Jail Them All (Pharmaceutical Fraud)

Market Ticker ^ | July 20, 2017 | Karl Denninger

[Wolfie]

Jail Them All

There is no greater scam in the world today than the blatant and outrageous lies told to everyone from school age onward over the last 40+ years when it comes to diet, exercise, health and various risk factors associated with same.

The root of the scam goes back even further, but it really became evident with the so-called "food pyramid" which emphasized refined starches (breads and "white vegetables") and claimed that fats were bad for you and should be limited.

Then, the scam evolved. Only saturated fats were bad, so it was claimed. The rest weren't so bad. And of course what we all heard was to eat more "natural", meaning vegetables -- mostly.

We were also told that weight was all about calorie balance. In .vs. out, thus the exhortation to exercise -- to increase the "out" and to restrict calories, in order to decrease the "in."

This may sound easy and is demonstrably, if you can stuff someone in a lab, it might actually appear to work.

But it doesn't work.

It doesn't work because it's all a lie and the people who ran it knew it was a lie -- at least for people with any sort of metabolic derangement. You see, before there was insulin if you became diabetic you had two choices: Stop eating carbohydrates or die from the effects of the disease -- and probably quite quickly too.

Then we developed some drugs. And when we did, suddenly we allegedly "forgot" that metabolic derangement could be very effectively treated without a single dose of pharmaceuticals. We were told to believe that taking the drug made it all ok.

But it didn't. We knew this early on because the number of people with Type II diabetes, heart disease and obesity continued to increase. The doctors all claimed this was because "nobody took their advice", but that belies the point: Either the advice was wrong or it was impossible, psychologically, physiologically or both, to comply with.

It doesn't matter which of the two possibilities is true, by the way. A "mandate" to do something that most people will fail at due to either physiological or psychological factors is no mandate at all unless there is no alternative that doesn't have the same problem.

Of course the facts are that there is an alternative -- the same one we knew about 100 years ago.

And now, here comes the evidence -- that not only was the advice wrong the people pushing it knew it was wrong because they tampered with the data.

"For instance, there are 44 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of drug or dietary interventions to lower LDL-C in the primary and secondary prevention literature, which show no benefit on mortality[8]. Most of these trials did not reduce CVD events and several reported substantial harm. Yet, these studies have not received much publicity. Furthermore, the ACCELERATE trial, a recent well-conducted double-blind randomised controlled trial, demonstrated no discernible reduction in CVD events or mortality, despite a 130% increase in high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) and a 37% drop in LDL-C. The result dumbfounded many experts, sparking renewed scepticism about the veracity of the cholesterol hypothesis[8]."

In other words the drugs do reduce cholesterol but don't reduce either heart attacks or rates of death!

That is, they don't work to produce the claimed outcome -- better health.

What's worse is that even when you look at trials the drug industry sponsored for "secondary prevention" (in other words, you already had a heart attack before starting Statins) showed that the median life expectancy increase was....... four days.

Now tell me folks -- would you agree to take a drug after a heart attack if (1) you knew it would cost you some amount of money -- any amount of money -- and (2) that the expected improvement in your survival time was four days if you took it every day for several years?

No, you would not -- and you know it.

Yet not only the drug industry but your doctor have made billions of dollars selling you these drugs without telling you that the expected improvement in your life is four whole ****ing days.

Knowingly failing to disclose a material fact that would have changed your decision had you known it for the purpose of making a profit at your expense has a name: FRAUD. It is not a mistake, it is a crime.

The paper says:

"There is an ethical and moral imperative that the true benefits and potential harms of these drugs are discussed to protect patients from unnecessary anxiety, manipulation, and iatrogenic complications."

Actually there is a legal requirement to disclose these facts, not just a moral and ethical imperative. It is a criminal event (fraud) to fail to disclose material facts that you are aware of, that disadvantage the person who you withhold the information from and from which you profit.

There is of course a moral and ethical requirement here as well but this is a matter of law, and black-letter law at that. It is not a close argument, it is not a split decision. It is black letter, especially when the underlying claim is that taking a particular drug will reduce your risk of a life-ending event and that claim is knowingly false.

Then paper then goes on to talk about another aspect of this, and includes the 20% of obese people who are allegedly "metabolically healthy." Hmmm.... maybe. But do we know or are we guessing? Remember that as a matter of routine most people are not screened for actual insulin resistance. Indeed I'm aware of no physician that does so nor any practice that claims it's something that should be done. Yes, your A1c will be tested if there is a reason to suspect trouble and you might also be asked to take an OGTT but while failing either certainly means you're metabolically compromised to in that you're symptomatic for diabetes passing either or both does not mean your insulin levels are normal!

So how many people really are "metabolically healthy and obese"? We don't know, but I bet it's not 20% -- especially if you're obese for decades.

Then the paper goes on to make another point, which I've repeatedly brought up -- Omega 3:6 balance. It's impossible to have a decent Omega 3:6 balance if you eat vegetable oils in any material quantity.

So where does this leave us?

Right about..... here.

Or, if you want more detail on the food side, you can try this.

But while you're at it, cut the **** America. This scam is pervasive, it's international and it is killing people by the millions along with asset-stripping the population to the tune of a few hundred billion a year in the United States alone.

The referenced paper makes clear that this is not function of a mistake it's an intentional lie and that makes it a fraud.

It further is a major contributing factor to the health cost explosion and thus the detonation of State and Federal finances, which if we do not stop it will destroy the country.

Either we as a people demand that this crap stop and everyone involved be both asset-stripped to their underwear and thrown in prison or it literally does not matter what else we do from a finance, budget and government perspective. And that's no bull.

[Ambrosia]

That is true of many meds, although people with thyroid issues have problem that must be addressed for change. So buying a generic is not always an option, making costs higher. You are right.

[CodeToad]

“Do you grocery shop, yourself?”

Yes, because I am far smarter than to live on welfare and eat packages foods I cannot afford because I too damned lazy to learn to cook for myself, much less learn not to be on welfare.

We need to cut off welfare 100%. NOTHING in the constitution allows for stealing from one to give to another.

[loungitude]

.

[djf]

If I were you, I would keep up the metformin.

It is a well known anti-aging drug.

[Noumenon]

Interesting. I did not know that.

[djf]

There are clinical trials going on right now.

You can do a Google search on Metformin aging and see some of the stuff they found out about it.

[CaptainPhilFan]

Wolfie, has this article been taken down? The link doesn’t work and I can’t find it at the site. I’m wondering why. BUT I agree with so much of what he’s written and what FReepers have said here.