Tuesday, June 27, 2017

Deadly Monopolies and Medical Slavery?

Harriet Washington previously wrote Medical Apartheid where she reviewed the history of using African Americans for medical research going back to when slavery was still legal; she has followed this up with Deadly Monopolies which exposes how big pharmaceutical companies are finding more sophisticated ways to use people without their consent in the most extreme cases this leads to what she calls investigative servitude, which essentially means slavery for research purposes.

Both religion and our political system claim to reward good behavior and punish bad behavior; whether they call it ethics, as most scientists do or morality, as religions do. Religions have often accepted arbitrary morals like stoning people to death for working on the Sabbath is acceptable; and there is even one case where they did this, in the Book of Numbers, because someone was collecting sticks on the Sabbath.

In practice both religions and secular ethics, when controlled by a centralized authoritarian government routinely reward those in power, often at the expense of the innocent, or relatively innocent, sometimes after entrapping them, instead of rewarding good behavior. This often means that it is the guilty that pass judgement over the innocent. When it comes to research it is generally those with the least political power that get used as research subjects and those with the most that get all the benefit.

In a democracy this is supposed to be prevented but when those in power control the propaganda and the best research is only available to a few, it fails to do so, indicating that this country isn't nearly as democratic as it pretends to be.

In science ethics are supposed to stand up to peer review and it is hard to imaging that many religious sets of morality would do so; however Harriet Washington has shown that secular ethics can be corrupted just as easily when those with political power cater to powerful special interests. The original intent of patent laws was to reward innovation by giving inventors monopoly rights for a limited time to provide a financial incentive to develop new technology while enabling it to be shared after that patent was up so that society could benefit from competition and add new ideas to old.

This has never worked as well as it was planned; however it is becoming increasingly obvious that they're not even trying to make it work right. Unfortunately the best critical review of the current system isn't reported widely; however Harriet Washington and other academics that the majority of the public have demonstrated that the current system is often doing the opposite of what was intended!

She's demonstrated that the vast majority of the benefits from drug research goes to a small percentage of people with political connections and in at least a couple cases the innovators that they're supposed to protect have actually been charged with theft of the technology they helped develop by powerful institutions that control the patents.

Harriet Washington traces the decline of the legal system to the "Bayh-Dole Act," which was one of the laws that enabled private corporations to profit from research financed by the government as she describes in the following excerpt:

As a result, American technological innovation was stifled, according to Senator Birch Bayh, an Indiana Democrat, who complained that the vast majority of twenty-eight thousand patented discoveries made in universities with $30 billion dollars in taxpayers’ dollars were “lying there, collecting dust”: only 5 percent of these patented items were being developed into commercial products with public utility. Kansas Republican Bob Dole agreed, and together in 1980 they sponsored the Government Patent Policy Act of 1980, commonly known as the Bayh-Dole Act, to foster the commercialization of inventions based on university-held patents financed by government grants.

Not everyone approved of this proposed marriage of academia and industry. Dissenters including the influential Admiral Hyman Rickover, “Father of the Nuclear Navy,” who voiced his unambiguous, strident, and frequent objections on the grounds that corporate ownership of university innovation would spawn ungovernable monopolies: “In my opinion, government contractors – including small businesses and universities – should not be given title to inventions developed at government expense. That is the gist of my testimony. These inventions are paid for by the public and therefore should be available for any citizen to use or not use as he sees fit.”

The powerful Senator Russell Long of Louisiana, a Democrat, agreed. On September 24, he proclaimed to Congress, “I am adamantly opposed to the House Bill. I urge you to join with me in taking what ever steps are necessary to prevent this monopolistic provision from being included in the final form of any patent policy legislation.” In private, he railed to Bayh’s staff that “this is the worst bill I have seen in my life.” The Carter administration agreed, Congress was convinced, and the Bayh-Dole bill dies in the regular sessions of the Ninety-sixth Congress.

By December, however, Jimmy Carter was a lame duck, and when Congress was briefly revived for a necessary budget session, Bayh wanted the bill slipped in for another vote and another chance at passage. But Bayh had lost the election, too, and so wielded even less political clout than earlier. Long had the power to withhold the bill from consideration during the budgetary session.

However, good ol’ boy sentiment trumped congressional fears of renegade monopolies. Russell Long, in a farewell act of respect for the departing Bayh called him to say, “Birch, take that patent bill, you’re entitled to it. You’ve earned it.” Long released the bill for consideration and withdrew his opposition; following his lead, so did other representatives.

Thus Bayh-Dole became law on December 12, in the last hour of the last congressional session during the waning days of 1980, reversing more than three decades of public policy that reserved to universities the sole right to own inventions that resulted from federally funded research.

Moreover, not only could colleges now sell and license the patents developed with taxpayers’ dollars to private companies, they could do so without publicly disclosing the deals. .... Harriet Washington "Deadly Monopolies" 2011 p.40-1

The claims from both Bayh and Dole were probably dubious at the time, as Hyman Rickover, Russell Long and the Carter administration seemed to recognize; and before the election they clearly thought it was in their own political interests not to support this bill. It is incredibly ironic and suspicious that the opposition to this bill, which turned out to be right in hindsight caved after the election, whether they won that election or not.

That is simply not the way the democratic process is supposed to work!

I don't recall much if any reporting on this bill or numerous other bills that are mentioned in her book while they were being passed, which is a major part of the problem. Researchers like Harriet Washington explore the details of these bills, often before they're passed, but tehy have little or no chance to explain problems to the majority of the public through the traditional media. Instead they're often able to explain it to relatively small percentage of the public in the academic world or involved in community groups that try to keep up with this.

There is little or no doubt that if the majority of the public was better informed about these bills, and from grassroots candidates that aren't catering to corporate interests, that they would stop reelecting politicians, that are far more concerned about serving the interests of their campaign donors and creating propaganda to distract the public, than serving the public's interests.

As Harriet Washington, and some of her sources including, Marcia Angell author of "The Truth About the Drug Companies," explain this bill enabled a massive subsidy to the pharmaceutical by financing the majority of the research done to develop most drugs then handing the patents over with little or no protection for the public from price gouging or, in many cases safe drugs or medical care. The vast majority of research is done in the first three phases of medical trials, and the drug companies don't step in with much if any financing until most of this is done with government financing. They don't take many if any risks until they know that it will be a profitable drug they're investing in.

They're required by law to invest in additional Phase four drug trials after the drugs are approved to study long term effects for people that are on the drug on a much larger scale; however they often drag their feet on this research since if problems do come up on a profitable drug they would have to take it off the market, so they prefer not to know.

This is essentially theft of what they call "intellectual property," from the taxpayer, which foots the bill for the majority of the research including most if not all research that doesn't turn out profitable drugs. The justification for outrageous prices on drugs, according to pharmaceutical companies, is that they have to take enormous risks, but clearly the risk isn't taken by them at all but by the taxpayer!

This is just one of many examples where their right to this so called "intellectual property" is blatant theft as described in the following exerpt where they take advantage of knowledge from native people from other countries without giving them credit for their discoveries:

Researchers travel to parts of the world rich in biodiversity to acquire and patent plants with medicinal value. They learn of these plants from native healers and guides who tell them where to gather them and how to use them as medicines. When they return home, these scientists determine the plants’ chemical structures, extract their active ingredients, and obtain patents. They do not offer to share credit or profits with the natives who determined the medicinal uses of the plants, and the new patents actually block the organism’s use by natives and require the country of origin to pay for access to its own plant medicines.

Environmental activists such as India’s Vandana Shiva, PhD, of the International Forum on Globalization, as well as many indigenous advocacy groups, call these exploitive policies “biopiracy” or “biocolonialism” in a parallel of the economic policies that deplete the resources and reinforce the poverty of the Third World denizens while enriching their Western guests. Washington "Deadly Monopolies" p.266

This isn't a new practice; aspirin was patented in the nineteenth century by Bayer which helped them become a pharmaceutical giant; however this was widely used by ancient Egyptians thousands of years ago. Patents are supposed to be for new discoveries! Patents, in practice aren't a reflection of inventiveness at all, but of political power to gain competitive advantages.

However even though the government isn't inclined to protect the public from price gouging by mutinational corporations or protect native healers from theft of so-called intellectual property when the multinational corporations they're often quick to protect the multinational corporations when they claim they're the victim, sometimes even at the expense of the researchers that patent laws are supposed to defend as indicated in the following excerpts:

Some cell lines retain the characteristics of and produce substances that are peculiar to their cells of origin. Royston was working on a cell line that he hoped would treat cancers by producing antibodies that attack cancer cells. Hagiwara suggested that he use lymph cells from his sick mother, and Royston did so, fusing Hagiwara's mother's cells to the line. UCSD researchers soon agreed that this particular cell line possessed unique cancer-fighting properties, so Royston patented the promising cells. Hagiwara then returned to Japan, surreptitiously taking with him a sample of the cell line, which he used to treat his mother, who rallied but ultimately succumbed to her cancer.

Months later, Hagiwara gave the cell line to his father, Dr. Yoshide Hagiwara, who was also a biomedical researcher, for use in the family firm, the Hagiwara Institute of Health in Osaka. He claimed patent rights to the cell line and the antibodies it produced because it emanated from his mother's body, entitling his family, he said, to a financial interest in the cell lines. The U.S. Office of Technology Assessment disagreed and sued Hagiwara fils for taking the patented cells without permission. Hagiwara argued that despite the UCSD patent, the fact that the cell line had originated with his mother's tissues gave his family rights to the cells as well.

Hagiwara won these rights in a 1983 settlement with the university that gave the Hagiwaras the sole license to the patent throughout Asia. Patented entities can be licensed in an exclusive or a nonexclusive manner, and they can be licensed for specific geographic regions, and even for specific uses. In this case, the Hagiwaras' agreement with UCSD permitted them to use the line in research, but not to license it commercially elsewhere.

Twenty years later, another family affair was handled quite differently when FBI agents tracked down, arrested, and jailed Dr. Jiangyu Zhu, thirty, of China and Dr. Kayoko Kimbara, thirty-two, of Japan on June 19, 2002, in La Jolla, California.

The married couple were former fellows of Harvard Medical School who had resigned to pursue new research positions. But their time at Harvard had been very fruitful: from November 1998 through September 1999, Kimbara identified two genes that block the action of calcineurin, an enzyme that signals the immune system to reject transplanted organs. This was a potentially lucrative discovery that could transform organ transplantation by leading to immunosuppressive drugs, medicines that drastically lower the risks of organ rejection. It also was a potential treatment for several diseases that affect the cardiovascular, immune, and nervous systems, which multiplied its commercial potential. Then, on October 22, 1999, Harvard filed a provisional patent on the two genes and their products.


Harvard officials angrily accused Zhu and Kimbara of violating the terms of their agreement by sneaking into the lab in the wee hours to remove contested material, and of lying about having done so. The duo denied this, and the facts were never established in court. But according to the university's complaint, the Japanese company did succeed in producing antibodies against two of the three genes and then shipped them to Zhu at the University of Texas, where he now ran his own lab.


Because any attempt to develop drugs from the pair's Harvard discovery threatened Harvard's own ability to patent calcineurin and sell the rights to a biotechnology company or corporation, this was a turf battle between Harvard and Medical and Biological Laboratories as well as between it and its erstwhile fellows. Unlike UCSD, Harvard did not seem inclined to share patent rights with the Japanese firm. The school and the FBI's public statements, however, focused on Zhu and Kimbara.

"Prosecuting people who steal the intellectual property of individuals and institutions is a very high priority for the Department of Justice," declared U.S. attorney Michael J. Sullivan. "Congress has enacted a series of laws to assure that innovators get credit for their inventions and if people steal the ideas that belong to someone else and try to use those ideas for their own economic benefit, they will be prosecuted. Protecting cutting-edge ideas is crucial to the creation of new products and our economy as a whole." Complete Chapter for additional details

These patent laws are designed to reward innovation; however the advantage has shifted to large corporations that have lawyers and lobbyists. Innovators in medical research often aren't inclined to pay as much attention to patent laws as they are their own field. If researchers have to worry about being prosecuted for developing new technology complex patent laws could do the opposite of what they're intended to.

The government that is often quick to defend their large corporations that donate to campaigns, isn't nearly so quick to defend research subjects when they're the victim of unethical research without full consent when the victims are foreign children or veterans that agreed to defend our country, and were coerced into participating in research projects against their will as indicated in the next few stories:

The newcomers infused their expertise, energy and even a new medicine, Pfizer’s Trovan (floxacin), into the situation, and terrified parents, desperate for medical attention, lined up to grasp at Trovan’s straw.

Among them were the parents of patient 6587-0069. She was ten years old, and because of a shortly after the time of her treatment many research records were lost, accounts of her story use her number. A number was what she was to Pfizer because she, like the other children whose parents sought help from them in the new clinic, was an experimental subject. Trovan was an experimental drug that had not been FDA-approved, and although Pfizer hoped it would become the firm’s next $1 billion blockbuster, its approval depended on the results the new doctors would have with the medication so patient 6587-0069 was given 56 mg of Trovan.

But 6587-0069 was not getting the results she needed. As her fever soared and she slipped deeper into unconsciousness, her strength disapated and an eye froze in place. In response to this, the staff noted that “the dose was continued unchanged.” If she had been in an ethically conducted U.S. trial, she would have been switched from the experimental drug to one that was known to work, such as chloramphenicol that was given to the control group. But she was not in Connecticut; she was in Kano, and because testing Trovan was the priority, she was given no other drug throughout her steady decline, and she later died.


By the time the experiment nded, two hundred children were left deaf, lame, blind, seizure-ridden, disoriented, and with other severe disabilities. Eleven were dead. Although the epidemic continued, the Pfizer doctors were gone, having flown out after they had doled out their doses and collected their data, which took just three weeks.

In 2001, at least Nigerian parents sued New York-based Pfizer, alleging that non-FDA-approved experiments had killed their children; that Pfizer failed to obtain the requisite prior approval from local leaders; and that the pharmaceutical giant failed to administer standard therapies with proven efficacy, such as Pfizer’s own ceftriaxone, to those children who, like 6587-0069, continued to deteriorate and be given Trovan.


But documenting what patients had been told of the drug’s experimental status and determining Trovan’s effects on their patients for the lawsuit would prove difficult; the medical records of 350 meningitis patients treated between April and June 1996 have disappeared from the hospital, as the records of research studies that are accused of cutting legal and ethical corners so often seem to do.

“It could be considered murder,” said Dr. Evariste Lodi, supervising physician for the Doctors Without Borders treatment clinic in Kano, adding, “If I had the power I would take away their medical licenses.” The victims’ $6 billion suit against Pfizer was bounced from continent to continent, having been conducted at various times in both Kano and Manhattan, and Pfizer was accused of unsavory political machinations in an attempt to dissuade Nigerian officials from pursuing the case of the Kano children.

A secret State Department cable discovered and released by Wikileaks, alleges that Pfizer levied corruption accusations against the Nigerian attorney general, Michael Aondokaa, in an attempt to get him to drop the case. ….. However, the same 2006 State Department cable also correctly describes the terms of a settlement for $75 million that Pfizer reached with the Kano families. ….. But some of the Nigerian parents insisted that justice had not been served, and sought to invalidate the settlement and reopen a criminal case against Pfizer. See additional details at Washington "Deadly Monopolies" p.300-4

When ethical guideline in the United States prevent them from doing some of their riskiest research they often go abroad where there are less ethical guidelines and governments are less inclined to protect their own citizens. In many cases the governments are as corrupt as the pharmaceutical companies. Clearly they're more concerned with maximizing profits than with the Hippocratic Oath, "first do no harm," and when they're not held accountable they do what they can to avoid any accountability. The clear implication is that if they could have avoided any lawsuit the families would have gotten no compensation at all; and if they had done the same thing in the United States then the settlement would almost certainly have been much higher and there might have been calls for criminal charges putting some of the people responsible for this in jail!

When they have a hard time convincing one group of people, whether it is African's in Kano that learn from past abuses or African Americans that become suspicious from past experiments as Harriet Washington described in Medical Apartheid, they apparently seek people that are more willing to go along, often because they're less informed and indicated in the following excerpt:

The Los Angeles Times also recounts how Rezulin’s maker focused its marketing on doctors with many Hispanic patients, who have a high incidence of diabetes. Spanish-speaking doctors in Miami, for example, were enlightened by drug reps’ talking points that stressed “differences between Hispanics and American patients,” such as:

“The Hispanic patient is less informed and educated about medicines,” “The Hispanic patient is less disciplined,” and “The Hispanic patient is easy to intimidate because they are afraid of having to go on insulin.” In addition to targeting Latinos, Warner-Lambert paid doctors up to $350 each to switch diabetic patients from safer drugs to Rezulin. In 1999, it even took the suspiciously prescient step of “offering to indemnify doctors nationwide if they were sued for prescribing Rezulin.”

By the time Rezulin was pulled from the U.S. market in 2000, it had been implicated in ninety known liver failures and sixty-three deaths. It ahd also garnered U.S. sales totaling $1.8 billion. According to the Wall Street Journal, and FDA epidemiologist estimated that liver failure was afflicting twenty additional patients who took Rizulin every month. By 2003, Pfizer (which acquired Warner-Lambert in June 2000) was facing thousands of lawsuits from Rezulin victims or their survivors. See additional details at Washington "Deadly Monopolies" p.142

They also seek to use people for research in institutions where people are committed to either prisons or the military and they have less choice, or legal defense if they object, in the matter.

Amazingly our own government has a long history of providing veterans that they claim to respect so much for research subjects without permission. This is especially outrageous since most if not all military activities since World War II have been based partly or entirely on lies including the weapons of mass destruction that weren't there and they have often incited the attacks used to justify invasions of other countries like 9/11.

The military has used veterans for research with Mustard gas during WWII, nuclear fallout in the fifties, Agent Orange during the Vietnam war and again for and anthrax vaccine during recent wars. These are often exposed after the fact and laws passed to prevent them from happening again; however these laws are often overturned one way or another when people aren't paying attention so even though, once again they had a favorable court ruling to prevent the following situation from happening; veterans will have to be vigilant to be sure:

Wartime military expediency has often escalated the erosion of human rights in research, and recent events have proved no exception. The military fired the first modern legal salvo against informed consent in the shadow of the impending Gulf War and subsequent Middle Eastern hostilities – and besides the military, at least one private drug maker, then called BioPort, stood to profit.

The Department of Defense (DOD) sought and secured the FDA’s permission to dispense with informed consent as it forced 2.4 million soldiers to accept injection with an experimental anthrax vaccine, a patented product of BioPort Laboratories, via its 2000-2005 Anthrax Immunization Program (AVIP). So, just four decades after the army had overseen the Nuremburg trials of twenty Nazi physicians on charges of conducting experiments upon the powerless without their consent, the DOD opted to experiment on its own soldiers without their consent.

This odyssey into research without consent proved a medical and legal disaster that eroded many soldiers’ trust in medical research. Soldiers suffered miscarriages and were maimed, blinded and killed, all of which they blame on experimental anthrax vaccines. The Washington Post raised questions about the safety and quality of the vaccine and alerted the public that the factory in which it was manufactured had been the subject of repeated FDA evaluations, which found substandard hygienic and production conditions.

By a conservative estimate, ... They literally had no recourse, because the Feres Doctrine stipulates that soldiers on active duty cannot sue the U.S. government for personal injuries experienced in the performance of their duties, and their families cannot sue for wrongful death.


But the army did not need Barber’s permission. Barber tried to resolve the issue through legal means and requested a transfer to a unit where she would not need to submit to the injections, but she says her commanding officer blocked it, intending to “make and example” of her, and that he encouraged others to harangue her into compliance.

“I was bothered by the blatant disrespect of the men around me, who were pushing me as they shouted at me to take the shot.” She relates being physically assaulted, followed by confinement to a barracks until the day she jumped out of the second-story window because “I learned that I was being detained in a building where a gang rape had taken on the same floor just two weeks earlier.”

In the end, demoralized and suffering from PTSD, Jamekia accepted the proffered “Chapter 10” resignation from the army in lieu of a court-martial because, she says, she was assured that she would not receive anything less than an honorable discharge. But on May 11, 2000, a less-than-honorable “administrative discharge” was exactly what she received. She unsuccessfully appealed the decision in 2003, by which time her husband had also been released with an administrative discharge.

Later that year, Judge Emmet G. Sullivan of the United States District Court in Washington, D.C., ruled to end the forced experimentation. The FDA responded by rapidly elevating the anthrax vaccine from a questionable investigational drug to an approved therapeutic, which allowed the DOD to sidestep the intent of the law and force the medications on soldiers as part of fitness-for-battle measures.

This move returned U.S. soldiers to a state of investigative servitude – “investigative” because the data collection and evaluation of the anthrax vaccine risks, including death, continued. In rapidly approving the vaccine, the FDA had violated not only the intent of Sullivan’s ruling but also its own regulations by failing to hold the required public hearings.

in 2004, half a dozen unnamed soldiers filed a class-action suit protesting the vaccinations. Judge Sullivan, again presiding, finally drove a stake through the heart of this probellum experimentation with a decision that read in part, “The women and men of our armed forces put their lives on the line every day to preserve and safeguard the freedoms that all Americans cherish and enjoy. Absent in informed consent or presidential waiver, the United States cannot demand that members of the armed forces also serve as guinea pigs for experimental drugs.”

Between 2004 and 2011, more legal cases were brought by soldiers who had been forced into the vaccination program while the DOD attempted, on several occasions and with limited success, to restore mandatory vaccinations. The FDA issued a string of actions against the vaccine manufacturer, which were triggered by quality issues such as failed potency tests and unapproved changes in manufacturing as well as the soldiers’ injury lawsuits. The vaccinations are currently voluntary, but will the remain so? Currently, Emergent BioSolutions, now the parent company of BioPort, has committed to preparing 1.45 million doses of anthrax vaccine by 2011.

After Sullivan’s decisions ended forced research on soldiers, Barber renewed her appeal and won an honorable discharge. But the price of her vindication was high; she and her husband divorced. Although she remarried and she and her ex-husband ramin friends, Barber attributes the breakdown of their marriage to the strain of fighting the DOD. “Sometimes I wonder what our lives would have been like without ‘the shot.’ But I don’t allow myself to dwell on it. For additional excerpts see Washington "Deadly Monopolies" p.208-13)

The government spend an enormous amount of money on propaganda glorifying veterans; however when it comes to actually respecting their rights and fulfilling their promises to them they rarely ever live up to that propaganda! They pay their military contractors, most of whom donate an enormous amount to political campaigns, and are often involved in an enormous amount of corruption, on time without any problem but when veterans need care after returning from wars based on lies they often get long waiting lines and they also ahve to deal with an enormous amount of intimidation requiring them to participate in these experiments.

In addition to that, in some cases like Abu Ghraib they face potential criminal charges for following orders while the people that give the orders aren't held accountable; and in other cases if they refuse to obey illegal orders like those to invade a country based on lies without authorization from the UN they face criminal charges for refusing to obey.

They did "Obedience to Authority" experiments decades ago claiming that they were trying to avoid blind obedience that took place in Nazi Germany; However as I explained in Philip Zimbardo, Lucifer Effect, Stanford Prison Experiment and Eli Roth’s Milgram/Obedience experiment much more extensive than most people realize these experiments clearly seem to have been designed to do the opposite. they could do what they claimed they were teaching people to stand up to authority and in some cases, they do when they teach the full perspective of these experiments; however the people that learn about these experiments are mostly college educated people that aren't inclined to join the military, unless it's those preparing for command that study how to indoctrinate their troops.

the majority of the troops that are recruited never learn about the psychological manipulation until it is used against them. This indoctrination is designed to turn soldiers into complaint people that obey without question, and they're often put in a no win situation when the same commanders that glorify veterans force them into lose-lose situations where they abandon their own freedom based on false promises and propaganda.

Whether it is the third world people used for research, veterans, minorities prisoners, or any other low income people that participate in research experiments they rarely ever get the best medical care and the drugs these pharmaceutical companies try to develop the most aren't necessarily the ones that improve health for the majority the most; they're the ones that are the most profitable for pharmaceutical companies.

Even though they use children from third world countries for their research when it serves their purposes they don't do much if any research into some of the diseases that impact them the most like tropical diseases that kill far more than the diseases that are common in the United States. In some cases even when it is cheap to manufacture vaccines for third world people to save a large number of people they refuse to do it.

Even people in the United States should be concerned about their practices. Harriet Washington, Marcia Angell and others have also reported on how they often ghost write many papers that are favorable to them; fail to disclose all the research from their drugs when it isn't favorable; the people doing their reviews often have financial ties to the industry and on at least one occasion when a reviewer wrote something that was critical of the pharmaceutical industry Joseph Herman, the editor who wanted to print it wrote, “unfortunately, I have been overruled by our marketing department with regard to publishing your editorial. The publication of your editorial would, in fact, not be accepted in some quarters . . . and apparently went beyond what our marketing department was willing to accommodate.” This letter exposed their blatant corruption but many people forgot it after a relatively short period of time and they may have simply learned to be more subtle when censoring research that they don't like.

Washington reports on a survey of doctors that were in charge of reviewing drugs and “Nineteen Medical officers identified a total of 27 approved new drugs in the past three years that they reviewed that they thought should not have been approved.” One medical evaluator wrote, “My feeling after more than 20 years at FDA is that unless drugs can be shown to kill patients outright then they will be approved with revised labels and box warning.”

Clearly research has been severely tainted by profit motives and this could be endangering many people health.

Even on the rare occasion where they actually prosecute and convict someone in the pharmaceutical industry or the government working with the pharmaceutical industry the accountability is very limited. In one example Dr. Pearson “Trey” Sunderland III a NIH employee was exposed for conflicts of interests when he "took the fifth rather than testify about receiving consulting fees from Pfizer. He was later exposed taking money and giving them samples collected by the NIH and according to Washington:

.... “Will a criminal conviction for conflict of interest be enough to get someone fired from the NIH?” asked Representative John Dingell (D-MI).

Apparently not. In the end, Sunderland was allowed to plead guilty to a misdemeanor for which he received two years of probation and four hundred hours of community service at a geriatric psychology service. He also agreed to pay the government $300,000, about half his compensation from Pfizer.

Thus it was that Pfizer, which denies any ethical breaches, acquired samples that cost the government $6.4 million and fifteen years to collect for the bargain basement price of Sunderland’s approximately $600,000 in fees. The samples enabled refinement of Pfizer’s patented Alzheimer’s drug Aricept, which is now the top-selling Alzheimer’s drug in the world, with $2 billion in sales during 2011 alone.

In the end, the government received nothing for its investment in the embezzled samples. And worst of all, Molchan’s quest to characterize and treat Alzheimer’s disease at an earlier stage, before irreversible loss sets in, has been derailed after taking a backseat to greed. Washington "Deadly Monopolies" 2011 p.256-9)

Theft of so-called intellectual property from the government or indigenous people or even ordinary Americans by the pharmaceutical companies is routine; however prosecution and accountability seems very limited in one direction and is pushed to bizarre extremes in the other direction when people are accused of stealing from them. The coverage on this in the mainstream media is typically very limited; and if they report it once briefly they quickly forget it. Until we get major media reform it is up to alternative media and good researchers like Marcia Angell and Harriet Washington to report it.

On at least one other occasion the use of patents has done the opposite of what it was intended when a drug company came to the conclusion that a drug wouldn't be profitable, instead of doing the research to develop that drug they stopped it and prevented their own researcher from going elsewhere to continue his work. Harriet Washington writes, "Then, abruptly, Progen shut down the trials, voicing concerns about factors 'that impacted the commercial return' of PI-88, including the successful joint launch of Nexavar (sorafenib), a competing drug, by the Bayer and Onyx pharmaceutical companies. …… So the drug maker simply pulled the plug on PI-88, Parish’s lifework, and on the hopes of imperiled liver-cancer patients. Because Progen holds the patent on PI-88, Parish cannot go elsewhere to conduct the Phase III trial and pursue its approval." Washington "Deadly Monopolies" p.96

Harriet Washington and Marcia Angell both come up with some of their own ideas about how to reform this; however they both also admit that their ideas won't go far enough and it will take an enormous effort from the grassroots, reform of the media so that honest candidates can be covered and electing candidates that have previously been unable to get any name recognition to reform this industry and many other multinational corporations involved in other epidemic levels of fraud.

One of the most important thing that Harriet Washington recommends is the repeal of Bayh-Dole and other bills that never should have passed in the first place, but as I implied this is unlikely without major efforts to stop reelecting crooks taking virtual bribes thinly disguised as campaign contributions.

Even though their recommendations are far better than anything the political establishment comes up with limiting ourselves to their recommendations would be a mistake, and they agree. Marcia Angell wrote, "I propose that an Institute for Prescription Drugs Trials be established within the National Institute of Health (NIH) to administer clinical trials of prescription drugs." This would be part of an effort to restore government participation in the accountability process. As it stands the pharmaceutical industry has more control of their own accountability than the government does which Angell agrees is outrageous. But just a couple pages later she writes, (Here I’m assuming there is no National Institute for Prescription Drugs Trials,) implying that she's a realist and that in the current political environment it is virtually impossible to increase participation from government. Marcia Angell The "Truth About Drug Companies: How They Deceive Us and What to Do About It" p. 245,248

Many people re so accustomed to hearing from the media how incompetent the government is, and it is often true; however the reason for that is that is that we're constantly hearing about people like Grover Norquist say that he wants to "shrink the size of government so that it is small enough that he can drown it in a bathtub;" and the opposition presented by the media is led by the party of Bill Clinton, who once said that "The are of big government is over." This is misleading in a few ways and it puts people that want to dismantle a functioning government in a position of power so that they can make it incompetent justifying their claims.

We've been electing people that want to dismantle government accountable to the public for decades, partly because they're the only candidates that get media coverage and name recognition is the first requirement to be a viable candidate. This isn't actually dismantling government at all it is a transfer of power to the corporate board rooms!

As it stand now not only can't we get much if any reporting on how the pharmaceutical companies are gouging consumers and endangering research subjects and even the rest of the public when the FDA approves drugs based on selective research but we can't get coverage of the fundamental basics of insurance which would enable most people to understand how single Payer is already working much better in other countries.

If the a poor person were to pollute or poison and murder a rich person there would be quick prosecution but if the energy companies do it to the poor all the time there is little or no accountability and instead of arresting those responsible the police routinely arrest protesters.

If multinational corporations outsource manufacturing to countries that oppress their workers and add to pollution destroying the environment by forcing cheap disposable goods to be shipped half way around the world scamming consumers instead of arresting CEOs responsible for dangerous working conditions and in some cases products as well the police arrest protesters.

Now instead of arresting the lobbyists and CEOs of the pharmaceutical companies that are endangering our health care system the police are arresting handicapped people that want to participate in the democratic process.

Stanley Milgram did research into how far people would go when obeying orders without question. As i said in the previous articles about him and Philip Zimbardo their research could just as well have been done to obtain obedience rather than to prevent it when it goes to bizarre extremes. this training has often been used to obtain blind obedience from cadets when they're sent to war. When we fight one war after another based on lies about weapons of mass destruction, babies being taken out of incubators or the Gulf of Tonkin incident, blind obedience is what they need.

The same boot camp indoctrination is also used when training police as you can see, they obey orders without question when dragging out handicapped people that want to participate in their own government.

How far will they go?

I know there are a lot of good cops that don't sign up for this but one way or another they're not the ones that are responsible for removing protesters. with all the complaints about the war on cops who are trying to "protect us" they need to think about whether or not they're protecting us or aiding and abetting the epidemic levels of fraud by our own government.

I'm not calling for violence against police or politicians any more than I have in the past; however as I have repeatedly said when the government refuses to respond to the will of the people; the media refuses to report on the most important news that impacts society and the police routinely arrest people for trying to participate in their own government occasionally oppressed people that have no hope or opportunity because the corporations are getting away with so much fraud are going to go off the deep end like the veterans that were trained to kill by the government and returned to the country to realize the government wasn't protecting abandoned inner cities and killed cops in Baton rouge and Dallas or the baseball shootings.

It's not critics like me that are inciting this violence; it is the people controlling the government that aren't responding to their own citizens.

The government has turned into an insane satire where they hardly even pretend they're representing the people with people like Tom Price who brazenly Intervened on Rule That Would Hurt Drug Profits, the Same Day He Acquired Drug Stock as a congressman and still was approved as head of the Department of Health and Human Services. and the rest of Congress is full of politicians that have been catering to drug companies. The research done by more sincere academics like Harriet Washington and Marcia Angell clearly indicates that the current system isn't protecting the public; nor is it developing the best medicine for the majority of the public.

This should raise one other major question that hardly anyone is taking about; if they're using intellectual property laws to prevent the free exchange of ideas by shrouding everything in secrecy how can they develop some of the best technology they've been developing, not just in the medical industry but in many other industries?

Many of the claims by pharmaceutical ads as well as many other ads for other products are clearly fraudulent; but there is still an enormous amount of scientific advancement going on since the computer age escalated in the past thirty or forty years.

Epidemic levels of secrecy should have made this much more difficult if not impossible.

Regardless of how they managed this there is still no justification for all this secrecy or refusing to cover the best research in the traditional media!

[PDF]a new lease on life - Edward Reid Engineering First Chapter

Tuesday, June 20, 2017

Using Tragedies to Glorify War Create More Tragedies

I don't want to speak badly about someone that was almost killed; and if I do many people may be more outraged with me than the causes of a lot of violence; which is part of what makes some of these propaganda tactics so effective. However it is now routine to glorify tragedies and distract from the causes of them and how to prevent them.

When it becomes politically incorrect to report the most effective ways to prevent tragedies and politically correct to glorify some of them then it is virtually impossible to prevent them; however challenging this propaganda makes it more likely.

When the script calls for it the Democratic Party often tries to portray itself as the scientific alternative to the Republicans who they portray as ideological fanatics; however they don't actually do a much better job when it comes to looking for the best research on any given subject; and their ideology seems to be watered down to suit the agendas of their financial backers. There have been at least three relatively recent incidents where this may have backfired and partially contributed to politicians, judges and lobbyists being shot; yet they're still not willing to look at the best research or admit that some of their own policies might have been partially responsible for failing to prevent many tragedies, including shootings that could be greatly reduced by improving education and child care not abandoning inner cities; or wars that are routinely fought based on lies.

It often seems as if they're beginning to believe their own propaganda, and in some cases their lies; and regrettably they refuse to let the best researchers that provide the biggest challenge to their propaganda to have a chance to correct them in a high profile manner.

Gabrielle Giffords is apparently a co-founder of "Americans for Responsible Solutions" and according to Gabrielle Giffords: Orlando and Jo Cox’s death show the horrors of gun violence 06/20/2016 she said, "I have said before, and I will say again: We all know there is no single solution to our gun violence problem, ..." which sounds very good; and it would be very good if they followed up on it by discussing all the contributing causes of violence and how it escalates; but they don't. The only solution they discuss seems to be gun control and they keep running around in circles with that issue never accomplishing anything.

Apparently Gabrielle Giffords wasn't even a supporter of gun control until after she was shot according to Giffords A Longtime Supporter of Gun Rights By April Girouard January 09, 2011 but now it seems to be the only thing that she discusses and she repeats the same arguments over and over again every time there is a shooting. Stephanie Rawlings-Blake also made a similar statement when she was mayor of Baltimore and they had their problems with shootings; but then instead of discussing different contributing causes of violence she said that her idea of multiple solutions was gun control at the local city level, gun control at the state level and gun control at the national level.

Is that really the best they can ever come up with?

There really are many people at the grassroots level trying to discuss many more of the contributing causes of violence; unfortunately it doesn't serve the interests of the political class and they can't get an opportunity to present their ideas on the mainstream media. I went into this myself in a series of articles starting with Ignored evidence linking corporal punishment, poverty and crime grows, which I consider the biggest contributing cause to escalating violence, and ending with Politicians increase crime; Grass roots efforts reduce crime; Politicians steal the credit which includes grassroots efforts to address the causes of violent crime in abandoned inner cities. This included an article on gun control, How does gambling and gun control impact violent crime? which indicates that reasonable gun control can be a part of the solution, so I don't oppose their efforts to implement it; but it is almost certainly not the most important contributing cause of violence.

There should be no doubt that many social programs like improving education, day care, reducing poverty and maintaining a functioning economy where people have access to economic opportunities and health care, including mental health would be a major part of reducing violence. Yet few people from the political establishment discuss this.

Recently Gabrielle Giffords was honored with new U.S. warship bearing her name 06/10/2017 in a major ceremony that was attended by Hillary Clinton who she supported in the 2016 campaign. These ceremonies do nothing to solve many of the biggest problems in our society and are clearly designed to reinforce the belief that our military is here to defend us; however the vast majority of their activities have been based on lies that are routinely exposed in alternative media outlets and they're often so obvious like the lack of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq that even the mainstream media reports some of these lies.

Amazingly neither Gabrielle Giffords, Hillary Clinton or the vast majority of sitting members of congress are even discussing a "Stop Arming Terrorists" bill that was introduced five months ago to the House and two and a half months ago in the Senate according to, US government proves love for ISIS as bill to 'Stop Arming Terrorists' gets only 13 supporters 06/20/2017 This bill should be so obvious that it should have been introduced decades ago and passed. This should be a no-brainer, since many of the tyrants or revolutionaries we have armed in the past have turned the weapons we gave them against us, including the mujahedin which became the Taliban and Al-Qaeda Sadam Hussein the rebels that became ISIS and many more that could be listed easily with a modest amount of research.

Regrettably, even Bernie Sanders hasn’t co-sponsored this bill. He’s usually the best the Congress has to offer; however whether he’s distracted by other issues or might be under pressure from special interests, like any other politicians, even the best need to be reminded what we want and know that they’ll have support if they do it.

A dramatic ceremony naming a war ship after a victim of gun violence is considered newsworthy but reporting by the media or the majority of Congress on a bill so obvious that would reduce the risk of war dramatically isn't! How obvious and absurd can they be?

Gabrielle Giffords also has a history of catering to prejudices before she was shot and led to her support for many of the increased paranoia about illegal aliens being responsible for large amounts of crime even though the evidence doesn't support this at all as indicated in the following excerpts from Marie Gottschalk and another article following it:

Thanks to these fast-track programs, the number of criminal case filings in the judicial districts along the 2,000-mile border with Mexico has skyrocketed, paralyzing the courts. Processing so many petty border crossers without any criminal records has severely taxed the US Marshall Service and the federal courts, which must provide transportation, housing, food, defense attorneys, courtrooms, clerks, and judges. The $600 million border security plan that President Obama signed into law in the summer of 2010 failed to include any additional money for overworked courts or overworked defense attorneys handling immigration cases. At the time of his death in the 2011 Tucson shooting spree that severely injured Representative Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ), Arizona’s chief federal judge John Roll was waiting to speak with the congresswoman to thank her for her efforts to secure more funding for federal courts overburdened with Operation Streamline cases.

Operation Streamline and related programs have severely compromised the rights and dignity of immigrant defendants. In some jurisdictions, Border Patrol attorneys have been deputized as special assistant U.S. attorneys to prosecute Operation Streamline cases. These deputies generally operate out of the Border Patrol offices with little oversight from the United States Attorney’s Office. Their dual appointments raise some troubling conflicts of interests, especially as concerns escalate about excessive use deadly and other force by Border Patrol agents and local residents along the Southwest border.

To handle the massive increase in immigration prosecutions, overtaxed courts have been conducting expedited hearings in which they arraign, convict, and sentence dozens of border crossers – sometimes upward of eighty or a hundred – en masse in a single court appearance. Human rights groups have denounced these as “rapid-fire group trials.” Immigrant defendants often arrive in courts shackled to one another after a brief meeting with a defense attorney that sometimes lasts barely five minutes. Since the number of public defenders has not increased to meet the tidal wave of new criminal investigations cases, an appointed defense attorney often represents dozens of clients in a single hearing. ....

When Representative Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ) announced in 2010 that the Obama administration would be sending 1,200 more National Guard troops to police the border with Mexico, she held up a photo of Robert Krentz, the soft spoken rancher shot to death weeks earlier on his ranch. After his death Krentz quickly became the poster child for the war on immigrants and a cause celebre among conservatives. Marie Gottschalk "Caught: The Prison State and the Lockdown of American Politics" 2015 p.223, 235

Gabrielle Giffords and John Roll both supported Operation Streamline which spent an enormous amount of resources on immigrants that had little or no criminal record and were just trying to earn a living. Gabrielle Giffords made a big issue of the death of Robert Krentz, which is tragic, and additional violence should be prevented as effectively as possible. However as I reported previously in Immigration Policy And Outsourcing Are Virtual Slavery, Immigrants are far less likely to commit violent crime. Statistics can easily be misrepresented, and politicians routinely do just that but The Southern Poverty Law Center pointed out a much more reliable report by The Sentencing Project (PDF) that I'm sure will stand up to scrutiny much better than the propaganda repeated over and over by the Trump administration and the mainstream media which pretends to do a good job debunking some of the lies from Trump. This report points out that, "1. Immigrants commit crimes at lower rates than native-born citizens; 2. Higher levels of immigration in recent decades may have contributed to the historic drop in crime rates; 3. Police chiefs believe that intensifying immigration law enforcement undermines public safety; 4. Immigrants are under-represented in U.S. prisons."

This may not be much consolation the the family of Robert Krentz; however they never solved that case so they still don't know for certain that it was by an illegal alien. But they do suspect that it was probably drug related and even though violence is far lower than the rhetoric by those campaigning against immigrants, as indicated in an article below it should still be addressed. However once again past government policy has also contributed to that as demonstrated in and expose that has been reported in numerous books and the Kerry report and is finally being reported this week on a series from the History Channel. (The History Channel Is Finally Telling the Stunning Secret Story of the War on Drugs 06/18/2017) This show still doesn't cover more than a fraction of the participation of the CIA in allowing drugs to be run but it does cite some of the most credible source that have covered it previously and could lead some people to catch up by reading material from people like Celerino Castillo III who was a former DEA agent that blew the whistle on efforts to overlook drug running and Gary Webb author of "Dark Alliance," which starts with disclosures from the Kerry Committee Report that investigated drug running decades ago but kept coverage of this report to a minimum since then. Alfred McCoy also reported on how the CIA was involved in running heroin going back at least to the Vietnam war and continuing in the war in Afghanistan.

There's too much more on that to go into in a relatively short article, but it is far more important than this ceremony glorifying war and exposing it could do far more to reduce violence than demonizing immigrants.

The following article also explained at the time that Gabrielle Giffords called for increased border patrols how she was misrepresenting the threat by immigrants:

On Border Violence, Truth Pales Compared to Ideas By Randal C. Archibald June 19, 2010

When Representative Gabrielle Giffords, Democrat of Arizona, announced that the Obama administration would send as many as 1,200 additional National Guard troops to bolster security at the Mexican border, she held up a photograph of Robert Krentz, a mild-mannered rancher who was shot to death this year on his vast property. The authorities suspected that the culprit was linked to smuggling.

“Robert Krentz really is the face behind the violence at the U.S.-Mexico border,” Ms. Giffords said.

It is a connection that those who support stronger enforcement of immigration laws and tighter borders often make: rising crime at the border necessitates tougher enforcement.

But the rate of violent crime at the border, and indeed across Arizona, has been declining, according to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, as has illegal immigration, according to the Border Patrol. While thousands have been killed in Mexico’s drug wars, raising anxiety that the violence will spread to the United States, F.B.I. statistics show that Arizona is relatively safe.

That Mr. Krentz’s death nevertheless churned the emotionally charged immigration debate points to a fundamental truth: perception often trumps reality, sometimes affecting laws and society in the process.

Judith Gans, who studies immigration at the Udall Center for Studies in Public Policy at the University of Arizona, said that what social psychologists call self-serving perception bias seemed to be at play. Both sides in the immigration debate accept information that confirms their biases, she said, and discard, ignore or rationalize information that does not. There is no better example than the role of crime in Arizona’s tumultuous immigration debate.

“If an illegal immigrant commits a crime, this confirms our view that illegal immigrants are criminals,” Ms. Gans said. “If an illegal immigrant doesn’t commit a crime, either they just didn’t get caught or it’s a fluke of the situation.”

Ms. Gans noted that sponsors of Arizona’s controversial immigration enforcement law have made careers of promising to rid the state of illegal immigrants through tough legislation.

“Their repeated characterization of illegal immigrants as criminals — easy to do since they broke immigration laws — makes it easy for people to ignore statistics,” she said.

Moreover, crime statistics, however rosy, are abstract. It takes only one well-publicized crime, like Mr. Krentz’s shooting, to drive up fear. ....

For instance, statistics show that even as Arizona’s population swelled, buoyed in part by illegal immigrants funneling across the border, violent crime rates declined, to 447 incidents per 100,000 residents in 2008, the most recent year for which comprehensive data is available from the F.B.I. In 2000, the rate was 532 incidents per 100,000. Complete article

However, as I said this is little consolation to Robert Krentz or his family; but this is also related to foreign policy and oppression that has gone on in Latin America as well as the war on drugs and the history of that shows that the same activities that have supported the phony "War on Drugs" and allowed drug running from allies of the CIA also oppressed many Latin Americans and these oppressed people are much more likely to become violent, whether it is as part of a drug running operation by either the allies or enemies of the CIA or whether it is fleeing tyrants that are often supported by the United States. this includes Honduran refugees that were fleeing the coup which Hillary Clinton partially supported as Secretary of State.

It may not seem politically correct to criticize someone that has been shot and will not be the same again; however it is far worse to continue ignoring the root causes of violence and wars based on lies or to glorify that them with propaganda that enables anyone that speaks ill of the victims.

I still don't like speaking badly of Gabrielle Giffords or John Roll but the policies they supported didn't reduce violence at all and while they were demonizing immigrants they weren't paying attention to the mental health problems that contributed to Jared Loughner's mental illness and led to their own injuries. It isn't a guarantee that if they did more to defend education child care or repair abandoned inner cities in addition to addressing the other contributing causes of violence but it would have made it much less likely especially if they had begun reforming based on the best research decades ago, since some of the most effective solutions take time to show results.

Obama to Send Up to 1,200 Troops to Border By Randal C. Archibald May 25, 2010

Gabrielle Giffords: We need courage to face our gun-safety problem now 06/15/2017

"War Is A Racket" By Smedley Darlington Butler

Friday, June 16, 2017

Military Indoctrination Endangers Veterans and Public for Wars Based on Lies

Brandon Olsen
John Robert Neumann
Bryan Cage

Michael Wayne Pettigrew
Richard Rojas
Bryan Moles

If politicians want veterans to fight wars based on lies, they need to have them trained to obey orders without question!

This is done through their boot camp training process which as I have pointed out in numerous articles including Philip Zimbardo, Lucifer Effect, Stanford Prison Experiment and Eli Roth’s Milgram/Obedience experiment much more extensive than most people realize This indoctrination process uses Boot Camp hazing and intimidation to teach recruits to blindly obey orders without question, which is the opposite of what Stanley Milgram said his research was intended to accomplish. However his application for funds from the National Science Foundation was supported by the military and the Office of Naval Research, which is more concerned about obtaining obedience than teaching cadets to debate orders or whether or not the current war is based on lies or not.

It also teaches some of them, often the least stable, to deal with problems through violence, at least when they're ordered to, although they don't always limit their use of violence to when they're ordered to. Some of the most common victims of violence from veterans when they do overreact are often other veterans or their family members. There have been far more shootings from veterans that are dealing with PTSD or other problems than the vast majority of the public realize and the past few weeks have been no exception with several high profile incidents being reported, at least for a little while. There have also been a few more lower profile shootings, which seems to be happening at any given time, if anyone takes the time to look them up.

Intimidation tactics to pressure cadets to blindly obey orders and go along with what ever lies politicians come up with create the traumatic stress that leads to PTSD whether they go into combat or not! This is why so many of the shooters that have claimed to have PTSD never saw combat; they often followed arguments with other veterans or commanders that were pressuring them for one reason or another.

However the media rarely reports on how common they are and when they do they often only do it for a limited time and allow the most vocal deniers of the problem get the vast majority of air time. This is what they did following a couple reports from the New York Times and Colorado Gazette about eight to ten years ago. The high number of veteran shootings hasn't ended, although thorough reporting on it seems to have ended.

Fortunately some of the people that know more about it are most concerned about doing something about it also seem to be veterans. One of the most obvious solutions should be to allow more reasonable scrutiny when demanding that veterans follow orders without question, often even illegal orders. Veterans are often put in a position where if they obey illegal orders and it backfires, like at Abu Ghraib, the veterans at the bottom of the chain of command are the ones that take the blame, or if they refuse to obey illegal orders they also have to take the blame; and in some cases they're even ordered to be used as a human research subject without consent and intimidated and harassed if they refuse to obey.

I doubt if they tell many recruits when they enlist that they may be forced into medical research projects that increase profits for drug companies without respect for the wishes of the recruits, even though this has nothing to do with defense from an invasion from a hostile invasion.

Jeanette Jing uses a relatively brief video, Stop complaining that Hillary Clinton never admits her mistakes. She did admit one "mistake" 06/01/2017, that quickly summarizes the problem assuming some people are familiar with the details behind her one little "mistake." Scott Ritter and Mohamed ElBaradei both accurately reported that there were no weapons of mass destruction before the invasion of Iraq and just a couple months after it Joseph C. Wilson confirmed that this invasion was based on falsified evidence to justify this war. If Hillary Clinton or George Bush wanted to know that the war was based on lies they could have and should have yet they were never held accountable and both of them were given the media coverage they needed to get the nomination for a presidential run.

Thousands of veterans died for these lies, not to defend our freedom!

Yet if many of these veterans speak out against the war they're subjected to criminal arrest in many cases while the people that gave illegal orders based on lies continue getting positive treatment from the press that enable many of them to remain in office, while one military action after another based on lies continues.

Clearly all the rhetoric about how the military leadership and political establishment respect and honor the troops isn't nearly as accurate as they claim!

If they actually acted on a lot of their best rhetoric most of the wars based on lies wouldn't have happened and many of the veterans that have PTSD that causes problems at home of might contribute to the motives behind many mass shootings and suicides would be able to get treatment for it, or better yet they never would have had it in the first place if they didn't go thorough oppressive training that wouldn't be necessary if we weren't fighting wars based on lies.

Dwight Eisenhower seemed to understand this, at least to some degree when he wrote the following, although he didn't necessarily always act on it:

Crusade in Europe By Dwight David Eisenhower 1944

The capacity of Soldiers for absorbing punishment and enduring privations is almost inexhaustible so long as they believe they are getting a square deal, that their commanders are looking out for them, and that their own accomplishments are understood and appreciated. Any intimation that they are the victims of unfair treatment understandably arouses their anger and resentment, and the feeling can sweep through a command like wildfire. p.315

Eisenhower follows this up with a relatively trivial story about soldiers that were complaining about not being able to get chocolate bars or cigarettes and how he fixed it. This may be a good example, which the troops appreciate, even though it is relatively trivial, and it may have been for one of the few wars that were actually worthwhile; however, regrettably, he didn't do the same thing when he obeyed orders about fifteen years earlier to suppress the Bonus Army Protests after his objections were overruled. He also supported Coups in Iraq and Guatemala and his part in the build up to the Vietnam war. Even Eisenhower doesn't always follow up his best rhetoric with action; but he would be far better than most current politicians that are starting wars based on the most absurd lies.

I've posted several articles about this subject in the past and suspected that although I try to point out that it is the politicians, Military Commanders and psychologists that are primarily responsible for a large portion of the violence that are often committed by veterans that many veterans might think I'm trying to imply that all veterans are "damaged good" as some other responses to the New York Times and Colorado Gazette articles often seem to imply, but this isn't my intention; and fortunately most of the few responses that I've got from them are from veterans that seem to recognize that I might have a point even if they don't completely agree with me.

A lot of these veterans are opposed to wars based on lies and presumably recognize that pretending these problems don't exist will make them go away. When they speak out in rational ways to attempt to solve these problems they're demonstrating that many veterans aren't "damaged goods" at all, unfortunately when they speak out against the authorities, often with legitimate concerns they're treated poorly often ignored or, on some occasions even demonized.

In one example, where they were treated with contempt by John McCain according to, Senator McCain has Iraq war veterans arrested 01/25/2017, a veteran said “I did not sign up to protect oil or the interest of people lining their pockets,” but instead of hearing them out he ordered the police to arrest them. This was only reported in a low profile manner with no mention that I saw in the mainstream media.

If they really did want to put an end to wars based on lies these are the kind of people that they should be listening to and allowing a chance to get their views across to the majority of the public yet instead they have them arrested as quietly as possible and treat the progressive media outlets that actually report on it as fringe.

If we had good media coverage that reminded the public about all the lies used to lead us into war in the pat when there is another run up to war or if they were willing to cover grassroots candidates that were willing to discus it then it would be clear that they're maintaining an unnecessary permanent state of war for one reason or another and progressive grassroots candidates that want to spent money on education day care instead of wars could get elected.

As numerous researchers have shown, including some cited in past articles listed below one of the leading causes of escalating violence is early child abuse including corporal punishment that leads to escalating including bullying domestic violence and makes them more receptive to military hazing which is designed to teach blind obedience. This also creates the traumatic stress that causes PTSD and is used to divide troops against each other, and it explains part of the reason why some of the most common victims of violence related to PTSD is often other veterans.

James Hodgkinson, who the media is now obsessing with for obvious reasons, doesn’t appear to be a veteran; however, he does appear to have a troubled past and there have been many other mass shootings from other veterans where part of their troubled upbringing included military indoctrination including Micah Xavier Johnson and Gavin Long who killed eight police officers before being killed in what they must have known was a suicide mission like the one by Hodgkinson.

Chris Coumo recently said that Hodgkinson must be of “diseased mind” when talking to a congressman who initially claimed that the Sanders supporters should scale back their rhetoric, implying that they incited Hodgkinson’s rampage, before walking it back. I don’t dispute Cuomo’s claim that Hodgkinson must be of “diseased mind” or that Johnson and Long might also have had emotional problems; nor do I think they raised their complaints in an acceptable or affective manner. However when many people do raise their legitimate complaints in an apropiate manner the political establishment and media routinely marginalize them and those complaints rarely ever get addressed often at the expense of thousands of innocent lives.

I don’t recall Cuomo ever saying that the politicians that caused all these wars based on lies are of “diseased mind;” nor do I remember him ever saying that politicians and multinational corporations that caused thousands of death through pollution depriving people of health care outrageous working conditions in sweatshops that have collapsed or burned down, or executives that covered up faulty tires or ignition switches that lead to many automotive crashes or many other white collar crimes that cause deaths among the poor or middle class are of “diseased mind.”

Even though I don’t agree with the way Hodgkinson, Johnson and Long attempted to accomplish their goals and believe that it backfired on legitimate efforts to seek reform it should be clear that tragic as the murders or attempted murders they committed are, they’re trivial compared to the atrocities that lead to many more deaths caused by those in political power and the media that enables them to maintain power by refusing to cover many of the most important root causes of violence or legitimate grievances from the poor or middle classes.

The entire media is now talking about how both parties are demonstrating that they’re united, but for what? Are they united to continue ignoring the epidemic levels of corruption and a political system that only covers candidates that sweep many of the biggest problems under the rug?

There words will inevitably deny this; however their actions have already indicated that this is exactly what they’re united against.

John Kennedy once said, “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.” When Long and Johnson came back from the military it is conceivable that they rethought things and realized that the wars they were trained to fight turned out to be based on lies and that the politicians that routinely betray veterans and their electorate aren’t protecting many abandoned inner cities or rural areas that are being polluted and deprived of economic or educational opportunities at all.

Even if this isn’t exactly what happened with Hodgkinson, Johnson and Long and their violent attacks were as much if not more related to emotional instability there are many more people with emotional problems. If the political establishment don’t fix the economic and social conditions that cause them they’re doing as much if not more to incite more attacks than protesters, that are peacefully trying to convince them to respond to the will of the people and provide much better educational opportunities for the public instead of the propaganda that enables the rich to use wars and crime problems to appeal to people emotions and elect corrupt politicians, partially by refusing to cover honest one.

If as John Kennedy said John Kennedy said, we want "to complete the revolution of the Americas--to build a Hemisphere where all men can hope for a suitable standard of living--and all can live out their lives in dignity and freedom," we won’t accomplish that goal by only listening to the greediest ideologues supporting a corporate agenda without regard for the most rational research into the causes of violence or global conflict.

The vast majority of the political establishment isn’t even willing to acknowledge that they don’t like it when we bomb them any more than we like it when they bomb us. The more we bomb their countries based on lies the more they will hate us and sympathize with those that fight against us.

Some things would be incredibly east to understand if people are willing to understand them.

Edit 06/17/2017: Shortly after posting this article Jeronimo Yanez was acquitted of all charges for killing Philando Castile: 18 arrested as thousands protest verdict 06/17/2017 And during the unity game Paul Ryan said that “an attack on one of use is an attack on all of us,” in reference to the shooting of Steve Scalise. However to the best of my knowledge he hasn’t made any statements about an attack on Philando Castile being an attack on all of us. Nor has he said that efforts to take away health care or deprive us of environmental protection is an attack on all of us, which is of course what he is doing.

Apparently this isn’t the first time he used the same line he also said "We're all outraged. An attack on the people who protect us is an attack on all of us. Our hearts are with Dallas Police Department…. “ 07/08/2016 in response to the Dallas shooting and perhaps had similar claims for the Baton Rouge shooting.

As I said before I still don’t agree with the methods used by Hodgkinson, Johnson or Long and think that their methods backfired, especially since, to the best of my knowledge and more important Johnson’s or Long’s knowledge the police they killed weren’t involved in oppressive acts, which means that they were killing the wrong people even if they did think this was a justifiable way of defending black people. As it turns out one of the Slain Dallas Cops Might’ve Been A White Supremacist: Still A Hero? 07/13/2017 However it is unlikely that Johnson would have known about that and this means that his efforts to retaliate are still endangering innocent police officers as well as the rest of us.

If I were to think consider mitigating circumstances in a trial assuming these defendants had lived or that the current political establishment was put on trial for their crimes against the people, I would find much more mitigating circumstances for Johnson and Long since they were trained by the government to defend their country and taught to use force to do so, and after returning from service they might have realized they weren’t fighting to defend their own people at all but to defend the rich that were responsible for the wars based on lies, as well as depriving minorities of the economic and educational opportunities they need and standing by while police shoot over a thousand people per year.

I don’t see how there could be many if any justification for the political class starting wars based on lies and participating in epidemic levels of fraud that contributed to the conflict between the police and many poor people especially minorities.

Paul Ryan clearly seems to mean that an attack on members of the oligarchy is an attack on all of us; this doesn’t extend to an attack on the vast majority of the public!

His rhetoric, especially when backed up by patriotic music may sound great but as long as he continues to ignore the root causes of the social problems that led to these shootings they will continue to happen.

I’m not making an argument for mitigating circumstances for Long or Johnson because I want more shootings but because I want less or to stop them. As I have reported in some of the articles below there is an enormous amount of good research which could drastically reduce violence even more than it has already been reduced. However if the political establishment continues to refuse to listen to the best researchers and base their decisions on the propaganda from their campaign contributors or political operatives creating propaganda for them then reductions in violence that have occurred can be reversed.

As it is the recent one sided response by the political establishment almost guarantees that there will be more retaliatory attacks by unstable people who recognize that the political establishment is only willing to protect one segment of society at the expense of the rest.

If this is going to be avoided the best chance is if they listen to the peaceful protesters before it’s too late!

I went into some of these problems previously in the following articles about psychological manipulation and the root causes of violence and how they escalate, followed by additional articles of examples where veterans with PTSD or other problems have been unable to get the care they need or have been prosecuted for either obeying illegal orders or disobeying illegal orders:

Fundamentals of Psychology

Philip Zimbardo, Lucifer Effect, Stanford Prison Experiment

Corruption or Bias in the American Psychological Association

Eli Roth’s Milgram/Obedience experiment much more extensive than most people realize

Anti-violence social experiments could be part of a slippery slope

States with high murder rates have larger veteran populations

Teach a soldier to kill and he just might

Memorial Day Veteran Shootings Part of Much Larger Problem

John McCain really isn't a War Hero

American Psychological Association exposed again

Barack Obama betrayed Police Veterans and Blacks

Meet The Real Jigsaw Horror Psychologists

Veteran Murders Brings Wars Based on Lies Home!

"Boston Strong" propaganda downplays martial law

Does child abuse and bullying lead to more violence?

Child abuse and bullying link in study long over due

The real victim rights advocates

Cause and Effect of Hatred

Ignored evidence linking corporal punishment, poverty and crime grows

And these are some more examples of veterans that have responded violently possibly as a result of oppressive training in the military combined with earlier childhood abuse:

Bryan Cage who allegedly shot Va. Beach officer was retired Army veteran 06/14/2017

Orlando shooting: 'Disgruntled' ex-employee had planned shooting, investigators say 06/06/2017 John Robert Neumann, who later killed himself as responding officers were heading to the business, was an army veteran who was discharged in 1999.

Michael Wayne Pettigrew, a Man With Fake Gun at Orlando Airport Said He Wanted to Speak to the President: Police 05/31/2017 A mentally distressed former Marine who pointed a fake handgun at police in the Orlando International Airport and shouted "kill me" said he wanted to speak to the president, according to an arrest affidavit released Wednesday.

Pa. physician staying at Trump Hotel arrested with guns, 90 rounds of ammo in car 05/31/2017 Brian Moles served in the U.S. Navy from 1992 to 2006, according to AP.

Army veteran's throat slashed in fatal drug case 05/22/2017 El Paso police have arrested five people — including a Fort Bliss soldier and two former soldiers — in connection with the slaying of Tyler Kaden Croke on May 7 in an apartment on the East Side.

Woman killed and 22 injured as car hits Times Square crowd 05/18/2017 The 26-year-old driver, a US Navy veteran and US citizen, is in custody.

Richard Rojas, U.S. navy veteran charged with murder for mowing down pedestrians in Times Square 05/20/2017

Ishemer Ramsey, Butler County Marine, 21, charged with girlfriend's killing 06/12/2017

Mother defends war veteran son who shot her, killed her husband 06/06/2017

New Video Shows Army Veteran Shooting at Miccosukee Casino 03/21/2017

Joshua Stiles Army Vet Sought Mental Health Care Before Committing Murder-Suicide 05/23/2017

Washington Post Can't Stop Running Op-Eds by Lobbyists Pushing Their Clients' Weapons 05/26/2017

Wash. Post Doesn’t Disclose Writer Supporting Syria Strike Is A Lobbyist For Tomahawk Missile Manufacturer 04/11/2017

Montel Williams Is Bailing Out Criminal Snipers in Mexico 05/29/2017

Tx. Victim of deadly shooting behind local 7-Eleven was Army veteran 05/12/2017

Ca. Family: Man shot by doctor was a Marine veteran with PTSD 05/05/2017

Billings Montana veteran admits fatally shooting friend outside West End home in 2015 05/07/2017

NC Veteran who shot service dog on video found dead 05/08/2017

Tenn. veteran shot and killed while trying to stop domestic dispute outside IHOP 05/16/2017

Security Video Captures Murder of Justin Lampkins, a marine, Schaffer Also Wanted In Minnesota 05/2/2017

Dallas Tx. Army veteran arrested in shooting of Uber driver 05/16/2017

Officer Roy Oliver, an Iraq War Army veteran charged with murder in Jordan Edwards killing 05/06/2017 Records show that he was suspended for 16 hours and ordered to take anger management courses after he allegedly threw a fit about having to testify in court about a drunk driving case.

Erbie Lee Bowser Texas veteran gets life for 2013 shooting deaths of 4 women 05/1/2017

Edwin Fuentes shot, killed by Tustin police after standoff was Army veteran who struggled with PTSD, friend says 05/17/2017

Travis James Granger, Maine Army veteran fatally shot in Texas 05/18/2017

Maxx Tate Robinson Decorated war veteran pleads guilty to manslaughter in uncle's fatal shooting in Porter 06/13/2017

Laura Flores Messick charged with shooting, cutting US Army veteran boyfriend, after argument at home they shared 06/12/2017

Family of heroic veteran killed in gruesome grocery store shooting massacre needs YOUR help! 06/14/2017

US Army officer faces court martial for refusing Iraq deployment order 06/1/2017

Confessions from U.S. Soldiers in Iraq on the Brutal Treatment of Civilians 07/12/2007

Military Jailing Vietnam War Resisters 40 Years After They Refused to Serve 03/15/2006

Army Sergeant Accused of Waterboarding Four-Year-Old Daughter 02/09/2010

Sgt. James Brown, 26, Survived Two Tours in Iraq Only to Die Begging for His Life in Texas Jail 05/20/2015

Army Veteran Awaits Fate After Refusing Call To Deploy To Iraq 07/02/2008

“The capacity of Soldiers for absorbing punishment and enduring privations is almost inexhaustible so long as they believe they are getting a square deal, that their commanders are looking out for them, and that their own accomplishments are understood and appreciated.” GEN Dwight Eisenhower, 1944