Duty To Warn: Drug-Induced Iatrogenic Disorders – The Third Leading Cause Of Death In The US And Britain

Dr-Peter-Goetzsche

Duty To Warn: Drug-Induced Iatrogenic Disorders – The Third Leading Cause Of Death In The US And Britain
January 16, 2018
Duty to Warn

Drug-Induced Iatrogenic Disorders – The Third Leading Cause of Death in the US and Britain

By Gary G. Kohls, MD
https://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/duty-to-warn-drug-induced-iatrogenic-disorders-the-third-leading-cause-of-death-in-the-us-and-britain/

Definition of an “iatrogenic” disorder: A disorder inadvertently induced by a health caregiver because of a surgical, medical, drug or vaccine treatment or by a diagnostic procedure.

In last week’s column I wrote that iatrogenic disorders (a doctor-, drug-, vaccine-, surgery- or other medical treatment-caused disorder) were the third leading cause of death in the US. That revelation may have ruffled the feathers of some readers, particularly if they were employed in the medical professions, so I am enlarging on that statement in this week’s column.

In 2000, a commentary article was written by Dr Barbara Stanfield, MD, MPH. It was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA, July 26, 2000—Vol 284, No. 4).

The article was titled “Is US Health Really the Best in the World? It has been posted at https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/192908?redirect=true.

Statins
In the article, Stanfield included the following statistics from her research about iatrogenic deaths. (Note: these numbers do not include out-patient iatrogenic deaths):

• 12,000 deaths/year from unnecessary surgery in hospitals
• 7,000 deaths/year from medication errors in hospitals
• 20,000 deaths/year from other errors in hospitals
• 80,000 deaths/year from nosocomial infections in hospitals
• 106,000 deaths/year from non-error, adverse effects of medications in hospitals

Combining these five groups gives us a total of 225,000 in-patient deaths. The 225,000 number does not include out-patient deaths or disabilities. In any case, this number easily constitutes the third leading cause of death in the United States, behind heart disease and cancer (see the official list for 2015 below).

The CDC’s Mortality and Morbidity Report for 2000, said that cancer caused 710,701 US deaths in 2000 and heart disease caused 553,080. For comparison purposes, the CDC’s report said that heart disease caused 606,401 deaths in 2017 and cancer caused 594,707.

Below are the US death statistics for 2015 (apparently the last year that the CDC has published the complete list).

1 Heart Disease . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 633,842

2 Cancer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 595,930

3 Chronic lower respiratory diseases . . . . . . . 155,041

4 Unintentional injuries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146,571

5 Cerebrovascular diseases . . . . . . . . . . . . . .140,323

6 Alzheimer’s disease . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110,561

7 Diabetes mellitus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . …. . . . . .79,535

8 Influenza and pneumonia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .57,062

9 Nephrosis, nephrotic syndrome . . . . . . . . . . . 49,959

10 Suicide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .44,193

It is obvious that “Inpatient Iatrogenic Deaths” of 225,000 would easily come in 3rd, if the CDC would ever start collecting such data and publishing it as a separate category. Something fishy is going on, particularly in view of the fact that there have numerous requests that the CDC change its traditional data collection methods.

1518718151-84-16-facts-most-people-dont-know-about-fluoride-body

One also wonders – if more accurate figures were available – if combining in-patient and out-patient iatrogenic deaths together (a rational approach) would cause heart and cancer deaths to drop to # 2 and # 3.

vaccine_bill_gates_india_polio-575x350
One only has to consider tabulating psychiatric drug-induced suicides and homicides as iatrogenic; or logically regarding deaths from neuroleptic drug-induced diabetes and obesity to be classed as iatrogenic; or regarding the deaths from the aluminum-adjuvanted, vaccine-induced autoimmune diseases that cause so much morbidity and mortality as iatrogenic; or regarding a portion of the SIDS deaths at 2, 4 and 6 month of age, when infants are routinely injected with dangerous, untested-for-safety cocktails of mercury-containing, aluminum-adjuvanted and live virus-containing intramuscular vaccines as iatrogenic.

Or one could add in last year’s 50,000 opioid overdose deaths – most of which were prescribed by health caregivers but which were probably added to the “Accidental Death” category; or adding in the 50,000 heart attack deaths from Merck’s arthritis drug Vioxx (also iatrogenic deaths, but included in the “Heart Disease” category); or the premature chemotherapy drug-induced deaths that are invariably included in the “Cancer Death” category.

poison1-300x203

And the list of potential iatrogenic deaths goes on and on.

A decade after her article was published (in a December 2009 interview), Dr Stanfield re-affirmed the veracity of her earlier data by saying:

“106,000 people die (annually, in US hospitals) as a result of CORRECTLY prescribed medicines…Overuse of a drug or inappropriate use of a drug would not fall under the category of ‘correctly’ prescribed. Therefore, people who die after ‘overuse’ or ‘inappropriate use’ would be IN ADDITION TO the 106,000 (these numbers do not count out-patients killed by prescription drugs!) and would fall into another or other categories.” – (https://therefusers.com/is-us-health-really-the-best-in-the-world-barbara-starfield-md-mph/)

And then there is the research done by Dr Peter Goetzsche.

Dr Peter Goetzsche

Dr Stanfield’s 2000 and 2009 statistics holds true for the UK and for Europe as well, according to the co-founder of The Cochrane Collaboration, Dr Peter Goetzsche. In his powerful 2013 book “Deadly Medicines and Organised Crime: How Big Pharma has Corrupted Healthcare.”

Dr Goetzsche boldly states that iatrogenic deaths should be listed as # 3 in both Europe and the US. In his 2015 companion book, Deadly Psychiatry and Organised Denial, Goetzsche makes the same points about psychiatric drug-induced deaths. Below are some quotes from his 2013 book, where he points out the many similarities between Big Pharma and the mob:

20161031_gsoros

“It is scary how many similarities there are between the drug industry and the mob. The mob makes obscene amounts of money…The side effects of organized crime are killings and deaths, and the side effects are the same in this industry. The mob bribes politicians and others, and so does this industry…

“Otherwise good citizens, when they are part of a corporate group, do things they otherwise wouldn’t do because the group…validate(s) what there’re doing as OK…

“The difference is that all these people in the drug industry look upon themselves as law-abiding citizens, not as citizens who would ever rob a bank. However, when they get together as a group and manage these corporations, something seems to happen. It’s almost like when soldiers commit war crime atrocities. When you’re in a group, it’s easy to do things you otherwise wouldn’t do.” – An unnamed whistle-blowing ex-vice president for Pfizer’s global marketing department.

“In contrast to the drug industry, doctors don’t harm their patients deliberately. And when they do cause harm, either accidentally, or because of the lack of knowledge, or by negligence, they harm only one patient at a time.”

“In the drug industry, bribery is routine and involves large amounts of money. Almost every type of person who can affect the interests of the industry has been bribed: doctors, hospital administrators, cabinet ministers, health inspectors, customs officers, tax assessors, drug registration officials, factory inspectors, pricing officials and political parties.”

“There seems to be no study too fragmented, no hypothesis too trivial, no literature citation too biased or too egoistical, no design too warped, no methodology too bungled, no presentation of results too inaccurate, too obscure, and too contradictory, no analysis too self-serving, no argument too circular, no conclusions too trifling or too unjustified, and no grammar and syntax too offensive for a paper to end up in print.” – Drummond Rennie, deputy editor of JAMA.

“What makes Big Pharma unique in the US is that it outspends all others in laying down cold hard cash into its lobbying efforts (another word for bribing governments that includes not only US Congress but its US federal regulator, the bought and sold Food and Drug Administration).” – Joachim Hagopian

“(As a drug rep) “it’s my job to figure out what a physician’s price is. For some it’s dinner at the finest restaurants, for others it’s enough convincing data to let them prescribe confidently and for others it’s my attention and friendship…but at the most basic level, everything is for sale and everything is an exchange.” – Retired Drug Sales Rep Shahram Ahari

“Before the approval process, the (Big Pharma-connected) sponsor sets up the clinical trial – the drug selected, and the dose and route of administration of the comparison drug (or placebo). Since the trial is designed to have one outcome, is it surprising that the comparison drug may be hobbled – given in the wrong dose, by the wrong method?

“The sponsor pays those who collect the evidence, doctors, and nurses, so is it surprising that in a dozen ways they influence results? All the results flow in to the sponsor, who analyses the evidence, drops what is inconvenient, and keeps it all secret – even from the trial physicians. The manufacturer deals out to the FDA bits of evidence, and pays the FDA (the judge) to keep it secret. Panels (the jury), usually paid consultant fees by the sponsors, decide on FDA approval, often lobbied for by paid grass-roots patient organizations who pack the court (the trick is called ‘astro-turfing’).

“If the trial, under these conditions, shows the drug works, the sponsors pay sub-contractors to write up the research and impart whatever spin they may; they pay ‘distinguished’ academics to add their names as ‘authors’ to give the enterprise credibility, and often publish in journals dependent on the sponsors for their existence.

“If the drug seems no good or harmful, the trial is buried and everyone is reminded of their confidentiality agreements. Unless the trial is set up in this way, the sponsor will refuse to back the trial, but even if it is set up as they wish, those same sponsors may suddenly walk away from it, leaving patients and their physicians high and dry.”

“We have a system where defendant, developers of evidence, police, judge, jury, and even court reporters are all induced to arrive at one conclusion in favour of the new drug.”

“More than 80 million prescriptions for psychiatric drugs are written in the UK every year. Not only are these drugs often entirely unnecessary and ineffective, but they can also turn patients into addicts, cause crippling side-effects – and kill.”

If any reader has any doubt about the veracity of the Stanfield and Goetzsche claims, below are a couple of other courageous researchers that have delved into the issue. In 2016, a group of Johns Hopkins medical school researchers, led by Dr Martin Makary, published supporting information in the British Medical Journal. (BMJ 2016; 353).

In the introduction of the publication, Makary and his co-authors wrote about how flawed is the CDC system of data collection and analysis:

“The annual list of the most common causes of death in the United States, compiled by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), informs public awareness and national research priorities each year. The list is created using death certificates filled out by physicians, funeral directors, medical examiners, and coroners.

“However, a major limitation of the death certificate is that it relies on assigning an International Classification of Disease (ICD) code to the cause of death. As a result, causes of death not associated with an ICD code (including many iatrogenic disorders), such as human and system factors, are not captured.

“…communication breakdowns, diagnostic errors, poor judgment, and inadequate skill can directly result in patient harm and death. We analyzed the scientific literature on medical error to identify its contribution to US deaths in relation to causes listed by the CDC.

Death From Medical Care Itself

“Medical error has been defined as an unintended act (either of omission or commission) or one that does not achieve its intended outcome, the failure of a planned action to be completed as intended (an error of execution), the use of a wrong plan to achieve an aim (an error of planning), or a deviation from the process of care that may or may not cause harm to the patient. Patient harm from medical error can occur at the individual or system level. The taxonomy of errors is expanding to better categorize preventable factors and events. We focus on preventable lethal events to highlight the scale of potential for improvement.”

Makary’s group published data that supports iatrogenic deaths as the # 3 cause of death.

In a 2016 open letter to the CDC, Makary’s group urged the agency to add medical errors to its annual list of common causes of death.

The letter said, in part:
“We are writing this letter to respectfully ask the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to change the way it collects our country’s national vital health statistics each year. The list of most common causes of death published is very important – it informs our country’s research and public health priorities each year. The current methodology used to generate the list has what we believe to be a serious limitation. As a result, the list has neglected to identify the third leading cause of death in the U.S. – medical error.”

As a partial defense of over-busy, over-booked, sometimes mentally and physically exhausted health caregivers in the US, another researcher, Dr John James, has published an article in the Journal of Patient Safety. Dr James makes similar claims urging the CDC to evaluate death statistics more logically.

The title of his 2013 article is “A New, Evidence-based Estimate of Patient Harms Associated with Hospital Care”. (Journal of Patient Safety: September 2013 – Volume 9 – Issue 3 – p 122–128)

Below are excerpts from that article:
Objectives

Based on 1984 data developed from reviews of medical records of patients treated in New York hospitals, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) estimated that up to 98,000 Americans die each year from medical errors. The basis of this estimate is nearly 3 decades old; herein, an updated estimate is developed from modern studies published from 2008 to 2011.

Results

Using a weighted average of the 4 studies, a lower limit of 210,000 deaths per year was associated with preventable harm in hospitals…the true number of premature deaths associated with preventable harm to patients was estimated at more than 400,000 per year. Serious (but non-lethal) harm seems to be 10- to 20-fold more common than lethal harm.

Conclusions

The epidemic of patient harm in hospitals must be taken more seriously if it is to be curtailed. Fully engaging patients and their advocates during hospital care, systematically seeking the patients’ voice in identifying harms, transparent accountability for harm, and intentional correction of root causes of harm will be necessary to accomplish this goal.

“Medical care in the United States is technically complex at the individual provider level, at the system level, and at the national level. The amount of new knowledge generated each year by clinical research that applies directly to patient care can easily overwhelm the individual physician trying to optimize the care of his patients.”

“Because of increased production demands, providers may be expected to give care in suboptimal working conditions, with decreased staff, and a shortage of physicians, which leads to fatigue and burnout. It should be no surprise that preventable adverse events that harm patients are frighteningly common in this highly technical, rapidly changing, and poorly integrated industry. The picture is further complicated by a lack of transparency and limited accountability for errors that harm patients.”

“There are at least 3 time-based categories of preventable adverse events recognized in patients that are or have been hospitalized. The broadest definition encompasses all unexpected and harmful experience that a patient encounters as a result of being in the care of a medical professional or system because high quality, evidence-based medical care was not delivered during hospitalization. The harmful outcomes may be realized immediately, delayed for days or months, or even delayed many years.”

“There was much debate after the Institute of Medicine (IOM) report about the accuracy of its estimates. In a sense, it does not matter whether the deaths of 100,000, 200,000 or 400,000 Americans each year are associated with PAEs in hospitals….one must hope that the present, evidence-based estimate of 400,000+ deaths per year will foster an outcry for overdue changes and increased vigilance in medical care to address the problem of harm to patients who come to a hospital seeking only to be healed.”

Dr. Kohls is a retired physician who practiced holistic, non-drug, mental health care for the last decade of his forty-year family practice career. He is a contributor to and an endorser of the efforts of the Citizens Commission on Human Rights and was a member of Mind Freedom International, the International Center for the Study of Psychiatry and Psychology, and the International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies.

While running his independent clinic, he published over 400 issues of his Preventive Psychiatry E-Newsletter, which was emailed to a variety of subscribers. (They have not been archived at any website.) In the early 2000s, Dr Kohls taught a graduate level psychology course at the University of Minnesota Duluth. Itwas titled “The Science and Psychology of the Mind-Body Connection”.

Since his retirement, Dr Kohls has been writing a weekly column (titled “Duty to Warn”) for the Duluth Reader, an alternative newsweekly published in Duluth, Minnesota. He offers teaching seminars to the public and to healthcare professionals.

Many of Dr Kohls’ columns are archived at http://duluthreader.com/search?search_term=Duty+to+Warn&p=2; http://www.globalresearch.ca/author/gary-g-kohls; or https://www.transcend.org/tms/search/?q=gary+kohls+articles

McConnell: Pelosi Refuses to Release Impeachment Articles Because She’s Afraid, Unrelated to Fair Trial

Mc-Connell-Says-Pelosi-Is-Afraid-640x480
(Erin Schaff-Pool/Getty Images)

McConnell: Pelosi Refuses to Release Impeachment Articles Because She’s Afraid, Unrelated to Fair Trial
EDWIN MORA
19 Dec 2019 3:37
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/12/19/mcconnell-pelosi-refuses-to-release-impeachment-articles-because-shes-afraid-unrelated-to-fair-trial/

U.S. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) on Thursday lambasted House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), often described as fearless and even never-daunted, as “too afraid” to send the articles of impeachment to the Senate that were approved mostly along party lines with three Democrats defecting.

On the Senate floor Thursday, McConnell accused Pelosi of suggesting “that House Democrats may be too afraid … to even transmit their shoddy work product to the Senate.”

Referring to the development as “comical,” McConnell said Democrats who stressed the urgency of the process now seem “content to sit on their hands.”

McConnell, one of the top Republican leaders who has been holding the party together against the impeachment-fueled onslaught against Trump and his allies, taunted Pelosi’s threat to withhold the articles of impeachment until the GOP agrees to a fair impeachment trial.

“This particular House of Representatives has let its partisan rage at this particular president create a toxic new precedent that will echo well into the future,” McConnell said from the Senate floor Thursday.

“Looks like the prosecutors are getting cold feet,” McConnell mused in remarks on the Senate floor after the House voted to impeach Trump along party lines.

Three Democrats defected, voting against at least one of the articles, while the Republicans remained together in their opposition.

House Democrats impeached Trump on abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. Trump joined the impeached president’s club as its third member.

Historically, the House sends the articles of impeachment approved in the House to the upper chamber — the Senate – for a trial.

Pelosi, however, appears to be doing what she knows best, playing legislative games. She has threatened that the Democrats would only send over the impeachment articles until she gets what she wants — the promise of a “fair” Senate process.

“We’ll make a decision… as we go along,” Pelosi told reporters Wednesday, adding that “we’ll see what the process will be on the Senate side,” Fox News reports.

“We have acted,” Pelosi continued, repeatedly refusing to commit to sending the articles of impeachment to the Senate. “Now, they’ll understand what their responsibilities are, and we’ll see what that is.”

Many Republicans have balked at Pelosi’s request because they believe Democrats denied them a fair trial while Pelosi sat by and watched the show.

McConnell’s speech on the Senate floor came after House Democrats voted to impeach Trump for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress on Wednesday night.

On Thursday, Senate majority leader McConnell deemed the House impeachment vote — which passed without the support of a single Republican — as “the most rushed, least thorough, and most unfair impeachment inquiry in modern history.”

Impeaching Trump became an obsession for many Democrats soon after he took office.

Speaker Pelosi has vowed not to send the articles of impeachment against President Trump to the Republican-controlled Senate until they agree to make the Senate trial fair. House Republicans repeatedly made similar requests, but the Democrat majority ignored them.

So now, Democrats are complaining that Republicans are denying them the legislative commodities that just a few weeks ago they gleefully refused GOP lawmakers.

Pelosi’s threat not to release the articles of impeachment until she gets what she wants is a surprise move that plunges Congress’s timeline of Trump’s trial in the Senate into even more uncertainty.

Whistleblower tells all, claiming Hillary Clinton, Chuck Schumer, Kirsten Gillibrand and other prominent Democrats are involved in human trafficking, sex slavery, and Satanism, by: Ethan Huff

Clinton-Hillary-Campaign-Candidate-Democratic-Election
(Image from Hillary Campaign)

Whistleblower tells all, claiming Hillary Clinton, Chuck Schumer, Kirsten Gillibrand and other prominent Democrats are involved in human trafficking, sex slavery, and Satanism
Sunday, May 12, 2019 by: Ethan Huff

https://www.naturalnews.com/2019-05-12-whistleblower-claims-prominent-democrats-involved-in-human-trafficking-slavery-and-satanism.html

(Natural News) A former publicist for the infamous sex cult NXIVM has come forward as a whistleblower to tell all that he knows about the evils he witnessed while working for the group – and perhaps more importantly, to reveal the identities of some of the corrupt politicians who were also involved.

During an exclusive interview on The Campaign Show with Patrick Howley, which airs on Patriots Soapbox, Frank Parlato discussed the trial of Keith Raniere, NXIVM’s cult leader and top dog. Parlato also talked about how Raniere and other NXIVM leadership were very closely aligned with Hillary Clinton, having given “illegally bundled money,” to quote Big League Politics, to her 2008 presidential campaign.

According to Parlato, NXIVM routinely trafficked in teenage girls from Mexico, who were then turned into sex slaves and physically branded on their bodies with Raniere’s initials. And unbeknownst to millions of Americans are the many mainstream politicians who, at the very least, appear to have known that this was going on – and some of whom may have also been perpetrators themselves.

As it turns out, Democrat senator for New York and 2020 presidential contender Kirsten Gillibrand has been called out for her close “family ties” to the NXIVM sex cult. Gillibrand’s father and stepmother, who are second cousins, were both heavily involved with NXIVM before they married. Gillibrand’s father, Doug Rutnik, is also a former employee of NXIVM.

According to Big League Politics, Gillibrand’s father functioned as a broker between Raniere, NXIVM’s leader, and then-New York attorney general Eliot Spitzer, who had been working at the time to “resolve” Raniere’s “financial problems with the state” – this, according to Joseph O’Hara, another ex-employee at NXIVM-turned-whistleblower.

For more news like this about deep state politicians and their dirty deeds, be sure to check out Evil.news.

Bill Clinton’s close friend Richard Mays got “hooked” on the NXIVM sex cult, whistleblowers say
Nancy Salzman, president of NXIVM, apparently acted as a personal “guru” for Gillibrand’s stepmother, Gwenn Belcourt, who’s said to have gotten “hooked” on the cult – along with Richard Mays, a close friend of former President Bill Clinton.

New York Senator Chuck Schumer is also said to have been connected to NXIVM, as the sex cult reportedly viewed him as a “friendly” Democrat ally, according to Parlato.

Be sure to check out the full discussion between Frank Parlato and Patrick Howley on YouTube.

In a nutshell, NXIVM was closely linked with Gillibrand and her family, the Clintons, and presumably many other deep state politicians, many of whom identify as Democrats, and all of whom would appear to have given cover for the untold wickedness that it propagated against innocent human beings.

As you may recall, NXIVM is the same sex cult that recruited “Smallville” star Allison Mack into its ranks, only to eventually turn her into one of its leaders to recruit other young women (and possibly young men) to become the next generation of sex slaves.

“At the time I worked for them, I thought they were a little peculiar,” Parlato maintains. “But it wasn’t until the end that I realized they were a downright evil group,” he says.

You can read full copies of the court documents outlining NXIVM’s suit against Rutnik, which Parlato shared with Big League Politics, at this link.

“There are women on the record who are now adults who have accused Raniere of statutory rape and there are some very suspicious incidents where Mexican girls came under the perimeters of Raniere’s control and left under suspicious circumstances,” Parlato adds.

“They came from Chihuahua, Mexico. I reported this to the authorities.”

Watch for the upcoming website Satanism.news for more reporting on the satanic worship by globalist elites.

Sources for this article include:

BigLeaguePolitics.com

YouTu.be

NaturalNews.com

FrankReport.com

NYC Mayor De Blasio tells citizens: We own your bodies, and we can force you to be injected with anything we want

Bill-de-Blasio-345518584)

NYC Mayor De Blasio tells citizens: We own your bodies, and we can force you to be injected with anything we want
Friday, April 12, 2019 by: Mike Adams

https://www.naturalnews.com/2019-04-12-nyc-mayor-de-blasio-tells-citizens-we-own-your-bodies.html

(Natural News) NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio has declared that residents do not own their own bodies. The city of New York can demand that all citizens be injected with literally anything the government declares to be a “vaccine,” even when those vaccines contain aborted human fetal tissue cells, toxic aluminum metals, inflammatory adjuvants and other dangerous, deadly chemicals.

This is the latest attempt by authorities in New York to obliterate human rights and roll out a medical dictatorship where citizens have zero rights to defend their own bodies against risky medial interventions that are demanded at gunpoint.

PJ Media, which has emerged as one of the best independent media websites covering liberty and individual rights, has published an especially noteworthy article on this issue. Authored by Megan Fox, the story is entitled, “Mayor Bill de Blasio’s Mandatory Measles Vaccination Order Faces Legal Challenges.”

We are republishing it here with full credit to the original author and PJ Media website. This in important read. Share everywhere.

Mayor Bill de Blasio’s Mandatory Measles Vaccination Order Faces Legal Challenges
by Megan Fox, PJMedia.com

In an unusual and extreme move, New York Mayor Bill de Blasio declared a state of emergency over a measles outbreak in the Orthodox Jewish community and is demanding forced vaccinations of everyone within four zip codes of the affected areas. Violators face fines up to $1000. This includes babies six months of age, even though the MMR is not recommended for anyone under twelve months of age.

The Children’s Health Defense will be filing a legal challenge to the order, which comes on the heels of a New York Supreme Court ruling that struck down the Rockland County ban on unvaccinated children in public spaces.

Children’s Health Defense (CHD) is supporting a legal challenge to this dangerous, unprecedented overreach. While the City has unquestionable authority to control disease outbreaks, it may not violate the bedrock principle of prior, free and informed consent to all medical interventions, including vaccines. This is a fundamental human right. The City may quarantine, isolate, trace contacts and strongly urge vaccination, but it may not impose such a draconian mandate without demonstrating necessity, reasonableness, proportionality, harm avoidance, non-discrimination, due process and equal protection. The Commissioner has failed to do this; the City’s actions violate New York State law.

CHD board member Mary Holland commented, “I am shocked that Mayor de Blasio would resort to such police state techniques to control an outbreak of measles. I don’t believe the City’s actions will withstand legal scrutiny.” CHD Chairman Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is confident their legal challenge will prevail.

This case goes beyond a dispute over religious freedom. Thanks to the Merck federal whistleblower litigation, we now know that Merck’s MMR should have never been approved, much less mandated. To get its license Merck allegedly ordered its scientists to falsify efficacy data to fraudulently conceal the fact that the mumps component quickly wanes, triggering dangerous outbreaks in older populations where it can cause sterility in men and women. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported 150 outbreaks resulting in 9,200 cases of mumps in fully vaccinated adults, dwarfing the recent measles outbreaks. We are confident that no American court will allow government bureaucrats to force American citizens to take risky pharmaceutical products against their will.

Merck is currently defending itself against claims of falsifying data brought by two former employees.

Medical corporation Merck & Co. will decidedly face the music in the ongoing class action and related anti-trust lawsuit involving its mumps vaccine – a product routinely given to babies and children for generations. The issue, which involves allegations of false compliance with FDA standards for vaccines, prompted a False Claims Act lawsuit: United States v. Merck & Co. This case was commenced by two virologists once employed with Merck, alleges a systematic and long-standing commitment by the company to lying about the efficacy of its mumps vaccination, thereby prompting possible exposure to liability under the federal False Claims Act.

Governor Cuomo voiced concerns about the legality of de Blasio’s emergency order to forcibly vaccinate conscientious objectors. “Look, it’s a serious public health concern, but it’s also a serious First Amendment issue and it is going to be a constitutional, legal question,” Cuomo said in a radio interview on WAMC. “Do we have the right — does society, government have the right to say ‘you must vaccinate your child because I’m afraid your child is going to infect my child, even if you don’t want it done and even if it violates your religious beliefs?”

Some have asked how de Blasio is planning to determine who is or isn’t vaccinated to enforce his order. According to the mayor, they will be using “disease detectives.” de Blasio explained, “It parallels what a police detective does. If someone has symptoms, they will literally interview them to figure out everywhere they’ve been, everyone they might have come in contact with, and then they go reach out to that whole network to make sure people are vaccinated.” It’s unclear whether “make sure people are vaccinated” means “hold them down and inject them against their will.”

Read more stories on liberty and individual rights at PJmedia.com. Stay informed about vaccine dangers and vaccine industry propaganda by reading Vaccines.news.

https://www.naturalnews.com/2019-04-12-nyc-mayor-de-blasio-tells-citizens-we-own-your-bodies.html

FacebookTwitterShare

They Live, We Sleep: Beware The Growing Evil In Our Midst By: Tyler Durden

2019-10-29-17-28-43
They Live, We Sleep: Beware The Growing Evil In Our Midst
by Tyler Durden
Wed, 10/30/2019 – 00:05
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/they-live-we-sleep-beware-growing-evil-our-midst
Authored by John Whitehead via The Rutherford Institute,

“You see them on the street. You watch them on TV. You might even vote for one this fall. You think they’re people just like you. You’re wrong. Dead wrong.”

- They Live

We’re living in two worlds, you and I.

There’s the world we see (or are made to see) and then there’s the one we sense (and occasionally catch a glimpse of), the latter of which is a far cry from the propaganda-driven reality manufactured by the government and its corporate sponsors, including the media.

Indeed, what most Americans perceive as life in America—privileged, progressive and free—is a far cry from reality, where economic inequality is growing, real agendas and real power are buried beneath layers of Orwellian doublespeak and corporate obfuscation, and “freedom,” such that it is, is meted out in small, legalistic doses by militarized police armed to the teeth.

All is not as it seems.

This is the premise of John Carpenter’s film They Live, which was released more than 30 years ago, and remains unnervingly, chillingly appropriate for our modern age.

Best known for his horror film Halloween, which assumes that there is a form of evil so dark that it can’t be killed, Carpenter’s larger body of work is infused with a strong anti-authoritarian, anti-establishment, laconic bent that speaks to the filmmaker’s concerns about the unraveling of our society, particularly our government.

Time and again, Carpenter portrays the government working against its own citizens, a populace out of touch with reality, technology run amok, and a future more horrific than any horror film.

In Escape from New York, Carpenter presents fascism as the future of America.

In The Thing, a remake of the 1951 sci-fi classic of the same name, Carpenter presupposes that increasingly we are all becoming dehumanized.

In Christine, the film adaptation of Stephen King’s novel about a demon-possessed car, technology exhibits a will and consciousness of its own and goes on a murderous rampage.

In In the Mouth of Madness, Carpenter notes that evil grows when people lose “the ability to know the difference between reality and fantasy.”

And then there is Carpenter’s They Live, in which two migrant workers discover that the world is not as it seems. In fact, the population is actually being controlled and exploited by aliens working in partnership with an oligarchic elite. All the while, the populace—blissfully unaware of the real agenda at work in their lives—has been lulled into complacency, indoctrinated into compliance, bombarded with media distractions, and hypnotized by subliminal messages beamed out of television and various electronic devices, billboards and the like.

It is only when homeless drifter John Nada (played to the hilt by the late Roddy Piper) discovers a pair of doctored sunglasses—Hoffman lenses—that Nada sees what lies beneath the elite’s fabricated reality: control and bondage.

When viewed through the lens of truth, the elite, who appear human until stripped of their disguises, are shown to be monsters who have enslaved the citizenry in order to prey on them.

Likewise, billboards blare out hidden, authoritative messages: a bikini-clad woman in one ad is actually ordering viewers to “MARRY AND REPRODUCE.” Magazine racks scream “CONSUME” and “OBEY.” A wad of dollar bills in a vendor’s hand proclaims, “THIS IS YOUR GOD.”

When viewed through Nada’s Hoffman lenses, some of the other hidden messages being drummed into the people’s subconscious include: NO INDEPENDENT THOUGHT, CONFORM, SUBMIT, STAY ASLEEP, BUY, WATCH TV, NO IMAGINATION, and DO NOT QUESTION AUTHORITY.

This indoctrination campaign engineered by the elite in They Live is painfully familiar to anyone who has studied the decline of American culture.

A citizenry that does not think for themselves, obeys without question, is submissive, does not challenge authority, does not think outside the box, and is content to sit back and be entertained is a citizenry that can be easily controlled.

In this way, the subtle message of They Live provides an apt analogy of our own distorted vision of life in the American police state, what philosopher Slavoj Žižek refers to as dictatorship in democracy, “the invisible order which sustains your apparent freedom.”

We’re being fed a series of carefully contrived fictions that bear no resemblance to reality.

The powers-that-be want us to feel threatened by forces beyond our control (terrorists, shooters, bombers).

They want us afraid and dependent on the government and its militarized armies for our safety and well-being.

They want us distrustful of each other, divided by our prejudices, and at each other’s throats.

Most of all, they want us to continue to march in lockstep with their dictates.

Tune out the government’s attempts to distract, divert and befuddle us and tune into what’s really going on in this country, and you’ll run headlong into an unmistakable, unpalatable truth: the moneyed elite who rule us view us as expendable resources to be used, abused and discarded.

In fact, a study conducted by Princeton and Northwestern University concluded that the U.S. government does not represent the majority of American citizens. Instead, the study found that the government is ruled by the rich and powerful, or the so-called “economic elite.” Moreover, the researchers concluded that policies enacted by this governmental elite nearly always favor special interests and lobbying groups.

In other words, we are being ruled by an oligarchy disguised as a democracy, and arguably on our way towards fascism—a form of government where private corporate interests rule, money calls the shots, and the people are seen as mere subjects to be controlled.

Not only do you have to be rich—or beholden to the rich—to get elected these days, but getting elected is also a surefire way to get rich. As CBS News reports, “Once in office, members of Congress enjoy access to connections and information they can use to increase their wealth, in ways that are unparalleled in the private sector. And once politicians leave office, their connections allow them to profit even further.”

In denouncing this blatant corruption of America’s political system, former president Jimmy Carter blasted the process of getting elected—to the White House, governor’s mansion, Congress or state legislatures—as “unlimited political bribery… a subversion of our political system as a payoff to major contributors, who want and expect, and sometimes get, favors for themselves after the election is over.”

Rest assured that when and if fascism finally takes hold in America, the basic forms of government will remain: Fascism will appear to be friendly. The legislators will be in session. There will be elections, and the news media will continue to cover the entertainment and political trivia. Consent of the governed, however, will no longer apply. Actual control will have finally passed to the oligarchic elite controlling the government behind the scenes.

Sound familiar?

Clearly, we are now ruled by an oligarchic elite of governmental and corporate interests.

We have moved into “corporatism” (favored by Benito Mussolini), which is a halfway point on the road to full-blown fascism.

Corporatism is where the few moneyed interests—not elected by the citizenry—rule over the many. In this way, it is not a democracy or a republican form of government, which is what the American government was established to be. It is a top-down form of government and one which has a terrifying history typified by the developments that occurred in totalitarian regimes of the past: police states where everyone is watched and spied on, rounded up for minor infractions by government agents, placed under police control, and placed in detention (a.k.a. concentration) camps.

For the final hammer of fascism to fall, it will require the most crucial ingredient: the majority of the people will have to agree that it’s not only expedient but necessary.

But why would a people agree to such an oppressive regime?

The answer is the same in every age: fear.

Fear makes people stupid.

Fear is the method most often used by politicians to increase the power of government. And, as most social commentators recognize, an atmosphere of fear permeates modern America: fear of terrorism, fear of the police, fear of our neighbors and so on.

The propaganda of fear has been used quite effectively by those who want to gain control, and it is working on the American populace.

Despite the fact that we are 17,600 times more likely to die from heart disease than from a terrorist attack; 11,000 times more likely to die from an airplane accident than from a terrorist plot involving an airplane; 1,048 times more likely to die from a car accident than a terrorist attack, and 8 times more likely to be killed by a police officer than by a terrorist , we have handed over control of our lives to government officials who treat us as a means to an end—the source of money and power.

As the Bearded Man in They Live warns, “They are dismantling the sleeping middle class. More and more people are becoming poor. We are their cattle. We are being bred for slavery.”

In this regard, we’re not so different from the oppressed citizens in They Live.

From the moment we are born until we die, we are indoctrinated into believing that those who rule us do it for our own good. The truth is far different.

Despite the truth staring us in the face, we have allowed ourselves to become fearful, controlled, pacified zombies.

We live in a perpetual state of denial, insulated from the painful reality of the American police state by wall-to-wall entertainment news and screen devices.

Most everyone keeps their heads down these days while staring zombie-like into an electronic screen, even when they’re crossing the street. Families sit in restaurants with their heads down, separated by their screen devices and unaware of what’s going on around them. Young people especially seem dominated by the devices they hold in their hands, oblivious to the fact that they can simply push a button, turn the thing off and walk away.

Indeed, there is no larger group activity than that connected with those who watch screens—that is, television, lap tops, personal computers, cell phones and so on. In fact, a Nielsen study reports that American screen viewing is at an all-time high. For example, the average American watches approximately 151 hours of television per month.

The question, of course, is what effect does such screen consumption have on one’s mind?

Psychologically it is similar to drug addiction. Researchers found that “almost immediately after turning on the TV, subjects reported feeling more relaxed, and because this occurs so quickly and the tension returns so rapidly after the TV is turned off, people are conditioned to associate TV viewing with a lack of tension.” Research also shows that regardless of the programming, viewers’ brain waves slow down, thus transforming them into a more passive, nonresistant state.

Historically, television has been used by those in authority to quiet discontent and pacify disruptive people. “Faced with severe overcrowding and limited budgets for rehabilitation and counseling, more and more prison officials are using TV to keep inmates quiet,” according to Newsweek.

Given that the majority of what Americans watch on television is provided through channels controlled by six mega corporations, what we watch is now controlled by a corporate elite and, if that elite needs to foster a particular viewpoint or pacify its viewers, it can do so on a large scale.

If we’re watching, we’re not doing.

The powers-that-be understand this. As television journalist Edward R. Murrow warned in a 1958 speech:

We are currently wealthy, fat, comfortable and complacent. We have currently a built-in allergy to unpleasant or disturbing information. Our mass media reflect this. But unless we get up off our fat surpluses and recognize that television in the main is being used to distract, delude, amuse, and insulate us, then television and those who finance it, those who look at it, and those who work at it, may see a totally different picture too late.

This brings me back to They Live, in which the real zombies are not the aliens calling the shots but the populace who are content to remain controlled.

When all is said and done, the world of They Live is not so different from our own. As one of the characters points out, “The poor and the underclass are growing. Racial justice and human rights are nonexistent. They have created a repressive society and we are their unwitting accomplices. Their intention to rule rests with the annihilation of consciousness. We have been lulled into a trance. They have made us indifferent to ourselves, to others. We are focused only on our own gain.”

We, too, are focused only on our own pleasures, prejudices and gains. Our poor and underclasses are also growing. Racial injustice is growing. Human rights is nearly nonexistent. We too have been lulled into a trance, indifferent to others.

Oblivious to what lies ahead, we’ve been manipulated into believing that if we continue to consume, obey, and have faith, things will work out. But that’s never been true of emerging regimes. And by the time we feel the hammer coming down upon us, it will be too late.

So where does that leave us?

The characters who populate Carpenter’s films provide some insight.

Underneath their machismo, they still believe in the ideals of liberty and equal opportunity. Their beliefs place them in constant opposition with the law and the establishment, but they are nonetheless freedom fighters.

When, for example, John Nada destroys the alien hyno-transmitter in They Live, he restores hope by delivering America a wake-up call for freedom.

That’s the key right there: we need to wake up.

Stop allowing yourselves to be easily distracted by pointless political spectacles and pay attention to what’s really going on in the country.

The real battle for control of this nation is not being waged between Republicans and Democrats in the ballot box.

As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, the real battle for control of this nation is taking place on roadsides, in police cars, on witness stands, over phone lines, in government offices, in corporate offices, in public school hallways and classrooms, in parks and city council meetings, and in towns and cities across this country.

The real battle between freedom and tyranny is taking place right in front of our eyes, if we would only open them.

All the trappings of the American police state are now in plain sight.

Wake up, America.

If they live (the tyrants, the oppressors, the invaders, the overlords), it is only because “we the people” sleep.

Michael Flynn’s Lawyers Claim Lisa Page Altered FBI Interview Record to Frame Him

Michael Flynn’s Lawyers Claim Lisa Page Altered FBI Interview Record to Frame Him

Lisa-Page-after-meeeting-lawmakers-Capitol-Hill-ap-640x480
(AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta)AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta)

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/10/25/michael-flynn-lawyers-accuse-fbi-of-laying-trap-withholding-evidence/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_term=daily&utm_campaign=20191025&utm_content=Final

Former FBI lawyer Lisa Page leaves following an interview with lawmakers behind closed doors on Capitol Hill in Washington, Friday, July 13, 2018.
JOEL B. POLLAK
25 Oct 2019

Lawyers for former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn reportedly filed a motion on Thursday in which they allege that the Department of Justice manipulated a document to frame their client and is withholding exculpatory evidence.
The apparent “sealed” filing, dated October 24, 2019, was posted to social media on Thursday evening.

US v Flynn; DE 129-2 by Techno Fog on Scribd

The filing by Flynn’s new legal team, which took over the case several weeks ago, argues that the Federal Bureau of Investigation conducted an “ambush-interview” of Flynn in the White House not to discover any evidence of criminal activity, but to coax him into making false statements.

When Flynn’s new lawyer Sidney Powell first made those allegations in September, prosecutors replied that she was indulging in “conspiracy theories” and noted his client had already pleaded guilty to the crime of lying to the FBI in 2017. Flynn has been awaiting sentencing since then, and even told the sentencing judge in 2018 that he would not claim FBI misconduct, despite growing evidence that they had departed from normal practice in interviewing him and had only completed their “302” — the report of their meeting — after he had already been forced to resign from his position in the administration over the allegations.

The new defense filing alleges that the government is refusing to turn over a mountain of potentially exculpatory evidence, some of which has begun to emerge in the media — either through leaks or through ongoing inquiries into the origins of the probe into alleged Russia “collusion” with the Trump campaign, later found not to exist.

That evidence, Flynn’s legal team alleges, includes an apparent admission by former FBI lawyer Lisa Page — who resigned after being discovered having an affair with agent Peter Strzok, with whom she shared anti-trump texts — that she had edited the 302 — something that she allegedly told FBI investigators she did not recall, the filing states.

The edits, the filing alleges, were substantive: they included a claim that Flynn said he did not discuss any sanctions with the Russian ambassador. Flynn’s lawyers allege he merely told the FBI he did not recall, and that the claim he said otherwise was added only after a transcript of his discussion with the ambassador had been leaked to the media.

In a footnote, the filing adds that former FBI general counsel James Baker “is believed to be the person who illegally leaked the transcript of Mr. Flynn’s calls to [Washington Post reporter David] Ignatius.” It also alleges that former National Intelligence Director James Clapper told Ignatius to “take the kill shot on Flynn.”

The filing emerged hours after reports that the Department of Justice had shifted its investigation of the origins of the Russia probe to become a criminal investigation under the supervision of prosecutor John H. Durham.

Flynn was subject to surveillance — allegedly in response to claims that he might have violated the Logan Act, an archaic and rarely-enforced law barring private citizens from diplomacy — during President-elect Donald Trump’s transition to office. Flynn’s name was then unmasked in the transcript of his telephone conversation with then-Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, which was then leaked illegally.

Flynn’s subsequent prosecution for lying to the FBI was key to the “Russia collusion” theory, later found to have no substance after a lengthy investigation by Special Counsel Robert Mueller that took nearly two years to complete.

Critics have alleged that Mueller may have induced Flynn to plead guilty by suggesting that the government had more evidence of “Russia collusion” than it actually did.

This story is developing.

Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News. He earned an A.B. in Social Studies and Environmental Science and Public Policy from Harvard College, and a J.D. from Harvard Law School. He is a winner of the 2018 Robert Novak Journalism Alumni Fellowship. He is also the co-author of How Trump Won: The Inside Story of a Revolution, which is available from Regnery. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak.

Some Red Flags About ‘Red Flag’ Laws

Red-Flag-Laws-Beth-PP-Featured-9-24-19

Some Red Flags About ‘Red Flag’ Laws
Beth Alcazar – 09/24/2019

Some Red Flags About ‘Red Flag’ Laws

A terrible tragedy occurred in my home state of Alabama last month. As reported by the local news, a father and his son were involved in an argument that led to the 70-year-old father shooting his 45-year-old son in the chest in what he claims was self-defense.

Soon afterward, the Alabama chapter of Moms Demand Action shared the news — along with a comment — on social media. They posted:

’Investigators said James Adams and his son, Alfred Dewayne Adams, were involved in an argument Sunday night. They further stated they believe James told Alfred he was going to bed. Alfred then walked into the bedroom and James shot him in the chest. Some of the neighbors and some other family members can tell us about stuff that was happening through [sic] the years.’ This life could have been spared by utilizing a red flag law.

Some Questions

“This life could have been spared by utilizing a red flag law?” That’s quite a statement. And I wanted to post a few questions to Moms Demand Action. First of all, I wanted to ask: If the father truly used a weapon in self-defense, would a “red flag” law have disarmed him … and then spared the life of his violent son? Would the father be dead, then, in this particular situation? Beyond that, do “red flag” laws cover all weapons in the home? What if the suspect had decided to use a knife? Or what about prescription drugs or poisons? Does it cover a person’s bare hands and/or body? Could we confiscate those weapons, as well, whenever we feel there’s “some stuff that was happening through the years?”

Some Examples

And what about the terrible case in which a son killed his father and wounded his mother with a knife? Two months ago, in Arizona, the Yavapai County Sheriff’s Office reported that when the older couple returned home, “they noticed their 33-year-old son had consumed a large amount of beer. The parents argued with him over their drinking concern. He threw his phone at them and then went into the kitchen and grabbed two large knives. When he tried to stab his mother, his father intervened and attempted to restrain him while he was still in the kitchen. The son began attacking his dad. As the struggle moved from the kitchen into the living room, the son was able to stab his dad in the chest. The father collapsed to the floor.”

Or there’s this recent horror story from Illinois: A man in a Chicago suburb was arrested by local police after killing his own mother by stabbing her repeatedly with a samurai sword in the chest. Park Ridge Police had removed the murderer’s firearms two times, with the last time being in July 2019. So the suspect didn’t have a gun … but he still had evil intent. And he used whatever weapon he could find.

There’s also the atrocity from Nevada a few weeks ago in which a 36-year-old man bludgeoned a woman to death with a sledgehammer in what Las Vegas police said was a random attack at a laundromat.

I could go on. But I won’t. Perhaps you see the point.

Some Red Flags

Beyond the fear of just anyone pointing out someone else with a gun for no good reason or people wrongly having their firearms taken from them because of mistaken identity or possibly just being in the wrong place at the wrong time, there are so many red flags about “red flag” laws. Undoubtedly, we’d love to be able to stop crimes and keep bad people from harming or killing others. But this is not the movie Minority Report, in which police can employ some sort of psychic technology to arrest and convict murderers before they commit their crimes. Ultimately, we have to ask: Will “red flag” laws actually target violent people … or just people with guns? Because as the above examples (and countless others) show, the problem isn’t the firearms.

About Beth Alcazar

Author of Women’s Handgun & Self-Defense Fundamentals, associate editor of Concealed Carry Magazine and creator of the Pacifiers & Peacemakers column, Beth Alcazar has enjoyed nearly two decades of teaching and working in the firearms industry. She holds degrees in language arts, education and communication management and uses her experience and enthusiasm to share safe and responsible firearms ownership and usage with others. Beth is certified through the NRA as a Training Counselor, Chief Range Safety Officer and Certified Instructor for multiple disciplines. She is also a Certified Instructor through SIG Sauer Academy, ALICE Institute, DRAW School, TWAW and I.C.E. Training and is a USCCA Certified Instructor and Senior Training Counselor.


How many times have we heard about someone running over a bunch of people too. Even the car or truck can be a deadly weapon. If someone is dead set that they are going to kill, for whatever reason, they will find the tool to kill others with!

These gun grabbers want any possible way to take our protection from us. And these same gun grabbers are socialists/communists.

Impeachment can go more ways than one. These politicians that want to do away with the Second Amendment, work for us. When they were sworn in, they swore to honor and uphold the Constitution. Trying to do away with any of the Amendments to the Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights, is not honoring and upholding the Constitution. Violating one’s Oath of Office is usually grounds for them to be removed.

I say let’s remove their asses!
(Please note, I usually don’t comment on my own posts).