Big Pharma

[Blue Frost]

Just about every doctors office i go to anymore have a room set up for the Pharmaceutical Reps, i think that says it all.
They give gifts, and push meds that are not good for you, and they get prescribed. Any good med wont need a rep.

[Gary Oak]

I learned about 27 years ago how evil the drug dealing industry is and I can understand wuite clearly how big pharma is preying on weakness. This industry isn't for nice people. I am not blaming pharmacists of course.

How Big Pharma Is Cashing in on Addiction to Alcohol and Illicit Drugs

Addiction psychiatry, essentially treating drug addicts with other drugs, has become a hugely profitable industry.

Addiction treatment has become big business. If you haven't noticed it yet, investors certainly have. The U.S. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration projected the market for addiction treatment at about $35 billion for 2014.

Since 2006, private equity firms have invested more than $2.2 billion in substance abuse treatment companies. The private equity firm Bain Capital paid $720 million for CRC Health in 2006 only to turn around and sell it for $1.18 billion to Acadia Healthcare Company Inc. in 2014. Acadia operates 76 facilities with about 5,800 licensed beds in 24 states, Puerto Rico and the U.K.

Why are addiction treatment companies so lucrative, with profit margins of over 20 percent? Largely because of the booming specialty of addiction psychiatry, which has exploded and muscled its way into standard rehabilitation and monetized it.

“The insurance companies told the rehabs they would no longer pay for inpatient rehab for heroin, cocaine or alcohol unless there was also another Axis 1 psychiatric disorder like bipolar disorder or major depression,” explains psychiatrist Phil Sinaikin, author of Psychiatryland. “I was working in a drug treatment facility when the change happened. Since addicts typically complain of anxiety and depression, a completely understandable emotional response to their toxic lifestyles, it was no problem to add a new label and throw a few psychiatric drugs at their now relabeled ‘dual diagnosis.’”

Unlike older treatments for alcoholics and addicts, addiction psychiatry treats substance abusers much like primary care physicians treat physically ill patients—with drugs, even though their problem is drugs. As illogical as it may seem, the practice of harm reduction is addiction psychiatry’s standard operating procedure, substituting one or several drugs for the original substance with the goal of stabilizing the patient, not necessarily recovery. The treatment model essentially tells patients nothing really can be done about their addiction except to provide them more drugs, sometimes for life.

Helping the increase in drug patient pools, in 2013 the American Psychiatric Association loosened the definitions of alcohol use disorders, eliminating “legal problems” but adding “craving.” (The APA’s financial links to Big Pharma have been widely reported.) The problem with the harm reduction/maintenance model is obvious; the substance abuser never recovers, but simply stays hooked on another or multiple drugs, while Big Pharma cashes in.

“This basis for [such harm reduction] treatment has its analogy to other chronic disorders,” psychiatrist Stefan P. Kruszewski at the Center for Drug Safety and Effectiveness, Department of Mental Health, at Bloomberg School of Public Health and John Hopkins University Medical School, told us in an interview. Addiction is thought of “like often-cited diabetes and hypertensive heart disease, with the following logic: chronic conditions need chronic care and we have drugs that can treat those conditions.”

But the parallel doesn’t hold up, Kruszewski says. “We use insulin and antihypertensives to treat those metabolic conditions,” he explains but, "psychiatric co-morbidity stemming from drug and alcohol use may do far better without further psychiatric drugs that often do nothing more than treat symptoms and produce new ones."

“While so many psychiatric drugs have little to offer drug and alcohol abusers, many of them nonetheless cause problems," he explains. "Opioid maintenance drugs cause their own dependence and serious withdrawal states and other drugs used to treat alcoholism may blur the baseline mental status and delay recovery.”

“The best care for an alcoholic is to not drink,” he emphasizes.

Anne M. Fletcher, author of Sober for Good, agrees, noting that pricey residential centers do not necessarily help patients more than no-frills state-run centers. Alcoholics and addicts may not need to go to a rehab center at all, Fletcher told theNew York Times. “The truth is that most people recover 1) completely on their own; 2) by attending self-help groups; and/or 3) by seeing a counselor or therapist individually,” she said.

Substitute Drugs for Addiction Expensive and Can Cause More Abuse

The FDA has approved three drugs for treating alcoholics: naltrexone, acamprosate and disulfram. Disulfram, marketed as Antabuse, produces unpleasant effects such as vomiting, hypotension and facial flushing when a person drinks alcohol while taking the drug. Never a popular drug, it costs as much as $136 at Walgreens and $117 at CVS for a month’s supply, according to GoodRx.com.

Naltrexone was approved for the “treatment of alcohol dependence" in 1994 and had already been approved for opioid dependence since it blocks the “effects of exogenously administered opioids.” In pill form, naltrexone, marketed as Revia and Depade, costs approximately $137 at Rite-Aid and $124 at Walgreens. Its once-monthly extended-release injectable formulation is marketed under the trade name Vivitrol. According to GoodRx.com, an injection of Vivitrol is $1,310 at Walmart and $1,356 at CVS with a $500 off coupon. Without a coupon, its monthly price is as high as $2,430, according to GoodRx.com.

Finally, acamprosate was approved in 2004 “for the maintenance of abstinence from alcohol in patients with alcohol dependence who are abstinent at treatment initiation.” A month’s supply of acamprosate, sold as Campral, sells for $252 at Walgreens and $245 at Rite-Aid, GoodRx.com reports.

For opioid addiction, buprenorpine, marketed as Suboxone, has been a success story for Pharma and Wall Street though not all patients. Intended to replace opioid/heroin addiction, Suboxone is notoriously difficult to quit, some users and drug counselors say.

A former addict who is now an addiction counselor and does not want to reveal her name, says, "pharmaceutical companies are profiting at the expense of human lives and the disease of addiction. The way Suboxone is prescribed, manufacturers have a captive audience,” she explains. “The ridiculous high dose being prescribed and the long-term use makes it almost impossible to get off of.”

“The withdrawal is absolutely brutal and lasts from 30 days to months compared to 7 to 10 days for oxycodone or heroin acute withdrawal,” she says. Most people "go back to buying Suboxone legally or illegally because they cannot stand the cramps, sweats, diarrhea, no sleep, inability to regulate body temperature, depression, lethargy and no affect.”

“The people on it over a month, and at the high dose, get all these symptoms, even with a slow taper-off of the drug,” she notes. “And it lasts weeks to months. If you are not addicted to opiates and you take a Suboxone, it’s very, very strong.”

Another user in a study of Suboxone misuse in Ohio in 2012 by the Center for Substance Abuse Research at the University of Maryland, said, “People are being introduced to opioids through Suboxone now because, if they were not Suboxone users, the buprenorphine…the active agent in Suboxone is giving them the opiate effect, and now they’re looking for stronger opioids."

Suboxone sells for $560 at CVS and $553 at Target for a 30-day supply, according to GoodRx.

Abuse of Suboxone has become an epidemic, like abuse of opioids and heroin. 2013 statistics "show sharp increases in buprenorphine seizures by law enforcement, in reports to poison centers, in emergency room visits for the nonmedical use of the drug and in pediatric hospitalizations for accidental ingestions," says the New York Times.

In addition to the legal problems and medical emergencies, "an unmet demand for treatment has created a commercial opportunity for prescribers, attracting some with histories of overprescribing the very pain pills that made their patients into addicts," the Times noted.

Many prescribers have checkered pasts. The Times article reports that in 2013, "Nationally, at least 1,350 of 12,780 buprenorphine doctors have been sanctioned for offenses that include excessive narcotics prescribing, insurance fraud, sexual misconduct and practicing medicine while impaired. Some have been suspended or arrested, leaving patients in the lurch."

Drug Problem? Take a Drug

Clearly, the drugs used to treat addiction have become a big revenue stream for Big Pharma. And not surprisingly, many of the medical groups dedicated to addiction psychiatry have strong Big Pharma links.

The American Society of Addiction Medicine (ASAM) has received $47,500 from Pfizer since 2013, according to Pfizer reports. The company that sold Suboxone at the time, Reckitt-Benckiser, paid "at least $100,000 in dues to the American Society of Addiction Medicine," the New York Times reported.

ASAM also published a consensus statement in the December 2011 Journal of Addictive Medicine titled, "Statement of the American Society of Addiction Medicine Consensus Panel on the Use of Buprenorphine in Office-Based Treatment of Opioid Addiction," that was supported "by an unrestricted educational grant to ASAM from Reckitt-Benckiser Pharmaceutics Inc, manufacturer of Subutex and Suboxone." No conflict of interest there.

At least six board of directors at the American Academy of Addiction Psychiatry (AAAP) have financial links to Pharma companies including three who actually serve on drug makers’ speaker boards.

These Pharma-funded groups also receive our tax dollars. The program for AAAP’s 25th Annual Meeting thanks the Center for Substance Abuse Treatment, Substance Abuse Mental Health Services Administration, National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, and National Institute on Drug Abuse, all federal agencies, for their financial support.

There is also a group whose entire purpose is buprenorphine/Suboxone promotion. The National Alliance of Advocates for Buprenorphine Treatment (NAABT), which admits it has "received donations from pharmaceutical companies" says its mission is to "Educate the public about the disease of opioid addiction and the buprenorphine treatment option; help reduce the stigma and discrimination associated with patients with addiction disorders; and serve as a conduit connecting patients in need of treatment to buprenorphine treatment providers."

NAABT aggressively defends Suboxone sales as science-based and strikes back at news outlets reporting their downsides. "We are allowing the critics and the uninformed to frame the discussion about medication-assisted treatment," and “negative hype about buprenorphine," it says.

Drugs Meant to Help Lead to Costly Lifelong Addiction

To doctors and reporters who remember when the treatment for drug and alcohol addiction was not an expensive substitute drug, the popularity and monetizing of rehab is disturbing. Many addiction patients are young and do not realize that treating addiction as a life-long illness requiring expensive drugs is a relatively new and extremely lucrative contrivance of Big Pharma.

Nor have many tried to quit their substitute drugs yet, as Stacey Pope told us she did after she became addicted to pain medications prescribed during several surgeries and wanted to avoid going through withdrawal by taking Suboxone. In order to get the drug prescribed, she had to pay a doctor an initial charge of $600, and another $100 fee every month to get her prescription refilled. Each prescription was $412 for a month’s supply and the costs were not covered by her insurance. “The terrible thing about Suboxone was that my doctor didn’t have a plan for me to get off it,” Pope said.

Pope remained on Suboxone for seven months and decided to try to go off the drug herself. “After watching a show on heroin, I realized I was no different than they were,” she said. In an attempt to wean herself off Suboxone, she started cutting down the dose and canceled her monthly appointments with the doctor.

“They called to see how I was and when I told them I was great and wouldn't need to come in for a refill for another month, I was told I had to come in monthly to stay in the program,” she said. “I knew they could care less about me. They wanted my $100 but I never went back.”

Sadly, there is more to Pope’s story. "I was under the impression you wouldn't be sick coming off Suboxone," she said. "But my pharmacist said no matter how low my dose, I would go through withdrawal."

Pope endured the withdrawal side-effects for months, including anxiety, chills, sweats, sleeplessness, body aches, restless legs and depression. She also relapsed on pain medications a few times and had to suffer through withdrawal again from those drugs. Several months after going off Suboxone, Pope “stumbled with alcohol” off and on for some time. Now she says, “I’ve come to realize there’s a reason they say abstain from all drugs."

http://www.alternet.org/drugs/how-big-p ... icit-drugs

[Blue Frost]

[video][/video]

[Gary Oak]

Could it be that the reason is that these extracts are effective against Cancer ?

[Blue Frost]

I think they just want control of it all, and dictate. It may be helpful, may not be, but they need to leave things free as long as not dangerous.
If anything let people do studies, and show effects, it would be better than the in house studies of big Pharma.

[Gary Oak]

None of this actually comes as a big surprise to me now. It would have a long time ago though. I believe that this is evidence of an increase in my knowledge over the years. As a pharmacist told me once, the big pharmaceuticals are not interested in curing you, they just put out enough stuff that works to keep you believing in them.

Medical truth canceled due to Hollywood
Mar
28
by Jon Rappoport

Medical truth canceled due to Hollywood

Medical mind-control in the film industry

Movie stars don’t need to be threatened with physical harm to make them knuckle under

by Jon Rappoport

March 28, 2016

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, Power Outside The Matrix, click here.)

—This article is based on my 35 years living in Los Angeles. I knew many people in and around the movie industry. At ground level, I learned a few important facts about the medical cartel-Hollywood connection. When was the last time you saw a major film that attacked the medical system head-on? Never? Do you think that’s an accident?

The film, Vaxxed (trailer), suddenly canceled at the Tribeca Film Festival, prompted this article, but I’m not writing here about Tribeca or Robert De Niro or that film. This is background, and people need to understand it.

Long ago, when I was working on medical fraud stories, I discovered that Hollywood stars aren’t permitted to go up against the medical establishment, if they want to keep their careers.

In fact, these stars are recruited by Big Pharma, not just to do commercials, but to front for foundations that are themselves fronts for drug companies.

And to take it even further, stars are enticed into seeking elite medical treatment for their physical problems, as a way of making them “part of the team.” They meet famous doctors and researchers. They’re given red-carpet treatment. They’re bamboozled into believing they’re getting the best care on the cutting edge of medical science. They’re cut and pasted to keep their faces young.

There is history here as well. Legendary studio heads and producers shelled out money to build wings on hospitals bearing their names. They endowed chairs at medical schools. They funded research. They took great pride in being associated with (and praised for) their connection to something more than fantasies put up on movie screens. Their wealth was being directed and channeled into a singular “humanitarian” cause, out of hundreds of possible causes. This was no accident. This was the result of hard work by medical operatives on the ground. This was a network that fed off of Hollywood dollars. And it still does.

Big Hollywood and Big Medicine meet in an unholy embrace.

And here is the kicker. At the most basic level, all this is happening because the medical cartel considers celebrities “wild cards.” Who knows what these celebs will do or say? A stray remark from a world-famous actor could reveal a number of corrupt lies. He could torpedo miles and miles and miles of carefully laid PR groundwork that has taken decades to install.

Suppose, for example, a massively popular celeb told a gaggle of reporters, at a press conference, “Hey, guess what I just found out? The medical system in America kills 225,000 people a year.” And suppose he reached into his pocket and produced the study that proves it?

Celebrities are wild cards.

They have to learn the unspoken rules.

So we’re not just talking about Big Pharma and its allies taking a friendly interest in the industry that makes movies. No, this is an effort to control a territory, make it their own, dominate it, and keep the lid on.

The medical cartel keeps an electronic fence around Hollywood.

Ditto for the music business and big-time sports.

All the alternative news about predictive programming in Hollywood, and Satanic influences, and secret-society symbols flashed onscreen? Well, move over a few feet and you’ll bump into the medical control apparatus, a truly sinister force, when you know how much damage the medical system does.

This is what’s going on, and you should know it.

There is considerable fear that can be invoked in Hollywood stars, who believe their health depends on receiving “the very best medical treatment” when it’s needed. That belief is the target of mind control.

“Hey, Frank [movie star], do you remember last year when I treated you at four in the morning? You were in a panic. And now you’re going to turn against us in the press? Against your doctors? You’ve been ‘reading some studies’? What the hell is wrong with you?”

It doesn’t have to be said. The implication is there. The star wilts at the prospect of biting the hand he thinks is feeding him and even keeping him alive.

Twenty-five years ago, I watched career of a rising Hollywood actor turn sideways, stall, and then sink like a stone. I had a conversation with him. He told me many things. He had raised red flags with a few remarks he made about the FDA certifying dangerous medical drugs as safe. He had spoken about falsified medical research. He was looking over a script about corrupt research—a script that was, of course, never made into a movie. He was speaking with friends about unnecessary surgeries at a famous hospital. And then he was gone. It was as if he never existed. It wasn’t just his vanishing career that bothered him. People in the industry were afraid of being associated with him. Subtly, step by step, people around him were “seeing me in a different way.” That was the worst part, he said. It was war by gradual attrition. The ground under his feet wasn’t solid anymore.

Fortunately, he was a strong person. He was able to re-establish his life (outside of the film business and the acting business). But, he said, if he hadn’t been strong, if he hadn’t continued to “know what I know,” he would have had a very serious problem. He told me that even major stars could receive the kind of excommunication he was dealt—and the gradual drip-drip of shunning could wreck them personally.

“Very few actors,” he said, “have strength, regardless of the roles they play on the screen. They have a weakness. It can be played on.”

Insecurity, at various levels, is the name of the Hollywood game. Almost no one is immune.

Los Angeles is full of people hanging around on the fringes of the movie industry. Some of them, once employed, have been waiting for years, even decades, to land a new job. They barely stay afloat. They hope. They dream. They drink.

I met a producer who hadn’t worked on a film for 20 years. He was suffering from a number of physical conditions. I spoke with him about a script that laid out the launching of a phony epidemic that didn’t really exist, but was being promoted to the hilt by the CDC. It was as if I’d touched him with a cattle prod. After he recovered, he looked at me as if I were the devil incarnate, in his house to drag him down into Hell. He told me I was crazy, a film like that would never be made, and if he associated himself with a project like this he’d be blacklisted. I gently informed him that he hadn’t been active in the business for a long time. It doesn’t make any difference, he said. I’ll be laughed out of town. Nobody knows me anymore, but I’ll be the butt of jokes. My doctor will jump all over me. He went on for a quite a while. Was he just being paranoid? I asked him that. He shook his head. You don’t understand, he said. The medical establishment has its hooks into the movie industry. He told me he knew that, way back when he was active as a producer. For God’s sake, he said, his boss was on the board of a big hospital. He had given large sums to a university medical school. “The friggin’ guy think he’s a medical expert. He’s going to let me make a movie about big-time medical fraud? He’d run me over with his car first.”

A few years ago, I had a meeting with a fledgling producer. I showed him a story idea based on the premise of secret evidence in the medical arena: doctors in America were killing a few hundred thousand people every year with medicines and mistreatment in hospitals. (Of course, this evidence is real, and I’ve cited it many times in these pages.) The producer looked at me and said, “Yeah, you told me on the phone about this story. I just wanted to see what a crazy person looks like.” He was a congenial fellow, and we talked for an hour or so. He assured me that his career would be over if he ever got serious about raising money for the script I had in mind. “As soon as money comes into it,” he said, “the word gets out. People know what the movie is about. They disappear on you and don’t return your calls. They tell their friends, and then you’re toast.”

Finally, I spoke, not too long ago, with a man I’d call a medical fundraiser. He operates in and around the movie industry. He siphons $$ from famous people for medical causes. I wanted to see his reaction, so I told him I had a script about medically caused murder in America. Widespread murder. He looked at me and slowly smiled. He shook his head. He said, “You’re yanking my chain, right? I’ll put up my house against a dollar from you and bet the movie will never be made.” I played along and asked him why he was willing to make the bet. He said, “We and the movie people sleep in the same bed. We’re happily married for a long time. Now you’re going to come in and tell one of us the other has been cheating and you want to publicize that to the fucking sky. How do you think we’re going to react?”


power outside the matrix


The medical cartel and Hollywood. An unholy embrace.

It’s very real and it isn’t an accident, any more than the CIA overthrowing a foreign leader is an accident. Like all major ops, the deep medical incursion into Hollywood has been planned and executed for a long time.

Revealed on no screens anywhere.

You can go higher and higher on the chain of power to see how this op works and who is running it, but at ground level, where the actors and agents and producers and directors live and work and hope, they are kept in check. They know it. They won’t talk about it publicly, but they know. They know where the electronic fence is and they can see the signs. They don’t go through the fence. They don’t climb it. They don’t go around it. They pretend it isn’t there, but they know it is.

They know how to be selectively blind.

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.

[Blue Frost]

Celebrities are useful idiots, the majority of them that is.
most are very unintelligent, and even schooled on back lots if they are that.
Why people give them any credibility is beyond me, it's like worshiping a wooden statue .

[Gary Oak]

I posted one paragraph of the article that goes with this interesting video.

How Big Pharma Controls Medical Schools (video)

Let’s face it, there’s a very selective process there. You just don’t get into med school unless you’ve got a pretty good brain on top of your shoulders, so yeah, it’s the cream of the crop. The best students go into these schools, these medical schools, but they’re not taught anything about natural cures. They’re taught only about drugs, primarily, and drug reactions and the chemistry of this and the chemistry of that. And they have to become really pharmacists in a way; they have to become chemists before they can even make it through pre-med.

https://thetruthaboutcancer.com/big-pha ... ols-video/

[video][/video]

[Blue Frost]

I found one doctor that tried me on some more natural stuff, but my insurance stopped paying.
I think some over time learn that all some of us need is a vitamin, and to stop eating crap.

[Gary Oak]

They must have a fair degree of control of the insurance companies too.

[Blue Frost]

They do, anything natural is usually denied, or paid out of pocket.
It's a big scam like doctors themselves are a lot of times, all most are are pill pushers.
You know good, and well nobody on earth needs 20-30 different pills a day, sometimes 40 or more like I have seen.

[Gary Oak]

How Big Pharma Stops Its Competitors and Monopolizes the Health Industry

-By Paul A Philips

When it comes to treating illness, disease in particular, on every level; academia, research and development, marketing, diagnoses, orthodox treatment, press and politics... there is a pattern that runs throughout. This pattern reflects how Big Pharma is able to stop its alternative health competitors from getting any significant share of the market from sales in treating illness and thus monopolizes the health industry.

-This in effect suppresses alternative health treatment regardless of cost and efficacy.


How the suppression works

Let me spell it out. I’ll put it to you like this: Let’s use our imagination for a moment, be hypothetical and say that you’ve come up with a miracle cure for an incurable disease and it exists in the form of a few cheap, non-toxic herbal tablets with a dietary regime to accompany.

Your breakthrough treatment is unorthodox alternative medicine. It has many advantages:

1.Treatment is natural. Therefore it is relatively cheap.


2.It is non-toxic with no ill side effects.


3.No need to treat possible side effects.


4.Patients are cured! No more suffering or death!


5.Because patients are cured, they no longer have to keep returning for treatment like they would if it were left to the medical / pharmaceutical approach who only treat the symptoms (most patients have to keep returning for the rest of their lives) and are only given temporary relief.


6.Think of how the money saved from this cheap alternative cure could be put to good use. What about including this treatment for individuals on low income, developing countries, educational programmes and publicity campaigns to spread the word..?

Although your innovations are far more effective than anything currently on the market, you will be in for a hard time with the big boys of the medical / pharmaceutical establishment when the word gets out about your miracle cure. You may well be genuine, caring, brilliant and with much conviction, but it is highly unlikely that you’ll ever get your miracle cure with all the above advantages going with any impact at all. You have to remember, the medical / pharmaceutical establishment are only ultimately interested in oiling the wheels of commerce with big profits. Anyone seen to be a financial threat to them must be brought down, no matter what it takes. The public at large, for most part, have no idea of how low the corrupt establishment are prepared to go when it comes to getting what they want: to keep control of the markets and monopoly.

To avoid a competitor breaking into the market while keeping prescription drugs at ridiculously high prices, the government have agreed with Big Pharma to a list of mandatory protocols.

That is, new products have to go through a series of tests and approvals before they are finally accepted. This could take something like 10 years and by this time the Big Pharma competitor may have spent around 250 million dollars.

-Fortunately, this does not also have to include you. Your cure is natural medicine. It does not have to be patented.


"It's strange that men should take up crime when there

are so many legal ways to be dishonest."

-Al Capone

However, right from the beginning you could be shut down and have your equipment seized for illegal medical treatment, and then face the possibility of a prison sentence. –All this could happen regardless of high efficacy! This is one of many examples where laws have been made not because of fairness but to write something in to favour the rich and powerful.

–Here you have an array of crooks that have covered all the necessary allies to successfully bring off their unjust operations. They don’t give a damn about people. Profits rule OK!!

‘’There is no greater tyranny than that which is

perpetuated under the shield of law and in the

name of justice.’’

-Montesquieu 1669 - 1755

If attempts from the authorities fail to close your practice down, you could face an onslaught of criticism, even if any of it isn’t based on fact. You could be called a madman or a quack… or just plain wrong. In the end you will even find it difficult to give away your treatment for nothing.


Alternative news, new paradigm, consciousness, Big Pharma, spirituality, natural health, healthcare, pharmaceutical industry, Business monopoly, Paul A Philips, raising awareness
Where in the so-called free world is the free market economy here? The only competition that exists in drug sales is amongst pharmaceutical companies, who, together with the government, slyly control the prices.

Learning to discern

In light of the above discernment is absolutely essential. For your own health educate yourself on what’s best for you when needing treatment. Learn to discern when prescription-happy Doctors or other medical staff try to push unnecessary, toxic and invasive treatment on you for Big Pharma’s profit machine, when you’d be better off choosing alternative medicine.

http://www.newparadigm.ws/natural-healt ... -industry/

[Blue Frost]

So you think you can trust them saying something is safe ?

[video][/video]

Bayer and US Govt. Knowingly Gave HIV to Thousands of Children
http://humansarefree.com/2016/03/bayer- ... iv-to.html

What if a company that you thought you could trust, knowingly sold you a medicine for your child that they knew had the potential to give your child HIV? How would you react?

What if a government agency that claims the responsibility for protecting you from such treachery, not only looked the other way, but was complicit in this exchange?

Everyone has heard of Bayer aspirin, it is a household name. Bayer AG also manufactures numerous other products, from pesticides to medicine for hemophiliacs called Factor 8.


In 1984 Bayer became aware that several batches of this Factor 8 contained HIV. They knew this because there was an outbreak of HIV among hemophiliac children, and this outbreak was traced back to Bayer.

Unable to sell their Factor 8 in the US, Bayer, with the FDA’s permission, (yes that’s right, the FDA allowed Bayer to potentially kill thousands) sold this HIV infected medicine to Argentina, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, and Singapore after February 1984, according to the documents obtained by the NY Times.

The documents showed how Cutter Biological, a division of Bayer, shipped more than 100,000 vials of unheated concentrate, worth more than $4 million, after it began selling the safer product.

The result of this sale of HIV tainted medication ended up infecting tens of thousands and killing thousands.

Thousands of innocent children and adults have died at the hand of this corporation and no punitive action has been taken against them.

The health department leaders in Argentina, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, and Singapore were all imprisoned, while the US FDA continues down its hellish path.

When asked about the sale of the tainted Factor 8, Bayer responded:

"Decisions made nearly two decades ago were based on the best scientific information of the time and were consistent with the regulations in place."

This can be interpreted as Bayer asking the FDA for permission to murder children for profit and the FDA giving its approval.

According to the NY Times, the Food and Drug Administration’s regulator of blood products, Dr. Harry M. Meyer Jr., asked that the issue be "quietly solved without alerting the Congress, the medical community and the public."

No one in the government nor Bayer have been charged with anything in regards to this matter. Bayer continues to sell its Factor 8 medication to this day.

[Blue Frost]

Designer of HPV Gardasil vaccine says it’s neither safe nor effective
Posted by Dr. Eowyn

Dr. Diane Harper, professor and chair of the Department of Family and Geriatric Medicine at the University of Louisville, specializes in human papillomavirus (HPV) and the diseases associated with it. As principal investigator of the clinical trials of Gardasil and Cervarix, vaccines against HPV, Dr. Harper was instrumental in getting Gardasil approved.

So it should give parents pause that, beginning in 2009, Dr. Harper has questioned both the safety and effectiveness of Gardasil. In stating her misgivings, Dr. Harper has appeared at the International Public Conference on Vaccination, a conference held by the the anti-vaccine group National Vaccine Information Center, and in an anti-vaccine film, The Greater Good:

Citing research, Harper states Gardasil has been associated with at least as many serious adverse events as there are deaths from cervical cancer each year, and that the risks of vaccination are underreported.
Nor is Gardasil effective in preventing HPV infection because the infection can take decades to develop, as explained below. Getting routine pap smears is more effective in early detection and thus, treatment of cervical cancer.

As Dr. Harper explains in the video clip above, of all the women who get an HPV infection:

Approximately 70% of them will clear that infection all by themselves in the first year, without the HPV infection being detected or treated.
90% of the women will clear the infection within two years.
By three years, only 10% of the original group of women will still have an HPV infection, half of whom (i.e., 5% of the original group of infected women) will have progressed into a pre-cancerous lesion.
Among this small group of women who have developed a pre-cancerous lesion, it’ll take 5 years for the lesion in about 20% of these women (i.e., 1% of the original group of infected women) to become cancerous.
Among this very small group (1%) of women whose lesion has become cancerous, it takes 5 years for 20% of this group (i.e., 0.2% of all women infected with HPV) for the cancerous lesions to develop into invasive carcinomas, and as long as 30 years for 40% of the women with cancerous lesions (i.e., 0.4% of all women with HPV infection) to develop into invasive carcinomas.

In other words, in the very small number of women (0.6%) infected with the HPV virus whose lesions became cancerous, it takes 5 to 30 years for the infection to develop into invasive carcinomas. But whatever data there is on Gardasil shows that its effectiveness lasts only 5 years.

The above statistics prompted Dr. Harper, in a 2011 NPR interview, to argue against mandatory HPV vaccines for girls because, in her words, “95% of women who are infected with HPV never, ever get cervical cancer” because their immune systems are effective in killing the virus.

That is also why, as reported by Sharyl Attkisson for CBS in August 2009, Dr. Harper questioned the CDC’s recommendation that the series of HPV vaccine shots be given to girls as young as 11-years old. Harper said:

“If we vaccinate 11 year olds and the protection doesn’t last… we’ve put them at harm from side effects, small but real, for no benefit. The benefit to public health is nothing, there is no reduction in cervical cancers, they are just postponed, unless the protection lasts for at least 15 years, and over 70% of all sexually active females of all ages are vaccinated.”

Why Dr. Harper waited AFTER Gardasil had been approved by the FDA to come clean about the vaccine’s risks and ineffectiveness is a mystery.
[video][/video]

[Gary Oak]

If people let their bodies fight off this HPV Gardasil then how can big pharma scam millions of $$$ out of it ?

[Blue Frost]

Exactly, but they buy, and have people in office that let them get away with it.

[Gary Oak]

Obama was their boy. It will be interesting to see what Donald Trump is like in regards to big pharma.

[Blue Frost]

We will see, I'm not that confident in him to not do their bidding. Monsanto's also.

[Berry Sweet]

I dont like big pharma either but if there is a drug that is life saving or maintains your health when no other options work, then it is ok. Just enough with the outrageous costs of some of them!

[Blue Frost]

I agree Berry, I'm on one now I hate, but there isn't a natural choice that i have found.