Friday, October 7, 2016

Wanted unsuspecting research subjects

Does anyone think that most of these commercials on TV that are hyping up drugs making them seem like a miracle cure, especially if some people pay more attention to the special effects than the warnings about possible side effects which are not as loud, is a good way to get reliable information about medical help?

There should be no doubt that it isn't but in addition to that, intentionally or not, these ads are recruiting people to participate in undisclosed drug research projects. This doesn't necessarily mean they're what they consider clinical trials which are supposedly subject to peer review and ethical guidelines, though. Many research projects aren't planned and only take place after unintended consequences, like when they find out about side effects of drugs after they've been on the market for years, or even basic items like talcum powder.

There has been recent research showing that Talcum Baby Powder causes Ovarian Cancer leading to Lawsuits and more research. This is just one of many examples where common items turned out to have negative side effects that weren't discovered for decades after being used by large number of people, who unintentionally turned out to be research subjects.

Decades ago any good doctor would have told their patients that any medical operation procedure or medication had risks and should be kept to a minimum, unless they had reason to believe that it would do more harm than good. Since then the profit incentive has taken priority over the health of the patient, and many people can't always rely on professionals for reliable information. These ads act as propaganda seeking out the most credulous people that are more likely to believe hype and unwittingly become research subjects.

Additional research projects involving lawsuits aren't limited to medical procedures; they also include research projects into the impact of radiation, asbestos or many other things and lawyers representing plaintiffs may be helping gather information that could be used for research projects. The Rocky Flats Settlement and The Garlock and Coltec Bankruptcy Settlement both spend money advertising on TV to find potential plaintiffs for their lawsuits. In one case the defendant is already bankrupt so they won't have enough money to pay out all the expenses; yet they're still spending a lot on advertising.

Why would they spend money on advertising if they don't have enough money to cover their debts anyway? These lawsuits are virtually guaranteed to involve additional research into the people impacted by these claims, as they should so that more people can learn about the potential damage being done by them. This could be why they're spending money on these ads, although without additional evidence this is speculation. However there is no financial incentive to advertise a more efficient single payer insurance system, since the industry is controlled by for profit corporations who don't want to let the public know that they could save enormous amounts of money by minimizing the profit incentive or expenses for deceptive advertising and lobbying for the best interests of executives.

The biggest problem isn't that they're researching the damage done by these products but that they're not letting the public know about the full risk of them as they find out or making policy decisions, both in the public and private sector that will minimize risk to the public.

The current system of informing people about ways to protect their health provides incentive for corporations to advertise Breo, an asthma medication which like most other medications have risks of side effects; however it provides no incentive to educate the majority of the public about how to prevent asthma from developing or getting worse, which mostly involves reducing pollution, or moving to a less polluted area, an option which isn't available to many poorer people.

The media makes an enormous amount of profit selling advertisements to both the drug companies who sell Breo and the energy companies that buy lots of public relations ads to convince the public that they're advancing our economy and using new technology to protect the environment, even though this isn't true. And the political establishment collects an enormous amount of campaign contributions from both the drug companies profiting off of their medication and the oil and chemical companies profiting off the industries that make many people sick. So neither one of them have an incentive to inform the public about policies that would hold these industries accountable and implement the most effective prevention methods for many health problems.

There are numerous good researchers that expose marketing manipulation by large corporations when selling to kids including Susan Linn, Juliet Schor, Marion Nestle, Michael Pollan and many more; however they get little or no opportunity to inform the public about the methods that are being used by the media to manipulate them, at least not in the mainstream media. Fortunately they have more opportunities to educate the public through alternative media outlets and non-fiction books; however the vast majority of the public still doesn't get most of their information from these sources; so the mainstream media can still use these indoctrination tactics to manipulate the public for their own purposes, without adequate peer review in the consolidated media.

The truth, according to advertisements, is a virtual commodity that can be sold to the highest bidder. When was the last time you heard a news caster say, "Any information we provide through our advertisers is bought and paid for by people who have a financial incentive to present biased information, if not outright lies, and when the media consolidated into six oligarchies dependent on advertisements from other oligarchies we lost all incentive to expose the scams being carried out by those oligarchies?"

I don't know about you but I don't remember them ever saying that in the news.

Slogans like "Be the you," used by Stelara, or "See me," used by Cosertyx, do absolutely nothing to inform the public about their own best interests when it comes to choosing medications, or deciding whether they need any at all.They're obvious appeals to emotions to make credulous consumers feel good about the product without understanding it.

The advertisers creating these ads aren't motivated by the best interests of patients at all; they're motivated by increasing profits by selling as many drugs as they can, whether it helps the patients or not. Doctors are supposed to be trained to seek the best interests of the patient when treating them, and for the most part they used to be, however as disclosed in numerous articles and other sources including Dark Side of a Pill that isn't necessarily the case any more. It has become routine for drug manufacturers to market their pharmaceuticals with help from doctors and pharmacists. One of the whistle blowers featured on the Dark Side of a Pill was a former salesman who blew the whistle on how they try to manipulate doctors to increase sales for profits, not necessarily in the best interests of the patient.

Of course, officially, they're supposed to be marketing these drugs to improve the health of the patient, even if it doesn't always work out that way; so they still want to do this, to the best of their ability; however maximizing profits is still their top priority, not the best interests of patients; and to do this they have to continue an enormous amount of research. Therefore it is inevitable that the drug companies often put patients at risk, as indicated in the disclosures in the Dark Side of a Pill.

The amount of research necessary to develop the most effective medication possible is increased due to the nature or the so-called free market where these pharmaceutical companies are competing with each other and they keep their research secret to gain a competitive advantage. This is often helped with trade secret laws that protects the corporations doing their research rather than requiring disclosure to enable other companies from benefiting from the research. These same trade secret laws make it more difficult for critics to hold them accountable, although they're supposed to be regulated by government officials from the FDA or other agencies supposedly protecting the public.

Unfortunately, as numerous sources including the Dark Side of a Pill, have disclosed the agencies that are supposed to regulate the drug companies have a revolving door for executives where the regulators have close ties to the corporations they're supposed to be regulating. And for better or worse the market isn't nearly as competitive as free market economists claim to be at all.

The vast majority of the food that we eat, except for a small percentage of the public that makes a point to eat locally grown food, is produced by ten oligarchies; and the pharmaceutical companies are almost as concentrated with a couple dozen oligarchies control the vast majority of drugs manufactured. Theoretically this could enable them to minimize the replication of excessive amounts of research; however if that was what they were doing why would they pretend to be operating in the free market economic system as part of the motivation to improve efficiency. And if they're not competing with each other nearly as much as they pretend to be why are they keeping their activities secret?

10 Companies That Control Almost Everything We Eat & Drink

Like the Archer Daniels executive that was caught on camera saying "The competitor is our friend; the customer is our enemy" during an FBI investigation in the 1990s. According to Mark Whitacre, the FBI's whistle-blower this was the common attitude among top executives; and the public activities since then only indicate that these corporations have consolidated even more and are clearly colluding even more, which means claims to be free market economic system are a farce.

The conclusion that these drug advertisements are more about maximizing profits or recruiting research subjects isn't some fringe conspiracy theory; since the information that leads to this conclusion isn't completely secret, although the mainstream media rarely mentions it and repeats the propaganda misleading the public over and over again. However since the vast majority of the public isn't aware of this it comes close. This is propaganda so that the people that take the time to investigate it on their own are much less likely to be taken advantage of; and the people most likely to be gouged or unwittingly used as research projects are usually the least educated people or those with the least financial resources.

There are plenty of good researchers that may do a good job exposing these pharmaceutical scams possibly including Pharmaguy, Drugwatch and Big Pharma, Corruption, Medical Research & Your Health. The best of these researchers aren't likely to claim they have all the answers but they're less likely to have conflicts of interests like the corporations that are spending enormous amounts of money for the purpose of making more money, which creates a conflict of interests and major credibility problems. However even with them caution should be taken to understand their views as well as possible and consider the possibility that occasionally one of them might have a subtle conflict of interest and advertise for one drug company while criticizing another.

Furthermore there is enough public information to indicate that even though the conclusions that I have drawn so far don't fit the strictest definition of a conspiracy, since it isn't completely secret, that there might be a larger conspiracy going on that may seem fringe to most people. And if many of the most rational people don't review it effectively then some of the most far fetched conspiracy theorists might actually come closer to the truth than traditional scientists; although they typically make an enormous amount of blunders making the things they do get right seem unbelievable and mixing it in with flawed claims that really shouldn't be believed.

As I reported previously in Multinationals Are Using Public For Research On Massive Scale almost twenty years ago Philip Corso wrote "The Day After Roswell" shortly before he died, claiming that he participated in an effort to distribute alien technology to large corporations and they reversed engineered them to develop many of the largest modern technology over the past fifty to sixty years. Needless to say there has been an enormous amount of skepticism, as there should be about this claim however the debate about it clearly indicates that either there is a large conspiracy to distribute and develop alien technology or there's a conspiracy to make a large portion of the public believe this is happening even if it isn't.

Jumping to conclusions without careful fact checking isn't advised; however a close look at both sides of the argument indicates that they both make an enormous number of mistakes; so it would be foolish to rule it out either without careful consideration. On top of that a close look at the current political campaign and how insane it has become indicates that far fetched conspiracy theories are no longer as hard to believe as the official version of the truth presented by the media.

In several previous articles including UFO Hypothesis with rational use of Occam's Razor and Why so few arrests for Crop Circles makers? Is there microwave evidence? I explained why, even though there are enormous amounts of mistakes in most UFO conspiracy theories, there might be more to it than most people realize and even if there isn't there are other major unsolved mysteries that raise doubts about the official version of history, including how they moved ancient megaliths over seven hundred tons when experiments using ancient technology that was allegedly used to do it failed; they had limited success up to ten tons experiments between ten and forty tons involved more cheating and they didn't even try to come close to some of the biggest efforts done by ancient civilizations.

In "God's Not Dead" But Is He Nice? I went a little further to speculate about the possibility that, if there have been an unknown advanced intelligence visiting Earth for thousands of years influencing the movement of megaliths etc. then they might have been involved in experiments they wouldn't conduct on their own planet, at least not intentionally, including on Climate Change. In Yes Virginia There Is A Trump And Clinton Conspiracy I pointed out evidence to indicate that there's an enormous amount of conspiring going on in the political establishment that has been exposed; and speculated about the possibility that it might be part of a bigger cover up that is only being partially exposed.

These theories aren't conclusive and a reasonable amount of skepticism is expected and even advised; however there are also major doubts about the official version of truth being presented to the public; so even if these theories aren't perfect they're worth considering along with other theories, at least until many of the unsolved mysteries can be explained.

Whether theories about use of alien technology are true or not there is still research into medications and Genetically modified organisms or GMOs going on and as cited in, How the Clinton State Department Became the Global Marketing Arm of Monsanto, Hillary Clinton provided advice to the GOM industry on how to help market their products when she said, “‘Genetically modified’ sounds Frankenstein-ish. ‘Drought-resistant’ sounds like something you’d want. Be more careful so you don’t raise that red flag immediately.” This is a clear indication of how she's trying to help convince the public to accept GMOs without even labeling them or letting the public know that they're eating it. This is not allowed in Europe where GMO labeling is required, providing an opportunity for researchers to compare the health of people living in under different circumstances. The same article shows how, according to a batch of diplomatic cables the State Department, under Hillary Clinton also worked on behalf of Monsanto which would have helped research into GMOs. Some of this was also cited in numerous other articles including, Video: Hillary Clinton endorses GMOs, solution-focused crop biotechnology 07/29/2016

In addition to the activities by Hillary Clinton and the State Department to help Monsanto and Pharmaceutical companies the Clinton Foundation has also collected an enormous amount of money from the same corporations and it is helping to fund health care in third world countries. Many of the poorest people in the world can't afford to get health care anyplace else, especially since medications are so outrageously priced thanks to extreme patent laws by the same politicians covering for the Pharmaceutical companies; this means that if they're offered drugs that may not have been tested as well as they should have been they might not have other options and they can be used as unwitting research subjects.

The clear implication is that both the Clinton Foundation and the State Department along with other government institutions, including the FDA may be facilitating massive research efforts; and whether the hypothesis about developing alien technology is partly true or not, they're using the poorest people in the world for research subjects.

Some of the current political activity make absolutely no sense at all; and they deem to be flaunting the fact that they have no respect for the democratic process. As I mention in the previous article about Using Public For Research John Podesta was working for both the pharmaceutical companies lobbying for them and for the Hillary Clinton campaign. In the lead up to the vice presidential debate he went on TV and said that Hillary Clinton was promising to stand up to the drug companies that are gouging the public. Podesta is essentially saying she's going to stand up to some of the same lobbyists, including himself that she has running her campaign. If this is true why are they donating an enormous amount of money to her campaign and why is she hiring their lobbyists, including himself and Jerry Crawford?

How can they possibly expect the public to believe this, assuming the public pays attention?

This flaunting of their political clout isn't limited to this stories like Lawmakers say EpiPen hikes made Mylan executives including Heather Bresch, daughter of Senator Joe Manchin 'filthy rich' 09/22/2016 and Martin Shkreli All but Gloated Over Huge Drug Price Increases, Memos Show 02/02/2016 are increasingly common and they inevitably anger a lot of people spurring political oppositions, which so far has failed to accomplish much if anything since the political establishment is rigged angering people even more.

How can they possibly not know better? There has been an enormous amount of research disclosed about their political manipulation skills which clearly indicate that they do know better and if they wanted to they could have avoided extreme price hikes or at least made them seem more rational and they could have also provided a better choice of candidates without making it so obvious that they're rigging the election for Hillary Clinton.

If you think about it even the timing of the disclosures from Wikileaks and other anonymous sources might be suspicious. I think they should be disclosed as much as anyone else and I don't want to raise doubts about those that are disclosing them; but why did Wikileaks make their big drop just before the Democratic Convention when it had little or no chance to impact the nomination; but inevitably stirred up enormous amounts of protests? Now they're announcing that they, "hope to be publishing every week for the next 10 weeks," when the election is only five weeks away and this high profile announcement isn't accompanied by any major publishing; instead the biggest leak the following day came from Guccifer 2.

If there is something to the hypothesis that alien technology is being developed are they planning on keeping it secret forever? They're certainly not disclosing it in the most efficient manner; however there are an enormous amount of leaks about many other things. Could these be controlled leaks disclosing what serves their purposes when and only when it serves their purposes? Could some of the people disclosing these leaks be doing so at a time when and only when it suits their own purposes, what ever those purposes are? The political establishment is trying to convince us that the problem is that Russia is trying to manipulate our election; however they expect to us to ignore the evidence, which they aren't even denying that they're the ones proven to be rigging the election.

None of this makes any sense and even though the DNC has been proven to be far more corrupt than the people leaking the information that has been leaked we don't want to exchange one group of manipulators for another and if it eventually turns out that the leakers do have an ulterior motive of some sort, even if they're clearly more credible than the politicians they're exposing some skepticism of them might be advised at some point.

Some of these possibilities are far fetched, and a reasonable amount of skepticism should be applied; however there is still overwhelming evidence that powerful institutions are using large segments of the public for research and that the primary benefactors for this are the wealthy with inadequate disclosure. Are political and media establishment are controlled by a small percentage of the public and they're not the most reliable segment, or even close.

Sorting through the details takes an enormous amount of careful scrutiny; but it shouldn't take much research to indicate that the candidates that the media cover aren't going to do much if anything to disclose all the secrecy surrounding this subject or any other subject. Unless the demand from the grassroots level is overwhelming there isn't going to be much change and if we elect one of these candidates that aren't even trying to do a good job pretending to do a good job then there is little or no hope for real reform.

It almost certainly appears as if they're rigging the election for Hillary Clinton; however if something does happen that forces her to drop out or if enough leaks come out to enable either Bernie Sanders or Jill Stein to get elected they might initiate major reforms; however without grassroots pressure even they won't fully disclose everything.

We're not going to have major reforms that we need until we do a much better job educating the public about all the issues. This will need a much more diverse media to enable the public to hear from all views, and much more education about science, teaching people to understand principles more than to trust the so-called experts.

Edit 10/08/2016: Within an hour after I posted this Wikileaks released another massive data dump, mostly of John Podesta E-Mails in a Friday afternoon news release, which the media is well known for doing when they want to report at a time when the fewest people are paying attention. As I said before the release of information should be welcome but the timing is suspicious. This should be enough information to cause a melt down of the Clinton campaign; however that should have happened many times before. Unfortunately the media only provides obsession coverage for a candidates catering to corporate interests making them seem like the only "viable" candidates, which is why corrupt campaigns are the only ones considered "viable."

This is of course incompatible with a reasonable democratic process but it isn't something new.

It probably isn't a coincidence that at the same time tapes of Donald Trump bragging about sexual assault gave the media something to obsess with to continue making Hillary Clinton seem like the lesser of two evils and give them an excuse to avoid much coverage about the leaked Podesta E-Mails. These tapes are of course outrageous, and it is clear that Donald Trump never should have been seriously considered for president; however it really shouldn't be any surprise since we knew all along that he was vulgar. The only reason he had any chance at all is that the public was outraged with epidemic corruption and the media only provided an enormous amount of coverage for one demagogue who convinced the most credulous and emotional people that he was their best chance. If other more reasonable candidates challenged the epidemic of coverage were able to get coverage from the media, and if the rules of the primaries weren't also rigged, then it is unlikely that either Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton would have a chance.

A quick look for anything related to possible UFOs or alien technologies in the Podesta E-Mails doesn't turn up anything reliable, which shouldn't be surprising. It does turn up TELL HILLARY SHE IS WRONG ON CLIMATE CHANGE ------ see below 09/07/2014 which is from an unreliable source who cites Zecharia Sitchin as his source. This is one of the most absurd and unreliable authors presenting a UFO hypothesis which has no credibility. Even if there is something to the alien technology hypothesis, if there is any disclosure soon it will probably start with more of this useless fringe beliefs that make no sense, even if we manage to get a candidate like Bernie Sanders or Jill Stein instead of the corrupt options the media is trying to force us to choose from.

However if this leak is followed up by enough outrage and protests there is a chance that we might manage to force Hillary Clinton to finally abandon her campaign and get a reasonably decent candidate to run. Disclosure of Hillary Clinton saying, “But If Everybody's Watching, You Know, All Of The Back Room Discussions And The Deals, You Know, Then People Get A Little Nervous, To Say The Least. So, You Need Both A Public And A Private Position.” clearly indicates she has little or no for the will of the people. Excerpts of Hillary Clinton’s Paid Speeches to Goldman Sachs Finally Leaked 10/07/2016

If it could get enough attention E-Mails criticizing foreign policy might have a greater impact assuming the public is willing to acknowledge activities from our government, like the one saying, "I also know that the gruesome accounts of murders committed by ISIS are shocking to a U.S. audience in part because the far greater number of people killed by the U.S. interventions in the Middle East, South East Asia, Central and South America have never been presented in an honest way to the American people. Most of us have not heard the gruesome details or stories of the families that have lost loved ones as a result of U.S. military and CIA actions." What to Do about ISIS 09/01/2014 This E-Mail is from someone not involved in government to someone who is and Podesta did nothing to draw attention to it or address the legitimate problems; but he has a very good point, although those relying on corporate media might not realize it.

Another more credible E-Mail has also turned up from Edgar D. Mitchell, a former astronaut that ahs been interested in UFO research for decades and takes it seriously, email for John Podesta (c/o Eryn) from Edgar Mitchel re meeting ASAP 01/18/2015 Like most other researchers in this subject he also has some credibility problems but he's far more difficult to dismiss out of hand; and a lot of his research may be reasonably close, even if it isn't perfect.

Edit 10/11/2016: A couple more E-Mails indicating that both John Podesta and Hillary Clinton have different positions on GMOs in private from what they say in public. John Podesta is a lobbyist for pharmaceutical companies and he's indicated that he opposes GMOs in private in one E-Mail and thinks it might make people sick. Hillary Clinton apparently promised a major donor that she would support labeling GMOs. This donor complained when she made public statements supporting the Dark Act which overrides tougher State Laws preventing disclosure.

Re: Upstairs at urgent care! 11/09/2015 No worries. Take care of yourself and cut out the gmo's.

Re: Happy Holidays 12/22/2015 Hillary's publicly opposing this is both the wrong policy position but also a direct breach of what she told me, namely that she supports average citizens and moms having the right to know.

Regardless of how this turns out the most important chances for real reform will have to happen at the Grassroots; however they will have a much better chance of working if we get a reasonably decent president, which media is trying to prevent. Even if we do manage to get Jill Stein or Bernie Sanders grassroots pressure will be necessary to get them support in Congress and prevent them from giving in to pressure like Bernie did when campaigning for Hillary Clinton.

No comments:

Post a Comment