🔴MEDICINA UFFICIALE - Come è nata e chi c'è dietro‼️

Doctors are men who prescribe drugs they know very little about, to cure diseases they know even less about, than men who know nothing at all. The answer to this question can be found in some historical events that took place almost a century ago, when official medicine finally managed to have In the 1800s society sanctioned both approaches to healing. Patients had a choice of using either doctors called allopaths, or natural healers called empirics or homeopaths. The two groups waged a bitter philosophical debate. The allopathic doctors called their approach heroic medicine. They believed the physician must aggressively drive disease from the body. They based their practice on what they considered scientific theory. The allopaths used three main techniques. They bled the body to drain out the bad humors. They gave huge doses of toxic minerals like mercury and lead to displace the original disease. They also used surgery, but it was a brutal procedure before anesthesia and infection control. Few patients were willing to have surgery. Most patients feared allopathic methods altogether. Satirists of the day remarked that with allopathic treatment, the patient died of the cure. Competing with the doctors were the empiric healers. Contrary to the doctors, they believed in stimulating the body's own defenses to heal itself. Instead of poisonous minerals, they used vegetable products and non-toxic substances in small quantities. They especially favored herbs learned from Native American and old European traditions. The empirics said they based their remedies not on theory, but on observation and experience. Satirists of the day added that with empiric treatment, the patient died of the disease, not the cure. And the balance of medical power remained equal until the turn of the century. Then new medical treatments emerged that were potentially very profitable. The AMA joined with strong financial forces to transform medicine into an industry. The fortunes of Carnegie, Morgan, and Rockefeller financed surgery, radiation, and synthetic drugs. They were to become the economic foundations of the new medical economy. The takeover of the medical industry was accomplished by the takeover of the medical schools. Well, the people that we're talking about, Rockefeller and Carnegie in particular, came to the picture and said, we will put up money. They offered tremendous amounts of money to the schools that would agree to cooperate with them. The donor said to the schools, we're giving you all this money. Now, would it be too much to ask if we could put some of our people on your board of directors to see that our money is being spent wisely? Well, when somebody's offering a starving school, a struggling school, a couple of million dollars, and all they ask in return is that some very well-known, and the answer in many cases is, yes, we'd be honored to have these people on our board of directors. Almost overnight, all of the major universities, which we now consider to be major universities in the field of medicine, received large grants from these sources and also accepted one, two, or three of these people that I mentioned on their board of directors, and the schools literally were taken over by the financial interests that put up the money. Now, what happened as a result of that is that the schools did receive an infusion of money. They were able to build new buildings. They were able to add expensive equipment to their laboratories. They were able to hire top-notch teachers. They were able to upgrade the level of medical education in America by a hundredfold. But at the same time as doing that, they skewed the whole thing in the direction of pharmaceutical drugs. That was the efficiency in philanthropy. The doctors from that point forward in history would be taught pharmaceutical drugs. Those schools that did not accept those terms did not receive the money, and they generally fell by the wayside, and today you probably have never heard of them. All of the great teaching institutions in America were captured by the pharmaceutical interests in this fashion, and it's amazing how little money it really took to do it. Surgery became viable with anesthesia and infection control, and doctors advocated expensive, radical operations. These in turn produced the need for a large, lucrative hospital system. Radium fever swept medicine. The price of radium rose 1,000 percent almost overnight. Another costly technological industry entered the hospital system. A drug industry grew out of the booming patent medicine business. The doctors changed educational standards and licensing regulations to exclude the empirics. Soon, only AMA-approved doctors could legally practice medicine. In a brief 20 years, the AMA came to dominate medical practice. Organized medicine launched a media campaign to associate the empirics with quacks. The code word for competition was quackery. So now, the average doctor goes through school. He gets a great education. He has to be really smart to get through it. He learns all about drugs. He doesn't know too much about basic nutrition. I found that the average wife of these physicians knows more about nutrition than he does, but they sure know their drugs. And if you go to your typical doctor today, I don't care what it is, chances are you're going to walk out of there with a prescription. Why? Because that's what he has been trained to do. They also went to make toasts with the big pharmaceutical companies. I mean, for example, Lorenzin, of whom we published a photo on the site, where he was toasting with Dr. Guerra, another big piece of the Ministry, with the pharmaceutical industrials in America, promising on that occasion that Italy would be at the forefront in the battle for vaccines. So it's a really outrageous thing. Also because I don't know if my doctor, my little family doctor, or the specialized one who cures me, if he's giving me that drug, sometimes very expensive, sometimes with dangerous side effects, if he's giving it to me because I really need it, or because someone then invites him to some meeting, or gives him the money, as in this case, Glaxo has given a lot, a lot, a lot of money to a lot of doctors. You say that among the institutions and hospital companies that have received money, not just single doctors, the Superior Health Institute appears, which, let's not forget, is the technical institution of the Ministry of Health, which must control everyone. Well, on the Superior Health Institute, maybe you know, we had a great battle, because luckily, this Mr. Ricciardi, who was president, contacted me because we had dared to say that he had received money, while he was at the Superior Health Institute, from pharmaceutical companies, directly or indirectly. Well, I was acquitted and the GP said it was true, what was written in the document that I wanted to distribute. And then, because of this, and also because of a very nice hyena service, Ricciardi had to resign, even though now he says he resigned because he did not agree with the government. So it was a great battle. But don't think that things stop here, because we have Merckx, which gave 750,000 euros to the Italian Federation of Family Doctors, that is, those who are there, close to home, to whom we are going to ask for the prescription. They gave 94,000 euros, the Pfizer, to the Italian Federation of Family Doctors, those who take care of our children. Here we ask what is the best drug, especially because they are very delicate, children, DNA, etc., to be taken. Well, I don't know why Pfizer gives this money. We have another 64,000 from GSK, Sanofi, Pfizer, the Italian Society of Pediatrics. Even these pediatricians, a little cleaner face, if they could do it, especially when they have to prescribe drugs to children. So it's an incredible scandal, on which ANAC does nothing. ANAC does nothing. Let's clarify what ANAC is. ANAC is the Anti-Corruption Authority. What does Glaxo bring home with these funding? Let's try to think a little. I ask you, what does Glaxo bring home? Why should a drug producer give money to doctors? Because they are nice to them? Because maybe they have the hobby of prescribing drugs to their... Sure, because on the one hand drugs are prescribed, you can prescribe a drug rather than another, you can prescribe a drug with the patent rather than a generic that costs a lot less, has the same effectiveness, but no longer depends on that pharmaceutical company. You can conduct a research, because we are also talking about this. The funding to the hospital structure comes because research is produced in the hospital structure. You can produce research that publishes certain data and doesn't publish others, because it's not just what you publish, it's also what you decide not to publish. You can participate in conventions, maybe using your name or a role that is covered in certain institutions, to accredit that pharmaceutical company. What strikes me is that for scandals of this kind, the leadership of the World Health Organization has even changed, when there was a similar story, and in Italy absolutely nothing happens. But you have tried to ask for the publication to the big newspapers, I found your document by chance, but I didn't see it on the newspapers. We sent a press release saying that this list was published on our website, and I have to say, a newspaper and a website gave news about it. So obviously, let's not forget all the great amount of advertising that pharmaceutical companies do on the press, which brings millions and millions of euros to the publishers. So this is also an answer. But if you think that the decennial prevention plan, the last one, the one on vaccination prevention, I apologize, the components of this plan, those who made the reports, in order to stabilize us, we had to inject 10 vaccines together with our children, each of these, in our expense, there is Dr. Alberto Villani, Silvestro Scotti, Paolo Bonanni, 15,108 euros, of which 10,500 for the respective, 4,500 for expenses contractually agreed, accessories to the respective, These are the money that would have been given to these doctors, on the part of the pharmaceutical companies that produced vaccines, and these are the people who made the national plan of vaccination prevention. There is also Walter Ricciardi, of course. Then there is, as the Italian Federation of Pediatricians said, I think that the listeners realize the gravity, the enormity of what we are currently denouncing. I would like to remind you that for the H1N1 epidemic, which took place in 2009-2010 worldwide, a huge alarm was created, there was even talk of the risk of millions and millions of deaths, then the deaths were less than that of any seasonal flu. The WHO created great anxiety and stress on this matter, then it was discovered that in the commissions that had worked for the WHO, there were two commissions, in one there were doctors, experts, researchers, who worked for the pharmaceutical companies that produced drugs and vaccines, in that case, and the other commission was made only of WHO experts, but it was financed, its work, its transfers, were financed by the same pharmaceutical companies. A huge scandal, many had to resign, the President of the WHO apologized. Nothing happens here, we thank you for the work you are doing. Yes, not only, but there was that scandal, the State bought, I don't remember how many, millions of doses of vaccines, which it then threw away, so public money. Regarding doctors, I would like to appeal to doctors, especially family doctors, put on the door of the study a sign in which it says this doctor took 100 euros, 1,000 euros, from the pharmaceutical company XY for such research, so that whoever comes at least knows, this is the duty of the doctor, knows that when you are giving him a drug, if it is from that pharmaceutical company, he will have to look at you with a certain doubt. The companies that make up the pharmaceutical industry are among the largest corporations in the world. Together these businesses have come to be known as Big Pharma. In the US, the core of Big Pharma's immense profits is from sales of prescription medication, and since these drugs can only be prescribed by medical professionals, most of the industry's promotional and marketing activities are directed at doctors, pharmacists, and other health care providers. This starts out at the first day of medical school, and in many medical schools, even the incoming students that are two years away from seeing a patient will start to get gifts from the pharmaceutical industry, and as these students get farther along in their medical education, the interactions and the gifts escalate to free lunches, to dinners. Champagne, brunches, happy hours, New York Jet tickets. No matter where you spend the money, you make money. And my boss always told me, don't worry about it, there will always be more funding, spend what you can. In addition to providing gifts and trips, perhaps the most potent weapon in the drug rep's arsenal is free drug samples. These products are the chief enabler of the marketing machine. And what it is, is a way of getting both patients and physicians hooked on their product. In any town USA, you walk into a physician's office, and you walk into a room that's usually a ten-by-ten room full of hundreds of thousands of dollars of samples. They're all the most expensive, branded drugs, and the office is full of them. A physician prescribing the appropriate medication is not necessarily what the industry needs. What the industry needs, or a particular company, is the physician prescribing their medication. Before a drug can legally be sold in this country, it has to be approved by the FDA, wherever it's made. Approval depends on the company demonstrating in clinical trials that a new drug is reasonably safe and effective. But compared with what? They don't have to compare their new drugs with existing drugs to treat the same condition, with the best standard treatment. In most cases, they only have to compare their new drugs with a placebo. The FDA currently only requires, when you are seeking to have a new drug approved, that you show that that drug is better than a placebo. In other words, that the drug is better than nothing. That's really not very useful information for the doctor. Before 1980, most clinical research was funded by the National Institutes of Health. During the 90s, most of that research got pulled out of universities and was brought to for-profit research organizations. The problem is that that gave virtual complete control over the research to the drug companies. They could design the studies. They have control of data so that many of the authors of the most important articles published in our best journals aren't even allowed to see their own data. They don't get free access to their own data and they have control over publication. Studies are frequently either hard to find or the results are manipulated by drug companies. I think the most shocking thing is to find that that evidence is simply not available or it is distorted. A very extensive study of this type was conducted and was recently published on... So when on television we are told that a new scientific study has established something, no one is able to verify whether it is true or not. When drug companies set the research agenda, do the research and design the research, have tremendous influence over the people who get to write it up and, in fact, have tremendous influence over the journals that publish it because they are very, very beholden to drug companies for their own financial well-being. More than half of the budget of the division of the FDA that approves new drugs and oversees drug safety is funded by the drug companies. 90% of the clinical studies are funded by the drug companies. 59% of the experts who write the clinical guidelines have an active financial relationship with the drug that's being considered in the process. So the pharmaceutical industry, first of all, has taken control of the university medical system. Then it established the American Medical Association, which, since then, has been the only one authorized to practice legally. Subsequently, it has taken control of the entire experimental process of drugs. After that, it heavily influences the academic publications that promote these drugs. And finally, it controls the federal body that should guarantee the safety and non-toxicity of those drugs. At the opposite end, there are the sick citizens and in the middle are the doctors who have to treat them and who can rely exclusively on information generated and controlled by the pharmaceutical industry that no one has the possibility to verify anymore. In this exasperated search for the total monopoly of information, not even the Internet has been neglected. But all this, evidently, was not enough for the pharmaceutical industry. And now that the mandatory list of the side effects is now longer than the merits of the medicines, the negative aspects are put directly in the mouths of the protagonists of the spot, who present them with the same joyful and captivating tone of the qualities to be decanted. In this way, the waters are definitely confused, for a careless and unprepared audience, on an aspect that was already presented in an ambiguous and highly irresponsible way. And Zoloft, just to name a few, are deeply uncomfortable reminders that secrecy and sales have often circumvented safety. And what I found after analyzing government databases and peer-reviewed journal articles, I found that 784,000 people are dying annually, prematurely, due to modern medicine intervention. There's 122,000 people that die every year from known side effects to prescription medications. The drug industry is the most successful global industry in the world. What they don't want you to do is get better, because if you get better, their market's gone.