Non-violent grass roots reform and Democracy: Multinationals Are Using Public For Research On Massive Scale

Are you on any medication?

Type your medication into Google along with "Lawsuit" or "legal settlement" and see what you find.

After trying this with over a dozen drugs, including a few drugs so common that you wouldn't expect any problem with them, it appears as if most if not all drugs have been involved in one lawsuit of another; and many drug of food companies like Monsanto are constantly involved in one lawsuit after another. Yet most of them aren't mentioned often if at all in the traditional media; and there is no effort to inform the public that there are massive numbers of lawsuits going on at any given time for drugs that are supposedly safe and approved by the FDA.

As I explained previously in Human Research Subjects research isn't limited to what they refer to as "clinical research trials" which go through ethical reviews that supposedly ensure the the best interest of the public is protected. They also do a lot of research into things that take place under different circumstances through natural events even if they aren't intended as research projects.

In many cases they're able to research things that could never pass any ethical guidelines this way but circumstances in the political world create one opportunity after another to study things that probably should never be allowed to happen. The Flint Michigan Water crisis is one of the most obvious examples of that. They already had enough research to indicate that lead was poisonous so they should have known that this wouldn't be a rational idea but this provided them additional opportunities to research the details, and perhaps additional contributing causes and sort out the differences. This doesn't mean that it is why they allowed poor people to be poisoned for the sake of research; that is unlikely. However it provided an opportunity to do additional research even though that wasn't the intention of those involved.

There are plenty of other opportunities for additional research, with FDA approval or not, including some that might be financed by industries that might have an incentive to misrepresent the results like Daily low-dose aspirin could cut risk of certain cancers 03/03/2016 although unless the media establishment and political regulatory system discloses the source of financing the majority of the public wouldn't be able to find out if there is a conflict of interest selectively doing research that could increase profits for aspirin manufacturers. There are often as many conflicting opinions about benefits or risks of any given research including A Hidden Danger of ‘an Aspirin a Day’ 02/01/2016 and Daily Aspirin - More Benefit Than Risk? 04/26/2016

This may be a reasonable risk in many cases to research that enables medical science to continue to advance; however with rapid advancements in research most people have little or no choice but to rely on "experts" without realizing that many of these "experts" might have financial incentives to highlight research that enables them to sell one drug more than another or instead of no drugs at all. A large number of these researchers often get more financing if they do research for things that have a greater potential for increasing profits.

In the current political economic and academic environment the top priority for most research establishments isn't the best interest of the majority of the public at all.

It is the highest profits for multinational corporations.

Occasionally people who're more concerned about the damage bad research might do to the public get the courage to speak out but unfortunately when this happens they often don't get a chance to get their views across to the public thanks to the influence of powerful industries.

A few of these people were featured in Dark Side of a Pill including a former salesman who helped the FBI investigate pharmaceutical companies and a variety of lawyers and researchers who provided additional disclosures. They described numerous incidents where there appeared to be evidence indicating that anti-depressants may have accomplished the opposite of what they were intended to often even making nonviolent people violent and even potentially contributing to numerous murders.

At least a couple examples indicated that the courts found that the drugs almost certainly did contribute to some of the killings, in one case even saying that "if it weren't for the drug there wouldn't have been a murder." Another example summarized in the following excerpt demonstrates that they did a research on someone who had been arrest for murder in the Netherlands had been given drugs or placebos several times in jail then set up situations that might antagonize him and found that he was more aggravated when he took the drug than when he took the placebos. This was described in both the film, which gives a little more detail, and this article, which uses Google translator which is why it isn't proper grammar:

Inconclusive about medicine in murder case 02/06/2014

Hearing of four experts at the court in Leeuwarden has not really provided much clarity about the influence of the antidepressant paroxetine at the actions of the man on the night of 1 February 2, 2008 the then 36-year-old Murkje de Vries from Kootstertille to has been killed. The now 50-year-old suspect from Harkema shot the victim in the eaves of her home dead. The man had earlier that night in a house in Nijewei in Harkema shot his ex-wife and her friend. The two survived the attack. The defendant was convicted by the court for murder and double attempted murder in June 2009 to 24 years in prison.

During the trial lawyer argued Alie Westerhuis already claimed her client acted under the influence of antidepressant drugs he had swallowed. That argument was overruled by the court. On appeal, the lawyer brought her theory again forward. The court has to do research on the effects of the drug on the suspect. In Pompekliniek in Nijmegen, the man twelve days been given long turn paroxetine, another drug and nepmedijcijnen. He did not know if he got what. Three of the four days when he received paroxetine, he admitted afterwards that he was "irritated" had felt.

However, a realistic simulation of the night of the murder was not possible. The suspect had then drunk a lot in a relatively short time. Alcohol is strictly prohibited in the Pompekliniek. The four experts, including a psychiatrist and a toxicologist of the NFI can not say with certainty whether paroxetine has had a profound influence on the actions of the suspect, but they close it does not matter. Three out of four experts found that there were more factors -alcohol and stress which the suspect became violent. The court seeks to deal with the case on March 27 content. Complete article

There have been numerous other studies into murders and a possible correlation with Antidepressants including Every mass shooting over last 20 years has one thing in common... and it's not guns 04/02/2013 and SSRI Antidepressants: The Gateway Drug to Mass Murder. 04/24/2014 One or two of the cases cited in "Dark Side of A Pill" was also described in Canadian man who killed son while taking anti-depressants lobbies for freedom of David Crespi, U.S. dad (featured in "Dark Side of A Pill") who killed twins 10/22/2012 and some additional research is reviewed in the following article:

Falsified Drug Studies Led to Millions of Children Receiving Dangerous Antidepressants 04/20/2016

In 2001, the pharmaceutical company SmithKline Beecham (now GlaxoSmithKline) published a trial known as Study 329, which claimed that the drug paroxetine – known as Paxil or Seroxat – was “generally well tolerated” and that it helped cure depression in children and adolescents. This led to some two million youngsters being prescribed the pill in the next year alone.

But the study ignored the fact that the drug may cause serious side effects, including suicide. Re-analysis of Study 329 by a team of independent researchers showed the drug was no more effective than a placebo, and that the risk of harm was significant, with at least 12 out of 93 children taking the drug developing suicidal thoughts. GlaxoSmithKline was fined $3 billion for one of the biggest frauds in American healthcare history.

This is but one example of pharmaceutical industry influence shaping the outcome of scientific research. A recent study, published in the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology,evaluated 185 meta-analyses, and found that one third of them were written by pharma industry employees, who were 22 times less likely to have negative statements about a drug than unaffiliated researchers. Almost 80 percent of the studies had some sort of industry tie, either through sponsorship (funding of the study), or conflicts of interest, where one or more authors were either industry employees or independent researchers receiving industry support (speaking fees, grants, etc.).

In a 2006 study examining industry impact on clinical trials of psychiatric medications, industry-sponsored trials reported favorable outcomes 78% of the time, compared with 48% in independently funded trials. Antidepressants are one of the largest pharmaceutical markets, yet it is likely that the problem of scientific fraud extends to other drugs and vaccines. The need for oversight (government and industry) is increasingly obvious. Complete article

Of course industry representatives would argue that some of these studies are biased or flawed, and there's always room for more peer review; but their views are of course also bias or flawed, and most of the critics that raise major doubts about the safety of these drugs don't have financial incentives to oppose them. The pharmaceutical industry might argue they're based on antiscience ideological grounds, or something like that; but many of the critics are academics or researchers that recommend medications under the right circumstances but object when they're being overused.

Another major problem with prescribing antidepressants is that many physicians that prescribe them often aren't taught to look for non medicinal contributing causes of depression that might be solved without drugs. I may not have the medical expertise to personally determine when antidepressants are worth considering some the time but while reviewing causes of escalating violence I have found enough evidence to indicate that the most important contributing cause is almost certainly early child abuse and corporal punishment leading to escalating violence. The same research often indicates that early child abuse also leads to many other problems including increased depression.

I went into the research that proves that early child abuse leads to escalating violence in numerous previous posts including Does child abuse and bullying lead to more violence? and one of the more recent ones is Steven Pinker "Better Angels of Our Nature" ignores most important root causes of violence which explains why I believe that many academic sources including Steven Pinker have either been influenced by ideological beliefs or by financial motivation from well connected people in the academic world that have been influencing research for financially biased reasons.

Steven Pinker and many other academics, especially economists, also support an economic system and many wars that benefit the rich while the rest of us pay the price for it. It is virtually guaranteed that this will also lead to increased depression, including post-traumatic stress for veterans who were indoctrinated through boot camp intimidation tactics to believe what they're told by their leaders. When working people see their wages suppressed while white collar workers from upper classes get much higher pay for jobs like creating deceptive advertising it doesn't take a lot of research to realize this could be a contributing cause to depression.

Yet instead of trying to solve these potential contributing causes for depression the pharmaceutical industry ignores them and tries to promote their medications instead as a solution, which works well for the ideologues that don't want to acknowledge or rectify flawed economic ideologies that enrich some at the expense of the vast majority of the public.

Any one with a little bit of basic sense should understand that when you can solve a psychological problem by finding the root causes and addressing them it is better than relying on potentially harmful drugs including many that haven't been properly tested or that might have risk of side effects. Many of the experts like James Garbarino or Barbara Coloroso that I cited in previous articles about child abuse leading to escalating violence routinely make recommendations that have nothing to do with risky drugs; instead they advise ways to prevent abuse from escalating or leading to depression later in life, or perhaps find ways to avoid stressful situations that are unnecessary.

Research on mind altering drugs is only a fraction of the research done without full knowledge of the majority of the public but evidence for a lot of it can be found by those that recognize the basic characteristics of research, which unfortunately a large percentage of the public isn't taught to understand especially the least educated. Evidence can be found in many non-fiction books about a variety of things including Marion Nestle "Food Politics" 2007 or Maude Barlow and Tony Clarke "Blue Gold" 2002.

In "Blue Gold" Maude Barlow and Tony Clarke describe an enormous amount of research into how polluting water is impacting peoples health and they also describe how the water nanotechnology industry is far more advanced than most people realize is being shielded from government oversight thanks to political connections. They write, "Similar resistance to government oversight is found in the emerging water nanotechnology industry, which is being forced to counter the alarm bells going off within some scientific and environmental communities over free nanoparticles –mobile particles able to separate from the property into which they were introduced and roam freely in nature or the body. There they can find their way into skin, lungs, livers, and kidneys and even break the blood brain barrier." (Maude Barlow - Tony Clarke "Blue Covenant" 2007 p.98-9) This is just one of the examples of research into how water, which is common and safe in nature before industrial pollution or advanced technology, is now being used for the benefit of corporations who are using it for their own benefit with little or no regard for the well being of the majority.

In "Food Politics" Marion Nestle reviews a large number of research done on mostly natural foods and how healthy they are, and she provides much more reliable information than the traditional media which makes and enormous amount of money selling ads to corporations profiting off of unhealthy food. She also reviews a large problem with political influence over regulations and how the media uses psychological manipulation simple or complex to manipulate and mislead the public. One of the most common and simplest method the media has used is propaganda describing the government as the "Food Police" trying to force people to eat healthy. This is most common on right wing TV like the Hannity show. But it is blatantly false; the government rarely ever seriously considers that, except for Michael Bloomberg's absurd attempt to regulate the size of soft drinks. Instead what the government has, at times, tried to do is ensure that people have accurate information to make rational decisions and in most cases they don't even do that thanks to pressure from the food companies.

One of the most blatant examples that Marion Nestle points out is when the cattle industry sued Oprah Winfrey when she informed the public about how red meat could increase the threat of heart disease. This is just one example of corporations trying to use the legal system to corrupt research that she points out and the biggest ones are probably lower profile. They also used their enormous political influence to ensure that dietary supplements weren't subject to government regulations. Marketers of these products aren't required to provide accurate claims, for the most part, unlike other foods or drugs. Only in the most extreme cases do they consider filing legal action against these companies for misleading advertising, which is at an epidemic level. However one of the rare occasions where they did file legal action was against former Governor Bob McDonnell who was sentenced to two years in prison 01/06/2016 although the Supreme Court may let him off the hook, for influence peddling. Both Donald Trump and Ben Carson have also been involved in helping to market dietary supplements with misleading claims but there is no threat of prosecution for them, since it appears to be legal. The bigger problem for them seems to be political since the news of their activities may have impacted their campaigns but their constituents seem to be so poorly educated that they don't seem to care or understand the implications.

If these constituents aren't concerned about Ben Carson believing the pyramids were used for grain storage or that both of them have been involved in enormous scandals including Trump University or running gambling institutions which can't succeed without misleading players who don't seem to understand that organized gambling can't succeed unless they rig the odds overwhelmingly in favor of the house. This is just a small sample of the political connections that politicians have with drug companies, the dietary supplement industry and many other industries that are researching activities or products that could have a major impact on public health without full disclosure or much if any discussion in the traditional media. One of the most extreme and controversial examples is The World According to Monsanto which was exposed by a French author and director who most people in the United States have never even heard of, unless they rely on alternative media outlets that are much more likely to report on this.

The traditional media that control's over ninety percent of the mass media in this country isn't even trying to do a good job reporting on this or many other subjects any more.

This includes a major law suit that Monsanto has recently lost but the traditional media has only provided a token amount of coverage for it, including the following article, which hasn't been widely distributed:

St. Louis jury orders Monsanto to pay $46.5 million in latest PCB lawsuit 05/26/2016

ST. LOUIS • A jury on Wednesday awarded $17.5 million in damages to three plaintiffs and assessed $29 million more in punitive damages against Monsanto and three other companies in a suit here alleging negligence in the production of PCBs.

The 10-2 verdict in St. Louis Circuit Court ended a nearly-monthlong trial in one of a string of suits — some won by the defendants and some pending.

This case, which went on trial April 28, involved just three of nearly 100 plaintiffs claiming that exposure to polychlorinated biphenyls, or PCBs, caused non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Some died and their claims were made by surviving relatives.

The lawsuit claims Monsanto knew about the dangers decades ago but falsely told the public the compounds were safe, and continued selling it into the 1970s. Rivers, streams and some food humans consume still contain some levels of PCBs.

“This is the future,” said plaintiffs’ lawyer Steven Kherkher, of Houston. “People don’t know that PCBs cause cancer and that Monsanto has been suppressing” it. Complete article

Monsanto may have addressed some of the problems with Round Up, or at least they claim they have, but there are many more which a search of the internet turns up, and they seem to have an enormous amount of protection from government and media which is looking the other way at almost everything they do. The biggest problem they're most widely known for is almost certainly Genetically Modified Organism's which the traditional media almost never discusses but much more information can be found in alternative media outlets which have been reported on a series of laws reducing consumers right to know what is in their food while often claiming the opposite as reported in several articles including Obama's Broken Promise on GMO Food Labeling 10/06/2011 and Americans Will Know Less About GMO Products With New Food Label Law. 07/22/201 Even though tehy get no help from the traditional media or the political establishment grassroots organizations are raising the alarm and organizing people to speak out against it including this petition drive, GMOs should be Properly Labeled! We have the right to know what we are eating!

This is not fringe science, many of the researchers exposing these experiments or deceptive political activity are reliable scientists that have far more credibility that many of the so-called experts that are featured on the mainstream media. Anyone reasonably familiar with academic work who looks that the so-called experts presented by the media on any give subject probably recognizes how flawed their claims often are.

However there have been disclosures about some of the sources for a lot of this advanced research that should be considered with caution, at least until much better peer review and disclosure is provided to the general public.

This includes claims that starting in the late forties after the crash of something, whether it was a weather balloon advanced technology by a traditional government that most people never knew about or an alien craft of some sort, at Roswell New Mexico. All the sources that I know of of these claims have some credibility problems but some of the unsolved mysteries surrounding these events haven't been fully explained by the skeptics who often make as many mistakes as the "fringe" believers of one thing or another. The first claim is probably from Bob Lazar who first started claiming that he worked at Area 51 in the eighties but a close look at his record raises major doubts, although he may have gotten some things right, he doesn't seem like a reliable source. The most recent claim that I know of is Video emerges of 'Lockheed Martin scientist' claiming aliens are REAL and that he worked at Area 51 on UFO technology 12/08/2014 which may not be much if any more reliable; but the most reliable source that I know of, even though he also has some problems, is Philip Corso, author of The Day After Roswell who claims that he distributed some of the technology retrieved from UFOs and distributed them to numerous corporations including Monsanto Dow Chemical and many others to develop.

In several previous posts about this subject including UFO Hypothesis with rational use of Occam's Razor and Why so few arrests for Crop Circles makers? Is there microwave evidence? I reviewed some of the alleged evidence of UFO activity and found that there were an enormous amount of mistakes from both the high profile believers and skeptics and began to wonder if they're even trying to do a good job on either side.

There is major evidence of unsolved mysteries but most of the explanations, including the traditional supposedly scientific explanations have a lot of mistakes. The most conclusive evidence of a major unsolved mystery is ancient megaliths well over a hundred tons and experiments that didn't succeed above ten to forty tons in moving them with ancient technology or the technology they supposedly were limited to as I reviewed in 107 Wonders of the Ancient World. Additional unsolved mysteries may include Rasputin, Edgar Cayce, Lúcia Santos and the incident at Fatima, Edward Leedskalnin, Padre Pio, José Arigó and Uri Geller, all of which can't be fully explained by skeptics even though the believers in some of the mysteries surrounding these people have flawed theories to explain them. Since there is evidence of numerous major unsolved mysteries, including some that have rock solid evidence it is worth considering different possibilities, at least until corroborating evidence either proving one version or another, or at least conclusively disproving some of them.

This includes ancient aliens theories, even though the highest profile ones as presented on the History Channel have serious credibility problems, as I explained in previous post about Occam's Razor UFO Hypothesis. After looking at many of these mistakes it seems obvious that they should have caught an enormous number of them if they tried, but none of them that I know of disprove the basic claim that some form of interstellar travel is possible possibly using artificial intelligence and long term travel. This might be explained by what I call a "Recruit a group of crackpots" MJ-12 hypothesis.

However with or without help from alien technology there are numerous things that should be clear, but in many cases our government and the media isn't acknowledging them.

With or without alien technology there should be more disclosure about research when people are being used as science subjects; however from a scientific point of view many people that understand it would never accept an enormous amount of this research, which is why it is much more difficult to get willing research subjects with full disclosure.

With or without alien technology it is foolish to pursuer economic political and social beliefs that result in epidemic amounts of environmental destruction that seems to be escalating to a point that might eventually be irrecoverable.

With or without alien technology it is foolish to maintain a permanent state of war especially when there are alternative which can prevent it. These alternatives are available like simply not selling arms to countries around the world when a relatively consistent percentage of them is eventually turned against us. Peace advocates have come up with numerous other suggestions but neither the government or the media is willing to listen or give them any help getting their views to the majority so they can be scrutinized.

With or without alien technology epidemic levels of inequality are unsustainable.

With or without alien technology much more should be done to give the vast majority of the public the information they need to participate in the democratic process, instead of allowing six corporations controlled by a fraction of one percent of the public to control over ninety percent of the media that reaches the majority of the public.

However if some of what Philip Corso said before he dies then an enormous amount of the technological development over the past fifty years is a result of alien technology and they're using us as research subjects as a result of it. If he's wrong then we're still being used as research subjects, just without the alien technology.

In Chapter fifteen Corso writes, "General Trudeau encouraged me to start contacting plastics and ceramics manufacturers, especially Monsanto and Dow, to find out who was doing research on super-tenacity materials, especially at university laboratories. My quick poll paid off. I not only discovered that Monsanto was looking for a way to develop a mass production process for a simulated spider silk, I also learned that they were already working with the army." This clearly indicates that if the government has retrieved some alien technology then Monsanto would be among many corporations using it to develop their products and profiting off of it. It would also mean that it would be necessary to do an enormous amount of research to confirm it even if they have help from aliens, since there would still be some research necessary.

More recent stories have confirmed that Monsanto has been working with the United States Military but not necessarily for the reasons described by Philip Corso. According to Truthout and several other sources US Military and Monsanto are Targeting GMO Activists and Independent Scientists according to a 2013 Investigation, 11/13/2016 and even more disturbing, Monsanto apparently bought an Army of Mercenary Soldiers formerly called Blackwater 05/22/2013

If Corso is right about sharing technology with multinational corporations then an enormous amount of the advanced military technology developed including night vision, precision bombing and much more has been developed with alien technology. This means that instead of using technological research to benefit people they're using as part of a political plan that maintains a permanent state of war.

If Corso didn't share technology with corporations then advanced military technology is still being used to maintain a permanent state of war, just without the alien technology.

We have enough information to know our government is more concerned with controlling the public either way than they are about educating them in the most effective way to stand up for their rights and avoid unnecessary wars. Or at least people who're accustomed to checking alternative media outlets instead of the traditional media have this information; and even those who rely on traditional media might know this if they look close enough and think things through.

This sounds absurd to many people but if there is some truth to it then it could explain the rapid development of technology over the past five or six decades. Our civilization has advanced at a much slower rate for thousands of years if not million; but then after only a few decades it advanced much faster than most people could have imagined including an enormous amount of technology way beyond most peoples comprehension that would have been considered science fiction decades ago including genetic modification, cloning, nanotechnology, and enormous amount of medical technology, advanced computer technology, propulsion that enables automated spacecrafts to reach beyond Pluto, and manned spacecraft to orbit the planet, and much more.

Could all of this really have been developed naturally?

It isn't just fringe people that believe these ideas should be taken seriously although some of the higher profile people that claim it should might not all be sincere. People that think there are major unsolved mysteries worth considering include many top scientists, military people, pilots, police and even politicians and lobbyists.

Even Bill and Hillary Clinton claim they believe there might be something going on; and one of their leading campaign workers, John Podesta, has come out publicly calling for disclosure! When he was part of the Obama transition team there were a lot of people in the UFO research community that thought he might encourage Obama to be the disclosure president.

That didn't happen and perhaps they shouldn't have been surprised. Nor should they be surprised if Hillary Clinton manages to get elected and then quickly forgets about attempts to look any further into it. John Podesta is a founder of the Podesta Group lobbying for many of the biggest multinational corporations in the world including many that would be taking advantage of alien technology, assuming there is some truth to Corso's claims and another one of Hillary Clinton's campaign managers is Jerry Crawford a Monsanto lobbyist.

If Corso's claims are partially true then both Clinton and Podesta and many others have ties to those profiting off of this technology and therefore they have no incentive to come clean. Even if they did presumably they would have already done so but they keep getting caught in one political scams after another; but for some bizarre reason the entire political establishment continues to rig the election for them. Clearly they can't be trusted to disclose anything if they have any choice with or without alien technology.

This may still seem to absurd or insane to be true; however there are other things too absurd or insane to be true.

It's also too absurd for the entire political and media establishment to get behind Hillary Clinton even though they knew that she has a ridiculous number of scandals surrounding her. It is to absurd to believe that the media establishment couldn't help themselves when they gave Donald Trump enormous amounts of air time that enabled him to get the nomination, while refusing to give grassroots candidates any time, and they call this "earned media."

The entire political establishment is to absurd to be true, yet either it is true or there's and equally absurd conspiracy to make it seem true.

There should be no doubt the truth is absurd and insane for one reason or another.

Whether this bizarre conspiracy theory is true or not the establishment politicians that have little or no regard for the best interest of the majority don't think the majority of the public should know when they're eating genetically modified food. Only candidates not favored by the establishment like Bernie Sanders or Jill Stein think the public should have the information they need to make important decisions.