"the FDA certifies, as safe and effective, all the medical drugs that are routinely maiming and killing Americans. Every public health agency knows the truth."

The Test for Klaus Schwab and the Economic Forum

by Jon Rappoport

February 21, 2022

(To join our email list, click here.)

Knowing my regular readers can handle more than one major point in an article, I start with this: Justin Trudeau is not serving the interests of Canadians; he is loyal to the World Economic Forum (WEF) and the brand of Globalism it represents.

Meaning: global governance; the submerging of nations in a scheme of external top-down control; the expansion of poverty; wall-to-wall surveillance; a currency reset; and other totalitarian transformations.

If you watch these two brief videos (here and here), you’ll see Klaus Schwab confirm, in Trudeau’s presence, the prime minister’s loyalty to the WEF, as well as the penetration of Trudeau’s cabinet with WEF agents.

Schwab, the head of WEF, also mentions a new dawn of entrepreneurs who lead corporations dedicated to social responsibility.

And THAT is a test for Schwab. Because he certainly backs major pharmaceutical companies. Do those businesses display social responsibility?

I’m not talking about their pricing of drugs or their equitable distribution of drugs. I’m talking about killing and maiming people with the drugs. Many people.

And so I return to citations I’ve published a number of times. By the way, virtually no one takes these devastating references and runs with them.

I can only conclude journalists and doctors who otherwise criticize medical policies don’t want to admit the medical cartel has a very long track record of destroying populations.

These journalists and doctors only want to cherry-pick their targets. In fact, they support the overall performance of the medical system. Why? You would have to ask them.

Here, I’m testing Klaus Schwab. Does he really think he can get away with his talk about “social responsibility” and his simultaneous support of Pharma?

Buckle up—

ONE: Journal of the American Medical Association, April 15, 1998: “Incidence of Adverse Drug Reactions in Hospitalized Patients.”

The authors, led by Jason Lazarou, culled 39 previous studies on patients in hospitals. These patients, who received drugs in hospitals, or were admitted to hospitals because they were suffering from the drugs doctors had given them, met the following fate:

Every year, in the US, between 76,000 and 137,000 hospitalized patients die as a direct result of the drugs.

Beyond that, every year 2.2 million hospitalized patients experience serious adverse reactions to the drugs.

The authors write: 

“…Our study on ADRs [Adverse Drug Reactions], which excludes medication errors, had a different objective: to show that there are a large number of ADRs even when the drugs are properly prescribed and administered.”

So this study had nothing to do with doctor errors, nurse errors, or improper combining of drugs. And it only counted people killed or maimed who were admitted to hospitals. It didn’t begin to tally all the people taking pharmaceuticals who died as a consequence of the drugs, at home.

TWO: July 26, 2000, Journal of the American Medical Association; author, Dr. Barbara Starfield, revered public health expert at the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health; “Is US health really the best in the world?”

Starfield reported that the US medical system kills 225,000 Americans per year. 106,000 as a result of FDA-approved medical drugs, and 119,000 as a result of mistreatment and errors in hospitals. Extrapolate the numbers to a decade: that’s 2.25 million deaths. You might want to read that last number again.

I interviewed Starfield in 2009. I asked her whether she was aware of any overall effort by the US government to eliminate this holocaust. She answered a resounding NO. She also said her estimate of medically caused deaths in America was on the conservative side.

THREE: BMJ June 7, 2012 (BMJ 2012:344:e3989). Author, Jeanne Lenzer. Lenzer refers to a report by the Institute for Safe Medication Practices: 

“It [the Institute] calculated that in 2011 prescription drugs were associated with 2 to 4 million people in the US experiencing ‘serious, disabling, or fatal injuries, including 128,000 deaths.’”

The report called this “one of the most significant perils to humans resulting from human activity.”

The report was compiled by outside researchers who went into the FDA’s own database of “serious adverse [medical-drug] events.”

Therefore, to say the FDA isn’t aware of this finding would be absurd. The FDA knows. The FDA knows and it isn’t saying anything about it, because the FDA certifies, as safe and effective, all the medical drugs that are routinely maiming and killing Americans. Every public health agency knows the truth.

FOUR: “The Epidemic of Sickness and Death from Prescription Drugs.” The author is Donald Light, who teaches at Rowan University and was the 2013 recipient of ASA’s [American Sociological Association’s] Distinguished Career Award for the Practice of Sociology. Light is a founding fellow of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania. In 2013, he was a fellow at the Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics at Harvard. He is a Lokey Visiting Professor at Stanford University.

Donald Light: 

“Epidemiologically, appropriately prescribed, prescription drugs are the fourth leading cause of death, tied with stroke at about 2,460 deaths each week in the United States. About 330,000 patients die each year from prescription drugs in the United States and Europe. They [the drugs] cause an epidemic of about 20 times more hospitalizations [6.6 million annually], as well as falls, road accidents, and [annually] about 80 million medically minor problems such as pains, discomforts, and dysfunctions that hobble productivity or the ability to care for others. Deaths and adverse effects from overmedication, errors, and self-medication would increase these figures.” (ASA publication, “Footnotes,” November 2014)

FIVE: None of the above reports factor in death or injury by vaccine.

Medical crimes.

Medically caused deaths of friends, family members, and loved ones, who are buried along with the truth.

No criminal investigations, no prosecutions, no guilty verdicts, no prison sentences.

But of course, you can believe everything the leading lights of the US medical system tell you about COVID-19.

You can believe everything the press—who buries the truth about this medical holocaust—tells you about COVID.

Given the reports on medically caused death and maiming I’ve just cited and described in this article, it’s obvious that…

Leading medical journals around the world, which routinely publish glowing accounts of clinical trials of medical drugs…

Are spilling over with rank fraud, on page after page.

Indeed, here is a stunning quote from an editor who has quite probably read and analyzed more medical-drug studies than any doctor in the world:

“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine.” (Dr. Marcia Angell, NY Review of Books, January 15, 2009, “Drug Companies & Doctors: A Story of Corruption")

Compare that quote with one from “the father of COVID science,” Anthony Fauci. In an interview with the National Geographic, Fauci stated:

“Anybody can claim to be an expert even when they have no idea what they’re talking about…If something is published in places like New England Journal of Medicine, Science, Nature, Cell, or JAMA—you know, generally that is quite well peer-reviewed because the editors and the editorial staff of those journals really take things very seriously.”

They take things so seriously, that they routinely publish glowing studies of medical drugs that are killing people in great numbers.

—So, Mr. Schwab, which is it? You support corporate social responsibility, and therefore you condemn, in the strongest possible way, the ongoing death-and-maiming count achieved by beloved pharmaceutical companies? Or you maintain your unwavering support for Pharma and admit your pose of “social responsibility” is a complete fraud.

And to journalists and doctors who refuse to pick up the citations in this article and DO something with them, I ask: what’s holding you back? What’s been holding you back? I’ve been publishing and speaking about this information for more than 10 years.

What are you afraid of? Where do YOUR loyalties lie?

Speechless . . .

FDA allows nanoparticles into the food supply, claiming that they are no more dangerous than their larger counterparts.  Titanium is generally safe, or GRAS, or Generally Recognized As Safe, therefore, nano-titanium must be safe.  Unknown materials can exhibit new or altered physicochemical properties at nanoscale dimensions, which can enable the development of novel products.

FDA’s Approach to Regulation of Nanotechnology Products.  In other words, the human trials for consumable nanotechnologies are currently happening in the public without their knowledge or our consent.  “Nanoparticles in your food?  You’re already eating them.”  Nanoparticles can be absorbed into our immune defense system and into our bloodstream.  And just like the FDA admits, materials at the nanoscale can cause unknown changes in a person’s biological system. 

Animal studies have proven that nanoparticles are changing the way our bodies are absorbing certain minerals, such as iron.  FDA chemist, Timothy Duncan, wrote that nanotechnology in the food supply is being held back because the food supply industry is afraid of public backlash and that nanotechnology will somehow make food healthier.  The FDA is far more concerned with pushing these nanoparticles into the food supply than they are with safety.  Like they said about giving the experimental vaccines to your kids, we’re never going to learn about how safe the vaccine is until we start giving it.  At least 20 products are adding laboratory-made nanoparticles into their ingredients.  And they are getting ready to coat bananas in new nanotech. 

Here are those products: 

Dikinson Coconut Curd, Mentos Frehsmint Gum, Hostess Powdered Donette, Good and Plenty Candy, Kool-Aid Blue Raspberry, Eclipse Spearmint Gum, M&M’s Chocolate Candy, Albertson’s Vanilla Pudding,  Betty Crocker Whipped Cream, M&M’s Chocolate With Peanuts, Trident White Peppermint Gum, Jello Banana Cream Pudding, Dentyne Ice Peppermint Gum, Kook Aid Lemonade, Mother’s Oatmeal Iced Cookies,  Albertson’s Mini Marshmallows, Dentyne Fire Spicy Cinnamon, Vanilla Milkshake Pop-Tarts, Mentos Mints, & Nestle Original Coffee Cream.  

What do all of these products have in common?  They all contain titanium dioxide.  What is titanium dioxide?  

INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS FOR TRADE IN NANO-COATED PRODUCE?

There is Nano-WHAT in My Food?  Companies are not required to disclose their nano-sized ingredients, so we don’t know how prevalent it is.  Along with being a proponent of population reduction, forced vaccinations, and genetically modified foods, Bill Gates is also the biggest private farm owner in America.  Business Insider claims he owns 242,000 acres of farmland across the United States, 

The Microsoft cofounder and philanthropist Bill Gates owns 242,000 acres of farmland in the US, making him the largest private-farmland owner, an analysis by The Land Report found in January. 

It adds that, 

The couple holds an extensive farmland portfolio stretching over 18 states, according to The Land Report. The Gates family's biggest holdings are in Louisiana (69,071 acres), Arkansas (47,927 acres), and Nebraska (20,588 acres), the report said. 

Does anyone doubt for a second that Bill Gates is allowing this dangerous nanotech the FDA is pushing for into America’s food supply?  

18 States:  Washington, California, Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, Wyoming, Idaho, Nebraska, Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois, Arkansas, Mississippi, Louisiana, North Carolina, Indiana, & Ohio. 

In related news, 10 out of the 1[8] states that Bill Gates owns farmland, at least along with another ten, have recently made it legal to dispose of human bodies into the municipal water supplies using a process called, Alkaline Hydrolysis, allowing human remains to be added into bio-solid sourced fertilizer.  It’s called Alkaline Hydrolysis and is referred to in pop culture as being very, very green. 

What is Aquamation?  The green alternative to cremation chosen by Desmond Tutu.  So the Green Revolution is all about recycling human remains? 

Headline:  CREMATION: THE DENIAL OF HUMAN BODILY INTEGRITY?  Spiritual leaders have objected to Alkaline Hydrolysis because they say it is disrespectful to the human body, the vessel of a divine soul and it is understandable why they say this. 

What Happens When a Dead Body Is Dissolved in Lye?

In Alkaline Hydrolysis, the human body is liquefied with lye and poured down the sewer to mix in with the community’s excrement and if that weren’t bad enough, this bio-sludge is then collected from municipal water treatment plants and then used on so-called fertilizer on factory farms. 

HEADLINE:  Biosolids: Mix Human Waste With Toxic Chemicals, then Spread on Crops, The Guardian.  The official excuse is that it saves the government money for expensive toxic waste disposal. 

Meanwhile, we are all being sold food that has been grown with a toxic bio-sludge made up of human remains and excrement which is then loaded with new and strange nano-technology.  Interestingly, the 1973 dystopian movie, Soylent Green, took place in the year 2022. 

WHEN THE CDC-FDA, & FAUCI GAVE DISEASE A BLACK-FACE

from Ezili Danto,

During the HIV-Aids crisis, the CDC/FDA with Fauci in the lead, set forth a health policy on blood donations that stigmatized Haitians as “Aids carriers.” There were no appropriate scientific facts to back it up whatsoever. In this Covid19 era, with Fauci front and center, I remember who they are, what they’ve done, historically. I must remember, so history cannot repeat itself.

I remember how back then, Haitian workers working at nursing homes, hospitals, hotels, cafeterias, driving taxi cabs, and in private homes as housekeepers and cooks were stigmatized and forced to “social distance” – (i.e. got laid off, fired!) from the general population. I remember how confused these ladies doing ‘day work‘ at wealthy Greenwich CT homes, my mother’s friends were, when the families they’ve been working two decades for, suddenly became afraid of them and sent them home with the HIV-Aids carrier stigma.

I remember we fought back the science “experts” the media still tout as infallible and forced the FDA and CDC to rethink messing around with Haitians like that! They had to quickly walk back their open racism and rescind their prejudice as Federal policy. 

Some interesting points raised here: 

Recently, in an interview with the Breakfast Club, Fauci, supposedly the world’s leading expert in infectious disease stated that “there are very few things,” if anything people can do to boost their immune system. We know that’s a lie, just witchery and false. 

That interview was released on April 17, 2020, and the section to which the author refers occurs at the 22-minute mark: 

22-22:15  He says instead of building your immune system, make sure your immune system isn’t worn down, and you can do that by doing a few simple things: a good night’s sleep, exercise, good nutrition, that’s infinitely better than throwing something into your body that’s going to “boost” your immune system.  Interesting that Fauci uses the phrase "throwing something into your body," because an etymological translation of the word "inject" literally means "to throw in."  

And the author's follow-up questions are spot-on:

If there’s no treatment people can do, or as Fauci says “throw in their bodies” to boost their immune system, why is Fauci pushing developing big pharma vaccines, “at best for next winter,” to counteract Covid19? What’s the point if “there are very few things,”  if anything, you can do to boost your immune system and stop the germ infection? (See our extensive Èzili Newsletter coverage of Fauci on Breakfast Club and updates on how Haiti has been affected by Coronavirus and with the continuing deportations.) 

This really is a must-read.  If you've not spotted the evil that permeates these vaccine programs, this should disillusion you of any benevolence or innocence.

ROBERT BARNES: On the Average Man Rising Against Unchecked Power

Fun to be on Rich Dad, Poor Dad with @theRealKiyosaki on the constitutional rights at risk in the Covid era. https://t.co/CNnTtVrBkv

— Robert Barnes (@barnes_law) December 15, 2021

During the first week of September 2021, Robert Barnes, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., and Cheryl Mass filed a lawsuit against the Food and Drug Administration, the FDA.  

Washington, DC, Sept. 07, 2021 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Last week, Children’s Health Defense (CHD) filed suit in Tennessee federal court against the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and its acting director Janet Woodcock for their deceptive, rushed licensure of Pfizer’s Comirnaty vaccine. CHD argues that the licensure was a classic “bait and switch,” allowing Pfizer, the Administration, the military, and employers to exhort people to take “licensed” vaccines when in fact the vaccines available continue to be the Pfizer-BioNTech Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) vaccines.

  

Once a drug is fully licensed, it is subject to liability. One thing that was necessary in order to push mandates forward was for the government to say it had a licensed product.

"Pfizer/BioNTech’s Comirnaty COVID shot was approved (licensed) by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration on August 23, 2021, but only for adults, and only when carrying the Comirnaty label. No other COVID shot has been FDA approved. . ."

"you're the guinea pigs, and they're not collecting the data."

"You can attempt to sue the [vaccine] company that made the product if you're convinced that it was improperly made, but the Secretary of HHS has to give you the permission to sue."

  

Dr. Meryl Nass, M.D. begins her presentation at the 2:30 mark.  Find more on her here.  

All of the COVID vaccines and most of the COVID treatment products have not been approved.  Approved means licensed.  All except one, which the Pfizer vaccine for adults 16 and up got approved, i.e., licensed on August 23, 2021, but every other vaccine, and for every other age-group, and the boosters have only been authorized under emergency use authorizations.  There's a critical difference.  Once a drug is fully licensed, it is subject to liability.  One thing that was necessary in order to push mandates forward was for the government to say it had a licensed product.  So before the EUA, you had licensed drugs and you had experimental drugs and nothing else.  You had no gray areas.  These are still experimental drugs.  Under Emergency Use, EUA, you can't force people.  You have to offer them options, tell them what their options are, and they have the right to refuse.  So since that is part of the statute, the federal government can't get around it, so they wanted a licensed product to avoid the provisions of the statute and enable them to impose mandates.  So they must have put pressure on the FDA, and the FDA gave them what they wanted, which was a license for the Pfizer vaccine only, called Corminaty on August 23, 2021.  FDA has become clown world.  What they do now is to perform a charade of all of the normal regulatory processes that they are expected to do, and I just want to tell you [that] you're the guinea pigs, and they're not collecting the data.  Nobody should be getting these shots. 

Pregnant women are now the new gold rush for vaccines.  Because once a company is absent of any liability, the profitability of the product increases dramatically.  But products under EUA, and this is based on the 2005 piece of legislation, have their own special government program for liability, called the Counter-Measures Injury Compensation Program.  And this is a terrible program.  Is this the PREP Act?  No.  It's a subset of the PREP Act.  the Prep Act enabled the Counter-Measures Injury Compensation Program to be created by Congress.  Congress has to allocate money for it.  So if you're injured by an Emergency Use Authorization vaccine, you don't get any legal process.  The companies have had all of their liability waved.  There is a single process that is administrative, administrated through HHS where some employees there decide whether you deserve to be compensated or not, and the maximum money you can obtain is about $370,000 if you're totally disabled or die.  And the money is only to compensate you for lost wages or possibly medical bills that haven't been paid.  And in the 15 to 16 years that this program has existed, they've only paid out 29 claims, two for each year of its existence.  And so far, though they've had hundreds and hundreds of claims from COVID vaccines, they haven't paid out a single one.  And that is very important because the statute of limitations is just 1 year.  So it's getting close to running out for people who were vaccinated early, and if you don't apply, you'll lose your opportunity to get anything from this program.  In fact, it's really an opportunity to apply and get nothing, because almost nobody gets paid, and then you have nowhere to go.  There's no further appeals process.  You can ask them to compensate you just twice, and if they say no, that's it.  You can attempt to sue the company that made the product if you're convinced that it was improperly made, but the Secretary of HHS has to give you permission to sue.  You have to prove that there was willful misconduct, and no one has ever achieved that bar so there has never been a lawsuit under this. 

11:07  So anyway if you get a vaccine under EUA, you've got nothing, you're going nowhere.  If you're injured, you're on your own.  So what happened is President Biden and his administration decided it was going to be very important to institute mandates for these vaccines.  Now we don't know why that is; it doesn't make sense.  Large numbers of Americans are recovered and have durable, long-lasting immunity, much stronger than what you would achieve from the vaccine, which is limited only to immunity against spike.  Wears off over the next few months that would permanently limit the kind of immune response you would make were you to be infected with COVID again.  So there's absolutely no good reason to vaccinate some who has recovered.  And several bad reasons that you can harm them.  There's a higher rate of injury in the recovered if you vaccinate them.  And you may damage their immune response later.  

12:15  But for reasons best known to itself, the Biden administration was so certain it needed to vaccinate everybody but it has used illegal means to tell federal employers that they will lose federal contracts if they don't force their employees to be vaccinated immediately and must fire them if they're healthcare workers, for example, or government employees, or the military if they have not been vaccinated.  Now, obviously, that is creating a great deal of chaos, particularly in the healthcare industry, particularly in my state, where these draconian rules went into effect on Friday, and many fire departments, police, EMTs, nurses, and doctors can no longer work in Maine.  

13:06  One thing that was necessary to push mandates forward was for the government to say that it had a licensed product.  Because the statute that enables the Emergency Use Authorization, EUA, to be issued . . . so before the Emergency Use you had "licensed drugs" and "experimental drugs" and nothing else.  There were no gray areas.  So when they brought these in, they were still experimental drugs under emergency use.  You can't force people.  You have to offer them options.  Tell them what their options are and they have the right to refuse.  So since that is part of the statute, the federal government can't get around it.  So they wanted a licensed product to avoid the provisions of the statute.  

FDA: Plays Bait 'n' Switch with Corimanty. They Announced It as "Approved" So that They Could Push Through Mandates

Sen. Ron Johnson: There is not an FDA approved C0VID v⍺ccine in the US. pic.twitter.com/b3KinU227Q

— LADY AMINA (@The_AlphaX2) October 2, 2021

ANOTHER 26.7 MILLION PEOPLE HAVE LOST THEIR LIVES TO THE LOSS OF INNOVATION

h/t Steve Bartin

Dr. Mary Ruwart can be followed at:
Ruwart.com where you can sign up for her newsletter and free library.
Her Facebook page. 
Her Instagram page.
And her YouTube channel.

[3:27]  RUWART: The FDA, who really controls what you can say about your product, has said that if you make a health claim for a food or a nutrient, it then becomes a drug.  And then it has to go through 12 to 14 years of regulatory hoop-jumping.  

REGULATORY CAPTURE

[3:55] RUWART: Especially, in a highly regulated industry, the industry's survival depends on capturing the goodwill or the funding of the regulatory agency itself.  And that's happened by the Prescription Drug User Fee Act that was passed in 1992.  It started out as a user fee that the drug companies could pay, about $100,000, to speed up the approval process, the FDA's review of 12 to 14 years of data.  And the FDA generally takes a year or two to do that; it was about 2 years in 1992.  But it's morphed into funding most of the FDA's section that approves new drugs.  The numbers that I've seen, say as much as 70% of the salaries of the people who approve drugs now, come from these user fees, which at the last time I saw them were $2 million, which is huge.  So they've captured the . . . getting back to your definition, they've captured the regulators to such an extent that when Vioxx was being debated at the FDA whether they should approve it or not, one of the persons, David Graham, who objected to its approval, was told that the FDA's client was the Pharmaceutical Industry, not the American people, not Congress, but the Pharmaceutical Industry.  So that's a great example of regulatory capture.   [An entire industry!!!]

[5:35] DEIST: Most people tend to think that the FDA keeps us safe from dangerous drugs . . . 

RUWART:  . . . laughter . . . 

DEIST:  Continues . . .  It's not just a safety issue when the FDA tests and bans a certain drug because it causes heart seizures or something like that.  People can see that.  That seems tangible . . . and they can say, well, thank goodness for the FDA for protecting me.  It calls to mind Bastiat's the seen and unseen, what we can't see are all the things that might have been, all the innovative treatments and procedures that might have been had the FDA not been in the way.  

[6:10]  RUWART:  Yes, but with the Pharmaceutical industry we have studies that actually show that impact to a large degree.  In 1962, the Kefauver-Harris Amendments to the Food and Drug Act were passed.  And this really gave the FDA almost unlimited power over the pharmaceutical industry.  And the time it took to get a drug from the lab bench to the marketplace went from 4 years to 14 years by the 1980s because the FDA didn't want Congress to come down on them if there was a side effect for a drug, and all drugs have side-effects, so they would keep asking for more and more studies.  And because we know roughly how many lives each drug that's on the market today saves, you can actually calculate the number of people who have died waiting for new drugs because of these amendments.  It's about 15 million people through 2009.  And then we also have studies that show loss of innovation and late-stage development.  So for example, after the companies spent maybe 10 years working on a drug about 50% of them are dropped, not because they don't work, not because they aren't safe, but for economic reasons that the manufacturer realizes that they won't recover its costs or make enough profit to make it worthwhile to continue.  If we're only losing only 1/2 of our innovations, and we estimate that maybe 25% are as effective as the drugs we have on the market today, that's another 26.7 million people who've lost their lives to loss of innovation.  And lots of innovation actually gets lost before development even begins.  I had the FDA actually call me up one day and say, "Dr. Ruwart, we understand you have this patent now that you've applied for the treatment of liver disease with prostaglandins, which by the way are a natural substance and every cell in your body makes.  And I said, "Yes, that's true."  And the examiner said "Well, we're very excited at the FDA about this.  A hundred thousand people die every year from liver disease and we can only recommend bed rest.  So we want to let you know that we're here to help you get this drug to market."  But the problem is that when you have a truly new drug, you don't know how many times a day you have to give, you don't know what dose you need to give, and for a long-term disease like liver disease you don't know how long you need to treat.  So you don't know how many people you need in your study, and if you guess wrong on any of this, and you do an effectiveness study, which takes years, and you don't get the statistical significance that the FDA wants, you have to start over.  And Upjohn Management figured out that if we did start out, our patent would be gone and we would never be able to recover costs.  And I'm not a big believer in patents, but when you have this much regulation, there's no hope of recovering your costs unless of course, you have some type of monopoly protection, in this case, bans.  So I suspect that many, many drugs drop out in late-stage are never developed because the company can estimate it's just not going to make them any money.  So there's a lot of innovation that is lost, so my numbers are conservative and if you crank through these numbers probably every one of us has lost 5 years of our lives to these regulations that were passed in 1962.  The good news is that the regulators are losing 5 years, too.  And so is Congress, so maybe we get this changed.  

[9:50]  DEIST:  But when you talk about a drug taking 15 years to get to market, what you're essentially saying is that small or start-up pharmaceutical companies almost can't exist . . . you have to be big and rich.

[10:00]  RUWART:  Well, that's right.  What happens is today a lot of small companies start up and they do just the initial studies, of what we call Phase 1 Safety Testing in people, to get to that stage and then hand off their product to one of the big pharma companies that have enough money to take a big hit because it takes about $2 billion to bring a drug to market.  So if at the last moment, you pull the drug or the FDA won't approve it, obviously you lose a lot of money and small companies can't take that hit, but if you hand it off to a big pharmaceutical firm, a big firm who can take a hit, they lose a lot of potential profit.  

Get Dr. Ruwart's book, Death by Regulation: How We Were Robbed of a Golden Age of Health and How We Can Reclaim It, Dr. Mary J. Ruwart, 2018.

SMALLPOX VACCINES THAT CAUSE SMALLPOX? HUH.

Exclusive: FDA confession about smallpox vaccine

by Jon Rappoport

August 30, 2017

The FDA has just released a statement (8/28) about its crackdown on a California company pushing an unapproved treatment for cancer patients: stem cells mixed with a smallpox vaccine.

But that’s not the big story. The big story is buried in the FDA press release. Here is the Agency’s statement:

“Serious health problems, including those that are life-threatening, can also occur in…people who…have problems with their heart or immune system if they become infected with the [smallpox] vaccine virus, either by being vaccinated or by being in close contact with a person who was vaccinated.”

The FDA states that those with certain prior health conditions who pick up the smallpox virus, as a result of vaccination, are at exceptionally high risk. AMONG THOSE PRIOR HEALTH CONDITIONS IS: “IMMUNE SYSTEM PROBLEMS.”

That simply means weak and compromised immune systems.

And yet…during the years 1966-1980, a massive smallpox eradication campaign was carried out in Africa, under the auspices of the World Health Organization. Roughly 100 million doses of the smallpox vaccine were given to Africans, MANY OF WHOM ALREADY HAD COMPROMISED IMMUNE SYSTEMS.

How much devastation was wrought by this vaccination campaign?

The World Health Organization, in 1980, celebrated the eradication of smallpox on the African continent—but was that what really happened?

Or was it this? The visible signs of smallpox receded, but people with already-compromised immune systems began dying in large numbers.

The FDA has just unwittingly implied what researchers have known for decades; the so-called smallpox eradication campaign in Africa was one of the most dangerous medical interventions in history.

In the late 1980s, a respected biologist with close knowledge of the Africa eradication campaign, told me, off the record, that after the World Health Organization celebrated their “victory,” they held a very secret meeting in Geneva.

At this meeting, it was decided that the smallpox vaccine they deployed in Africa would never be used again.

I asked him why.

Because it caused cases of smallpox, he said.

So the African eradication campaign had a double effect. In some people, the vaccine caused smallpox, which it was supposed to prevent. In others, who already had very weak immune systems, it wrought extreme devastation and death without giving the appearance of smallpox.

More lies, more widespread destruction from the vaccine establishment.

(For more on this topic, see Enormous basic lies about vaccination…).  As of Saturday, November 27, 2021, that link is dead.  Follow this DuckDuckGo search for articles related to "Lies about vaccination" and "Jon Rappoport."  

Reprinted here with expressed written permission from Jon Rappoport.

"GM salmon . . . [has] already shown that they . . . easily contaminate other fish populations"

The debate on food seems matched only by the fascist debate on climate. In my best Colonel Schultz voice, "You vill accept that CO2 drives up temperatures," though the evidence and trends suggest, no, prove otherwise.  Just as Global warming is forced down our throats with threats to any dissenters, a position that receives the same hostilities as that of a Holocaust denier, we are being squeezed to believe that genetically modified foods are just as healthy as the real thing. I don't know about you, but even farm-raised fish has a terrible smell. And smell and taste both are indicators of nutrient-dense foods.  Talapia is one of the worst offenders.  I have literally gotten sick and weak from eating farm-raised salmon at one off-brand store.  And when I have examined the seafood section in a Vons store in Brea, CA I get almost nauseous looking at the meat that does not teem with nutrients and benefits of omega 3s.

AquaBounty, a lab that genetically modifies its salmon, was very covert in its development of genetically modified salmon, eliciting a lawsuit [from] the Canadian government for producing GM salmon eggs, imported from facilities in Panama.  

 I wonder why. 

Now that the FDA has deemed GM salmon ‘safe for sale,
how will you know if your store [carries] it, [given that] the FDA does not require labeling? AquaBounty’s answer is vague.

That's an excellent question.  So now the man, the customer, the buyer of fish is being treated the same way that the city water departments treats its tax-paying residents--by feeding them a chemical agent, fluouride, without their consent.  Now, fish buyers will get the same treatment from a flourishing of genetically modified fish hatcheries or labs that sell GM salmon that requires no labeling.  How then will the customer know what he is getting--Frankenfood or the real thing?  He won't.

“It is too early to discuss commercialization plans, but there are several paths to market that are being considered,” AquaBounty spokesperson Dave Conley told Civil Eats. [1]

How about the path that satisfies the customer?  Do customers prefer their salmon to come pureed into a finely ground, watery paste?  It doesn't seem like these GM outfits really care.  They are desperate to con a public into thinking that fish doesn't have to be fish to be fish.  That fish don't have to be fished from the sea or the lake or the river to be fish. The GM boys are magicians.  And I for one want none of their magic.

Your grocery store, farmers or fish market won’t have to tell you whether or not you are purchasing GM fish. According to the “voluntary guidelines for GMO labeling” the FDA proposed when it approved the salmon last week, that decision will be left entirely up to the companies selling the fish.

Let's see, so we'll be paying for wild caught but won't know if we get farm raised, GMO, or wild caught?  Is that it?  I think the customer will become remarkably savvy.  He can point to several things about the fish to determine whether it is wild caught or not.  Generally, farm raised salmon is brighter in color from added food coloring.  The fish often smells fishy. The fishier the smell means that it is raised on farms with bad smelling GMO feed.

Stores like Costco have vowed that ‘for now’ they aren’t planning on selling the GM fish, but as Food & Water Watch assistant director Patty Lovera says, the odds that companies will disclose this information are incredibly low. In fact, she has yet to see a food company do so. “The practical effect of voluntary labeling is no labeling.”

CostCo "vows" not to sell GM fish but without labelling how will the customer know?  Does he merely rely on the promise of a large retailer?

There are a few ways to minimize the possibility of eating GM fish, though. Aside from demanding that your grocery store disclose whether or not it is selling the genetically modified variety, the country-of-origin (COOL) label required by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has to say where the salmon comes from. Many retailers also label if salmon is farm-raised or wild caught.

Problem with relying on labeling is the government, i.e., the FDA, has given a pass to most food manufacturers.  Labeling is no longer required, particularly with beef.  

This makes no sense.

Though the GM salmon (supposedly grown in captivity), have already shown that they could easily contaminate other fish populations, even brown trout, if you purchase wild caught fish that is NOT grown in Panama, the chances that you’ll be eating GM fish should significantly decrease.

Out of sight, out of mind.  The salmon is all mixed in with other species of salmon--GM, wild caught, and farm-raised. 

Furthermore, if the salmon has been processed and added to other ingredients, like salmon spread or a salmon burger, it is more likely to have been grown with GM salmon.

As of today, according to Center for Food Safety analyst, Jaydee Hanson, the only commercially-grown salmon in Panama is genetically modified.

AquaBounty maintains that its GE salmon will be “traceable.”

Sources:

[1] KQED

Read more: http://naturalsociety.com/will-know-store-selling-gm-salmon/#ixzz3vylnHu6B.  Follow us: @naturalsociety on Twitter | NaturalSociety on Facebook

Obama Administration Suppressed FDA Warning About Mercury In Dental Fillings

by Dale Steinreich

The proposal, approved by top FDA officials in late 2011 and kept secret since, would have told dentists they should not use mercury fillings in cavities in pregnant women, nursing moms, children under 6 and people with mercury allergies, kidney diseases or neurological problems.  It also urged dentists to avoid using fillings that contain mercury compounds in any patient, where possible.

Lobbying against any changes is the American Dental Association which has a political action committee that donated almost $2.5 million to Congressional candidates from 2013 to 2014.

Read the rest, including a few case studies that suggest that the FDA is likely understating the problem.

Of course progressives want even more government involvement in health care since it’s such a “neutral party.”  Sure.  Funny how so many of them still vehemently defend “Obamacare,” a scheme first concocted and embraced by conservative Republicans.

Do not get fillings.  Do not let dentists scare you into getting fillings or amalgam fillings.  Instead, eat a nutrient dense diet with good fats and proteins.  Doing so will help you remineralize your teeth.  Also, don't get your wisdom teeth pulled.  You want to keep as many of your teeth as possible.