Opinion from a Libertarian ViewPoint

Posts Tagged ‘FDA’

The Vaccine Cover-up and the Massive Corruption at the Top: This Is a Pharmaceutical Driven Agenda – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on January 16, 2020

It is no longer a secret that the added components to vaccines called adjuvants, including aluminum and mercury in many cases, both very toxic, are an extreme health risk. But the vaccine industry would stall and die without the use of adjudants. According to Dr. Martin Howell Friede, Coordinator, Initiative for Vaccine Research, W.H.O.:

The WHO is a tool of the one world government UN. When they admit something they do is bad…it is BAD.

While you are waiting for your doctor take a look at his bulletin board where the childhood vaccine schedule is listed. If that doesn’t scare you, you are brain dead. That list is courtesy of completely unconstitutional mandates from the CDC and the rest of the alphabet organizations listed below.

When we End the Fed we should end the rest of the alphabet overseers.


The World Health Organization, (W.H.O.) always suspect, held a global vaccine summit in early December 2019, and some very damning video was leaked and released to the public, and of course, that particular video footage, as observed by Mike Adams here most likely will be banned and removed from YouTube. Why would YouTube remove actual live declarations at a world meeting, unless a cover-up is present? Why would comments from the top members of the W.H.O. at a world conference supposedly about the safety of vaccination be suppressed, unless that factual evidence would harm those who profit from this corrupt vaccine agenda? Why would the media hide this information, unless they had something to gain? The forces at work here are not concerned with safety, but with total vaccine saturation, regardless of the risk.

The hidden part of that meeting concerned many questioning the actual safety of vaccines, or admissions that safety concerns were not only evident, but also widespread. Opening this link at Brighton will allow access to that live video footage.

The long-term use of vaccines, use that has increased to previously unheard of levels, especially in infants and young children, has turned the world population into a vaccine dependent state, which means that more and more vaccines will have to be forthcoming in order to battle every malady of the human condition. With mass vaccination at these levels, the natural human resistance and immunity to disease will fail. Is this a purposely-planned outcome? Is this being done incrementally so as to once again fool the public into total submission of sought after fabricated remedies that vastly increase the wealth and power of those involved in this scheme, while harming the general population?

There are revelations here that are staggering to say the least. They expose many of the lies presented by the W.H.O., the American Medical Association, the very complicit mainstream media and all its shills, and of course the government at most every level, especially the always complicit federal bureaucracies. Some of those include the (CDC) Center for Disease Control, the (FDA) Federal Drug Administration, the (ACCV), Advisory Commission on Childhood Vaccines, the (ACIP) Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, the (NIH) National Institutes of Health, and the (VICP) National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, among many others. The lying is system wide, and should be obvious to any paying attention…

Every time that there is an association, be it temporal or not temporal, the first accusation is it is the adjuvant. And yet, without adjuvants, we are not going to have the next generation of vaccines.  And many of the vaccines that we do have, ranging from tetanus through to HPV require adjuvants in order for them to work.  So the challenge that we have in front of us is:  How do we build confidence in this? And the confidence first of all comes from the regulatory agencies (I look to Marion). When we add an adjuvant it’s because it is essential.  We do not add adjuvants to vaccines because we want to do so.  But when we add them, it adds to the complexity. I give courses every year on “How do you develop vaccines?” “How do you make vaccines?” And the first lesson is, while you’re making your vaccine, if you can avoid using an adjuvant, please do so.  Lesson two is, if you’re going to use an adjuvant, use one that has a history of safety. And lesson three is, if you’re not going to do that, think very carefully.”

He went on to say: “As we add adjuvants, especially some of the more recent adjuvants, such as the ASO1, saponin-derived adjuvants , we do see increased local reactogenicity… The major health concern which we are seeing are accusations of long term, long term effects. (Keep in mind that “reactogencity” means common, and “expected” adverse reactions, especially excessive immunological responses and associated signs and symptoms.)

After this revelation that was filmed and made available, it should be obvious that those championing vaccination are very aware of the high risk associated with these adjuvants, but their main challenge and goal according to Dr. Friede and others at the W.H.O. is not to find a better way, but to “build confidence” by using the government regulatory agencies. This is telling, and brings no assurance that this body is concerned with safety at all, but seems to indicate that mass vaccination at any human cost is desired. This is a normal result when continuing to reap billions and billions of dollars for the pharmaceutical industry is the true goal…

The bottom line is that no thinking and caring parent should allow these toxic vaccinations without very concentrated scrutiny, and if safety satisfaction is not forthcoming, then more questions are necessary. These people need to be held to the fire, as the agenda of mass vaccination is based on profits for the pharmaceutical industry, and an agenda of mass control of the world population by the governing bodies. This is an atrocity, and the health and welfare of all of us, especially innocent infants and children, deserve much more protection than any agenda driven bureaucracies can or will ever offer. The truth is coming out continually about vaccine deceit. Will anyone listen?

Be seeing you

Opting out of the vacciNATION | The Unconventional Parent






Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Buyer Beware: GMO Stevia Is Everywhere

Posted by M. C. on December 7, 2019

Maybe these lies and health risks would not be so prevalent if the FDA were not a non-elected body that made laws (regulations) in obvious violation of that dead letter Constitution.

For the sheeple out there the Constitution says only congress can make laws.

Yes, Yes I know…but the state of congress is another post.

Analysis by Dr. Joseph Mercola

Story at-a-glance

  • Stevia (Stevia rebaudiana), a perennial shrub native to South America, has a long history of use as a natural sweetener. Steviol glycosides, including rebaudiosides A, D and M are what provide the sweet taste, with Reb A being the sweetest
  • Despite hundreds of years of safe use of stevia, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has labeled stevia leaf and crude stevia extracts “unsafe food additives,” granting GRAS status to certain high-purity steviol glycosides only
  • Genetically engineered (GE) versions of stevia have also received the green light for widespread and unregulated use in food
  • Cargill’s EverSweet contains Reb D and Reb M made from GE yeast fermentation, yet is marketed as “nonartificial”
  • If you want a stevia-based sweetener that is actually made from the plant, opposed to GE yeast, you have to make sure it’s certified organic or has been non-GMO verified

Stevia (Stevia rebaudiana), a perennial shrub native to South America, has a long history of use as a natural sweetener for food, medicines and beverages.1 Whole stevia contains a number of substances, including various stevioside compounds, rebaudiosides and glycoside.

Steviol glycosides, including rebaudioside A, rebaudioside D and rebaudioside M (Reb A, Reb D, Reb M respectively), are what provide the sweet taste, with Reb A being the sweetest.2 In its isolated, purified form, Reb A is 250 to 400 times sweeter than sugar.

Despite hundreds of years of safe use of stevia, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has labeled stevia leaf and crude stevia extracts “unsafe food additives,”3 granting GRAS (generally recognized as safe) status to certain high-purity steviol glycosides only.4

In 2007, Hain Celestial Group Inc., maker of Celestial Seasonings herbal teas, received a warning letter from the FDA saying the stevia used in some of their teas may be dangerous to blood sugar and reproductive, cardiovascular and renal systems.5

If this FDA action strikes you as backward, you’re not alone. More often than not, consuming whole plant products will be safer due to synergistic effects than using a single active ingredient by itself. Many suspect the FDA is protecting the sugar and artificial sweetener industries.

As noted by Rob McCaleb, president and founder of the Herb Research Foundation, “Sweetness is big money. Nobody wants to see something cheap and easy to grow on the market competing with the things they worked so hard to get approved.”6

Beware of Cargill’s Genetically Engineered ‘Stevia’

To this day, FDA considers whole stevia unsafe, while genetically engineered (GE) versions of stevia have received the green light for widespread and unregulated use in food. The FDA issued a GRAS No Objection letter for Cargill’s GE stevia product EverSweet in 2016.7

Even more ridiculous, Cargill’s GE stevia is being marketed as “nonartificial.” As reported by the nonprofit watchdog group U.S. Right to Know (USRTK) November 20, 2019:8

“The international food conglomerate Cargill is ramping up commercial-scale production of its genetically engineered sweetener, EverSweet, in a new $50 million production facility that began operating this week in Blair, Nebraska …

Cargill is marketing its new stevia substitute as ‘non-artificial.’ What does that mean? Consumers who click on the link provided in the press release will not get a straight answer.

The web page twists itself into knots trying to describe the new process, which involves genetically engineering yeast to convert sugar molecules into a substance that mimics the taste of stevia, as a ‘centuries old technique’ — without once mentioning genetic engineering or the genetic modified organisms (GMOS) used to make the product.”

In short, Cargill’s “nonartificial stevia” isn’t even derived from actual stevia. It’s a GE-derived synthetic biology product designed to mimic components of the real thing.9 While “inspired” by real stevia, EverSweet’s Reb M and Reb D components are made through GE yeast fermentation. Can it get any more artificial than that? As reported by Star Tribune:10

Be seeing you




Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | 1 Comment »

Doug Casey on the Crisis “Medicare for All” Will Cause

Posted by M. C. on December 6, 2019

by Doug Casey

…The system revolves around the FDA. In theory, it should protect the consumer, but in fact it does the opposite. The FDA should be renamed the Federal Death Authority, because it kills more people every year than the Defense Department does in a typical decade.

Why do I say that? For one thing, it takes 10 years for a new drug to be approved, and it averages not just $1 billion dollars, but now more than $2 billion for the typical drug to be approved—and only very few are ever approved. That’s because there’s only a minimal risk to the FDA in not approving them but a huge risk that they’ll be embarrassed if something goes wrong with one that is approved.

Second, the whole system is very bureaucratized. When you go to a doctor’s office, you’ll notice that probably half the staff is not engaged in delivering medical services. They’re shuffling papers: insurance forms, regulatory forms, and various cover-your-ass records.

Third, the medical system is law driven more than science driven. Doctors have to be very careful about what they say and do; the society has become very litigious. One of the major expenses of being a doctor is malpractice insurance. Particularly for some specialties.

There are thousands of lawyers in the US who specialize in suing doctors for real or imagined mistakes. For that reason, some specialists pay hundreds of thousands of dollars per year for their malpractice insurance.

Because of the dangers of being sued, doctors are practically forced to engage in defensive medicine. They prescribe all kinds of tests that don’t make sense, but they figure that it’s better to be safe than sorry—not for the patient’s sake but for the sake of a potential lawsuit.

All of this started with Franklin Delano Roosevelt. During World War II, he installed wage and price controls, and it was impossible for companies to give raises to workers. So they substituted benefits for cash, namely employer-paid medical insurance. One of the many disastrous distortions FDR cranked into the US economy.

On the bright side, despite these things, medical care has gotten much better because of advances in science and technology. The cost of medical care should have and would have been dropping—like the cost of computers—if not for State intervention. But that’s beside the point we’re discussing…

It’s a subtle corruption of the language to call “medical insurance” “health insurance.” It doesn’t insure your health. All it does is cover medical expenses. But they like to use the term “health care” because it sounds friendly and loving. “We’ll care for your health.” That sounds great! Sign me up! “Medical,” however, implies surgery, dangerous drugs, hospitals, and pain.

It’s a euphemism, and like all euphemisms, it’s dishonest. Health care or health insurance should always be called “medical insurance,” because it will at best cover your medical expenses. Calling it “health care” and saying it’s “free” is just dishonest marketing…

Doug Casey: To start with, the 34% of Americans who are “insured” through a government plan aren’t actually insured. They’re not paying market-based premiums based on actuarial tables—considering age, preexisting conditions, and the like—intended to spread the risk of serious sickness or injury.

Medicare and Medicaid are actually welfare programs. They have nothing to do with insurance. Using that term gives them and those who use them undeserved respect.

Medicaid is one hundred percent welfare, and Medicare is mostly a welfare program. They shouldn’t be termed “insurance.”

The important point is that they shouldn’t exist. Why should the State cover a person’s medical costs? If it should, maybe it should also cover their food, shelter, and clothing—oh, wait, I forgot, it does. And even the cost of their cellphones. But cars are also important. When someone’s car stops working, shouldn’t that be covered as well?

How about their dog? How about farm animals?

Is somebody else’s bad health a mortgage on my life?

Bad things happen. That’s why you buy insurance. If you can’t afford insurance, that means you managed your life badly. It’s not up to strangers to kiss it all and make it better for you.

Most diseases and many injuries are a result of people not taking care of themselves. They overeat, don’t exercise, use alcohol and drugs, and engage in bad lifestyles. Those are moral failures. I don’t want to pay for those people’s moral failures. Neither should you.

International Man: Over 59 million Americans are on Medicare. Bernie Sanders and other presidential candidates have made “Medicare for all” one of their biggest campaign promises.

What type of care can Americans expect to receive in a single-player system, with national coverage for all?

Doug Casey: It would mean disastrous and degenerating care.

They like to bring up Canada and Britain as examples—and they’re very good examples.

The medical systems of both countries are in crisis. If you need an operation, it can be delayed for many months, sometimes more than a year. Forget about something that’s noncritical. The reason is simple: When you have scarce commodities like a doctor’s time and medical equipment, they have to be rationed.

There are three ways you can ration a commodity. By dollars, time, or political connections. In other words, you can pay for it and get it when you want it. Or you can wait in line—for who knows for how long. Or if you’re a VIP with friends in high places, you’re moved to the front of the line.

In places like Canada and Britain, you hardly have a choice. The single payer determines if you get treated, when you get treated, and how you get treated.

Furthermore, if something is “free,” which care from a single payer supposedly is—although it’s paid for by taxes—everybody wants as much as they can get. And as with any free good, people won’t economize.

Certain people are going to live at the doctor’s office. It’s going to turn some people into hypochondriacs. The idea of Medicare for all—or for that matter, Medicare for oldsters—is stupid and uneconomic from every point of view. More important, it’s morally depraved, because it uses the State to force some people—namely doctors and productive people—to pay for those who were too imprudent to provide for their own care.

As a fringe benefit, it will destroy the medical system. Doctors will wind up as veritable government employees. That will discourage them from spending six years and hundreds of thousands to learn their trade. There will be a lot more demand but a much smaller supply of doctors. At the same time, the amount of capital available for developing new drugs, new technology, and basic research will collapse. Why? All governments today are running gigantic deficits. This is likely to get much worse. They’ll put off the important in favor of the urgent, and the results are inevitable…

Just the other day I got an email from someone in Aspen who’s a member of a luncheon group I attend. Most of the guys are typical Aspen rich guys. One member, who’s in temporary (I presume) financial straits, wrote that his dog has a type of operable cancer. But it’s an expensive operation, and he can’t afford to pay for it.

He’s asked the guys at the luncheon group and his other friends to contribute to the cost of the surgery.

I have zero doubt he’ll raise the money. I don’t believe in charity, for reasons I’ve spelled out in the past. But I sent him a hundred dollars.

I wouldn’t, however, send anything to someone in the Third World with a problem (not to mention the fact it’s probably a scam run by some Nigerians). There are roughly 7.5 billion people on this planet. They all have problems and would all like $100.

But I sent him $100 for his dog. Why?

The fact that I did might generate further good feelings between us. (He seems like a decent guy, although I don’t know him well.) If I had just sent it into the ether for the medical care of some person in Africa, as opposed to this man’s dog, I know I’d be getting nothing back for it. In fact, maybe the African is a member of Boko Haram and would want to kill me just on general principles. This is one of many reasons giving money to “charity” is usually a mistake. Giving to an individual, even as a test of their character, is much wiser

Frankly, sometimes you value the life of a dog more than the life of some poor person outside of your circle. And sometimes you should. If it were my dog, there’d be no question about it.

That’s what this whole thing about insurance, Medicare, and a single-payer system is all about. It’s up to individuals—not State bureaucrats, not “the system”—to decide who lives and who dies. Including you yourself.

Be seeing you


Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

The FDA Wants to Control Your Stem Cells | Mises Wire

Posted by M. C. on November 14, 2019

Current Food and Drug Administration (FDA) guidance, however, essentially classifies our stem cells as “drugs,” thus preventing us from freely using them as we wish.

The FDA magically turned our cells into “drugs” in 2006 by changing one word in 21 CFR 1271, the regulatory framework that governs stem cells.

A free person owns their body.

There’s an escalating government assault on our stem cells and we should all be very concerned about it.

Most people probably associate stem cells with religious debates over embryos and fetuses. However, we all have stem cells inside of us that many contend can be extracted, processed and re-administered as as medical service. These are called autologous or “personal” stem cells. Current Food and Drug Administration (FDA) guidance, however, essentially classifies our stem cells as “drugs,” thus preventing us from freely using them as we wish.

The FDA magically turned our cells into “drugs” in 2006 by changing one word in 21 CFR 1271, the regulatory framework that governs stem cells. It was an act that occurred without public commentary and conferred an authority upon the FDA that Congress never intended it to have. In the Journal of Translational Medicine, Michael Freeman and Mitchell Fuerst referred to the word change as a “semantic sleight of hand.” In their 2012 paper, those same authors warned us that the FDA wasn’t done expanding its regulatory authority over our stem cells. Given recent FDA actions like its restrictive 2017 SCT guidance, the issuance of warning letters to clinics using autologous SCT and the litigation against SCT clinics, Freeman and Fuerst’s words ring eerily prophetic.

Indeed, at the urging of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, as well as others in the private sector, the FDA has recently increased its enforcement actions against clinics offering SCT. With the assistance of certain corporate media outlets, a distinct cadre of vocal SCT regulationists have methodically deployed disinformation campaigns, unsubstantiated invective and pejorative terms such as “rogue,” “unproven,” “wild west,” “unregulated” “illegitimate,” “dangerous” and “snake oil” in an effort transform to the term “stem cell clinic” into a scary slur.

The SCT regulationist assault comes principally from the FDA, whose regulations and guidance unduly restrict access to personal SCT and hurt more people than they purport to protect. In fact, the actual reported cases of harm from SCT are remarkably few, while many patients express satisfaction with treatment. Likewise, academic publications like Stem Cell Reports have joined the regulationist phalanx, publishing a pseudo-scientific study suggesting that online platforms such as YouTube should summarily suppress or eliminate content containing positive testimonials about SCT. Google has recently joined the authoritarian online censorship campaign against SCT. Similarly, the Canadian Medical Association Journal published a SCT fearmongering case report with unsubstantiated generalizations about the “dangers” of SCT. Bioethicists and scientists also play active roles in the regulationist cadre, arguing for SCT crowdfunding censorship by GoFundMe and baselessly asserting how unscrupulous, bad-actor stem cell clinicians use deceptive marketing practices to exploit desperate patients.

Even a recent Pew Charitable Trust report endorsed an increased FDA crackdown on autologous SCT, which is hypocritical given that its recommendations were clearly biased against SCT clinics and informed in part by a former Johnson & Johnson employee. That’s the same Johnson & Johnson that is currently embroiled in a maelstrom of controversy over its toxic, cancer-causing “baby” powder and that just reached a $20.4 million settlement in an opioid epidemic liability lawsuit.

The SCT regulationist campaign is effectively propelled by a paternalistic government-media-industry- academic quadplex that issues policy decrees with an insularity and condescension that regards patients as chattel, or a veritable medical untermensch. This results in a non-consensual usurpation of our own health autonomy, an infantilization of a crippled sub-stratum of Americans who are excluded from any serious discussion of SCT regulatory policy, and who are presumably too stupid to make their own medical decisions. This power asymmetry within the SCT policymaking dynamic is incongruent with the fundamental precepts of justice, inclusion and egalitarianism that undergird our American democracy.

And appurtenant to our democracy are certain fundamental civil rights, one of which is the right to privacy. Arguably, there is some legally cognizable privacy interest in cells that are extracted from us with the intention of being infused back into us. Our right to privacy is premised upon the idea of personal autonomy and extends to the right to bodily integrity. In Union Pacific Railway Co. v Botsford (1891) the U.S. Supreme Court opined that “no right is held more sacred of carefully guarded … than the right of every individual to the possession and control of his own person, free from all restraint of interference from others, unless by clear and unquestionable authority of law.” The FDA and the SCT regulationists would do well to recognize this right.

Be seeing you

Experimental drugs can help | The Baylor Lariat



Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Doug Casey: Health Care Laws Should Be Abolished – Casey Research

Posted by M. C. on July 30, 2019


How to reform the U.S. “health care” system is a continuing topic in the news. I put that phrase in quotes because it’s a misnomer. You don’t insure your health – that can’t be done. You can only insure that the costs of medical care, if your health fails, will be covered. Saying “health care” makes people think that someone else will magically assure their health, which is impossible. Collectivists like to use the phrase as part of their continuing war on what words mean, and how people think.

Health is something you do for yourself with proper diet, exercise, and lifestyle decisions. Medical care is something very different; it’s what you need for acute trauma or disease. People want good health, but all insurance can give them is hospitals, doctors, and medicines – all of which are scary.

In any event, there does seem to be universal agreement on two related matters. One, that Americans are overweight, underexercised, and overmedicated. Two, that the U.S. medical care system is “broken” and something needs to be done. I have a radical proposal, even though there’s not a chance in hell it will ever be adopted or even discussed in public.

Here it is: Not only should there be no form of national medical care, but Medicare, Medicaid, the FDA, and all laws regulating anything to do with medicine and health should be abolished. Why? Because they are the actual cause of the crisis.

These schemes and bureaucracies will, in fact, eventually disappear. But not in a controlled or planned way. They’re going to disappear for the same reason the Soviet Union did – because they’re inefficient, uneconomic, and unsustainable. Although the U.S. medical system is technologically excellent, it’s long been way too overloaded with paperwork and legalism. Obamacare made it much worse, and ensures that the collapse is going to be bigger, sooner, and with more widespread consequences.

That’s the bad news. The good news is that you don’t have to be sucked into the maelstrom with everybody else.

The national “health care” controversy isn’t about a technical issue, like how to provide medical care cheaply. It’s about basic ethics. Do you have a legal or moral obligation to pay for the consequences of some stranger’s bad habits or bad luck? I’m not, therefore, going into statistics or throwing out reams of numbers about costs. That only serves to distract from the essence of what this is all about.

It’s said to be a tragedy and a scandal that millions of Americans don’t have medical insurance. My first reaction to that is: So what? A lot of people feel they don’t need insurance because they’re young, healthy, and risk-oriented. Others don’t want it, because they can afford to self-insure. Insurance is not a necessity; it’s just a financial planning tool. Up until the 20th century, nobody on the planet had health insurance.

The whole issue of medical insurance basically arose during World War II, when the government locked the country down with strict wage and price controls. Employers couldn’t legally induce workers with cash money, so they offered benefits, prominently including medical coverage. This was an especially rich benefit during the high-tax war years, because it was tax-deductible to employers while tax-free to employees.

A perverse consequence of insurance being institutionalized was that it taught the public that someone else should, and will, be responsible for their medical expenses. The presence of insurance induced people to see doctors, and demand services, much more often than would otherwise have been the case, since these things were now “free.” This artificial demand has put a lot of upward pressure on medical costs over the years. There was once a time when a person set aside money for medical care to maintain his body much as he would to maintain his car or his house; it wasn’t considered either a critical or a potentially onerous expense. Prudent people might have a major medical policy, with a large deductible, in case lightning struck. A poorer person might have to rely on any of numerous charities and fraternal organizations; peer pressure and social opprobrium kept the moral risk from hypochondriacs under control. But that was before the government stepped in and took the place of religious, charitable, and fraternal groups.

People whine about companies denying them insurance or denying coverage for preexisting conditions. These complaints are (barring fraud) almost completely without merit. If insurers are prevented from denying coverage for preexisting conditions, then many people won’t seek coverage until they’re sure they have a problem. It subverts the entire basis of insurance, in effect trying to force a company to pay for a house fire after the dwelling has already burned down.

Do insurers owe the public coverage? No. The fact is that nobody owes you, or anybody else, anything. If you don’t qualify for a policy, that’s unfortunate. You also may not qualify for joining an athletic team. Or getting into a school. Or working for a certain employer. Or a thousand other things. I’m sorry. But tough. Your choices are to either do something to improve your circumstances or, if you can’t, find an alternative. One person’s bad luck doesn’t constitute a mortgage on another person’s life.

The Angel of Death

I would make the case that the government, directly and indirectly, is solely – not mainly, but solely – responsible for runaway medical costs and the presumed necessity of having insurance. Let me give you a few examples.

The FDA, widely promoted as a guardian of health, would better be named the Federal Death Authority. It alone is probably responsible for more deaths every year than the Defense Department in the typical decade.

How so?

Although its $5.1 billion annual budget is huge and represents capital that could have been spent developing new technology, it’s trivial compared to the agency’s real costs. The FDA is why it typically takes ten years and hundreds of millions, often billions, of dollars to develop a new drug. It’s a major reason why drugs are as expensive as they are, and why relatively few are ever approved.

Does it ever keep potentially dangerous products off the market? Of course. But the desire of drug companies to survive and grow is – surprisingly, to people who are sponges for anti-capitalist agitprop – actually a much better guarantee. The argument might be made that if the FDA approved nothing, then no one would ever die of dangerous drugs.

Various laws make the sale of body parts illegal. Which means thousands die every year while waiting for a kidney or a liver. Poor people, who might have a much better life by trading a kidney for $25,000, are denied that opportunity. Or that of selling all their usable body parts upon death in exchange for a large fee payable while they are still alive.

“Consumer protection” laws encourage contingency-paid ambulance chasers to sue everybody for everything that can go wrong in a medical situation, adding many billions to medical costs every year. Medical malpractice coverage, for which many specialists pay several hundred thousand dollars a year, is only a small part of this cost. To defend against predatory litigation, doctors are forced to practice “defensive” medicine, which prescribes numerous tests, drugs, and procedures, which are useful only as legal prophylactics.

The AMA (American Medical Association), a lobbying organization and wannabe trade union, artificially restricts the number of doctors that can practice in the U.S., both through state licensing laws and limiting the number of medical schools.

In the face of these and many other government-imposed costs that make medical care hard to afford, most people now feel the necessity for insurance. Unfortunately, the cost of administering insurance is huge – both for the insurer and for the doctor. Half the employees in a typical doctor’s office do nothing but shuffle paper for private insurers, Medicare, and Medicaid.

As late as the 1950s, a doctor would make house calls, and a hospital stay cost about what a hotel stay did. Those days could reappear if the government with its laws, taxes, and regulations disappeared. The opposite is likely to happen, at least over the short to medium term, as the government takes over the remaining parts of the U.S. health care system.

In fact, in a free market, technology would be noticeably driving costs down in medicine, as it has in every other area of life. The forces agitating for “reform” carp about expensive CAT scan machines driving up costs – but they’re just the equivalent of the primitive X-ray machines of a few generations ago. In other words, providing the same quality care you would have gotten 50 years ago costs much less today, in real terms, because of technology. Insofar as some costs are higher in real terms, it’s only because the quality of the procedure is vastly higher. I defy anyone to show me an example where this isn’t true…

Practical Advice

So, what should you do, with current medical insurance rates ranging up to an unbelievable $4,000 a month for a family in some jurisdictions? (I know, you’re thinking that’s a misprint, but that’s the going rate for a top plan in some Manhattan zip codes.) My suggestions are simple; the subject doesn’t require a 1,000-page piece of legislation:

  1. Engage in a serious program of proper diet, exercise, and proper lifestyle. It’s inconvenient sometimes, but if you don’t, you’ll look like all those other people out there. If your body starts falling apart prematurely (they all fall apart eventually), it’s not the fault of society or your insurer. This is the ultimate solution to today’s “medical crisis.”
  2. For personal insurance, get absolutely the largest deductible available. It’s insane trading dollars with an insurer.
  3. Consider doing all your important medical and dental work abroad. Technologies and skills in the Far East and Latin America are at, or sometimes even above, the level of those in the U.S. But costs are a small fraction of those in the U.S.
  4. If you have a company, get a large deductible policy and allow employees to self-insure for the deductible. Your lawyer should be able to draw up a plan where the savings go into everyone’s pocket.

But enough of that. I just dropped my big bag of Oreos, and I need to figure out just the right way to swing the hammock so I can pick it up.

An After-Thought

Perhaps the bottom line of the above is that, as Hobbes observed, life can be solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. But who reads Leviathan anymore? Better to refer to some of the best playwriting since Shakespeare, namely Deadwood, the HBO series. It gives, among other things, a realistic view of medical technology not so very long ago. The characters often speak in Shakespearian blank verse to boot, although not in the quote below.

“Pain or damage don’t end the world. Or despair, or f*****g beatings. The world ends when you’re dead. Until then, you got more punishment in store. Stand it like a man… and give some back.”

That’s the view of Al Swearengen, the series’ lead character. He’s a realistic, hard-bitten kind of guy. But his personality can win you over, despite his many flaws. More so because despite being a cold-blooded cutthroat, he likes to explore the philosophical implications of his actions. So, while many people today ask themselves, “What would Jesus do?” when confronted with a moral dilemma, I find it equally enlightening to ask, “What would Al Swearengen do?”


Doug Casey
Founder, Casey Research



Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

FDA Admits That Government Is Recommending Untested, Unlicensed Vaccines for Pregnant Women – Collective Evolution

Posted by M. C. on February 14, 2019

HHS confessed that it has not once complied—in over 30 years—with statutory requirements for regular review of childhood vaccine safety, nor reported to Congress on measures to improve safety.

Has your unborn child had its recommended dose of aluminum and mercury?


Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. says, “As a nation, we can no longer pretend our trusted agencies are protecting our children. It is time to hold federal agencies accountable.”

WASHINGTON, D.C., Feb. 11, 2019—In response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit, the FDA has admitted, for the first time, that government agencies, including the CDC, are recommending vaccines for pregnant women that have neither been licensed for pregnant mothers by FDA nor tested for safety in clinical trials. The lawsuit, filed by Children’s Health Defense (CHD) attorney, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. on behalf of Informed Consent Action Network(ICAN), a vaccine safety advocacy group, sought all clinical trial data used by FDA to approve influenza vaccines for pregnant women. The FDA’s terse reply: “We have no records responsive to your requests.”

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | 1 Comment »

What Would Happen If Government Didn’t Handle That? – Foundation for Economic Education

Posted by M. C. on July 26, 2018

Gary M. Galles

Those who defend liberty are often challenged to supply exhaustive descriptions of what would happen were some aspect of our increasingly government-dictated lives returned to individuals’ voluntary arrangements. What would happen if government didn’t educate our children? If Social Security didn’t provide for retirement? If Medicaid and Medicare didn’t provide health care? If the USDA, FDA, FAA, etc., didn’t ensure our safety? If the EPA didn’t deal with pollution?

Anyone put on the spot with such questions must recognize that they are rhetorical traps. They are used to put an impossible burden of proof on voluntary arrangements, to allow proponents to dodge having to defend against criticisms of coercive policies… Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Moonshot Medicine – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on April 23, 2018

The big insult is why private and governmental agencies give license to over-priced medicines when the costs of research and development are born by the public? An example is a drug to cure hepatitis C that was largely developed with public funds but its patents rights were assigned to private entities.

Drug companies come up with these exorbitant prices by factoring the life-long cost of symptom treatment against their one-time cure.


It is all part of the 21st Century Cures Act, which spreads $4.8 billion of research funding in an attempt to accelerate the development and approval of real cures.  But will this Herculean effort bankrupt insurance pools?

The money is being directed toward expensive pharmacological cures that will further burst the Medicare Trust fund.  Gobs of federal money are going towards innovations, like CRISPR gene therapy, that intends to completely remedy single-gene mutation diseases like cystic fibrosis, sickle cell, Huntington’s disease, and muscular dystrophy, all cured in a single treatment.  But at what cost? Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Herbal supplement kratom contains opioids, regulators say

Posted by M. C. on February 7, 2018

44 deaths, really! Nameless “authorities” and “regulators” should maybe look elsewhere.

In 1999, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) reported that up to 98,000 people die each year due to hospital mistakes.

The FDA is doing the killing-to the competition to their “authority” and big pharma’s bottom line..

U.S. health authorities say an herbal supplement promoted as an alternative pain remedy contains the same chemicals found in opioids, the addictive family of drugs at the center of a national addiction crisis.

The Food and Drug Administration analysis, published Tuesday, makes it more likely that the supplement, kratom, could be banned by the federal government.

The FDA also said it has identified 44 reports of death involving kratom since 2011, up from 36 reported in November…

Be seeing you

prison bars


Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Final Obama Shot at Brain Enhancement – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on January 14, 2017

Food and Drug Administration and the Federal Trade Commission. Don’t tell the truth about Congress or they will be your judge, jury and executioner.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »