by Jon Rappoport
May 9, 2017
The drug was approved, by the FDA, for public use in 1993, to treat schizophrenia, a “mental disorder” for which there is no defining diagnostic test. No blood test, no saliva test, no brain scan, no genetic assay.
In 2006, the FDA approved Risperdal to treat “irritability” in autistic children. There is no defining diagnostic test for autism. The neurological damage involved can come from any cause—especially vaccines. But of course, all public health agencies deny this fact.
In 2007, the FDA approved Risperdal to treat bipolar disorder in children between the ages of 10 and 17. Bipolar is another “mental disorder” for which there is no defining diagnostic test.
Risperdal was approved to treat three conditions, which are diagnosed by casually observing a patient’s behavior and comparing it to a menu of behaviors called schizophrenia, bipolar, and autism.
If the drug had no adverse effects, that would be one thing; but it has devastating effects. Tardive dyskinesia, a permanent “movement disorder” that signals brain damage. Suicide. Gynecomastia—boys grow female breasts.
Before I go on, NOTE: Rapid withdrawing from psychiatric drugs can have disastrous effects. See Dr. Peter Breggin on this subject.
Now let’s get to the lawsuits against Johnson & Johnson, Risperdal’s manufacturer:
2012: J&J fined $1.2 billion for hiding adverse effects of the drug. Decision overturned on appeal.
2012: J&J paid out $181 million for actively promoting off-label uses for Risperdal. Doctors are permitted to prescribe a drug for unapproved uses, but drug companies cannot legally promote or urge doctors to wander into that off-label territory.
2015-2016: There are at least 1500 suits against J&J for causing boys to grow female breasts. Thus far, three verdicts have been decided in favor of the boys, for $1.75 million, $2.5 million, and $70 million.
The story of Risperdal expands and explodes when we consider the marketing effort behind it. Basically, the hustle involved claims that the drug could be used to treat a wide array of so-called disorders in children.
I will now quote extensively from a classic article written at madinamerica.com, by Paula J Caplan, PhD. The title of her article (10/30/2015) is “Diagnosisgate: A Major Media Blackout Mystery”:
“Until their identities are widely exposed, and their motives are known, the full story of the [Risperdal] harm will never be known. It is astonishing that despite six stories in the major media – including a recent, groundbreaking Huffington Post series – and the filing of numerous lawsuits, the names and conduct of the culprits have consistently been omitted.”
“The story that has been called ‘Diagnosisgate’ starts in 1995, when the man widely considered the world’s most important psychiatrist split a payoff of nearly one million dollars with two colleagues in exchange for doing two patently unethical and illegal things that created the groundwork for a major drug company to market falsely one of the most dangerous psychoactive drugs [Risperdal].”
“Part one: In return for almost half a million dollars, they ignored what was known about the drug [Risperdal] in order to manufacture a practice guideline holding up that drug as the best drug among two whole classes of related drugs for treating people who were classified as ‘schizophrenic,’ the other drugs being marketed by other drug companies. This created what is widely considered the ‘standard of care,’ the treatment that therapists are supposed to follow and that they can use in the knowledge that they are well protected from lawsuits if they follow it and their patients are harmed. The very foundation of the guideline, that it was about ‘Schizophrenia,’ is illegitimate, because – though this will surprise many people – that category has been shown to be unscientifically created and indeed has been called a wastebasket for a wide variety of feelings and behavior, many of which are caused by psychiatric drugs.”
“Part two: After the triumvirate received a bonus of $65,000 for creating the guideline [‘treat schizophrenia with Risperdal’] speedily, their top psychiatrist wrote to the same drug company, announcing that the three had constituted themselves as an entity that was prepared, in return for about another half million dollars, to create a marketing plan for the drug. The details included finding ‘key opinion leaders’ (KOLs), who were prominent professionals in powerful positions – such as heads of state mental health or prison systems – and having them teach the Continuing Education courses that professionals are required to take, the ultimate message of those courses being that that particular drug [Risperdal] was the best one to prescribe. Another section of their marketing plan was to have a great many articles published in what are considered scientific or medical journals, all concluding that that drug was effective and should be prescribed.”
“It is not clear whether the three psychiatrists were directly involved in choosing the content of the journal articles, but the plan to produce such articles was carried out, leading to publication of pieces recommending use of the drug [Risperdal] to treat not only Schizophrenia but also Childhood Onset Schizophrenia, Schizo-affective Disorder, Bipolar Disorder in Children and Adults, Mania, Autism, Pervasive Developmental Disorder other than Autism, Conduct Disorder, Oppositional Defiant Disorder, Psychosis, Aggression Agitation, Dementia, below average IQ, and disruptive behavior. Thus, a staggering array of psychiatric categories – many of which are as scientifically sketchy as Schizophrenia – was used to promote the drug. This massive marketing campaign proceeded despite the many major negative effects of Risperdal, including drowsiness, dizziness, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, constipation, heartburn, dry mouth, increased saliva production, increased appetite, weight gain, stomach pain, anxiety, agitation, restlessness, difficulty falling asleep or staying asleep, decreased sexual interest or ability, vision problems, muscle or joint pain, dry or discolored skin, difficulty urinating, muscle stiffness, confusion, fast or irregular pulse, sweating, unusual and uncontrollable movements of face or body, faintness, seizures, Parkinsonian symptoms such as slow movements or shuffling walk, rash, hives, itching, difficulty breathing or swallowing, gynecomastia in male children, painful erection of penis lasting for hours…and death.”
“Who are the characters in this mystery? Janssen Pharmaceuticals, a division of Johnson & Johnson, is the drug company, and Risperdal is the drug in question. The marketing term for Risperdal and similar drugs is ‘anti-psychotic,’ but the accurate term is ‘neuroleptic,’ reflecting the mechanism of suppressing the brain’s activity as a powerful tranquilizer. Dr. David Rothman, who wrote the expert witness report for one of the lawsuits about the marketing of Risperdal, revealed after scrupulous examination of vast numbers of internal emails between Janssen staff and the representative of the three psychiatrists, is a specialist in medical ethics and the Bernard Schoenberg Professor of Social Medicine at Columbia College of Physicians and Surgeons, the medical school of Columbia University. He is also director of the Center for the Study of Science and Medicine at Columbia and at the time of writing his expert witness report was president of the Institute on Medicine as a Profession. Rothman stated in his report that the [treatment] guidelines [for Risperdal] were constructed ‘in disregard of professional medical ethics and principles of conflict of interest,’ and that they ‘subverted scientific integrity, appearing to be a purely scientific venture when it was at its core, a marketing venture for Risperdal’.”
“The psychiatrist who spearheaded these [Risperdal marketing] efforts is Dr. Allen Frances, who the year before teaming with Janssen oversaw the publication of the fourth volume of the ‘Bible’ of hundreds of categories of mental illness, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, sales of which topped $100 million as a result of marketing by the lobby group called the American Psychiatric Association, which published it. By virtue of this position, he has been called the world’s most important psychiatrist. At the time, he was also Chair of the Department of Psychiatry at Duke University. The two psychiatrists who with Frances shared the nearly $1 million in payments from Janssen are Dr. John P. Docherty, who was then Professor and Vice Chairman of Psychiatry at Cornell University at the time, and Dr. David A. Kahn, who was Associate Clinical Professor of Psychiatry at Columbia University.”
“Now back to the mystery: Despite five individual stories in major media outlets in 2011, 2012, and 2014 about two huge Risperdal court cases filed by the state of Texas and joined by many other states, neither a single writer of any of these stories nor even the papers filed for the court cases named Frances, Docherty, or Kahn or described the fundamental roles played by their Practice Guideline and their marketing plan in the scandal. The mystery is deepened, because the authors of the media stories and the court documents did name and describe the roles of some of the KOLs [key opinion leaders], who assuredly were guilty of unethical conduct but whose participation was conceived of by Frances and his colleagues. And some of those who reaped huge financial profits from Risperdal’s false marketing – most notably Harvard University’s Dr. Joseph Biederman, who created an empire based on claims that ‘Bipolar Disorder in Children’ had been woefully underdiagnosed and untreated – have been royally outed for the enormous sums they earned. But even respected investigative journalist Steve Brill, who recently completed a unique, 15-part story of the Risperdal scandal for Huffington Post, and who described in detail many of its players and some of the patients who suffered terrible harm from the drug and who elegantly described the way that Janssen covered up data about some of the harm, left out the essential roles the Frances triumvirate played. Activist Vera Sharav of the Alliance for Human Research Protection published an online article about the Rothman Report and included the names of Frances and those two colleagues, her article was apparently picked up by only two or three bloggers and none of the major media reporters who read what she posts.”
There is more. Much more. I suggest you read Caplan’s entire article. In a half-sane world, she would have been awarded the highest possible honors for her work.
Risperdal. The long and winding trail. The severe damage. The hustle, the con. The crimes.
The lack of criminal prosecutions.
Brought to you by high authorities in the psychiatric profession and their allies.
A public revolt against the drugs and the pushers is necessary to stem the tide of poisoning.
(Note: for the links to the sources for this story, click here.)
by Jon Rappoport
May 4, 2017
The US press is aware that medically caused death is the third leading cause of death in America. But nothing happens in their elite corner of the “information age.”
For years, I’ve been pointing out that the medical apparatus is best-protected structure in the US and the world.
One piece of evidence for that statement: we haven’t had, symbolically speaking, a medical Edward Snowden. Indeed, if you go to WikiLeaks or some other source that routinely exposes leaks, you’ll be hard pressed to find anything substantial about the inner workings of what I call the medical cartel.
And when I say inner workings, I mean memos, emails, and other documents that irrevocably reveal:
* How medical studies are routinely twisted and cooked to achieve a predetermined outcome in contradiction to the facts;
* How virus-hunters casually claim to have discovered “the virus” that causes a disease, when they have not followed standard procedure, and are merely making insupportable and self-serving assumptions;
* How researchers ignore evidence that a “new disease” is indistinguishable from an old disease that has been on the scene for decades or even longer; there is money in new diseases;
* How medical drugs are having grave toxic effects on patients and delivering no visible results;
* How government health officials are conspiring with drug companies to bring medicines to market, despite the fact that there is every reason to assume the drugs are worthless and destructive;
* How public health agencies, researchers, and pharmaceutical companies cover up the widespread harm vaccines are causing;
* How fake epidemics are launched to convince the public that they must follow prescribed vaccination schedules.
These are just a few of the many issues we would expect an insider to expose in blowing the whistle. We would expect to see these issues (crimes) revealed in numerous and detailed and irrefutable paper trails.
What the CDC whistleblower, William Thompson, exposed in 2014 (see the film Vaxxed) mainly concerned one study that falsely exonerated one vaccine (the MMR) from a role in causing autism. That is just the tip of the iceberg.
Over the years, I’ve gone after the medical cartel from many angles. There is a surprising amount of open-source material. I have also interviewed medical “dissidents,” doctors who have left the fold and are ready to talk. And using straightforward logic, I’ve discovered deep flaws in spurious medical arguments, and those flaws have led to deeper flaws and lies.
I could easily do a week-long course for honest and independent medical reporters on what I’ve found and how I’ve found it. Connecting the dots often requires a prior knowledge of basic fallacies in the medical framework of “knowledge.”
I have never encountered a medical insider who had access to miles and miles of damning data and was prepared to release it to the world.
Understand: I’m NOT talking about practicing physicians who are willing to talk about medical lies. I’m talking about people who are buried deep in the heart of the pharmaceutical/government agency/research establishment, who are ready to step forward with documents that turn the establishment upside down, as a matter of duty to their various oaths.
This absence of deep insiders speaks to the wall that has been built around the medical cartel. We’re not just talking about insiders’ fear of going public. We’re talking about more. For example, the refusal of major media to cover deep revelations that threaten to torpedo the whole medical structure. A potential whistleblower pauses for thought in the face of that. He could risk everything, and then—silence from the press. No “Snowden coverage.” There would be unanimous press attacks on his person, accusations that the documents are forged or inconclusive, and he is mentally unbalanced. Accusations that he is preventing people from believing in a system that saves lives every day. And so on and so forth.
But that isn’t the end of it. The wall around the medical cartel is, in its origin, a Rockefeller wall. Modern medicine is a Rockefeller production, jump-started in the early 20th century with the famous Flexner Report. On the basis of the Report, medical systems devoted to discovering and treating disease were gradually transformed into a machine that routinely kills 225,000 Americans a year—and that is a conservative estimate.
Rockefeller influence is no small thing.
The march to include every human on the planet under the umbrella of modern diagnosis and treatment is relentless. It is part and parcel of an agenda to weaken, debilitate, confuse, control, and destroy populations. I do not make that statement lightly.
I have shown, in past investigations, that medical-cartel players are surely aware of the damaging effects of their drugs, and yet, for decades, they have stood by and done nothing. The profit motive is one thing; but this is, at the least, indifference to human suffering and death. You could call it reckless endangerment, negligent homicide, but these are euphemisms for assault with deadly weapons (the drugs) and murder.
You could say the reason medical insiders do not step forward and reveal key data is fear for their own lives; but this is true of whistleblowers in other professions who do step forward.
Suppose Edward Snowden, considering a plan to obtain and leak NSA data, felt strongly that the leaks would have no effect, that his revelations would be blacked out by the mainstream press, that no mainstream reporters would take his material and publish it?
Suppose there was no Glenn Greenwald to come to Snowden’s aid? Suppose the NSA had such a powerful propaganda arm that the public was utterly convinced the Agency was an angel with wings and was saving countless lives through its technology? Suppose, the public believed every act of NSA spying was comparable to doctors in an emergency room putting an accident victim back together after a car crash?
Snowden would have paused for thought. He would have wondered deeply about whether his leaks would have any effect at all.
Let me give you an example. For years, I have been writing articles about medically caused death in America. One of the key studies I’ve cited is decidedly mainstream. It was published on July 26, 2000, in the Journal of the American Medical Association. The author was Dr. Barbara Starfield, a revered and honored public health expert at the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health.Starfield concluded that the US medical system kills 225,000 Americans a year.
That would extrapolate to 2.25 MILLION deaths per decade.
Aside from a brief flurry of mainstream press articles that followed Dr. Starfield’s publication, in 2000, the press has been silent. My articles, which have been published at my site and other independent sites, have garnered no mainstream attention. Zero.
I’m not complaining. I’m merely pointing out the degree of mainstream censorship. The medical cartel has great influence.
A medical Edward Snowden, observing the media landscape, would have every reason to pause and consider his options. Why would he risk his reputation, his job, his paycheck, his future, his life, if the cartel he is exposing is so well protected that nothing would come of his bravery?
This is one reason why I write articles about the expanding power and influence of independent media. The day may come, and soon, when a medical Edward Snowden realizes he doesn’t have to find an editor at the New York Times who will look at his treasure trove of data and consider publishing it. Instead, he can pass along that data to any one of a hundred independent media operations and strike gold.
Or he can simply dump all the data on to a site he himself has created, comfortable in the knowledge that these same independent media sources will pick up the data, analyze it, and launch an unstoppable attack on the medical cartel.
Not one day’s coverage. A month, a year of coverage.
Operation Relentless Medical.
Then, the blind spot obscuring medical crimes will recede and vanish.
The public will no longer feel queasy about these revelations; the public will not feel they are witnessing a despicable attack on a wonderful messiah who has come to save the planet.
Eventually, the public will be able to make the distinction between emergency/crisis medicine, where competent and careful doctors (not sloppy and ignorant doctors) can save the lives of people who are lying on streets, after car wrecks, who need to be put back together—the public will be able to separate that from long-term fake medicine, where people are falsely diagnosed and drowned in toxic drugs which create a whole array of new symptoms which are then criminally diagnosed as new medical conditions, leading to the prescription of even more toxic drugs…all the way to the grave.
The public will understand how unnecessary and dangerous surgeries, and unnecessary and poisonous vaccines, are being foisted on them and those they love.
The public will understand. And will rise up.
This is not a pipe dream, if independent media continue to expand, and if they realize revelations of deep medical crimes are at least as important as exposures about the military industrial complex or the spying systems of national governments, or corporate pollution, or high-level money manipulation.
True medical insiders will step forward and reveal the secrets of the Temple.
I assure you, if we are alert, we are far more important and effective than “they” are.
A new day has dawned.
The sun is coming up.
By Dr. Mercola
If you or someone you know is hooked on prescription drugs such as Oxycontin and Vicodin, or street drugs like heroin, you’ll connect with “Chasing the Dragon,” a raw 2016 documentary about the horrors of drug addiction.
Produced by the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the film features ordinary Americans sharing personal stories of danger and destruction that characterized their lives prior to recovery from hard-core drug addiction.
Because the documentary is filled with harsh language and disturbing images, parental discretion is advised.
In 2015, 52,404 Americans died from drug overdoses; 33,091 of them involved an opioid and nearly one third of them, 15,281, were by prescription.1,2,3 Meanwhile, kidney disease, listed as the 9th leading cause of death on the CDC’s top 10 list, killed 48,146.4
The CDC does not include drug overdoses on this list, but if you did, drug overdoses (63 percent of which are opioids), would replace kidney disease as the 9th leading cause of death as of 2015.
Many of those featured in “Chasing the Dragon” are regular people from good homes and loving families. The one characteristic they had in common while using was a feeling of powerlessness to escape the spiraling cycle of drug use and abuse that dominated every moment of their lives.
One recovering addict, a woman named Melissa, had this to say about her drug use: “It became my full-time job. The needle was my boss — a very demanding boss.”
To prevent you or someone you love from becoming addicted to prescription painkillers, I’d like to take a closer look at opioid abuse and offer several healthy alternatives to help you manage pain.
How Bad Is Prescription Drug Abuse in the US?
A 2015 study5 suggested 1 in 4 Americans who use opioid painkillers become addicted to them. Despite the drugs’ high risk of addiction, a 2016 NPR health poll6indicated less than one-third of people said they questioned or refused their doctor’s prescription for opioids.
Dr. Leana Wen, emergency physician and health commissioner for the city of Baltimore, recommends you discuss with your doctor any concerns you may have about receiving a prescription for narcotics.
Due to their highly addictive potential, it’s important, she says, to ensure such drugs are your best and only option:7
“Ask why. Often other alternatives, like not [taking] anything at all, taking an ibuprofen or Tylenol, physical therapy or something else can be effective. Asking ‘why’ is something every patient and provider should do.”
Wen’s concerns are well placed. According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC),8 2 million Americans abused or were dependent on opioids in 2014.
On average, more than 1,000 of them land in emergency rooms every day as the result of abuse or misuse of prescription painkillers.
“There’s very little difference between oxycodone, morphine and heroin,” says Dr. Deeni Bassam, board-certified anesthesiologist, pain specialist and medical director of the Virginia-based Spine Care Center. “It’s just that one comes in a prescription bottle and another one comes in a plastic bag.”9
Bassam, whose views on drug addiction are presented throughout “Chasing the Dragon,” believes most drug dependency starts innocuously:10
“A friend offers you something at a party or at home. Or you’re having a bad day, and you need something to pick you up, so somebody hands you a pill and says, ‘Here, this will help you feel better.’ That’s how this problem always starts.”
Deborah Taylor, senior vice president and executive director of Phoenix House Mid-Atlantic, a nonprofit drug and alcohol rehabilitation organization operating in 10 U.S. states, notes:11
“The progression of addiction and the behavior that comes with it is pretty standard regardless of where you’re born, how much money you have, how old you are and your race or nationality.
You can be the smartest person in the world — and the minute that chemical hits your bloodstream, you lose control of what it does in your body. You can’t control it. Nobody can control it. I don’t care who you are. It’s not controllable.”
From Prescription Opioids to Street Drugs
The transition from prescription opioids to street drugs like heroin is a relatively easy one. When a prescription runs out, the cost to renew it becomes unmanageable or a physician refuses to renew a prescription, many addicts look for other options.
Heroin, which is often cheaper and easier to obtain than opioids, is a popular alternative. Chemically, the drugs are very similar and provide a similar kind of high. Without additives, heroin is as dangerous as Oxycontin and equally addictive. However, when dealers cut heroin with other drugs, the results can be deadly.
According to the Chicago Tribune,12 in just six days during August 2016, a staggering 174 heroin overdoses took place in Cincinnati, Ohio, a city that records, on average, 20 to 25 overdoses a week.
The Tribune13 claims the unprecedented number of overdoses was precipitated by heroin cut with carfentanil, a drug originally developed as a tranquilizer for large animals such as elephants. Cut into heroin, it was meant to deliver a stronger and more extended high, which would presumably keep users coming back to buy more.
Instead, it resulted in a string of overdoses and deaths that left law enforcement begging local citizens to not buy heroin until the ultra-potent batch was off the streets. Their advice made sense considering carfentanil is 10,000 to 100,000 times stronger than morphine.
About the overdoses, Newtown police chief Tom Synan, who is also leader of the law enforcement task force for the Hamilton County Heroin Coalition, said:14
“[Dealers] are intentionally putting in drugs they know can kill someone. The benefit for them is if the user survives it is such a powerful high for them, they tend to come back …
If one or two people die, they could care less. They know the supply is so big right now that if you lose some customers, in their eyes there’s always more in line.”
Treating Your Pain Without Drugs
Prior to leaving office in January 2017, U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) commissioner Dr. Robert Califf addressed the devastating effects of opioid misuse, suggesting it’s time to find better ways to treat pain:15
“The public-health crisis of opioid misuse, addiction and overdose is one of the most challenging issues [the FDA] has faced during my time as commissioner. Solving this issue is critical to our future.
It’s time to put more resources into the development of non-opioid, non-addictive medications to help people who are in serious, debilitating pain. We need more research to define the most effective non-medication approaches to pain, and how to deliver them …”
Califf is right; we do need better ways to manage pain. Fortunately, many natural alternatives already exist. While not everyone who takes a prescription opioid will wind up an addict, the risk is real. For that reason, I strongly recommend exhausting the many natural alternatives before you resort to an opioid pain reliever. The health risks associated with those drugs are great, and addiction and overdose happen far more often than you may realize.
It’s particularly important for you to avoid opioids when trying to address long-term chronic pain, as your body will create a tolerance to the drug. Over time, you’ll require greater doses at more frequent intervals to achieve the same pain relief. This is a recipe for disaster and could have lethal consequences. Please don’t risk it!
Due to the many concerns around addiction and tolerance, opioids clearly have not lived up to the promises manufacturers have made. With so much focus on pharmaceutical remedies, you may not be aware of the many healthy alternatives to pain relief. Following is information about non-drug remedies, dietary changes and bodywork interventions that can help you manage your pain.
Non-Drug Remedies for Pain Relief
If you have chronic pain of any kind, please understand there are many natural, safe and effective alternatives to prescription and over-the-counter painkillers, including:
Kratom (Mitragyna speciose) is another plant remedy that has become a popular opioid substitute.16 In August, the DEA issued a notice saying it was planning to ban kratom, listing it as Schedule 1 controlled substance. However, following massive outrage from kratom users who say opioids are their only alternative, the agency reversed its decision.17
Kratom is likely safer than an opioid for someone in serious and chronic pain. However, it’s important to recognize that it is a psychoactive substance and should not be used carelessly. There’s very little research showing how to use it safely and effectively, and it may have a very different effect from one person to the next.
Also, while it may be useful for weaning people off opioids, kratom is in itself addictive. So, while it appears to be a far safer alternative to opioids, it’s still a powerful and potentially addictive substance. So please, do your own research before trying it.
Low-Dose Naltrexone (LDN)
Naltrexone is an opiate antagonist, originally developed in the early 1960s for the treatment of opioid addiction. When taken at very low doses (LDN, available only by prescription), it triggers endorphin production, which can boost your immune function and ease pain.
|Curcumin: A primary therapeutic compound identified in the spice turmeric, curcumin has been shown in more than 50 clinical studies to have potent anti-inflammatory activity. Curcumin is hard to absorb, so best results are achieved with preparations designed to improve absorption. It is very safe and you can take two to three every hour if you need to.|
|Astaxanthin: One of the most effective oil-soluble antioxidants known, astaxanthin has very potent anti-inflammatory properties. Higher doses are typically required for pain relief, and you may need 8 milligrams or more per day to achieve results.|
|Boswellia: Also known as boswellin or “Indian frankincense,” this herb contains powerful anti-inflammatory properties, which have been prized for thousands of years. This is one of my personal favorites, as it worked well for many of my former rheumatoid arthritis patients.|
|Bromelain: This protein-digesting enzyme, found in pineapples, is a natural anti-inflammatory. It can be taken in supplement form, but eating fresh pineapple may also be helpful. Keep in mind most of the bromelain is found within the core of the pineapple, so consider eating some of the pulpy core when you consume the fruit.|
|Cayenne cream: Also called capsaicin cream, this spice comes from dried hot peppers. It alleviates pain by depleting your body’s supply of substance P, a chemical component of nerve cells that transmit pain signals to your brain.|
|Cetyl myristoleate (CMO): This oil, found in dairy butter and fish, acts as a joint lubricant and anti-inflammatory. I have used a topical preparation of CMO to relieve ganglion cysts and a mild case of carpal tunnel syndrome.|
|Evening primrose, black currant and borage oils: These oils contain the fatty acid gamma-linolenic acid, which is useful for treating arthritic pain.|
|Ginger: This herb is anti-inflammatory and offers pain relief and stomach-settling properties. Fresh ginger works well steeped in boiling water as a tea, or incorporated into fresh vegetable juice.|
Dietary Changes to Fight Inflammation and Manage Your Pain
Unfortunately, physicians often fall short when attempting to effectively treat chronic pain, resorting to the only treatment they know: prescription drugs. While these drugs may bring some temporary relief, they will do nothing to resolve the underlying causes of your pain. If you suffer from chronic pain, making the following changes to your diet may bring you some relief.
|Consume more animal-based omega-3 fats. Similar to the effects of anti-inflammatory pharmaceutical drugs, omega-3 fats from fish and fish oils work to directly or indirectly modulate a number of cellular activities associated with inflammation.
While drugs have a powerful ability to inhibit your body’s pain signals, omega-3s cause a gentle shift in cell signaling to bring about a lessened reactivity to pain.
Eating healthy seafood like anchovies or sardines, which are low in environmental toxins, or taking a high-quality supplement such as krill oil are your best options for obtaining omega-3s. DHA and EPA, the omega-3 oils contained in krill oil, have been found in many animal and clinical studies to have anti-inflammatory properties, which are beneficial for pain relief.
|Radically reduce your intake of processed foods. Processed foods not only contain chemical additives and excessive amounts of sugar, but also are loaded with damaging omega-6 fats. By eating these foods, especially fried foods, you upset your body’s ratio of omega-3 to omega-6 fatty-acids, which triggers inflammation. Inflammation is a key factor in most pain.|
|Eliminate or radically reduce your consumption of grains and sugars. Avoiding grains and sugars, especially fructose, will lower your insulin and leptin levels. Elevated insulin and leptin levels are one of the most profound stimulators of inflammatory prostaglandin production, which contributes to pain.
While healthy individuals are advised to keep their daily fructose consumption below 25 grams from all sources, you’ll want to limit your intake to 15 grams per day until your pain is reduced. Eating sugar increases your uric acid levels, which leads to chronic, low-level inflammation.
|Optimize your production of vitamin D. As much as possible, regulate your vitamin D levels by regularly exposing large amounts of your skin to sunshine. If you cannot get sufficient sun exposure, taking an oral vitamin D3 supplement, along with vitamin K2 and magnesium, is highly advisable.
Research by GrassrootsHealth suggests adults need about 8,000 IUs per day to achieve a serum level of 40 ng/ml, but you may need even more. It’s best to get your blood level tested to be sure you’re safely within the therapeutic range.
Bodywork Methods That Reduce Pain
Due to the inherent risks of addiction and the other unpleasant side effects of prescription painkillers, I recommend you pursue one or more of the following bodywork methods before taking a narcotic for pain. Each one has been demonstrated to be an effective treatment for lasting pain relief and management.
•Acupuncture: According to The New York Times,18 an estimated 3 million American adults receive acupuncture annually, most often for the treatment of chronic pain. A study19 published in the Archives of Internal Medicine concluded acupuncture has a definite effect in reducing four types of chronic pain, including back and neck pain, chronic headache, osteoarthritis and shoulder pain — more so than standard pain treatment. The researchers stated:
“[W]e found acupuncture to be superior to both no-acupuncture control and sham acupuncture for the treatment of chronic pain … Our results from individual patient data meta-analyses of nearly 18,000 patients in high-quality randomized controlled trials provide the most robust evidence to date that acupuncture is a reasonable referral option for patients with chronic pain.”
•Chiropractic adjustments: While previously used most often to treat back pain, chiropractic treatment addresses many other problems — including asthma, carpal tunnel syndrome, fibromyalgia, headaches, migraines, musculoskeletal pain, neck pain and whiplash.
According to a study20 published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, patients with neck pain who used a chiropractor and/or exercise were more than twice as likely to be pain-free in 12 weeks compared to those who took medication.
•Emotional Freedom Techniques (EFT): EFT continues to be one of the easiest and most effective ways to deal with acute and chronic pain. The technique is simple and can be applied in mere minutes, helping you to overcome all kinds of bodily aches and pains. A study21 published in Energy Psychology examined the levels of pain in a group of 50 people attending a three-day EFT workshop, and found their pain dropped by 43 percent during the workshop.
Six weeks later, their pain levels were reported to be 42 percent lower than before the workshop. As a result of applying EFT, participants felt they had an improved sense of control and ability to cope with their chronic pain. In the video featured below, EFT expert Julie Schiffman, teaches you how to use EFT to address chronic pain.
•Massage: Massage releases endorphins, which help induce relaxation, relieve pain and reduce levels of stress chemicals such as cortisol and noradrenaline. A systematic review and meta-analysis22 published in the journal Pain Medicine, included 60 high-quality and seven low-quality studies that looked into the use of massage for various types of pain, including bone and muscle, fibromyalgia, headache and spinal-cord pain.
The study revealed massage therapy relieves pain better than getting no treatment at all. When compared to other pain treatments like acupuncture and physical therapy, massage therapy still proved beneficial and had few side effects. In addition to relieving pain, massage therapy also improved anxiety and health-related quality of life.
Final Thoughts About ‘Chasing the Dragon’
With respect to “Chasing the Dragon,” U.S. FBI director James Comey said:23
“This film may be difficult to watch, but we hope it educates our students and young adults about the tragic consequences that come with abusing these drugs, and it will cause people to think twice before becoming its next victim.”
Every generation has its drug of choice, and Bassam suggests this generation’s drug of choice is prescription opiates, which is far more devastating and addictive than anything law enforcement and the medical community have seen in the past. The current level of drug addiction in the U.S. is real and dangerous, says Bassam:24
“How do you know you’re an addict? It’s when you’re doing something you know is not good for you, that’s harming you, but you can’t help yourself. When your relationships are starting to fall apart around you, and you don’t care. When the only thing on your mind is how to get the substance and how to get to the next high — you’re an addict. You can’t maintain an opiate addiction and a normal life for very long.”
If someone you know is at risk for or is presently struggling with drug addiction, this raw and realistic documentary is worth your time.
By Dr. Mercola
Monsanto has managed to saturate the global environment with toxic chemicals and genetically modified seed. Glyphosate is the major component in its flagship product, Roundup, used both in residential gardens and on farms.
The chemical is so pervasive that tests by the Organic Consumers Association found 93 percent of Americans have glyphosate in their urine.1 By comparison, no glyphosate was detected in tap water, which means the chemical is being ingested through food products. It is in fact, the most heavily used weed killer in history.
While much media attention has been levied at glyphosate for the association with cancer, in lower doses the chemical is also a strong endocrine disrupter.2 The health costs associated with exposure to hormone disrupters in Europe are estimated to be over $188 billion annually.3
Corporate spokespeople continue to say glyphosate is safe for use around humans, but recent revelations are beginning to completely unravel the well-orchestrated platform Monsanto is using to deceive the public.4
Monsanto has a long history with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other agencies that has assured its rise to a powerful industrial position.
Now, the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) is the first U.S. agency to declare that Roundup, and specifically the major active ingredient glyphosate, is in fact a probable human carcinogen.
California Takes a Stand Against Roundup
In 1986, voters in California approved an initiative to address growing concerns about exposure to toxic chemicals. Proposition 65 requires publication of chemicals known to cause cancer or birth defects. This list must be updated once a year and has grown to 800 chemical names since 1987.5
Businesses are also required to notify citizens of chemicals that may be in the products they purchase.
Following classification of glyphosate as a probable human carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), the research arm of the World Health Organization (WHO), in May 2015,6 the OEHHA added the chemical to the state Proposition 65 list.
The decision was finalized in early 2017, making California the first state to take this step to protect their citizens. According to Nathan Donley, senior scientist at the Center for Biological Diversity:7
“When it comes to Roundup, California has become a national leader in flagging the very real danger posed by this vastly over-used pesticide. The state based its decision on the findings of the world’s most reliable, transparent and science-based assessment of glyphosate.
It’s become painfully clear that we can no longer ignore the risk that this pesticide poses to people and wildlife.”
Following a report earlier this month demonstrating the EPA failed to follow its own guidelines when it found glyphosate was not likely to be carcinogenic,8 Monsanto filed an appeal to stay the effective date of the Proposition 65 decision.9
Inclusion on the list does not prevent sale of these chemicals in California, but rather requires the manufacturer to post a “clear and reasonable warning” that the chemical is known to cause cancer, which Monsanto asserts will damage its reputation and violate its First Amendment rights.10
Unfortunately, the situation between the EPA and Monsanto marks a dangerous circumstance where taxpayer money has been used to shield companies from liability, obstruct consumers’ ability to prove damages, and continue to pollute the environment and your health with toxic chemicals.
Europe’s Pesticide Regulations Triggered Backlash From Monsanto
In 2009, Europe introduced legislation to regulate pesticides that threatened the sales of products containing glyphosate.11
The new law uses a hazard-based approach that bans the use of chemicals if they have the potential to cause cancer or birth defects, instead of a risk-based approach where the chemical demonstrates risk to humans under specific dose scenarios.
This new regulation also mandates studies from peer-reviewed scientific literature be included in the approval application.
This created a problem for Monsanto, as industry studies concluded the chemical was safe, but independent studies came to a different conclusion, demonstrating harmful DNA damage in commercial applications.12
In response to new regulations in Europe and the change in IARC classification of glyphosate, Monsanto sponsored scientific reviews in peer-reviewed journals that concluded commercial formulations of glyphosate were not harmful.
The authors were members of the Glyphosate Expert Panel convened by commercial consultancy and commissioned by Monsanto. These scientific papers purposefully manipulated data and included irrelevant data that confused the picture.13
Twelve of the 16 members of the panel served as consultants or were employed by Monsanto. Others had different conflicts of interest. Only one member of the panel had no conflict of interest. Several other regulatory bodies have found glyphosate to be non-carcinogenic.
However, two assessments were founded on fundamental scientific weaknesses and the third had a severe lack of transparency and clarity.
One of the studies interchanged the concept of hazard and risk, apparently to divert attention from a hazard-based approach in the European law that would require a ban for glyphosate.14 Taken together, the whole of the evidence demonstrates carcinogenicity.
A report by Global 2000 Friends of the Earth Austria found attempts by agencies and individuals to defend the chemical against evidence showing it causes cancer and damages DNA are scientifically unsound, and are undermined by a serious conflict of interest from the individuals involved.15
Lawsuits May Expose Monsanto’s Prior Knowledge
This short news video discusses one of the lawsuits being brought against Monsanto by farmers for unlawful death following exposure to glyphosate.
The lawsuits allege farmers are developing non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma from exposure, and, in the case of the McCalls in the video above, their Labrador retriever developed the same cancer at the young age of 6.
To date, there are over 700 individual cases being brought against Monsanto at the state and federal level.
In one of those cases in San Francisco, California, a judge unsealed documents that suggest employees of Monsanto ghost wrote studies attributed to academics — studies that were then used to determine glyphosate does not cause cancer.16
Documents indicate a senior officer at the EPA worked with Monsanto to suppress independent reviews of the ingredients. Insider information was shared with Monsanto to guide the message they published to the public.
The chair of the EPA’s Cancer Assessment Review Committee even promised to obstruct a Department of Health and Human Services review of glyphosate,17 and indeed that safety review never took place. One of the attorneys for the McCall family, environmental activist and author Robert F. Kennedy Jr., commented:18
“Mounting evidence suggests that Monsanto knew about the hazards posed by glyphosate exposure, but failed to disclose this information to the public. Any time a corporation markets a harmful product to consumers as safe for use, it must be held accountable for the damage caused by that product.
Glyphosate is the product of both modern chemistry and a profoundly corrupt corporate culture. It is sad for our country and our people that such a powerful economic leader can only be trusted to put private greed before public health.”
In 1987 11 million pounds of glyphosate were applied in the U.S, compared to the now nearly 300 million pounds applied each year.19 The increase follows on the heels of genetically modified seed designed to withstand heavy applications of the weed killer. Michigan State University produced a graphic representation of the seed and chemical companies’ size and company ownership that visually demonstrates the sheer size and reach of Monsanto.
Farmers Fight Monsanto’s Aggressive Tactics
Lawsuits are another effort on the part of Monsanto to minimize the dangers of Roundup. Using tactics that include fear and intimidation, Monsanto has worked hard to ensure every farmer uses its genetically altered seed and large amounts of its weed killer, thereby solidifying the company’s market share.20 In 2003, Monsanto sued Michael White, fourth generation organic farmer in Alabama, essentially electing him their “poster boy” to intimidate farmers.21
White’s case is not unique. Monsanto has sued hundreds of farmers for copyright infringement after genetically engineered (GE) seeds inadvertently cross contaminated adjacent non-GE fields. Even though most farmers do not want the cross contamination, nor are complicit in the contamination, Monsanto continues to bring lawsuits and has the means to win the majority of the cases.
White is one of the few farmers free to talk about his court case, as he settled with Monsanto after his case was cleared to go before a jury. White says that the court case destroyed his father’s life and he went to his grave in fear of the agrichemical company.22
Missouri farmers have now filed a large class action suit against Monsanto over illegal herbicide use that has caused phenomenal crop damage. The suit alleges the farmers who planted Monsanto GE seeds didn’t have access to appropriate weed killer for two growing seasons and thus resorted to using illegal chemicals that contaminated and destroyed their fields, and that of neighbors.23Attorney Bev Randles, representing Bader Farms against Monsanto, said in a statement:24
“Monsanto chose to sell these seeds before they could be safely cultivated. Monsanto’s own advertising repeatedly describes its Xtend seeds and its accompanying herbicide as a ‘system’ intended to be used together. But when Monsanto failed to get approval to sell the herbicide, it recklessly chose to go ahead and sell the seeds regardless.”
Glyphosate Associated With More Than Cancer
Glyphosate also causes significant soil damage by decimating microorganisms responsible for biodiversity and biomass of soil. It’s also toxic to soil fungi.25 Repeated, and sometimes even a single use of the chemical, has led to an increase in the severity or re-emergence of crop disease, as the chemical leads to the development of pathogenic levels of microbes that affect crop health.
Studies have also demonstrated a negative effect on populations of earthworms in the soil, necessary for the development of organic material essential to plant health. Each of these factors reduce the health of crop root systems and yield.
Chronic exposure over just two years to Roundup in rat populations led to liver and kidney damage at doses far below what are recommended for use around humans.26 In an effort to slow the rising number of patients diagnosed with chronic kidney disease in his country, one of the first acts of Sri Lanka’s newly elected president was to ban the importation and sale of glyphosate.27
A case study has also associated levels of glyphosate in children with symptom severity in autism and seizure disorder.28,29 Even at low doses, glyphosate has estrogenic effects30 and may disrupt the balance in your gut microbiome.31
Bayer Company Romancing Monsanto
American-based Monsanto is being courted by German company Bayer, with intentions for a merger. Fifty years ago these two companies were forced to separate to avoid violating antitrust laws in the U.S.32 In a much different political climate, this intended merger appears to have the approval of the new Trump administration.
In mid-January, before taking office, Trump met with the CEOs of both Monsanto and Bayer, who announced in a joint statement they had a “very productive meeting”33 with the incoming U.S. President about the potential $66 billion merger. The deal will likely be financially profitable for both companies at the expense of farmers and consumers.
As both corn and soybean commodity prices are at some of the lowest levels since 2012, rising seed and chemical prices could place many family farms in a precarious financial position. Clay Govier, a fifth-generation farmer in central Nebraska, has used Monsanto products for the past 12 years and expects both seed and chemical prices to increase if the merger is successful.34
The number of American farmers are also at the lowest levels, numbering less than 2 million — the lowest number since the 1800s. Billion-dollar mergers between farming suppliers and buyers are not only affecting the health of the environment and consumer, but also plunging the farmer deep into debt. The Economic Research Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) recently made dire predictions.
According to the USDA, income from farming in the U.S. for 2017 is projected to be negative $1,400, but Wall Street believes that number is closer to negative $6,000. In the face of rising costs and debt-burdened farmers, Monsanto shareholders are suing, claiming the CEO will benefit from the merger with Bayer to the tune of $18 million in cash and benefits despite a conflict of interest and withheld information from investors.35
How You Can Reduce Your Exposure to Toxic Pesticides and Herbicides
As it is impossible to rely on governmental agencies and regulatory commissions to protect your health and wellness, it is important to practice preventive strategies to reduce the toxic chemical pollution that assaults your body. The following suggestions will set you off on the right path.
Purchase organic produce and grass fed meat
Animal products like meat, butter, milk and eggs are the most important to buy organic and grass fed, since animal products tend to bio-accumulate toxins from their pesticide-laced feed, concentrating them to far higher concentrations than are typically present in vegetables.
Children are especially vulnerable to the effects of environmental chemicals, including pesticides, so try to buy organic for produce that may have an elevated pesticide load, such as strawberries, spinach, nectarines, apples and peaches.36 If you eat the skin of the produce it’s best to try to buy organic.
Wash all produce before eating
Washing all produce before eating helps to reduce your exposure to bacteria and pesticides. Both may also be transferred to melons, oranges and other fruits you peel if the rind is not first washed.
While there are commercial preparations, the safest products are white vinegar37 with a splash of lemon.38 The acidity helps to kill the bacteria, and friction from a vegetable brush helps to reduce the number of chemicals clinging to the produce.
Dry your produce with a paper towel as an extra measure of removing pesticides so they don’t dry to the produce. Remove the exterior leaves of leafy vegetables.
Eat whole foods
Remember that processed foods are in fact processed with a variety of chemicals, and should therefore be avoided as much as possible. Children already diagnosed with ADHD, autism or seizure disorders in most cases have reduced symptoms when processed foods are completely eliminated.
Use natural cleaning products
I recommend you use only natural cleaning products in your home, especially if you have young children or are pregnant. Most health food stores and some grocery stores now carry natural products to clean your home. Most everything in your home can also be cleaned using white vinegar and baking soda.
Switching to natural brands of toiletries is also a good idea. You’d be surprised to find just how many well-known brands of baby products are loaded with harmful chemicals, including fragrances. The Skin Deep Cosmetics Database39 is an excellent source to determine which brands are the safest for your baby.
Use natural outdoor protection
Also avoid using insect repellants that contain DEET. It can be tempting to douse your child or yourself in order to avoid getting bitten, but please be mindful of what you’re putting on your skin. There are safe, effective and natural insect repellant alternatives.40 Use natural methods of controlling insects in your home and garden as well.
Leave your shoes at the door
Walking across lawns and treated gardens deposits pesticides and other toxic chemicals in your carpet and on your flooring. Pets and small children crawling across the floor have the greatest potential for absorbing these chemicals. However, when you eventually take your shoes off at the end of the day, you may also absorb chemicals through the bottoms of your bare feet.
By Dr. Mercola
The Vaccine Reaction, published by the non-profit National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC), recently highlighted a really disturbing part of the 21st Century Cures Act that has largely escaped below the radar.
The 21st Century Cures Act, which was quickly pushed through Congress and became law back in December 2016, allows the waiving of the requirement of informed consent for participants in clinical trials if researchers believe an experimental medical device, drug or vaccine being tested poses no more than minimal risk to the patient’s health, or if the product being tested is deemed by researchers to be in the best interest of trial participants.
The Act also lowers FDA standards for the quality of evidence that drug companies have to provide to the FDA before drugs and vaccines are licensed and sold in the U.S.
In a nutshell, scientists testing pharmaceutical products like vaccines may now choose to experiment on human beings without obtaining informed consent first.
As noted in the featured video, this really boils down to slavery — you can be experimented on without fully understanding the potential risks of the product you are being given if you are a participant in a clinical trial, which means you do not have the opportunity to exercise informed consent and opt out.
21st Century Cures Act Waives Informed Consent for Low-Risk Medical Testing
Section 3024 of the 21st Century Cures Act refers to Informed Consent Waiver or Alteration for Clinical Investigations, amending some of the wording in section 520(g)(3) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act.
As noted in the video, subparagraph D in this section received a minor update by removing the words “the investigator,” but the remainder still stands.
Section 3024(a), which covers “medical devices,” basically states that informed consent is required when researchers are testing medical devises in clinical trials “except where, subject to such conditions as the Secretary may prescribe, the proposed clinical testing poses no more than minimal risk to the human subject and includes appropriate safeguards to protect the rights, safety, and welfare of the human subject.”
Section 3024(b), which covers drugs, states informed consent is required “except where it is not feasible, it is contrary to the best interests of such human beings, or the proposed clinical testing poses no more than minimal risk to such human beings and includes appropriate safeguards as prescribed to protect the rights, safety, and welfare of such human beings.”
How giving informed consent could ever be contrary to your best interest is a question worth pondering.
I cannot conceive of a situation where that could possibly be true but, apparently, people elected to govern on our behalf believe there are situations warranting suppression of the fact that you are participating in a scientific experiment that could harm you or your minor child.
Government Admits Vaccines Are ‘Unavoidably Unsafe’
Historically, vaccine trials have always been assumed to involve more than minimal risk. In fact, both the U.S. Congress and the Supreme Court have concluded that government licensed vaccines are “unavoidably unsafe.”1
This determination was one reason given by Congress for why vaccine manufacturers were given a civil liability shield from vaccine injury lawsuits in the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986.
This “free pass” means that if a FDA licensed and state mandated vaccine ends up injuring or killing you or your child, the vaccine manufacturer or the doctor who administered the vaccine cannot be sued in civil court.
As a result of having zero liability for harm arising from the use of their products, drug companies are creating hundreds of new vaccines and plan to churn out and fast-track an ever-growing number of poorly tested vaccines with dubious benefits.
At the same time, there’s a concerted, nationwide lobbying effort by industry, medical trade groups and public health officials to eliminate the right of parents to make voluntary vaccine choices for their children by removing religious and conscience vaccine exemptions that have been included in state vaccine laws for the past half century.
To top it all off, the 21st Century Cures Act appears to provide a mile-wide loophole for pharmaceutical companies to test their products on human beings without informed consent and fast-track them to market using lowered licensing standards. I don’t know about you, but this strikes me as an absolute nightmare in the making.
While vaccine makers have been granted immunity against lawsuits for injuries and deaths caused by vaccines, children injured by vaccines are supposed to be able to receive swift and just compensation from the federally operated vaccine injury compensation program (VICP), created by Congress in 1986 under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act.
However, this program was gutted by the Department of Health and Human Services and Department of Justice within years of the 1986 law’s enactment and has only gotten worse over the years, again protecting vaccine manufacturers’ interests more than anything else.
The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act
The U.S. Court of Federal Claims in Washington DC handles contested vaccine injury and death cases in what has become known as “vaccine court.”2
VICP is a “no-fault” alternative to the traditional civil court lawsuit and was established in 1986 after a string of high-profile lawsuits by parents of vaccine injured children had hauled vaccine manufacturers into court to have their cases heard in front of juries.
At the time, parents were suing vaccine manufacturers after their children were brain injured or died following federally recommended and state mandated DPT (diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus) vaccines, or children were left paralyzed by live oral polio vaccinations (OPV).
Several DPT injury lawsuits against the vaccine makers in the 1970s and early 1980s resulted in multimillion-dollar jury verdicts.
At that point, vaccine manufacturers threatened to stop producing DPT, MMR and oral polio (the only childhood vaccines at the time) if civil litigation was allowed to continue.
Common sense would have dictated that such lawsuits were a sign that vaccine manufacturers needed to raise safety standards and produce less toxic vaccines.
Instead, Congress buckled to industry pressure and, declaring that the U.S. vaccine supply must be protected, passed the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, giving vaccine manufacturers the legal protection they demanded.
As a result, vaccine makers have no incentive to produce the safest vaccines possible, especially when many childhood vaccines are state mandated for school attendance and 2 out of 3 vaccine injured children are turned away from the VICP with no compensation.
Vaccine Court Is No Safeguard for Vaccine Injured Patients
Over the years, it has become quite clear that VICP doesn’t work as Congress intended or promised parents it would work. In a recent article published in The American Conservative, vaccine litigation lawyer Robert Moxley writes:3
“… [VICP] was modeled after workers’ compensation programs. It was to be a ‘no-fault’ program … As one of the earliest ‘vaccine attorneys’ … I know first-hand it didn’t work that way.
I practiced in the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Compensation Program for more than 25 years after its inception in 1988, and have been personally involved in over 100 vaccine-injury cases. I represented an entire fragile population in omnibus proceedings … I have seen the injured and their families cruelly oppressed.
From the passing of the legislation in 1986, the process has been rigged … in favor of the vaccine-industrial complex. Policy makers nationwide are yearning, with financial support and lobbying from the pharmaceutical industry, for mandatory vaccination. Before further compulsory vaccination legislation passes … the failure of the VICP must be acknowledged and properly addressed.
The VICP creates a classic moral hazard, granting immunity from suit to the vaccine industry while providing insurance against any loss …The vaccine-industrial complex has become a thriving giant … Its lobbying money drives agency denial of the reality of vaccine injury, which in turn permeates policy decisions in a sinister fashion.”
VICP — A Bureaucratic Nightmare That Offers Little Protection
As noted by Moxley, the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act states the entire compensation process should take 240 days at most, and since it’s a “no-fault” program, it was designed to compensate patients for “apparent” injuries, meaning injuries that “appear” to be related to a vaccine even if you cannot conclusively prove it.
Congress promised compensation would be awarded “quickly, easily, and with certainty and generosity,” in order to instill public confidence in the childhood vaccination program. The reality is much different. In his article, Moxley highlights a number of serious problems with the VICP, including the following:
- Lawyers are few, as the program prohibits private attorney’s fees; many who suffer a vaccine injury cannot even meet the filing deadline due to inability to retain legal counsel
- The process is exceedingly slow, with the average case taking over five years to adjudicate — a far cry from the 240-day deadline originally set by Congress for all adjudication decisions; some cases remain pending a decade after they were filed
- Two-thirds of claims received are dismissed4
- Decisions cannot be used as precedents for other cases
- The Department of Health and Human Services has not publicized the program, which was and still is its statutory duty
VICP Protects Vaccine Makers’ Interests
Moreover, as noted by Moxley: “The ‘inquisitorial’ format, with none of the due process safeguards of the civil justice system, serves to protect the secrets of the vaccine industry. The record created in a proceeding is hidden from non-parties.”
Indeed, none of the information that would normally be disclosed during a court trial ever sees the light of day once brought before the VICP. Hence, safety concerns remain shrouded in secrecy.
“A state of symbiosis arose between the agency tribunal and the public health bureaucracy,” Moxley writes. “These sister agencies appeared to regard families of the injured as criminals, trying to steal the government’s money. The vaccine court quickly developed an institutional hostility toward doctors and scientists who dared to challenge the orthodoxy of vaccine medicine …
An unspoken premise is ever-present: [T]o acknowledge vaccine injury is to undermine public acceptance, and to threaten ‘herd immunity.’ The public health agenda is the tribunal agenda and the DOJ agenda as well …
The vaccine court is used by the vaccine program — ostensibly in service of the ‘public health’ — as a forum to prove that there is no such thing as a vaccine injury. ‘Confidence’ in the safety net has been subordinated to the promotion of false confidence in the vaccination effort itself.
The moral hazard of the vaccine program reflects failure of the traditional checks and balances … Most of all, the entire system embodies the way that the lack of accountability leads to increased risk. Today, the proponents of compulsory vaccination in state legislatures have the temerity to tell their colleagues that there is no such thing as a vaccine injury. This claim emboldens a potential assault on the American family, and against the right of medical choice and informed consent.
The ‘public health’ cannot be served to allow government officials to make the risk-benefit calculation for their most vulnerable constituents when those decisions are corrupted by the fiction that their decision has no potential for negative consequences.”
Who Pays for Vaccine Injuries?
VICP compensates vaccine victims from a federal trust fund that collects a 75-cent surcharge on every vaccine given. What this means is that not only are drug companies profiting from selling federally recommended and state mandated vaccines to government for administration in public health clinics and to private doctor’s offices, pharmacies and HMO providers, vaccine manufacturers are also held legally blameless for vaccine injuries and deaths — and they don’t have to pay a cent to those injured by their vaccines.
Adult patients and children being given vaccines take all the risk, and themselves pay for the damages awarded to those injured or killed by government licensed and mandated vaccines. Many Americans do not even realize this vaccine court exists because DHHS does not publicize the existence of a federal vaccine injury compensation program and few VICP claims are ever disclosed, let alone publicized. The desire for secrecy on the part of public health officials is understandable.
If Americans were routinely informed of the vaccine injury and death claims being processed through the VICP, concern about the safety of vaccines would undoubtedly rise exponentially. Even without publicity, VICP claims are rapidly rising. As noted by investigative journalist Sharyl Attkisson in December 2015:5
“Since January of 2014, the number of flu vaccine cases conceded by the government is more than double the previous eight years combined … Also on the rise is the number of vaccine injury cases the government has ‘conceded:’ up 55 percent in a little over one year.”
National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act Should Be Repealed
Two years ago, the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) called for the repeal of civil liability protection provided to drug companies under the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act6 and a return to full product liability for vaccine manufacturers. At the time, NVIC co-founder and president Barbara Loe Fisher said:7
“The 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act is a failed experiment in tort reform and should be repealed so vaccine manufacturers are accountable and liable in a civil court of law for product safety. The federal vaccine injury compensation program Congress created under that law has become a drug company stockholder’s dream and a parent’s worst nightmare.”
Nothing has changed in the two years since. The VICP remains irreparably broken. A vast majority of the injury compensation claims paid out by the vaccine court today are not even for children suffering lifelong injuries or death from childhood vaccines that they are mandated to get to attend daycare or school — they’re for adults (often health care workers) suffering serious side effects from the influenza vaccine.
On March 31, 2017, vaccine safety and choice advocates, including the NVIC, Moms Across America, Organic Consumers Association, Focus for Health, Vaccine Injury Awareness League and other grassroots consumer groups, who are protesting the too-cozy relationship between the pharmaceutical and chemical industries and government, gathered for a “Revolution for Truth” rally8 in Washington D.C.
The groups are urging President Trump to examine the VICP’s many problems, and create an independent agency to monitor and evaluate vaccine safety.
Forced Vaccinations Are Unethical and Dangerous
Last year, Gretchen DuBeau, executive and legal director for Alliance for Natural Health USA, wrote:9
“When health officials assure us that almost all children should receive the full schedule of vaccinations, you would think that rigorous safety testing has repeatedly proven vaccines, their ingredients, and the CDC schedule to be completely safe. The sobering truth is, however, that this safety testing has been conspicuously lacking and in many cases simply has not been done.
Until these extremely serious safety concerns are adequately addressed, it is unethical — and very possibly dangerous — to force children to be vaccinated.
Take aluminum, for example, which has been added to vaccines since the 1930s to help jolt the body’s immune system into action. Aluminum is a well-documented neurotoxin linked with Alzheimer’s disease, epilepsy, asthma, hyperactivity and Down’s syndrome. Despite these dangers, adequate clinical research proving aluminum adjuvants to be safe has never been done.”
Indeed, it is the lack of evidence of safety that concerns most parents who decide to delay or forgo one or more vaccinations for their children. Most of these parents have children who had serious reactions to vaccination or know someone who became chronically ill after vaccination. That experience prompted them to do independent research and not just get their children vaccinated without fully understanding the risks.
But rather than conducting the necessary methodologically sound scientific research to settle these uncertainties, the vaccine industry has chosen to join with medical trade associations funded by pharmaceutical companies and public health agencies and simply push for forced vaccination laws that eliminate vaccine exemptions instead. And why not? Forced vaccination guarantees maximum profits since there are no repercussions should their vaccines turn out to do more harm than good.
Aside from the lack of long-term safety studies of vaccines that take into account real-world usage parameters such as giving multiple vaccinations on the same day, there’s yet another safety issue that is routinely swept under the rug — that of vaccine recalls. In fact, vaccines have the highest number of recalls of any drug!
According to a 2012 report by business intelligence experts GBI Research,10 vaccines “fail to meet safety standards.” Between 2007 and 2010, 14 recalls for vaccines were made, for reasons such as:
- Serious adverse events
- Labeling errors
- Quality defects (reduced levels of potency, presence of contaminants, such as glass particles)
- Manufacturing defects
Coincidence Claims Falter as Vaccine Damage Becomes Commonplace
As time goes on and vaccine injuries multiply, claims of “coincidence” are getting increasingly more preposterous and harder to swallow. Today, vaccine injuries are becoming like cancer — the prevalence is so high, most people know someone who has suffered a serious side effect from a vaccine. Statistics revealing compelling parallels between vaccination rates and disease rates add to the mounting skepticism.
As noted in a January 2017 report by WJTV12 News,11 Mississippi has one of the highest vaccination rates in the U.S. It also has one of the highest autism rates. Coincidence? No one knows, but in the absence of firm proof either way, many parents are renewing their call for the legal right to make voluntary decisions about which vaccines their child should receive and if or when they should be given.
The same scenario is playing out in other states across the nation. The numbers of children suffering with chronic illness and disability, including autism spectrum disorders, are increasing. The numbers of children and adults who have experienced serious vaccine reactions are also increasing. As a result, first-hand experience with vaccine reactions now include many physicians, celebrities and politicians, as well.
Academy award-winning actor Robert De Niro, for example, has recently gone on the public record questioning vaccine safety and the reported link between vaccines and autism.
He has a child who developed autism following vaccination. Rick Rollens, former Secretary of the California State Senate, as well as retired U.S. Rep. Dan Burton (R-Ind.) are two examples of individuals who worked for government and publicly shared their personal experiences of family members who had serious vaccine reactions and developed autism.
President Trump has also made public statements in which he questioned the potential connection between vaccination and autism and the safety of one-size-fits-all vaccine policies.
All of them have been strongly criticized for attempting to open up discussions about vaccine risk issues, which just goes to show that no one is above ridicule should they dare to question the safety of vaccines. The trend cannot hold forever, though. At a certain point, the coincidence theory collapses, and that’s what we’re starting to see now.
Unfortunately, many people don’t wake up and get involved until it’s personal and, in recent years, we’ve seen a growing number of influential people describe their personal experiences with vaccine reactions. The question is, how bad does it have to get before public concerns about vaccine safety get a fair hearing?