Category Archives: Pharmaceuticals

Rx for Prescription Drugs: Slash the Prices, Kill the Ads

Prescription drugs have long provided two bad examples of American exceptionalism. They cost three-to-four times more than anywhere else, and we’re one of only two countries in the world that allows prescription drug advertising to consumers.

Far better to be like everybody else. Americans deserve drug prices in line with those in other countries. They don’t deserve a constant barrage of confusing and misleading ads.

Advertising is the lesser of two evils and the simplest to counter: just stop it already. Important voices have already made that recommendation.

TV commercials for prescription drugs always tell consumers to “ask your doctor.” But the companies that pay billions to run the ads aren’t listening to doctors. For the last five years, the  American Medical Association has called for a ban on direct-to-consumer advertising of such drugs.

Here’s what the drug makers are ignoring: “[The AMA’s] vote in support of an advertising ban reflects concerns among physicians about the negative impact of commercially-driven promotions, and the role that marketing costs play in fueling escalating drug prices….Direct-to-consumer advertising also inflates demand for new and more expensive drugs, even when these drugs may not be appropriate.”

New Zealand—the lone other country that permits such advertising—could soon disallow it. A large majority of New Zealanders favors a ban, and one might be included in a bill now being considered. Its passage would make America truly exceptional in a truly drugged up way.

Cutting drug prices presents a bigger challenge than cutting out drug advertising, but the rewards would be huge.

Americans will spend over $500 billion on prescription drugs in 2020 (more than 2.2 percent of gross domestic product). The basic research underlying these drugs is almost always carried out with taxpayer dollars at university or government research labs, mostly through the National Institutes of Health.

The research findings used to stay in the public domain, available to any company that wanted to use them. In 1980, the bipartisan Bayh-Dole Act made a watershed change: it allowed for the rights to be turned over to private parties.

While the point of Bayh-Dole was to hasten the harnessing of basic research, it also sent the price of drugs soaring. Spending on prescription drugs had been largely stable at around 0.4 percent of GDP from 1960 to 1980. In the decade after Bayh-Dole it had doubled to 0.8 percent and it doubled again in the next decade.

We now have this bizarre mindset that we have to give drug companies patent monopolies to get them to develop drugs or vaccines, even when the government is paying for the bulk of the research. The pandemic is showing the absurdity of this practice.

As one example Gilead Sciences developed the drug remdesivir, largely with government funding, as a treatment for Ebola. While it turned out not to be an effective treatment for Ebola, it is effective in treating the coronavirus. Gilead is charging private insurers $520 for a single vial of remdesivir. Its actual production cost has been estimated at less than a dollar a dose.

The Trump Administration is taking the same logic to developing a vaccine. Operation Warp Speed is a $10 billion government program to develop, produce and distribute a coronavirus vaccine. At least four Warp Speed contracts (to Janssen, Regeneron, Genentech and Ology Bioservices) exclude standard language “meant to ensure that products developed with federal funds are affordable and widely available.”

In effect, the government is putting up most of the money and taking the big risks. If one or more of these developers hit a dead end, they will still have been paid for their work, the government is out the money. But if they do succeed and develop a life-saving vaccine, the government will give them a patent monopoly and allow them to charge whatever they want, with no restriction whatsoever.

It shouldn’t be too radical a proposition to say that drug companies only get paid once. When the government pays for the research, the drugs or vaccines developed are in the public domain, so they can be produced and sold by anyone as cheap generics.

It would be a great thing for humanity if a low-priced coronavirus vaccine became the first example of a new prescription drug policy in America.

This piece first appeared at www.nydailynews.com.

Rx for Prescription Drugs: Slash the Prices, Kill the Ads

Prescription drugs have long provided two bad examples of American exceptionalism. They cost three-to-four times more than anywhere else, and we’re one of only two countries in the world that allows prescription drug advertising to consumers.

Far better to be like everybody else. Americans deserve drug prices in line with those in other countries. They don’t deserve a constant barrage of confusing and misleading ads.

Advertising is the lesser of two evils and the simplest to counter: just stop it already. Important voices have already made that recommendation.

TV commercials for prescription drugs always tell consumers to “ask your doctor.” But the companies that pay billions to run the ads aren’t listening to doctors. For the last five years, the  American Medical Association has called for a ban on direct-to-consumer advertising of such drugs.

Here’s what the drug makers are ignoring: “[The AMA’s] vote in support of an advertising ban reflects concerns among physicians about the negative impact of commercially-driven promotions, and the role that marketing costs play in fueling escalating drug prices….Direct-to-consumer advertising also inflates demand for new and more expensive drugs, even when these drugs may not be appropriate.”

New Zealand—the lone other country that permits such advertising—could soon disallow it. A large majority of New Zealanders favors a ban, and one might be included in a bill now being considered. Its passage would make America truly exceptional in a truly drugged up way.

Cutting drug prices presents a bigger challenge than cutting out drug advertising, but the rewards would be huge.

Americans will spend over $500 billion on prescription drugs in 2020 (more than 2.2 percent of gross domestic product). The basic research underlying these drugs is almost always carried out with taxpayer dollars at university or government research labs, mostly through the National Institutes of Health.

The research findings used to stay in the public domain, available to any company that wanted to use them. In 1980, the bipartisan Bayh-Dole Act made a watershed change: it allowed for the rights to be turned over to private parties.

While the point of Bayh-Dole was to hasten the harnessing of basic research, it also sent the price of drugs soaring. Spending on prescription drugs had been largely stable at around 0.4 percent of GDP from 1960 to 1980. In the decade after Bayh-Dole it had doubled to 0.8 percent and it doubled again in the next decade.

We now have this bizarre mindset that we have to give drug companies patent monopolies to get them to develop drugs or vaccines, even when the government is paying for the bulk of the research. The pandemic is showing the absurdity of this practice.

As one example Gilead Sciences developed the drug remdesivir, largely with government funding, as a treatment for Ebola. While it turned out not to be an effective treatment for Ebola, it is effective in treating the coronavirus. Gilead is charging private insurers $520 for a single vial of remdesivir. Its actual production cost has been estimated at less than a dollar a dose.

The Trump Administration is taking the same logic to developing a vaccine. Operation Warp Speed is a $10 billion government program to develop, produce and distribute a coronavirus vaccine. At least four Warp Speed contracts (to Janssen, Regeneron, Genentech and Ology Bioservices) exclude standard language “meant to ensure that products developed with federal funds are affordable and widely available.”

In effect, the government is putting up most of the money and taking the big risks. If one or more of these developers hit a dead end, they will still have been paid for their work, the government is out the money. But if they do succeed and develop a life-saving vaccine, the government will give them a patent monopoly and allow them to charge whatever they want, with no restriction whatsoever.

It shouldn’t be too radical a proposition to say that drug companies only get paid once. When the government pays for the research, the drugs or vaccines developed are in the public domain, so they can be produced and sold by anyone as cheap generics.

It would be a great thing for humanity if a low-priced coronavirus vaccine became the first example of a new prescription drug policy in America.

• This piece first appeared at www.nydailynews.com.

Lessons from the pandemic not yet learned

As the coronavirus, once again, surges out of control in the United States, it is safe to say that even those few lessons learned have been cast aside by those who place profits before people. Greed and ignorance, not public health policy, is deciding the fate of tens of thousands in our nation who are likely to die and many times that who will suffer from COVID-19 as we stumble from one surge to another. As other nations succeed, the US continues to fail under incompetent political leadership and a privatized health care system unprepared to handle a domestic epidemic, let alone a global pandemic. This analysis brings together in one place the reasons for this failure and posits remedies the nation could embrace.

Virus control, absent a vaccine, is entirely dependent on the ability of a society to prevent its spread from its point of origin. The new coronavirus, as we have painfully learned, is not an exception. This is the context for the lessons noted here. Scientists studying the transmission of the coronavirus estimate that without any travel or social distancing restrictions, one infected person on average transmits the virus to 2.5 others daily. Roughly estimated, this means if there were 10 cases on day one, in seven days about 10,000 people could be infected.

However, this depends on the individual’s activities. In April, an outbreak in Minnesota occurred in which one person infected 14 others at a house party attended by dozens of people. This outbreak was quickly contained, but had it not, those 14 infected could have increased to hundreds in a few days. In the US, the inability to prevent transmission meant that infections climbed exponentially from 710 confirmed cases on March 14, one day after the national emergency was declared, to 20,000 just 14 days later on March 28.

Social distancing guidelines aim to bring the transmission rate below 1.0, a rate at which any infected persons on average would only infect only one other person per day. At this rate, the virus spread plateaus. Yet, to successfully quarantine the virus, instead of the virus quarantining society, requires pushing the rate down to 0.30, the point at which three infected people on average would only pass the virus on to one other person. Put another way, dramatically reducing the rate of infection entails preventing transmission about 60­–70 percent of the time. At these rates the virus can be managed, perhaps even extinguished over time.

As a nation, we have been reluctant to accept what the virus requires of us in order to put it in check. Deaths and infections, though less than that at the peak, continue at about one thousand deaths and nearly 20,000 new cases daily. At this rate, estimates show at least 100,000 more people will die by Election Day. The director of the Harvard Global Health Institute, Ashish K. Jha, called this stark trajectory “unconscionable.” Jha said, “It’s stunning to me that we have just decided that it’s okay for tens of thousands of Americans to die and we aren’t going to do what we know we can do to prevent those deaths.”

The following lessons speak for themselves. However, the nation’s institutions and political and corporate leaders are still reluctant to heed them. Americans must demand they do their jobs. If, as predicted, the virus persists and reasserts itself during the upcoming flu season fall the nation must be prepared. Americans should accept no excuses.

Lesson number one

For decades political and corporate forces plotted to cut health care budgets, downsize health facilities, and privatize hospitals and health care systems to make a profit. In this pandemic Americans are reaping the deadly consequences of their scheming. The result is a fragmented US corporate health care system, comprised of a myriad of private for profit hospitals and other medical delivery systems, that was unprepared, under-resourced and under-staffed to effectively respond to the virus.

Correcting this will require bringing all major health care providers into the public domain and replacing the inefficient private insurance system with national health insurance – Medicare for All. We need a system where all are insured in a seamless, efficient, service-focused public health care program. This is lesson number one and requires a systemic solution. The critique and lessons that follow are specific to the shortcomings and failures of the past five months.

Delaying quarantine actions was costly

The US was slow to identify the New York City (NYC) area as an epicenter of the infection. The evidence was in sight but was overlooked or ignored. A study released in early April from the Mount Sinai School of Medicine in NYC found that the high traffic volume from Europe and, to a lesser but still significant extent, travel directly between the US and China imported the virus to NYC. As the infection began to rage in Italy by mid-February, typical volumes of passengers were arriving at NY-area airports until the federal government blocked most travel from Europe on March 11. By then the damage had already been done, seeding as many as 10,000 cases before the first person tested positive for COVID-19 in NYC.

Even as deaths mounted in NYC, New York political leaders rejected adopting quarantine-level travel restrictions in and out of the NYC region. Instead, travel continued, and tens of thousands of New Yorkers traveled out of the city, spreading the virus further into the region and nationally.

A recent Yale University genetic epidemiological study confirmed this. Within the US, the coronavirus traveled largely from the NYC region to other parts of the country. A smaller portion traveled from Washington State, where the virus arrived with travelers directly from China, seeding infections in California and Oregon and a few other locales. Surprisingly, the study showed an estimated 50 percent of the California cases resulted from travelers transiting through or arriving from NYC.

Restricting travel in or out of the NYC area, except for essential goods, may still have been effective had a quarantine action been taken when Italy locked down its infected northern cities on March 8, an action restricting the movement of 16 million people.

On March 22, when Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo issued the stay-at-home order for NYC, tens of thousands of passengers had already returned from Italy and Spain and other EU countries. Between these two dates, thousands more were infected in the NYC region and beyond. According to media accounts, few passengers were screened upon arrival. Yet, passengers reported they were only asked if they had been to China, Iran, or South Korea, not France, Italy or Spain.

A Columbia University study showed that had tighter nationwide control been put in place on March 8, fewer than 4,300 would have died by May 3. Instead the tally rose to 21,800. A little arithmetic would lead to conclude, then, that instead of 1,000 dying daily today in May it could be under 100. Restricting unnecessary domestic travel to and from NYC on March 8 in conjunction with enforcing strict quarantine rules and contact tracing for those returning from Europe would also have limited the spread of the virus to uninfected areas. In Minnesota, where I live, 72 percent of the virus cases were transited from the NYC area, while just 15 percent were transmitted from the West Coast. Passengers arriving in Minnesota were screened if they transited from China or Europe but not domestic travelers from New York airports. A costly omission.

A point of origin quarantine model proved effective in Wuhan, China, even once the virus had spread in small numbers to other cities. A modified version of China’s lockdown regime was adopted by France, Spain, and Italy, after other measures failed. By March 1, Italy banned travel in and out of infected areas with the aid of law enforcement and succeeded in minimizing the virus spreading to southern Italy.

The difference between US results by late May and those of Italy is astonishing. In Italy, new daily infections dropped from a high of 6,000 to 1,000 over a period of just one month, an 80 percent decline. In sharp contrast, in mid-May, 115 days into the pandemic, US daily infections fell just 33 percent, from about 30,000 to 20,000. With the virus still not under control states began to open their economies. The result: 50,000 plus cases a day by late June. Until these lessons are heeded disastrous consequences lie ahead.

In recent weeks, new daily cases in Italy, France, and Spain have averaged under 500. The total population of the three countries is 172 million, roughly one-half of the US. A little math shows that if the US had deployed a national coordinated response following these nations’ protocols, new daily US cases would now average just 1,000, not 50,000. What we are witnessing is a national failure. Neglect, denial and unpreparedness has cost tens of thousands of lives, several million to be needlessly infected and incalculable economic suffering. US scientists predicted in March that if the virus is allowed to rule as many as a million may die. Countless others are likely to have scarred lungs and damaged organs after recovering. Learning from these lessons is the only means to avoid such consequences.

Testing, contact tracing and a quarantine regime

Robust contact tracing regimes must be in place, not invented on the fly. Five months after the virus first appeared in the US, we are still implementing a program of testing and isolation. South Korea had such a program in place and quickly implemented it and contained the virus. Those individuals testing positive who could not safely quarantine at home were provided lodging for 14 days. Tracing and health monitoring were done via cell phones. Americans may be reluctant to be monitored like this, but the alternative is to let the virus monitor us. So long as such a regime is not in place, the virus will rule.

Isolating hot spots

In Minnesota and elsewhere, we have heard a lot about hot spots in meat processing plants. In April, a lack of foresight and the capacity to respond caused the virus to travel from a Smithfield plant in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, to the JBS plant in Worthington, Minnesota. Since the plants are only an hour’s drive apart, workers employed at one plant often have relatives and friends working at the other. The virus was identified at the Smithfield plant the second week in April and two weeks later at the Worthington JBS plant. Could this have been avoided or at least minimized? If a quarantine practice were in place, travel between the two areas would have been prohibited immediately after the Smithfield report (even proactively in March). JBS would have been shut down for cleaning and for testing of workers. JBS workers had earlier expressed concern among themselves the virus would spread from Smithfield. They were not heard.

Nursing homes: again a quarantine regime is needed

Testing residents does not solve the problem unless all staff are deemed virus-free and remain virus-free. Once staff leave a COVID-free workplace, they are susceptible to contracting the disease during their daily activities. Extraordinary precautions are the only means to prevent a virus that has a high mortality rate among the elderly. How might this be possible? Medical and all other staff need to be isolated from public interactions. One trip to the grocery store could infect residents the next day. One option is to rent hotel rooms paid for by COVID-allocated funds. Staff who are mothers with infants should be paid to stay at home. Food and other essential needs for quarantined workers should be delivered.

These measures would not only protect residents but also the health care workers’ families and coworkers. Given what we see unfolding daily, it appears that if dramatic steps are not taken, we can expect more infections and a steady stream of deaths arising from nursing homes and assisted living facilities month after month.

Testing failure

Clearly, the US was unprepared to implement a testing regime. Wholly inadequate supplies of fast and reliable testing made effective contact tracing out of reach until recently and even now cannot meet demand. The federal health administrative system and pharmaceutical firms lacked stores of reagents, testing swabs, and equipment. This was inexcusable negligence at the outset and five months later is still causing illness, death, and economic hardship. So long as we cannot test, track, and isolate, we will be forced to stay at home or, as we are now doing, opening the economy facing high rates of infection and deaths.

Public mandate to wear face masks

The failure to immediately mandate wearing face masks in public spaces and for front-line workers clearly increased the spread of the virus. For yet inadequately explained reasons, the Center for Disease Control (CDC) and scientists on the president’s coronavirus task force delayed recommending this preventive measure until April 3rd, weeks after the national emergency was declared. The effectiveness of mask wearing to prevent spread is well established. Asian nations with experience managing epidemics immediately require anyone in public or providing a public service to wear a mask. Why such a logical, well-established preventive measure was not immediately mandated here demands an investigation. Come fall and winter, quality masks for everyone will be needed to prevent the spread of both the coronavirus and new strains of the flu. According to infectious disease control officials in Taiwan, if everyone wears the proper mask, the spread of infection could be reduced by as much as 99 percent.

Are we prepared for fall?

Clearly, not yet. In an interview in May, Dr. Michael Osterholm, the director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota, suggested we are lagging behind the virus. “We have to stop promising people everything will be okay, because that’s not going to be the case,” he said. In other words, so long as the virus dictates our future, we are all in jeopardy.

Five months after the pandemic began, production of personal protective equipment (PPE) still lags behind the need. Firms are still unable to provide frontl-ine medical personnel with adequate PPE, unable to produce tens of millions of high-quality masks for public use and unable to produce sufficient materials needed for mass testing. By fall they must be ready. They dare not fail again.

Collective action is the only remedy we have until a vaccine is available. Any institution, business, and governmental entity impeding taking effective action must be forced to measure up to the challenge. State and federal political leaders found wanting and beholden to profiteers, beginning with the current president, need to be swept out of office. If the top management of private health systems and pharmaceutical firms cannot meet the nation’s needs, they should be replaced. Profit is irrelevant; we need performance. We need cooperation between firms, not competition. The lessons described here require collective cooperation and effective leadership. If one or the other falls short, the virus will prevail.

The American Teaching Hospital: School for Psychopaths

Medicine has changed. We used to be a calling that catered to the public welfare, and our prime consideration was the patient. Now we are a business, and some of us practice as impersonal corporations, with the bottom line the profits, not the well-being of the patient.”

— From The Doctor, by Dr. Edward E. Rosenbaum, 1991

The most shocking thing about the neoliberal health care model is not that it bankrupts and murders hundreds of thousands of Americans each year, but that vast numbers of physicians continue to support it. The insatiable depravity of the anti-single-payer virus has metastasized throughout every organ of the American teaching hospital, an institution which has betrayed its sacrosanct purpose, and which increasingly inculcates residents with the pernicious idea that good health care is a privilege and not a right.

The teaching hospital has become a dangerous place, not only for patients, but also for trainees, who are being forged into physicians without having been inculcated with a respect for basic principles of medical ethics. In this way have American physicians largely been reduced to an army of automatons trained to make money for the medical industrial complex. Indeed, it should come as no surprise that many residents lose themselves in a pitiless sea of soulless careerism, as they are immersed for years in an environment where they are beholden to, and at the mercy of, rapacious interests that place profit-making over all other considerations.

The teaching hospital is to health care what the ballet academy is to ballet and the music conservatory is to the symphony orchestra. All who covet this career must pass through its gates, and the values it imparts to its pupils form the basis of the light — or the inexorable darkness — that will assuredly follow.

Knowing that patients are often confined to extremely narrow networks, it is standard practice for teaching hospitals to arm-twist patients with inferior insurance into being medical models during physician office visits. This underscores the sociopathy of the contemporary teaching hospital, and serves as a metaphor for how these institutions have become inhuman machines that harm patients and sully the souls of their trainees. Cornell Dermatology, a department that could win an award for teaching residents how to coerce patients with inferior insurance into being clinical teaching tools, takes great pride in their villainy, writing on their website:

In addition to basic and clinical dermatology training, we strive to instill ethical behavior, compassion, communication and the recognition that we are here to serve our patients.

Residents that are the most amenable to the dictates of unscrupulous attendings position themselves to become chief resident or to be awarded a prestigious fellowship. In the American teaching hospital, this is the only thing on the mind of most trainees.

It is incontrovertible that the multi-tier system, the spawn of privatized health care, is incompatible with the oath to do no harm. Cornell Oncology, which once assigned me to a fellow due to my unglamorous insurance, writes on their website that “We care for the whole person and put the needs of our patients at the center of everything that we do.” Despite a blatant predilection for medical Jim Crow, Weill Cornell claims in their literature to have “a legacy of putting patients first.” In actuality, American teaching hospitals put profit-making first, research second, the attending’s comfort (vis-à-vis their desire to have a medical scribe or chaperone present in the examination room) third, the teaching of the trainee fourth, and the patient last.

In “I am a physician and I am not your enemy,” by Megan Gray, MD, the author laments the fact that her patients are wary of doctors. “I am asking you to trust that every day I put your needs above my own,” she writes entreatingly. It is possible that Dr. Gray does, in fact, put the needs of her patients above her own. Regrettably, this is often not the case, as evidenced by the fact that American physicians wrote over two hundred million prescriptions for opioids each year from 2006 – 2016, millions of our countrymen have been made addicted to psychotropic drugs, while Vioxx took the lives of roughly the same number of Americans as died in the Vietnam War.

It is clear that the physician-patient bond, regarded as inviolable for millennia, cannot coexist within the mores of privatized health care. Yet many doctors would argue otherwise. In “Being a doctor is not what it used to be,” by Raviraj Patel, MD, the author writes that “in my humble opinion, the patient-physician relationship is sacred, and the entire system is designed to facilitate that relationship.” In “To combat COVID-19, we endanger our doctors in training,” Gali Hashmonay, MD, writes of our uniquely dysfunctional for-profit apparatus, that “This system attracts doctors in training who are eager to put a patient’s well-being in front of their own.” Indeed, accepting gifts from pharmaceutical companies, performing practice pelvic exams on anesthetized patients, not disclosing long-term chemotherapy side effects, getting patients addicted to drugs (formerly benzodiazepines and barbiturates), imposing unwanted observers on patients during their physician office visits, pushing unnecessary surgeries, and ignoring do not resuscitate orders are some of the many things that residents have to look forward to when training at our esteemed teaching hospitals. After the corporate lexicon of “humanism,” “patient-centered care,” and “compassion” are stripped away, blind obedience is the attribute most coveted by teaching hospitals when interviewing prospective residents.

By refusing to acknowledge that corporatization has been a catastrophe, anti-single-payer physicians have sacrificed their autonomy to the devilish whims of the private health insurance companies, which have usurped the medical decision-making process. They have also sold their souls to the pharmaceutical companies, which continue to corrupt medical knowledge and foment quackery; and to hospital executives, who treat doctors as if they were employees at an investment bank.

The successful Cuban response to the pandemic underscores the fact that money and technology are useless when profits are placed over human lives. Vietnam, also a poor country with limited resources, has likewise mustered a stronger defense against the virus than the Beacon of Liberty. Cuba’s health care system is so robust that they have continued to send teams of doctors abroad, even in the midst of the pandemic.

Successfully completing a residency is analogous to being awarded a black belt in karate. Without a sense of compassion and virtue, such an individual is destined to become a danger to themselves, and a danger to others. As profiteering and the multi-tier system have become normalized in the American teaching hospital, this can only result in the commodification of the patient in the mind of the debased trainee.

In “5 things that make U.S. health care great,” by Suneel Dhand, MD, the author posits, without satire, that “A homeless American entering the doors of a hospital with an acute medical issue — be it sepsis, a myocardial infarction, or a stroke — will get better care than a rich person almost anywhere else in the world.” Writing for KevinMD, Kent Holtorf, MD, concedes that “The U.S. far exceeds any nation in expenditures for insurance administration, where the essential means of cost control is denial of service and rationing of care via ever increasing complex treatment approval systems, resulting in spiraling costs.” He then concludes:

A free-market system is shown to be the only reasonable method of reform that addresses the true underlying problems of the U.S. health care system and effectively lowers health care costs, allowing for universal insurance coverage for most everyone so any reasonable person — doctor, patient, Republican or Democrat — could support.

Not to be outdone, Kevin Tolliver, MD, asks In “A framework to understand universal health care:”

At its core, universal health care forces healthy people to pay for others’ medical care. Is this fair? Why should an active, healthy-eating, non-smoker pay for health care for an obese, sedentary diabetic who chain smokes all day?

In “Corporate games have ruined the health care system,” Osmund Agbo, MD, acknowledges that “When an insurance executive is making a seven-figure bonus, it’s very clear his loyalty lies somewhere else outside the interest of regular Americans struggling to pay an infinitely rising monthly premium.”  He then informs us that “I am not a fan of socialist medicine. On the contrary, I am a firm believer in the free market enterprise system.”

Where does all of this irrationality and deranged thinking come from? Surely, the media has played a role. And yet we cannot discount the deleterious influence of the teaching hospital, which far more than medical school, profoundly shapes an impressionable trainee’s sense of right and wrong. Polluted and defiled by the pathogen of amorality, the fallen wallow in the plague wards of neoliberalism, banished from the world of compassion and rationality, and forever condemned to live out their days enveloped by a shroud of blindness.

Let us recall Pope’s haunting words in An Essay on Man: Epistle II:

Vice is a monster of so frightful mien,
As, to be hated, needs but to be seen;
Yet seen too oft, familiar with her face,
We first endure, then pity, then embrace.

Only by collectively acknowledging that health care cannot be sold as cars, kitchen appliances, and soap are sold; that it is the doctor’s sacred duty to treat all patients equally, regardless of their ability to pay; and that medical ethics can only flourish in a nonprofit socialized system, can we take this desperately needed step in reclaiming our humanity. For too long have American teaching hospitals been bastions for every form of knavery, perfidy, and skulduggery. These institutions must cast off their shackles of corporate thralldom, and join the fight to restore dignity and honor to American health care.

Rushing a Vaccine to Market for a Vanishing Virus

More than 100 companies are competing to be first in the race to get a COVID-19 vaccine to market. It’s a race against time, not because the death rate is climbing but because it is falling – to the point where there will soon be too few subjects to prove the effectiveness of the drug.

Pascal Soriot is chief executive of AstraZeneca, a British-Swedish pharmaceutical company that is challenging biotech company Moderna, the U.S. frontrunner in the race. Soriot said on May 24th, “The vaccine has to work and that’s one question, and the other question is, even if it works, we have to be able to demonstrate it. We have to run as fast as possible before the disease disappears so we can demonstrate that the vaccine is effective.”

COVID-19, like other coronaviruses, is expected to mutate at least every season, raising serious questions about claims that any vaccine will work. A successful vaccine has never been developed for any of the many strains of coronaviruses, due to the nature of the virus itself; and vaccinated people can have a higher chance of serious illness and death when later exposed to another strain of the virus, a phenomenon known as “virus interference.” An earlier SARS vaccine never made it to market because the laboratory animals it was tested on contracted more serious symptoms on re-infection, and most of them died.

Researchers working with the AstraZeneca vaccine claimed success in preliminary studies because its lab monkeys all survived and formed antibodies to the virus, but data reported later showed that the animals all became infected when challenged, raising serious questions about the vaccine’s effectiveness.

Moderna has gotten fast-track approval from the FDA and managed to skip animal trials altogether before rushing to human trials. Its candidate is a “messenger RNA” vaccine, a computer-generated replica of an RNA component that carries genetic information controlling the synthesis of proteins. No mRNA vaccine has ever been approved for marketing or proven in a large-scale clinical trial. As explained in Science magazine, RNA that invades from outside the cell is the hallmark of a virus, and our immune systems have evolved ways to recognize and destroy it. To avoid that, Moderna’s mRNA vaccine sneaks into cells encapsulated in nanoparticles, which aren’t easily degraded and can cause toxic buildup in the liver.

These concerns, however, have not deterred the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), which is proceeding at “Warp Speed” to get the new technologies tested on the American population before the virus disappears through mutation and natural herd immunity. HHS has already agreed to provide up to $1.2 billion to AstraZeneca and $483 million to Moderna to develop their experimental candidates. “As American taxpayers, we are justified in asking why,” writes William Haseltine in Forbes. Both companies have attracted billions from private investors and don’t need taxpayer money, and the government’s speculative bets are being made on unproven technologies in the early stages of testing.

The argument at one time was that the magnitude of the crisis justified the risk, but the virus is now disappearing of its own accord. The computer-modeled projection of 2.2 million U.S. deaths issued by Imperial College London (a business partner of AstraZeneca), triggering shutdowns across the United States, was subsequently found to be “wildly” overblown. The model was described in the UK Telegraph on May 16 as “the most devastating software mistake of all time.” The researchers wrote that “we would fire anyone for developing code like this” and that the question was “why our Government did not get a second opinion before swallowing Imperial’s prescription.”

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control has also revised its projections. Experts disagree on what the new data means, but according to an expert at the Montreal Economic Institute, “The most likely CDC scenario now estimates that the coronavirus mortality rate for infected people is between 0.2% and 0.3%. This is a far cry from the 3.4% figure that had been put forward by the WHO at the start of the pandemic.”

In other news from the CDC, on May 23 the agency reported that the antibody tests used to determine whether people have developed an immunity to the virus are too unreliable to be used.

But none of this seems to be dimming the hype and the deluge of investment money being thrown at the latest experimental vaccines. And perhaps that is the point of the exercise – to extract as much money as possible from gullible investors, including the US government, before the public discovers that the fundamentals of these stocks do not support the media hype.

Moderna: A Multibillion-Dollar “Unicorn” That Has Never Brought a Product to Market

Moderna in particular has been suspected of pumping its stock price with unreliable preliminary test data. On May 18, Moderna’s stock jumped by as much as 30%, after it issued a press release announcing positive results from a small preliminary trial of its coronavirus vaccine. After the market closed, the company announced a stock offering aimed at raising $1 billion; and on May 18 and 19, Moderna executives dumped nearly $30 million worth of stock for a profit of $25 million.

On May 19, however, the stock rocketed back down, after STAT News questioned the company’s test results. An antibody response was reported for only eight of the 45 patients, not enough for statistical analysis. Was the response significant enough to create immunity? And what about the other 37 patients?

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. called the results a “catastrophe” for the company. He wrote on May 20:

Three of the 15 human guinea pigs in the high dose cohort (250 mcg) suffered a “serious adverse event” within 43 days of receiving Moderna’s jab. Moderna … acknowledged that three volunteers developed Grade 3 systemic events, defined by the FDA as “Preventing daily activity and requiring medical intervention.”

Moderna allowed only exceptionally healthy volunteers to participate in the study. A vaccine with those reaction rates could cause grave injuries in 1.5 billion humans if administered to “every person on earth”.

A volunteer named Ian Haydon buoyed the markets when he appeared on CNBC to say he felt fine after getting the vaccine. But he later revealed that after the second jab, he got chills and a fever of over 103°F (39.4°C), lost consciousness, and “felt more sick than he ever has before.”

Those were just the short-term adverse effects. Long-term systemic effects including cancer, Alzheimer’s disease, autoimmune disease, and infertility can take decades to develop. But the stage is already being set for mandatory vaccinations that will be “deployed” by the U.S. military as soon as the end of the year. The HHS in conjunction with the Department of Defense has awarded a $138 million contract for 600 million syringes prefilled with coronavirus vaccine, individually marked with trackable RFID chips. That’s enough for two doses for nearly the entire U.S. population. One hundred million are to be supplied by year’s end.

Fortunately for vaccine manufacturers and investors, they do not have to worry about the drugs’ side effects, since the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program and the 2005 PREP Act protect them from liability for vaccine injuries. Damages are imposed instead on the US government and US taxpayers.

What Moderna could have to worry about, however, is criminal action by the Securities Exchange Commission. By May 22, Moderna’s stock was down by 26% from its earlier high, making its 30% rise on a misleading press release look like a “pump and dump” scheme. On CNBC on May 19, former SEC lawyer Jacob Frankel said its stock offering on the heels of hyped news was the type of action that would draw scrutiny by the SEC, and that it could have a criminal component.

Why All the Hype? Moderna’s mRNA Vaccine

It wasn’t the first time Moderna’s stock had skyrocketed on a well-timed press release. On February 24, the World Health Organization said to prepare for a global pandemic, collapsing stock markets around the world. Most stocks collapsed, but Moderna’s shot up by nearly 30%, after it reported on February 25 that testing on humans would begin in March. Mega-investors made tens of millions of dollars in a single day, including BlackRock, the world’s largest asset manager, which made $68 million just on February 25. BlackRock was called “the fourth branch of government” after it was tasked in March with dispensing up to $4.5 trillion in Federal Reserve credit through “special purpose vehicles” established by the Treasury and the Fed.

Moderna has other friends in high places, including the Pentagon. Several years ago, Moderna received millions of dollars from the Pentagon’s Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), as well as from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Moderna’s stock has more than tripled this year, taking it to a market cap of over $22 billion. STAT News called it “an astonishing feat for a company that currently sells zero products.” Many of the companies actively developing COVID-19 vaccines have longer and more impressive track records. Why all the investor interest in this “unicorn” startup that went public only in 2018 and has no record of market success?

The major advantage of mRNA vaccines is the speed with which they can be deployed. Created in a lab rather than from a real virus, they can be mass-produced cost-effectively on a large scale and do not require uninterrupted cold storage. But this speed comes at the risk of major side effects. In a 2017 TED talk called “Rewriting the Genetic Code,” Moderna’s current chief medical officer Dr. Tal Zaks said, “We’re actually hacking the software of life ….”

As explained by a medical doctor writing in the UK Independent on May 20:

Moderna’s messenger RNA vaccine … uses a sequence of genetic RNA material produced in a lab that, when injected into your body, must invade your cells and hijack your cells’ protein-making machinery called ribosomes to produce the viral components that subsequently train your immune system to fight the virus. …

In many ways, the vaccine almost behaves like an RNA virus itself except that it hijacks your cells to produce the parts of the virus, like the spike protein, rather than the whole virus. Some messenger RNA vaccines are even self-amplifying…. There are unique and unknown risks to messenger RNA vaccines, including the possibility that they generate strong type I interferon responses that could lead to inflammation and autoimmune conditions.

A lab-created self-amplifying virus encapsulated in nanoparticles that evade the cell’s defenses by stealth sounds a lot like the “stealth viruses” that are classified as “bioweapons,” and that could explain DARPA’s interest in the technology. In a 2010 document titled “Biotechnology: Genetically Engineered Pathogens,” the US Air Force acknowledged that it was studying “genetically engineered pathogens that could pose serious threats to society,” including “binary biological weapons, designer genes, gene therapy as a weapon, stealth viruses, host-swapping diseases, and designer diseases.” DARPA was behind the creation of both DNA and RNA vaccines, funding their early research and development by Moderna as well as by Inovio Pharmaceuticals Inc.

In December 2017, over 1,200 emails released under open records requests revealed that the U.S. military is now the top funder behind the controversial “genetic extinction” technology known as “gene drives.” As investigative reporter Whitney Webb observed in a May 4 article, “these genetic ‘kill switches’ could also be inserted into actual humans through artificial chromosomes, which – just as they have the potential to extend life – also have the potential to cut it short.” Biowarfare is forbidden under international treaty, but the army’s Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases at Fort Detrick says its investigations are to “protect the warfighter from biological threats” and to protect civilians from threats to public health. Even assuming that is true, are the army’s technicians proficient enough to tinker with the human genetic code without hitting a kill switch or two by mistake?

The military is thinking about war, the pharmaceutical companies and investors are thinking about profits, the politicians are thinking about getting the country back to work, and even the regulators are bypassing proper safety tests in the rush to get the entire global population vaccinated before the virus disappears. It is left to us, the recipients of these novel untested GMO vaccines, to demand some serious vetting before the military shows up at our doors with their prefilled RFID-chipped syringes some time later this year.

My Experience with Hospice, Inc.

One nurse told Clay, “I’ve given him the highest dosage I can. It’s enough to kill a horse. Most hospice patients die from morphine, but I can only OD him within an acceptable margin of error.”

— From Christopher Bollen,  A Beautiful Crime, 2020

In this age of coronavirus, it has become abundantly clear that Western culture has little respect or reverence for its elders.  Deaths of the elderly seem of no account and only to be taken in stride. Such an attitude has increased the opportunities for the hospice/medical industry as it profits off the expendable bodies of older, vulnerable human beings. For me, that expendability was brought abruptly into focus when my mother, aided and abetted by my siblings, was quickly dispatched by large doses of morphine:  even at 93-years-old, way ahead of her time to die. My brother and sister-in-law had prominently displayed her “Do Not Resuscitate Form” on the front of her refrigerator for months—and Hospice Inc. efficiently obliged them.

The hospice movement had some thought-provoking beginnings, at least the modern version.  Of course, the good offices of monks and nuns had cared for the dying in medieval times and before. In the modern version, Dame Cicely Saunders is credited with beginning the movement with her London hospice in 1967. She was nurse, social worker and doctor, and dedicated her (much-decorated) life to helping the terminally ill. Saunders brought compassionate (“palliative”) care to patients’ last days, advocating they die in their own time, and “naturally.” She did, however, introduce the use of morphine to ease pain. Her philosophy was somewhat different from America’s hospice pioneer, Florence Wald, dean of Yale nursing. Wald, in 1974, brought “assisted suicide” and “euthanasia” to her Connecticut hospice. What has evolved in the American hospice industry seems to be a very successful melding of the image of Dame Saunders’ “compassionate” care with the use and apparent abuse of assisted suicide and what author and former hospice nurse Roger Gantz calls “stealth euthanasia.”

A 2014 Huffington Post study found that once Medicare introduced a hospice benefit in 1983, the hospice industry burgeoned into (by 2014) a $17 billion industry. In that year, one million died under hospice “care,” and nearly half of all Medicare patients died as home or institutional hospice patients. The study reported hospice “marketers, doctors, [and] rehab centers” trolling for ill (enough) patients for their purposes. The now for-profit business is publicly traded and receives little government oversight, regulation, or inspection. The industry is also rarely punished when lawsuits or investigations claiming wrongdoing are brought. Many patients and their families never complain—but a 2017 Kaiser News study analyzing 3200 complaints filed against hospice companies over five years, found that with 75% of companies who did receive complaints, none suffered punishment.

There is definitely a host of problems that could bring complaints. In 2014, a Washington Post report found that hundreds of hospices did not provide promised care; and in 2012, at least one in six had not. In 2019 the Office of the Inspector General found millions of dollars of hospice Medicare fraud, and a “task force” was formed. Also on the federal level, US Health and Human Services did a study showing that between 2012 and 2016, 80% of hospices had “deficiencies,” with 20% having “serious” deficiencies. And in 2018, statnews.com found that in 2006 Medicare had paid out $9.2 billion for one million hospice beneficiaries, and in 2016, that grew to $16.7 billion for 1.4 million beneficiaries. They cited a Texas nurse in their report who gave “high doses of morphine” whether “a patient needed it or not,” to justify getting “higher hospice payments.”  And they reported the case of a woman with dementia being signed up a year before her scheduled demise. For that, in a rare outcome, the head of the hospice got six and a half years in federal prison—for her treatment, and for his $20 million scheme to sign up people who were not dying.  Most complaints made to or about hospice are ignored. That would certainly be my experience:  my complaint was met with denials, lies, and offers of bereavement counselors.

In looking through the hospice patient cases presented on hospicepatients.org, collected by Roger Krantz, it’s clear that there is a definite pattern to how hospice operates in securing and then “treating” their patients. One case I read involved a woman professional whose 60-year-old boyfriend was basically hijacked by his sister and her husband, apparently so they could have access to his money. It began by the man needing rehab, and then changed to his health care providers declaring him “terminal” and placing him in hospice. A health care provider, under today’s protocols, identifies you as terminal if they decide you have six months or fewer to live (a very iffy determination). He had trusted his sister with his power of attorney after he had experienced a “depressive episode” and was placed back in hospice after having been upgraded to rehab for a time. His sister placed him in hospice, where, to his girlfriend’s dismay, he was given zyprexa—a stroke inducer. His girlfriend was kept away from him as his condition worsened, and she was told he had “dementia” (a typical hospice move). When the girlfriend succeeded in getting him back to rehab, he improved, but his sister was furious.

The sister was able to suddenly move her brother to a hospice house, where the girlfriend was told he had eight days to live. The hospice nurses stopped his IV, and told the girlfriend he would now receive only “comfort [palliative] care.” The nurses also had been “warned” by his sister about the girlfriend, and said she “was in denial” (another hospice bullet point).  When she pressed on and was able to get him to eat and drink, his sister was furious, and said the girlfriend got him “agitated”—causing hospice to re-drug him.  The girlfriend’s questions were met by “blank stares.” He was given meds for pain, although he was not in pain.  The girlfriend told the doctor the man should not be there, and the sister “flew out of the room in rage!” At that point, they upped the morphine he was being given.  The girlfriend was told without holding his POA (power of attorney), there was nothing she could do.  She tried reasoning with his sister, and soon thereafter got a “vicious letter” from the sister’s husband which said she was “venomonous” and “in denial.” The sister sent her an email informing her of his death.

The experience of this woman is not at all unique. Time and time again, hospice agencies exploit vulnerable patients and ignores any protest they might get from concerned family and friends. My experience with hospice was a nightmare. It was not an anomaly. After I discovered that was the case, it was a comfort, (“I’m not crazy!”) but also a horror to find a very widespread pattern and problem. My mother was a very independent and feisty lady—in very good health for most of her life. At 91, she fell in her kitchen, breaking a finger and shattering her pelvis. She was hospitalized and then placed in rehab in a nursing home where she successfully recovered her mobility and went home.  I gradually became aware that my brother and sister-in-law, visibly upset when my mother left the nursing home, had developed a long-range plan not atypical of many children of elderly parents, not for control of her money really, but apparently for the convenience of not having to deal with their elderly mother.  My brother had my mother’s POA and was the sole executor of her will, and thus was able to solidify his control over family decisions.  He and his wife, a 22-year volunteer for hospice, also secured the loyalty of my two sisters, who stopped questioning any of his decisions, particularly about my mother’s health care.

The problem was that I had been her primary caregiver for over a year and a half, there every day, taking care of most of her needs—eye drops, pills, errands, meals usually, and also taking her to doctor appointments, etc.  When I questioned my (younger) brother’s decisions, he began a campaign to separate me from my mother’s care.  This was done by not so subtle assertions to my family, and beyond, that she was not “safe” with me at home, that I was “over my head.” My input into my mother’s care was shut off—my brother and sister-in-law refused to speak to me—and it was easy for them to solve any of my mother’s objections by drugging or ignoring her.  This was especially true once my brother and his wife instituted their new, long-term “palliative” medical regime for my mother.  My hospice veteran sister-in-law told the family that “palliative care” would “mean no change in her care,“ and “assure Mom’s remaining days are comfortable.”   When it was apparent she was developing difficulty bathing and cooking for herself, and had to take two trips to the hospital to treat anemia resulting from the blood disorder myelodysplasia, I began to think of ways to get help to improve her home care.  But I was pre-empted.  My sister-in-law had already arranged a hospital-style bed for my mother, something my mother (who was fully coherent and lucid right up until her death—unless heavily drugged) repeatedly and emphatically said she did not want.  The day it was delivered she was heavily dosed with lorazepam and morphine in case she got “agitated.”

The new regime for my mother included hiring numerous home health aides, done without my prior knowledge much less consent. Her doctor, who had spent little time examining my mother, signed onto the new plan. I questioned the need for what they called her new palliative care regime, which had my mother receiving no showers or baths, sitting in unclean clothes, having an unhealthy diet, being drugged into very long periods of sleep, and receiving no treatment for her urinary infections. All the aides were required to sign a letter promising to speak only to my brother and his wife and not to me, about any aspect of her care.  One of the health aides, a woman with 26 years’ experience, told me my mother’s health was not bad enough to require palliative (hospice) care. She also warned me that if hospice came in, she’d be dead within a week. My mother was almost always alert, and her diagnosis of myelodysplasia was not necessarily dire. My observation was that she was still as active as she could be, cheerful and not in much pain. When that experienced aide who objected to her palliative care would not sign my brother’s letter, he fired her.

According to hospice care reformer and author Roger Krantz, for patients under hospice care, the line between so-called palliative care—“pain relief, symptoms management”—and “imposed death” has blurred as hospice and palliative care groups became “heavily funded.”  Palliative care is supposedly a “niche” in medicine for treatment of pain.  But, as with my mother, when every patient is sedated because they’re defined as “agitated,” that’s not what palliative care is supposed to be.  Krantz asks, “Is it ‘palliative’ to refuse to treat treatable medical problems?”  And then just “anaesthetize and kill—?”  In some cases, families are led to expect palliative care, but get no treatment at all.  A woman in New York City who recounted her experience in a 2018 New York Times article, said their family was promised 24/7 oversight by a doctor and 24-hour service by a nurse by hospice, for their father, but were not told it depended on “staffing levels” whether or not her father got “palliative care.”  He slipped into a coma before they could say goodbye.

According to author/reformer Roger Krantz, there are apparently thousands of patients being cheated of competent and humane treatment.  A father of two daughters died under hospice care because his regular lung medication was refused him against his stated wishes.  He was given no food or water—just morphine—killing him in a few days. Another man had heart problems, but not life-threatening.  After being taken to a hospice facility, he gradually diminished, and died in a few days, after being given morphine every 15 minutes. [!]  And in the account referred to earlier, a 60-year-old man in rehab became deathly ill in a hospice institution after being given dangerous amounts of morphine instead of treating his actual medical condition.

It is an all too common experience for families of hospice-bound patients to be misled and given misinformation at all points of the process. It is also common to be treated with coercion, hostility and intimidation. For my mother’s admissions/information visit by Hospice Inc., my sister-in-law announced that a “palliative care nurse” would be coming to my mother’s house (September 19, 2019) to “check over” my mother, answer our questions about hospice and discuss whether or not my mother should become a hospice patient. The hospice nurse began by explaining the Hospice Inc. program, with heavy emphasis—and a handout—on the drugs they administer via visiting nurses: Tylenol, prochoropenzine (for vomiting and psychosis), lorazepam (for anxiety), and most especially, morphine. I learned that day that my mother had already been taking morphine for some time, presumably part of her “palliative” care.  My questions about how things worked, who made the decision to have Hospice Inc. come in, and so on, were answered politely by the admissions nurse, at first, with her stressing that they would work “hand-in-hand” with her doctor to have treatment “pain-free and with dignity.” But she also said there would be no (more) palliative care.  My mother was “with Hospice, when no treatment is done.”

My sister-in-law punctuated my questions with sighs and groans and throwing up her hands, along with comments like, “Oh, she’s just a distraction.” My mother was there at this meeting, heavily drugged with lorazepam (and maybe morphine), and half-dozing, but awake.  She and I exchanged grimaces a few times, because she had made it clear to me on a number of occasions—when she was fully cognizant and coherent—that she didn’t think hospice coming in was necessary.  When I asked who made the decision for her to become a Hospice Inc. patient, the nurse said “the patient—the family—her health proxy.” My older sister held the health proxy, but my brother said he was her advocate. And when I asked what if some of the family disagrees?  At that point, the nurse turned her back on me, and related only to the people who were busy yelling at me that I knew nothing and “lived in my own world.”

The nurse suggested a “family meeting” to work the whole thing out. My sister seemed dazed and kept saying she just wanted information. I told my brother and his wife that I was opposed to Hospice Inc. coming in at that time.  When I told the two of them they do not control everything, my brother said, “Yes, I do,” and moved as if to strike me, putting a fist up to my face. His wife told him “no.” But then she stood up, went behind my chair, and using both hands, shoved me forcibly into it. Beyond disgusted, I told my mother goodbye and left. I encountered the nurse outside, and told her the situation “was not over.” She said nothing. She did not tell me that the Hospice Inc. admittance papers were already prepared, and that within minutes after I left, my confused sister, my mother’s health proxy, had signed them all. The “admissions” procedure, characterized by lies, misrepresentation and coercion, was accomplished.

Hospice agencies have become notorious for misrepresenting what’s to come, to patients, and to family. As noted earlier, in the case of the woman with a boyfriend in rehab, she was totally misled about what would happen with hospice, and more importantly, she was totally helpless to remove him when she saw what was happening. In another case, a daughter thought her father’s heart problems were treatable, but he “diminished” when placed in a hospice facility, a place one doctor had warned her had a “license to kill.” After morphine doses, he died after a few days there. The 2018 Times article cited earlier, writing of “not the good death we were promised,” makes clear that the woman’s father did not receive anywhere near the care hospice promised with a resulting nightmare for her as he went into a coma. And in 2014, the Huffington Post reported on what happened to Evelyn Maples, whose family was horrified to watch her “overmedicated.” She had not given her consent, although capable of doing so—her family was misled about her treatment, and they were unable to get her out of hospice “care.”

After I found out my mother was officially a patient of Hospice, Inc., I checked the medical notations done by the aides, and found my mother was being given 0.25 ml of morphine three times a day, by Friday the 21st. Shortly after that, Nurse “Naomi” was administering 0.5 ml every two hours, with doses of prochloropenzine. (My brother’s home health aides also gave her morphine.) My mother’s condition very quickly deteriorated from being alert and seeming fine, when she was allowed to be awake, to just weeks later, being a vegetable lying with her mouth open—, and given no food, bathing, and little water. Just the morphine. I was alarmed at her rapid downhill slide. She and I had had no time to talk, to say goodbye. On Monday the 24th, I finally convinced my older sister that we should call Hospice Inc. and see if they would ease up on the morphine. (My younger sister refused to believe me when I appealed to her.) We spoke to a nurse on phone duty there, and she was incredibly rude. When I said I’d like to call my mother’s doctor (her original one, back from leave) about it—she became very angry. “They’d tell you the same!” When I went to see my mother after that call, I said, out loud: “It’s way too late.” She looked barely alive.  She died two days later.

It was too late to save her from the “morphine cocktail.” As in the opening quote, as part of popular culture, it is known that morphine is hospice’s weapon of choice. “Most hospice patients die from morphine, but I can only OD him within an acceptable margin of error.”  An RN told the hospice patients organization that when her mother was given over to hospice, both her own and her mother’s wishes were ignored. The RN told the hospice nurses they should not give her mother morphine, but she was ignored. Her mother quickly began to show signs of “poisoning” as a result of the morphine. The hospice nurses told her—as Hospice Inc. told me, using almost the exact same language—that her mother “didn’t want to eat,” “would be sleeping more,” and would begin to “have trouble breathing.” When the RN objected to the morphine, the nurse turned her back on her and yelled at her, and then security took her away. [!] The RN said hospice gave her mother “a death cocktail,” and echoing my sentiments, said she “looked like a euthanized animal” when she died. Evelyn Maples, mentioned above, was over-medicated, including with morphine, even though she was “full code resuscitate.” They ignored that since hospice patients are assumed to have a DNR form.

Case after case reveals the same deadly prescription: a father died when his lung medicine was replaced by morphine; as noted, another father died in a few days after being given morphine every 15 minutes! A woman with COPD (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease) had a cut left untreated, medicine denied and died, according to her autopsy, of “morphine intoxication.” The study on statnews.com cited earlier found a North Texas nurse giving “high doses of morphine” whether “a patient needed it or not” to get higher payments from Medicare. And Huffington Post reported a former hospice doctor in Atlanta saying hospice nurses gave morphine against a patient’s will and doctor’s orders. The world of hospice continues unabated in the coronavirus pandemic. In a pbs news report, a hospice institutional manager laments that hospice patients were tending to not go to a hospice facility, but to just stay at home. Those patients could go to a hospice facility and “be comfortable with morphine and attentive nurses and sparing community exposure.”  Attentive nurses who will gladly give a death cocktail.

When I sent Hospice & Palliative Care, Inc. my formal complaint in January of this year, the CEO gave me her “deepest condolences” in her reply, and assured me she did a “full investigation.” Of course, that investigation did not include speaking to me, or to the veteran home health aide who voiced grave reservations about their treatment. She also, unsurprisingly, put all the responsibility on my mother’s physician and refused to reveal any medical records.  She also said my brother had my mother’s health care proxy; something easily disproven by the fact it was my older sister who signed the admission forms.  He did not have it, but since according to her he did, she said she therefore considered him the one who was supposedly the “point person” in charge of giving me information.  Unfortunately, he had not been really speaking to me in some time. All the wonderful written information that she told me Hospice provides, I never saw. She also lied about their 24/7 availability for families, although they were available to be hostile to questions.  She was sorry if I “felt the Admissions Nurse did not include me”; she denied that was her intent.  Oh?  Turning her back on me?  Not speaking to me? Lying to me?  And the CEO (so appropriate, a CEO!) insisted “the patient,” my mother, “received a gradual dose change of ‘pain management medication’ based on her physician’s recommendation.” This was a lie—I saw the aides’ notes on the rapid increase of morphine and could also see the results. My response to her response addressed the above, and was, of course, never answered.

She obviously thought I could be fobbed off with her assurance she would use “my concerns” “in staff training … so no one will feel left out.” And the kicker: “I hope you will consider using our bereavement services that are available to family members of all Hospice patients.” Yes, that would do it. “Bereavement” doesn’t begin to touch my feelings towards Hospice Inc. and their part in killing my mother with morphine, with my siblings’ compliance. I knew that my protest would not result in any satisfactory action, but as I said in that complaint, I wanted them to know “that not everyone will simply accept the sort of cruel, callous and incompetent treatment” that my mother received. And, of course, it’s evidence for this article.

Hospice Inc. deals in lies, coercion, manipulation and greed. And they get away with it. As noted, Kaiser News reported in 2017 that a five-year study found 3200 complaints filed against various hospice organizations which were rarely punished. Police, prosecutors, county and state health officials, the DEA—complain all you want, they refuse to go there.  And a wrongful death suit is very difficult to win: you have to show how you suffered a loss of income (!), among other requirements. There are privacy laws. The media is very hospice-positive: “They do much more good than bad.” Most victimized family members just stay silent, and if they do speak up, they get nowhere. In California, in 2019, Steve Lopez’ mother Grace died after neither her medications nor her hospice nurse showed up from the hospice agency.  The California Public Health Department “could not validate his complaints,” nor did they get around to, as promised, investigating further. A Kentucky man who complained about his wife’s death being caused by “suspicious use of a drug [morphine] pump” was told by hospice lawyers that his “trauma had colored his perception.”  In case after case investigated by Roger Krantz, complaining family members are told they are “not able to deal with death.” This is what Hospice Inc. told me in suggesting their bereavement counselors. My younger sister has repeatedly said to me that I obviously have a hard time dealing with death.  Yes, I do.  Especially when, for my mother it was unnecessary, premature and made possible by her own children.

The elderly are not revered in Western society. Oxford economist Jeremy Warner finds the virus beneficial for “culling elderly dependents.” Scotland’s George Galloway writes scathingly of British treatment of old people which, in the midst of the pandemic, is encouraging an increase in “Do Not Resuscitate” orders. “Euthanasia by stealth and contrary to law, has washed up on our shores.” And our own local Hospice Inc. is eagerly seeking new patients. The CEO says her staff “performs like true angels,” providing bedside care, social work and “spiritual care” (bereavement).  She says Hospice Inc. reduces the strain on the healthcare system.  She then tells us it is important people know Hospice is there: “We’re still taking care of people at home so they don’t have to go to the hospital to die.” They can die by morphine overdose in the comfort of their own home. They do not resuscitate.

Corona Tyranny and Death by Famine

By the end of 2020 more people will have died from hunger, despair and suicide than from the corona disease. We, the world, is facing a famine-pandemic of biblical proportions. This real pandemic will overtake the fake COVID-19 pandemic by a long shot. The hunger pandemic reminds of the movie the Hunger Games, as it is premised on similar circumstances of a dominant few commanding who can eat and who will die – by competition.

This hunger pandemic will be under-reported or not reported at all in the mainstream media. In fact, it has started already. In the west the attention focuses on the chaos created by the privatized for-profit mismanagement of the health system. It slowly brings to light the gross manipulation in the US of COVID-19 infections and death rates – how hospitals are encouraged to declare deaths as COVID19-deaths – for every COVID19 death-certificate the hospital receives a US$13,000 “subsidy”, and if the patient dies on a ventilator, the “bonus” amounts to US$ 39,000.

In real life, poor people cannot live under confinement, under lockdown. Not only have many or most already lost their meager living quarters because they can no longer pay the rent – but they need to scrape together in the outside world whatever they can find to feed their families and themselves. They have to go out and work for food and if there is no work, no income – they may resort to ransacking supermarkets in the city or farms in the country side. Food to sustain life is essential. Taking the opportunity to buy food away from people is sheer and outright murder.

Every child who dies from famine in the world – is a murder

– Jean Ziegler, former UN-Rapporteur on Food in Africa.

Yes, the diabolical Masters of Darkness, who invented and launched this COVID-19 pandemic, are nothing less than murderers. Mass-murderers, that is. They are committing mass genocide on a worldwide scale in proportions unknown in recent history of human kind. And this to dominate a world under a New World Order, aiming at a massively reduced world population.

The self-imposed new rulers decide who will live and who will die. Their self-promoting do-gooder agenda – à la Bill Gates and Co. – professes to reduce world poverty; yes, by killing the poor, by, for example, tainted toxic vaccinations, rendering African women infertile. (The Gates Foundation with support of WHO and UNICEF have a track record of doing so in Kenya and elsewhere, see here  Kenya carried out a massive tetanus vaccination program, sponsored by WHO and UNICEF); or letting the “under-developed”, the already destitute, die by famine – preventing them from access to sufficient food and drinking water. Privatizing water, privatizing even emergency food supplies is a crime that leads exactly to this: lack of access due to unaffordable pricing.

Should this not be enough, “Lock Step” has other solutions to enhance starvation. HAARP can help. HAARP (HAARP = High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program) has been perfected and weaponized. According to US Air Force document AF 2025 Final Report, weather modification can be used defensively and offensively; i.e., to create droughts or floods, both of which have the potential of destroying crops – destroying the livelihood of the poor.

And if that is not enough, the 2010 Rockefeller Report also foresees food rationing, selectively, of course, as we are talking about eugenics. Let’s not forget Henry Kissinger’s infamous words he uttered in 1970: “Who controls the food supply controls the people – the quote goes on saying, “Who controls the energy can control whole continents; who controls money can control the world.”  ((See also: “The Farce and Diabolical Agenda of a Universal Lockdown“, Global Research, April 27, 2020.))

A recent Facebook entry (name and location not revealed for personal protection) reads as follows:

….. In the poorer country, where I live, the entire village is on lockdown since March 16. Here the people having nothing to eat…… The wife of my main worker was raped and beaten to death. She was of Chinese descent. In spite of not being allowed to go outside, the people were starving and rampaged walking miles from farm to farm destroying everything. I have lost my entire livestock, fruits, vegetables. The houses were burned and the vehicles, tools etc. stolen. I am bankrupt with nobody around who can give money to rebuild. My workers cannot be paid. Their families are also starving. More malnutrition and undernourishment which will lead to a higher starvation rate or death from other diseases. How many will commit suicide through landing on the streets completely impoverished? – How many died in India trying to walk literally up to thousands of miles to get back home in the hope of finding refuge, after all public transportation was shut down and all had to go into lockdown. I am sure that these numbers will be a lot higher than the number who have died from the virus as well as will increase the numbers for those dying of next year’s flue due to a weakened immune system.

And as an afterthought ….

Maybe the elite are planning depopulation. It sure looks like it.

This happened somewhere in the Global South. But the example is representative for much of the Global South, and developing countries in general. And probably much worse is to come, as we are seeing so far only a tiny tip of the iceberg.

The International Labor Organization (ILO) reports that worldwide unemployment is reaching never-seen mammoth proportions, that about half of the world’s workforce – 1.6 billion people -may be out of work. That means no income to pay for shelter, food, medication. It means starvation and death. For millions. Especially in the Global South which has basically no social safety nets. People are left to themselves.

The New York Times (NYT) reports (1 May 2020) that in the US millions of unemployed go uncounted, as the system cannot cope with the influx of claims. Add these millions to the already reported more than 27 million unemployed, the tally becomes astronomical. The same NYT concludes that the millions who have risen out of poverty since the turn of the century, are likely to fall back into destitution along with millions more.

Dying of famine – mostly in the Global South, but not exclusively – is an atrocious death for millions, maybe hundreds of millions. Dying in the gutters of mega-cities, forgotten by society, by the authorities, too weak to even beg, infested with parasites due to lack of hygiene – rotting away alive. This is already happening today in many metropolises, even without the corona disaster. These people are not picked up by any statistics. They are non-people. Period.

Imagine such situations in large cities as well as in rural areas, under plan “Lock Step” (Rockefeller, Kissinger, Gates et al), the death toll would be orders of magnitude higher.

The current lockdown brings everything to halt. Practically worldwide. The longer it lasts the more devastating the social and economic impact will be. Irretrievable. Not only production of goods, services and food comes to a halt, but vital supply chains to bring products from A to B, are interrupted. Workers are not allowed to work. Security. For your own protection. The virus, the invisible enemy, could hit you. It could kill you and your loved-ones too. Fear-Fear-Fear – that’s the moto that works best.  It works so well that people start screaming – gimmi, gimmi, gimmi- gimmi a vaccine! – which brings a happy grin on Bill Gates’ face. As he sees the billions rolling and his power rising.

Bill Gates, along with WHO he bought, will become famous. They will save the world from new pandemics – never mind, their side effects – 7 billion people vaccinated (Bill Gates’ wet dream) and nobody has time to care or report about side effects, no matter how deadly they may be. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) may be slated for the Peace Nobel Prize and, who knows, Bill Gates may become one of the next Presidents of the dying empire. Wouldn’t that be an appropriate reward for the world?

Meanwhile the rather cold-blooded IMF maintains its awfully unrealistic prediction of a slight “economic contraction” of the world economy of a mere 3% in 2020, and a slight growth in the second half of 2021. The IMF’s approach to world economics and human development to social crisis, is fully monetized and lacks any compassion, and thus, becomes utterly irrelevant in the age of corona. Institutions like the IMF and the World Bank, mere extensions of the US treasury, they are passé in the face of an economic collapse for which they are also, in part, responsible.

What they should do – perhaps IMF and WB combined – is call for a capital increase of up to 4 trillion SDRs (as was suggested by some of the IMF Board Members) and use the funds as a special debt relieve fund, a “Debt Jubilee Fund” for Global South Nations. Handed out as grants. This would allow these nations to get back on their feet, back to their sovereign national monetary and economic policies, recovering their internal economy, with a national currency, public banking and a government-owned central bank, creating jobs and internal autonomy in food, health and education.

Why is this not happening? It would require a change in their constitution and a redistribution of voting rights according to new economic strength of nations. China would become a much more important player with a more important share and decision-making role. Of course, that’s what the US does not want to happen. But the unwillingness to adapt to new realities makes these institutions irrelevant to the point that they should and might fade away.

Interestingly, though, two of the three economic projection scenarios of the IMF, foresee another pandemic, or a new wave of the old pandemic in 2021. What does the IMF know that we don’t?

Juxtaposed to the insensitive approach of the global financial institutions and the globalized private banking system, the World Food Program warns (25 April 2020) that the COVID-19 pandemic will cause “famines of biblical proportions”; that without urgent action and funding, hundreds of millions of people will face starvation and millions could die as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.

As it is, every year about 9 million people die from famine in the world.

The WFP Executive Director, David Beasley, told the UN Security Council that in addition to the threat to health posed by the virus, the world faces “multiple famines within a few short months,” which could result in 300,000 deaths per day—a “hunger pandemic.”

Beasley added that even before the outbreak, the world was “facing the worst humanitarian crisis since World War II” this year due to many factors. He cited the wars in Syria and Yemen, the crisis in South Sudan and locust swarms across East Africa. He said that coupled with the coronavirus outbreak, famine threatened about three dozen nations.

According to the WFP’s “2020 Global Report on Food Crises” released Monday (20 April ),135 million people around the world were already threatened with starvation. Beasley said that as the virus spreads, “an additional 130 million people could be pushed to the brink of starvation by the end of 2020. That’s a total of 265 million people.”

The famine pandemic is further exacerbated by the ongoing refugee crisis – which is also a catastrophe of misery – hunger, disease, lack of shelter, total lack of hygiene in most of the refugee camps.

Professor Jean Ziegler, Sociologist (Universities Geneva and Sorbonne, Paris), Vice-President of the UN Human Rights Committee, recently visited the refugee camp of Moria on the Greek island of Lesbos. He described a situation where 24,000 refugees are cramped into military barracks that were built for 2,800 soldiers, live under calamitous circumstances – lack of potable water, insufficient and often inedible food, clogged and much too few stinking toilets…. diseases no end. COVID19 would just be a sideline.

These people who fled Europe-and-western-caused warzones, destroyed livelihoods are being pushed back by the very European Union, as most countries do not want to host them and give them a chance for a new life. This atrocious xenophobic behavior of Europe is against Human Rights all EU countries signed and against internal EU rules. They are a sad reminder of what Europe really is – a conglomerate of countries with a history of hundreds of years of colonization, of merciless exploitation, plundering and raping of the Global South.

This abjectly atrocious characteristic, shamelessly continuing to this day, seems to have become an integral part of the European DNA. These wars and conflicts are willfully US-NATO made, for power, greed – to maintain the US military industrial complex alive and profitable – and as a stepping stone towards total world hegemony.

The refugees emanating from these conflict zones, their fate and famine will be added to those starving from the also man-imposed corona crisis. The death toll from sheer hunger and famine-related causes, may become astronomical by the end of 2020, way-way outweighing and dwarfing the doctored and manipulated COVID-19 figures.

Is there hope? Yes, there is hope, as long as we live. The world has to wake up. Seven billion people under lockdown — wake up! Realize what is happening to you, all under false pretenses to control humanity, to digitize and robotize your very lives. What better way to do this than under the pretext of locking you away “for your own safety”?  Defy these rules, stand up against these invisible omni-powerful self-appointed rulers, who only have the power, we, the People, give them, or allow them to take from us. Because all they have is money, and corrupted media that spread fear and more fear to keep locking you down.

My final words: follow you heart. Open your heart to love and beyond your five given and media-manipulated senses and enter a higher consciousness. Get out of FEAR, get out of the lockdown, stand up for your rights, for your freedom. Because freedom and liberty cannot be bought with money, nor trampled by the media. They are inherently within us all. If enough of us open our hearts to LOVE, to an all-englobing love, we will overcome this small psychopathic elite.

Big Pharma Beware: Dr. Montagnier Shines New Light on COVID-19 and The Future of Medicine

This April 16th, Dr. Luc Montagnier became a household name around the world. This occurred as the controversial virologist decided to publicly state his support for the theory that Covid-19 is indeed a laboratory-generated creation and not a naturally occurring effect of viral evolution.

Referring to a study published at the Kusama School of Biology in New Dehli on January 31st, Montagnier (the 2008 Nobel Prize winner for his 1983 discovery of the HIV virus) made the point that the specific occurrence of HIV RNA viral segments spliced surgically within the COVID-19 genome could not have originated naturally and he described it in the following words:

We have carefully analyzed the description of the genome of this RNA virus. We weren’t the first, a group of Indian researchers tried to publish a study showing that the complete genome of this virus that has within the sequences of another virus: that of HIV.

While the Indian team was induced to retract their publication under immense pressure from the mainstream medical establishment (which never bothered to seriously refute the content of the study’s research but rather used the “random-mutation-makes-anything-possible” argument), Montagnier stated “scientific truth always emerges”.

Not China: Montagnier Misdiagnoses the Culprit

Montagnier’s political ignorance became all too clear when he was asked who the culprit could possibly be.

By asserting his belief that China’s BSL4 lab in Wuhan was the source, Montagnier has fallen into a trap set by Anglo-American Intelligence circles which have been promoting a military confrontation between the USA and China for a very long time.

Now even though Montagnier denies that China released this virus with malicious intent (unlike many fanatical droves of neoconservatives currently itching for war), the “Wuhan Lab origin” hypothesis completely ignores the reality of the Pentagon’s globally extended 25 bioweapons laboratories which have openly created novel coronaviruses including varieties that arose in bats as journalist Whitney Webb’s remarkable February 2020 paper demonstrated.

Even though a 2014-2017 temporary ban on “dual-use” funding was imposed onto America’s bioweapons research, nothing prevented this work from occurring internationally or even covertly within the 11 military labs on American soil itself and tied to the same Fort Detrick that was shut down in July 2019 under suspicious circumstances. As I pointed out in my previous paper The Project for a New American Century, 9/11 and Bioweapons, over $50 billion has been spent on bioweapons research since 2001 which the Project for a New American Century manifesto claimed would play a major role in the arsenal of 21st century warfare stating: “advanced forms of biological warfare that can “target” specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool”.

Luc Montagnier’s Wave Therapy: Quackery or Brilliance?

The most powerful aspect of Montagnier’s April 16th intervention into world politics in my view is not really found in his support for the laboratory-origins theory, but rather in the scientist’s often overlooked proposition for an international crash program in something called electromagnetic wave therapy. Rather than investing in vaccines, Montagnier has explained that it were much wiser for nations of the world to launch a crash project into a very different approach to viral treatments than is currently common in polite society saying:

“I think we can make interference waves which are behind the RNA sequences that can eliminate those sequences with waves and consequently stop the pandemic”

Before brushing this off as “quackery” as so many are wont to do, one should keep in mind that President Trump himself has indicated his interest in Montagnier’s approach in his April 23rd briefing telling reporters:

Supposing we hit the body with a tremendous … whether it’s ultraviolet or just very powerful light. And I think you said that hasn’t been checked, but you are going to test it… And then I said supposing you brought the light inside the body, which you can do either through the skin or in some other way. And I think you said you are going to test it.

While Trump has been vilely attacked as “unscientific” for these utterances, it is only due to the vast ignorance of Montagnier’s incredible discoveries into the electromagnetic properties of life that such mockery can go unchallenged. Montagnier’s innovations into “bleaching therapy” which Trump referenced in the same speech are also much more complex than mainstream detractors assume and has nothing to do with simply “injecting”disinfectants into the blood stream. These therapies are highly interconnected with the electromagnetic waves emitted by certain types of bacteria which Montagnier has discovered to be the most likely driving mechanism to many of the diseases both chronic and acute plaguing humanity. More will be said on that below.

What is Optical Biophysics and What did Montagnier Discover?

Optical biophysics is the study of the electromagnetic properties of the physics of life. This means paying attention to the light emissions and absorption frequencies from cells, DNA, and molecules of organic matter, how these interface with water (making up over 75% of a human body) and moderated by the nested array of magnetic fields located on the quantum level and stretching up to the galactic level.

Not to discount the bio-chemical nature of life which is hegemonic in the health science realm, the optical biophysician asks: which of these is PRIMARY in growth, replication, and division of labor of individual cells or entire species of organisms? Is it the chemical attributes of living matter or the electromagnetic properties?

Let me explain the paradox a bit more.

There are approximately 40 trillion highly differentiated cells in the average human body, each performing very specific functions and requiring an immense field of coherence and intercommunication. Every second approximately 10 million of those cells die, to be replaced by 10 million new cells being born. Many of those cells are made up of bacteria, and much of the DNA and RNA within those cells is made up of viruses (mostly dormant), but which can be activated/deactivated by a variety of methods both chemical and electromagnetic.

Here’s the big question:

HOW might this complex system be maintained by chemical processes alone- either over the course of a day, month or an entire lifetime?

The simple physics of motion of enzymes which carry information in the body from one location to another simply doesn’t come close to accounting for the information coordination required among all parts. This is where Montagnier’s research comes in.

After winning the 2008 Nobel Prize, Dr. Montagnier published a revolutionary yet heretical 2010 paper called ““DNA Waves and Water which took the medical community by storm. In this paper, Montagnier demonstrated how low frequency electromagnetic radiation within the radio wave part of the spectrum was emitted from bacterial and viral DNA and how said light was able to both organize water and transmit information! The results of his experiments were showcased wonderfully in this 8 min video:

Using a photo-amplifying device invented by Dr. Jacques Benveniste in the 1980s to capture the ultra-low light emissions from cells, Montagnier filtered out all particles of bacterial DNA from a tube of water and discovered that the post-filtered solutions containing no material particles continued to emit ultra-low frequency waves! This became more fascinating when Montagnier showed that under specific conditions of a 7 Hz background field (the same as the Schumann resonance which naturally occurs between the earth’s surface and the ionosphere), the non-emitting tube of water that had never received organic material could be induced to emit frequencies when placed in close proximity with the emitting tube! Even more interesting is that when base proteins, nucleotides and polymers (building blocks of DNA) were put into the pure water, near perfect clones of the original DNA were formed!

Dr. Montagnier and his team hypothesized that the only way for this to happen was if the DNA’s blueprint was somehow imprinted into the very structure of water itself resulting in a form of “water memory” that had earlier been pioneered by Jacques Benveniste, the results of which are showcased in this incredible 2014 documentary “Water Memory”.

Just as Benveniste suffered one of the most ugly witch hunts in modern times (led in large measure by Nature Magazine in 1988), Montagnier’s Nobel prize did not protect him from a similar fate as an international slander campaign has followed him over the past 10 years of his life. Nearly 40 Nobel prize winners have signed a petition denouncing Montagnier for his heresy and the great scientist was forced to even flee Europe to escape what he described as a culture of “intellectual terror”. In response to this slander, Montagnier stated to LaCroix magazine:  “I’m used to attacks from these academics who are just retired bureaucrats, closed off from all innovation. I have the scientific proofs of what I say”.

Describing the greatest challenges to advancing this research, Montagnier stated:

We have chosen to work with the private sector because no funds could come from public institutions. The Benveniste case has made it so that anyone who takes an interest in the memory of water is considered… I mean it smells of sulphur. It’s Hell.

Casting Montagnier’s Research in a New Light

In a 2011 interview, Dr. Montagnier recapitulated the consequences of his discoveries:

The existence of a harmonic signal emanating from DNA can help to resolve long-standing questions about cell development, for example, how the embryo is able to make its manifold transformations, as if guided by an external field. If DNA can communicate its essential information to water by radio frequency, then non-material structures will exist within the watery environment of the living organism, some of them hiding disease signals and others involved in the healthy development of the organism.

With these insights in mind, Montagnier has discovered that many of the frequencies of EM emissions from a wide variety of microbial DNA is also found in the blood plasmas of patients suffering from influenza A, Hepatitis C, and even many neurological diseases not commonly thought of as bacteria-influenced such as Parkinsons, Multiple Sclerosis, Rheumathoid Arthritis and Alzheimers. In recent years, Montagnier’s teams even found certain signals in the blood plasmas of people with autism and several varieties of cancers!

Over a dozen French doctors have taken Montagnier’s ideas seriously enough to prescribe antibiotics to treat autism over the course of six years and in opposition to conventional theories, have found that amidst 240 patients treated, 4 out of 5 saw their symptoms either dramatically regress or disappear completely!

These results imply again that certain hard-to-detect species of light emitting microbes are closer to the cause of these ills than the modern pharmaceutical industry would like to admit.

A New Domain of Thinking: Why Big Pharma Should Be Afraid

As the filmed 2014 experiment demonstrated, Montagnier went even further to demonstrate that the frequencies of wave emissions within a filtrate located in a French laboratory can be recorded and emailed to another laboratory in Italy where that same harmonic recording was infused into tubes of non-emitting water causing the Italian tubes to slowly begin emitting signals! These DNA frequencies were then able to structure the Italian water tubes from the parent source a thousand miles away resulting in a 98% exact DNA replica!

Standing as we are, on the cusp of so many exciting breakthroughs in medical science, we should ask: what could these results mean for the multi-billion dollar pharmaceutical industrial complex which relies on keeping the world locked into a practice of chemical drugs and vaccines?

Speaking to this point, Montagnier stated:

The day that we admit that signals can have tangible effects, we will use them. From that moment on we will be able to treat patients with waves. Therefore it’s a new domain of medicine that people fear of course. Especially the pharmaceutical industry… one day we will be able to treat cancers using frequency waves.

Montagnier’s friend and collaborator Marc Henry, a professor of Chemistry and Quantum Mechanics at the University of Strasbourg stated:

If we treat with frequencies and not with medicines it becomes extremely cost effective regarding the amount of money spent. We spend a lot of money to find the frequencies, but once they have been found, it costs nothing to treat.

Whether produced in a lab as Montagnier asserts or having appeared naturally as Nature Magazine asserts, the fact remains that the current coronavirus pandemic has accelerated a collapse of the world financial system and forced the leaders of the world to discuss the reality of a needed new paradigm and new world economic order. Whether that new system will be driven by Pharmaceutical cartels, and sociopathic bankers running global health policy for a technocratic elite of social engineers or whether it will be driven by nation states shaping the terms of that new system around human needs, remains to be seen.

If nation states manage to stay in the driver’s seat of this new system, then it will have to be driven by certain fundamental principles of healthcare for all, science practice reform and broader political/economic reform whereby the sacredness of human life is placed above all considerations of monetary profit. In this light, such crash programs into long term projects in space science, asteroid defense, and Lunar/Mars development will be as necessary in the astrophysical domain as crash programs in fusion energy will be in the atomic domain. Uniting both worlds is the domain of life sciences that intersects the electromagnetic properties of atoms, cells and DNA with the large scale electromagnetic properties of the Earth, Sun and galaxy as a whole.

• First published in Strategic Culture Foundation

The Covid-19 “Manhattan Project” and its Ties to the CIA

On April 27, the Wall Street Journal reported about the creation of a “Manhattan Project” for Covid-19. A “secret group”, consisting in a dozen scientists and a few billionaires, was working “to cull the world’s most promising research on the pandemic” to then advise the White House in the best course of action.

As Rob Copeland wrote for the journal, the group is led by a 33-year-old physician-turned-venture-capitalist named Tom Cahill, a graduate from Duke University with extensive – maybe too extensive – contacts in the business world, as we will explore below. The “lockdown-era Manhattan Project”, as the group describes its own endeavor, is all about “distilling unorthodox ideas” from around the globe. As we can remember, the MP created the atomic bomb during WW II.

Cahill’s “secret group” is already influencing the Trump administration, which is taking advice from its 17-page memo, also made available by the journal. In other example of its influence, by the end of March Dr. Cahill made a phone call to Mike Pence’s aid, Nick Ayers, who managed to accelerate a lucrative FDA permission for Regeneron Pharmaceuticals – working on a potential vaccine for COVID-19 – to move its production to Ireland, where taxes and licenses are more lax.

Other policies included in the memo regard mandatory smartphone apps that will require people to report about their health and potential symptoms to a government agency on a daily basis.

But the brazen pecuniary nature of their enterprise comes to light when the WSJ informs us that the group of scientists working around Cahill – and their billionaire backers:

…has acted as the go-between for pharmaceutical companies looking for a reputable link to Trump administration decision makers. They are working remotely as (an) ad hoc review board for the flood of research on the coronavirus, weeding out flawed studies before they reach policy makers.

In other words, a private filter made of billionaires and scientists – who as we will see, own stock in some very profitable big pharma companies or work for them – is arbitrarily “weeding out” ideas from around the world regarding solutions to the pandemic… in the purported benefit of society?

Some could argue that that very same logic brought us to where we are right now: underfunded healthcare systems collapsed under a pandemic that was foreseen years or even decades in advance. As tens of writers and journalists have outlined in recent weeks around the world, what was needed for an up-to-the-task response to a threat like coronavirus, like stockpiles of specific medical equipment, more hospital beds and health professionals, was not a lucrative enough alternative for the privatized healthcare mercenaries in charge.

As few alternative media commented on the WSJ revelation, Naked Capitalism noted:

In essence, the country would be betting on venture capitalists and private equity specialists to solve the Covid-19 epidemic; oligarchs, in other words. I’m not entirely sure that’s a good bet… private equity is, after all, responsible for a range of social ills, including surprise billing from practices in privatized emergency rooms…

Just two months ago, when the pandemic was starting, Dr. Peter Hotez, from the Center for Vaccine Development at the Texas Children’s Hospital, told the US Congress that in 2016 he and his team of researchers had a vaccine for a strain of coronavirus “ready to go”, but by then, “nobody was interested…”, so they didn’t obtain funding to test it on humans. Hotez, who also stated that his vaccine “may have provided cross-protection from the (present) strain”, says that the SARS epidemic of 2003 and the MERS or camel flu of 2012, should have “triggered major federal and global investments to develop vaccines in anticipation…”

It didn’t. Our good doctor even approached big pharma companies after the recent outbreak regarding his would-be vaccine. He literally got this response from one of them: “Well, we’re holding back to see if this thing comes back year after year…”

Now some big pharma investors, hiding behind their scientists/employees –young Dr. Cahill is presented by the WSJ as an stoic “one suit” living in a “one bedroom rental near Boston’s Fenway Park”– are looking to make a kill among the biggest disaster in recent times, with an economic fallout yet to be seen.

And just as the billionaires behind the “Covid-19 Manhattan Project” are tied to big pharma and some of the most powerful investment trusts in the world, its head, Dr. Tom Cahill, is tied to the CIA’s venture capital, In-Q-Tel.

Cahill, Seventh Sense BioSystems, and the Gates Foundation

As former CIA director George Tenet stated in his memoirs: “…CIA identifies pressing problems, and In-Q-Tel provides the technology to address them. The In-Q-Tel alliance has put the Agency back at the leading edge of technology”. In-Q-Tel is notorious for investing in Keyhole, the technology that later became Google Earth.

As mentioned, Dr. Tom Cahill’s tender age didn’t stop him from developing a list of contacts among billionaire “philanthropists” like the notorious Michael Milken, and elite capitalist ventures like … well, the CIA’s investment fund.

Seventh Sense BioSystems was created in 2008 to develop a blood collection system that would facilitate diagnosis around the world, especially in the underdeveloped world. They designed a small device armed with micro-needles that would be fixed to the upper arm of the patient, drawing blood with a painless tap and storing it.

Dr. Cahill is a member of the board of directors at Seventh Sense. The medical technology start-up obtained money from In-Q-Tel for its very first round of funding ($4.2 million in total; the exact amount coming from the CIA’s front is unknown). Although the donation, made with tax-payer money, isn’t officially secret – the CIA’s venture fund works openly but discreetly –, the reasons why the agency could be interested in the project remain a mystery.

A few years after that, in 2011, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation granted Seven Sense BioSystems over $2 million for its second round of funding. We should note that Novartis, also a Gates Foundation grantee, was tied to the recently incarcerated Michael Cohen, Donald Trump’s lawyer. Novartis, working on a hydroxychloroquine treatment for the virus, paid Cohen more than $1 million for “policy insights” after Trump’s election in 2016. After their relationship was leaked, Novartis apologized. Later, a congressional investigation revealed the real objective of Novartis, the company: “explicitly sought to hire Michael Cohen to provide the company ‘access to key policymakers’ in the Trump administration…”

Dr. Cahill’s access to the White House, on the other hand, is a benefit provided to him by his own powerful godfathers, like Steve Pagliuca, co-owner of the Boston Celtics and co-chairman of Bane Capital – involved in “some of the biggest investments in biotech” since 2016. According to the WSJ, Pagliuca passed on a version of Cahill’s Scientists to Stop Covid-19 memo and policy recommendations to a Goldman Sachs executive, David Solomon, who then handed it to Trump’s Treasure Secretary, Steven Mnuchin.

As the WSJ stated, Pagliuca, along with PayPal’s Peter Thiel, Jim Pallotta – owner of Raptor Capital, also invested in biotechnologies and Big Pharma – and Michael Milken (a “philanthropist” and convicted felon who invented the “junk bonds”) gave Cahill the “legitimacy” to reach the White House “in the middle of the crisis”.

Finally, in an even more unintendedly sarcastic manner, the WSJ piece assures its readers that: “no one in the group stands to gain financially”. Maybe not directly.

An elite club of interconnected billionaire investors

A recent short documentary from The Corbett Report’s, “How Bill Gates Monopolized Global Health”, carefully explains how the Gates Foundation (also) donates millions of dollars to many world renowned media like The Guardian, the BBC, NPR and ABC News, where its dollars funds health related news segments. Its influence in media, the World Health Organization and hundreds of grants for research and development let Gates set the agenda for human health, to the point that is: “almost impossible to find any area of global health that has been left untouched by the tentacles of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation…

“It was Gates who sponsored the meeting that led to the creation of GAVI, the vaccine alliance, a global public-private partnership bringing together state sponsors and big pharmaceutical companies…” as Corbett reports. The openly stated objective of GAVI is to ensure healthy markets (for vaccines and other pharma products).

Government reactions in the US and UK, he adds, were shaped by the advice of two research groups, one from London’s Imperial College and the other from the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (Seattle), both heavily funded by – you guessed it – the Gates Foundation.

Despite dubious disclaimers, the fact is that the handful of billionaires and multimillionaires backing Cahill’s group of Scientists to Stop Covid-19 have important and overlapping investments in biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies, and therefore could be expected to make huge deals out of the present pandemic and the proposed solutions. Jim Pallotta’s Raptor Capital made millions investing in Hospira, a pharmaceutical company bought by Pfizer in 2015. Steve Pagliuca’s Bain Capital Life Sciences also invests in two dozen biotech startups, with special mentions to a couple Pfizer spinouts.

All of the billionaires or multimillionaires mentioned throughout this article seem to deal with the same companies, venture funds and holdings, as if they were part of an elite club of investors. Peter Thiel, through the Founders Fund, invested in Stemcentrx, a company designing cancer treatments with stem cells that was bought by AbbVie, owned in part by the Vanguard Group. The latter also have interests in Pfizer and half a dozen big pharma names that overlap with those receiving “charitable” donations from the Gates Foundation. The Vanguard Group is also one of the top institutional shareholders of Class B shares from Berkshire Hathaway, where Warren Buffett is CEO.

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Trust, according to a recent investigation by The Nation, own stock from a dozen well-known names in pharmaceuticals like GSK, Merck, Pfizer or Eli Lilly, while at the same time – and in an open conflict of interests – the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation makes “philanthropic” donations to them.

Most of these firms, including “charities”, holdings and venture funds, have no qualms in dealing with pharmaceuticals and the kind of private companies that make them direly needed in the first place, like Coca-Cola, McDonalds or giants of the oil and agricultural industries, including the producers of glyphosate-carrying concoctions.

The so-called “Covid-19 Manhattan Project” is, in sum, an open door to the White House for an elite club of billionaires aiming at enlarging their already extravagant business portfolio at the expense of a catastrophic emergency. Far from new, it follows the same neoliberal logic that brought us to this point, putting in the hands of the superwealthy 0.01 % the future of health in the United States and the world just like another business opportunity.

As Joachim Hagopian once wrote for Global Research:

This is neither a new nor unique story. In fact, the story of big pharma is the exact same story of how big government, big oil, big agro-chem giants like Monsanto have come to power. The controlling shareholders of all these major industries are one and the same.

Orwellian Lockstep and a Loaded Syringe

Some years ago, the then vice-president of Monsanto Robert T Fraley asked, “Why do people doubt science”. He posed the question partly because he had difficulty in believing that some people had valid concerns about the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in agriculture.

Critics were questioning the science behind GM technology and the impacts of GMOs because they could see how science is used, corrupted and manipulated by powerful corporations to serve their own ends. And it was also because they regard these conglomerates as largely unaccountable and unregulated.

We need look no further than the current coronavirus issue to understand how vested interests are set to profit by spinning the crisis a certain way and how questionable science is being used to pursue policies that are essentially illogical or ‘unscientific’. Politicians refer to ‘science’ and expect the public to defer to the authority of science without questioning the legitimacy of scientific modelling or data.

Although this legitimacy is being questioned on various levels, arguments challenging the official line are being sidelined. Governments, the police and the corporate media have become the arbiters of truth even if ‘the truth’ does not correspond with expert opinion or rational thought which challenges the mainstream narrative.

For instance, testing for coronavirus could be flawed (producing a majority of ‘false positives’) and the processes involved in determining death rates could be inflating the numbers: for example, dying ‘with’ coronavirus’ is different to dying ‘due to’ coronavirus: a serious distinction given that up to 98 per cent of people (according to official sources) who may be dying with it have at least one serious life-threatening condition. Moreover, the case-fatality ratio could be so low as to make the lockdown response appear wholly disproportionate. Yet we are asked to accept statistics at face value – and by implication, the policies based on them.

Indeed, documentary maker and author David Cayley addresses this last point by saying that modern society is hyper-scientific but radically unscientific as it has no standard against which it can measure or assess what it has done: that we must at all costs ‘save lives’ is not questioned, but this makes it very easy to start a stampede. Making an entire country go home and stay home has immense, incalculable costs in terms of well-being and livelihoods. Cayley argues that this itself has created a pervasive sense of panic and crisis and is largely a result of the measures taken against the pandemic and not of the pandemic itself.

He argues that the declaration by the World Health Organization that a pandemic (at the time based on a suspected 150 deaths globally) was now officially in progress did not change anyone’s health status, but it dramatically changed the public atmosphere. Moreover, the measures mandated have involved a remarkable curtailing of civil liberty.

One of the hallmarks of the current situation, he stresses, is that some think that ‘science’ knows more than it does and therefore they – especially politicians – know more than they do. Although certain epidemiologists may say frankly that there is very little sturdy evidence to base policies on, this has not prevented politicians from acting as if everything they say or do is based on solid science.

The current paradigm – with its rhetoric of physical distancing, flattening the curve and saving lives – could be difficult to escape from. Cayley says either we call it off soon and face the possibility that it was all misguided (referring to the policies adopted in Sweden to make his point), or we extend it and create harms that may be worse than the casualties we may have averted.

The lockdown may not be merited if we were to genuinely adopt a knowledge-based approach. For instance, if we look at early projections by Neil Ferguson of Imperial College in the UK, he had grossly overstated the number of possible deaths resulting from the coronavirus and has now backtracked substantially. Ferguson has a chequered track record, which led UK newspaper The Telegraph to run a piece entitled ‘How accurate was the science that led to lockdown?’ The article outlines Ferguson’s previous flawed predictions about infectious diseases and a number of experts raise serious questions about the modelling that led to lockdown in the UK.

It is worth noting that the lockdown policies we now see are remarkably similar to the disturbing Orwellian ‘Lock Step’ future scenario that was set out in 2010 by the Rockefeller Foundation report ‘Scenarios for the Future of Technology and International Development’. The report foresaw a future situation where freedoms are curtailed and draconian high-tech surveillance measures are rolled out under the ongoing pretexts of impending pandemics. Is this the type of technology use we can expect to see as hundreds of millions are marginalized and pushed into joblessness?

Instead of encouraging more diverse, informed and objective opinions in the mainstream, we too often see money and power forcing the issue, not least in the form of Bill Gates who tells the world ‘normality’ may not return for another 18 months – until he and his close associates in the pharmaceuticals industry find a vaccine and we are all vaccinated.

US attorney Robert F Kennedy Jr says that top Trump advisor Stephen Fauci has made the reckless choice to fast track vaccines, partially funded by Gates, without critical animal studies. Gates is so worried about the danger of adverse events that he says vaccines shouldn’t be distributed until governments agree to indemnity against lawsuits.

But this should come as little surprise. Kennedy notes that the Gates Foundation and its global vaccine agenda already has much to answer for. For example, Indian doctors blame the Gates Foundation for paralysing 490,000 children. And in 2009, the Gates Foundation funded tests of experimental vaccines, developed by Glaxo Smith Kline (GSK) and Merck, on 23,000 girls. About 1,200 suffered severe side effects and seven died. Indian government investigations charged that Gates-funded researchers committed pervasive ethical violations.

Kennedy adds that in 2010 the Gates Foundation funded a trial of GSK’s experimental malaria vaccine, killing 151 African infants and causing serious adverse effects to 1,048 of the 5,949 children. In 2002, Gates’ operatives forcibly vaccinated thousands of African children against meningitis. Approximately 50 of the 500 children vaccinated developed paralysis.

Bill Gates committed $10 billion to the WHO in 2010. In 2014, Kenya’s Catholic Doctors Association accused the WHO of chemically sterilising millions of unwilling Kenyan women with a  ‘tetanus’ vaccine campaign. Independent labs found a sterility formula in every vaccine tested.

Instead of prioritising projects that are proven to curb infectious diseases and improve health — clean water, hygiene, nutrition and economic development — the Gates Foundation spends only about $650 million of its $5 billion budget on these areas.

Despite all of this, Gates appears on prime-time TV news shows in the US and the UK pushing his undemocratic and unaccountable pro-big pharma vaccination and surveillance agendas and is afforded deference by presenters who dare not mention any of what Kennedy outlines. Quite the opposite – he is treated like royalty.

In the meantime, an open Letter from Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi, emeritus professor of medical microbiology at the Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, to Angela Merkel has called for an urgent reassessment of Germany’s lockdown. Dr Ioannidis, a professor of medicine and professor of epidemiology and population health at Stanford University, argues that we have made such decisions on the basis of unreliable data. In addition, numerous articles have recently appeared online which present the views of dozens of experts who question policies and the data being cited about the coronavirus.

While it is not the intention to dismiss the dangers of Covid-19, responses to those dangers must be proportionate to actual risks. And perspective is everything.

Millions die each year due to unnecessary conflicts, malnutrition and hunger, a range of preventative diseases (often far outweighing the apparent impact of Covid-19), environmental pollution and economic plunder which deprives poor countries of their natural wealth. Neoliberal reforms have pushed millions of farmers and poor people in India and elsewhere to the brink of joblessness and despair, while our food is being contaminated with toxic chemicals and the global ecosystem faces an apocalyptic breakdown.

Much of the above is being driven by an inherently predatory economic system and facilitated by those who now say they want to ‘save lives’ by implementing devastating lockdowns. Yet, for the media and the political class, the public’s attention should not be allowed to dwell on such things.

And that has easily been taken care of.

In the UK, the population is constantly subjected via their TV screens to clap for NHS workers, support the NHS and to stay home and save lives on the basis of questionable data and policies. It’s emotive stuff taking place under a ruling Conservative Party that has cut thousands of hospital beds, frozen staff pay and demonised junior doctors.

As people passively accept the stripping of their fundamental rights, Lionel Shriver, writing in The Spectator, says that the supine capitulation to a de facto police state has been one of the most depressing spectacles he has ever witnessed.

It’s a point of view that will resonate with many.

In the meantime, Bill Gates awaits as the saviour of humanity — with a loaded syringe.