-
Christina Aguilera’s “Not Myself Tonight”: More Illuminati Music
Vigilant Citizen
May 16th, 2010 | By Vigilant | Category: Vigilant ReportsChristina Aguilera’s new album and video introduces fans to a definite style change. The singer now clearly fits the mold of the occult music industry by incorporating its themes and symbolism into her art. We will look at the hidden meaning of her video “Not Myself Tonight” to and we’ll see how her new album relates with the rest of the music industry.
I’ve always considered Christina Aguilera to be a notch above most pop singers due to the fact that she could actually sing. However, in order to continue with her success, it was only a matter of time before she ended up in the same place as the other pop stars in the market today. Everything about her new album is heavily tainted with the Illuminati agenda, and the first single Not Myself Tonight acts as an initiation piece. It contains many elements seen in other videos discussed on The Vigilant Citizen, which probably explains the number of e-mails I’ve received regarding it. Some observers have accused Not Myself Tonight of copying Lady Gaga’s Bad Romance. We will see that this plagiarism is, in fact, Christina only following the trend forced on pop stars.
Warning: Parts of this article might be disturbing for some.
From Christina to Xtina
Christina was first discovered by Disney, a company that has specialized in recruiting kids who then progressively become sex bombs as the years go by (Miley Cyrus is next). Christina was part of a particularly prolific edition of the Mickey Mouse Club.
Christina used her great talent to make her way into the pop scene with the 1999 album Christina Aguilera, with a clean “innocent teen” look. Everything changed in 2002-2003 with the release of the album Stripped. In a very symbolic performance during the 2003 MTV Video Music Awards, Christina is “consecrated” by the Kabbalistic Grand Priestess Madonna. This highly publicized event deserves a second look.
2003 VMA Perfomance
Taking place on a Masonic checkerboard-patterned floor, this symbolic performance is the ritualistic initiation of Britney Spears and Christina Aguilera into the occult music business. The ceremony starts with Britney and Christina making their way down a pyramid-shaped cake singing Madonna’s Like a Virgin. The song choice is very significant as it describes the young singers’ purity and innocence before the ceremony. This is also reinforced by their white gowns. Then the Priestess comes out, wearing a black tuxedo and a Masonic top hat.
She sings Hollywood, a song about the city symbolizing the entertainment establishment, the gateway to super-stardom. Madonna is a representative of the occult industry and welcomes Britney and Christina into it. She sings:
Everybody comes to Hollywood
They wanna make it in the neighborhood
They like the smell of it in Hollywood
How could it hurt you when it looks so good?
Shine your light now
This time it’s got to be good
You get it right now
Cause you’re in HollywoodThe entire performance puts into light Madonna’s domination and superiority over the singers. She ultimately passes on the torch to the two singers with a symbolic kiss.
They should maybe bear in mind this verse from the song Hollywood:
I lost my memory in Hollywood
I’ve had a million visions bad and good
There’s something in the air in Hollywood
I tried to leave it but I never couldFollowing in the footsteps of Madonna, Christina and Britney then appeared to dabble with Kabbalah, though only a “Hollywood” brand of Kabbalah, as tattoos are not permitted in its sacred scriptures.
In the years that followed, Christina took the apparently obligatory “sexualization” path of Illuminati idols and also appeared in works associated with black magic and mind control.
New Christina
Her latest effort completely embraces today’s Illuminati agenda by exploiting the theme of transhumanism (explained in this article). The album title “Bi-on-ic” and the cover art is truly about the merger of man and robot. Christina’s head is portrayed as a programmable mechanism, a concept relating to mind control. “Bi-On-Ic” also apparently means “bisexual on ice”, ice being the slang word for methamphetamine. So, when she is under the influence of this powerful drug, she becomes bisexual. Knowing that methamphetamine is extensively used on mind control victims, especially in sexual programming, the album title is rather disturbing.
More One Eye Symbolism
As seen in many other articles, almost all pop artists taking on Illuminati themes in their art almost always flash the “one eye sign” in their videos or photo shoots. Christina is not an exception.
Concept of Not Myself Tonight
Not Myself Tonight has been accused of copying Lady Gaga’s Bad Romance. Although the videos were produced by two different directors (Francis Lawrence for Gaga and Hype Williams for Christina), they both exploit similar themes, which are also common in many other pop music videos. Although it is easy to say “the bitch copied Gaga!”, this statement does not take into consideration the bigger picture of the music industry. The same themes are expected and required to be prevalent in today’s hits. The industry defines its own trends and in order to be successful, artists must follow these trends and communicate the same messages. Not Myself Tonight is simply a continuation of the Illuminati agenda through another artist, and therefore exploits its trademark themes such as mind control, transhumanism, occult initiation and so forth. Here’s the video.
The subject of the song is Christina being “not herself tonight” which is, at face value, her wanting to go out and go crazy, “kissing the boys and the girls.” However, the imagery and symbolism of the video adds another level of interpretation to the song that refers to mind control, occult initiation and alter personalities. The theme of being “out of character” and not controlling one’s actions is often portrayed in recent videos and is associated, through symbolism, to Monarch programming or supernatural “possession.” This is often symbolically represented by the classic “devil horns” as seen on the promo image of her single.
As said earlier, she is just following the trend set by the industry.
Monarch programming is a mind-control method based on the creation of an alternate persona through the usage of torture and ritual abuse. Some authors on the subject, such as Ron Patton, have mentioned that Monarch programming utilizes ancient occult techniques reminiscent of spirit possession. The lyrics of the song reflect the creation of a new persona:
“I’m out of character, I’m in rare form
And if you really knew me, you’d know its not the normCos I’m doing things that I normally won’t do
The old me is gone , I feel brand new
And if you don’t like it, fuck you”As we will see later, the symbolism of the video is based on initiation and on the creation of an alter personality, which is expressed lyrically The old me is gone, I feel brand new. The theme of being a crazier/wilder/sexier self is often portrayed in recent videos and is almost always coupled with scenes of restraint, dehumanization and/or torture. This is an obvious case of cognitive dissonance, where the portrayal of torture is a part of one’s “liberation.” In Not Myself Tonight, Christina is seen hog-tied with her eyes forced opened, which is reminiscent of mind control victims being forced to watch videos to reinforce their programming.

This practice is depicted in the mind-control themed Clockwork Orange by Stanley Kubrick.
Sex Kitten Programming
The first part of the video is heavily tainted with references to mind control and, more precisely, Sex Kitten programming. This trend is becoming increasingly common in the music and fashion industry.
BETA. Referred to as “sexual” programming. This programming eliminates all learned moral convictions and stimulates the primitive sexual instinct, devoid of inhibitions. “Cat” alters may come out at this level.
-Ron Patton, Project MonarchIn mind control, Beta programming, also known as Sex Kitten programming creates in the dissociative victim an alter-personality that is a programmed to be sex slave.
“The mind will begin to dissociate, and will begin to reverse the primordial brain functions such as pain is pleasure. The person’s mind rearranges. This is often done with Beta alters or Beta models to get them to think that the pain of sadistic rape is a pleasure. After this reversal in the mind that “PAIN IS LOVE”, the S&M kitten alters will beg their handler to slap them, tie them up, hurt them, etc.”
- Cisco Wheeler and Fritz Springmeier, The Illuminati Formula Used to Create an Undetectable Total Mind Controlled SlaveSome references to sex kitten programming are peppered throughout the video.
The creation of alter personalities is represented in the video with Christina being surrounded by look-a-likes. She plays the role of the mind-control handler herself.
Ritual Initiation
The second part of the video essentially describes Xtina’s “initiation” through ritual sex. Some symbolic scenes tell this story.
Halfway through the song, Christina is dressed in black with masculine features and standing between two pseudo-masonic pillars.
This scene is similar to the VMA performance referenced above, where Madonna played the master of ceremonies. Christina plays the same role in this scene. She is standing on top of stairs, near a mysterious gateway, symbolizing her high rank within the “inner-hierarchy”. Her monocle covers one eye which refers to the Illuminati power structure. The master of ceremonies kicks off the ritual initiation of Xtina, the Sex Kitten.In the following scene, Xtina is shown entering a doorway, symbolizing the “passing through the gates” of her initiation.
Xtina is then shown putting fire to her clothes, indicating that she is destroying her old self and embracing the new Xtina alter persona.The initiation is then sealed and consummated by nothing less than an orgy inside a church.
The scene in the church gives spiritual connotation to the initiation. An orgy in a place that is considered sacred is a form of desecration that is reminiscent of black magic rituals. The video is not simply about a girl wanting to “go crazy,” it is about an initiation into the “dark side.”
To further portray the completion of the initiation of this mind control slave, Xtina is shown covering herself with “black milk” or maybe black semen.
“Sexual abuse [...] is more powerful when it is put into the context of demonic magic. The abuser’s semen is magic and seals the programming. The ritual aspect of it, and the repetitive nature of the abuse creates several dynamics that accompany the abuse that wouldn’t occur in non-ritual abuse.”
- Cisco Wheeler and Fritz Springmeier, The Illuminati Formula Used to Create an Undetectable Total Mind Controlled SlaveIn Conclusion
Although Christina Aguilera’s new work was accused of plagiarism by some pop culture observers, they fail to realize that she is simply following the agenda forced on pop stars. The standardization of the music industry has resulted in different artists exploiting the same symbolism, themes and aesthetics. Superficial differences define each artist, but the content and message of their music stay the same. If some articles on this site appear redundant, it is because of the clear redundancy of the messages communicated by the music industry through the products it promotes. This repetition is an important clue to identify the existence of a alternative agenda in the industry.
The complete transformation of Christina Aguilera for the Bionic album, and her embrace of ALL of the themes discussed in previous articles (including the “one-eye thing”) should send you a clear message. There is an agenda in the music industry and one must fit the mold in order to get promoted as a star. This does not guarantee worldwide success, but it is the only way to get the industry approval needed to obtain it.
-
New Transistor Bridges Human-Machine Gap
By Stephanie Pappas, TechNewsDaily Contributor
livescience.com – 19 May 2010 02:22 pm ETHumans and machines could be one step closer to merging thanks to a new transistor controlled by the molecule that powers biological cells.
The nano-sized device could be used in medical devices or prosthetics wired directly into the human body.
“Our devices make a bridge between the biological world and the electronic world,” said Aleksandr Noy, who developed the transistor along with colleagues at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories in California. “In effect, we made a biological protein talk directly with a nanoelectronic circuit.”
Transistors are electronic components that can modulate or switch current on and off in a circuit. To make one that would respond to a biological molecule, Noy and his team borrowed from living cells.
First, they built the backbone of the transistor out of a carbon nanotube between two electrodes. Next, they insulated the electrodes and covered the nanotube with a mixture of fatty molecules called lipids and proteins. The covering formed a lipid “bilayer” — a double lipid membrane — much like those that make up the outer membranes of biological cells.
The researchers then poured a solution of sodium ions, potassium ions and adenosine triphosphate, or ATP, over the transistor while running a voltage through it. In cells, ATP is the primary source of energy. It fulfilled the same role in the transistor, powering the proteins embedded in the lipid bilayer.
These proteins began working, transferring sodium and potassium ions across the bilayer. The charges from the ions created an electrical field around the transistor, which then changed the ability of the transistor to conduct electricity by as much as 35 percent. The higher the concentration of ATP, the more the conductivity changed.
Getting a biological molecule to control the electric current in a transistor is a first step toward computers that would interface directly with the brain, Noy told TechNewsDaily.
That could include “futuristic” devices that would translate thought directly to typed words, he said, but could also have a more immediate application in the field of prosthetics.
To develop machines controlled by the mind, “we will need to have a way for our [brain cells] to talk to the electronic systems,” Noy said. “I think what we demonstrated is a first step towards that distant goal.”
-
The best, and worst, laundry detergents with 1,4-dioxane contamination
Saturday, May 22, 2010 by: Ethan A. Huff
(NaturalNews) One of the major issues being tackled by consumer watchdog groups this year is the presence of 1,4-dioxane, a synthetic petrochemical carcinogen, in consumer products. Since hair care products, cleaning formulas and laundry detergents are all susceptible to containing this toxic chemical byproduct, which is not listed on product labels, David Steinman from the Green Patriot Working Group (GPWG) began a study in 2007 to see which consumer products are the worst offenders. This year, his organization along with the Organic Consumers Association (OCA), released the results of a portion of the study conducted last year on laundry detergents.
When cleaning products and detergents are processed using ethoxylation, a cheap technique that lessens the severity of the harsher ingredients, 1,4-dioxane is created. Since it is considered a byproduct of ethylene oxide reacting with other ingredients, 1,4-dioxane is technically considered a contaminant and thus does not have to be included on product labeling. As a result, consumers are largely unaware of its presence in major household products.
For the study, Steinman evaluated 20 different laundry detergents from both conventional and “natural” brands. Evoxa, an independent, third-party laboratory that is highly respected for its rigorous methods and high standards, conducted all product testing. The results are as follows:
Conventional brands:
1. Tide (P&G) – 55 parts per million (ppm)
2. Ivory Snow Gentle (P&G) – 31 ppm
3. Tide Free (P&G) – 29 ppm
4. Purex (Dial Corp.) – 25 ppm
5. Gain 2X Ultra (P&G) – 21 ppm
6. Cheer BrightClean Detergent (P&G) – 20 ppm
7. Era 2X Ultra (P&G) – 14 ppm
8. Arm & Hammer (Church & Dwight Co.) – 5.0 ppm
9. Wisk 2X Ultra (Sun Products Corp.) – 3.9 ppm
10. Woolite Complete Detergent (Reckitt Benckiser) – 1.3 ppm
11. All laundry detergent (Unilever) – 0.6 ppm
12. Dreft powdered detergent (P&G) – non-detectable (ND)
13. Sun Burst (Sun Products Corp.) – ND“Natural” brands:
1. Planet Ultra Liquid laundry detergent – 6.1 ppm
2. Mrs. Meyers laundry detergent – 1.5 ppm
3. Clorox Green Works Natural laundry detergent – ND
4. Ecos laundry detergent (Earth Friendly Products) – ND
5. Life Tree Laundry Liquid – ND
6. Method Squeaky Green laundry detergent – ND
7. Seventh Generation Free & Clear laundry detergent – NDOf the products detected, P&G products came up the highest in 1,4-dioxane levels, as did most of the conventional brands. Of the natural brands tested, only two were found to contain 1,4-dioxane, and in levels far below the average conventional brand. While not all available brands were tested, it is clear from the results that consumers need to be wary of most conventional brands. They also must perform due diligence in verifying that their “natural” brand of choice is truly free of 1,4-dioxane as well.
The 1,4-dioxane found in laundry detergent is particularly harmful in the fact that the chemical binds easily to water and remains there. Even after water containing the chemical has been purified and filtered, low levels have been detected, indicating that it is not easily removed from water. Numerous water supplies across the country have been found to be tainted with 1,4-dioxane.
Of the 80,000 known chemicals, only 200 are tested by the EPA; 1,4-dioxane is not one of the ones tested. Average aggregate exposure to 1,4-dioxane is unknown since it is found in numerous consumer care products. Because it is a known carcinogen that is implicated in causing cancer, liver disease and other serious problems, it is important to avoid it whenever possible.
OCA has prepared a Personal Care and Cleaning Products Safety Guide outlining which consumer products are safe and free of 1,4-dioxane and which ones are not. Categories include dishwashing soap, hand soap, all-purpose soap, laundry detergents, household cleaners, body washes and shampoos, conditioners, facial cleansers, lotions, sunscreens and deodorants.
-
Nation’s Biggest Medical Pot Farm Coming To Michigan?
Steve Elliott | tokeofthetown
Thursday, May. 20 2010 @ 6:17AM
Photo: Legal Juice All those plants, and not a pants pocket anywhere. Let’s get one thing out of the way to begin with. If you get a job at the proposed biggest medical marijuana farm in the United States, you will be required to wear coveralls without pockets, so don’t plan on pilfering.
The huge, 25,000-plant marijuana growing operation could be coming to Michigan soon. A Florida man has approached officials to convert an empty paper plant in Frenchtown Charter Township into a gargantuan cannabis growing factory.
The planned operation would have 340 compartments, reports Dick Berry of WTOL. Each can supply five qualified patients and grow a dozen plans per patient, “which means the building could house up to 25,000 plants worth millions,” Berry reports.
The growing center would be located just outside Monroe, Michigan. Monroe was likely selected because there are no operating factories in the area, according to Frenchtown Charter Township Supervisor James McDevitt.
While officials expect to see a noticeable increase in revenue, they cannot actually charge taxes on the marijuana, according to McDevitt.
“He said we could charge a user fee which could bring in as much as $50,000 a month,” McDevitt said.
A neighbor, who lives across the street from the proposed marijuana operation, said he is a bit shocked, but open minded.
“It (might) be better for the government or state to get money for marijuana instead of spending money to fight it all the time, which seems to be a never-ending battle,” Saum said.
Legal questions, including possible zoning issues, still need to be hammered out. Also potentially problematic are federal rules against marijuana cultivation, particularly in view of the large numbers of plants being considered. Stiff mandatory minimums begin to kick in at the 100-plant level.
Supervisor McDevitt said about 30 jobs would be created. Workers would be required to wear coveralls without pockets to lessen chances of an employee smuggling marijuana out of the plant.
Berry reports that officials in Bedford Township and Dundee have also been approached about similar large scale marijuana growing operations.
-
must … delete …. facebook profile [udpated]
Facebook came after my time, and I learned better before getting entirely sucked into that. Ok scratch that. I had a change of heart recently on this issue. I created a facebook app just for qbit.cc. I don’t like using it for personal stuff but it can be useful for networking.
Friendster and Myspace were scary enough but Facebook’s ever-changing privacy agreement and DARPA/CIA connections have taken social data mining to a new level. It would hardly be a surprise if every last bit of private data in all all our social network profiles were being integrated into Main Core.
When pondering the privacy implications of social networking, I envision a scenario where an Orwellian pre-crime system has determined that you are at risk of committing a crime, or some non-crime that you have “committed” in the past (blogging) retroactively becomes a crime, and the government uses private info from your social network sites to hunt you down.
I’m having a “Turn on, tune in, drop out” hippie moment. For those of you saying “I’ve got nothing to hide, thus no reason to worry about having my private info on social networks.” I wish I could tell you a story about being caught up in some drama, thru no fault of my own, and having my Myspace profile analyzed by a cop posing as a reporter. But I’m no longer naiive enough to post private things in public places.
I’ve got nothing to hide… therefore the government has got no f’ing business accessing my private information.
Related:
Report: Facebook caught sharing secret data with advertisers (Ars Technica)Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution (Wikipedia)
-
How Corrupted Drug Companies Deceive and Manipulate Your Doctor
Mercola.com | May 18 2010
Dr. Beatrice Golomb, Associate Professor of Medicine at University of California, San Diego, masterfully exposes the corruption that has metastasized like a tumor throughout the pharmaceutical and medical industries, in the video above.
If you have any doubt about drug companies being riddled with conflicts of interest, those doubts will be shattered after seeing the evidence she presents.
The corruption has become so prolific that it has literally debased medical science.
In the above linked Chicago Breaking News article, Dr. Paul Offit, an infectious disease specialist at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, is quoted as saying:
“Science is not a democracy where people’s votes decide what is right. Look at the data, look at science and make a decision based on science that has been published.”
What he is really advocating is for you to blindly believe in “facts” that may have been produced in the midst of MASSIVE conflicts of interest.
Before you assume the science in medical journals is credible, let’s take a look at what is going on behind the scenes of editing and publishing in medical science.
Bias #1: Unwanted Results are Not Published
In order for scientific studies to happen, someone has to pay for them.
The top funder for any drug trial is the pharmaceutical company that makes it, since the manufacturer is most invested in “proving” how spectacular its drug is. Dr. Golomb uses the case of statins as an example, stating that all of the major statin studies have been funded exclusively by the drug industry.
The second-highest funder of drug studies is the National Institute of Health (NIH), which is not the group of neutral government experts you may have assumed them to be. In fact, NIH accepts a great deal of money from Big Pharma and is deeply enmeshed with the industry.
But drug companies publish only a fraction of the studies they fund — the ones that promote their drugs.
If a study does not have findings that are favorable to its product, it is unlikely it will ever make it into a journal for publication.
In contrast, studies that have favorable findings almost always make the cut.
There are simply thousands of scientific studies out there that have never been seen by you or your physician because they have been screened out by editors and reviewers who are being paid to uphold an industry agenda.
Published studies overwhelmingly favor the funding company’s drug. Whichever drug is manufactured by the study sponsor is the drug that comes out on top, 90 percent of the time!
Given this, how can medical journals be considered unbiased?
Bias #2: Bad Results are Submitted as Good
When a scientific study has findings that cast doubt on the efficacy of a drug, oftentimes the negative findings are morphed into positive ones.
For example, in 2008, FDA officials analyzed a registry of 74 antidepressant trials, which included trials that were published and those that were not. The FDA’s findings were then written up in an article in the New England Journal of Medicine1.
This is what they found:
- 38 of the trials reported positive results, and 37 of the 38 were published.
- 36 trials had negative or questionable findings. Of the 36, 22 were not published at all, and 11 were published in a way that conveyed the results as though they were positive.
So, if you just went to the published literature, it would look like 94 percent of the studies were positive, when in reality only about 50 percent were positive … equivalent to a coin toss.
For statins, the odds that the funding company’s drug will come out on top are staggering1:
- The odds that the funding company’s statin drug will come out looking better than anyone else’s statin in the “results” section of the article are 20:1.
- The odds that the funding company’s statin will come out on top in the “conclusions” part of the article are 35:1.
So, even if they can’t make the results look good, they can often find a way to twist the conclusions so that their drug appears favorable.
Selectively omitting negative trial results can be devastating to your health, as Merck & Co. proved when they concealed the fact that three patients suffered heart attacks from Vioxx during clinical trials. They conveniently omitted this data (along with other relevant findings) from the copy of the study they submitted to the New England Journal of Medicine for publication.
The omissions were uncovered years later during the 7,000 Vioxx lawsuit litigations.
Bias #3: A Favorable Study is Submitted Multiple Times
When a study yields positive results, it is often submitted multiple times in a way that the reader doesn’t realize it’s the same study, obscured by different author lists and different details. Analyzers have had to look very carefully to determine which studies are actually duplicates because they are so cleverly disguised.
Not surprisingly, trials reporting greater treatment efficacy were significantly more likely to be duplicated, according to Dr. Golomb’s reporting.
In one analysis of the published reports about ondansetron (an anti-nausea drug), the same study was published 5 times. This duplication of data led to a 23 percent overestimation of ondansetron’s effectiveness when a meta-analysis was performed.2
Talk about good mileage!
Bias #4: Follow-Up Reviews Done by Biased Experts
The editorials that follow from a study, submitted by so-called unbiased experts and then published in reputable journals, are often done by non-neutral parties who have a financial tie to the drug maker.
Dr. Golomb uses the case of calcium channel blockers (a type of heart medication) as an example. The connection between authors declaring their support for calcium channel blockers and those not in support of them was highly statistically tied to their affiliation with the drug manufacturer — in fact, the odds that their opinion was NOT due to their affiliation was more than 1,000:1.
Bias #5: Ghostwriting
Many of the articles that appear in medical journals purportedly written by well-known academics are actually written by unacknowledged ghostwriters on Big Pharma payroll.
Consider the example of Parke-Davis and their drug Neurontin.
Parke-Davis contracted with a “medical education communication company,” or MECC, which is a company paid almost exclusively by pharmaceutical companies to write articles, reviews, and letters to editors of medical journals to cast their products in a favorable light.
In this case, MECC was paid $13,000 to $18,000 per article. In turn, MECC paid $1,000 each to friendly physicians and pharmacists to sign off as authors of the articles, making the material appear independent.
This was also done by Pfizer as a strategy for marketing Zoloft. A document was written that included 81 different articles promoting Zoloft’s usefulness for everything from panic disorder to pedophilia.
The only problem was, for some articles, the name of the author was listed as “to be determined,” even though the article was listed as already completed. They weren’t helping out an existing team of scientists who happened to be talentless at writing — Pfizer wrote the article, and then shopped around for scientists willing to claim authorship, to give it a veneer of credibility.
Wyeth-Ayerst employed a similar ghostwriting tactic to promote its “fen-phen” diet drug, Redux.
Bias #6: Journal Bias
Medical journals are generally considered by medical practitioners to be a source of reliable information. But medical journals are also businesses.
Three editors, who agreed to discuss finances only if they remained anonymous, said a few journals that previously measured annual profits in the tens of thousands of dollars now make millions annually.
The truth is that Big Pharma has become quite adept at manipulating and brainwashing practitioners of conventional medicine. They influence the very heart and center of the most respected medical journals, creating dogma and beliefs that support the drug paradigm because it is blessed by the pinnacle of scientific integrity: the prestigious peer-reviewed medical journal.
Peer-reviewed medical journals contain advertisements that are almost exclusively for drugs, amidst articles that are biased toward promoting those drugs. If you have looked through a medical journal lately, you’ll see full-page Pharma glossies, cover to cover.
Pharmaceutical companies spend almost twice as much on marketing as they spend on research!
In 2003, drug companies spent $448 million dollars on advertising in medical journals2. It has been calculated that the return on investment on medical journal ads is between $2.22 and $6.86 for every dollar spent, with larger and older brands at the higher end.
Long-term returns may be even higher when you consider that one ad viewed by a physician could result in hundreds or even thousands of drug purchases, based on the prescriptions he or she writes.
The term “peer-review” has come to imply scientific credibility. But the fact is that many of the peer-reviewers are on the drug company’s payroll, and those who are not are unlikely to detect flawed research or outright fraud.
Medical journals are the number one source of medical information for physicians. In fact, nearly 80 percent of physicians use medical journals for their education, which exceeds information from any other source3.
Do you really want to blindly take the advise of a physician whose only source of medical information is a medical journal engaged in such profound conflicts of interest?
Advertisements for drugs focus the “latest and greatest” drugs to hit the market, drugs which may not be superior to existing, less expensive alternatives. So physicians are seduced into prescribing the newest, most expensive drugs, which drives up your healthcare costs.
An excellent article in PLoS Medicine regarding drug advertising in medical journals concludes4:
“The scholarly nature of journals confers credibility on both articles and advertisements within their pages. By exclusively featuring advertisements for drugs and devices, medical journals implicitly endorse corporate promotion of the most profitable products. Advertisements and other financial arrangements with pharmaceutical companies compromise the objectivity of journals.
The primary obligation of industry is to make money for its stockholders. The primary obligation of journals should be to physicians and their patients, who depend on the accuracy of information within these publications. Medical journals should not accept advertisements from pharmaceutical companies, medical device companies, or other industries ‘relevant to medicine.’”
In 2004, Dr. Richard Horton, editor of the Lancet, wrote, “Journals have devolved into information-laundering operations for the pharmaceutical industry.”5
Bias #7: Drug Companies Masquerading as Educators
The education of medical students and residents also comes through the filter of the drug industry, which seeks to groom them before they even finish medical school.
According to Dr. Golomb’s data, Big Pharma now spends $18.5 billion per year promoting their drugs to physicians. That amounts to $30,000 per year for every physician in the U. S.!
And drug companies are allowed to develop their own education curriculum for medical students and residents, lavishing them with gifts, indirectly paying them to attend meetings and events where they promote the company’s products.
Why is the Accrediting Commission for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME) so permissive with industry involvement?
Almost half of the members are representatives of Big Pharma or are consultants for businesses that work directly with it to prepare these educational programs. Only a few represent academic CME institutions.
Any discussion of physician “seduction” would be incomplete without the mentioning of the 100,000 drug reps, who are groomed and trained to wine and dine and otherwise shower physicians in sweetness until they are handing out prescriptions like candy.
Reps are even taught tactics for manipulating doctors for industry benefit, as a standard part of their training.6
Hell Hath No Fury
What happens if a physician or other person speaks up about these conflicts of interest? What happens to the proverbial whistle-blower?
Intimidating phone calls and direct threats, for starters.
In one case, Dr. Buse, an endocrinologist who is the incoming president of the American Diabetes Association, presented data in 1999 about his concerns about the risks of Avandia. Dr. Buse was intimidated with multiple phone calls by drug company officials. They suggested he could be financially liable to the company for $4 billion in lost revenues due to his “unscrupulous remarks.”
Other truth-tellers have had their reputations trashed or job offers rescinded for speaking the truths that Big Pharma works so hard to keep under wraps.
“Too Big to Nail”
An individual truth-teller might be vulnerable to the wrath of an angry drug company, but drug companies are unlikely to suffer much of a consequence for their crimes.
A CNN report from April 2, 2010 reveals the truth about how shielded these huge drug companies really are.
Pfizer, the world’s largest pharmaceutical company, engaged in illegally promoting their drug Bextra for off-label use, despite their knowledge that it was associated with an increased risk of stroke and heart attack.
Bextra was pulled from the market in 2005, but not before many people were damaged by its use. When Federal prosecutors realized that convicting Pfizer would likely be a corporate death sentence (as any company convicted of major health care fraud is excluded from Medicare and Medicaid), they cut Pfizer a deal. Just as the big banks on Wall Street were deemed “too big to fail,” Pfizer was deemed “too big to nail.”
Why?
Prosecutors claimed to be concerned about the loss of jobs by Pfizer employees and financial losses to Pfizer shareholders as a result of being excluded from the Medicaid/Medicare programs.
So the prosecutors charged a Pfizer subsidiary, Pharmacia & Upjohn Co., instead. In fact, this particular subsidiary company was created specifically for this purpose, as a sacrificial lamb, having been incorporated the very same day its lawyers filed a “guilty” plea in another case involving kick-backs, leaving Pfizer with the penalty equivalent of being sent to bed without supper.
In the end, all Pfizer lost was about three month’s profit, but all contracts, including those with Medicaid and Medicare, were spared.
This is just one more example of your federal government failing to protect you, and opting to protect big business’ interests instead.
The bottom line is, the drug companies aren’t going to protect you.
The government won’t protect you.
And it is unlikely that your physician can protect you either — even a well-meaning one — when he or she is operating within a system that has become RIGGED for Big Pharma profit.
Only you can protect yourself.
So, until real systemic change takes place, your best health strategy is quite simply to employ and maintain a naturally healthy lifestyle that will optimize your body’s innate healing abilities and minimize your need for the drug companies’ latest concoctions.
Sources:
Chicago Breaking News Center April 8, 2010 -
Here in the United States of BP, you don’t film the oil spill
CBS News
Wednesday, May 19, 2010 -
How to: Stupify Society
How To: Stupify Society Pop Culture



















Add qbit.cc as a friend on facebook
NoScript extension































