People are not only ignorant of the price of silver, they seem to be ignorant of the whole idea that silver could have any value at all.
Psychiatric medications are not only useless, but they’re responsible for killing at least 500,000 people aged 65 years and older every single year. This is the shocking conclusion of a new meta-analysis published in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) that challenges the widely held belief that antidepressants and dementia drugs are safe and effective for treating mental health issues.
Researchers from Denmark’s Nordic Cochrane Centre broke the disturbing news after poring through loads of published data on this class of drugs and finding that virtually none of it is suggestive of either safety or efficacy. To the contrary, nearly every placebo-controlled trial used by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in justifying the legal prescription of psych meds shows minimal or no benefits.
The paper revealed that virtually every randomized trial ever conducted that involved psych meds failed to properly evaluate the drugs’ effects in users. The “control” groups in these bogus studies, it turns out, were made up of folks who were previously taking other psychiatric drugs, rendering any and all findings moot. And yet these were the very studies that U.S. regulators used to approve such drugs as “safe and effective.” …
Lucky for their shareholders that liability for vaccine injuries is covered by the taxpayers.
Jeanne Lenzer, associate editor of the British Medical Journal, has published an investigative report showing how the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is not honest when publishing disclaimers in their studies stating that “they have no financial interests or other relationships with the manufacturers of commercial products.”
This news does not come as a surprise to those of us in the alternative media, but it is significant that the report was published in one the world’s most respected medical journals, the British Medical Journal. Lenzer explains why this is so significant:
The CDC’s image as an independent watchdog over the public health has given it enormous prestige, and its recommendations are occasionally enforced by law.
She goes on to quote Marcia Angell, former editor in chief of the New England Journal of Medicine:
The CDC has enormous credibility among physicians, in no small part because the agency is generally thought to be free of industry bias. Financial dealings with biopharmaceutical companies threaten that reputation.
CDC Receives Millions of Dollars in Industry Gifts and Funding
Lenzer goes on to document in her investigative report how the CDC has been receiving millions of dollars in “industry gifts and funding” since at least 1983.
Despite the agency’s disclaimer, the CDC does receive millions of dollars in industry gifts and funding, both directly and indirectly, and several recent CDC actions and recommendations have raised questions about the science it cites, the clinical guidelines it promotes, and the money it is taking.
Lenzer writes that in 1983 the CDC was “authorised” to accept this funding from pharmaceutical companies, and that in 1995 Congress actually passed legislation that was signed into law by President Bill Clinton “to encourage relationships between industry and the CDC.”
Jeanne Lenzer’s report in the BMJ gives several examples of how funding from the pharmaceutical industry probably effected the outcomes of research studies used to promote questionable drugs.
Whiles Lenzer’s report did not touch on the explosive topic of vaccines, we will remind our readers here of a few facts showing the obvious conflicts of interest within the CDC in overseeing vaccine safety, and setting vaccine policy.
The 2015 fiscal budget of the CDC is $6.6 billion, a decrease of $243 million from 2014. However, “Vaccines for Children” is the largest category within the budget, and it increased from $3.5 billion in 2014 to $4 billion in 2015, an increase of $514 million. So the American taxpayer, through the CDC, is forcibly purchasing $4 billion of vaccines from the pharmaceutical industry. (Source.)
Can we trust the CDC to give us accurate information regarding the efficacy and safety of vaccines?
Last year (2014) Dr. William Thompson of the CDC became a whistleblower and revealed that one of the key studies the CDC has used for years to make the claim that vaccines are safe and not linked to autism withheld key data that did not support their conclusion….
The mainstream media, with strong ties to the pharmaceutical industry themselves, basically ignored this story which should have been one of the top news stories of 2014.
Former CDC Director Julie Gerberding Becomes Head of Merck’s Vaccine Division
Julie Gerberding was in charge of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) from 2002 to 2009, which includes the years the FDA approved the Merck Gardasil vaccine. Soon after she took over the CDC, she reportedly completely overhauled the agency’s organizational structure, and many of the CDC’s senior scientists and leaders either left or announced plans to leave. Some have claimed that almost all of the replacements Julie Gerberding appointed had ties to the vaccine industry.
Gerberding resigned from the CDC on January 20, 2009, and took over as the president of Merck’s Vaccine division, a 5 billion dollar a year operation, and the supplier of the largest number of vaccines the CDC recommends (article here).
It was reported last month (May 2015) that Dr. Gerberding, now the executive vice president of pharmaceutical giant Merck, sold 38,368 of her shares in Merck stock for $2,340,064.32. She still holds 31,985 shares of the company’s stock, valued at about $2 million. (Source.)
Guns and Butter: Aired: June 24, 2015
Co-authors of “Dissolving Illusions: Disease, Vaccines, and the Forgotten History”, Dr. Suzanne Humphries and Roman Bystrianyk, talk in depth about the history of disease and vaccination, primarily in relation to smallpox and polio, and how these diseases actually affect afflicted populations. Paralysis has many causes. Do childhood diseases serve a useful purpose? Does vaccination itself cause disease? Herd immunity is explained.
California lawmakers on Thursday approved one of the toughest mandatory vaccination requirements in the nation, moving to end exemptions from state immunization laws based on religious or other personal beliefs.
The measure, among the most controversial taken up by the Legislature this year, would require more children who enter day care and school to be vaccinated against diseases including measles and whooping cough.
Those with medical conditions such as allergies and immune-system deficiencies, confirmed by a physician, would be excused from immunization. And parents could still decline to vaccinate children who attend private home-based schools or public independent studies off campus. …
…. In the past few years, even as the United States has pulled itself partway out of the jobs hole created by the Great Recession, some economists and technologists have warned that the economy is near a tipping point. When they peer deeply into labor-market data, they see troubling signs, masked for now by a cyclical recovery. And when they look up from their spreadsheets, they see automation high and low—robots in the operating room and behind the fast-food counter. They imagine self-driving cars snaking through the streets and Amazon drones dotting the sky, replacing millions of drivers, warehouse stockers, and retail workers. They observe that the capabilities of machines—already formidable—continue to expand exponentially, while our own remain the same. And they wonder: Is any job truly safe?Futurists and science-fiction writers have at times looked forward to machines’ workplace takeover with a kind of giddy excitement, imagining the banishment of drudgery and its replacement by expansive leisure and almost limitless personal freedom. And make no mistake: if the capabilities of computers continue to multiply while the price of computing continues to decline, that will mean a great many of life’s necessities and luxuries will become ever cheaper, and it will mean great wealth—at least when aggregated up to the level of the national economy. But even leaving aside questions of how to distribute that wealth, the widespread disappearance of work would usher in a social transformation unlike any we’ve seen. If John Russo is right, then saving work is more important than saving any particular job. Industriousness has served as America’s unofficial religion since its founding. The sanctity and preeminence of work lie at the heart of the country’s politics, economics, and social interactions. What might happen if work goes away? ….