Archive for June 29, 2009

big-pharma

By: Mike Adam
Natural News

That Michael Jackson and Farrah Fawcett both died in the last 48 hours is shocking news to many, but it’s not nearly as surprising as the fact that they were both killed by Big Pharma’s toxic drugs.

Michael Jackson, we now know, died from an injection of Demerol given by his doctor — a man who is now the subject of an LAPD manhunt. There is little question that the injection of Demerol — a potent pharmaceutical — caused Jackson’s death. Chalk it up to yet another tragic loss of a hugely inspiring artist who has become a victim of the pharmaceutical industry and overzealous medical doctors.

Demerol, by the way, is a highly-potent opioid drug that’s also highly addictive. And yet it’s being prescribed (and injected) by doctors with the full support of the FDA, the pharmaceutical industry and the conventional medical community. It is nothing less than amazing that mild drugs like marijuana remain outlawed while potentially deadly painkiller drugs like Demerol are openly injected into people by doctors.

Farrah Fawcett’s death was far less sudden than Jackson’s, but no less innocent. She was killed by chemotherapy — a toxic cocktail of chemicals pushed onto patients by oncologists who deceptively call it “treatment.”

Against the advice of many in the natural health community, Fawcett gave in to her doctors and agreed to be poisoned as a treatment for anal cancer. But what she didn’t know is that one of the most common side effects of chemotherapy is more cancer! And after subjecting her body to more chemotherapy, it wasn’t long before Fawcett was diagnosed with liver cancer. (Chemotherapy causes terrible harm to the liver, heart, kidneys and brain…)

(more…)

“Business Liberalism”: The Real Meaning of Obama’s “Pragmatic” Reluctance to “Tilt at Windmills”

By Paul Street
Paul Street’s ZSpace Page / ZSpace

(Reposted)

shadow bankingEarly last April the New York Times published an article with an ironic title: “In Cuba , Change Means More of the Same.”  This “news” item reported that “rather than dismantling Cuba ‘s socialist framework,” Cuba ‘s President Raul Castro “seems to be trying to make it work more efficiently.” Castro, the Times reported, sought to keep power concentrated “at the top.”[1]

But what has U.S. President Barack Obama – Mr. “Change” himself – tried to accomplish other than to make the American corporate profits system “work more efficiently” without “dismantling the [capitalist] framework” and with power (and wealth) still concentrated “at the top?” As the Times acknowledged last March in an article titled “English-Speaking Capitalism on Trial,” Obama and his neoliberal partner Gordon Brown, the British Prime Minister, have “focused on ways of revitalizing the [existing] system….  Even as both men have embarked on enormous increases in public-sector spending,” Times correspondents John Burns and Landon Thomas noted, “they have maintained that the solutions to the crisis lie in reawakening the markets and recapitalizing the banks rather than tearing at the system’s foundations.  And both, when they respond to private anger at the private sector, have seemed more geared to managing anger than stoking it.”[2] As the prolific Marxist geographer David Harvey observed on the left television news and commentary show “Democracy Now” last April, “what [the Obama team is] trying to do is to reinvent the same system” – to “reconstitute the same sort of capitalism we have had over and over again over the last thirty years in a slightly more regulated, benevolent form” that doesn’t “challenge the fundamentals.” [3]

Consistent with Burns, Thomas, and Harvey ‘s judgment, the Obama White House’s mild June 2009 plan to “re-regulate U.S. financial markets for the 21st century” left the basic power of the nation’s elite “bankster” class intact.  While praising the Obama plan’s efforts to create a strong consumer financial regulatory body, to reduce speculative betting with higher leverage standards, to prevent predatory and reckless lending, and to advance the White House’s power to takeover failing, systemically significant firms, the liberal Washington DC-based corporate and financial reform activist Robert Weissman noted the administration’s plan contained four basic flaws and would thus continue to leave the financial sector and the broader economy vulnerable to future crises.  First, Obama’s proposal does “not propose to do anything serious about executive pay and top-level compensation for financial firms.”  It fails thereby to address basic questions of economic justice and leaves intact a “Wall Street bonus culture” that “gives traders and executives alike an incentive to take big bets – because they get massive payoff if things go well, and don’t suffer if they go bad, or go bad sometime in the future.”

(more…)