So, after a legitimate and honest peer review by independent academics and scientists overwhelmingly approved Seralini’s study, getting it published the proper way, Hayes and Goodman conspired to set up a second, Monsanto-stacked “peer review” to have it unpublished. It’s corruption at it’s finest, and it hasn’t stopped at FCT.

According to GM Watch, Hayes has continued to block scientific research that even remotely questions the safety of genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) and crop chemicals, including a later study on Monsanto’s MON810 corn, which was shown to harm the Daphnia magna waterflea, a small, freshwater crustacean. The waterflea is often used as a model organism by ecotoxicologists.

The paper that demonstrated MON810’s toxicity in the species was simply too “controversial,” which is why it was never published in FCT. And who do you think was behind its rejection? None other than Goodman himself, under the direction of Hayes.

Though the paper was later published in another journal in 2015, the conspiratorial nature of FCT’s new Monsanto-directed “peer review” process remains the same. Goodman has since resigned from FCT, but his superior, Hayes, a Monsanto-affiliated hack himself, continues to censor sound science from the journal he oversees.

Hayes currently serves as senior science advisor at Spherix Consulting, a global team of advisors that furnishes pharmaceutical and other industries with “scientific solutions that result in regulatory success.” In other words, Hayes makes sure that clients like Monsanto are happy, and that their products are always presented in the most positive light.

“Hayes’s interests and Goodman’s current Monsanto connections should have precluded them from having any authority over the fate of the Seralini study and other studies submitted to FCT,” Claire Robinson writes for GM Watch.

“Instead we have a situation in which a lack of transparency at the journal FCT allowed industry interests to take precedence over scientific considerations. In the process, the reputation of honest scientists has been unjustly maligned and public trust in science has been damaged, perhaps irretrievably.”

To learn more about how to grow your own GMO-free food at home, check out the Mini-Farm Grow Box system.

Read More At: NaturalNews.com

Sources for this article include:

GMWatch.org