Big Pharma and the Medical Health Industry

'Public schools have financial incentive to diagnose your children with ADHD and ADD: In 1991, eligibility rules for federal education grants were changed to provide schools with $400 in annual grant money for each child diagnosed with ADHD. As a result, the number of ADHD cases soared. Today more than 7,000,000 children have been labeled and registered as permanent patients of the school system. Ten to twelve percent of all boys between the ages of 6 and 14 in the United States have been diagnosed as having ADHD.'

Former Salesman For Vaccine Maker Merck & Co. Wouldn't Vaccinate His Son

Vaccination is a barbarous practice and one of the most fatal of all the delusions current in our time. Conscientious objectors to vaccination should stand alone, if need be, against the whole world, in defence of their conviction. - Mahatma Gandhi

The Polio Vaccine Cancer Cover-up





The polio vaccines developed in the 1950s by Jonas Salk and Albert Sabin allegedly eradicated one of the most feared diseases of the 20th century. The media hailed the success of these vaccines as a modern day miracle. However, the polio story has a much darker side that has mostly been kept a secret.


Both Sabin’s live virus vaccine given orally and Salk’s inactivated virus vaccine given by injection were far from perfect. In fact, in 1955 the vaccine used in Berkley, California infected some 200 children, leaving several dead and many paralyzed. Yet this incident proved minor compared to what was later discovered.


In order to grow large quantities of the poliovirus, scientists needed to use Rhesus monkey kidney cells, which carried many different viruses. As a result, their polio vaccine became contaminated with a cancer-causing virus carried by these monkeys. This vaccine was given to almost 100 million people.


The virus found in this particular polio vaccine was SV40, or simian virus. It is present in human tumors, and research has established it to be a contributing factor in the rise of many types of cancer, including mesothelioma, bone, and brain cancer.


When the government became aware of this, it was downplayed for fear the public would stop accepting vaccination.

Can the US Centers for Disease Control (CDC) Be Trusted?

At one point, the US Centers for Disease Control (CDC) admitted on its website that the polio vaccine had been contaminated. They later removed this information. (View a snapshot of this removed page at the link below.)


The original report disclosed that more than 98 million Americans received the contaminated vaccine between 1955 and 1963, and explained that SV40 could lead to certain types of cancer. Later this admission was downplayed to state that there was no proof the virus caused the cancers, and since not all doses of the vaccine were contaminated, an estimated 10 to 30 million Americans were all who were at risk.


The CDC repeatedly referred to studies done by two scientists which concluded that SV40 did not cause cancer in humans, only in lab animals.

Contaminated Vaccine Knowingly Dispensed to the Public

In 1959, Dr. Bernice Eddy of the National Institutes of Health discovered that the monkey kidney cells used to grow the poliovirus caused cancerous tumors when injected into hamsters. After reporting these findings, Eddy was excused from her job and assigned a new position. Not long after, the pharmaceutical company Merck made the same discovery.


In 1960, Merck scientists Dr. Maurice Hilleman and Dr. Benjamin Sweet (the Merck scientists who named the SV40 virus), published findings concluding that the polio vaccine was indeed contaminated with the SV40 virus. Hilleman later admitted (back then on tape) that Merck knew the vaccines were contaminated and continued to dispense them to the public anyway.
Subsequent in vitro studies in the 1960s demonstrated that SV40 caused brain tumors in animals and transformed normal human tissue into cancerous tissue. It was obvious that governing authorities wanted to keep this information under wraps, and so the SV40 scandal disappeared from the public eye for years.

An Old Scandal Rears Its Ugly Head

In the 1990s, a young Italian pathologist named Dr. Michelle Carbone discovered a link between mesothelioma and certain brain, bone, and lymphatic cancers, and the SV40 virus. He tested lung tissue from cancer patients, which revealed the presence of the SV40 virus, and every single one of the hamsters tested with the virus developed mesothelioma and died within seven months.


Carbone published his findings in 1994 in a leading cancer research journal. For the first time, hard evidence showed (and was made public) that the SV40 could cause cancer in humans, and the long forgotten scandal of the 1960s awakened from its slumber.


In 1996, in an attempt to refute Carbone’s research, Dr. Howard Strickler and Dr. Keerti Shah responded with reports saying they could not detect SV40 in human tumors. Interestingly, Merck and Pfizer were paying Shah at the time for consulting, specifically on SV40. Strickler and Shah also both performed their research in pharmaceutical sponsored laboratories.


Later, in 2003, Shah testified before Congress that Strickler compromised a study by interfering with its controls. Strickler had conflicts of interest as he was a consultant/advisory board member for Merck and GlaxoSmithKline.

Supposed Regulations Do Not Solve the Problem

After numerous studies showing SV40 was cancer causing, weak regulations were put into place. Shockingly, the Division of Biologics Standards (DBS) of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) did not order a recall of any of the contaminated polio vaccines. They continued to distribute contaminated vaccines to an unsuspecting public until 1963. Finally, new federal regulations were put in place that required vaccines to be tested for SV40.


These new regulations required a waiting period of 14 days to see if the virus was growing before making the vaccine. However, it was later discovered that a slower growing form of the virus, which took 19 days to appear, could have been in the approved vaccines. Therefore, millions more people potentially received contaminated vaccine all the way through the 1990s because of these inadequate testing guidelines.


Cancer has risen exponentially since the 1960s, and by 2002 there were 61 reports from 49 different laboratories across the world suggesting an increased incidence of certain cancers caused by SV40.  The British journal The Lancet revealed SV40 was responsible for over 25,000 cases of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma each year. By 2003, 60 more labs had been identified which demonstrated a connection to the SV40 virus and cancer.


Dr. Randy Tent, DC, ND, PhD, a highly renowned alternative doctor, reported at a health conference in 2013 that “one out of 200 people will have cancer directly caused by SV40.”

Even Though Some Things Never Change, YOU Can

The response of the CDC to the SV40 scandal mimics their current denial of the autism-vaccine link. It appears the CDC selectively chooses which science they would like to follow when it comes to their covert vaccine agenda. Most often their “science” of choice comes from pharmaceutical sponsored laboratories, despite the presence of unbiased research proving that many vaccines are not safe.


Most people have received several doses of the polio vaccine throughout their life. With cancer affecting so many, and vaccines distributed so widespread, one must consider vaccines as a contributing factor, especially since they contain known carcinogens and cancer-causing viruses.
Regular cancer prevention needs to include detoxification from heavy metals and other carcinogens. When it comes to vaccines, do your own research. Read all vaccine package inserts and don’t just blindly trust doctors (who have to follow FDA rules) and government agencies such as the CDC whose track record is suspect when it comes to protecting the public.

California Mandatory Vaccine Debate Heats Up as Celebrities Speak Out




Waking Times



The national debate over vaccine safety and childhood vaccination exemptions gained further attention this week as California Governor Jerry Brown signed a bill to restrict exemptions for childhood vaccinations required to attend school in California. A Miami area Congresswoman, Frederica Wilson (D), has proposed a similar legislation at the national level, furthering the push to force medical treatments with recognized and unrecognized risks on healthy people. This type of force led the actor Jim Carrey to call Governor Brown’s actions “fascist” in his social media tweet.


Vaccine manufacturers acknowledge that there is some level of risk of adverse effects from using their shots, while the amount of risk involved has been widely debated, with the vast majority of adverse reactions to vaccines either never reported or never recognized, due to the reporting and association bias created by medical claims that vaccines are safe and that the adverse events must be due to some other cause (without investigation or proof obtained to support that assertion). Despite the obstacles to reporting and having a vaccine injury acknowledged, there are many cases of payouts from the Federal Government’s National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program and thousands of parents who report they have no doubt that their children were harmed, sometimes severely, by routine vaccinations. The law which established the compensation program was designed in part to protect vaccine manufacturers and medical institutions from legal liability and financial repercussions for harm occurring due to vaccinations.


There are also conflicting research studies and epidemiological analyses being presented to back the arguments presented by vaccine defenders and vaccine critics. With so many vaccinations being given and so many additional environmental hazards that children are exposed to it is hard to design research that can truly ascertain the effects of individual vaccines and of cumulative exposure to vaccines. Results that have suggested a possible link between vaccines and health issues such as autism and allergies have been ignored or discounted by those defending vaccine safety, citing study design weaknesses or differing results presented by industry-linked studies. Unfortunately, few people have the expertise or understanding to thoroughly analyze research and discern the weaknesses in a study or detect methods used to manipulate data to alter the statistical significance of correlations and effects that appear. Many people claim that the science behind vaccine safety and efficacy is clear, but from a true scientific perspective of careful investigation this is a gross misstatement. The evidence that has accumulated showing that there are serious risks involved with carrying out vaccinations is hard to refute, so those defending coercive vaccination laws routinely ignore the evidence and refuse to publicly debate knowledgeable vaccine critics.


One major element of the arguments used to defend vaccines is the claim that they have been a major public health advance, which reportedly brought an end to epidemics of polio and smallpox. Many people take those assumptions for granted, without realizing that there was never any controlled scientific research done which confirms those claims. Infectious illness epidemics follow patterns and cycles where they appear and dissipate with or without medical intervention. Historically, vaccines were introduced to the population mass when the diseases were already naturally dissipating, and it has even been suggested by some researchers that vaccines help perpetuate epidemics further by creating cases of an illness generated by exposure to the microbe in the shots.


Most modern polio cases, for example, are triggered by the vaccination for polio, with many cases of polio type illness and paralysis occurring after vaccination but being given a different diagnostic name. Deaths and injuries due to polio or a polio equivalent are still occurring but are getting renamed in order to perpetuate the illusion that vaccines successfully eradicated polio and to hide the reality that these deaths and illnesses are currently being triggered by the vaccine exposure. This occurs even as the public has not been told that doctors successfully treated polio with IV vitamin C in the 1940s. In fact, complications occurring from illnesses such as measles and polio and influenza are known to be strongly correlated with malnutrition. Provide proper nutrition and people are much less likely to fall ill when exposed to microbial illness agents and less likely to have any complications if they do get sick. Since the science is pretty clear on that, why isn’t there a government push to make sure children get enough nutrients to prevent illness? It is well documented that a majority of the population have nutritional deficiencies, and supplementing needed nutrients would be an obvious measure to prevent illnesses, yet the public health authorities are ignoring this issue while focusing on forcing people to take injections that carry risks and cannot create a healthy immune system.


Herd immunity is another plank in the foundation of arguments for forced vaccination, yet it too is an idea based upon false assumptions and deception. As immunologist Dr. Tetyana Obukhanych states “Although the evidence for vaccination-based herd immunity is yet to materialize, there is plenty of evidence to the contrary. Just a single publication by Poland & Jacobson (1994) reports on 18 different measles outbreaks throughout North America, occurring in school populations with very-high vaccination coverage for measles (71% to 99.8%). In these outbreaks, vaccinated children constituted 30% to 100% of measles cases. Many more similar outbreaks, occurring after 1994, can be found by searching epidemiologic literature. The herd-immunity concept is based on a faulty assumption that vaccination elicits in an individual a state equivalent to bona fide immunity (life-long resistance to viral infection). As with any garbage in-garbage out type of theory, the expectations of the herd-immunity theory are bound to fail in the real world.”


The basic theory underlying vaccination is to foster a specific type of immune system response in the presence of a particular pathogen. That type of immune triggering is just one facet of how our immune system is designed to manage and protect against harmful organisms. Thus, the full natural immune response is not what vaccines are leading the immune system to exhibit. By promoting a limited and imbalanced immune response, vaccines may actually foster greater vulnerability to infection when future exposures to pathogens occur. The form of immunity that is fostered by vaccines is a weaker or more limited immunity than naturally obtained immunity – this is why people are told they need “booster” shots, as the previous shots don’t really provide strong, lasting immunity. The best way to build immunity is to have a healthy balanced immune system and have natural exposure to a pathogen while you are in that healthy state. Then, your body will respond properly so that you don’t become ill and you are now protected against that organism if there is a future exposure. Vaccines cannot create a healthy, balanced immune system – they can only trigger an imbalanced and limited form of immune system response. When this occurs, you may only have mild symptoms or no symptoms of an illness, even though the pathogen is now chronically present in your body because your body failed to launch a full, balanced immune response. This can lead to chronic weaknesses in the immune system and autoimmune illnesses. Researchers have found a pattern of hyperimmune antibody response to the measles virus strain from vaccines in autistic children, suggesting that the vaccination leads to an imbalanced reaction to the viral material that inhibits the body’s ability to effectively neutralize an infection, with resulting complications associated with the virus and the abnormal immune system activity.


There are many studies showing evidence supporting the hypothesis that vaccines are often fostering imbalances in the immune system. Even in the latest research by those studying proposed HIV vaccines, it is admitted that the effects of vaccines can be a “double-edged sword.” While attempting to trick the immune system to respond to injected microbial materials may appear to foster some form of immunity, the risk of adverse systemic effects occurring as a result of this attempt to outsmart the natural intelligence of our body and its immune function is quite significant. Since vaccines can only stimulate the body to apply a portion of its own intelligence to neutralize a pathogen, our body is able to perform that job just as well or better without vaccines. The idea that we need vaccines to prevent illnesses is a form of delusion, as when we are healthy in our immune function and are exposed to a pathogen we won’t get the illness, regardless of whether or not we were previously vaccinated for the illness. Rather than trying to stimulate an imbalanced immune response to several specific pathogens out of thousands that we could possibly encounter, why not focus on building a healthy body and balanced immune functioning so that we will properly handle any potential threat that the mind-body system may encounter?

Paging Dr. Wakefield: One Of Your Critics Quoted By CBS and FOX Was Named As A Defendant In A Wrongful Death, Fraud Case With $33 Million Conflict Of Interest

I was going to call it a day, when a piece of particularly distressing Associated Press anti-“Vaxxed” (the movie) propaganda caught my eye–on Fox (Health) News Online  and CBS News online.
 
The headline was: Medical Community Is Fighting A New Germ: Celebrities.
 
It managed to be all at once offensive, self-victimizing, and the kind of yuk-yuk “clever” only the truly humorless could ever embrace.

The Fox News article featured a photo of Jenny McCarthy, while CBS News used a photo of Robert De Niro.

Propaganda has countless depressant features; One is that all hope of novelty or ingenuity is lost before you even read it. It’s always a sucker punch. Take that. In this case, we the aggrieved nerds at the CDC who resent that anybody in the Western World should begrudge us a fatally corrupted study MMR/Autism that supplied the bedrock of “vaccines-don’t-cause-autism” are here to flog famous people who have “disappointed” us. We all know how Jenny McCarthy was crucified for speaking out on behalf of her vaccine damaged (by her own telling) son, despite the fact that she managed to improve his condition tremendously by way of multiple healing modalities, chiefly gut restoration and diet change.

Despite the fact that the gaspers here are politically correct down to their last atom, they see no reason to hold back on mocking and flogging McCarthy for her beauty. You get the sense they would like to literally stone her if they could. The condescending and wholly unoriginal insult they trot out again and again asks with heavy eye roll who parents would “rather” get pediatric advice from–a medical doctor, or a Playboy Bunny. As if any parent alive ever stood before these two choices. The worst thing is, nobody ever tells these people how banal they are.

My eye caught the other sucker punch quote that has been, insanely, pollinating in the raft of articles hysterically denouncing the explosive documentary nobody has seen yet: Vaxxed: From Coverup to Catastrophe, produced by Andrew Wakefield, Del Bigtree, and Polly Tommey. Robert DeNiro, who has seen it, backed it passionately, until suddenly, he pulled the plug, this past Saturday, removing it from Tribeca Film Festival’s schedule.

De Niro therefore is getting mostly praised, but inside the praise, psychosis bristles. This brings me to the second sucker-punch, opening with that favorite pod phrasing about what “no one would question:”

[This is an author-less article, written by The Associated Press, and syndicated.]

From CBS News:

“No one would question that the issue is personal to De Niro. But the Tribeca Film Festival, which opens its 15th edition on April 13, is an extremely public event. When news of the documentary’s scheduled screening spread, disease experts were distressed that the festival would lend its megaphone to a film by a disgraced doctor. Michael Specter, the New Yorker staff writer and medical expert, called it “a disgrace” for the festival, and compared Wakefield’s film to “Leni Riefenstahl making a movie about the Third Reich.” ”

Hell’s Bells. “Disease experts,” distressed? We can’t have that. Let’s instead make sure that millions of parents of brain damaged children are tortured to no end, by the mass media, who bludgeon any and all who think its “journalism” to allow their voices to be heard. Then let’s make a clumsy Nazi/Reich/Propaganda/Riefenstahl metaphor, for good measure, even though the analogy does not even make sense. Vaxxed is an expose documentary about the CDC whistleblower–not a propaganda film for the CDC. Maybe The New Yorker and Salon, and Forbes, should make that one.

[In an interview with The Truth Barrier, not yet published, distributor Philippe Diaz, of Cinema Libre, called Specter’s quotes, “insane,” and wondered, “what is he smoking?”]

I knew what was coming next–one always does with these “period pieces.” The lament. The lament that despite the CDC’s best efforts at totalitarian control of the press, and the film industry–a few rogue celebrities still manage to go off script.

This despite their creepy foundations like “Hollywood, Health, and Society–” which is run by a former CDC employee, funded by the CDC, The Gates Foundation, and countless more corporate giants, which “consults” on scripts for hundreds of TV shows, movies, and even documentaries, spreading “important messages about public health.”

They are so narcissistically deranged they actually believe and expect that all celebrities should do their ideological bidding every time they open their mouths. And many do.

So here came the self-victimizing lament, quoted as gospel:

“Celebrities have had an out-of-proportion impact on the public’s understanding of vaccine risk,” says Arthur L. Caplan, head of the Division of Medical Ethics at New York University. “I don’t want to overplay it; most people vaccinate. It’s not like hordes of people are listening to Jenny McCarthy and saying, ‘Forget the American Association of Pediatrics, I’m going with the former Playboy Bunny.'”

The name Arthur L. Caplan came back to me, from an assignment I had from TALK magazine in 2000, to write about “gene therapy.” I wondered why they would want to lend their megaphone to such a controversial, to say the least, doctor of ethics.

Gene Therapy was a field that ground to a screeching halt after an 18 year old boy named Jesse Gelsinger died in an extremely dangerous “gene therapy” trial at Penn. That was where I remembered Caplan’s name from. I interviewed Jesse Gelsinger’s  grief-stricken father, at the time. TALK, for its part, killed the article, because it wasn’t enthusiastic enough about “gene therapy.” (Actually no, they asked me to revise it to become more positive–and I killed it.)

I remember vividly what the PR man at Penn said to me when I entered his office for an interview. He slumped down in his chair, and sighed.

“We killed an 18 year old kid.”

The interview was pretty much over, after that. This was before the days when everything was reversed–back then, a child’s death was called a death, and heads rolled, and ill-conceived, greedy “research” programs using human guinea pigs were halted. End of story. Turned out they had failed to inform Jesse or his family that two other people had nearly died in similar experiments, and that research monkeys had died. In addition, Jesse’s levels of ammonia were way too high for this to be remotely safe for him. I remember his father telling me that before his organs shut down, Jesse’s blood had turned to the consistency of jello.


Jesse Gelsinger

I typed into Google: “Jesse Gelsinger and Arthur Caplan.”

Well what do you know?

First item, worth quoting in its entirety:

Gelsinger wrongful death lawsuit names bioethicist Caplan

Genetic Crossroads
October 16th, 2000 

The family of Jesse Gelsinger, the 18-year-old who died last September
in a gene therapy experiment at the University of Pennsylvania, has
filed suit against the researchers and institutions involved in running
the experiment: the university, two medical facilities, and Genovo Inc.,
the biotech company founded by lead scientist James Wilson that had a
stake in the successful outcome of the experiment. The lawsuit accuses
the defendants of negligent, reckless, or fraudulent acts.

Gelsinger’s death was followed by revelations of serious regulatory
violations and financial conflicts of interest in the Penn trial,
as well as in hundreds of gene therapy experiments nationwide. (See
Issues 7 and 10 of this newsletter.)

Media coverage of the lawsuit focused on its inclusion of well-known
bioethicist Arthur Caplan, who advised the researchers on the design
of the experiment. Caplan argued that the parents of sick infants are
too desperate to provide true informed consent, and that the experiment
should therefore be conducted on relatively healthy adults. For more
on Caplan’s role, and on bioethicists’ growing influence and financial
conflicts, see Arthur Allen, “Bioethics comes of age,”
.

In venues unrelated to the Gelsinger case, Caplan has often argued
that human germline engineering is “inevitable.” In December 1999 he
wrote, “Before the next century is out, fetuses will no longer need
their mother’s womb for nourishment and growth. We will see many
children made by the artificial creation of embryos. . .This prediction
is 100 percent certain. . ..There will be strong social pressure to use
eugenics to improve children in order to minimize the social cost of
disease and chronic disability. The rush to use eugenics will be
amazing, with parents competing to give their kids the `best’ start
in life.” See

[By the way, Salon has removed its 2000 article on Caplan.]

Here’s more, on the legal case.

It opens with this:

Ten years ago, Jesse Gelsinger died while participating in a human gene- therapy trial at the University of Pennsylvania (“Penn”). His death came to signify the corrosive influence of financial interests in human subjects research. After Jesse’s death, the media reported that one researcher, Dr. James Wilson, held shares in a biotech company, Genovo, which stood to gain from the research’s outcome-shares that The Wall Street Journal later valued at $13.5 million, although Wilson maintains he did not make nearly this much.’ At the time Penn authorized Wilson’s deal, internal Penn documents implicitly valued Wilson’s stake in Genovo at approximately $28.5 to $33 million. 
Jesse’s death sparked two separate lawsuits: one by the family, who sued in tort, and one by the federal government, which framed alleged errors in the research trial as a civil False Claims Act violation. Both suits settled, with no public apologies or acknowledgement of wrongdoing in either case.’ The government refused to make public the documents it collected, despite requests from the family.’ Thus, in what is arguably the most famous conflict- of-interest case in medicine, we have known for a decade almost nothing about the nature of the financial stakes that Wilson, and Penn, had in the research’s outcome, or why Penn authorized a researcher to hold such a substantial stake in that research’s outcome. How this web of financial ties came to enmesh Jesse’s trial is a subject worthy of exploration because it provides an important lens for evaluating two divergent visions about the role of money in research.


Another illuminating outtake:

B. A CASE OF FIRSTS

Jesse’s death was a case of firsts. Jesse was the first person to die in a human gene-therapy trial.3 ‘ His family’s lawsuit was also the first high-profile suit in which a family of a participant sued in tort to recover under a variety of new and creative claims.3 2 That suit was also the first to name a bioethicist, the world famous Arthur Caplan, director of Penn’s Center for Bioethics, as a defendant based on the advice he gave the researchers regarding study design-which essentially urged testing the protocol on relatively healthy adults rather than dying infants.
3. The family’s lawsuit was also the first to spotlight a financial conflict of interest by a researcher, Wilson.3 4
Jesse’s trial was also the first to trigger a lawsuit by the government in which it framed errors in a human subjects research trial as a civil False Claims Act violation, bringing to bear the crushing power of the penalties under that act.35

Now let’s go back to the CBS News article, and a phrase you will have read in countless articles these past few days, as well as over the past decade, since Murdoch, Brian Deer, GlaxoSmithKline, the BMJ, and all their attack dogs in the press dropped what Hunter S. Thompson once dubbed “the million pound shithammer” on Andrew Wakefield. The phrase is: “…an elaborate fraud.”

To wit:

“The film, “Vaxxed: From Cover-Up to Catastrophe,” is directed by Andrew Wakefield, a former British gastroenterologist who was stripped of his medical license in 2010. The British medical journal BMJ called Wakefield’s study connecting autism and vaccines — which was retracted by the medical journal The Lancet — an “elaborate fraud.” ”

Having supposedly been involved in a legal case and having various potential vested financial interests in MMR lawsuits is the better part of why Wakefield is repeatedly drubbed as “an elaborate fraud.”

Here’s how the sane and uncontroversial men of medicine speak, by contrast to Wakefield who speaks mostly of ways to improve bowel diseases that exacerbate autism.

Whereas look what excites Dr. Caplan–let’s have that quote again:

“Before the next century is out, fetuses will no longer need
their mother’s womb for nourishment and growth. We will see many
children made by the artificial creation of embryos. . .This prediction
is 100 percent certain. . ..There will be strong social pressure to use
eugenics to improve children in order to minimize the social cost of
disease and chronic disability. The rush to use eugenics will be
amazing, with parents competing to give their kids the `best’ start
in life.”

I could stop here, but you know what? It gets worse. There’s more.

Here is a comprehensive timeline of events from an online journal called Guinea Pig Zero, It contains this passage, about Caplan: 

“Now, let’s explore the reasons why this young fellow, in relatively good health, was ever strapped into a table, fitted through the groin with arterial catheters, and infused with an experimental gene-vector, in spite of the blood-ammonia reading that should have disqualified him from the procedure. Before we can do that, we must ask, who are these people at the University of Pennsylvania?

Arthur L. Caplan is the director of the university’s Center for Bioethics, and has become the most quoted person in his field in recent years. He is peculiar in that he is far more visible and Media-friendly than any of his peers. Some say he’s right in popularizing important discussions, while others say he’s just another media whore. In either case, Caplan is a team player, and he does not publicly criticize any researcher who practices under the same roof as he does himself. In Guinea Pig Zero #6, I pointed out his odd silence on the subject of the dermatologist Albert Kligman, who used prisoners at Philadelphia’s Holmesburg prison as human guinea pigs from the 1950’s through the early ’70’s. In exchange for small cash payments, Kligman tested LSD, dioxin, radioactive isotopes, Agent Orange, and poison ivy on the inmates. He became very rich (he invented Retin-A), and the prisoners became scarred, insane, chronically ill for unknown reasons, and underwent excruciating pain. When prisoner-experiments came under public scrutiny and Kligman was investigated, he destroyed all his original patient records. This is why I do not say that he killed any prisoners. There were questions about dead inmates, but Kligman destroyed the answers. For all that, Art Caplan has no opinion as to whether the surviving inmate guinea pigs should be compensated or otherwise relieved by the university that tortured them. Since the release of Acres of Skin in 1998, a book documenting Kligman’s research, most everyone else in the city does.

I saw Caplan at a conference on science and religion last spring. The distinguished professor remarked in passing about how those gentlemen outside on the sidewalk (Holmesburg veterans, chanting with picket signs) had reached their conclusions by some logical method as opposed to another. No one would understand what he meant, unless they’d had special training, but he saved face by giving them a nod. But what he said did not in any way reflect upon Kligman’s past behavior and the university’s refusal to take responsibility for the harm suffered by his living victims.

In the case of Jesse Gelsinger, the bioethics poster-boy was the one who made the experiment possible by persuading the researchers and government overseers that asymptomatic adult patients, as opposed to infants with fatal cases, should serve as the human subjects. The reasoning was that the parents would be coerced by the sickness of their babies. Caplan’s letter of Feb. 4th fiercely defended why adult OTC deficient persons like Jesse should be put at risk when they were not the intended beneficiaries of the treatment. He ridiculed a reporter who had taken this up as an issue. The letter’s effect was to draw the reader’s attention away from the more disturbing facts of the case.

Caplan’s name occurs also back in September, when he argued for an immediate announcement about the nature of Jesse’s death. After that, there’s been not a word on the glaring conflict of interest on the part of Dr. James M. Wilson, both co-author of the experiment’s protocol and one who stood to make many millions if the vector proved marketable. It is obvious that Caplan knows which side his ethical bread is buttered on.

When Arthur Caplan, an ethics expert, remains silent on alarming ethical crises, in cases where the players are his own colleagues and when his salary and professional future are controlled by the institution that’s directly vested in the matter, he services as the university’s spin doctor. To be sure, he did not directly praise them. But, of all people, Caplan is the one whose position should be the clearest and loudest when there is an ethical conflict. We should keep in mind, above all, that he participated in planning the clinical trial that took Gelsinger’s life, almost as directly as the researchers themselves.”

And CBS News, which dubbed Wakefield “…an elaborate fraud,” described Caplan, who was named as a defendant in a lawsuit over the death of a child in a very unethical experiment, how?

By his title, of course. And what is his title?

He, unlike Wakefield, was never “stripped” of it. It is, astonishingly:

Head of the Division of Medical Ethics at New York University.

–Celia Farber

It is extremely unfortunate how uninformed the general public is about Cannabis and even other plant extracts that are certainly more effective in treating diseases and other common ailments, without or very little side effects.
I can recall having a conversation with some people about the use of Cannabis for medical reasons, and one individual stated "Cannabis is bad for you" I simply responded "your information is bad".

I'm watching the first episode of The Truth about Vaccines MiniSeries. https://go2.thetruthaboutvaccines.com/docuseries/episode-1/?utm_campaign=ttav&utm_medium=email&utm_source=maropost&utm_content=2017-04-12-2350&utm_term=

The host Ty Bollinger started off by saying that Galileo got convicted when he claimed the earth was a globe instead of a plane object. The same is happening now in a way with people that question vaccines. So far this episode is a real eye opener (besides of the earth being flat obviously).

Hi All,
Thanks to all for this very informative thread.

I didn't see anything posted about MMS.
Does anybody have any info to back up the claims?

https://quantumleap.is/

br

Hi,

Has anybody researched Dr Hamer and New German medicine?

Looks interesting alternative to modern medicine.

Thanks

http://www.doctoryourself.com/holick.html
Andrew W. Saul Interviews Vitamin D Expert
MICHAEL F. HOLICK, MD, PhD

“The population of the world has been brainwashed by the American Academy of Dermatology and the sunscreen industry, for 30 years, with the unrelenting message that you should never be exposed to direct sunlight because it is going to cause serious skin cancer and death.”
(Michael Holick, MD)

Editor’s 2006 introduction: Born 60 years ago in Jersey City, New Jersey, Michael Holick published his first scientific paper in 1970. Hundreds would follow, and now, he is arguably the world’s leading authority on vitamin D. Yet Dr. Holick’s advocacy of what he calls “sensible sun exposure” is so controversial that he was fired from Boston University Medical Center’s dermatology department. Controversy being no stranger to this Newsletter, we were pleased when Dr. Holick agreed to an interview, which follows in edited form.

DOCTOR YOURSELF NEWS: Dr. Holick, What are some of the research-based benefits of more vitamin D?

DR. MICHAEL HOLICK: You can reduce cancer risk by 30 to 50% by increasing vitamin D in the diet, or by sensible sun exposure. We gave mice colon cancer, and followed them for 20 days. Tumor growth was markedly reduced simply by having vitamin D in the diet. There was a 40% reduction in tumor size. And, casual sun exposure actually decreases your risk of melanoma. In Finland, back in the 1960’s, children that received 2,000 IU of vitamin D each day reduced their risk of getting Type 1 diabetes by 80%. Every tissue and every cell in your body has a receptor for vitamin D. Every tissue and every cell of your body requires vitamin D to function properly.

DY NEWS: Exactly how much vitamin D, and how much sun, do we need?

HOLICK: Vitamin D deficiency is less than 400 IU per day along with no sun exposure. If you take 400 IU daily, you would still have an inadequate amount of vitamin D. Humans need 1,000 IU each day, or to be exposed to sunlight. Five to ten minutes, arms and legs, three times a week, is adequate.

DY NEWS: What is you opinion of the official US RDA/DRI recommendations?

HOLICK: I was on the committee that set them (National Academy of Sciences, Panel on Calcium and Related Nutrients, 1996-1997). We have made some progress in increasing the recommendations. They are now 200 IU/day for children and adults up to age 50; 400 IU for adults over 50; and 600 IU/day for adults over 70.

DY NEWS: Would you have liked to have set the recommendations higher?

HOLICK: Yes. At the time, we were obligated to base our recommendations on the published literature before 1997. Based on new evidence, I think infants, up to one year of age, need 400 IU/day. Canada recommends 400 IU already. Then, from age one, and all through adulthood, I’d recommend 1,000 IU/day. Everyone needs 1,000 IU of vitamin D3 each day.

DY NEWS: And how are we doing?

HOLICK: In Boston, 50% of adolescent boys and girls are vitamin D deficient. 70% of moms and 80% their babies are vitamin D deficient at birth. These infants have no vitamin D stores, and the moms have none to give them.

DY NEWS: And that means rickets?

HOLICK: Rickets is only the tip of the vitamin D deficiency iceberg. If you are vitamin D deficient in childhood, you are 2.4 times more likely to develop Type 1 diabetes.

DY NEWS: And for people of color?

HOLICK: Skin pigment is a natural sunscreen. African American children require two to three times as much sun exposure, without sunscreen, to satisfy their requirement for vitamin D.

DY NEWS: What are the consequences of not getting enough sunlight?

HOLICK: If you live above 35 degrees north latitude, you are twice as likely to develop multiple sclerosis. Living in higher latitudes also means higher risk for Crohn's disease, rheumatoid arthritis, and high blood pressure.

DY NEWS: What are some examples of “high latitude” cities?

HOLICK: Anything above Atlanta, Georgia.

DY NEWS: I’ve been to Atlanta. To a Yankee like me, that’s pretty far south. Now you know I’m going to quote you on this. . .

HOLICK: That’s fine. Anywhere above about 35 or 37 degrees latitude, that is, anywhere north of Atlanta, Georgia, you basically cannot make vitamin D in your skin during the wintertime.

DY NEWS: And in the summer, should we tan?

HOLICK: I do not believe in tanning.

DY NEWS: That seems a rather moderate position.

HOLICK: I was fired from my position as Professor of Dermatology at Boston University Medical Center because I have been promoting sensible sun exposure, and had written the book, “The UV Advantage.” I had held that position for nearly ten years.

DY NEWS: Who fired you, and when?

HOLICK: Dr. Barbara Gilchrest, BU Medical Center Chief of Dermatology, in February 2004. She and I remain personal friends. I’m still full Professor of Medicine, Physiology, and Biophysics, and have been for 20 years. Dr. Gilchrest has been quoted as saying that to suggest that vitamin D deficiency is a significant health problem is “weak and absurd.” She has also been quoted as saying that linking vitamin D deficiency to medical illness is “schlock science.” I have never heard her rebut those statements.

DY NEWS: Were you fired entirely because of your stance on vitamin D and for no other reason?

HOLICK: No question about it. The American Academy of Dermatology is very uncomfortable about sensible sun exposure, and anyone who recommends it.

DY NEWS: You’re telling us that the American Academy of Dermatology does not believe in sensible sun exposure?

HOLICK: That is correct. They are believers in abstinence from all sun exposure. They have been pretty firm about this. In May 2004, three months after I was fired, I was asked to defend myself in front of all the staff.

DY NEWS: How successful was it?

HOLICK: I got people’s attention.

DY NEWS: Who is most opposed to you?

HOLICK: The “unenlightened” dermatologists of the American Academy of Dermatology.

DY NEWS: Yet it seems to be particularly difficult to kill yourself with vitamin D.

HOLICK: True. One man took 1,000,000 IU of vitamin D per day, orally, for six months. Of course, he had the symptoms of severe vitamin D intoxication.

DY NEWS: But he lived to tell the tale?

HOLICK: Yes. His treatment was hydration (lots of water), and no more vitamin D or sunshine for a while. He’s perfectly happy and healthy. This was published in the New England Journal of Medicine. (Koutkia P, Chen TC, Holick MF. Vitamin D intoxication associated with an over-the-counter supplement. N Engl J Med. 2001 Jul 5;345(1):66-7.)

DY NEWS: How many people have died from vitamin D or other vitamins?

HOLICK: I have no experience of anyone dying from vitamin exposure. In thirty years, I’ve never seen it.

DY NEWS: And in the medical literature?

HOLICK: Not as far as I know.

DY NEWS: About how many people get too little vitamin D?

HOLICK: In the US and Canada, about 50%. About one billion people, worldwide, are vitamin D deficient. This is true even in sunny climates, because of lack of sun exposure.

DY NEWS: What advice do you wish to offer our readers?

HOLICK: The most important thing is to increase your vitamin D intake.

DY NEWS: What’s yours?

HOLICK: I take 1,100 IU of vitamin D every day.

DY NEWS: Do you use sunblock?

HOLICK: I do, but only after some sensible sun exposure.

DY NEWS: Do you wear a floppy hat?

HOLICK: Yes, after sensible sun exposure.

DY NEWS: You are one consistent person. So what’s the bottom line?

HOLICK: The population of the world has been brainwashed by the American Academy of Dermatology and the sunscreen industry, for 30 years, with the unrelenting message that you should never be exposed to direct sunlight because it is going to cause serious skin cancer and death. People are really quite surprised by the new message that sensible sun exposure, in moderation, is very important for good health. We should appreciate the sun for its benefits, and not abuse it.

FOR FURTHER READING:

Holick, MF and Jenkins, M. The UV Advantage, iBooks: New York, 2004.
Saul AW. Vitamin D: Deficiency, Diversity and Dosage. Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine, 2003; Vol. 18, Numbers 3 and 4, p. 194-204. Posted at http://www.doctoryourself.com/dvitamin.htm

CANCER AND VITAMIN D
“A PubMed database search yielded 63 observational studies of vitamin D status in relation to cancer risk, including 30 of colon, 13 of breast, 26 of prostate, and 7 of ovarian cancer, and several that assessed the association of vitamin D receptor genotype with cancer risk. The majority of studies found a protective relationship between sufficient vitamin D status and lower risk of cancer. The evidence suggests that efforts to improve vitamin D status, for example by vitamin D supplementation, could reduce cancer incidence and mortality at low cost, with few or no adverse effects.” (Garland CF, Garland FC, Gorham ED, Lipkin M, Newmark H, Mohr SB, Holick MF. The role of vitamin D in cancer prevention. Am J Public Health. 2006 Feb;96(2):252-61. Epub 2005 Dec 27.)

”Inadequate photosynthesis or oral intake of Vitamin D are associated with high incidence rates of colorectal cancer . . . Prompt public health action is needed to increase intake of Vitamin D(3) to 1000IU/day, and to raise 25-hydroxyvitamin D by encouraging a modest duration of sunlight exposure.” (Gorham ED, Garland CF, Garland FC, Grant WB, Mohr SB, Lipkin M, Newmark HL, Giovannucci E, Wei M, Holick MF. Vitamin D and prevention of colorectal cancer. J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol. 2005 Oct;97(1-2):179-94. Epub 2005 Oct 19.)

D DEFICIENCY IS WIDESPREAD
“Vitamin D inadequacy has been reported in approximately 36% of otherwise healthy young adults and up to 57% of general medicine inpatients in the United States, and in even higher percentages in Europe. Recent epidemiological data document the high prevalence of vitamin D inadequacy among elderly patients . . . Supplemental doses of vitamin D and sensible sun exposure could prevent deficiency in most of the general population.” (Holick MF. High prevalence of vitamin D inadequacy and implications for health. Mayo Clin Proc. 2006 Mar;81(3):353-73.)

DIABETES AND MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS
”The conditions with strong evidence for a protective effect of vitamin D include several bone diseases, muscle weakness, more than a dozen types of internal cancers, multiple sclerosis, and type 1 diabetes mellitus. . . The current vitamin D requirements in the United States are based on protection against bone diseases. These guidelines are being revised upward in light of new findings, especially for soft-tissue health.” (Grant WB, Holick MF. Benefits and requirements of vitamin D for optimal health: a review. Altern Med Rev. 2005 Jun;10(2):94-111.)

EXCELLENT (AND FREE) VITAMIN D E-NEWSLETTER is yours for the asking available from John Cannell and the Vitamin D Council: http://www.vitamindcouncil.com .

[You might also enjoy reading DOCTOR YOURSELF (http://www.doctoryourself.com/saulbooks.html) and FIRE YOUR DOCTOR! (http://www.doctoryourself.com/review.html)]

Interview and comments copyright 2006 and prior years by Andrew W. Saul.

newflatearther2000 wrote:Hi,

Has anybody researched Dr Hamer and New German medicine?

Looks interesting alternative to modern medicine.

Thanks

Both are mentioned throughout this thread. Please read through it before asking any more questions.

"You Won't Believe What They Admitted on the News in 1971..."



Flu vaccine

Google will help diagnose your clinical depression: it’s wonderful
https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2017/08/25/google-will-help-diagnose-your-clinical-depression-its-wonderful/
by Jon Rappoport

August 25, 2017

In my work-in-progress, The Underground, here is what I wrote about Google: “They’re clever, I’ll give them that. They’re saying you can search them for any information in the world, but they’re really searching you.”

Google has decided it’s not doing enough to lead us into a better world. So now it’s going to enter the field of psychiatry.

Engadget.com: Google is “offering a medically validated, anonymous screening questionnaire for clinical depression if you search for information on the condition. This won’t definitively indicate that you’re clinically depressed, to be clear, but it will give you useful information you can take to a doctor.”

“Google and others are determined to fight fake news, and they know that the consequences of false or incomplete medical information could be serious. If you need help, they want to be sure you get the appropriate support.”

Let’s see if I can help Google fight false or incomplete medical information.

For example, be aware that there is no defining lab test for clinical depression.

No blood test, no urine test, no saliva test, no brain scan, no genetic assay.

Committees of psychiatrists sit down and look at unscientific menus of human behavior, lump certain behaviors together, and arbitrarily label them “clinical depression.”

Therefore, any Google questionnaire is simply going to feed into that trough of pseudoscience. That’s all.

Then, of course, there are the drugs that come with a diagnosis of depression. Drugs like Prozac, Paxil, Zoloft. I’ll help Google fight “incomplete medical information” in this area as well.

In 2004, Dr. Peter Breggin, eminent psychiatrist, expert witness in court trials, and author of Toxic Psychiatry, wrote the following about these drugs. I suggest paying close attention:

“On March 22 [2004] the FDA issued an extraordinary ‘Public Health Advisory’ that cautioned about the risks associated with the whole new generation of antidepressants including Prozac and its knock offs, Zoloft, Paxil, Luvox, Celexa, and Lexapro, as well as Wellbutrin, Effexor, Serzone, and Remeron. The warning followed a public hearing where dozens of family members and victims testified about suicide and violence committed by individuals taking these medications.”

“…In the debate over drug-induced suicide, little attention has been given to the FDA’s additional warning that certain behaviors are ‘known to be associated with these drugs’ including ‘anxiety, agitation, panic attacks, insomnia, irritability, hostility, impulsivity, akathisia (severe restlessness), hypomania, and mania’.”

“From agitation and hostility to impulsivity and mania, the FDA’s litany of antidepressant-induced behaviors is identical to that of PCP, methamphetamine and cocaine—drugs known to cause aggression and violence. These older stimulants and most of the newer antidepressants cause similar effects as a result of their impact on a neurotransmitter in the brain called serotonin.”

“For more than a decade, I have documented in books and scientific reports how this stimulation or activation profile can lead to out-of-control behavior, including violence…”

“As a psychiatrist and as a medical expert, I have examined dozens of cases of individuals who have committed suicide or violent crimes while under the influence of the newer antidepressants such as Prozac, Zoloft, Paxil, Luvox and Celexa. In June in South Carolina, Christopher Pittman will go on trial for shooting his grandparents to death while they slept. Chris was twelve when his family doctor started him on Zoloft. Three weeks later the doctor doubled his dose and one week later Chris committed the violent acts. In other cases, a fourteen-year-old girl on Prozac fired a pistol pointblank at a friend but the gun failed to go off, and a teenage boy on Zoloft beat to death an elderly woman who complained to him about his loud music. A greater number of cases involve adults who lost control of themselves while taking antidepressants. In at least two cases judges have found individuals not guilty on the basis of involuntary intoxication with psychiatric drugs and other cases have resulted in reduced charges, lesser convictions, or shortened sentences.”

“The FDA includes mania in its list of known antidepressant effects. Manic individuals can become violent, especially when they are thwarted, and they can also ‘crash’ into depression and suicidal states. They can carry out elaborate but grandiose and doomed plans. One clinical trial showed a rate of 6% manic reactions…on Prozac. None developed mania on a sugar pill [placebo]. Even in short-term clinical trials, 1% or more of depressed adults develop mania compared to a small fraction on the sugar pill.”

“Unfortunately, there are also risks involved with stopping antidepressants. Many can cause withdrawal reactions that last days and sometimes longer, causing some patients to feel depressed, suicidal or even violent. Stopping antidepressants should be done carefully and with experienced clinical supervision.”

“…the FDA and the medical profession must forthrightly educate potential patients and the public about the sometimes life-threatening risks associated with the use of antidepressant medications.”

Here is the kicker. Google can do anything it wants to with the information in this article, the one you’re now reading. It can lower its ranking.

Google can control the flow of information.

Given that Google has that kind of power, I strongly suggest caution when it touts its own “depression questionnaire.”

It’s not only rigging the system, it is the system.

I'm curious if anyone has researched anything on Lyme Disease, or if there is mention in this thread on its actual origins???

I'm aware of the bug (tick) bit cause, but is it really the nature of this disease???

Thanks!

Foreverlearning wrote:I'm curious if anyone has researched anything on Lyme Disease, or if there is mention in this thread on its actual origins???

I'm aware of the bug (tick) bit cause, but is it really the nature of this disease???

Thanks!

If I remember correctly, most cases of Lyme Disease were from a coastal area in the United States, on the island adjacent the US were performing biological weapons tests, on guess what... ticks. I'm at work right now, however I'll get some resources and post them up later - unless someone wants to do some googling.

EDIT: Just did a quick google search, it was Plum Island - take a look.