One More Time: The Medical-Industrial/Pig-Pharma’s Crimes Against Humanity Exposed!

{On a completely different subject, and for all of you Russiagate fans out there: A N.Y. Times Story Just Accidentally Shredded the Russiagate Hysteria}


{Also see: FDA back-channel allows drug companies to transform common supplements into expensive prescription drugs and Drugs more dangerous than the disease: Alzheimer’s drugs found to increase risk of death from multiple acute side effects and VAXXED II, The People’s Truth, Coming In 2019 and Acetaminophen can induce a zombie-like state that makes people emotionless and uncaring}

“Bill Gates’ three children, Jennifer, Phoebe, and Rory, NEVER got vaccines and are now healthy young adults”

Ask yourself this simple question: “If vaccines are so ‘safe and effective’, then why would Bill Gates (as well as the inbred elite and medical professionals) not allow his children to be vaccinated?” And while you’re at it, ask yourself a similar question: “Why doesn’t Bill Gates (as well as the rest of the Silicon Valley hoard) allow his children to have and use ‘smart phones’ and other ‘smart’ technology devices?”

Bill Gates, the foremost panderer of the ‘safety and efficacy’ of vaccines, did not allow his three children to be VACCINATED, EVER. What does this tell you? Do I need to spell it out for you? (Arizona following California’s medical tyranny; seeks to eliminate parental choice on children’s vaccines with proposed new law)

I) Bill Gates and the World’s Elite DO NOT VACCINATE their own children… and for good reason


The absolute worst medical decision a parent of a newborn child can make is to allow doctors and nurses to severely compromise the immune system of their infant by injecting him or her with known neurotoxins, foreign proteins, and carcinogens like mercury, formaldehyde, monkey kidney cells, pig viruses, and genetically modified cells from human abortions. That’s why billionaire Bill Gates, the infamous and insidious population control freak and Microsoft mogul, refused to vaccinate his own children when they were growing up, even while he promotes toxic jabs all over the world, especially in third world countries.

It’s true. Gates’ former private doctor from Seattle back in the 1990s said, “I don’t know if he had them vaccinated as adults, but I can tell you he point blank refused to vaccinate them as children.” We know this because the quote was taken from Gates’ doctor during a side note conversation at a medical symposium, which caused a small uproar among the attending physicians, who blasphemed Gates’ doctor for breaking rank with doctor-patient confidentiality (even though it’s a “gray area” because he was speaking to other doctors privately). Still, it was too late – the cat got out of the bag, and now the world knows the ultimate hypocrisy of the elite who radically and religiously push vaccines as the “holy grail” of medicine, all while they keep the same poisons out of their own children’s blood and muscle tissue, knowing good and well the high risk of side effects and adverse events far outweighs any possible benefits.

Bill Gates’ three children, Jennifer, Phoebe, and Rory, NEVER got vaccines and are now healthy young adults

Born between 1996 and 2002, the Gates children never got mercury and formaldehyde shot into their muscle tissue as a form of “immunity,” even though their father is the most dogmatic campaigner and shill for the vaccine industry. Wait, you thought he just made his fortune off computer software? Think again. There’s huge profit in chemical medicine and population control schemes, and insidious Bill rides that cash cow every day.

According to TruthWiki, “Gates is widely criticized for being anti-competitive and for being a pro-vaccine zealot. He engages in many ‘philanthropic endeavors,’ such as donating large amounts of money to various scientific research programs through the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Gates has even gone so far as to fund technologies that are designed for mass sterilization in order to address what he refers to as the world’s population problem.”’

Read more: Bill Gates and the World’s Elite DO NOT VACCINATE their own children… and for good reason


{Also see: Top FDA Official Blows Whistle as Agency Approves Drug 10X Worse Than Fentanyl, Funded by DoD and Big Pharma payoffs to doctors cause an increase in opioid deaths… guns don’t kill people; DOCTORS do}

The following is one of many articles I have posted on this topic. But this information bears repeating again and again and again, until all of you wake up to this horrific TRUTH:

II) How the Corruption of Science Contributes to the Collapse of Modern Civilization

Part 2

By Richard Gale and Dr. Gary Null
Global Research, January 23, 2019

Publication Prejudice, Fraud and Deceptive Favoritism

During the past decade, scientific prejudice, bias and outright deceit has been endemic to peer-reviewed scientific literature, especially in the medical and psychiatric fields. Medical journals have been thoroughly hijacked by the pharmaceutical industry as have departments at universities and research institutions that are principally funded by private interests. It is no longer a secret that industry-funded studies inordinately convey positive results. Positive research is published; negative research is suppressed and buried. Consequently the reality of robust and honest medical research is skewed and distorted. Physicians and medical clinics thereby only get a small peek into the actual safety, efficacy and contraindications of the drugs later peddled to them by pharmaceutical sales reps.

In 2009, Harvard’s Dr. Marcia Angell, a former editor for the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine wrote,

“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor.”[1]

Later, the editor of The Lancet, Dr. Richard Horton stated,

“The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue.”

A large percentage of published studies and trials have either not been reproduced or failed to be reproduced. For example, in 2012, a scientist and his team at Amgen attempted to reproduce 53 published cancer studies and only succeeded in reproducing six. In another project published in Nature, only 39 of 100 psychology studies could be replicated.[2] Although Horton is optimistic that the proverbial cat is out of the bag and the medical community has been given warning, he despairs that “the bad news is that nobody is ready to take the first step to clean up the system.”[3]

Doctors at Children’s Hospital Boston undertook the task of reviewing 546 drug trials listed in the government’s Clinical Trials database. They found that industry funded trials showing a positive results were 70 percent more likely to be published than research funded by federal health agencies.[4]

In 2010, a multi-institutional review of studies for twelve antidepressant drugs that cumulatively enrolled over 12,500 patients was published in the New England Journal of Medicine. The group, representing researchers from Oregon Health and Science University, Harvard, the University of California Riverside and others, identified a deeply biased and deceptive trend in publication of these drugs’ respective trials that was highly selective. Thirty-six of the 37 favorable studies were published. On the other hand, only 3 of 36 unfavorable trials found their way into print.[5] The consequences are obvious. By portraying the image that over 90 percent of studies confirm the value of antidepressant drugs, while almost the same number of adverse trials are buried, the entire risk-benefit ratio of these drugs has been magically altered by sleight of hand.

Next is the deceptive intentions behind ghostwriting on private industries’ behalf. The habit of private corporations reaching out to public relations firms and independent technical writers to ghostwrite articles on behalf of their research and commercial products first came to light about a decade ago. Nevertheless the practice continues and in fact has become more common during the last several years. Ghostwriting has become a global cottage industry. Although ghostwriting is highly regarded as improper, it is not illegal.

Parallel to the alarm bells being rung that scientific journals were publishing increasingly amounts of junk science, there was also the growing problem of scientific authors’ personal biases due to their financial ties to private interests and hence the very research and products they were positively writing about. For many decades this was not considered a serious problem, but increasingly authors would hide their financial conflicts-of-interest.

Consequently, the most respected science journals require authors to reveal their associations and conflicts-of-interest with private companies and private for-profit institutions that may compromise the data’s objectivity in their articles. To get around this loophole, companies reach out to ghostwriters who can paint themselves as independent and conflict-free to submit favorable articles.

The ancient Greek physician Hippocrates, the father of modern medicine, stated, “Let food be thy medicine and medicine be thy food.” Unfortunately this millennium-old tenet was forgotten in modern civilization long ago. Enter the agro-chemical giant Monsanto, which has its fingers in the majority of food products consumed in the US. Monsanto has become notorious for relying upon a wide network of ghostwriting resources to intentionally undermine governments’ regulatory agencies and deceive the public. The company has been caught numerous times for contracting public relations firms and wooing compromised writers for over a decade. Per a California court ruling in favor of a plaintiff farmer who came down with cancer, the company’s flagship weed-killing chemical glyphosate or Roundup is under growing international scrutiny as a carcinogen. Monsanto again is relying upon its army of goon ghostwriters to conduct damage control.

Journalist Carey Gillam has been a close investigator and watchdog over Monsanto’s shenanigans for many years. In 2016 the journal Critical Reviews in Toxicology published a “special series” of science articles reviewing glyphosate’s carcinogenic potential. The World Health Organization had already ruled the chemical might cause cancer, and European health officials were seriously deliberating on banning the herbicide from the continent.

“Four independent panels” from the journal declared, “Neither any Monsanto company employee nor any attorneys reviewed any of the Expert Panel’s manuscripts prior to submission to the journal.” However Gilliam’s investigation into manuscripts released during the litigation found this was a complete lie. One of Monsanto’s leading scientists not only reviewed the manuscripts but also edited them. In one internal email within the company, the Chief of Regulatory Science had admitted he reviewed an entire document with suggestions for omissions and a few edits of his own. Other internal documents identify ghostwriters and strategies for recruiting outside scientists to compose articles giving the weed-killer credibility. Attempts to have the papers retracted from the journal have yet to be heeded.[6]

Besides ghostwriters, corporations hide behind shadowy non-profit organizations, front groups and shill think tanks that project the public image of being legitimate and expert scientific institutions. This strategy has been a means to covertly get corporate messages out under the illusion of being generated by independent scientists.

For example, a flurry of studies have been appearing in recent years to prove that sugar-loaded sodas and beverages are substantially contributing to the nation’s obesity and Type 2 diabetes crises. This message is reaching the public. Soda consumption has dropped by 25 percent.

To counter the scientific assault on its revenues, Coca-Cola — the world’s largest manufacturer of junk sugary beverages — teamed up with a corporate sponsored non-profit, the Global Energy Balance Network (GEBN), to promulgate the message that “weight-conscious Americans are overly fixated on how much they eat and drink while not paying enough attention to exercise.” GEBN, which has recruited many prominent scientists and health professors, swears by its independence from Coke’s influence. However, Coke started the non-profit initiative with a $1.5 million startup donation. Since its founding, the partnership has unleashed a media blitz across medical journals, professional conferences, mainstream media and social networks to get Coke’s message out. New York University professor of nutrition and food science Marion Nestle, has labeled the GEBN as “nothing but a front group for Coca-Cola. Coca-Cola’s agenda is very clear: Get these researchers to confuse the science and deflect attention from dietary intake.”[7]

While it is easy to blame private industry for producing the junk science appearing in peer-reviewed journals, we mustn’t lose sight of the corruption within the publications and among senior editors as well. The reason is simple: There is far too much financial incentive for professional journals to approve and publish corporate funded research. An article confirming the therapeutic value of a new drug, for example, can go a long way to bring enormous revenues to publishers. Pharmaceutical firms will order thousands of copies of the article to be disseminated throughout their sales force and sent randomly to physicians, medical schools, clinics and hospitals. The Lancet receives 41 percent of its income from reprints purchased by drug makers. The American Medical Associations’ journal gets a whopping 53 percent.

Finally, Big Pharma engages in a form of bribery to get journal editors to assure their research gets into print. Jessica Liu at the University of Toronto’s Medical School conducted an analysis of payments US drug makers made to 713 editors employed by 52 high impact medical journals. Fifty percent of editors were identified playing this corporate game and received payments for services that included preferential treatment towards article submissions and appointing peer reviewers. Liu and her colleagues estimated that the mean payment for general articles was $28,100; for research submissions, $37,900.[8] The worst case is the Journal of the American College of Cardiology with all of its 35 editors on the take. Cumulatively, the journal’s editors received almost $15 million in “bribes” from Big Pharma.[9]

Corporate Control of Scientific Information

Private corporations have full and complete control over the proprietary research and trial data in their possession. This means they have the discretion to decide what data to release or not. In the case of the pharmaceutical industry the US government makes no demands for a company to release all its clinical trial data and results for any given drug or vaccine submitted to the FDA or CDC respectively for approval and licensure. This is also true for “selective publication” about studies in medical journals.

In 2008, the French multinational pharmaceutical company Sanofi completed 92 studies on drugs in their pipeline. Only 14 were submitted and approved for publication. What should we think about the remaining 78 trials that were withheld?[10] Clearly it would be foolish for financial reasons alone that Sanofi would want its negative trial results to appear in peer-reviewed literature. The professional medical community and institutions rely heavily on the scientific publications to keep abreast of the latest studies and news. Nevertheless, federal authorities would not require Sanofi nor any pharmaceutical firm to submit research data that might jeopardize its approval on issues of safety, serious adverse effects and clinical efficacy. Consequently federal reviewers are only being provided with trials and data favorable to Big Pharma’s bottom line.

Dr. Steven Nissen is a highly respected cardiologist at the prestigious Cleveland Clinic who worries about the demise of independent research outside of pharmaceutical control. Among the targets he has investigated has been Glaxo’s blockbuster diabetes drug Avandia. Unable to acquire original patient information from the drug maker, Nissen turned to the internet and “stumbled upon a cache of data belonging to Glaxo,” which had been submitted during a lawsuit filed by former New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer.[11] In addition to discovering that only 15 of 42 clinical trials for Avantia had been published, the company had been suppressing the data that the drug increased risks of heart attack by 43 percent. Nissen published his findings in the New England Journal of Medicine; two days later the FDA slapped a “black box” warning on the drug…

The entire article, sources and links can be found here:


Many of the children, in the following article, will be addicted to psychotropic drugs for life; or in other words, these children will be life-long consumers of PIG-PHARMA PSYCH-DRUGS, which the AMA and APA quacks have been trained and paid to PUSH:

III) Over a million children under the age of six are currently on psychiatric drugs in America


‘Psychiatric drug use is on the rise in the U.S., with one out of every six Americans now taking some type of medication in this category. This is highly concerning given the scary side effects and poor effectiveness of many of these drugs, but there is one particularly disturbing aspect of this trend that seems to get glossed over, and that is the extraordinary number of children who are taking such drugs.

Mental health watchdog group Citizens Commission on Human Rights is drawing attention to the concerning fact that more than a million kids younger than six in our nation are currently taking psychiatric drugs.

While around half of these children are four to five years old, an incredible 274,804 of them are younger than a year old. That’s right: babies are being given psychiatric drugs. The number rises for toddlers aged two to three, with 370,778 kids in this category taking psychiatric drugs overall.

Data from IMS Health shows that the situation only gets worse as kids get older, with 4,130,340 kids aged 6 to 12 taking some type of psychiatric drug.

You might be forgiven for assuming that most of these statistics are made up by kids taking ADHD drugs given how common that approach seems to be nowadays, but it really only accounts for a small portion of it, with 1,422 of those younger than a year old and just over 181,000 of those aged four to five taking ADHD drugs.

Antidepressants and antipsychotics put forth some surprising figures, but the biggest category of psychotic drugs given to children appears to be anti-anxiety drugs. Just over 227,132 babies under one and nearly 248,000 of those aged four to five take these medications.

These numbers are even more shocking when you consider the fact that experts believe these estimates are far too low and the real numbers are actually much higher, due in part to the tendency for some doctors to hand out psychiatric medications for “off-label” uses. This risky practice entails giving out a drug to treat something that it is not indicated for, and the long-term effects of such an approach are completely unknown.’

Read more: Over a million children under the age of six are currently on psychiatric drugs in America