due diligence... something way too many of us are short on...
due diligence... something way too many of us are short on...
Aragorn (18th February 2019), Dreamtimer (17th February 2019), Elen (17th February 2019), Kathy (23rd February 2019), tarka the duck (19th February 2019), WantDisclosure (17th February 2019)
Originally posted by Aragorn
im a multi-task flunk out with an intense focus runnin'... and... based on 75 yrs of reflections... is apparently runnin' in extreem slo-mo... do I qualify for the group???
it does have its advantages though... it's been a very long, rewardin', and enjoyable 75 yrs...
Last edited by palooka's revenge, 17th February 2019 at 20:36.
Aragorn (18th February 2019), Dreamtimer (18th February 2019), Elen (17th February 2019), Kathy (23rd February 2019), tarka the duck (19th February 2019), WantDisclosure (17th February 2019)
How pharmaceutical companies operate:
Q: Tell me a little about how a drug company promotes a new drug.
A: It’s quite an operation. The company finds an area where they think they can make money. Lots of money. They scout out the marketplace and they find, say, that there is an opportunity for a new heart drug. They get their researchers—or they hire researchers to work on it. They come up with a compound. Then they finance studies that compare the effects of this drug with other drugs for the same purpose that are already in the marketplace. Every single time, those studies show that their new drug performs better. There has never been a study financed by a drug company which compares their own drug with older drugs that shows the older drugs are better. NEVER. You can’t find one. Then the company applies for FDA approval. I’m short‐cutting the process here—but anyway, once the drug is okayed, the company wants lots of publicity. Their PR people go to work and get articles in the press. At the same time, the company might go the symposium route.
Q: What is that?
A: The company funds a symposium where papers will be presented which show that the new drug is wonderful. The company pays researchers to write these papers. The researchers are flown to the symposium, and put up in hotels. See, these papers don’t need to be published in a journal. They’re just presented at the symposium. Then, the company might approach a journal and offer to fund a whole issue which will more or less feature that drug or feature the symposium. And in that issue, summaries of the papers presented at the symposium will be printed. This part can work several ways. Of course, the researchers paid by the company always come up with glowing reports on the new drug. [See Trust Us, We’re Experts, by John Stauber and Sheldon Rampton. Several variations of this con are described.] The drug company publishes some kind of PR release on the symposium and spreads that around, and it buys up lots of copies of the journal that features the symposium and gives those away too. Pretty soon you have a juggernaut made out of PR, and it works. Doctors believe the PR. They prescribe the drug. These MDs never stop and think that they have never read a study funded by a drug company which shows that its drug performs less well than a similar drug already on the market. These doctors are really true believers in the APPEARANCE of science, in what LOOKS LIKE science. It’s all a religious scam in that sense, and a money scam and a PR scam.
Q: So it’s no surprise years later when the drug turns out to kill people.
A: Everybody denies everything. But you have to keep in mind that we’re talking about mid‐level and low‐level dupes here. The whole program of drug development is ultimately motivated from a place where the inner core of the medical cartel—the Nazis in white coats—WANT to kill people. Want to disable people. It’s the plan. If you eat out a society from the inside, as you’ve written, you can work invisibly. It’s war carried on without guns. It weakens all the threads that hold society together, and it makes society ripe for takeover.
Q: Has your family been visited by this drug disaster?
A: I had a situation a few years ago. I had to intercede.
Q: What was the drug?
A: I won’t go into details. But I had to wield some heavy influence. I had to make myself a real pain in the ass. I played the role of dictator, and I didn’t take any crap.
Q: I guess that didn’t make you very popular.
A: Popular is not in my lexicon. People think you have to be “fair.” Their idea of fair is allowing people to get poisoned. I don’t work that way. Now if a guy down the street wants to take Zoloft for years and end up with some brain malady, that’s his problem. But in my own family, that won’t fly. I know 50 ways to “treat depression” and none of them involves drugs. I’ll put down my foot if I have to, and usually that foot ends up on someone’s head. There is “a period of re‐adjustment,” as they say, and then calm prevails. I make a pretty good “counselor” when the situation calls for it. And I eat school officials for lunch.
Q: You believe that the medical cartel, in the long run, is the most dangerous cartel.
A: It’s not a question of belief. I worked for them. I know them. There is nothing they can do that will surprise me or take me off guard. I’ve told their lies for them. That puts me in a unique position. The PR doesn’t influence me, because I did the PR. I was in the bastard club. I know all about the bastards. And quietly, in the background, very far in the background, I’ve done some PR for people who were filing law suits against drug companies. Those plaintiffs don’t know who I am, they just know somebody helped them in certain ways. I still have press contacts here and there, and I can still call in a few favors. I’ll tell you something. Part of my outrage against the middle class—what you just heard me saying that sounded so harsh—comes from the fact that a lot of these people can stand by and watch their families go down the drain because of medical drugs. They won’t lift a finger, and they won’t file a suit. They’re cowed, they’re scared. For a long time I banked on that fear, because I was working that fear. Fear is what gave people like me a big edge. But after I retired, a few things changed for me. I could wallow in my guilt about it, but I’m not that kind of person. So instead I do my bit, here and there, to throw a few monkey wrenches into the machine of the medical cartel.
THE MATRIX REVEALED Volume 1: JON RAPPOPORT Interviews ELLIS MEDAVOY (Part 1 of 3) Copyright © 2011 by Jon Rappoport, pages 105-107.
I don't know.im a multi-task flunk out with an intense focus runnin'... and... based on 75 yrs of reflections... is apparently runnin' in extreem slo-mo... do I qualify for the group???
it does have its advantages though... it's been a very long, rewardin', and enjoyable 75 yrs...You might have ADD ─ which would put you on the spectrum ─ but it's impossible for me to say. Everyone's mind wanders at times.
You are either way not mentally challenged, though.
= DEATH BEFORE DISHONOR =
Elen (18th February 2019), tarka the duck (19th February 2019)
I'm now on the second of three PDFs about propagandist Ellis Medavoy (pseudonym).
From page 2:
February 1, 2002
As a retired propagandist, Ellis worked for many years behind the scenes spinning gigantic medical and political lies that “found their way” into the mainstream press. He’s been there, he’s done it, and he knows the ropes from A to Z. Some readers will see that, in these conversations with Ellis, he is changing. In revealing more about himself and what he knows, he is stabilizing a new position for himself. I believe he takes another quantum leap in this direction in this interview.
Q: (Jon Rappoport) Will big PR companies which work on contract with big chemical companies ever get caught in a mess like Enron?
A: (Ellis Medavoy) Doubtful but not impossible. I have done a little work on these PR companies, and I have had the results passed along through a couple of friends to, shall we say, “interested parties.” As far as I’m concerned, all PR people should be viewed as hired gunslingers. When they “come to town,” they should be ready to disclose publicly every dime they have ever taken, and from whom. Because they are professional liars. That is what the heavy PR types are paid to do. A real propagandist takes X dollars from source Y? You automatically know he is lying for Y.
Q: Some years ago, that would have been you.
A: Sure. I’ve never denied that. Because I’ve told the lies, I know what a lot of the lies ARE.
Q: But you never worked for a big PR firm.
A: I was in a different world.
Q: How so?
A: I was paid through cutouts, who in turn worked for groups like the Council on Foreign Relations. And when I say the CFR, I don’t even mean the official group. I mean people who were very high up in CFR, who were launching their own agendas. I needed cover stories for myself. I won’t tell you what those covers were, but I was not in a position to be able to say, “I’m in PR for so and so.” Because I wasn’t. And because I existed by seeming NOT to be a PR or propaganda man at all. I was a floater. I moved around. And from time to time, I changed my own cover. It was not the easiest thing to do.
Q: I was just talking with a friend about Hollywood.
A: Don’t get me started.
Q: How certain films like The Magnificent Seven, Bonnie and Clyde, and The Dirty Dozen trade on the public’s love of star actors.
A: You mean, how they present villains.
Q: Exactly. Here you basically have murderers and thieves of people’s hard earned money—but those roles are being played by actors with “a lot of box office charisma.” So the public automatically forgives the characters their crimes.
A: Sure. The actor becomes the salesman for crime. It’s a long‐established art.
Q: And when these actors get into war movies, the public believes that war is really fought by Jim Coburn or Matt Damon, and war is well‐lit and although the soldiers get dirty and blood‐stained, the blood is basically clean and the dirt is clean.
A: As one who knows a little about war, I can tell you it isn’t that way.
Q: Even so‐called hard‐nosed movies like Platoon. I mean, wasn’t Charlie Sheen in that?
A: After Vietnam, no US reporter with a video camera has gotten close to the real action. If a network just played a whole week of uninterrupted programming of a war, close‐up, without voice‐over—just the real stuff—the public would have its collective head turned.
Q: Nobody moralizing.
A: Right. Just the footage up very close and relentlessly. On and on. No commentary. No attempt to persuade. No good or bad stuff. Just the war itself. Now you’re talking about the real power of a camera. You see five or ten people getting blown apart, and it focuses the mind. The public is conditioned to expect commentary that makes it all into something else. But if the camera holds on a leg that is lying in a piece of ground all by itself—if the camera just stays there—the public is hoping against hope that some well‐modulated voice will intercede and give what amounts to a rationalization. If no voice comes, the public is left with its own feelings and thoughts. See? No one is saying this is good or this is bad. No one is saying anything. There is no music. The leg is just there.
Q: Sentimentalizing is the word.
A: If you don’t sentimentalize war, then people begin to wake up. The waking up isn’t easy, but it happens. And then you transcend politics. And if you get enough people in enough countries viewing film like this, something will happen. Meanwhile, the network says nothing. It doesn’t join the debate and the shouting and whatever. It just keeps showing the film of a war, close‐up.
Q: Has anyone ever really tried this?
A: Are you kidding? They’d be shut down like airport in an ice storm.
Q: The critics who review these supposedly hard‐nosed commercial movies about war, like Platoon, keep pumping them up as “so real.” But that’s just another layer of lie. And the public thinks, “Well, if that’s what war really is, then it’s not as bad as I thought it might be.”
A: The critics are complicit. No question about that. They give their seals of approval. When, last week, I talked about how propaganda really creates time, I stressed the role of eliciting emotions in the public. Here’s a good example. In this case, it’s by identification with the Hollywood hero who’s toting the big gun in the war. If you get the audience to identify with the hero—the actor—then the public buys into EVERYTHING. That’s why the star actor is such a precious commodity. He can get people to merge with him, emotionally. Same for the star politician. I think
only very ugly people should be allowed to run for president. (laughs)
Q: Reagan said he was going to get the government off people’s backs. But during his terms, the size of government increased fantastically.
A: And no one noticed. Because he was the matinee idol. People merged with him emotionally. And now his supporters talk about how he rallied the country and made people feel good about the US again. What they mean is, the public merged with him emotionally. It’s an important distinction, and those who are in the propaganda business understand that. You can rot a country by playing this sentimental propaganda game over and over. You get the public to identify with certain “stars.” It becomes the main point of life itself for many people—to make that identification. It becomes their whole life. Jonas Salk was made into that kind of star. So people accepted the polio vaccine as a product of their hero. Meanwhile, the vaccine was killing and paralyzing and infecting people right and left. I was never in the business of plumping up and creating stars. But I know people who were. They spent their years creating little gods. That’s what they did.
THE MATRIX REVEALED Volume 1: JON RAPPOPORT Interviews ELLIS MEDAVOY (Part 2 of 3) Copyright © 2011 by Jon Rappoport, pages 2-4.
Oh yes...I'm a Brit, and watched the whole fiasco unfold all those years ago.
A non-hostile interview? Maybe that’s one of the differences between us, WD: I expect to see those who make extraordinary claims challenged
to explain their thinking. I think that’s what you might call ‘hostile’ but for me, it’s the basis of responsible journalism.
Why would I want to listen to a proven liar preaching to the converted who give him free rein to spread his lies? Lying about your research to
someone who does not challenge your claims does not enlighten or educate anyone. An interview where he is free to make whatever claims he
chooses to without answering to anyone, while omitting to mention anything that proves beyond doubt that his words are false, has no value.
It's just a meeting of a mutual admiration society.
Wakefield not been targeted by “a ruthless, pragmatic attempt to crush any attempt to investigate valid vaccine safety concerns” (his words).
If they'd really wanted to shut him up, he wouldn't still be appearing on the (lucrative) lecture tour and cruise ships.
He was accused of unethical behaviour, misconduct and dishonesty. He was not struck off for saying that there is a link between MMR, bowel disease
and autism. The case against him was nothing to do with the fact that their research questioned the safety of MMR. It was concerned with whether
they acted in an ethical manner, and whether their actions contravened the Declaration of Helsinki.
His story is that of a physician who set out to cast doubt on vaccine safety before he’d gathered the evidence: he did so not for the public good but
for personal gain.
Wakefield is not the victim here, however much he tries to paint himself as such. The victims are the children who underwent painful and
unnecessary medical procedures so that he could obtain samples of their colon in an attempt to find measles RNA sequences (samples which
Wakfield then treated so carelessly that they were rendered useless for research).
Could you help me understand your position by explaining your reasons for believing Wakefield? In the face of overwhelming evidence that his work
was fraudulent and deeply flawed and his behaviour unethical, what would it take for you to review your opinion?
Last edited by tarka the duck, 19th February 2019 at 11:59.
Aragorn (19th February 2019), Dreamtimer (19th February 2019), Elen (20th February 2019), Kathy (23rd February 2019)
Yes, fiasco is the word.
And if you are basing your reaction to him on the fiasco, then there's nothing to discuss.
Thank you for your post, but I'm not here to try to change minds that have already been exposed to a happening and are satisfied with their opinion.
Let's just agree to disagree.
I asked you a question and would genuinely appreciate an answer: your adherence to a viewpoint that is contrary to all rational thought is fascinating,
and I've found it very common within the 'alt community' in all the years I've been hovering on the sidelines. I've asked that similar questions to other
true believers across a range of topics, but no one has ever had a serious go at answering it ... all I get is the usual accusations about being a
shill or a troll etc etc etc etc etc
To repeat: Could you help me understand your position by explaining your reasons for believing Wakefield? In the face of overwhelming evidence that
his work was fraudulent and deeply flawed and his behaviour unethical, what would it take for you to review your opinion?
Aragorn (19th February 2019), Dreamtimer (19th February 2019), Elen (20th February 2019), Kathy (23rd February 2019), palooka's revenge (19th February 2019)
I really appreciate your question here, tarka. I share your fascination.
Aragorn (19th February 2019), Elen (20th February 2019), Kathy (23rd February 2019), tarka the duck (21st February 2019)
As do I...
Whatever is true. Whatever is noble. Whatever is right. Whatever is lovely. Whatever is admirable. Anything of excellence and worthy of praise. Dwell on these things. Jesus Christ (I agree)
Aragorn (20th February 2019), Dreamtimer (20th February 2019), Kathy (23rd February 2019), tarka the duck (21st February 2019)
There is no overwhelming evidence.
This thread is about the free-lance investigative reporter Jon Rappoport's extensive work.
That's what it takes in this world to get at the truth. Free-lance investigation.
When the truth is genuinely sought, it is found.
Years ago there was some other free-lance investigator who interviewed Wakefield. As I recall, I did not view the interview on YouTube. There was some website that posted it. I tried to re-locate the interview but couldn't find it. That's where I learned about what actually happened to Wakefield.
One major part of his saga that is important is that step one was that he was contacted by the parent of an autistic child who had stomach problems. Wakefield suggested that not getting three vaccinations in one dose was indicated.
That's it. That started the firestorm.
There is an international medical mafia on planet Earth.
I highly recommend Jon Rappoport's The Matrix Revealed to learn about it.
No, that's where you learned about what Wakefield claims happened. Just because you choose to believe him doesn't make it the truth yet.
= DEATH BEFORE DISHONOR =
Kathy (23rd February 2019), tarka the duck (21st February 2019)
There were two sides of the interview. Wakefield speaking and the journalist asking questions.
Truth is determined by listening carefully and using both our intellect (IQ) and intuition.
That's the way I do it.
Wakefield's story is one of many stories I've researched for the last ten years or so.
One has to do the work (put in the time it takes) of seeking information and connecting dots to get to the truth.
None of us, however, can claim to be God and know-all.
None of us.
The man lied to his patients and abused them. This is documented fact. He has also admitted to it. Accept the facts for what they are and save yourself the aggravation of finding out later that you've been ramming your head into a wall while believing a proven liar.
Best advice I can give you.
= DEATH BEFORE DISHONOR =
Kathy (23rd February 2019), tarka the duck (21st February 2019)
Who documented it?
Kathy (23rd February 2019)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks