Are We All Being Poisoned For Profit?

When I was in school back in the early 60's there was a lot of furor over the new "food" that would save the world's growing population from starvation - soybeans! And this was the first of many attempts to poison the population, all for huge profits. Allow me to point out a few things that are not common knowledge, but certainly should be. Bear in mind as you read through the following that RoundUp weed killer (glyphosate) is strongly linked to cancer.

1) Corn, a staple world-wide, is now one of  the foods that is actually designed - yes, designed - to poison us. As the population grows (and as more and more corn is required for ethanol), scientists sought ways to increase productivity. And they did this by creating a genetically modfied (GMO) corn. But the modification was not for OUR benefit, but for the profits of the food industry. The corn was genetically modified to be resistant to RoundUp, a glyphosate herbicide, which allows farmers to spray RoundUp directly on corn fields to kill weeds but not harm the corn. And the corn that is harvested has 18 times the amount of glyphosate that is deemed "safe" (relatively speaking) by the FDA. The ONLY corn or corn products that are safe for human consumption are those of which were grown organically with heirloom (non-GMO) seed. But virtually none of the seed available in stores is heirloom varieties. The good news - heirloom seeds can be found online.

2) Soybeans, which are actually toxic in their natural state and must be heavily processed with chemicals before it is considered "safe" is yet another "food" product that is treated with RoundUp. And if you study labels, you will find that almost every canned, bottled or boxed food has some type of soy as an ingredient - even baby formula.

Buy soy is even worse that just being a poisoned product - it is naturally laced with a large amount of estrogen. Yep, the hormone necessary for women. And since it is in almost all foods - and even in infant formula - is it any wonder that so many of our boys are growing up to be more effeminate, and in many cases becoming girls. It is not a stretch to think that the prevalence of soy in our diet is directly responsible for the massive increase in those proclaiming to be gay, lesbian and/or transgender.

3) Oats - almost all oat products are now toxic, as they are treated with massive amounts of RoundUp, but for a different reason - by spraying oats with RoundUp, it speeds up the dying process so more oats can be harvested sooner.

4) HFCS - High Fructose Corn Syrup. This is a real threat not only because it is a derivative of corn, but because it is sugar on steroids! Because it is so much cheaper than sugar, the food industry now uses it in almost everything. Check labels! Bear in mind, sugar is bad for health. But "super sugar" is far worse. My personal experience drew my attention to this - in 2005 I took the family on a 6-week road trip. It was summer, and I drank a lot of soda. Throughout the trip I was plagued by large, painful sores inside my mouth - gums, cheeks, tongue. It got so bad I could not eat. We made an emergency stop at a Phoenix clinic where I was told they were likely caused by way too much sugar, and probably HFCS. They asked if I drank a lot of soda...I stopped drinking the soda and the sores healed rapidly. Word to the wise - don't wait to OD on HFCS before you eliminate it from your diet. It will kill you, silently.

Understand one thing - food producers and manufacturers are poisoning our food intentionally, for the express purpose of making more money. It's all about the Benjamins, and your health is the target of their greed. And the foods we eat are responsible for nearly 80% of all health issues that drive up the cost of health care. In other words, we are getting screwed twice.
Well, actually three times...

For over 100 years there has been an ongoing and ever-increasing medical conspiracy, started by an extremely wealthy individual and carried on by his family and associates. Before getting into documented facts, however, perhaps we should first determine if a problem even exists.

In today's world, nearly everyone is on some kind of drug or medication. And nearly everyone has been vaccinated against a variety of diseases. As the costs of medical care - and insurance - indicates, we are very dependent upon doctors, hospitals and medications. Now you might say, "Of course - our health is important to us." And that is the point. Because our health is THE most important thing to us, it is the one thing on which we would spend every dime we have, if necessary. And it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that it is the one way to control the people and take their money. The key, of course, is to make sure that a) you scare the public into wanting and needing everything the medical establishment has to offer, then b) make it available only through establishments you control, and c) keep increasing the costs as the people become more and more dependent. After all, once addicted, a drug addict will pay anything for his next fix.

I realize that this may sound paranoid, and seems to fit into the area of "extremist, alarmist conspiracy theorist". But as you will soon see, this is not theory - it is documented fact.

Now, before you start thinking that this is just so much bunk, understand an important point - up until this medical conspiracy started in 1910, the average American rarely was ill, was in good health, and seldom required a doctor or hospital. Yes, there were some dangerous maladies around. But the vast majority of people were healthy and unaffected. Not true today. Bear in mind that, like every other living organism, the natural and normal state is one of good health. The human body normally and quite naturally strives to stay in good health, by creating antibodies, producing white blood cells etc. This is precisely why a wound heals - the body is restoring itself to health. The medical community, on the other hand, actively seeks to prevent that from happening.

In fact, it is entirely within the realm of reason to expect that drug companies might actually create and distribute drugs that, while alleviating one condition, might create an even more dire condition. You have seen the ads on TV for drugs that help alleviate rheumatism, and the possible side effects they list are even more dangerous than the disease being treated. Ask yourself - what will be the long-term effects of taking Lamisil to do away with that brown color under your toenails?

Perhaps you are too young to remember, but I remember back in the '50's when the medical community was prescribing a new wonder drug to pregnant women, thalidomide. It was later discovered - after tens of thousands of innocent babies were born terribly deformed - that the drug was not safe. If you look, you will discover many hundreds of like cases, where the medical community acted in ways that actually did much more harm than good. Simply put, it was more profitable to market the drug than to find out if it was really of true benefit.

OK, so you still are not convinced - so here are the documented historical facts:

In the 1930's Morris A. Bealle, a former city editor of the old Washington Times and Herald, while investigation the subversion of freedom of the press discovered an even worse conspiracy - how the drug companies were profiting by pushing their toxic drugs, and keeping any "alternative medicine" from which they could not profit, out of the press. His best selling book "The Drug Story" (33 printings in spite of being banned by the press, most of which were controlled by the Rockefellers and their ilk) documents  the Rockefeller Drug cartel and its 68 subsidiaries, had profits in 1961 of $23,463,719 after taxes, on net assets of $43,108,106, which is a whopping 54% profit. And Squibb, a stunning 576%!

This conspiracy began with the Flexner Report of 1910...

Abraham Flexner was employed by John D. Rockefeller, owner of Standard Oil of New Jersey, to scour the country and to evaluate the effectiveness of therapies taught in medical schools and other health related institutions. [NOTE: virtually all drugs are derived from oil.] It was Rockefeller's intention to control petroleum, petrochemicals, and pharmaceuticals (which are derived from 'coal tars' or crude oil). He purchased a controlling interest in I. G. Farben, a huge German drug operation. He brought in big players like Andrew Carnegie and JP Morgan as partners (these same people started the Federal Reserve in 1913).

Flexner submitted his report "Medical Education in the United States and Canada" to the Carnegie Foundation. The report stated in part that "the privileges of the medical school should no longer be open to 'casual strollers from the highway' (i.e. not everyone should be allowed in). It is necessary to install a doorkeeper who will, by critical scrutiny, ascertain the fitness of the applicant".

Needless to say, Congress - encouraged by the wealthiest and most influential people in the world (and whose families were all members of the Federal Reserve Board) followed the recommendations of these conspirators. It was decided that the American Medical Association (AMA), would be the "doorkeeper" which Flexner had determined would be necessary. The AMA was now empowered to certify or de-certify any medical school in the country on the grounds of whether that school met the AMA's standards of "approved" medicine. And therein lies more of the problem - the AMA consists of doctors and other professionals in the medical community, which serves the interests of its members. Hence, when Congress decided that the AMA should be responsible for watching over the medical community, it was not unlike engaging the fox to guard the hen house. This might explain why the number of medical schools dropped from 106 in 1906 to just 69 by 1944. When the wealthiest Americans cut off funding from a school, it goes belly up.

Not surprisingly, Flexner's report declared that any remedies or therapies that did not use drugs to help cure the patient was nothing less than quackery. Medical schools that offered courses in alternative health, were told to either drop these courses from their curriculum or lose their accreditation and underwriting support (Harvard Medical School has received $8,764,433 of Rockefeller's Drug Trust money, Yale got $7,927,800, Johns Hopkins $10,418,531, Washington University in St. Louis $2,842,132, New York's Columbia University $5,424,371, Cornell University $1,709,072, etc.). A few schools balked, but eventually most cooperated. Those that failed to cooperate were closed down. A controlled monopoly was begun - in the name of profit, not health.

So, in a nutshell, the food industry intentionally makes us sick, and their cohorts in the drug cartels rob us blind with the drugs they push that are designed to undo the damage done by the food industry, and which, themselves, are toxic (all drugs work because they ARE toxic).

Ask yourself - how many of the people in your own circle are on a steady diet of prescription drugs? In 1910, almost no one required drugs long term. Today, more than half the population is on one or more. Remember - the natural, normal state of living creatures is good health. Poor health is supposed to be the exception, and was the exception for a million years until these last 100 years.

/

Why Health Care Is So Expensive - and How To Fix It

There are several reasons why health care in America is so expensive, and they may not be what you expected...

1) INSURANCE. Insurance always increases the cost of things, because medical providers can charge more to insurance companies. Since the insured does not have to pay much of the bill, he has no cause to complain. This is precisely why medical providers charge much less to those without insurance. If they can charge less to one person, they can charge less to all.Also, insurers are classic "middle men", who must be paid for the services they provide.

Solution: the caps that Medicare and Medicaid put on medical services should be across the board, regardless of insurance. Doctors would not lose money as long as the following solutions are also included in the health plan.

2) EXCESSIVE TESTING. Doctors order many more tests than are necessary in order to protect themselves from expensive malpractice suits. All those unnecessary tests get expensive. Which brings us to...

3) MALPRACTICE LAWSUITS. Believe it or not there are people who sue just to try and wrangle money out of doctors and hospitals. In many cases the medical providers simply settle out of court - it's cheaper. And when they don't, awards can be in the millions, so malpractice insurance is very expensive - a cost that providers must pass on to their patients.

Solution: Put reasonable caps on awards. And only proven gross negligence should be allowable as "cause". Medicine is not cut-and-dried science. That's why they call it the PRACTICE of medicine. Nothing is guaranteed, and doctors - just like you and me - can make honest mistakes.

4) REFERRALS. The medical community thrives on the "patient revolving door".  No matter what you see the doc for, chances are he will try to automatically set you up with a "follow up" visit - costing you more money. In most cases it is not necessary. In some cases any "follow up" could be done by phone without cost,  but that would not put extra cash in the docs pocket.

And then there is the "referral merry-go-round". You may know that you need to see a "gut" specialist - a gastroenterologist. But you can't just make an appointment with one, because your personal care physician can't tap your wallet that way. Nope. You gotta go see him, first, and pay for that office call just to have HIM set up an appointment for you with the gut guy - who mat, in turn refer you to some other doctor.

 Solution: Patients should be able to make appointments directly, without a PCP go-between, if they already know who they need to see. EXAMPLE: I had a gastro guy in Maine. I have UC. I moved to VA and knew I need to have a new gastro guy. But to get one, I first had to get a PCP give me a refedrral. I KNEW what I needed - there was no need to have a PCP tell me what I already knew, and charge me $220 to do so.

5) PRESCRIPTION DRUGS. These are a license to steal, especially when they keep changing the use of the drug. Drug manufacturers have 7 years to profit as much as possible from their drug before the patent lapses and others can make cheaper generic versions. It's called the "exclusivity period". Designed to help them profit after investing so much into it. But they often profit TOO much. If they can find another use for the drug when the 7 years is up, they can keep their monopoly on it for another 7, and so on.

Solution: First, exclusivity periods should not be permitted more than once per new drug. And if generics can be made so much more cheaply, then so can the original product IF the research and development costs were offset. This can be accomplished by having the government subsidize the R&D, reducing the cost to the drug maker. And by subsidizing, those costs are divided among all taxpayers, and not just the sick. If taxpayers can foot the bill for treadmills for shrimp, or tunnels for turtles, I think the health of the people should be getting first dibs on that money. Subsidize R & D, and remove that cost from the product.

6) UNHEALTHY LIFESTYLES. This is the BIG one. If people were to choose healthier lifestyles, there would be far less need of health care to repair the damage. From the foods we choose to consume, to the amount of exercise we participate in, and to other choices such as smoking, alcoholism and drug addiction, poor lifestyle choices are responsible for more than 80% of all health issues.

Solution: Poor lifestyle choices should be taxed - those whose poor choices drive up the cost of health care should be responsible for those extra costs. Increased taxes on products such as tobacco and alcohol should be put into a fund specifically designed to subsidize health care, or to help offset the cost of any exercise equipment,  athletic gear, or gym membership to encourage exercise. Unhealthy foods and drinks should be taxed and the money collected used specifically to reduce the cost of healthier, natural choices which are currently too expensive for many, which contributes to unhealthy choices. In this way, those responsible for higher health care costs would be paying for it, keeping costs down.

The actual health CARE, and not health INSURANCE is what the government should be subsidizing.

So why don't those in the Democrat leadership want to make these simple changes to improve health care and reduce its cost? Because that is not what they want - they want government to CONTROL health care. They understand that if they control your health care, they control YOU.

/