Vaccine Research Conflicts of Interest

Vaxxed & Unvaxxed Kids Not Compared

http://gaia-health.com

Conflicts of interest are rampant in vaccine research. How and why they exist are the topic of a journal article reviewed here. This is why research that could prove that vaccines are safe hasn’t been done.

A new report published in the journal, Accountability in Research, reviews and discusses all areas of conflicts of interest in vaccination research. The author paints a very dark picture, but it’s one that cannot be legitimately denied. Conflicts of interest have resulted in research that isn’t worthy of the term.

The Author

Gayle DeLong, the author of Conflicts of Interest in Vaccine Safety Research, frankly spells out her own conflicts. She is the mother of two children with pervasive developmental disorders. She has filed a petition in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program for one of her daughters. She is a former member of the board of directors of Sensible Action for Ending Mercury-Induced Neurological Disorders (SafeMinds).

She doesn’t point out her career qualifications for the article. She holds a Ph.D. in Finance and International Business from the Stern School of Business, New York University. Regulated industries are an area of her expertise. Her work has been published in the Journal of Financial Economics, the Journal of Finance, the Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, and the Journal of International Money and Finance. She is well qualified to discuss the issue of conflict of interest in the vaccination industry.

DeLong investigates conflicts of interest for every imaginable entity involved in vaccine research and safety.

Vaccine Manufacturers

The conflict of interest (COI) among vaccine manufacturers is fairly obvious. Worldwide sales of pediatric vaccines alone were $11.5 billion in 2009, and it’s expected to reach $20 billion by 2014. The usual risk of lawsuits when products go bad and cause injury doesn’t help curb ineffective or unsafe vaccines because The National Childhood Vaccination Injury Act of 1986 indemnifies them in the event of injury. This waiver was given because pharmaceutical corporations were refusing to develop new vaccines, saying that they were not profitable.

The one arena in which pharmaceutical manufacturers express concern about safety is the potential loss of sales. DeLong tells the tale of Maurice Hilleman, a vaccine researcher for Merck. In an internal memo in 1991, he reported that some countries were considering a ban on thimerosal, a mercury-containing preservative. He said that he didn’t know if thimerosal is dangerous. However, he warned that public perceptions could affect sales. The one concern Hilleman expressed had nothing to do with investigating whether mercury was safe, but whether the company should reduce the amount of thimerosal in vaccines because of public perceptions.

The influence of vaccine manufacturers is ubiquitous. They sponsor research and researchers. A survey of the top US medical research institutions found that over two-thirds of the researchers received industry support. Unsurprisingly, studies have shown that researchers tend to get results that coincide with their financial interests.

Entire institutions are affected by pharma money. Whether it comes in the form of grants, endowed chairs, or other goodies, the results sway entire institutions to get on board with what pharma wants.

A more subtle form of control is pharma giving the bulk of their university-related money to senior and well-established researchers who played ball with them. A clear message is sent to younger researchers that they must play the same game.

Authors of research papers do not always disclose all their associations with pharma corporations, leaving the reader unaware of potentially worrisome connections. This echoes Big Tobacco’s ability to find researchers willing to compromise themselves by calling smoking safe.

Big Pharma’s influence is ubiquitous in every arena where it has an interest. As a result, most published vaccine-related research is questionable.

Food and Drug Administration (FDA)

DeLong points out that the FDA’s mission inherently results in conflict of interest. It states that the first mission is to protect:

… the public health by assuring the safety, efficacy, and security of human and veterinary drugs. … The FDA also helps the public get the accurate, science-based information they need to use medicines and foods to improve their health.”

The FDA has approved the vaccines used in the US. If the agency were to sponsor a study that demonstrates a link between autism and vaccinations, it could, according to DeLong, “greatly damage the Administration’s reputation and reduce public trust in the FDA.”

The manner in which the FDA is funded creates a major COI. The 1992 Prescription Drug User Fee Act requires pharmaceutical companies to pay fees for evaluation of their drugs. Although vaccines are not specifically included in this act, the fact is that most pharmaceutical companies that make vaccines also make drugs—and those fees for drugs certainly help make the FDA friendly towards them.

Parents of vaccine injured children can file claims in the Division of Vaccine Injury Compensation (DVIC), which is a division of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The FDA is also a division of HHS. If the FDA provided information that could support DVIC claims, it could also be used against the FDA.

This is an arena where we can be sure that a significant COI exists. DeLong states:

As of December 2011, over 5,600 autism claims have been filed in DVIC. The average payout for vaccine-related injuries is close to $825,000 (DHHS,2011), so the autism claims could cost the Program over $4.6 billion. Additionally, more parents would seek compensation if DVIC recognized autism as a vaccine injury.

If we consider how many children are now found to have autism—with the CDC now estimating 1 in 88—it seems obvious that DeLong’s estimate of DVIC being at risk to the tune of $4.6 billion is extremely low. The number of children in the US is now about 89 million. That’s well over a million children with autism. Over $825 billion dollars could be due these families! That’s nearly a trillion dollars—and it doesn’t include all the children with other conditions that are likely related to vaccines. Once the flood doors open on autism, they’d remain open. This is a nation-busting issue—and that’s one stunning conflict of interest!

In my view, this is the most significant conflict of interest. To admit that vaccines cause autism and other severe disabilities would put the government in an unsustainable position, both morally and financially. Thus, no admission of such a connection will be made.

Centers for Disease Control (CDC)

Graphic by Jonik Editorial Cartoons (altered by modifications to reference vaccine-associated agencies).

The CDC’s conflict of interest is inherent in the mandates that it’s charged with. The agency is charged with preventing and controlling disease, injury, and disability. The primary method by which they attempt to control disease is through promoting vaccination. Upon FDA approval, they set the recommended vaccination schedule. But they’re also charged with doing research on vaccine safety.

So, if the CDC promotes vaccinations without first assuring their safety, how can they also control disabilities caused by vaccines? Obviously, there’s a conflict of interest. To admit that its own policy of vaccination is the cause of autism would mean that the CDC doesn’t actually support its goal of preventing disability, that it’s actually causing it. Therefore, it’s no surprise the the CDC is not inclined to support genuine research into vaccine safety.

Officials at the CDC are noted for using their term at the agency as a stepping stone to extremely high-paying positions with the pharmaceutical industry. Julie Geberding was the CDC’s Director from 2002 to 2008. During her tenure, she promoted vaccination heavily. As soon as the one-year time span for taking a position with Big Pharma had elapsed, she became president of Merck Vaccines. The use of the CDC as a career path to bigger and better things within the industry that’s supposedly being regulated is an obvious conflict of interest.

Institute of Medicine (IOM)

The IOM is, presumably, an independent nonprofit agency. However, it does take grants from the CDC. Therefore, when it was tasked by the CDC to do a study on whether there might be a connection between vaccines containing thimerosal and autism, they knew on which side their bread is buttered.

Dr. Marie McCormick, who was Chair of the IOM’s Immunization Safety Review Committee, stated of the proposed study:

We are not ever going to come downthat [autism] is a true side effect [of vaccines].

As DeLong points out, she was declaring their conclusion before even performing the study!

In their final report, The IOM evaded the issue. They said that, though a link between autism and vaccines was “theoretically possible”, no causal link had been found in epidemiological studies. Therefore, they suggested that it would be better to channel funds for such a study to “more promising areas of research”.

Notice that they made a statement that is, on its face, absurd. Causation is not found through epidemiological studies! Associations are, but causation—though there may seem to be an obvious cause-and-effect connection—is not formally ascertained through such a study. This merely highlights that the IOM clearly wanted to be clear of doing that study about vaccine safety. If they found a connection to autism, then they’d risk losing grants.

Congress

Members of congress receive significant contributions from pharmaceutical and health products industries. These contributions have been growing at an enormous rate. Members of congress are fully aware that they must capitulate to their financers if they’ve any hope of being reelected. But that’s probably even less important than that many members of congress go on to very lucrative positions as lobbyists with these same pharma corporations. Since most of them don’t spend their lives representing the folk back home, instead moving on to other things that result from their congressional tenure, they aren’t likely to bite the hands that feed their nice lifestyles.

It should come as no surprise that members of congress are shy about doing anything critical of the pharmaceutical industry. Should they attempt to mandate a study that might have a negative impact on the profits of Big Pharma, they aren’t going to get the donations needed to get re-elected, nor are they going to receive lucrative offers after leaving.

Medical Journals

DeLong states:

Medical journal authors’ ties to vaccine manufacturers are pervasive, as revealed in a review of authors of vaccine safety articles published in top journals. …

… Not only authors, but also journals themselves can be conflicted. Washington (2011) details thereliance of medical journals on advertising from pharmaceutical companies, which can account for up to 99% of a journal’s advertising revenue.

She quotes Fiona Godlee, editor-in-chief of the BMJ:

Even on the peer-reviewed side of things, it has been said that the journals are the marketing arm of the pharmaceutical industry. That is not untrue. To a large extent, that is true.

Basically, medical journals are one big conflict of interest.

Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS)

VAERS is the US’s system for reporting adverse events resulting from vaccines. By its nature, it’s not entirely reliable. However, it most likely reflects a small proportion of the adverse events that afflict people after vaccinations. One would expect that there would be a purpose for collecting all this data.

As must be painfully obvious at this point, vaccines are not adequately studied, especially in terms of safety. As DeLong states:

No research sponsor has supported a large-scale study of the prevalence of autism among vaccinated versus unvaccinated children, nor are vaccination records included in prospective studies.

The subject is studiously avoided. As DeLong points out, the Columbia Center for Children’s Environmental Health sponsors studies on prenatal and postnatal environmental toxic exposures to search for possible adverse effects on health. They investigate all sorts of things, but vaccines are never on the list. Another such study, the National Child Study, investigates environmental factors in children’s health, but they don’t consider vaccines, either.

And no large studies have been launched to utilize VAERS data—with the exception of a few intrepid souls, like Michael Belkin, who take it on themselves. It shouldn’t be surprising, though. Conflicts of interest related to vaccination are pervasive. The easiest way to avoid finding something that you don’t want to find is not to look for it—and that brings us to the elephant in the vaccine room.

The Vaccine Elephant—The Study’s Implication

Those of us who read studies on vaccines are often stunned at the poor quality and their apparently intentionally misleading nature. The reason for it becomes apparent once we’re aware of the pervasiveness of conflicts of interest. What’s amazing is that some good information comes out, anyway.

Still, most of what’s investigated is things like titers, the level of antibodies that result from vaccines, with associated assumptions about whether they’re adequate—but without any demonstration of why those particular figures were chosen or if, indeed, they actually do represent immunity. When it comes to safety, studies are done in exceptionally dishonest ways. Two favorites are to do only short-term investigations or to make comparisons utilizing active placebos. That is, the placebos contain many of the same substances that are believed—even known—to cause adverse reactions.

Still, as bad as these studies are, they’re done and trotted out as evidence for both efficacy and safety of vaccines. However, one kind of study is never done. No large-scale comparison between vaccinated and unvaccinated children is ever done.

Considering how blatantly vaccine research is gamed, there can only be one reason for this lack: The distinction between the two groups is so dramatic that all of the techniques used to twist results cannot hide the reality. The vaccine elephant is the comparison between the two groups. Such a study would not be difficult to put together. There are groups of people who are almost all unvaccinated: the Amish, the thousands of children who’ve attended Dr. Eisenstein’s Homefirst Clinic, and a large group of children spread out in several countries who have attended Waldorf schools.

The elephant in the vaccine research room is the comparison of health between vaxxed and unvaxxed people. That research simply isn’t being done, in spite of being the obvious way to determine whether vaccines are safe or lead to better health.

There’s one near-sure way to avoid finding something, and that’s not to look for it.

The lack of research that could end the question of whether vaccines are safe simply isn’t being done. The reason is obvious: Those who could do it won’t because it would conflict with their careers and financial status.

Reforming the Unreformable

Reforming the Unreformable

With this lock down, now is the time to get yourself into health. You have plenty of time to read and time to detox – no worrying about feeling too weak if you can't go to work.

Click Here for our natural health supplements.

by Dr. Herbert M. Shelton

I am indebted to Harry Clements, N.D., D.O., of London for the following quotation from Medical News-Tribune (May 1, 1972), which he carried in his column in Health For All (July, 1972): "Every doctor who prescribes drugs must be aware of the possibility that the remedy might be worse than the disease for which it is prescribed, warns a leading Dutch pharmacologist. These drug-induced diseases are so varied that there are indeed few pathological conditions that may not be brought about by some drug, Professor L. Meyler, Professor of Clinical Pharmacology at Groningen University, told the International Meeting of Medical Advisers to the Pharmaceutical Industry in London."

After calling attention to the fact that Professor Meyler "does not use the euphemism 'side-effect' which may mean much or little: he talks of drug-induced disease, which makes the matter perfectly clear," and that Meyler "makes it plain, also, how complicated the subject is and warns doctors (physicians) to be on the lookout for symptoms of such induced diseases every time they are confronted by a patient, since the symptoms may be the result of drugs prescribed by other doctors (physicians) or by remedies (drugs) used in self-medication (self-drugging)," Dr. Clements further quotes Meyler as saying: "some drugs produce immediate effects after administration, such as anaphylactic shock. Others cause reactions only after weeks or months, such as aplastic anaemia after chloramphenicol. Sometimes, the effect can only be discerned after several years, such as retinitis pigmentosa, caused by chloroquine and some phenothiazines, and interstitial nephritis caused by analgesics."

  So far as I am aware I am the only writer in the world who has consistently and persistently, for more than twenty-five years, stressed the fact that the so-called side effects of drugs, are part of their regular effects. They are simply effects of poisoning and have been called side-effects only because they are not the effects which the prescribing physician seeks to produce. It is surprising therefore to have Clements say that "Just how complicated the whole matter is becoming must be clear to everyone and it is perfectly obvious that the doctors (physicians) are as much in the dark about the subject of drug-induced disease as anyone." As soon as physicians and "everyone," including even Dr. Clements, become willing to recognize that every drug is a poison and that it poisons every tissue in the body as it circulates in the blood stream all this alleged mystery about drug-induced diseases will become clear. So long as it continues to be believed by physicians and their imitators in the other healing professions that drugs may have physiological and therapeutic effects and that drug-induced disease is something separate and apart from these physiological and therapeutic effects, the whole thing will continue to be shrouded in mystery.

Dr. Clements says that Professor Meyler emphasizes the complexity of the subject of drug-induced diseases when he says: "study of adverse reactions is in its infancy, but progress is being made. The main factor is that the prescribing doctor must be aware of the possible effects of what he prescribes. He must not only look for the known adverse reactions, but he must also be prepared for unknown reactions hitherto not described anywhere."

The confusion exists in the minds of men who can speak of the adverse reactions of drugs in such a manner as to imply that drugs may have favorable reactions. All the alleged actions of drugs, whether they are termed physiological, therapeutic, synergistic, antagonistic, side, or by some other term that hides the essential character of the drug effects are the direct outgrowth of the "toxic quality of the drug or drugs. Instead of the actions which follow the ingestion of a drug being drug actions, they are one and all actions of the living organism designed to resist, reject and expel the drug. There is no such thing as pharmaco-dynamics. There is only bio-dynamics. No amount of study of so-called adverse reactions can lead to anything except greater confusion so long as the basic character of alleged drug actions is unrecognized.

In this same column in July Health For All, Dr. Clements writes: "The British Medical Journal paper read by Dr. D. Stafford-Clark, summarized it in part as follows: 'The public was disillusioned with the medical profession because the doctor had little time to listen, understand, and perhaps give affection. Today's medical student was arrogant and ignorant. For years people had turned to doctors as men of education and broad background, but today frequently this was not true. It was essential that all doctors look on themselves as teachers. He reminded them that, like parents, much was taught by example and that it should be the aim of every doctor firstly to set an example for all those he came into contact with, and only secondly to be a technician."

Nothing emphasizes the mind beclouding effects of medical tradition and a medical education as much as does the fact that man can observe and study all the disease-inducing effects of drugs and continue to believe that the same drugs, in the same dosages and in the bodies of the same patients, can also produce beneficial or curative effects. It is a strange delusion long hugged by the men of medicine that poisons can be both our bane and our boon. Instead of seeking to restore the sick to health by the employment of beneficial substances and conditions, medical men seek for all of their curative agents in the most toxic substances which they can discover. There is a mountain of evidence, accumulated during the past thirty years, that aspirin has produced more damage and killed more people during this time than has penicillin, yet a cure-deluded profession continues to prescribe this poison on a large scale and to encourage self-drugging with aspirin. The drug induced diseases resulting from the use of aspirin should be enough to cause any intelligent man to condemn its use for any beneficial purpose. Aspirin is but one of many thousands of rank poisons that the medical profession is sending down the throats or injecting directly into the blood and tissues of their victims in the name of healing and then expressing wonder and mystification over what they term their side-effects.

Commenting upon this item from the British Medical Journal, Dr. Clements says that "the most significant part of this summary is not the criticism of the attitude of the doctors, but the proposition that they should regard themselves as teachers, since this raises a very important question: To what extent, and how effectively are they taught to be teachers and what are they taught to teach? Surely, no one would expect that a doctor practicing drug-therapy would want to teach his patients about it. The millions of patients who go to the consulting rooms go for their prescriptions, and little else.

"However, if the doctor is to become a teacher, presumably of matters appertaining to health and disease, his whole curriculum will have to undergo radical changes with more emphasis being placed on food and nutrition and the other environmental factors which play so important a part in the maintenance and recovery of health. In short, it will have to embrace a good deal of the nature cure philosophy, and if the doctor is to become an example of healthful living for his patients we can foresee the need for some big changes. It looks as if Dr. Stafford-Clark is setting the stage for what could be some sort of medical revolution."

Is Dr. Clements kidding when he suggests that Stafford-Clark is setting the stage for a revolution? Dr. Clements is too well aware of the fact that revolutions arise spontaneously out of revolutionary situations and do not occur because somebody sets the stage for them. He must know that Stafford-Clark has in mind nothing more significant than a few petty reforms. Like Meyler, who suggests more study of adverse-reactions rather than a discontinuance of practices that inevitably and necessarily give rise to so-called adverse-reactions, Stafford-Clark would not think of suggesting anything that would deprive him and his profession of their pills and potions. Revolution is the farthest thing from his mind that is conceivable. A revolution in medicine, long overdue, will destroy it, root and branch, and this no leader in the medical profession would dare to suggest.

Dr. Clements heads this part of his column "Doctor or Teacher," as though there is a difference. He continually used the word doctor, which means teacher, as a synonym for the term physician. A physician is one learned in or skilled in the art of physics. Physic is a drug, particularly a purgative drug. It is what Shakespeare had in mind when he put the words "Throw physic to the dogs," into the mouth of one of his characters. "Where can you find a dog that will take it," asked one of his contemporaries. I am sure that it is known to Dr. Clements that at first the schools of physic conferred the degree Dr. of Physic only upon men who were to be teachers of physic. Men who administered drugs at the bedside were not doctors, but practitioners, and were not called doctors but were known as practitioners.

I am constrained to wonder just what Dr. Clements himself means by revolution in this instance. In this same column in this same issue of Health For All, under the subtitle "Worth Quoting" he quotes the following words from a recent work entitled Cure or Heal by E. Graham Howe, M.D., in which Dr. Clements says Howe has given to the vis medicatrix its proper significance and that Howe reaffirms his confidence in the healing power of nature: "given the right attitude on the part of both patients and therapist and a sufficiency of time, our old friend the vis medicatrix naturae, which mends our broken bones and heals the common ailments of our bodies (with some help maybe, but also sometimes in spite of more than a little hindrance from the doctor), works on every level, and all the time, to heal us of our ills."

If a statement of this kind which gives the healing power of nature a subordinate position gives to the healing power of nature its proper significance, there still remains a lot of healing or curing to be done by the therapist with his "bag of tricks." There is no room in a statement of this kind for a revolution. There remains only the work of trying to reform the unreformable.

Bacteriophobia

Bacteriophobia

The universal acceptance of the germ theory, and the consequently widespread bacteriophobia, resulted in a multiplicity of frenzied efforts to escape from the threat of the dreadful and malicious germs by waging a constant war against them in the belief that the alternative was certain death.

The populace was advised to cook all food and boil all water (with the inevitable deterioration in health accompanying raw food deprivation).

The present-day practice of killing germs (inside and outside the body) with poison drugs was initiated, resulting in more and more degeneration and iatrogenic (drug-induced) disease.

Various programs were initiated to confer “immunity” against specific germs by means of vaccines and serums, resulting in the monstrous inoculation system—with horrendous effects, detailed in my book, Don’t Get Stuck!

Fortunately, the warning against, and horror of, all raw foods as dangerous and bacteria-ridden, has been largely overcome, through the persistent educational efforts of Hygienists and other knowledgeable people, though the ban on unpasteurized dairy products still exists in most areas in the United States.

The acceptance of poison drugs, vaccines, and serums has not waned to any appreciable extent.

Pasteur Changes His Mind

As previously mentioned, around 1860. Pasteur discovered facts which were not in accord with his previous conception that disease germs were unchangeable. He found that microbial species can undergo many transformations; this discovery destroyed the basis for the germ theory. Since a coccus (pneumonia germ) could change to a bacillus (typhoid germ) and back again (and, indeed, since any germ could turn into another)—and since their virulence could be altered, often at the will of the experimenter, the whole theory exploded.

It is frequently overlooked that Pasteur by then had changed his direction, and his more mature conception of the cause of disease, as given by Dr. Duclaux, was that a germ was “ordinarily kept within bounds by natural laws, but, when conditions change, when its virulence is exalted, when its host is enfeebled, the germ was able to “invade” the territory which was barred to it up to that time. This, of course, is the premise that a healthy body is resistant to disease or not susceptible to it.

After the change in his outlook, and numerous experiments along this line, Pasteur was at last convinced that controllable physiological factors were basic in the assessment of vulnerability to disease and concluded, “The presence in the body of a pathogenic agent is not necessarily synonymous with infectious disease.” (The presence of certain germs is not proof that they are the cause of a disease.)

So Pasteur did finally reverse his position and acknowledge that germs are not the specific and primary cause of disease, and he abandoned the germ theory. He is reported to have said on his deathbed, “Bernard was right. The seed is nothing, the soil is everything.”

Although Pasteur abandoned his early immature and erroneous theory in the 1880s, it was accepted, developed, fostered, and perpetuated by others, and the mischief, medical misunderstanding, and error continue to this day (the ultimate irony!).

The Stupid Masses

The Stupid Masses

by Mike Stone 
(henrymakow.com)


Cowering behind closed doors, hiding behind medical masks, afraid to stand within six feet of another human being.

Welcome to L.A. Never in my life have I felt such disdain for the stupidity of my fellow human beings.

 I'm talking about anyone age 15 or so and older who actually believes all the bullshit they're being fed about this #scamdemic.

I'm talking about people that are willfully ignorant. Do you watch the television news? Do you believe what they're telling you? If so, you're a f-ing idiot. Sorry for the harsh language, but you are. And it's about time somebody called you out on it.

You're being conned, bamboozled, hoodwinked. They're playing you like a fiddle and you're so stupid you don't even know it. And of all the stupid people in all the stupid states in this country, clueless California has the stupidest.

The governor seems intent on inflicting as much economic and emotional pain on the citizens of California as possible. He was one of the first to order a statewide lockdown. Citizens were ordered to stay at home and "non-essential" businesses ordered to close.


My neighborhood, once thriving and vibrant, now looks like a post-apocalyptic ghost town.

Everything is shut down. Of the few "essential" businesses that remain open, no one is allowed in without a mask, and no one is allowed within six feet of another person. Did you know that's it's actually against the law in this state now to go outside without a mask? And people are actually being ticketed for it?

Millions of Californians have now lost their jobs and the state is overrun with unemployment claims, but the website for filing claims never works and no one answers the phone. Businesses are going under left and right. Do you think the greedy property owners who rent or lease space to all of those businesses are going to let them slide a month or two because of this "pandemic"? Ha! Think again.

This state was already on the verge of bankruptcy and now this? Are you f-ing kidding me? They better keep those stimulus checks and food stamps coming. If they don't, California is going to see riots that make the Rodney King uprising look like a walk in the park.

There are two restaurants in my neighborhood that I used to frequent. The first is owned by a young Asian couple that invested their life savings into opening it. It's been boarded up for the last three weeks. The owners are the nicest couple you'll ever meet. I don't see how they're going to survive.


The second is a bar with a restaurant in the back. They remained open after the lockdown as a takeout establishment, but the stupid mayor of Los Angeles found out and cut their phone,  power and their water, forcing them to close. Hundreds of other businesses in this state suffered the same fate. Meanwhile, over ten percent of the jail population has been set free on the streets and police are no longer arresting anyone for thefts of under $1,000.

F-ing criminals are turned loose to rob, pillage, and rape, while honest people trying to work and make a living are harassed, shut down, and in some cases arrested. And nobody in this state gives a shit. They're all hunkered down, hiding behind their stupid masks, terrified of a damn cold virus.

The slimiest ones of all are collecting reward money for snitching on their fellow citizens. Think I'm kidding? Hell no! The commie pukes running the show here are actually paying reward money for alerting them to "non-essential" businesses that remain open.

I pass women on the street. Some of them actually look kind of alluring with nothing visible but their eyes. But how can you remain attracted to anyone dumb enough to buy into this hoax? I'm at the point where I have zero tolerance for stupidity.


Once a week now I'm forced to wait in line with 50-100 other people, waiting for the local grocery store, which used to operate 24 hours, to open at 7 A.M. When the doors finally do open, everyone surges forward. I feel the shopping cart of the person behind me ramming into the back of my ankles. The first time, I ignore it. The second time, I ignore it. The third time, I turn around. The person pushing the cart is a middle-aged Asian man. His face is covered with a mask, but his eyes are among the most frightened I've ever seen. Once we get inside the store, he races off like a madman. I spot him later at the checkout lane, his cart overflowing with canned food and toilet paper.

There's a girl that works at that grocery store that I talk to. I see she's not wearing a mask, which makes her and me and a guy bagging groceries the only ones not doing so. I'm instantly attracted. She's the only person I've spoken to in the last three weeks who recognizes how stupid and retarded this whole thing is. Talking to her is like a breath of fresh air. Then she tells me that starting tomorrow all employees and all customers will be required to wear a mask in order to enter the store.

SILVER LINING?

Is there anything positive about this scamdemic? Anything positive at all? If Hollywood crumbles and none of those talentless hacks ever works again, I would almost say it was worth it. But I can't see that happening. The industry has to be in line for literally hundreds of millions of dollars in bailouts. They just have to. They wouldn't be going along with this farce if they weren't.

Same with the fast food restaurants. Same with the newspapers and magazines that nobody reads anymore. Every slime bucket business will be bailed out, while every worthwhile one will either be destroyed or put on life support.

On a personal level, I'm in great shape. Forced to stay home all day, I'm doing pushups, I'm doing pull-ups; my body is strong as an ox. Muscles popping up all over. But for what? To live in a city of morons? To live in a country of brain-dead zombies?

Here's something positive: I'm praying more, and trying to make amends with people for past sins. It's a tremendous feeling to connect with someone from the past and apologize for any harm I might have caused them. Try it yourself.

Based on what I've observed over the last three weeks, if the U.S. were ever to get into a war with another super power, I'm almost certain we'd get our asses kicked. The people of this country have become weak, pathetic little cowards. And our so-called leaders are the worst ones of all. Where's the pushback among all this madness? Where's the slightest sign of intelligence and courage? Some Republican Governors say they're going to reopen their states. God bless 'em.

As for California, forget it. Forget about school in the fall. Forget about 80% of these closed businesses ever reopening. Forget about seeing any happy, smiling people from this state any time in the near future. It's all doom and gloom in the Golden State.

The Notion of Consensus

The Notion of Consensus

“I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.

“Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.”

“… Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E = mc². Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.””

Of around 2500 treatments so far reviewed by the journal's distinguished team of advisors, peer reviewers, experts, information specialists and statisticians, only 13 percent have been found definitely beneficial. A further 23 percent are rated as likely to be beneficial; 8 percent can be classified as a trade off between benefits and harms; 6 percent as clearly unlikely to be beneficial; 4 percent are likely to be ineffective or harmful, and a whopping 46 percent - almost half of all treatments reviewed - are rated as being of unknown effectiveness. WHERE'S THE EVIDENCE? by Ralph Moss

"Allopathy : Also known as ‘scientific medicine’, ‘orthodox medicine’ and ‘modern medicine’, is barely about 200 years old. It lays emphasis on drugs. It offers antibiotics, synthetic vitamins, steroids, chemotherapy, radiation, and immunization all of which are highly dangerous. Its diagnostics methods are not foolproof and 95% of surgeries in allopathic hospitals are unnecessary. Doctors of modern medicine receive their continuing education from Medical Representatives of (P)harmaceuticals, and prescribe lethal drugs based on cuts and commission. These inadequately tested and prescribed drugs create more diseases. Allopathy is a ‘pseudo science’ which has done more harm to health and wellbeing of humanity than any other 40 odd systems of healing described below."---- A TO Z OF ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE by Dr. Leo Rebello (A chapter from Dr. Leo Rebello's popular book AIDS and Alternative Medicine, 4th Edition)

Scientific medicine is one term accepted by these (allopathic) physicians. This name lays exclusive claim to a "scientific" foundation on a body of knowledge, derived from both research and observation, that is chronicled in peer-reviewed journals. It has a history of controlled, clinical studies; has a strong tradition of basic laboratory science; and is closely affiliated with medical schools and hospital research centers. But alternative practitioners, short on laboratory science but long on case reports, can also point to a historic collection of observations and data. With the NIH now enrolled as a sponsor, they will be soon publishing the results of more rigorous clinical studies, whatever their outcome, and may establish a stronger scientific foundation for their work. The term scientific medicine implies that other healing practices are not grounded in reality. It suggests, in a not so subtle manner, that alternative practices have no scientific or technological underpinnings, no systematization of facts, methods, or principles. Annals of Internal Medicine

"Despite the tendency of doctors to call modern medicine an 'inexact science', it is more accurate to say there is practically no science in modern medicine at all. Almost everything doctors do is based on a conjecture, a guess, a clinical impression, a whim, a hope, a wish, an opinion or a belief. In short, everything they do is based on anything but solid scientific evidence. Thus, medicine is not a science at all, but a belief system. Beliefs are held by every religion, including the Religion of Modern Medicine." Robert Mendelsohn MD Preface by Hans Ruesch to 1000 Doctors (and many more) Against Vivisection

"Most patients probably assume that when a doctor proposes to use an established treatment to conquer a disease he will be using a treatment which has been tested, examined and proven. But this is not the case. The savage truth is that most medical research is organised, paid for, commissioned or subsidised by the drug industry (and the food, tobacco and alcohol industries). This type of research is designed, quite simply, to find evidence showing a new product is of commercial value. The companies which commission such research are not terribly bothered about evidence; what they are looking for are conclusions which will enable them to sell their product. Drug company sponsored research is done more to get good reviews than to find out the truth."----Dr Vernon Coleman

"Today's medical training is based upon pronouncement and opinion rather than on investigation and scientific experience. In medical schools students are bombarded with information but denied the time or the opportunity to question the ex-cathedra statements which are made from an archaic medical culture. Time and again new treatments and new techniques are introduced on a massive scale without there being any scientific support for them and without doctors knowing what the long term consequences are likely to be. Instead of experimenting and then practising tried and trusted techniques, modern medical practitioners use all their patients as guinea pigs and practice their black art as a massive international experiment."----Dr Vernon Coleman

"Doctors go to great lengths to disguise the fact that they are practising a black art rather than a science. The medical profession has created a 'pseudoscience' of mammoth proportions and today's doctors rely on a vast variety of instruments and tests and pieces of equipment with which to explain and dignify their interventions. This, of course, is nothing new. The alchemists of the middle ages and the witch doctors of Africa realised that words and spells reeked of gods and sorcery and so they created a secret and impenetrable structure of herbs, songs, dance, rattling of special bones, chants and ceremonial incantations. Today's clinicians have much more sophisticated mumbo jumbo to offer. They have laser surgery and psychotherapy, CAT scanners and serum manganese assessments to substantiate their claims to be scientists. But however good the impenetrable pseudoscience may sound or seem to be, and however well based on scientific principles the equipments and the techniques is still little more than mumbo jumbo. Doctors may use scientific instruments but that doesn't make them scientists any more than a witch doctor would become a scientist if he wore a stethoscope and danced around a microscope!"----Dr Vernon Coleman

"Now, if doctors were aware that medicine was not a science and that they were pulling what is undoubtedly the largest and most successful confidence trick ever tried the damage would be fairly minimal. But the problem is compounded by the fact that the vast majority of doctors believe the lie that they are taught; they believe that they are scientists, practising an applied science."----Dr Vernon Coleman

"In the last century the practice of medicine has become no more than an adjunct to the pharmaceutical industry and the other aspects of the huge, powerful and immensely profitable health care industry. Medicine is no longer an independent profession. Doctors have become nothing more than a link connecting the pharmaceutical industry to the consumer."----Dr Vernon Coleman