Are prescription drugs destroying America? Why is the government protecting the legal drug dealers? Is anybody listening? Does anybody care?

.

America's Collective National Trip - Legal Prescription Drugs

Perhaps the fallout of the Germanwings A320 airplane crash in France caused by a depressed and psychotic co-pilot on prescription drugs should be a wake up call to America.  You are not safe in society now that 70% of Americans are on prescription drugs.

Over the years, I have closely followed the relationship between "isolated" cases of extreme violence and prescription drugs, and more often than not, the perpetrator of the crime was on some type of prescription drug, just like the pilot who killed 150 people.

From mass murders in schools to suicide airplane crashes, the world has gone crazy and we need to know the role prescription drugs are playing in this nightmare.

It was forty-five years ago when then Vice President Spiro Agnew declared that America was on a collective national trip because of the increasing abuse of prescription drugs along with the use of illegal drugs.

Jun 17, 1971

Nixon Begins War on Drugs

President Richard Nixon coins the phrase, "War on Drugs," promising in a major speech to defeat "public enemy number one in the United States.  If we cannot destroy the drug menace, then it will destroy us."

That was forty-four years ago that America launched a war on drugs, both illegal drugs, and the pre-occupation of Americans with legal prescription drugs.

Drug statistics, conveniently, it may seem, run about five years behind in reporting.

     

 

Prescription drug use

Percent of persons using at least one prescription drug in the past 30 days: 48.5% (2007-2010)

Percent of persons using three or more prescription drugs in the past 30 days: 21.7% (2007-2010)

Percent of persons using five or more prescription drugs in the past 30 days: 10.6% (2007-2010)

Source: Health, United States, 2013, table 92[PDF - 9.8 MB](http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/hus13.pdf#092)

Physician office visits

Number of drugs ordered or provided: 2.6 billion

Percent of visits involving drug therapy: 75.1%

Most frequently prescribed therapeutic classes:

Analgesics

Antihyperlipidemic agents

Antidepressants

Source: National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey: 2010 Summary Tables, tables 22, 23, 24[PDF - 382 KB](http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/ahcd/namcs_summary/2010_namcs_web_tables.pdf)

Hospital outpatient department visits

Number of drugs ordered or provided: 285.1 million

Percent of visits involving drug therapy: 74.4%

Most frequently prescribed therapeutic classes

Analgesics

Antidiabetic agents

Antihyperlipidemic agents

Source: National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey: 2010 Outpatient Department Summary Tables, tables 18, 19, 20[PDF - 330 KB](http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/ahcd/nhamcs_outpatient/2010_opd_web_tables.pdf)

Hospital emergency department visits

Number of drugs ordered or provided: 286.2 million

Percent of visits involving drug therapy: 80.3%

Most frequently prescribed therapeutic classes

analgesics

Antiemetic or antivertigo agents

Minerals and electrolytes

Source: National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey: 2011 Emergency Department Summary Tables. Tables 20, 21, 22[PDF - 1

The report -- titled "Health, United States 2013" -- found the percentage of Americans taking prescription drugs has increased dramatically.  During the most recent period, from 2007 to 2010, about 48% of people said they were taking prescription medication, compared with 39% in 1988 to 1994.

Prescription drug use increased with age. About one in four children took one or more prescription drugs in the past month, compared to nine in 10 adults 65 and older, according to the study.

"This is really not earth-shattering news. There's an increasing number of people with chronic illnesses, and the primary management tool available for dealing with chronic illness is medication," said William Lang, vice president of policy and advocacy for the American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy.

One in 10 Americans said he or she had taken five or more prescription drugs in the previous month. That raises concerns about potential drug interactions, said Anne Burns, senior vice president for professional affairs at the American Pharmacists Association.

"We know that the number of adverse drug events a patient is likely to experience increases as the number of medications they are taking increases," Burns said. "You've got everything from potential interactions between medications to timing issues taking a variety of medications throughout the day."

People who took five or more drugs in the past month tended to be older. Only 10.8 percent of people taking that many drugs were between 18 and 44, while 41.7 percent were between 45 and 64 and 47.5 percent were 65 and older.

Drugs to manage cholesterol, high blood pressure, heart disease and kidney disease are the most widely used medications among adults, the CDC report found.

In particular, the use of cholesterol-lowering drugs among people 18 to 64 has increased more than six-fold since 1988-1994, due in part to the increased use of statins.  Also, nearly 18 percent of adults 18 to 64 took at least one cardiovascular drug during the past month.

The CDC report noted some headway in efforts to combat the development of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Prescriptions of antibiotics for cold symptoms during routine medical visits declined 39 percent between 1995-1996 and 2009-2010.

But the report also found a tripling of overdose deaths due to prescription narcotics. Painkillers taken among people 15 and older caused 6.6 deaths for every 100,000 people in 2009-2010, compared with 1.9 deaths per 100,000 in 1999-2000.

There has been a fourfold increase in antidepressant use among adults, but Holmes said that's not necessarily a bad thing.

Seeking help for a mental health disorder isn't as stigmatized as it once was, she noted. In addition, companies have introduced more effective antidepressants, and researchers have found that antidepressants also can be used to treat panic and anxiety disorders.

"If antidepressants enable people to function fully in their social roles, that's a good thing," Holmes said.

All that said, prescription drug use has spiraled out of control since 2010 as health officials now say antibiotics, antidepressants, and opioids are used by seven out of ten people.  

Drug overdose death rates have never been higher. In the United States alone, 100 people die from drug overdoses every day, most of them caused by prescription drugs. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has officially declared prescription drug abuse in the US an epidemic.

Antibiotics -

Number one on the list of prescribed drugs, we continue to be subject to levels of antibiotics far in excess of our needs, and the shift of antibiotics to animal feed from human treatment assures our contamination for years to come, even if we stop taking antibiotics for a toothache, and for many other reasons.

It is also important to note that antibiotics are frequently used in settings where they will not provide any benefits. An example of this sort of inappropriate use of antibiotics is for viral infections, such as the common cold. In fact, there is a tendency for patients to believe that if they are ill with an "infection", an antibiotic is the solution. Well, it's not always.

As recently reported in the news, For The Love Of Pork: Antibiotic Use On Farms Skyrockets Worldwide.

   

The love of meat is exploding in Asia, and with it, comes antibiotic consumption by chickens (top) and pigs (bottom). Green represents low levels of drug used; yellow and orange are medium levels; and red and magenta are high levels.

Pig farmers around the world, on average, use nearly four times as much antibiotics as cattle ranchers do, per pound of meat. Poultry farmers fall somewhere between the two.

That's one of the conclusions of a study published Thursday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. It's the first look at the amount of antibiotics used on farms around the world — and how fast consumption is growing.

The numbers reported are eye-opening.  In 2010, the world used about 63,000 tons of antibiotics each year to raise cows, chickens and pigs, the study estimated. That's roughly twice as much as the antibiotics prescribed by doctors globally to fight infections in people.

"We have huge amounts of antibiotic use in the animal sector around the world, and it's set to take off in a major way in the next two decades," says the study's senior author, Ramanan Laxminarayan, who directs the Center for Disease Dynamics Economics & Policy in Washington, D.C.

In all cases, since we know the over-use of antibiotics increases drug resistance in cells in our bodies, which make us susceptible to many new mutant, drug-resistant bacteria and virus's such as staff infections and others.  It may also be a contribution factor to increases in well known diseases like cancer.

Antidepressants - Feel Good Medicine

Antidepressants Aren't Taken By The Depressed; Majority Of Users Have No Disorder

Depression’s increase in the U.S. has been persisting for years, and it’s going on decades. And while the increase in antidepressant use has followed a predictably similar path, not all cases can be explained by the parallel rise in disease. Many people, in fact, take antidepressants regardless of a diagnosis.

A new study published in The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry reports some 69 percent of people taking selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), the primary type of antidepressants, have never suffered from major depressive disorder (MDD). Perhaps worse, 38 percent have never in their lifetime met the criteria for MDD, obsessive compulsive disorder, panic disorder, social phobia, or generalized anxiety disorder, yet still take the pills that accompany them.

In a society that is increasingly self-medicating itself, capsules, tablets, and pills are turning from last resorts to easily obtained quick fixes. Between 1988 and 2008, antidepressant use increased nearly 400 percent. Today, 11 percent of the American population takes a regular antidepressant, which, by the latest study’s measure, may be a severe inflation of what’s actually necessary.

Opioids - Pain Killers

Although many types of prescription drugs are abused, prescription opioids take the lead. Chronic pain is frequently treated with prescription opioids, the clinical use of which nearly doubled from 2000 to 2010. This increase was accompanied by a rise in opioid abuse; it’s estimated that over two million people in the US currently abuse prescription opioids. Nearly 75% of prescription drug overdoses are caused by prescription opioid painkillers; these drugs are involved in more deaths than cocaine and heroin combined. In 2010, pharmaceutical drug overdoses were established as one of the leading causes of death in the US; drug overdoses were more lethal than firearms or motor vehicle accidents.

If you take any of the following you could be subject to drug abuse.

Opioids include:

Fentanyl (Duragesic®)

Hydrocodone (Vicodin®)

Oxycodone (OxyContin®)

Oxymorphone (Opana®)

Propoxyphene (Darvon®)

Hydromorphone (Dilaudid®)

Meperidine (Demerol®)

Diphenoxylate (Lomotil®)

Central nervous system depressants include:

Pentobarbital sodium (Nembutal®)

Diazepam (Valium®)

Alprazolam (Xanax®)

Stimulants include:

Dextroamphetamine (Dexedrine®)

Methylphenidate (Ritalin® and Concerta®)

Amphetamines (Adderall®)

The Most Popular Drug in America is an Antipsychotic—and No One Really Knows How it Works

The Raw Story – November 16, 2014

By Martha Rosenberg

Does anyone remember Thorazine? It was an antipsychotic given to mentally ill people, often in institutions, that was so sedating, it gave rise to the term “Thorazine shuffle.” Ads for Thorazine in medical journals, before drugs were advertised directly to patients, showed Aunt Hattie in a hospital gown, zoned out but causing no trouble to herself or anyone else. No wonder Thorazine and related drugs Haldol, Mellaril and Stelazine were called chemical straitjackets.

But Thorazine and similar drugs became close to obsolete in 1993 when a second generation of antipsychotics which included Risperdal, Zyprexa, Seroquel, Geodon and Abilify came online. Called “atypical” antipsychotics, the drugs seemed to have fewer side effects than their predecessors like dry mouth, constipation and the stigmatizing and permanent facial tics known as TD or tardive dyskinesia. (In actuality, they were similar.) More importantly, the drugs were obscenely expensive: 100 tablets of Seroquel cost as much as $2,000, Zyprexa, $1,680 and Abilify $1,644.

One drug that is a close cousin of Thorazine, Abilify, is currently the top-selling of all prescription drugs in the U.S. marketed as a supplement to antidepressant drugs, reports the Daily Beast. Not only is it amazing that an antipsychotic is outselling all other drugs, no one even knows how it works to relieve depression, writes Jay Michaelson. The standardized United States Product Insert says Abilify’s method of action is “unknown” but it likely “balances” brain’s neurotransmitters. But critics say antipsychotics don’t treat anything at all, but zone people out and produce oblivion. They also say there is a concerning rise in the prescription of antipsychotics for routine complaints like insomnia.

They are right. With new names and prices and despite their unknown methods of action, Pharma marketers have devised ways to market drugs like Abilify to the whole population, not just people with severe mental illness. Only one percent of the population, after all, has schizophrenia and only 2.5 percent has bipolar disorder. Thanks to these marketing ploys, Risperdal was the seventh best-selling drug in the world until it went off patent and Abilify currently rules.

More manipulations

Just as Big Pharma has camped out in Medicare and Medicaid, living on our tax dollars while fleeing to England to avoid taxes, Pharma has also camped out in the Department of Defense and Veterans Affairs.

Arguably, no drugs have been as good for Big Pharma as atypical antipsychotics within the military. In 2009, the Pentagon spent $8.6 million on Seroquel and VA spent $125.4 million—almost $30 million more than is spent on a F/A-18 Hornet.

Risperdal was even bigger in the military. Over a period of nine years, VA spent $717 million on its generic, risperidone, to treat PTSD in troops in Afghanistan and Iraq. Yet not only was risperidone not approved for PTSD, it didn’t even work. A 2011 study in the Journal of the American Medical Association found the drug worked no better than placebo and the money was totally wasted.

.

Why Pharmaceutical Companies are Protected from Liability - Why Obama and Congress Refuse to Fix the Law - Why You Stand Alone

.

Have you ever heard the phrase "stand alone"?  Well when it comes to the multi-billion dollar pharmaceutical field, everyone in America is standing alone, abandoned by your representatives in Congress and the Administration of President Obama.

If you should happen to have serious injury from taking FDA approved drugs, or even death, the Obama Administration, Congress, the Supreme Court, and the FDA, are your enemy.  They ignore the need to fix liability on behalf of the consumers, and have built a shield of protection around the billions of dollars taken from consumers by industry giants.

In case there is any confusion, pharmaceutical company revenues reached about $750 billion in 2014, and will exceed $1 trillion in just five years according to the FiercePharma web site.  Here are some revenue and lobbying charts showing the extent of political influence in politics in America.  Note how over the years both parties receive about the same amount of money.

Here is a good description of how the pharmaceutical companies got this multi-billion dollar shield of protection by the US government.  Obama and Congress can fix this regulatory quirk at any time but are they rushing to help the consumer by holding drug companies liable, of course not, and that means Democrats and Republicans alike.

Filing Dangerous Drug Lawsuits for Harmful Side Effects

by Judge Anthony P. Calisi (ret.)

If you've suffered a serious illness or injury from taking a dangerous drug, whether prescription or over-the-counter, you may be wondering what legal rights you have. Who do you file a drug lawsuit against? Common questions include:

• Can I sue the pharmaceutical company who made the drug?
• How about the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for approving it?
• Is my doctor liable for prescribing the drug?
• Does the pharmacy share any responsibility?

Let's discuss the options...

U.S. Food and Drug Administration

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is "responsible for protecting the public health by regulating human and animal drugs, biologics (e.g. vaccines and cellular and gene therapies), medical devices, food and animal feed, cosmetics, and products that emit radiation."

Most people think the FDA approves all drugs on the market today, but that's not true. Some drugs are not subject to FDA approval (ex. "compounded" drugs), and others are only reviewed after they're put on the market. Read more about the FDA approval process here.

Since the FDA was created, thousands of dangerous drugs have entered the market and caused harmful side effects, including serious illnesses and wrongful deaths. While the FDA has become better at finding potentially dangerous drugs, many have slipped through their fingers and made it to market.

You might think that if the FDA approved a dangerous drug which caused you harm, you'd be able to sue the FDA for their negligence. Unfortunately, the FDA is a government agency, therefore it has sovereign immunity. Sovereign immunity is a legal privilege stating government agencies can't be sued (unless they allow it, which rarely occurs).

Pharmaceutical Drug Companies

Before 2013, drug companies could be sued if their drug caused serious adverse side effects, injury, illness, or death. They paid out hundreds of millions of dollars in drug lawsuit settlements and jury verdicts.

In 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court made a historical decision. In the case of Karen Bartlett vs. U.S. Merck and Co. and Mutual Pharmaceutical Company, the Supreme Court ruled that once the FDA approves a drug, individuals are prohibited from suing the drug's manufacturer, even if it's proven that the drug caused harm!

In the Bartlett case, the plaintiff took the drug Sulindac, which allegedly caused her to suffer gangrene in her right arm as a result of "toxic epidermal necrolysis." The Supreme Court ruled that, because the FDA approved the drug Sulindac, the manufacturer has immunity from private and class action lawsuits.

Basically, the ruling stated drug manufacturers have a right to rely on the FDA approval system, and once a drug is FDA approved, pharmaceutical companies can't be sued. Otherwise, the court said, why does the FDA exist at all?

What this means to you is, if you've suffered a serious side effect or illness from an FDA approved medication, you are barred from filing a lawsuit against the manufacturer. (Supreme Court rulings are rarely overturned, but in the future it may happen.)

Doctors and Pharmacists

While you may not be able to file a lawsuit against the FDA or a drug manufacturer, you can sue your doctor or pharmacy if they prescribed a dangerous drug which caused you harm.

Physician Liability
There's a difference between drug lawsuits and medical malpractice lawsuits. A lawsuit based on illness or injury caused by a doctor's negligence in prescribing medication, falls under the category of medical malpractice.

By law, doctors are held to a very high standard of care in the medical community. When a doctor deviates from the medical standard, and as result a patient is injured, the doctor is considered negligent, and therefore liable for any resulting injuries.

When a patient can prove a doctor's negligence was the direct cause of his injuries, the patient may be entitled to compensation for his or her damages. In extreme cases of negligence, an injured or deceased patient's family may be entitled to punitive damages.

Pharmacy Liability
Pharmacists have a legal duty of care when prescribing medications. They receive extensive training in pharmacology and must be familiar with every drug they dispense. This includes knowing about potentially harmful interactions between drugs when taken together.

It's up to the pharmacist and doctor to work together to make sure a prescribed drug will not injure the patient. In today's day and age however, communication between a doctor and pharmacist is often limited. The one who suffers most is the patient.

As a patient and customer, you have a right to rely on the expertise of your doctor, and the pharmacist who filled your prescription. When they fail to protect you from harm and you suffer injuries, you have a right to seek compensation.

Example: Doctor and Pharmacist Negligence
Vic was previously diagnosed with celiac disease, which means his body can't metabolize gluten. When gluten is introduced to someone with celiac disease, they can suffer nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and even life-threatening intestinal damage.

Vic went to see Dr. Neglushent complaining of weakness and lethargy. Vic was very careful and lived a gluten-free lifestyle, and the doctor knew Vic suffered from celiac disease.

Dr. Neglushent prescribed the drug Palagluden. Vic asked Dr. Neglushent if Palagluden contained gluten, and was told it did not. When Vic went to pick up his prescription, he asked the pharmacist if Palagluden contained gluten, and was told no. There was also no indication on the pill bottle that the drug contained gluten.

After taking Palagluden for 3 months, Vic collapsed and was hospitalized due to a ruptured large intestine. It turned out the drug Palagluden in fact did contain large amounts of gluten, used as a binding agent.

Vic successfully sued Dr. Neglushent for medical malpractice and the pharmacy for negligence. In the lawsuit, the pharmacy blamed the doctor, and the doctor blamed the pharmacy. The court said both defendants knew, or should have known the drug Palagluden contained gluten, and ruled in Vic's favor.

The Role of Attorneys

Any kind of drug lawsuit requires professional legal representation. Doctors and pharmacies rarely admit to fault, and are often defended by large insurance companies with deep pockets. Only an experienced personal injury attorney has the skills to handle a case like this. An attorney can take depositions, subpoena records, hire expert witnesses, and more.

If you've suffered a serious side effect or illness due to a drug, seek the counsel of an attorney in your area as soon as possible. Save the pill bottle, your receipts, and your medical records (to verify the treatment you required as a result of the drug). Bring all your evidence with you when meeting with attorneys.

Case Study:

Dangerous Medication Interaction
Here we look at a case where the victim suffered harmful side effects from taking two drugs together. Although a doctor prescribed the medications, liability falls on the manufacturer because of inadequate warnings.

Media On Right And Left Ignore The Truth About Vaccines

Cliff Kincaid, February 5, 2015

They bash each other over vaccines, but ignore what's really at stake.

NBC accuses Republicans of accepting bad “science” on vaccines, while Fox News fires back, accusing liberals of spreading bad “science” on vaccines. Each side is trying to score partisan political points. The message from both sides is that vaccines are completely safe. But that message is absolutely and demonstrably false.

As I noted in a recent column, the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program exists to compensate victims of vaccines. The latest Statistics Report shows nearly 4,000 claims were awarded financial damages.

Why do both sides of this “debate” pretend that vaccine-related injuries do not occur? Why not just report the facts? It doesn’t take a lot of work to dig them out.

Barbara Loe Fisher of the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) tells me that she has given more than 100 interviews in the last two weeks on the subject of the measles outbreak, but that the media simply will NOT report on the existence of this federal program and the implications for the subject of vaccine safety.

“Vaccines are the only pharmaceutical products that government mandates and completely indemnifies,” she notes. She is referring to federal legislation that takes legal responsibility for their actions away from the companies making the vaccines.

“I’ve been talking about it in every interview I do and I have been bringing it up. But whenever I talk about liability protection for the companies—that this is the only pharmaceutical product that is mandated by government and indemnified by government—they [the media] don’t want to talk about it,” she said.

Observers believe the glaring omission reflects the power of pharmaceutical companies or their advertising agencies in the major media. It is in the interest of these companies to make pariahs out of those favoring vaccine choice by playing down—or even suppressing—questions about vaccine safety.

Simply put, the evidence and history show that the vaccine makers have been given total liability protection for injuries and deaths caused by government-mandated vaccines. Vaccine safety is not “settled science,” as we have been hearing repeatedly in the media. To the contrary, for purposes of the law, vaccines are considered sometimes unsafe, even deadly.

The “Vaccine injury table” associated with the legislation includes a list of the injuries, disabilities, illnesses, conditions, and deaths resulting from the administration of such vaccines.
But why is it so difficult for the media to report on the existence of these health problems?

The vaccines that are covered include:

• diptheria and tetanus vaccines
• pertussis vaccines
• measles, mumps, and rubella vaccines
• polio vaccines
• hepatitis A vaccines
• hepatitis B vaccines
• Haemophilus influenza type b polysaccharide conjugate vaccines
• varicella vaccines
• rotavirus vaccines
• pneumococcal conjugate vaccines
• seasonal influenza vaccines
• human papillomavirus vaccines
• meningococcal vaccines

As I reported in my column, the one exception to this drumbeat of misleading and inaccurate coverage about “vaccine safety” is on the local level, where correspondent Michael Chen of ABC 10 News in San Diego, Calif., noted a case of a boy who suffered serious injuries, including fever, seizures, nervous tics, and autism, as a result of two vaccines. The mother, almost in tears as she described what happened to her son, was paid $55,000 in damages through the federal program. But the damage award didn’t cover the autism diagnosis. She said she wished she had more thoroughly researched the safety of vaccines.

The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program grew out of the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act. Fisher explains what happened: “The companies threatened Congress that they were going to leave the people without any childhood vaccines if they did not get liability protection. The companies wanted this liability protection and it was mainly for losses at that time for DPT and oral polio vaccine. MMR (Measles, Mumps, and Rubella) vaccine at that point was a relatively new combination vaccine.”

The DPT vaccine had been associated with brain inflammation and brain damage, while polio paralysis can be caused by the vaccine.

Fisher explains what the federal protection means for the companies: “Nobody who makes or profits from the sale of the vaccine, nobody who regulates the vaccine, who promotes the vaccine, who votes to mandate the vaccine—nobody is accountable or liable in a civil court of law in front of a jury of our peers when we get hurt because we’ve been told we have to take it, or when the vaccine fails to work.”

The compensation program, with total liability protection for injuries and deaths caused by government-mandated vaccines, was upheld by the Supreme Court in a 2011 case in which vaccines were acknowledged to be “unavoidably unsafe.”

My column actually underestimated the total financial damages paid through the program. The figure is actually $2.8 billion to the victims or the families of victims themselves.

Liberal and conservative media are trying to make political points over who’s right and wrong about vaccine safety. But Fisher says people who support her group and vaccine choice come from across the political spectrum and include Democrats, Republicans, libertarians, and independents. In the media, however, each side is trying to smear the other side, as if there is a partisan divide.

The coverage has led to cases of strange bedfellows, such as the George Soros-funded blog Think Progress running a story praising Megyn Kelly of Fox News under the headline, “Megyn Kelly Speaks Up For Mandatory Vaccination On Fox: ‘Some Things Do Require Big Brother.’”
Indeed, Kelly defended mandatory vaccines, saying, “…some things do require some involvement of Big Brother.”

What she and many others in the media have consistently ignored is the role of Big Brother in shielding the companies making the vaccines from the side effects of their products.

As I asked in my column: If there are no problems associated with vaccines, then why did Congress pass the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, which created a national Vaccine Injury Compensation Program?

The media on the left and right have no answer to this question. So they pretend there is no debate or dispute over the safety of vaccines. They simply point fingers about one side or the other being guilty of ignoring what they pretend is settled science.

The only thing “settled” about the science is that while vaccines work for a large majority of people, they can also cause serious health problems, even death, for some.

The commentators who ignore the truth are either lying or so utterly ignorant that they should not be in a position of offering “news” on a national basis. Whatever the case, the public is being denied the facts about decisions affecting the lives of their children. Fortunately, the public can go to sites like www.aim.org and the National Vaccine Information Center for information that is being denied to them.

A troubling aspect of the current debate is how people in the media act like experts on subjects that they know so little about. They seem to think that by huffing and puffing and sounding authoritative, they will be taken seriously. They have large staffs which seem incapable of making phone calls or doing elementary research.

If news organizations on the left and right can’t even dig out the facts in life-and-death matters involving children, then what can they be trusted to report accurately on?

Read more at http://www.westernjournalism.com/media-right-left-ignore-truth-vaccines/#DORlMDtShYacYZMs.99

. 

Wake Up America - Our Government has been Hijacked!

.

 

The Enemy Within - The Two Party System

My premise is simple.  No where in our Constitution or Declaration of Independence does it say the Democrat or Republican party control America.  No where is the Democrat or Republican party even mentioned in those sacred documents.

 

 

I don't care what party you support, there is nothing that says only the members of the Democrat or Republican parties can decide our future, yet here we stand on the brink of fiscal collapse and only the Democrats or Republicans are part of the process to solve our problems.

 

Neither party can solve the problem, they are the problem.  The American system of individual freedom and democracy has been hijacked by the two party system and the special interests that control every single element of both parties from the radical left to the radical right.

 

 

Pure and simple, MONEY is the dominant force in politics and the obsession with money by both parties has caused this temporary breakdown in the American system.  Whose to blame?

 

 

Our Executive branch is controlled by the Democrats with Obama in the White House as their flag bearer.  Our Legislative branch is split with the House of Representatives controlled by the Republicans and Senate controlled by Democrats.

 

Now where I come from that gives the Obama Democrats control of two thirds of our government process, the White House and Senate, and the Republicans one third.

 

 

If you listen to the news media you are told the Republicans are holding the government hostage.  But the media never mentions that the two party system is the culprit.

 

How could they, the bottom line profit of all America's cherished fourth estate comes from the political campaign expenses from the Democrat and Republican candidates, political parties, political action committees and private donors.

 

 

Media companies are totally dependent on advertising purchases from the candidates and the supporters of the candidates for survival and reporters are equally dependent on them for their paychecks so they better kiss the butt of the party they favor the most.

 

The largest corrupting influence in politics, business, health care, housing, defense contracting, government policy and government regulation is the God Almighty dollar and the way it is used to control people and manipulate systems.

 

 

Obamacare was never about reducing health care costs, healing people, or even making it more comfortable to die.  That would not make financial sense to the "Shadow" force behind the government.

 

It was always about maintaining the health care system we have and expanding it to all those without health insurance.  So what is the health care we have and want to expand to everyone?

 

 

Let's see...

 

Basic health care means a Chris Craft and Mercedes for every doctor and dentist.  It means a limo and house in the Hamptons for investors and brokers in health care.  It means a yacht and European villa for every pharmaceutical executive.

 

Well the truth is we don't have a health care system, we have an addiction for a cash cow called health care whether we need it or not and whether it heals us or not.

 

 

As long as there is an open spigot with billions of dollars flowing to our politicians through our two party system there will never be a free America.  Ban all political contributions and strip the two party system of control of our government and America can get back to the business of being the shining light of democracy, individual freedom and equality the world so sorely needs.

.

CBS Anchor Katie Couric Manipulates Murkowski to Maul Sarah Palin

.

Katie Couric, CBS News anchor and self appointed leader of the Sarah Palin attack pack, has renewed her three year long mission to rid the world of the threat of Sarah Palin as president. Her latest attempt to poison the public perception of Palin was on her news show last night.

She had the current Senator, Lisa Murkowski, write in leader in the Alaska Senate race, as a guest. It did not take Katie long to turn the attention of Murkowski to fellow Alaskan Palin and her qualifications to be president. Since Palin backed the Tea Party candidate who upset Murkowski in the primary, there was no love lost between them.

Couric urged Murkowski to unload on Palin and she did, saying some pretty critical statements as if she and Palin had known each other quite well for a long time. Which of course they did, at least know each other.

First, Senator Murkowski told the Associated Press on Friday that she wouldn’t watch former Governor Sarah Palin’s reality-television show about the state of Alaska.

Then Monday night, she added that she also doesn’t think Ms. Palin would make a good president.

“I just do not think that she has those leadership qualities, that intellectual curiosity that allows for building good and great policies,” she told Katie Couric on CBS News. “You know, she was my governor for two years. And I don’t think that she enjoyed governing.”

In the CBS interview, Ms. Murkowski said “we really don’t have much of a relationship.” She added that Ms. Palin “is not really that keyed into the state anymore. She is looking, obviously at a bigger pond.”

The Alaska senator added that she prefers a candidate who "goes to bed at night and wakes up in the morning thinking about how we're going to deal with" important issues.

Couric: "What's up with your relationship with Sarah Palin? Can you explain it?"

Murkowski: I'm still her senator. I'm going work hard to represent her, too. We don't really have much of a relationship."

Couric: "You have said you would not support Sarah Palin for president because she is not worldly enough."

Murkowski: "I just do not think that she has those leadership qualities, that intellectual curiosity that allows for building good and great policies. You know, she was my governor for two years. And I don't think that she enjoyed governing."

No matter what Palin does, Murkowski says 2012 is still a long way off and she's certain of one name that won't be on the ballot.

But didn't Katie forget to mention that Lisa Murkowski holds the Senate seat given to her in 2002 by her own father when he became governor amid cries of nepotism from the public? And didn't her father, Governor Frank Murkowski, purchase a $2.7 million jet airplane for the exclusive use of the governor, himself, in 2005? Wasn't it the same jet he took on a $13,000 Asian trip after he lost the primary election just before he had to leave office?

It was that jet and other allegations of corruption that convinced a young mayor from Wasilla, Alaska, a certain Sarah Palin, to challenge the mighty Governor Murkowski in the 2006 Republican primary where he finished dead last to Palin and one other challenger. After Murkowski spent 22 years in the Senate and 4 years as governor, Sarah Palin had brought his career in public service to a crashing end.

With Palin governor the state prosecuted Frank's former chief of staff convicting him of felony fraud in arranging corporate bribes for Murkowski's re-election campaign. Is it any surprise Sarah Palin opposed the daughter of the Governor she beat and endorsed a Tea Party candidate who won the primary/? Then again, Katie forgot to mention that there was a lot of bad blood between Murkowski and Palin ever since Palin drove her dad out of office.

Why would CBS bother with the facts or let us know the background behind the hostility Murkowski exhibited when asked about Sarah Palin by Katie Couric? It should be the truth and the public who decide if Sarah Palin is to serve us in any capacity, not Couric and the left leaning media.

For three years people like her have presented a one sided view of Palin, seeking out any rumor or fiction and putting it under the media spotlight in hopes it might make her look bad to the public. The Lisa Murkowski interview is just the latest example of CBS reporting along with such stellar masterpieces in investigative journalism like exclusive bombshell revelations about the Palins from none other than Levi Johnston, resident Alaska goof ball.

Let the people decide if Sarah Palin is qualified to be president with their votes, it is the American way. Just like it is Sarah Palins right to run for president should she so choose in our system of democracy. The media should stick to reporting the news, and stop trying to manufacture the news. That is the American way as well.
.

New Jersey Stuck in Political Quagmire - Payoffs Abound for Democrats Menendez & Staff

.


Just when we thought our politicians were starting to get the message that payoffs and campaign bribery have no business in our government we learn that Robert Menendez, Senator from New Jersey, was in the midst of securing $8 million in federal special earmark money to pay for corporate work that had already been promised from developers.



In fact, the multi-million dollar luxury condo complex on the New Jersey - New York waterfront required the private financed park as a condition of approval back in 2003, a fact that Menendez says he did not know. What kind of staff work was involved that led him to get $8 million in federal money for a luxury development when hundreds of teachers are being laid off in New Jersey and jobs could have been saved with the same money?

Maybe the problem with Washington politicians can be best seen by this fact. Menendez and former Senator Frank Lautenberg received over $100,000 in campaign contributions from the owners and employees of the privately owned complex. A former member of the Menendez staff received over $200,000 as a lobbyist for the project.



Menendez is quit to point the finger and lay the blame on Wall Street or BP for the problems we face as and he wants to be the leader in fighting to save jobs for the teachers yet he quietly, behind the scenes, is steering $8 million to huge developers and $200,000 to former staff members to pay for a park in one of the most luxurious condo complexes on the Hudson waterfront.

Liberals and Democrats including the powerful teachers union should be outraged at the hypocritical action by their advocate and the people of New Jersey should be disgusted by the continued efforts of the political machine in Washington to steer limited funds to special interests. Wake up New Jersey, you have been sold out again!



Apparently cleaning out the Governor's mansion with the election of Governor Chris Christie was just the first step in cleaning out the horrible mess in the Democrats stranglehold on the state and their disregard for the needs of the people of New Jersey. Using grey areas of the law to benefit huge corporations was supposed to be a thing of the past. Maybe Menendez should become a thing of the past as well to make sure people are heard.



The following is a report on the funding scandal that appeared in the Washington Times online.

By Jim McElhatton

HOBOKEN, N.J. | With a rooftop pool and 24-hour concierge service, the new luxury condominiums off Frank Sinatra Drive here seem an unlikely spot in need of a multimillion-dollar federal giveaway.

Yet U.S. taxpayers doled out at least $8 million on a public walkway and park space in front of the Maxwell Place development here overlooking the New York City skyline - an amenity the development touts alongside its entertainment lounge, rooftop hot tub and theater screening room.

But the decision to use tax dollars to fund the walkway project was made after private developers had already agreed in 2003 to pay for it - indeed, it was a key condition for getting the project off the ground, according to public records and interviews.



Still, under the so-called earmarking process, by which Capitol Hill lawmakers slip requests for pet projects into larger spending bills, Sens. Frank R. Lautenberg and Robert Menendez, New Jersey Democrats, later pushed for millions of dollars in federal funding for the project.

In the swamp of federal earmark funding, $8 million isn't a lot. But critics say the project is emblematic of why the earmark process so enrages many taxpayers.

Mr. Lautenberg and Mr. Menendez combined have received approximately $100,000 in campaign donations from executives of past and current developers of the Hoboken project and their employees over the years, federal election records show.

What's more, the developers' lobbyist, whose firm reaped more than $200,000 in lobbying fees, was a longtime senior aide to Mr. Menendez, who was a member of the House when the lawmakers secured funding for the project in 2005.

Neither Mr. Menendez nor Mr. Lautenberg said the donations influenced their decisions. They also said they were unaware that the developer had already agreed to spend millions of its own dollars to complete the walkway.

The public walkway and park were dedicated by city officials last year, and developers, on top of the money from the federal government, separately paid out millions of dollars for the project. But questions persist. Watchdog groups, while noting there was nothing illegal about earmarking federal funds for the project, question the push for taxpayer money if developers already were obligated to foot the bill.

"If it already was going to be done by the private sector, why would we swoop in and pick up the majority of the costs?" said Steve Ellis, vice president of Taxpayers for Common Sense. "That same $8 million could have been used on other worthwhile projects."

.