How Health Stories Make the News

The following comes from Jon Rappoport, an investigative reporter I have a lot of respect for.

PROMOTING SWINE FLU FOR FUN AND PROFIT

Jon Rappoport
nomorefakenews.com

OCTOBER 23, 2009.
***

During my 20 years of working as a reporter, I have seen public relations efforts gain more and more power over the press.

I’ve uncovered some simple common denominators when it comes to PR. I’m talking about the kind of PR that provokes reporters into doing pieces that adhere to a planned message.

I’ll boil it down.

First, you have a Group. That Group has some combination of prestige, money, and cultivated authority. It has connections.

The Group has a goal. And it wants the public to agree with the goal.

For example: EVERYONE SHOULD GET VACCINATED.

So the Group formulates a PR plan. It doesn’t operate randomly.

There are meetings and conferences, and a Group leader lays out the steps of the plan.

The plan will involve telling certain stories to reporters. These stories will feature hooks that evoke feelings in the public consciousness. Fear and sympathy, for instance.

Designated members of the Group will contact a list of reporters with these stories. The list is time-tested: the reporters will be friendly. They won’t want to dig deeper or ask embarrassing questions.

Because after all, the stories contain lies.

That’s why there is a need for PR.

A PR agency might be hired, or the PR might be run by the Group’s specialists, who already have good media contacts.

Now, by and large, mainstream medical reporters are lazy when it comes to discovering facts and details on their own. They spend a lot of time talking to experts who can feed them fully formed stories.

Therefore, to serve the reporters, the Group has to have these experts on tap. The experts can be Group members, or they can be friendly outsiders.

BUT THEY MUST BE RECOGNIZED EXPERTS IN THEIR FIELD.

In this case, professors of medicine, researchers, medical bureaucrats, prestigious doctors.

Experts are absolutely vital to the Group’s PR plan. As I say, medical reporters, on the whole, love experts, because then the work is easy. There is no need to question the expert’s reliability or look beyond his statements. There is a rarely a need to find an opposing view to “balance out” the piece.

Medical reporters become pets. They open their mouths, and their owners put food in.

The Group anticipates some degree of resistance from less friendly reporters and from the public. The Group’s plan won’t be a complete cakewalk. But by inundating the friendly reporters with stories that have the ring of authority and evoke fear and sympathy, the Group believes it will carry the day.

There is an interesting wrinkle on the “expert strategy.” The Group funds an advocacy organization, and that advocacy organization will assume the status of an expert, cultivate media contacts, and give statements to reporters who are writing stories on certain issues.

For example:

New York Times
Drug Makers Are Advocacy Group’s Biggest Donors
By GARDINER HARRIS
October 21, 2009

WASHINGTON — A majority of the donations made to the National Alliance on Mental Illness , one of the nation’s most influential disease advocacy groups, have come from drug makers in recent years, according to Congressional investigators.

The alliance, known as NAMI, has long been criticized for coordinating some of its lobbying efforts with drug makers and for pushing legislation that also benefits industry.

End NY Times clip

Then we have the infamous case of CHADD. I wrote about that advocacy group ten years ago, and to give you the flavor of how egregious such a situation can get, I’ll quote myself on it at length:

The PBS television series, The Merrow Report, produced in 1996 a program called "Attention Deficit Disorder: A Dubious Diagnosis?" The Educational Writer's Association awarded the program first prize for investigative reporting that year. The piece managed to catch a government official in the act of realizing he had made serious mistakes.

In the film, John Merrow, the series' host, explains that, unknown to the public, there has been "a long-term, unpublicized financial relationship between the company that makes the most widely known ADD medication [Ritalin] and the nation's largest ADD support group."

The group is CHADD, based in Florida. CHADD stands for Children and Adults with ADD. Its 650 local chapters sponsor regional conferences and monthly meetings---often held at schools. It educates thousands of families about ADD and ADHD and gives out free medical advice. This advice features the drug Ritalin.

Since 1988, when CHADD and Ciba-Geigy (now Novartis), the manufacturer of Ritalin, began their financial relationship, Ciba has given almost a million dollars to CHADD, helping it to expand its membership from 800 to 35,000 people.

Merrow interviews several parents whose children are on Ritalin, parents who have been relying on CHADD for information. They are clearly taken aback when they learn that CHADD obtains a significant amount of its funding from the drug company that makes Ritalin.

CHADD has used Ciba money to promote its pharmaceutical message through a public service announcement produced for television. Nineteen million people have seen this PSA. As Merrow says, "CHADD's name is on it, but Ciba Geigy paid for it."

It turns out that in all of CHADD's considerable literature written for the public, there is rare mention of Ciba. In fact, the only instance of the connection Merrow could find on the record was a small-print citation on an announcement of a single CHADD conference.

In recounting CHADD's promotion of drug "therapy" for ADD, Merrow says, "CHADD's literature also says psychostimulant medications [like Ritalin] are not addictive."

Merrow brings this up to Gene Haslip, a Drug Enforcement Agency official in Washington. Haslip is visibly annoyed. "Well," he says, "I think that's very misleading. It's certainly a drug that can cause a very high degree of dependency, like all of the very potent stimulants."

Merrow reveals that CHADD received a $750,000 grant from the US Dept. of Education, in 1996, to produce a video, Facing the Challenge of ADD. The video doesn't just mention the generic name methylphenidate, it announces the drug by its brand name, Ritalin. This, at government (taxpayer) expense.

We see a press conference announcing the release of the video. The CHADD president presents an award to Dr. Thomas Hehir, Director of Special Education Programs at the US Dept. of Education.

This sets the stage for a conversation between Merrow and Dr. Hehir, providing a rare moment when discovery of the truth is recorded on camera.

MERROW: "Are you aware that most of the people in the film [Facing the Challenge of ADD---referring to people who are giving testimonials about how their ADD children have been helped by treatment] are not just members of CHADD ... but in the CHADD leadership, including the former national president? They're all board members of CHADD in Chicago. Are you aware of that? They're not identified in the film."

HEHIR: "I'm not aware of that."

MERROW: "Do you know about the financial connection between CHADD and Ciba Geigy, the company that makes Ritalin?"

HEHIR: "I do not."

MERROW: "In the last six years, CHADD has received $818,000 in grants from Ciba Geigy."

HEHIR: "I did not know that."

MERROW: "Does that strike you as a potential conflict of interest?"

HEHIR: "That strikes me as a potential conflict of interest. Yes it does."

MERROW: "Now, that's not disclosed either. Even though the film talks about Ritalin as [one way of] taking care of treating Attention Deficit Disorder. That's not disclosed either. Does that trouble you?"

HEHIR: "Um, it concerns me."

MERROW: "Are you going to look into this, when you go back to your office?"

HEHIR: "I certainly will look into some of the things you've brought up."

MERROW: "Should they have told you that all those people in that film are CHADD leadership? Should they have told you that CHADD gets twenty percent of its money from the people who make Ritalin?"

HEHIR: "I should have known that."

MERROW: "They should have told you."

HEHIR: "Yes."

This funded video, in which CHADD devotes all of twenty seconds to mentioning Ritalin's adverse effects, is no longer distributed by the US Department of Education.

CHADD has now told its members that it receives funding from Ciba. It says it will continue to take money from Ciba.

This is an example of how a corporation can, behind the scenes, bend and shape the way the public sees reality.

So that’s what I wrote ten years ago. An advocacy organization can become a very powerful “expert” for the Group and thereby influence the public. In CHADD’s case, it managed to work directly through a government media outlet, the US Department of Education.

For a third example, one could do far worse than highlight the fundraising machine called the American Cancer Society (ACS), a billion-dollar non-profit. ACS exerts its considerable influence along many fronts: promoting chemotherapy and funding chemo research; affecting media reporting on cancer treatments; and diverting attention away from non-drug cancer prevention that involves removing chemical carcinogens from the environment. ACS also has become a self-proclaimed authority on alternative cancer treatments---which it labels Quackery.

The ACS has, of course, intimate connections with pharmaceutical companies. Saying the ACS fronts for these companies vastly underplays the power it has gained over the years. ACS has risen to the position of equal partner with the cancer-drug industry and, indeed, the US National Cancer Institute, world center for toxic chemo research.

Which brings us to the CDC PR plan for inducing millions of Americans to receive vaccinations for Swine Flu. Or any flu.

A 2006 article in Harper’s lays it all out. The author, Peter Doshi, focuses on the 2004 National Influenza Vaccine Summit, a conference at which Glen Nowak (CDC) used slides to present messages the CDC would project to the public through US media outlets.

Doshi writes, “The [CDC] recipe, as Nowak revealed, relies on creating ‘concern, anxiety, and worry’---its main ingredient, in other words, is fear.”

Doshi continues: “Government officials and health experts following the recipe are instructed to ‘predict dire outcomes.’”

This recipe was, in part, based on experience garnered two years earlier. Doshi: “From a 2002 focus group, the CDC determined death statistics in its flu-prevention literature were ‘eye catching and motivating.’ Participants in the study [focus group] believed ‘20,000 deaths was compelling, frightening,’ and ‘should be part of the headline.’”

Doshi continues: “Another way to ‘motivate behavior,’ the CDC recipe notes…is to describe a flu season as ‘very severe,’ ‘more severe’ than previous years, and ‘deadly’…Yet that winter’s flu season was later ruled typical and ‘medium in terms of impact.’”

Then Doshi unleashes a different kind of blockbuster in the article. Speaking to the CDC ‘deadly’ label, he notes: “After looking at more than three decades of data, scientists at the National Institutes of Health last year [2005] concluded, ‘We could not coordinate increasing vaccination coverage after 1980 with declining mortality rates in any age group.’”

The year 2004 was a strange one for the CDC flu-promotion efforts, and it reveals how disconnected CDC PR can be from the notion of truth. Doshi describes the situation:

“…the [CDC] recipe emphasizes that the public must be made to grasp the ‘seriousness of the illness.’ When 50 million doses of vaccine suddenly became unavailable in 2004, Americans understandably panicked…and medical experts predicted a public-health ‘catastrophe.’ The CDC, with its knowledge of PR, downgraded its scary portrayal of the flu [in general] to ‘an annoying illness’ from which most people ‘will recover just fine.’ It stressed the protective benefits of regular hand washing. And once the alleged crisis abated, the agency [CDC] returned to its strident communications plan. By the next fall, the CDC director was publicly stating that the flu is not ‘a benign illness. Many people don’t appreciate that it can result in hospitalization, various complications. For about 36,000 people every year, death.’”

A few final points. The CDC, through one of its departments, the Epidemic Intelligence Service, sometimes nicknamed “the medical CIA,” recruits young doctors who do a period of work in the field, with various health departments, looking into potential disease clusters and possible epidemics.

After this time of service, these doctors, returning to their practices, remain on call. They are trained to remain loyal to the CDC, and it’s likely that, wherever they work---for health agencies, in other government positions, in hospitals---they push the party line. They promote adherence to CDC PR. They are useful PR alumni.

Some years ago, I learned that the CDC sends a certain number of its people to the CIA for training. (I confirmed this with a Health and Human Services employee.) These people return to the CDC with higher security clearances. In 2009, with the PR lines between “epidemics” and bio-terrorism blurring, it’s certain that the CDC-CIA connection has become more solid and unified.

What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. Every (fake) CDC pronouncement of an epidemic or pandemic, by association, becomes a kind of reference point for the CIA, as it promotes (to the Congress) its own need for greater funding to combat potential bio-terrorism.

Having an ally like the CIA can’t be bad for the CDC. When it comes to telling lies and launching propaganda, the CIA has a great deal of experience. And CIA media contacts are legendary.

Jon Rappoport has worked as an independent investigative reporter since 1982. The LA Weekly nominated him for a Pulitzer Prize, for an interview he did with the president of El Salvador University, where the military had taken over the campus and was disappearing students and burning books. He has written for In These Tines, Village Voice, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, CBS Healthwatch, Stern. He is the author of AIDS INC., The Secret Behind Secret Societies, and Oklahoma Bombing: The Suppressed Truth. His website is nomorefakenews.com

More Proof the FDA Protects Big Pharma and Other Special Interests, Not Your Health

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has long been in the pockets of Big Pharma and other special interests opposed to the public’s right to access non-drug-based health care methods of their choice. Sadly, however, most people today believe that the FDA lives up to its mandate to protect them. While there are certainly many dedicated and conscientious scientists and researchers employed by the FDA who are attempting to do just that, their efforts are often thwarted at the FDA’s administration level, due to the cozy and incestuous relationship between FDA higher ups, including many of its commissioners, past and present, and the special interest groups the FDA is charged with regulating.

What follows are two recent examples of the FDA’s abuse of its power at the expense of we the people who fund its operations with our tax dollars. The first was forwarded to me by my friend Dr. Garry Gordon, who wrote: “This is sad. We find out that the Commissioner of FDA was a director of Henry Schein, a major supplier of amalgam to the dentists. She has chosen to protect her stock value and ignore the mercury health risk to children.”

FDA’s Sharfstein Covers Up Mercury-Neurological Harm Nexus (6 August 2009)

FDA Deputy Commissioner Joshua Sharfstein has given his seal of approval to major mercury exposure for millions of America’s children and unborn children – and to covering up both the neurological risks and the flawed rulemaking process.

Despite admitting that amalgam causes mercury exposure -- and despite knowing that mercury causes neurological harm to developing brains -- Sharfstein rejects putting on contraindications for amalgam, rejects putting on warnings on amalgam and even rejects a requirement that dentists tell patients that amalgam is mainly mercury.

Sharfstein even withdraws FDA’s website warning that dental mercury can cause permanent neurological harm to children and unborn children. Sharfstein’s rule actually says FDA wants to stop a decline in amalgam sales. At Joshua Sharfstein’s FDA, commerce trumps safety.

When the Republicans ran FDA, to their real credit, they put this warning on the FDA website: “Dental amalgams contain mercury, which may have neurotoxic effects on the nervous systems of developing children and fetuses.” Upon assuming power, the Democrats withdrew this warning, covering up the fact that mercury from amalgam causes permanent harm to young children and kills unborn babies. Is this the change we Americans voted for?

Washington is famous for the revolving door -- those in the party out of power takes highly paid corporate positions, then returns to government to bail out their benefactors. The new FDA Commissioner, Margaret Hamburg, worked in the Clinton Administration, then went out and became a director at the dental products colossus Henry Schein, earning a quarter million dollars a year for the handful of hours it takes to be a director. Corporations do this because they know the other party will return to power, at which time the corporations will call in their chits.

Upon becoming Commissioner, Dr. Hamburg owned between $250,000 and $500,000 of Henry Schein stock. Certainly the Harvard-educated Hamburg knew the amalgam rule had the potential to affect her stock value. She could have done the right thing -- recuse herself from the rule. Instead, she worked on the rule for a while, then recused herself gradually, first by “deciding not to participate,” then finally “recusing.” Certainly her next-in-command, Deputy Commissioner, Joshua Sharfstein got the message that there was more at stake than good government.

On what date did Hamburg sell her Schein stock? What work did Hamburg do on the rule before she recused herself? What work did she do protecting amalgam from regulators while at Schein? Through her lawyer, Hamburg refuses to answer any of these questions. Ironically, Sharfstein heads a new a FDA “transparency task force.” A perfect first project would be to expose the Hamburg-Henry Schein links.

Joshua Sharfstein had the opportunity to protect children from amalgam, to save unborn babies and nursing babies from mercury exposure, and to warn us all that amalgam exposes us to toxic mercury. He came to Washington as a child advocate, but changed his stripes once he saw the revolving door game in action. Throwing his reputation out the window, Joshua Sharfstein chose to ally with the amalgam industry and cover up the mercury, turning his back on the children of America.

Just as Margaret Hamburg has embarrassed President Obama for bringing back revolving-door government, Joshua Sharfstein has embarrassed the President for deciding not to reduce the use of mercury in oral health care. If ever a President entered office as an inalterable opponent of mercury, it is Barack Obama, who wrote a law banning mercury exports and who is working for a treaty to phase out man-made mercury by a date certain. But at FDA, his appointee Sharfstein is sabotaging the President’s policies by hiding the mercury from Americans and hence keeping amalgam sales going into the indefinite future.

FDA doesn’t even defend its rule on the science. FDA admits it does not know if mercury fillings are safe for children six and under, or for nursing mothers whose mercury goes through the breast milk, or for pregnant women whose dental mercury No, it’s not science -- it’s about commerce. FDA wants Americans to keep buying amalgam.

The children of America have lost. Another generation will be mercury toxic.

Need further evidence on who won? Just yesterday (Aug. 5), Henry Schein’s CEO Stanley Bergman offered this salute to Dr. Hamburg:

“I would like to extend on behalf of the company, our Board and our shareholders our sincere thanks to Dr. Margaret Hamburg, who has served as the Director of Henry Schein Company's Board since 2003. Dr. Hamburg left our Board following her confirmation as Commissioner of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. We would like to thank Dr. Hamburg for the insight she shared with the Henry Schein Board throughout the years and wish her continued success.”

Hamburg claims she broke her ties with Schein three months ago. But Schein’s CEO issues his thank-you the day after the FDA rule was published in the Federal Register. Margaret Hamburg may not be in the hip pocket of Henry Schein Inc, but Schein’s CEO sure thinks she is. And he has the evidence to show it: a rule that allows Schein to sell amalgam to anyone, a rule that covers up the mercury, a rule that contains propaganda to be used by Schein to defend against the upcoming class action suits.

FDA bans mercury in all veterinary products. The new FDA, under Margaret Hamburg and her Sancho Panza, Joshua Sharfstein, have decided that children don’t merit the protection FDA gives horses and dogs.

The Washington bigshots have direct access to Joshua Sharfstein. So should you: his e-address is JMSharf1@fda.hhs.gov Why not write him yourself? Talking points follow:

Questions to consider asking Deputy Commissioner Sharfstein

(1) Dr Sharfstein, why, under your rule, are children less important than horses and dogs when it comes to mercury exposure?

(2) Why did you Democrats withdraw FDA’s website warning that dental mercury can cause neurological harm to children and unborn children, which the Republican Commissioner agreed to last year?

(3) Will your new “transparency task force” disclose the details of your boss’s ties with Henry Schein, or will she be allowed to cover it up like you cover up the risks of ental mercury?

(4) Does President Obama know that you approved a rule that will keep Americans from learning that amalgam is mainly mercury, and does the President know about Commissioner Hamburg’s conflict of interest with Henry Schein?

Charles G. Brown, National Counsel
Consumers for Dental Choice
www.toxicteeth.org

This next item was sent to me by Deborah A. Ray, MT of the American Association for Health Freedom, an organization I strongly support. (To find out more about AAHF, visit www.healthfreedom.net.)

FDA Attacks Natural Thyroid Millions Depend On

We have learned that Time-Cap Labs, producer of a generic version of the brand name drug Armour, a natural and bioidentical thyroid replacement, has been ordered by the FDA to stop production. The FDA has decided to classify the company’s product, available for over a century, as an unapproved new drug. Since the new drug approval process is prohibitively expensive for a non-patentable substance, the FDA is in effect banning the natural product. The purpose? Presumably to protect the profits of other, inferior drugs that have been FDA approved.

According to statistics by the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists and other medical organizations, approximately twenty-seven million Americans have a thyroid disorder. Thyroid consumer advocate Mary Shomon projects that 2 million of these patients take either Armour Thyroid or a generic equivalent.

Armour and other "whole" natural thyroid preparations (including Westhroid and Nathroid as well as Time-Cap Lab’s Thyroid) are bio-identical, complete hormone preparations, containing "T4" "T3" "T2" and "T1" in the same proportions made by the human thyroid.

The FDA approved preparations Synthroid (T4), Cytomel (T3), and Levethyroxine (T4) include bio-identical molecules, but are not complete or totally bio-identical as they do not contain "T2" or "T1". It’s no wonder so many people feel much better with the balanced natural products that have been available for generations.

As famed physician Dr. Jonathan Wright observes: “Natural thyroid has never killed or severely harmed anyone since first use in the 1890s, prior to the FDA itself. It is a mainstay not only in the treatment of hypothyroidism but also in ‘healthy aging’ therapy. That the FDA should even be its thinking of requiring a new drug approval for a safe, 100 plus year old natural treatment is outrageous.”

We will report further as soon as we confirm more of the facts, and as always, we’ll let you know how you can get involved.

And It's The Same Story in Hong Kong

More than half of health care workers surveyed in Hong Kong said they would refuse to be vaccinated against swine flu, according to a study released Wednesday.

Fear of side effects and doubts as to efficacy were the two main reasons cited, said the study, published online by the British Medical Journal (BMJ).

UK Doctors and Nurses Refuse To Take New Swine Flu Vaccine

More than half of doctors and a third of nurses in the UK say they would not take the new swine flu vaccine when it becomes available this autumn.

They are concerned that the vaccine may not be safe, as it will not have been thoroughly tested, and it may not work. They also feel that swine flu is a more benign virus than early reports suggested.

A survey of 216 family doctors has discovered that nearly 60 per cent would refuse to have the vaccine – even though they are considered ‘front line’ workers who should be protected – and a third of 1,500 nurses polled also said they would not want to be vaccinated.

The public also has its reservations, a study in a Canadian journal has found. It would take a big PR campaign to convince them to have the vaccine, researchers found.

(Source: The Guardian, 25 August 2009).

Larry Flynt Tells It Like It Is

This is a must read editorial:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larry-flynt/common-sense-2009_b_264706.html

Connecting the Dots: Swine Flu, Global Warming, Goldman Sachs

As the media continues to bombard us with fear-laden stories about swine flu, global warming, the economic downturn, etc, I’ve become increasingly aware of the very same underlying theme behind such stories that writer Steven Grant outlines below. This is taken from his most recent column, Permanent Damage, which appears each Wednesday at www.comicbookresources.com (yes, I’m an avid fan of comic books, but I primarily read Steven’s column because of his insightful views on world events). I was planning to write a piece about what Steven discusses myself, but he did such a cogent, intelligent job of it that I’m sharing his version instead. Here it is:

“Back in the real world, all kinds of interesting and bizarre things seem to be going on. The new swine flu continues to generate urgency and panic, mostly among governments and news agencies, with several European and American state governments gearing up for mandatory vaccinations (for anyone who doesn't voluntarily get one, of course, so they can maintain the illusion that vaccinations are voluntary), and various members of the federal government have been putting forth the idea that mandatory vaccine shots are entirely Constitutional, suggesting the Feds are considering it as well. Meanwhile, the virus seems not to be cooperating very well in the production of sufficient volume of vaccine (everyone needs two shots, apparently), and levels aren't rising fast enough for interested parties' tastes. There's also much talk of bypassing FDA testing and approval procedures – emergency, you know – to speed delivery, while exempting vaccine manufacturers from lawsuit in the event vaccines. (There are several different ones being made by different companies, all of them qualifying as experimental at best.) While such exemptions are fairly standard, historically swine flu vaccines have done more harm than good, as in 1976, when public outcry forced the government to abandon vaccinations after deaths and the paralyzing Guillain-Barré syndrome were connected to the vaccinations.

That year swine flu came and went without much widespread effect.

What makes this year's version interesting isn't so much the flu itself – the deaths associated with it so far appear to only result in people with already seriously compromised immune systems, meaning that in symptom and effect it's pretty much like any other flu – but that the promotion of a vaccine has followed almost exactly on the 1976 script, with dire warnings that, after a very mild spring and summer as far as flu cases go, it will mutate and return with a vengeance in the fall. But why are they so sure it will mutate, and if it does, why so sure it'll mutate into a devastating variety? A slew of contradictory messages from the World Health Organization hasn't helped much. News that they're "tweaking" the virus, ostensibly to help antivirus manufacture, comes on the heels of news they're investigating reports the flu is man-made, in labs in, of all places, my alma mater, the University of Wisconsin-Madison, where samples of the horrific 1918 Spanish flu drawn a couple years ago from a frozen Inuit corpse of that era have been experimented with. (A genetic similarity of the "Mexican" flu, as it's called in Europe, to the Spanish flu is the legitimate concern in all this.) Meanwhile, WHO also quietly (or, rather, barely) announced they will no longer tally swine flu-related deaths. No reason was given, but the implication is clear: there aren't enough deaths to support the hysteria campaigns surrounding the flu.

But in England, at least, flu fever rages on, as it was revealed that Tony Blair's wife contracted the dastardly bug. The message spread far and wide by Britain's media was that even the families of the famous and powerful

That this should come at a moment when other European nations are facing their own populace resistance to immunizations and when Blair is openly politicking with the EU to effectively become president of Europe makes for... interesting timing.

Thrown into this mish-mash is Goldman-Sachs, the brokerage firm that recently infuriated the nation by posting massive profits and huge bonuses for their latest quarter after cheerfully soaking up billions in government aid after pleading impending financial disaster following last year's sub-prime crash and its fallout. Hidden for most amid all that outrage is that Goldman-Sachs is suing a former employee who allegedly stole proprietary software that a judge declared can be used to manipulate the entire market.

Aside from its status as an old and venerated investment firm with strong ties to the government (not to mention the Russians), what guarantee do we have that Goldman-Sachs hasn't been using their software to manipulate the stock market? Would they have developed this software without intent to use it? Considering the profits they seem to have cobbled together while all around them in investments are holding on for dear life. We can "blame" everything on the free market, but manipulation and free market forces are often hard to distinguish in the moment, as in the 2002 California energy crisis (from which the West has never really recovered – its effects went well beyond California – and which greatly contributed to California's current economic crisis) that was originally chalked up to "market forces" but turned out to be the work of an energy cartel rigging prices.

What ties all this together is a meme that I ran across four times while flipping channels in the last week. (Sorry, they came and went too fast to have noted references.) Russia's President Medvedev, talking to member of the EU, brought up the possibility of a world government. Discussing last October's financial collapse and the ongoing international financial crisis, a financial guru on CNBC announced another, worse financial crisis will hit within six months (he didn't specify its nature) and the only way to deal with or prevent these financial crises is a single world government – he called it crucial and necessary - with the power to control all currencies and regulate all financial transactions. A health official (not sure if he was CDC or some other organization) suggested that the current swine flu may only be the first of many "superbugs" facing us in this century and that the most effective way to deal with the impending threat is a world government that can act unilaterally to combat them. Someone promoting Al Gore's global warming agenda (which has been taking some pretty severe hits lately, seemingly making many who've warmed to Gore's ideas even more determined to enact a sweeping anti-global warming program ASAP) was lauding the virtues of the "carbon credits" idea being shoved through Congress at the moment and stated the best way to ensure carbon credits were being traded fairly (though, it should be mentioned, Gore owns the trading system and would personally profit on every trade) and keep it from becoming another bubble/bust in the making is – say it with me now – a world government overseeing the whole thing.

I'm not exactly a John Bircher, but when the same thing is mentioned in this many different contexts in such a short space of time, something's in the air, or something's in the water. What gives? The wider context most of them share is the concept of imminent and critical necessity - the same premise for the Iraq War, and while I'm generally in line with global warning crew some of them are getting pretty damn scary in a Robespierre kind of way. Anyway, in the midst of all this, it suddenly came to me what Al Gore really wants with this whole carbon credits sideshow. (The basic translation of carbon credits: you can still pollute and burn energy as much as you want, as long as you buy someone off.)

He wants to be the first President Of Earth. (Take that, land that robbed him of his triumph in 2000!)

These are the questions I'd like answered: why is everyone talking one-world government in passing all of a sudden? Why is that suddenly supposed to be the answer to all crises? Should we ever make decisions based on crisis necessity, since the tools clearly exist to generate any crisis necessary, whether political, economic, environmental or medical? And if Blair, Gore & Medvedev duke it out to be first president of the world, can we make it a cage match?

(Note: No Fox News program, personality or source was consulted in the writing of this piece.)” are not safe from the bug… What was severely downplayed in the reports was her relatively mild incapacitation – was there ever a moment when she seemed anywhere near death? – and that neither Tony nor their children (so far) contracted the flu. So how contagious is it, really?

Copyright © 2009 by Steven Grant. All rights reserved.)

All I will add to Steven’s comments is that I personally believe that the agenda for a one-world government has been in the works since at least the dawn of the 20^th century, and that things have slowly but inexorably moving in that direction primarily due to the increasingly intrusive control of government in our lives under the guise of social services and national security.Additionally, I do not believe the official stories about swine flu, global warming, or the economy. My view is that they are all media manipulations in service of an elite agenda.

World Health Org Still Beating the Swine Flu Drum

The Associated Press reports today that Margaret Chan, Director General of the World Health Organization (WHO) now believes that the swine flu (H1N1) outbreak "appears to have reached pandemic proportions." Chan intends to make a conference call to government leaders around the world tomorrow once she obtains "indisputable evidence." Currently, WHO states that swine flu has affected 26,563 people in 73 countries and caused 140 deaths.

Whoa, stop the presses. What an emergency. Far less than one percent of everyone who develops swine flu dies!

As far as I'm concerned, this is more fear-mongering by WHO, happily spread by a very compliant and ill-informed media.

Tomorrow, be on the lookout for calls from WHO and others for more vaccines (possibly mandatory), etc.

What will not be mentioned, should such calls occur, is the inherent risks such vaccines have, and the far greater percentage of deaths they are likely to cause.

As always, your best protection is to be informed and educate yourself because you simply cannot trust the media to ask the right questions or provide the best answers.

NYC Swine Flu Death

It's now being reported that Mitchell Wiener, an assistant principal of a high school in Queens, NY died of swine flu yesterday. Previously, when he was hospitalized last week, NY's Mayor Michael Bloomberg was quoted in the NY Post as saying that Mr. Wiener had "a pre-exisiting" health condition. As far as I've been able to find, now word of what that pre-existing condition has been stated in the media. Instead, we are being told simply that swine flu killed Mr. Wiener.

But did it?

Before that question can be answered, the following questions must also be asked:

What was Mr. Wiener's pre-exisiting condition?

How long did he have it (from the pictures of him now appearing in the media, neither he nor his wife look healthy and both are overweight)?

While hospitalized, was he exposed to infectious bacteria and/or viruses? (Hospitals are notorious for being breeding grounds for such infectious agents; as a result, many people in the US each year die from infections that they did not have prior to being hospitalized.)

What was Mr. Wiener's immune status prior to being exposed to H1N1 (swine flu)?

By all accounts, Mr. Wiener was an exemplary educator who went well beyond the call of duty when it came to his job description, and his passing is a tragic loss for all who knew him. But we still do not know for certain whether or not H1N1 was the primary factor in his passing. And even if it was, there is still no call for alarm. Mahy people regularly die from "normal" flu-related causes, too. When they do, it isn't front page news.

Tamiflu And Other Fun Facts (Swine Flu Redux)

The shelf life of Tamiflu is three years. After that, it cannot be used.

The last time governments around the world (especially the U.S.) stockpiled Tamiflu was in 2006 (3 years ago). Said stock piles can no longer be used.

The reason Tamiflu was stockpiled by governments in 2006 - avian (bird) flu, aka SARS.

The reason governments around the world are once again stockpiling Tamiflu - the H1N1 virus aka swine flu.

Parallels between SARS and H1N1:

Widespread fear, primarily fostered by the World Health Organization (WHO), The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), various governments and the media.

Economic and social turmoil.

Widespread slaughter of chickens (SARS) and pigs (H1N1).

World placed on alert for widespread pandemic(s).

Talk of government-enforced quarantines.

Huge financial windfall for the makers of Tamiflu (as well as for other vaccine makers). Ka-Ching! Ka-Ching!

Last swine flu outbreak - 1976.

Some noteworthy results of 1976 swine flu outbreak:

Zero to few deaths directly caused by swine flu (depending on one's source).

At least 25 people killed as a direct result of being vaccinated in order to be protected from swine flu.

Dozens of people paralyzed as a direct result of receiving said vaccinations, including healthy people in their 20s. (The paralysis was caused by Guillain Barre, a nerve disorder caused by the vaccine.)

Potential side effects caused by Tamiflu vaccine:

Brain Infections

Convulsions

Delirium

Psychotic Behavior

Death (over a dozen Japanese teenagers died as a direct result of being vaccinated with Tamiflu; for this reason Tamiflu has been banned in Japan since 2007).

Other, more common side effects of Tamiflu:

Coughing

Diarrhea

Dizziness

Fainting

Headache

Nausea

Vomiting

All of which can also be caused by swine and other types of flu.

Time decrease of swine flu symptoms Tamiflu is said to achieve by its manufacturer: 24-36 hours.

Total confirmed swine flu deaths as of this writing (last time I checked-May 5, 2009): 19

Average number of people killed by lightning strikes each year - 1,100-1,200.

Yep, we have a pandemic all right!

Primary take away message of WHO, CDC, world governments, and the media regarding H1N1 virus:

Be afraid! Be very afraid!

Your choice: To believe or not to believe.

Swine Flu-The Hype and the Hoax

Last week the World Health Organization (WHO) announced that - OOPS! - there have only been 7 deaths from swine flu - not 152 or more. You can read WHO's statement here:

http://www.smh.com.au/world/only-7-swine-flu-deaths-not-152-says-who-20090429-aml1.html

I doubt that will corral the media's fear festival for a while, though. Not when the makers of the two supposedly effective drugs announced for swine flu (one of which, Tamiflu, is known to cause death and psychotic behavior in teens) are laughing all the way to the bank now that Janet (9/11 Was Caused By Terrorists Who Crossed the Canadian Border-What? I'm Wrong?-Well, I Don't Want To Focus On The Past, I Want To Focus on the Future and the Future Is that Canada Has A Border) Napolitano (Seriously, she actually said all that!) and other government puppets around the world have caused Big Pharma's coffers to go KA-CHING KA-CHING with government mandated purchases of said drugs. Nobody serves Big Pharma better after all than idiot reporters who don't know the first thing about investigative journalism and government bureaucrats in thrall to the Drug and other Big Industries.

Talk about a bad movie. One that we already experienced a few years ago. Then it was called bird flu (SARS) and after all the hoopla of that manufactured fear fest died down (no pun intended) the upshot was (and is) that a total of less than 300 people worldwide died of SARS and all of them were either living and working in highly unhealthy, unsanitary conditions (those in Asia) or already significantly immune compromised (mostly elderly patients in Toronto). That time, Napolitano's stand-in was Tommy (I Love Big Pharma) Thompson and others in the previous White House junta. (Yes, I view the Obama WH just as cynically, if not more so)

In the case of the current swine flu hoopla, only people in Mexico have died. They too live in very unfortunate circumstances, not the least of which, in Mexico City and elsewhere, is some of the worst air pollution on the planet (so thick at times that I literally could not see across the street at street level when I was there, and things have only gotten worse since then), which in and of itself is a serious suppressor of immunity. And even in the 7 cases that WHO has now downscaled to, no actual autopsy has been performed that definitely proves swine flu was the cause of death. (These days, health authorities rely on the presence of antibodies as proof of the presence of a specific disease. Such nonsense has repeatedly been debunked by investigative journalist Jon Rappoport, and you can find more about why I agree with him by reading his posts on the subject on his website, www.nomorefakenews.com. Bottom line, all antibodies prove is that your body is doing the job it was designed to do. The exact opposite of what WH0, the CDC, and others twist their presence to mean with regard to viruses.)

What's also not being much focused upon is that this is not the first so-called outbreak of swine flu in the US. A previous flare up occurred in the 1970s when Gerald (Tumbledown) Ford was prez and wanted to mandate swine flu vaccinations for everyone. Fortunately, not enough vaccine was available for him to do so. I say fortunately because no one died of swine flu back then, yet 25 people died of the vaccine, hundreds of others were seriously injured by it (including at a number of cases of paralysis), and mutliple lawsuits were brought about Big Pharma as a result.

I wrote more about swine flu in my newsletter last week (www.1healthyworld.com/ezine/vol7no12.cfm), including common sense precautions that are basically free and available to anyone who wants to take responsibility for his/her health.

The bottom line is this - don't belief the hype and hysteria. You have a choice: Become informed and follow common sense health practices, or live in fear and line up for your potentially fatal vaccine shot when our government gets around to making Ford's wish come true. (With the Dems in power, that's more likely than ever, especially with clowns like Congressman Waxman increasingly gaining control over our nation's health care policies.)