Category Archives: Medical Fraud

SAINTHOOD FOR GOVERNMENT

MARCH 27, 2010. Now that the Obama Plan has passed, we can all rest in peace, because the new religion called government has finally sealed Teddy Kennedy’s dream and made it Scripture. Amen.

Still not sure what happens when millions of people decide to pay the fine for not having insurance, until a catastrophic illness overtakes them, at which point they sign on to the Plan. Seems like it would bankrupt every insurance company in the US, since these companies exist on the basis of collecting premiums from healthy people. But, well, that’s a small issue, isn’t it? I’m sure the gods of the Left have it all figured out. They’re in Heaven, and we’re down here on Earth.

I have a painting of Pelosi’s face on velvet, on an altar in my living room, with candles and day-glo backdrops, and bottle caps and tinfoil strewn around. Plastic flowers, incense sticks, gaggles of sage. I have demon skulls and skeletons on the periphery. I’ve got Bach organ music going 24/7. It’s a party.

I’m praying that unlimited medical care will soon be extended to any human on the face of the Earth who can row, swim, fly, crawl, drive to a US hospital or doctor’s office.

I’m also fervently wishing that, in order to experience the revelations of medical treatment, Americans will continue to eat the very worst of the fast food for sale at emporiums of Delicacy across the land.

Eventually, the nation will become one vast Hospital, and we can then rejoice that the new religion has assumed correct proportions.

No one will escape a diagnosis. No one will evade treatment with drugs or surgery.

And the government will pay. The taxpayer will be on the hook for at least 60% of every paycheck.

This is a dream worth having, is it not?

Mandatory diagnosis, compulsory treatment. Fifty vaccines given at birth. Hundreds of pharmaceuticals doled out to every person during the course of a lifetime. Exclusion of nutritional supplements. Destruction of alternative practitioners. It’s catechism, baby.

All through the run-up to the passage of the health bill, nary a word from supplement companies or their trade groups or the larger citizen health-freedom organizations. Nary a peep.

They knew Pelosi and Reid and the prophet Obama were on the side of the angels. They knew. O joy.

Have the people who want health freedom in this country become too old to fight? Are they too tired? Are they finally caving in to Prozac and Zoloft and Paxil and tranquilizers?

I don’t know. I haven’t seen many of them around.

Actually, since the early 1990s, when I began writing damning articles about the medical establishment, I’ve seen alternative-health advocates figuring out how to back away from the struggle. Many of these people have a religion of their own, which involves the idea that by passively loving their enemies in Congress and the White House, they can tease a wonderful compromise out of the Universe, and all will be well.

It hasn’t happened.

On March 24, I did an episode of my radio show on: medically caused death in America. It was, if I do say so myself, and I do, a brilliant expose of facts and a stunning indictment of the FDA—you know, those guys who keep coming after nutritional supplements.

I suggest you pick up the show and let your friends know. If you still care. Click here.

JON RAPPOPORT
www.nomorefakenews.com

Medical Fraud and the Mind – Body Connection

Medical fraud is a subject that keeps on giving. Whenever it looks like we’ve reach the bottom of the barrel, there is a trap-door into another barrel of muck.

Whenever I read comments from investigators who find holes in current science, I’m amused that they don’t realize the same insanity has been going on in the medical field for decades and decades and decades.

The Obamacrats who are pushing the health plan through Congress can only think about generalities. They can’t penetrate the propaganda about the vast and endless and wonderful medical system and see the VERY serious problems.

Tune in.  Progressive Radio Network http://garynull.squarespace.com/the-jon-rappoport-show/

JON RAPPOPORT
www.nomorefakenews.com
www.insolutions.info

A Reporter Responds: Arianna Huffington’s Dec. 26 Blog

A Reporter Responds: Arianna Huffington’s Dec. 26 Blog

by Jon Rappoport

December 28, 2009

Arianna Huffington points out that the president hasn’t yet broken the stranglehold insurance and drug companies have over the US healthcare market.

That was one of his promises, but now—“Christmas came a day early for health insurance and drug companies when the Senate passed a health care bill crammed with more industry-friendly gifts than Santa’s sleigh.”

Ms. Huffington’s right, of course, but the situation is a lot worse than money and goodies can make it. I refer to the suppressed statistics on medically caused deaths in the US.

The landmark study was done by Dr. Barbara Starfield (Johns Hopkins School of Public Health) and published on July 26, 2000, in the Journal of the American Association: “Is US health really the best in the world?”

Dr. Starfield’s staggering findings confirmed what some insiders already knew, but were afraid to report. Every year in the US there are:

* 12,000 deaths from unnecessary surgeries;

* 7000 deaths from medication error in hospitals;

* 20,000 deaths from other errors in hospitals;

* 80,000 deaths from infections acquired in hospitals;

* 106,000 deaths from FDA-approved correctly prescribed medicines.

The total of medically-caused deaths in the US every year is 225,000.

This makes the medical system the third leading cause of death in the US, behind heart disease and cancer.

In a recent interview I did with Dr. Starfield, she stated that no federal agency has contacted her, for purposes of consultation, in the nine years since her study was published.

Under a new national health plan, with millions more Americans covered and receiving across-the-board care, medically-caused deaths will soar to new heights.

This is the secret, and this is the crime.

A study, written by an author with impeccable credentials, and published by one of the most prestigious medical journals in the world—and the government has remained silent.

The Matrix Revealed

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

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.

FALSE SCIENCE FOR THE MASSES

DECEMBER 21, 2009.  In modern times, false science is based on the notion that “overwhelming consensus” rules.

That’s the mantra.  ALL THE EXPERTS AGREE, so how could the truth be any different?

The mantra is recited as if the scientific method really IS about experts agreeing and NOTHING ELSE.

To deconstruct this idiocy, consider, first of all, that a few leaders can always affect the outlook of the many, even in the fields of scientific research.

If the top journals align themselves with a few “experts,” then the mid-range “semi-experts” will fall into line.  If they don’t, they won’t get their papers published.

Then, we have the closely related funding game.  The researchers who get grants to carry out their studies, so they can publish those studies, must follow the party line in their conclusions; otherwise, no $$ to do further studies.

These are the hard facts of life.

For example, in March of 1987, Peter Duesberg, a world-renowned molecular biologist, managed to get a paper published on the subject of HIV.  He offered evidence to suggest that HIV didn’t cause AIDS.

From that moment on, he was hounded by the “top experts,” there was no rational debate on his points, and eventually his funding and status at UC Berkeley were greatly diminished.

By this process, scientific dissidents in many fields are weeded out and sidelined, and then power players can say, “Well, the consensus is overwhelming in the direction of our conclusions.”  Yes, but the consensus is false and artificial and distorted and manufactured.

“We killed our enemies.  Now, we can write history, and we will be the consensus.”

Early in the 20th century, there was widespread Pellagra in the American South.  This skin disease was found, in 1915, to be caused by a deficiency in niacin.  However, for 20 more years, the experts refused to consider this simple cause and cure, and persisted in trying to find the germ that was at the root of Pellagra.  The consensus was wrong.

In the 1970s, a terrible neurological affliction dubbed SMON was prevalent in Japan.  Researchers, once again, were determined to find a germ cause.  However, through the heroic efforts of a few rebels, challenging the consensus, the problem was finally pinned down to a medical drug, clioquinol, manufactured by Ciba-Geigy.  A landmark court case settled the issue.

People insist that manmade global warming is threatening the planet.  Why?  Well, THE EXPERTS AGREE.  Therefore, it must be so. 

The reliance on consensus carried the day during the scourge of Pellagra and SMON, too, and many gullible people rode along on that tide, until the truth emerged.  They, too, said THE EXPERTS AGREE—until the experts were shown to be wrong.

In 2003, amid much media fanfare, a new disease was announced: SARS.  It was coming out of Asia, to the West, and it could decimate populations.  Medical researchers at 11 World Health Organization labs, linked by a closed Internet connection, worked furiously and came up with the cause: a so-called coronavirus.  No other labs were allowed to participate in this work.  In other words, a consensus was developed within a small circle.

But because the World Health Organization was in charge, the coronavirus finding was given top billing.

A few months later, it was discovered that many patients in Canada being diagnosed with SARS had no trace of this virus in their bodies. 

And finally, when all was said and done, and the hysteria died down, the official death figure, globally, for SARS was 262. 

Yet even today, there is still a consensus that SARS was a genuine epidemic.  “The experts agree.”

So there is science, and there is science for the masses.  In the latter version, manufactured consensus is all that’s required. 

Manmade global warming was, until recently, looked upon by most people as solid evidence-based science.  Now, the united front is splitting apart.  The skeletons are falling out of the closet.  The rational challenges are severe. 

All this should not come as a shock, but to most people, it does.  They have fallen under the spell of PR.  They believe it when the experts attack the skeptics as “denialists.”  They think the battle is between science and fundamentalist superstition.  But that’s one of the goals of the PR: to place all skeptics in the worst possible light.

The global-warming “experts” don’t want honest debate.  They simply want to say the debate is over and science has triumphed.  They have a kingdom to defend, and they do it by spewing generalities.

EVIDENCE IS OVERWHELMING.

EXPERTS AGREE.

WE’RE LONG PAST THE NEED FOR DISCUSSION.

THE SKEPTICS ARE POLITICALLY MOTIVATED.

IF WE DON’T TAKE ACTION NOW, WE’LL LOSE THE PLANET.

THE SKY IS FALLING.

It’s not going to work. 

JON RAPPOPORT

www.nomorefakenews.com

Consider supporting Jon’s work by doing your shopping through Jon’s Amazon link.

Tricks in the globalist bag

DECEMBER 13, 2009.  Two important channels are being carved out by international UN agencies: medical intervention and climate-change.

In the first case, industrial nations are being urged to share medical supplies, drugs, vaccines, and doctors with poor countries, in order to “stem the rolling tide of epidemics.”  But this is just the tip of the iceberg.  The real push is for these wealthy nations to fork over money to support a vast global agency that would, increasingly and permanently, “govern epidemics.”  This would include all the tactics and logistics associated with such an enterprise: travel bans; quarantines; satellite hospital clinics; the dispensing of drugs and vaccines to far-flung regions of the globe; the selection of drugs and vaccines; new labs for testing; media PR; global computer networks; constantly roving virus hunters; medical embassies in every nation on Earth.

In the second case, nations are being told they must limit carbon emissions by a significant degree, in order to save the planet from manmade warming.  The infra-structure necessary to regulate that gargantuan wealth-redistribution plan would require a virtually limitless money hole.

Aside from the economic implications, these campaigns are preludes to agreements undermining national sovereignty.  IPCC and WHO (UN agencies spearheading climate-change and epidemic handling) are trying to become de facto governments with the power to regulate the behavior of national governments.

The Matrix Revealed

On the medical front, a permanent global agency would guarantee the promotion of more and more phony pandemics.  It would have to.  Otherwise, the agency would be unable to justify its budget and its existence.

The actual science on both manmade global warming and pandemics is fraudulent.  We are witnessing an Orwellian scheme to acquire international power over populations and government.

In the background, of course, are profit-making partners: pharmaceutical companies working hand in glove with the World Health Organization, and striving “carbon billionaires” who stand ready to adapt to any scheme laid on for CO2 regulation.

President Obama is eager to advance this double-barreled agenda, from America’s side.  At this point, the only monitor on his efforts to sell the farm is his own Centers for Disease Control, a powerful agency in its own right, which wants to share medical power with WHO.

The principles of globalism were engraved in stone a long time ago.  For at least half of the 20th century, the only questions were about strategy.  We have seen global trading markets and global money coalesce—now we have medical and industrial fascism on the march.    

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 emails at www.nomorefakenews.com

AN EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW WITH Dr. Barbara Starfield: Medically Caused Death in America

by Jon Rappoport

December 9, 2009

(To join my email list, click here.)

On July 26, 2000, the US medical community received a titanic shock to the system, when one of its most respected and honored public-health experts, Dr. Barbara Starfield, revealed her findings on healthcare in America.

The landmark Starfield study, “Is US Health Really the Best in the World?,” (for pdf, here) published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, came to the following conclusions:

Every year in the US there are:

* 12,000 deaths from unnecessary surgeries;

* 7,000 deaths from medication errors in hospitals;

* 20,000 deaths from other errors in hospitals;

* 80,000 deaths from infections acquired in hospitals;

* 106,000 deaths from FDA-approved correctly prescribed medicines.

* The total of medically-caused deaths in the US every year is 225,000. That’s a total of 2.25 million medically-caused deaths in the US every decade.

* This makes the medical system the third leading cause of death in the US, behind heart disease and cancer.

The Starfield study is the most explosive revelation about modern healthcare in America ever published.  The credentials of its author and the journal in which it appeared are, within the highest medical circles, impeccable.

Yet, on the heels of Starfield’s astonishing findings, although media reporting was extensive, it soon dwindled.  No major newspaper or television network mounted an ongoing “Medicalgate” investigation.  Neither the US Department of Justice nor federal health agencies undertook prolonged remedial action.

All in all, it seemed that those parties who could have taken effective steps to correct this mind-boggling situation preferred to ignore it.

On December 6-7, 2009, I interviewed Dr. Starfield by email.

What has been the level and tenor of the response to your findings, since 2000? 

My papers on the benefits of primary care have been widely used, including in Congressional testimony and reports. However, the findings on the relatively poor health in the US have received almost no attention. The American public appears to have been hoodwinked into believing that more interventions lead to better health, and most people that I meet are completely unaware that the US does not have the ‘best health in the world’.

In the medical research community, have your medically-caused mortality statistics been debated, or have these figures been accepted, albeit with some degree of shame? 

The findings have been accepted by those who study them. There has been only one detractor, a former medical school dean, who has received a lot of attention for claiming that the US health system is the best there is and we need more of it.  He has a vested interest in medical schools and teaching hospitals (they are his constituency).  They, of course, would like an even greater share of the pie than they now have, for training more specialists.  (Of course, the problem is that we train specialists—at great public cost—who then do not practice up to their training—they spend half of their time doing work that should be done in primary care and don’t do it as well.)

Have health agencies of the federal government consulted with you on ways to mitigate the effects of the US medical system?

NO.

Since the FDA approves every medical drug given to the American people, and certifies it as safe and effective, how can that agency remain calm about the fact that these medicines are causing 106,000 deaths per year?

Even though there will always be adverse events that cannot be anticipated, the fact is that more and more unsafe drugs are being approved for use. Many people attribute that to the fact that the pharmaceutical industry is (for the past ten years or so) required to pay the FDA for reviews—which puts the FDA into a untenable position of working for the industry it is regulating. There is a large literature on this.

Aren’t your 2000 findings a severe indictment of the FDA and its standard practices?

They are an indictment of the US health care industry: insurance companies, specialty and disease-oriented medical academia, the pharmaceutical and device manufacturing industries, all of which contribute heavily to re-election campaigns of members of Congress. The problem is that we do not have a government that is free of influence of vested interests. Alas, [it] is a general problem of our society—which clearly unbalances democracy.

Can you offer an opinion about how the FDA can be so mortally wrong about so many drugs?

Yes, it cannot divest itself from vested interests. (Again, [there is] a large literature about this, mostly unrecognized by the people because the industry-supported media give it no attention.

Would it be correct to say that, when your JAMA study was published in 2000, it caused a momentary stir and was thereafter ignored by the medical community and by pharmaceutical companies?

Are you sure it was a momentary stir?  I still get at least one email a day asking for a reprint—ten years later!  The problem is that its message is obscured by those that do not want any change in the US health care system.

Do medical schools in the US, and intern/residency programs in hospitals, offer significant “primary care” physician training and education?

NO. Some of the most prestigious medical teaching institutions do not even have family physician training programs [or] family medicine departments. The federal support for teaching institutions greatly favors specialist residencies, because it is calculated on the basis of hospital beds. [Dr. Starfield has done extensive research showing that family doctors, who deliver primary care—as opposed to armies of specialists—produce better outcomes for patients.]

Are you aware of any systematic efforts, since your 2000 JAMA study was published, to remedy the main categories of medically caused deaths in the US?

No systematic efforts; however, there have been a lot of studies.  Most of them indicate higher rates [of death] than I calculated.

What was your personal reaction when you reached the conclusion that the US medical system was the third leading cause of death in the US?

I had previously done studies on international comparisons and knew that there were serious deficits in the US health care system, most notably in lack of universal coverage and a very poor primary care infrastructure. So I wasn’t surprised.

Has anyone from the FDA, since 2000, contacted you about the statistical findings in your JAMA paper?

NO. Please remember that the problem is not only that some drugs are dangerous but that many drugs are overused or inappropriately used.  The US public does not seem to recognize that inappropriate care is dangerous—more does not mean better.  The problem is NOT mainly with the FDA but with population expectations.

… Some drugs are downright dangerous; they may be prescribed according to regulations but they are dangerous.

Concerning the national health plan before Congress—if the bill is passed, and it is business as usual after that, and medical care continues to be delivered in the same fashion, isn’t it logical to assume that the 225,000 deaths per year will rise?

Probably—but the balance is not clear. Certainly, those who are not insured now and will get help with financing will probably be marginally better off overall.

Did your 2000 JAMA study sail through peer review, or was there some opposition to publishing it?

It was rejected by the first journal that I sent it to, on the grounds that ‘it would not be interesting to readers’!

Do the 106,000 deaths from medical drugs only involve drugs prescribed to patients in hospitals, or does this statistic also cover people prescribed drugs who are not in-patients in hospitals?

I tried to include everything in my estimates.  Since the commentary was written, many more dangerous drugs have been added to the marketplace.

106,000 people die as a result of CORRECTLY prescribed medicines.  I believe that was your point in your 2000 study.  Overuse of a drug or inappropriate use of a drug would not fall under the category of “correctly prescribed.”  Therefore, people who die after “overuse” or “inappropriate use” would be IN ADDITION TO the 106,000 and would fall into another or other categories.    

‘Appropriate’ means that it is not counter to regulations.  That does not mean that the drugs do not have adverse effects.

Some comments from the interviewer:

I’m aware there are reports, outside the mainstream, which conclude far more than 225,000 people in the US die every year as a result of medical treatment.  For example, see the work of Carolyn Dean, Trueman Tuck, Gary Null, Martin Feldman, Debora Rasio, Dorothy Smith.

This interview with Dr. Starfield reveals that, even when an author has unassailable credentials within the medical-research establishment, the findings can result in no changes made to the system.

Yes, many persons and organizations within the medical system contribute to the annual death totals of patients, and media silence and public ignorance are certainly major factors, but the FDA is the assigned gatekeeper, when it comes to the safety of medical drugs.  The buck stops there.  If those drugs the FDA is certifying as safe are killing, like clockwork, 106,000 people a year, the Agency must be held accountable.  The American people must understand that.

As for the other 119,000 people killed every year as a result of hospital treatment, this horror has to be laid at the doors of those institutions.  Further, to the degree that hospitals are regulated and financed by state and federal governments, the relevant health agencies assume culpability.

It is astounding, as well, that the US Department of Justice has failed to weigh in on Starfield’s findings.  If 225,000 medically caused deaths per year is not a crime by the Dept. of Justice’s standards, then what is?

To my knowledge, not one person in America has been fired from a job or even censured as result of these medically caused deaths.

Dr. Starfield’s findings have been available for nine years.  She has changed the perception of the medical landscape forever.  In a half-sane nation, she would be accorded a degree of recognition that would, by comparison, make the considerable list of her awards pale.  And significant and swift action would have been taken to punish the perpetrators of these crimes and reform the system from its foundations.

In these times, medical schools continue turning out a preponderance of specialists who then devote themselves to promoting the complexities of human illness and massive drug treatment.  Whatever the shortcomings of family doctors, their tradition speaks to less treatment, more common sense, and a proper reliance on the immune systems of patients.

The pharmaceutical giants stand back and carve up the populace into “promising markets.”  They seek new disease labels and new profits from more and more toxic drugs.  They do whatever they can—legally or illegally—to influence doctors in their prescribing habits.  Some drug studies which show negative results are buried.  FDA panels are filled with doctors who have drug-company ties.  Legislators are incessantly lobbied and supported with pharma campaign monies.

Nutrition, the cornerstone of good health, is ignored or devalued by most physicians.  Meanwhile, the FDA continues to attack nutritional supplements, even though the overall safety record of these nutrients is good, whereas, once again, the medical drugs the FDA certifies as safe are killing 106,000 Americans per year.

Physicians are trained to pay exclusive homage to peer-reviewed published drug studies.  These doctors unfailingly ignore the fact that, if medical drugs are killing a million Americans per decade, the studies on which those drugs are based must be fraudulent or, at the very least, massively incompetent.  In other words, the whole literature is suspect, unreliable, and impenetrable.

At the same time, without evidence, doctors off-handedly tout their work with great confidence.  Some years ago, a resident at a major New York hospital harangued me about the primacy of controlled studies.  She boasted, in passing, that the hospital’s heart-bypass surgery team was considered the best in the city, and one of the best in the country.  I asked her for a reference.  Was her statement a combination of folk-wisdom and rumor, or was there a proper study that confirmed her opinion?  A bit chagrined, she admitted it was hearsay.  I was sure she would repeat her tune, however, many times.

Claiming evidence where there is none, and denying the evidence that the medical system does great harm, are apparently part of the weave of the modern Hippocratic Oath.

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 emails here.

The Big Medical Con Game: Teleseminar Dec 7th

The Big Medical Con Game: Teleseminar Dec 7th

by Jon Rappoport

December 4, 2009

This is a telephone seminar. After you sign up, you’ll receive an email giving you the phone number to call, and your personal passcode, to get into the seminar.

We’re keeping the cost as low as we can. Your $15 helps keep Jon’s work going, and it also means you’ll receive an mp3 of the event—so even if you can’t make the live call, you’ll receive the mp3 (4-5 days after the seminar).

Here is a note from Jon:

Lately, my work as escalated on the investigative front. I’ve been doing a number of radio shows and webcasts. The phony Swine Flu pandemic has focused millions of people on the practice of modern medicine.

So in this seminar, I’m going to explore central elements of the medical con game and cover new ground. Psychiatric drugs, more on vaccines, how medical PR and propaganda work, the true epidemic of medical-research fraud, and the granddaddy of all pharmaceutical cartels, the infamous Nazi IG Farben and its medical allies.

I’ll be expanding the time of the seminar to 90 minutes, and I’ll take as many of your questions as I can.

In these times, it’s absolutely necessary that we understand the true agendas of the medical complex and its deceptions and cons.

I hope you’ll be there, and I hope you’ll spread the word to your friends. Join me as I lay bare the medical machine.

And now, here is the first backgrounder for the seminar.

THE MEDICAL CON

The history of emergency, crisis, acute trauma medicine is the history of applying one cruel measure of success or failure: did the patient live or die?

There was no hiding the result. It was there for all to see.

The soldier lying wounded on the battlefield, the crash victim extracted from his car, the rescued half-frozen mountain climber—do the doctors put them back together, or do the patients fail to make it?

Over time, this branch of medicine achieved spectacular results. Yes, even ER heroics can be overworked and drive the patient into chronic disability, but all in all, we would have to say the field of emergency medical practice has been a major success.

The Big Con enters the scene when doctors pretend that such achievements can be assumed and inferred over the whole range of practice: all surgeries, drug therapy, treatment of chronic diseases, so-called mental disorders.

But through favoritism, partnerships with governments, and other monopolistic practices, modern medicine has been able to blur the standards of success or failure.

“We are the Only Ones. If we save a patient, if the patient succumbs, if the patient is injured by our work—it doesn’t matter, because no one in the world would be able to do better. Every treatment we apply is the best that science can offer at the moment. Therefore, we’re exempt from blame.”

Modern medicine has awesome PR capability. It has used that force to disseminate the notion that its successes in the ER are mirrored in all other branches of its work. And, of course, this is the big lie.

Because a doctor can repair a broken leg, does this mean he can wield a dangerous drug like Ritalin and better the life of a child who is bored in the classroom? Because the doctor can break up a blood clot that is threatening to kill a patient in the next hour, does that mean he can help a woman whose breast tumor would never progress to a dangerous stage—by removing both of her breasts?

Because the doctor can temporarily beat down an inflammation that is cutting off vital organ function, does that mean he can assist an immune-deficient patient by giving him a drug that nullifies the ability of immune cells to reproduce?

Because the doctor can stay an infection that has spiraled out of control, does that mean he can erase a prolonged state of depression by prescribing a medicine that unpredictably scrambles brain neurotransmitter processes?

These are questions that make no sense to most doctors. Relying on unscientific, slanted, fraudulent, incompetent studies, doctors will assert that their treatments for hundreds of conditions represent the frontier of what humans are able to do to help one another.

In these treatments, all real standards of success and failure are missing. There is no yardstick. There is only self-inflating propaganda.

When the practice of healing loses its way, and refuses to confess its lies, one result is the telling of bigger and more damaging lies.

The whole efficacy testing of vaccines relies on the faulty premise that the production of antibodies is the only goal. If a new vaccine can induce antibodies, it is deemed an unqualified success. However, in the last 25 years, antibody tests used to diagnose diseases have gained a new ascendance. If a patient is found to have antibodies to a particular disease-germ, he can be said to be infected by that disease.

On the one hand, production of antibodies via a vaccine is a sign of immunity to a disease-germ. But discovering those same antibodies during a diagnostic test is taken to mean the patient is ill or will become ill.

Admitting this gross contradiction would be akin to prosecutors, all over country, saying the last 20 years of their criminal cases have been wholly tainted by invented lab work, whose sole purpose was gaining convictions in court.

Once upon a time, it was well understood that the mere detection of a germ in the patient was insufficient for a disease diagnosis. It was necessary to establish that an army of millions of these germs was active in the body. Now, that is overturned. Again, the standard has been blurred and decimated. This sea change has paved the way for the declaration of epidemics where no epidemics exist. It has emboldened and empowered public health agencies all over the world to force vaccines and medicines on populations.

Following the money is easy. Drug companies accrue enormous profits from these escalating medical lies. In fact, the companies work hand in glove with medical researchers to foster the various cons.

In the immunization arena, no true controlled trials of new vaccines are carried out. There are no long-term studies which compare the outcomes in matched groups, where one group receives a vaccine and the other group does not. By “matched,” I mean equivalent nutritional status, equivalent environmental (toxic burden) status, equivalent immune-function, equivalent medical history.

The absence of such trials—and the accompanying lies about “scientific veracity”—benefits the vaccine manufacturers, who can claim efficacy and safety for their products without the application of a true standard of success or failure.

When a child who has just received a DPT shot begins to scream and suddenly spikes with a high fever and experiences seizures and subsequent brain damage, you are seeing the result of these lies and the intentional eradication of all standards.

You’re seeing how cold and vicious the practice of medicine can be, and how far it can depart from the simple notion of saving a human being’s life when he is lying on a battlefield or a highway.

The Matrix Revealed

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

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.

Cancer: Fraud Across the Board

Cancer: Fraud Across the Board

by Jon Rappoport

November 27, 2009

Let’s start with this…

ScienceDaily (May 13, 2009), 29 Percent Of Cancer Studies Report Conflict Of Interest:

Nearly one-third of cancer research published in high-impact journals disclosed a conflict of interest, according to a new study from researchers at the University of Michigan Comprehensive Cancer Center.

The most frequent type of conflict was industry funding of the study, which was seen in 17 percent of papers. Twelve percent of papers had a study author who was an industry employee. Randomized trials with reported conflicts of interest were more likely to have positive findings.

“Given the frequency we observed for conflicts of interest and the fact that conflicts were associated with study outcomes, I would suggest that merely disclosing conflicts is probably not enough. It’s becoming increasingly clear that we need to look more at how we can disentangle cancer research from industry ties,” says study author Reshma Jagsi, M.D., D.Phil., assistant professor of radiation oncology at the U-M Medical School.

The researchers looked at 1,534 cancer research studies published in prominent journals. Results of this current study appear online in the journal Cancer.

“A serious concern is individuals with conflicts of interest will either consciously or unconsciously be biased in their analyses. As researchers, we have an obligation to treat the data objectively and in an unbiased fashion. There may be some relationships that compromise a researcher’s ability to do that,” Jagsi says.

For example, she says, researchers might design industry-funded studies in a way that’s more likely to produce favorable results. They might also be more likely to publish positive outcomes than negative outcomes…

Methodology: The researchers looked at all original clinical cancer research published in five top oncology journals and three top general medical journals in 2006. The journals included were the New England Journal of Medicine, the Journal of the American Medical Association, Lancet, the Journal of Clinical Oncology, the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Lancet Oncology, Clinical Cancer Research and Cancer…

(end Science Daily clip)

So the researchers are bent. They are bent in the direction of their “non-scientific associations” and connections.

Then we have this, from Boston.com:

Flaws are found in validating medical studies

Many see need to overhaul standards for peer review

By Michael Kranish, Globe Staff | August 15, 2005

WASHINGTON — …after a study that sent reverberations through the medical profession by finding that almost one-third of top research articles have been either contradicted or seriously questioned, some specialists are calling for radical changes in the system.

…Rennie’s journal published the study, which said that subsequent research had found that almost one-third of the top papers that appeared in top journals over a 13-year period from 1990 to 2003, had been either contradicted or found to have potentially exaggerated results. All the articles had undergone vigorous peer review, leading to questions about whether problems should have been caught by reviewers.

…Under the system of peer review, a researcher submits findings to a journal for publication. Along with a review by editors, the article is sent to several specialists in the field.

These reviewers are not paid for their time, their names are usually not published, and their comments usually remain secret. They are usually not allowed to contact the researchers directly to ask questions, and they do not try to replicate the research.

The system has often had successes; many journal editors say peer review has saved countless prominent scientists from publishing seriously flawed work, and has spared the public from following mistaken medical advice.

But peer review also lacks consistent standards. Procedures vary among the world’s 10,000 or so journals. A peer reviewer often spends about four hours reviewing research that may have taken months or years to complete, but the amount of time spent on a review and the expertise of the reviewer can differ greatly, especially at lesser-known journals.

“It has been bandied about as a sort of ‘Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval’,” said Marcia Angell, former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine. “It is only as good as the peer reviewers and editors.”

…Ioannidis, the author of the study on flawed research (“Why Most Published Research Findings Are False”), said he had examined articles from top journals published from 1990 to 2003, and had found that 16 percent of those studies were later contradicted, and that another 16 percent were not found to have had as strong a result in subsequent research.

…PLOS Medicine also encourages peer reviewers to reveal their identity, but it does not demand it.

The journal’s senior editor, Barbara Cohen, said some reviewers want anonymity out of concern about retribution, which she described as “you trashed my paper at Nature, now I’m trashing yours at Science,” referring to two leading journals.

Cohen also said she is sympathetic to younger peer reviewers who fear that providing criticism of a senior person in the field will hurt their career. This is a common complaint among reviewers.

…Armstrong, the professor who has read dozens of studies on peer review, cited numerous embarrassing incidents that he said had called the peer review process into question.

In one study, for example, researchers submitted a plagiarized paper to 110 journals, but only two publications recognized the problem.

In another study, researchers examined 18 papers that had been published in peer-reviewed journals by a person who later admitted scientific fraud; they found that 16 of the papers had an average of 12 errors each.

One such error was that “the father in one family had his first child at age eight and the next at age nine,” Armstrong wrote.

(end Boston.com clip)

But who in the fold of worshipers of medical authority want to hear such things? Much better to pretend all is well. And that is pretty much what the leading medical journals do. They make a few changes now and then, but mostly they glide along burnishing their own reputations and admiring themselves in the mirror.

For us, though, this kind of news is different.

The Matrix Revealed

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

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.

A reporter responds: Suzanne Somers’ June 4th blog

A reporter responds: Suzanne Somers’ June 4th blog

by Jon Rappoport

June 5, 2009

OH, I DON’T KNOW ABOUT THAT. IT COULD BE DANGEROUS.

WATCH OUT. SHE’S DANGEROUS.

THAT INFORMATION IS NOT ONLY FALSE, IT’S DANGEROUS.

ALLOWING HER TO SAY THESE THINGS IS DANGEROUS.

Ms. Somers begins her blog entry, “Two Scariest Women on the Planet–Oprah and Suzanne,” with this:

“Have you seen this week’s Newsweek magazine? Here we go again! They have a new article on how Oprah is giving ‘dangerous’ advice by having uninformed guests give false information to the public.” (more rebuttal on the Newsweek article here)

Ms. Somers is referring to information about bio-identical hormones–a subject that has raised considerable controversy.

For the last 30 years, I’ve seen that “dangerous information” tag thrown around. It’s usually employed against scientists or reporters who question mainstream consensus, who don’t line up with authorities on a scientific or medical topic—such as bio-identical hormones. In this case, the label is being applied to Oprah and Somers.

People who control large amounts of official power hurl the “dangerous” tag, to try to maintain their positions as the top experts in a given field.

My interest is in heading off a rising threat to free speech. You see, “dangerous,” used as a label, is close to an accusation that a crime is being committed. It’s an attempt to derail the First Amendment.

In this age of science, there are surprising numbers of people who believe that, once a proof of something has been offered, there should be no more conversation. The deal is closed.

These terminally confused people don’t understand what free speech is.

Then, we have the obvious factor of false proofs. There are scientists who want to declare “case closed,” when they submit their papers to journals. They want immediate and universal acceptance. They want to stifle debate about their findings.

There are many examples where proofs are incomplete, false, or fraudulent. Stifling free speech about the proof makes the matter worse.

Finally, there is a rising tide of opinion in this country that “ordinary people” need to be protected from any information that could possibly lead them to make harmful choices. This is a slippery slope, to say the least. And there is no perfect solution. People who are gullible must disabuse themselves of the tendency.

Of course, I understand there are reasonable laws against malicious fraud. But if officials aren’t willing to pursue a legal case, then those who could be bamboozled need to wake up.

I happen to believe bio-identical hormones are useful. But that’s beside the point here. To accuse Somers or Oprah of being dangerous is an obvious clue: the detractors don’t want to engage in a fair and complete debate of the relevant issues. They want to defame and discredit, and make the public afraid. They want to do this and only this. They want to protect their own turf.

Somers and Oprah, like everyone else, have the right of free speech. They also, in this case, have information. That information, if it’s going to be challenged, should be examined through reasonable debate. That’s not about to happen. Somers and Oprah are willing to bring scientists forward on their own behalf, but the experts aren’t ready. There’s too much to lose. So they just say “it’s dangerous,” and they assume a guise of wanting to protect everyone—from freedom.

This country doesn’t work that way.

There are arrogant high-IQ idiots who think it does, but they’re wrong.

The Matrix Revealed

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

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.