Posts Tagged ‘Forced drugging’

Do you take strong exception to governments that systematically rob, spy on, and otherwise abuse you? Do you speak up in defense of personal privacy and freedom? Then you may be in need of re-education, and perhaps some pharmaceuticals, to cure you of your “oppositional defiant disorder.”

It is now confirmed by USWGO News that the DSM-IV-TR Manual labels free thinkers, non conformers, civil disobedient advocates, those that question authority, and people considered hostile toward the government (aka Oath keepers and local militias) as mentally ill with the illness titled “oppositional defiant disorder” or ODD.

It was reported on October 8 2010 from OffTheGrid News that anybody who is disobedient, defiant,  a free thinker, or even considered hostile toward authority was to be labeled by psychiatrists as ‘Mentally Ill’.

Now I have got my hands on a ebook version of the year 2000 version of the ‘Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental  Disorders DSM-IV-TR Fourth Edition (Text Revision) By the American Psychiatric Association version DSM-TV-TR (The non TR Version was said to be older and so I got the newer one which had the information that Off The Grid News warned about).

Now as I search up the keywords “oppositional defiant disorder” on adobe reader I found exactly what Off The Grid News was talking about. So it is now Confirmed basically that anyone who disobeys authority or even questions authority is now considered mentally ill and can be thrown in a prison-like mental institution under tax payers dollars.

Read more at USWGO.

Read Full Post »

The news story quoted below coyly says that the government’s position on the potential hazards of the swine flu vaccination “has changed.” How about just saying the government admits it has been misleading people? Bear in mind that the swine flu vaccine is being mixed in with this year’s seasonal flu vaccine. Health ministers had planned to incinerate millions of unused doses, but now they’re disposing of them by putting them in people’s veins.

Health chiefs have for the first time acknowledged that the swine flu jab may be linked to an increased risk of developing a deadly nerve condition.

Experts are examining a pos­sible association between the controversial jab and Guillain-Barre Syndrome, according to a report from official watchdog the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).

Previously, the Government has always stressed there is no evidence to link the paralysing condition to the H1N1 vaccine.

After The Mail on Sunday revealed in August 2009 that doctors were being asked to monitor cases of GBS during the swine flu pandemic, a letter from the Health Protection Agency’s chief executive Justin McCracken stated: ‘There is no evidence to suggest an increased risk of GBS from the vaccines being developed to fight the current pandemic.’

Now the MHRA’s newly published report suggests the Government’s position has changed.

Read more at the Mail Online.

Read Full Post »

Uh oh. A population trained to solve problems with weapons is being plied with drugs that have been linked to violent psychotic breaks. For related reading, see this list of school shooters and the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors they were on or withdrawing from at the time they committed their acts of mayhem. And bear in mind that many combat veterans go into domestic law enforcement upon their return home.

Use of psychiatric medications among people ages 18 to 34 — mostly active-duty troops and their spouses — is rising at a significantly higher rate than other age groups in the military health care system, according to data newly released to Military Times.

Overall, the number of prescriptions filled for psychiatric medications rose 42 percent from 2005 to 2009 among Tricare beneficiaries in that age group, according to data provided by Tricare Management Activity in response to a Freedom of Information Act request.

That compares to an increase of 24 percent among Tricare beneficiaries ages 45 to 64, mostly retirees. For children 17 and younger, the increase was 18 percent.

All the increases outpace overall growth in the Tricare population over the same period.

Anti-depressants like Zoloft, Wellbutrin and Celexa account for slightly more than half of the prescriptions in this age group. But increasingly, young adults in the military and their spouses are turning to other types of psych meds to treat their mental health problems.

Prescriptions for stimulants, including amphetamines and drugs to treat attention-deficit disorders, more than doubled. And claims for anti-psychotics like Seroquel and Abilify nearly doubled from 2005 to 2009 among beneficiaries ages 18 to 34, the Tricare data show. Seroquel is often used to treat nightmares and sleeping problems related to post-traumatic stress disorder.

Read more at Navy Times.

Read Full Post »

“Government Against the People” is among those who have quoted 36,000 as the number of Americans who die each year from the seasonal flu. It turns out that figure is significantly higher than the true number.

The article quoted below states the matter clearly: “The real problem here is that our government has become a full partner with drug companies in the vaccine business.”

We have been telling you recently about phony data from the government. Here is another egregious example—and no one in the major media seems to know or care.

For years, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) has been citing an annual estimate of 36,000 deaths from flu. That figure has been used to justify mandatory flu vaccination for children and has been parroted the world over by news organizations that never question its validity. Last week the CDC released new figures: rather than 36,000, the three-decade average is actually 23,607 deaths, a full one-third fewer people than previously cited.

But even these new figures are actually fabricated and false. The CDC has always used a mathematical estimate based on an assumption that if a death certificate had “respiratory or circulatory disease” listed as a cause of death, then it should be counted as a “flu-related” death! The Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons has been highly critical of the CDC’s methodology.

Read more at Alliance for Natural Health.

Read Full Post »

The audacity of the swine flu vaccine manufacturers almost defies belief.

A year ago, with the help of government bureaucrats paid to advance their commercial interests, vaccine manufacturers whipped much of the developed world into a frenzy over a threat that was supposedly going to claim millions of lives around the world. Manufacturing of the vaccine was fast-tracked, an exemption was made to formerly required testing and safety standards, retailers launched a marketing blitz, and people clamored to be injected with a drug known to contain carcinogens and sometimes cause neurological problems.

By early 2010, the panic had subsided and the manufacturers couldn’t give their unused H1N1 vaccine doses away. Investigations were being launched in Europe and elsewhere around the world. Conflicts of interest were being made public. There was talk of incinerating millions of unused doses.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control reported that fewer than 12,000 people in the U.S. had died of the swine flu, compared with 36,000 who die each year, on average, of the seasonal flu. The Great Swine Flu Pandemic of 2009, it turned out, was the Great Pandemic That Wasn’t.

So was that the end of it? Ah, to think so would be to underestimate the tenacity of the pharmacological-industrial complex. They’re coming back, this time telling us we must take a concoction that contains both the regular seasonal vaccine and the H1N1 vaccine. Apparently they don’t need to incinerate those unused doses after all—especially not as long as the public, with its short memory, is willing to queue up and roll up their sleeves.

Well, here at Government Against the People, we don’t believe in watching the truth flushed down the memory hole. That’s why we’re offering this brief summary of events that document what a huge scam the swine flu pandemic truly was.

The spell is broken

By December of last year, people in high places were beginning to ask questions. Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg, chairman of the health committee of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council  of Europe, introduced a motion “on the influence of the pharmaceutical companies on the global swine flu campaign, focusing especially on the extent of the pharmaceutical industry’s influence on WHO,”  reported Global Research.

The common folk were also asking questions—and raising alarms. A Web site called Canadians for Health Freedom invited Canadians to report their own H1N1 vaccine horror stories. By the end of the summer of 2010, there were about 450 entries.

January was an eventful month in the unraveling of the swine flu hoax. Bloomberg reported that “Governments from the U.S. to Germany are curbing purchases of vaccine to fight the new H1N1 virus after cases declined and the first flu pandemic in 41 years appeared milder than initially feared.” India’s health secretary, K. Sujatha Rao, was among government officials demanding answers from the World Health Organization after it had become obvious that the swine flu pandemic was much milder than the fearmongers had warned.

A columnist for the Huffington Post, meanwhile, posted an article mocking the pandemic that “didn’t fly.” He reported, among other things, that “the Council of Europe launched an investigation into whether the World Health Organization ‘faked’ the swine flu pandemic to boost profits for vaccine manufacturers.” The columnist apparently thought the silly swine flu “pandemic” had been quietly put to rest. Obviously he underestimated the brazenness of the pharmaceutical companies and government bureaucracies—not to mention the gullibility of the public.

Britain’s Daily Mail, also in January, reported that critics at the first of several Council of Europe hearings into the handling of the swine flu pandemic were saying that “drug companies manipulated the World Health Organisation into downgrading its definition of a pandemic so they could cash in on a swine flu outbreak.”

“The great swine flu hoax of 2009 is now falling apart at the seams as one country after another unloads hundreds of millions of doses of unused swine flu vaccines,” reported Natural News. “No informed person wants the injection anymore, and the entire fear-based campaign to promote the vaccines has now been exposed as outright quackery and propaganda.” Natural News, like most news organizations reporting on the swine flu scam, couldn’t conceive at the time that the pharmaceutical companies and health bureaucrats would be back again, promoting the useless and harmful vaccine all over again.

Raking it in

Vaccine manufacturers, meanwhile, were quite open about the profits they were making. According to the Douglass Report, pharmaceutical companies were “boasting to their investors about how much money they’re going to rake in from vaccines in the next few years.” One of them, Sanofi-Aventis, the parent company of the world’s largest vaccine maker, Sanofi Pasteur, was “telling its investors that it plans to double its vaccine business by 2013,” the Douglass Report noted. “In 2010 alone, they’re hoping to sell nearly $5.76 billion in needless needles.”

Speaking of Sanofi-Aventis, the New York Times reported last February that the vaccine maker’s profits for the fourth quarter of 2009 had exceeded analysts’ expectations, thanks mainly to the swine flu vaccine. “Sales of the swine flu vaccine, which in October led Sanofi to raise profit projections, accounted for nearly $500 million of the quarter’s revenue and $638 million for the year,” reported the newspaper of record.

By February, realizing that the jig was up, retailers had become desperate to unload unwanted flu vaccine doses. Walgreens went so far as to slap vaccine stickers on random merchandise in some of their stores, as shown here. (Curiously, the sticker says “H1N1 available here,” as if it’s the virus itself people might want to buy!)

By now, criticism and outright mockery of the swine flu scam had gone mainstream. According to an opinion piece in AOL News in April, the World Health Agency’s “swine flu czar,” Keiji Fukuda, “fessed up” to “agency wrongdoing.” The same article reported that Wolfgang Wodarg, an epidemiologist with the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, accused the WHO of creating a “false pandemic” that was “one of the greatest medicine scandals of the century.”

More recently, Yahoo New Zealand reported in August that one-third of the experts who had advised the World Health Organization on the Swine Flu scam—sorry, pandemic—were on the payroll of big pharmaceutical companies.

What lessons can we draw from these events? Mainly, that the unholy alliance of pharmaceutical companies and government health ministries will stop at nothing to advance their promotion of unneeded yet harmful drugs.

If the people fall for the hoax this season, we will have learned once again that the public has a tragically short memory and will fall for anything—a development that will surely embolden those who seek to profit from the subjugation and control of the masses to behave even more audaciously in the future.

Read Full Post »

Well, no duh. Of course they were being bribed. There never was a swine flu pandemic, and even the WHO now admits that. It was always about selling vaccines. Or, more accurately, it was about getting government agencies to coerce people into taking them.

GENEVA — Five of the 15 experts that advised the World Health Organisation about swine flu pandemic alerts had received support from the drugs industry, including for flu vaccine research, the WHO revealed on Wednesday.

The agency released for the first time a list of the 15 members of the Emergency Committee headed by Australian tropical diseases professor John Mackenzie, who was the only member publicly named during the outbreak.

They came from Africa, Asia, Europe, Latin and North America, the list posted on the WHO’s website showed.

Most were scientific researchers and epidemiologists, along with a Senegalese diplomat, public health officials from Thailand and Chile as well as two specialists on international air travel and health. The list can be seen at http://www.who.int/ihr/emerg_comm_members_2009/en/index.html.

Critics had raised concerns about potential conflicts of interest that might have helped the drugs industry influence decisions on huge orders for special vaccines against A(H1N1) flu.

Read more at AFP.

Read Full Post »

The Rockefeller Foundation released a report in May that lays out four possible future global scenarios and technologies likely to profit from each. The Foundation presents the report as part of its ongoing effort to “promote the well-being” of humanity, but it makes no secret of the commercial and investment opportunities the future presents as well.

“Scenarios for the Future of Technology and International Development” poses this question:

“How might technology affect barriers to building resilience and equitable growth in the developing world over the next 15 to 20 years? In other words, what new or existing technologies could be leveraged to improve the capacity of individuals, communities, and systems to respond to major changes, or what technologies could improve the lives of vulnerable populations around the world?”

The first of the four scenarios outlined in the report is titled “Lock Step.” It describes “a world of tighter top-down government control and more authoritarian leadership, with limited innovation and growing citizen pushback.” In other words, a global fascist state in which an increasingly resistant people must be suppressed. At the end of the scenario, the Foundation describes the technologies that would come to the fore in such a world. What isn’t stated in the report but is plain to anyone reading it is that these technologies would present tremendous investment opportunities. Here is the “Lock Step” scenario:

In 2012, the pandemic that the world had been anticipating for years finally hit. Unlike 2009’s H1N1, this new influenza strain — originating from wild geese — was extremely virulent and deadly. Even the most pandemic-prepared nations were quickly overwhelmed when the virus streaked around the world, infecting nearly 20 percent of the global population and killing 8 million in just seven months, the majority of them healthy young adults. The pandemic also had a deadly effect on economies: international mobility of both people and goods screeched to a halt, debilitating industries like tourism and breaking global supply chains. Even locally, normally bustling shops and office buildings sat empty for months, devoid of both employees and customers.

The pandemic blanketed the planet — though disproportionate numbers died in Africa, Southeast Asia, and Central America, where the virus spread like wildfire in the absence of official containment protocols. But even in developed countries, containment was a challenge. The United States’s initial policy of “strongly discouraging” citizens from flying proved deadly in its leniency, accelerating the spread of the virus not just within the U.S. but across borders.

However, a few countries did fare better — China in particular. The Chinese government’s quick imposition and enforcement of mandatory quarantine for all citizens, as well as its instant and near-hermetic sealing off of all borders, saved millions of lives, stopping the spread of the virus far earlier than in other countries and enabling a swifter post-pandemic recovery.

China’s government was not the only one that took extreme measures to protect its citizens from risk and exposure. During the pandemic, national leaders around the world flexed their authority and imposed airtight rules and restrictions, from the mandatory wearing of face masks to body-temperature checks at the entries to communal spaces like train stations and supermarkets. Even after the pandemic faded, this more authoritarian control and oversight of citizens and their activities stuck and even intensified. In order to protect themselves from the spread of increasingly global problems — from pandemics and transnational terrorism to environmental crises and rising poverty — leaders around the world took a firmer grip on power.

At first, the notion of a more controlled world gained wide acceptance and approval. Citizens willingly gave up some of their sovereignty — and their privacy — to more paternalistic states in exchange for greater safety and stability. Citizens were more tolerant, and even eager, for top-down direction and oversight, and national leaders had more latitude to impose order in the ways they saw fit. In developed countries, this heightened oversight took many forms: biometric IDs for all citizens, for example, and tighter regulation of key industries whose stability was deemed vital to national interests. In many developed countries, enforced cooperation with a suite of new regulations and agreements slowly but steadily restored both order and, importantly, economic growth.

Across the developing world, however, the story was different — and much more variable. Top-down authority took different forms in different countries, hinging largely on the capacity, caliber, and intentions of their leaders. In countries with strong and thoughtful leaders, citizens’ overall economic status and quality of life increased. In India, for example, air quality drastically improved after 2016, when the government outlawed high-emitting vehicles. In Ghana, the introduction of ambitious government programs to improve basic infrastructure and ensure the availability of clean water for all her people led to a sharp decline in water-borne diseases. But more authoritarian leadership worked less well — and in some cases tragically — in countries run by irresponsible elites who used their increased power to pursue their own interests at the expense of their citizens.

There were other downsides, as the rise of virulent nationalism created new hazards: spectators at the 2018 World Cup, for example, wore bulletproof vests that sported a patch of their national flag. Strong technology regulations stifled innovation, kept costs high, and curbed adoption. In the developing world, access to “approved” technologies increased but beyond that remained limited: the locus of technology innovation was largely in the developed world, leaving many developing countries on the receiving end of technologies that others consider “best” for them. Somegovernments found this patronizing and refused to distribute computers and other technologies that they scoffed at as “second hand.” Meanwhile, developing countries with more resources and better capacity began to innovate internally to fill these gaps on their own.

Meanwhile, in the developed world, the presence of so many top-down rules and norms greatly inhibited entrepreneurial activity. Scientists and innovators were often told by governments what research lines to pursue and were guided mostly toward projects that would make money (e.g., market-driven product development) or were “sure bets” (e.g., fundamental research), leaving more risky or innovative research areas largely untapped. Well-off countries and monopolistic companies with big research and development budgets still made significant advances, but the IP behind their breakthroughs remained locked behind strict national or corporate protection. Russia and India imposed stringent domestic standards for supervising and certifying encryption-related products and their suppliers — a category that in reality meant all IT innovations. The U.S. and EU struck back with retaliatory national standards, throwing a wrench in the development and diffusion of technology globally.

Especially in the developing world, acting in one’s national self-interest often meant seeking practical alliances that fit with those interests — whether it was gaining access to needed resources or banding together in order to achieve economic growth. In South America and Africa, regional and sub-regional alliances became more structured. Kenya doubled its trade with southern and eastern Africa, as new partnerships grew within the continent. China’s investment in Africa expanded as the bargain of new jobs and infrastructure in exchange for access to key minerals or food exports proved agreeable to many governments. Cross-border ties proliferated in the form of official security aid. While the deployment of foreign security teams was welcomed in some of the most dire failed states, one-size-fits-all solutions yielded few positive results.

By 2025, people seemed to be growing weary of so much top-down control and letting leaders and authorities make choices for them. Wherever national interests clashed with individual interests, there was conflict. Sporadic pushback became increasingly organized and coordinated, as disaffected youth and people who had seen their status and opportunities slip away — largely in developing countries — incited civil unrest. In 2026, protestors in Nigeria brought down the government, fed up with the entrenched cronyism and corruption. Even those who liked the greater stability and predictability of this world began to grow uncomfortable and constrained by so many tight rules and by the strictness of national boundaries. The feeling lingered that sooner or later, something would inevitably upset the neat order that the world’s governments had worked so hard to establish.

These are the broad technological trends that would likely accompany such a scenario—trends that would offer opportunities for investment and profit:

• Scanners using advanced functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) technology become the norm at airports and other public areas to detect abnormal behavior that may indicate “antisocial intent.”

• In the aftermath of pandemic scares, smarter packaging for food and beverages is applied first by big companies and producers in a business-to-business environment, and then adopted for individual products and consumers.

• New diagnostics are developed to detect communicable diseases. The application of health screening also changes; screening becomes a prerequisite for release from a hospital or prison, successfully slowing the spread of many diseases.

• Tele-presence technologies respond to the demand for less expensive, lower-bandwidth, sophisticated communications systems for populations whose travel is restricted.

• Driven by protectionism and national security concerns, nations create their own independent, regionally defined IT networks, mimicking China’s firewalls. Governments have varying degrees of success in policing internet traffic, but these efforts nevertheless fracture the “World Wide” Web.

The astute reader will observe that each of these trends is already coming into play.

The entire report may be read at The Rockefeller Foundation.

Read Full Post »

Today’s drug market redefines the phrase “drug pushing.” The pharmaceutical companies “push” research with funding and “push” their products on medical journals and medical associations and physicians, and the physicians ultimately “push” the drugs on their patients.

Many of these psychiatric disorders are contrived for the purpose of selling drugs, but think of the implications of some of them. “Disruptive behavior disorder” means getting out of line and challenging authority. Kids are being trained, some from toddlerhood, that resistance to authority is a mental illness.

The United States has become the psychiatric drugging capital of the world for kids with children being medicated at a younger and younger age. Medicaid records in some states show infants less than a year old on drugs for mental disorders.

The use of powerful antipsychotics with privately insured children, aged 2 through 5 in the US, doubled between 1999 and 2007, according to a study of data on more than one million children with private health insurance in the January, 2010, “Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry.”

The number of children in this age group diagnosed with bipolar disorder also doubled over the last decade, Reuters reported.

Of antipsychotic-treated children in the 2007 study sample, the most common diagnoses were pervasive developmental disorder or mental retardation (28.2%), ADHD (23.7%), and disruptive behavior disorder (12.9%).

Read more at AlterNet.

Read Full Post »

What do you call it when governments terrorize the people in order to profit pharmaceutical companies? Marketing!

(April 19) — Having spread H1N1 swine flu hysteria for nearly a year, the World Health Organization’s “swine flu czar,” Keiji Fukuda, last week finally “fessed up” to agency wrongdoing. But it’s like listening to Enron admitting to a tabulation error. “I think we did not convey the uncertainty” about the risks of the flu strain, he said.

Sorry, but this was no poor communications problem. Indeed, earlier this year Wolfgang Wodarg, an epidemiologist with the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, accused the WHO of creating a “false pandemic” that’s “one of the greatest medicine scandals of the century.”

At the least, by portraying as a raging razorback what proved to be more of a pathetic piglet, the WHO needlessly scared the public, wasted vast billions of dollars, destroyed the value of the term “flu pandemic” and perhaps left the organization’s reputation “tarnished” and “irreparably damaged,” as one authority put it.

A year ago, Fukuda was comparing swine flu’s potential with the Spanish flu, which killed an estimated 20 million to 50 million worldwide in 1918-19, with more than half a million here. (Extrapolating to today’s population, that would be 1.5 million.) Now, with the annual U.S. epidemic ending, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates we’ve had had perhaps 12,000 total deaths — a third of the usual number. (Almost all the infections this year were swine flu.) About 140 million doses of swine flu vaccine appeared headed for the trash heap. France and Japan say their epidemics have been far milder. Last July an Associated Press headline declared, “Britain Braces for 100,000 Swine Flu Cases a Day.” Actual deaths: 457.

Read more at AOL News.

Read Full Post »

Will people fall for the scam a second time? Probably.

Think you’ve seen a hard sell when it comes to swine flu vaccine?

Well, you ain’t seen nothing yet!

The vaccine makers are just getting warmed up — and now they’re coming right out and boasting to their investors about how much money they’re going to rake in from vaccines in the next few years.

Sanofi-Aventis is telling its investors that it plans to double its vaccine business by 2013. In 2010 alone, they’re hoping to sell nearly $5.76 billion in needless needles.

That’s not just significant. That’s a bombshell — because this company owns Sanofi Pasteur, the world’s largest vaccine maker. That should tell you everything you need to know about these drugs. The vaccine business is not a noble effort to end disease… but a relentless push to boost profits.

Read more at The Douglass Report.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »