|
|
|
|
|
| Selling Sickness
Posted: 6/6/2008 12:05:31 PM | One of my best friends teaches pathology (or whatever it is). A few years ago he had exchange students from Europe. After a few weeks here, he had a BBQ. We were sitting around a bonfire and I asked them what they thought of Canada so far. "Everyone is fat" was the agreed to answer. lol I responded with "If that's the case, why do we live longer than 'skinny' societies?" ----- "Better health care." was the answer.
If the doc says you need a pill, it might be wise to take it. I'm not saying you have to be ignorant about it, but there's a reason life expectancy is no longer 35.
(Now where did I leave those little blue ones... ) | |
|
| Selling Sickness
Posted: 6/6/2008 1:10:17 PM |
Coincidentally, I read an article today on the "big bad outbreaks" and what has happened to them. Sars, Mad Cow, Lyme Disease, West Nile virus, etc. What I was astonished to find was that there are major pharmaceutical companies working on a vaccine to prevent Avian Flu (H5N1) deaths, in North America. Since it first appeared, there have been 206 human deaths, worldwide, from H5N1. 108 of those deaths were in Indonesia. It seems like this is a perfect example of how drug companies are creating "necessary" drugs, for rare problems, that are hardly a blip on the radar, in the grand scheme of things.
H5N1 may not have have much of an effect yet, but its worst-case scenario (human-to-human strain) is really bad. It's not surprising that pharmaceutical companies are working on it. | |
|
| Selling Sickness
Posted: 6/6/2008 3:04:05 PM | Ignorance works both ways, my friends.
Let me quote myself, because apparently i'm being misinterpreted. This is from my original response:
That being said, i've spent most of the last 6 months in the hospital, and have taken drugs that were imported from the US, yet to be approved in Canada, and can say that regardless of the controversy, they are truly effective. They also cost about $200 a pill.
I'm not trying to discredit the effectiveness of the drugs being released, but rather question the necessity.
And yet, it still seems as though somebody can't seem to understand that I am infact speaking to my own experience, and not that of anyone else.
I myself can say that I run late, procrastinate, have difficulty concentrating at times, and am the least organized person I know. Somehow I get through my days without medication to control these things.
my doctor did tell me I presented several symptoms of adult ADD and tried to refer me. As I said before, I manage to get by without medication. Probably because my doctor was definitely pushing it, trying to pin ADD on me. Which is exactly my point.
It' s on thing to speak to one's personal experience, OPoster, and quite another to categorize ALL such individuals on the exclusive basis of your own experience. Where did you say your degree was from? And where are you licensed to practice medicine?
So tell me...where in there did I "categorize ALL such individuals on the basis of my own experience"???? I never said that medication isn't necessary for anyone, ever. I never said that you our your daughter or whoever else you might be able to think of doesn't benefit from medication. What I said is that I have experienced situations where medication isn't necessary and being prescribed anyway. Infact, in order to not get this very reply from you, I was very careful to word from the begining that I wasn't trying to discredit anyone.
I hardly think by posting some accurate numbers, i'm discrediting anyone at all, nor am I generalizing. It's unfortunate that your opinion is different from the one i'm presenting (Which, by the way, is not my own.) however, your personal attack on me has nothing at all to do with the dicussion at hand, and frankly, I find it rather childish.
Not that it means anything at all to the argument, but since you brought it up, I hold a degree from an Ontario University, and am constantly pursuing my education to the next level. I do also work in the medical field!
Have a lovely night! | |
|
| Selling Sickness
Posted: 6/6/2008 5:54:21 PM | I'm not going to lecture anyone about this subject. Just spend some serious time researching the controversy surrounding Fluoride in our drinking water. It has been linked to numerous cancers, yet unfluoridated countries have better teeth than we do.
So WHO is benefiting from this? the Pharma companies (this is just 1 example of many)
(remember way back when... the 1950's... and the dentists association promoted smoking)
Pharma, Gov and FDA are sharing bed partners. Figure it out | |
|
| Selling Sickness
Posted: 6/6/2008 6:11:46 PM | I just copy & paste this right off my own profile...
I've researched the health and environmental risks of todays polluted water, air and chemically laced foods.
If you think chemicals in our water, air & food supply is acceptable, consider the rising cancer rates, especially in children... and those new mystery diseases such as Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, Fibromyalgia, Morgellons, etc. How about Chronic Wasting Disease in deer?
What about the hormones and antibiotics in livestock meat? Fertility problems, miscarriages, birth defects. And then the new problem of drug resistant infections called Super Bugs, such as staph.
MOST IMPORTANTLY... the health care system (mainly drug companies) don't get rich keeping you healthy. They get rich when you are SICK!!!
For the sake of profits, what do you think their true agenda is? Research the political agenda of Nutricide for the benefit of Pharma profits.
Research the dangers of genetically modified foods and seeds. Radiation from microwaves and cell phones. Are you aware that most wild fish, for human consumption, contain dangerous levels of Mercury?
Did you know multiple plastics now test positive in the human body? We wonder why we have health problems, behavior problems, learning disabilities?
(Pharma, Gov, and FDA are sharing bed partners... figure it out!) | |
|
| Selling Sickness
Posted: 6/6/2008 6:30:16 PM |
Did you know multiple plastics now test positive in the human body? We wonder why we have health problems, behavior problems, learning disabilities?
Did all these behaviour problems, learning disabilities etc really just crop up in recent years or maybe they were always around but chronic long term problems tended not to be noticed as every day was a life and deathe struggle. Not many chemicals, GMOs, cell phones, plastics in the 15th century. The average life span was about 20 years old. Kids with svere problems were just shunted away to die and you went and had as many more as you could hoping a couple would outlive you. Toss away the things you mention and you toss away insulin, penicillin etc etc. Personally I will take living until 80+ and take a chance on my cell phone. | |
|
| Selling Sickness
Posted: 6/6/2008 6:31:24 PM | Msg. 28 - a housekeeping matter. First of all, if you have had to be inpatient in a hospital for most of the last six months, your "issues" are far beyond the scope of ADD/ADHD. Thank you though for clarifying the intent of your thread. Denial is not something I subscribe to nor will I foster or contribute to it in someone else. Have at it with your attacks if that makes you feel more in control of yourself, but an expert in ADD/ADHD you are not, by any stretch of imagination.
Msg. 29 & 30 - you both make valid points. As with any chemical or medication that by design is to improve life, one must weigh the benefits and the risks. What isn't taken into account in the very chemicals, such as flouride or even antibiotics and such administered to livestock to make water safer to drink or food safer to eat, are the factors that are not measurable in advance of individual impacting reactions thereof.
As far as the pharmaceutical companies and the medications they produce, if there was no need for the medications there would be no supply and demand for them and these companies would find another means where there is a need that would be profitable for them. I can't imagine an insulin dependent diabetic having no access to insulin simply because of a delusion that pharmaceutical companies are operating from the secret agenda of keeping everyone ill. Actually, that entire concept reeks of paranoia.
(Sidebar: paranoia is NOT a feature of ADD/ADHD - however, it is a classic feature of the schizo-related disorders as well as other mental illnesses. Furthermore, although the behavioral/cognitive aspect of ADD/ADHD overlaps with the mental health industry, it is actually a neurological condition.) | |
|
| Selling Sickness
Posted: 6/6/2008 7:19:20 PM |
Do you feel that pharmaceuticul companies are exploiting our fears for profit, or working for the common good?
I work in toxicology and can tell you that the pharmaceutical industry simply doesn't need to do this. They know darned well that as long as they keep making hydrocodone, zolpidem, oxycodone, alprazolam, and any number of easy and cheap drugs there will be zillions of people doctor shopping to get them.
Creating new drugs is an extremely expensive process and any time a pharmaceutical company researches a new drug, they are taking a huge gamble. I highly doubt they'd be spending that much time and effort into creating a new drug if they didn't think there would already be a substantial market for it. | |
|
| Selling Sickness
Posted: 6/6/2008 7:40:44 PM | Actually... I'm a hardcore genealogist of 20 yrs... I've read many many death certs... we are being MISLEAD to the causes of death back in the day! The %'s are misquoted!!!
Granted many died of water born diseases.... but I can PROVE that living to a ripe old age OF age 70's was the NORM!!!
I also have numerous documentaries that also state the SAME thing... they fudged the numbers to SCARE people into believing this crap!
I've had 6 gen books published.... I know what I'm talking about.... the percentage numbers are being fudged BIG TIME!!! OLD AGE WAS COMMON DURING THE MID-TO LATE 1800's (just as an example) | |
|
| Selling Sickness
Posted: 6/6/2008 8:03:37 PM | It was sooooo common for someone to die of an ACCIDENT... or a wildlife mauling.... not an illness. There were outbreaks of contagious diseases... but most people lived to be OLD!!
CANCER is NOT contagious!!!! Yet cancer had it's place back in the day. The percentage of cancer rates was LOW!!!!!
EXPLAIN THAT ONE???????????????
If you die of HIV or SARS or FLU... I understand
Epidemics were the serious problem of past history. We are past epidemics. Now we have a whole new list of diseases that are NOT contagious. Explain those?
But if you die of cancer... I have to wonder.... the chemicals in our society cant be doing us good? Then think about IBS (Irritable bowel syndrome) and Crohn's disease.... and the list goes on.... | |
|
| Selling Sickness
Posted: 6/6/2008 8:41:49 PM |
there will be zillions of people doctor shopping to get them.
...not to mention a percentage of doctors all too willing to dispense them freely. | |
|
| Selling Sickness
Posted: 6/6/2008 9:04:37 PM |
Msg. 28 - a housekeeping matter. First of all, if you have had to be inpatient in a hospital for most of the last six months, your "issues" are far beyond the scope of ADD/ADHD.
Yes, I have cancer.
Also, I never claimed to be an expert in ADD, nor did I launch any attacks at all on anyone.
I am trying my darndest not to get frustrated by your complete lack of ability to understand that I am merely presenting an argument, that I have no personal attachment to, here. It's not supposed to get personal. It's a few numbers to back up a side of the argument, in order to spark discussion. It's hardly a reason for you to get your panties in a bunch.
Honestly, though, if trying to find a reason to personally "bash" me helps you think you've presented a logical argument, you bash away! I can handle it. I should know better than to assume that a group of adults would be intelligent and mature enough to have a discussion that didn't involve personal attacks.
I hardly think trying to question my knowledge in any way refutes the argument that was presented. | |
|
| Selling Sickness
Posted: 6/6/2008 10:40:12 PM | OP: Great post! More people should wake up to the phobia's the drug companies are putting into our heads. I won't argue that companies that have a right to turn a profit, but where's their moral obligations to the public? These commercials I see sicken me. They prey on hypochondriacs and have made quick fixes the norm. Thing is that they rarely fix anything....as a matter of fact, many times they make things worse.
To answer your questions. Yes! I believe they are exploiting our fears (and creating new ones every day)...and NO! They are not working for the common good. And neither is the FDA.
When the pharmaceutical companies have the FDA on their payroll, how can the FDA regulate them properly?
Below is an article that was written a little over a year ago by Dr. Marcia Angell, a senior lecturer at Harvard Medical School.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IT'S TIME to take the Food and Drug Administration back from the drug companies.
Before a prescription drug can be sold, the manufacturer must conduct clinical trials to prove to the FDA that the drug is safe and effective. Without that, doctors have no way of knowing how good or bad a drug is. Just trying it out would be not only risky, but unreliable, since individual experience can be misleading. The scrutiny that this agency exists to provide is vital to our health.
But in 1992, Congress put the fox in the chicken coop. It passed the Prescription Drug User Fee Act, which authorizes drug companies to pay "user fees" to the FDA for each brand-name drug considered for approval. Nearly all of the money generated by these fees has been earmarked to speed up the approval process.
In effect, the user fee act put the FDA on the payroll of the industry it regulates. Last year, the fees came to about $300 million, which the companies recoup many times over by getting their drugs to market faster.
But while it's a small investment for drug companies, it's a lot of money for the agency, and it has drastically changed the way it operates -- creating a disproportionate emphasis on approving brand-name drugs in a hurry. Consequently, the part of the agency that reviews new drugs gets more than half its money from user fees, and it has grown rapidly. Meanwhile, the parts that monitor safety, ensure manufacturing standards, and check ads for accuracy have languished or even shrunk.
Most tellingly, the office that approves generic drugs is so small that approval time for generics is twice as long as for brand-name drugs. There is now a backlog of more than 800 generics. That delay is worth billions of dollars to the drug companies whose high prices depend on not having generic competition.
As part of the emphasis on speed, the FDA often approves brand-name drugs on the basis of less evidence than in the past. In these cases, approval may be contingent on companies conducting further safety studies after the drugs are on the market. But the companies usually don't honor that commitment. Of the roughly 1,200 such studies outstanding -- some for years -- over 70 percent haven't been started.
The FDA is strangely silent about this inexcusable dereliction. When questioned, it weakly protests that it doesn't have the authority to compel the research. In fact, it has enormous leverage, since it can withdraw drugs from the market.
The FDA also refuses to release unfavorable research results in its possession without the sponsoring company's permission. Here again, it contends not to have the authority to do so, but providing evidence of side-effects or negative results would seem to be an integral part of its job. It's no wonder that serious safety concerns about drugs such as Vioxx, Paxil, and Zyprexa have emerged very late in the day -- years after they were in widespread use.
The agency's coziness with industry is underscored by the composition of its 18 advisory committees -- outside experts who help evaluate drugs.
Incredibly, many of these advisers work as consultants for drug companies. Although they are supposed to recuse themselves if there is a direct conflict of interest, the FDA regularly grants exemptions from that requirement. Of the six members of the advisory committee that in 1999 recommended approving Vioxx -- the arthritis drug pulled from the market in 2004 because it caused heart attacks -- four had received waivers from the conflict-of-interest rule.
The FDA now behaves as though the pharmaceutical industry is its user, not the public. Fortunately, the user fee law is subject to renewal every five years, and this is one of those years.
Congress should let the law die this time around and substitute its own support -- which ought to be increased. Other reforms recently proposed, such as administratively separating drug approval from safety surveillance, will not mean much as long as this law is in effect.
At $300 million to $400 million a year, the equivalent of about a day in Iraq, Congress can easily afford to buy this vital agency back for the public, and it should. | |
|
| Selling Sickness
Posted: 6/7/2008 4:26:11 AM |
Vit D now being routinely tested in my state of MN because it is feared as linked to breast cancer, colon cancer, prostate cancer, and many minor illnesses as well.
I thought I'd respond to this because recent studies are showing that vitamin D reduces cancer, but that wasn't clear by what was written in the above post:
Conclusions: Improving calcium and vitamin D nutritional status substantially reduces all-cancer risk in postmenopausal women. This trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT00352170.
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/85/6/1586 This is just one of the studies on the subject. It's particular important in northern locations to take vitamin D supplements.
In regard to the post topic,
I have faith in peer-reviewed science, realizing that there is some danger when pharmaceutical companies fund research; I still think we're better off as a society with these companies around than not. Myself, I'm in publishing; considered a noble profession by some, promoting the dissemination of knowledge, but yet still a business. Without the money coming in, we wouldn't exist, much like the pharmaceutical companies.
We live in a capitalist society, and a lot of the good that companies accomplish is rewarded by profit. Yes, there is some danger in companies taking advantage of the vulnerable, but the respectable businesses who are in it for the long haul realize that credibility and trust of their clients is essential for their success; any reputable pharmaceutical company would realize that if they were to fleece the public, then they wouldn't exist for very long.
It's true that as a society, we can live with individuals with adult ADD, menopause, social anxiety disorder, sexual dysfunction, but as individuals, our quality of life is so much improved by having medications that reduce the symptoms or cure the problem.
We have to be educated consumers, but we're better off with pharmaceutical companies than without | |
|
| Selling Sickness
Posted: 6/7/2008 6:05:57 AM | When it comes to Pharma, Gov, and FDA, here is my concern.... they spend plenty of time and money FIXING problems. Is an equal amount of time and money spent finding PREVENTION of health issues? Not enough. They do a great job of focusing on certain diseases such as diabetes. If you do a search on the 'history of diabetes' you will realize it's been around long before Jesus. So that is important. But you are delusional if you believe that all the diseases of today have ALWAYS been here, and prevelant with todays high percentage rates!
I personally dont have any science to back up my opinion, but there are plenty of internet sites to get you started. Water... H2O... is considered the elixir of life. So lets start there...
There are 400 known contaminents in city treated water. All are considered acceptable at certain levels. I have a serious problem with that statement. Arsenic is rat poison. Arsenic is one of those known contaminents. It's OK to drink rat poison on a daily basis, as long as it's 'just a little'. HELLO PEOPLE!!! So drinking that rat poison today wont kill me... but drinking it everyday of my life.... after about 20 yrs... I dont suppose it will eventually cause problems down the road???
My cousin has her fair share of health problems. Noting definitive like cancer. She sure does get sick a lot. She is always running to the doctor with something. Just sickly type person. I convinced her to get a RO system installed at her kitchen sink. (they have city water) It's one yr later, and her health problems have already improved 50%!!!
My other cousin, who has well water, got an RO system, and 1 yr later... swears her IBS is 80% gone!!!
But you dont hear the medical community preaching these options. WHY???
There is more profit to be made fixing problems than preventing problems. | |
|
| Selling Sickness
Posted: 6/7/2008 6:24:24 AM |
(CSIAnaheim) Creating new drugs is an extremely expensive process and any time a pharmaceutical company researches a new drug, they are taking a huge gamble. I highly doubt they'd be spending that much time and effort into creating a new drug if they didn't think there would already be a substantial market for it.
I generally agree with what you're saying, but I just wanted to point out: there is a substantial difference between catering to a market that already exists, and creating a market.
Arlo | |
|
| Selling Sickness
Posted: 6/7/2008 9:08:12 AM | instantkarma20,
Pharma companies, like all companies, are there to turn a profit. They are not there to practice medicine. If you feel that a medication is being pushed on you that you don't need, you need a better doctor, not a new pharma industry. They put out the meds. Whether or not you need them or should take them is strictly between you and your doctor. | |
|
| Selling Sickness
Posted: 6/7/2008 9:09:32 AM |
My other cousin, who has well water, got an RO system, and 1 yr later... swears her IBS is 80% gone!!!
OMG. Well water is the BEST!!! My good friends mother has well water and I'm there all the time filling up. I have 3 gallons of it in my fridge now. There's no question it is so much healthier, and yes, I can see how it can be a healer.
But you dont hear the medical community preaching these options. WHY???
There is more profit to be made fixing problems than preventing problems.
I agree with you but one slight correction. The LAST thing the medical community and drug companies want to do is fix problems ....they would rather "maintain" them. If their drugs and medical procedures actually "fixed" these problems they would lose money. There's much more profit for them if they maintain. They don't want to cure...they want people to stay sick and live a life of depenency on their pharmaceutical products and treatments. | |
|
| Selling Sickness
Posted: 6/7/2008 9:13:31 AM | lucretia21,
I'm sorry for your circumstances but I believe that you are makins unwarranted assumptions in your logic train. If you want to establish your base data as fact, it would behoove you to post where you got it from. If its' a recognized authority, then there would be little room for disagreement except from those who don't believe anyone but themselves.
One specific example I'm thinking of is the stat you posted about 10% of males and 2% of females being diagnonsed with ADD/ADHD and then you go and multiply the US population by the rate. That's not good math. Not everyone in the US is being tested for a diagnosis of ADD/ADHD. Moreover, I think your stat probably refers to school-age children, not the entire US population. You have to be very careful with stats and how you apply them. | |
|
| Selling Sickness
Posted: 6/7/2008 9:20:23 AM |
I personally dont have any science to back up my opinion
That's really all I need to know. Thanks for your valuable contribution to a science-based question.
I would further that you don't have any statistical evidence for what you've written. Are you arguing that the median life-span was actually greater in the 1800's than it is today? You must be joking. The reason you've seen evidence of old age in that century is because people tend to stop keeping records of people who died young. So, as you dig through boxes of death certificates and fixate on the elderly, yeah, some people were elderly in the past. Great research.
Maybe in your rants, you can include your explanation as to why the median lifespan is increasing at an accelerating pace? Please? | |
|
| Selling Sickness
Posted: 6/7/2008 9:30:36 AM |
If you want to establish your base data as fact, it would behoove you to post where you got it from. If its' a recognized authority, then there would be little room for disagreement except from those who don't believe anyone but themselves.
You're very right "is too hot". I was waiting for someone to question me on my sources, actually.
You're also right in saying that my math is very crude.
My source, particularly on the ADD stats is the US Department of Health and Human Services National Health Interview Survery (2004) Summary of Health Stats.
(what a mouthful)
Granted, it's out of date, and my math is certainly not an impecable example of the true profits, but again, I don't claim to be any sort of expert at all, especially in math or science or statistics. If I were, i'd probably be amongst those working for the pharma companies, making some good coin. I just presented some (admittedly crude) numbers for the sake of debate.
Thanks so much for being truly interested in the topic at hand! Your arguments are wonderful! | |
|
| Selling Sickness
Posted: 6/7/2008 10:59:40 AM | is too hot... actually... when I eliminated the contagious disease deaths, and eliminated the accident deaths... (from my gen research which consist of data covering over 10,000 people)... BELIEVE IT OR NOT!!! the old age deaths are VERY VERY COMMON!!!!
Think about this for a moment... how often do you get a contagious sickness? cold? flu? bronchitis? etc... THAT IS WHAT TOOK OUR ANCESTORS DOWN!!!!! They died due to CONTAGIOUS diseases! EPIDEMICS!!! Black Plague and all. Antibiotics have become the saving grace angel that defeated our ancestors.
BUT... cancer, and a long host of other diseases are NOT contagious.... yet they are taking us down faster than our ancestors had to deal with!!!
In the 6 gen books I've published... I actually took the time to POINT OUT to the descendants (of such bloodline) that the death rates of cancer and such were LOW!!! and living to the 70 age something was COMMON!!!!
When I did the bloodline book of my maternal Grandmother... it was very disturbing. She was the 11th of 12 children. She lost her mother and 8 siblings in 3 months due to a contaminated well and a small pox outbreak that happened at the same time! (which landed her in an orphanage at age 4 - 1912) When I eliminated the BAD WATER factor and the EPIDEMIC of small pox factor.... actually... her entire family lived to be old age. | |
|
| Selling Sickness
Posted: 6/7/2008 12:40:13 PM |
My source, particularly on the ADD stats is the US Department of Health and Human Services National Health Interview Survery (2004) Summary of Health Stats.
(what a mouthful)
OK, that explains it. I think you tapped a relevant stat but there are more direct stats. I think you mentioned you were Canadian so it might be difficult to menuver around all the databases available. For most diseases in the US, the Center for Disease Control (CDC) is the branch that tracks the stats. As a matter of fact, the CDC has a vigorous program of investigating doctors who prescribe meds for ADD/ADHD patients above the rate of occurence in the general population. They do this because many of the meds are controlled substances and it would be too seasy for corrupt doctors to essentially become suppliers of street drugs. Here's a URL for ADD/ADHD stats that you'll find more accurate that a retrospective survey:
http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/adhd/
Good luck to you. Let us know if you turn over any patterns of abuse. Better yet, tell CDC. I've worked with them and they're pretty on top of things. (Except getting flu strains right, it seems.) | |
|
| Selling Sickness
Posted: 6/7/2008 12:48:29 PM |
is too hot... actually... when I eliminated the contagious disease deaths, and eliminated the accident deaths... (from my gen research which consist of data covering over 10,000 people)... BELIEVE IT OR NOT!!! the old age deaths are VERY VERY COMMON!!!!
springazure44, you can't ignore death of the young and focus only on the elderly to proclaim that most people live to a ripe old age. That's cherry-picking. I would urge you to study statistics or epidemiology before you settle your mind on this issue.
I also have to point out that 10,000 individuals is a vanishingly small population for longevity research. That's a smaller crowd than will watch a pro basketball game. Still, your research seems impressive but I think you're generalizing too much. Also, remember that cancer is most commonly a disease of age and is expected to occur in clusters. If most of a population dies after the age of 45, cancer will be a magnied cause of death. Still, the per capita death by most cancers is decreasing in the US and is being supplanted by bodies just plain wearing out like heart and circulatory problems, hypertension, etc. You can't just look at one disease without considering all the others. | |
|
| Selling Sickness
Posted: 6/7/2008 3:56:04 PM | Any organization that starts a problem just to profit off it needs to be dismantled immediately (yes that includes the World Bank , IMF, and corperations like Halliburton that instigate war to kill off the "useless eaters" and to profit off it).
People who decide the value of money and the "upper" echelons of society are taught the false belief that they are BORN better then the rest of the world and feel they have every right to steal from people they have no right to. Our currency has no backing behind it and Africa was told they cannot make their own (side effect free) vaccinnes because the IMF said they would be breaking "intellectual property rights".
Looks like the IMF cares more about the profits of a couple hundred White people rather then millions of Africans. The people (that's us) arent stupid and we are aware of the psychological tactics like meta-framing the media uses to influence people, and how our resources are being taken from us to support the egos of those who expect our money for poisoning us with trans fats and aspartame.
Why do I mention this? The banking cartels are directly linked with big pharma and the political hegamony (the twelve federal reserve districts are more powerful then the elected government BTW. Clinton said 9/11 not an Inside Job, because he was outside the inner-circle of CEO's and Bankers perhaps?). | |
|
|
|
Home
login 
