Junk Food Makers Target Blacks, Latinos and Communities of Color, Increasing Risks From COVID-19

In the United States, the novel coronavirus appears to be infectinghospitalizing and killing black people and Latinos at alarmingly high rates, with data from several states illustrating this pattern.

There are many reasons for this. Structural inequalities across U.S. society contribute to this problem, including unequal access to fresh healthy foods, specific targeting of communities of color by manufacturers of junk food, unequal access to health care, more workers in essential jobs who cannot stay home and excess exposure to toxic chemicals and unhealthy air.

In this post, we are tracking studies and news articles about the disproportionate impact of the pandemic on black Americans, Latinos and communities of color, and how junk food manufacturers specifically and disproportionately target communities of color. For recent reporting on the connections between food-related diseases and the coronavirus, impacts on farmworkers and food workers, and other vital food system issues related to the pandemic, see our Coronavirus Food News Tracker.

Data on the disproportionate targeting of junk food advertising and marketing to communities of color

Increasing disparities in unhealthy food advertising targeted to Hispanic and Black youth, Rudd Center for Food Policy & Obesity; Council on Black Health (January 2019)

• Junk food ads disproportionately target black and Hispanic kids: report, by Lisa Rapaport, Reuters (1.17.19)

• Black and Hispanic youth are targeted with junk food ads, research shows, by Jessica Ravitz, CNN (1.15.19)

Television food advertising viewed by preschoolers, children and adolescents: contributors to differences in exposure for black and white youth in the United States, Rudd Center of Food Policy and Obesity (May 2016)

Food advertising targeted to Hispanic and Black youth: Contributing to health disparities, Rudd Center for Food Policy, AACORN, Salud America! (August 2015)

• Study: Black children are exposed to junk-food ads way more than white kids are, by Caitlin Dewey, Washington Post (12.15.16)

Limit junk-food ads that contribute to childhood obesity, Statement by the American Medical Association (2018)

Health equity & junk food marketing: talking about targeting kids of color, Berkeley Media Studies Group (2017)

Television food advertising viewed by preschoolers, children and adolescents: contributors to differences in exposure for black and white youth in the United States, Pediatric Obesity (2016)

To Choose (Not) to Eat Healthy: Social Norms, Self‐affirmation, and Food Choice, by Aarti Ivanic, Psychology and Marketing (July 2016)

• People of color have the highest obesity rates in the US. Food marketing is part of the problem: Interview with Aarti Ivanic by Nadra Little, Vox (9.28.18)

Disparities in Obesity-Related Outdoor Advertising by Neighborhood Income and RaceJournal of Urban Health (2015)

Child-Directed Marketing Inside and on the Exterior of Fast Food Restaurants, American Journal of Preventive Medicine (2014)

• Fast-Food Chains Disproportionately Target Black Children, by Olga Khazan, The Atlantic (11.13.14)

• Fast food marketing for children disproportionately affects certain communitiesArizona State University (10.14)

• Fast Food Restaurants Are Targeting Black Kids with Their Advertising, by Laura RothamVice (11.17.14)

Racial/Ethnic and Income Disparities in Child and Adolescent Exposure to Food and Beverage Television Ads across U.S. Media Markets, Health Place (2014)

Impact of Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Consumption on Black Americans’ Health, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation(2011)

The Context for Choice: Health Implications of Targeted Food and Beverage Marketing to African AmericansAmerican Journal of Public Health (2008)

Fast Food: Oppression through Poor NutritionCalifornia Law Review (2007)

The Health Impact of Targeted Marketing: An Interview with Sonya GrierCorporations and Health Watch (2010)

What to do

Limit junk-food ads that contribute to childhood obesity, Statement by the American Medical Association (2018)

Targeted Marketing Of Junk Food To Ethnic Minority Youth: Fighting Back With Legal Advocacy And Community Engagement, ChangeLab Solutions(2012)

Food-Related DiseasesMarketing to ChildrenPesticidesSweeteners   Black Americanscommunities of colorCovid-19food related diseasesjunk food advertisingLatinosobesity ratesRudd Center

Posted with permission from U.S. Right to Know.

World Famous Psychiatrist Says: More Psychiatric Drug Treatment Means More Shootings Will Happen

(Natural Blaze by Jon Rappoport) Listen to this man. You’d better listen.

His name is Peter Breggin. He is a world famous psychiatrist. He has been called the conscience of his profession.

Here is an excerpt from his bio:

“Peter R. Breggin MD is a Harvard-trained psychiatrist and former Consultant at NIMH [National Institute of Mental Health] who has been called ‘The Conscience of Psychiatry’ for his many decades of successful efforts to reform the mental health field. His work provides the foundation for modern criticism of psychiatric diagnoses and drugs, and leads the way in promoting more caring and effective therapies. His research and educational projects have brought about major changes in the FDA-approved Full Prescribing Information or labels for dozens of antipsychotic and antidepressant drugs. He continues to education the public and professions about the tragic psychiatric drugging of America’s children.”

Recommended: Holistic Guide to Healing the Endocrine System and Balancing Our Hormones

“Dr. Breggin has authored dozens of scientific articles and more than twenty books, including medical books and the bestsellers Toxic Psychiatry and Talking Back to Prozac. Two more recent books are Medication Madness: The Role of Psychiatric Drugs in Cases of Violence, Suicide and Crime and Psychiatric Drug Withdrawal: A Guide for Prescribers, Therapists, Patients and their Families.”

“Dr. Breggin has unprecedented and unique knowledge about how the pharmaceutical industry too often commits fraud in researching and marketing psychiatric drugs. He has testified many times in malpractice, product liability and criminal cases, often in relation to adverse drug effects…”

Here is an explosive excerpt from Dr. Breggin’s recent column at Mad In America: “Psychiatrist Says: More Psychiatry Means More Shootings”:

“In the early 1990s, a federal court-appointed me to be the scientific expert for all of the combined product liability cases that were brought against Eli Lilly throughout the country concerning Prozac-induced violence, suicide and crime. Since then I have been involved in many cases in which judges and juries, and even prosecuting attorneys, have determined that psychiatric drugs have caused or substantially contributed to violence. For a lengthy list, see the Legal Section on my website [www.breggin.com].”

“In 2003/2004, I wrote a scientific review article about antidepressant-induced suicide, violence and mania which the FDA distributed to all its advisory committee members. This took place as the FDA Advisory Committee members prepared to review new warnings to be put in the Full Prescribing Information for all antidepressants.”

Recommended: Sugar Leads to Depression – World’s First Trial Proves Gut and Brain are Linked (Protocol Included)

“In my peer-reviewed paper [about the effects of antidepressants], I wrote: ‘Mania with psychosis is the extreme end of a stimulant continuum that often begins with lesser degrees of insomnia, nervousness, anxiety, hyperactivity and irritability and then progresses toward more severe agitation, aggression, and varying degrees of mania.”

“In words very close to and sometimes identical to mine, the FDA one year later required the manufacturers of every antidepressant to put the following observations in the Warnings section of the Full Prescribing Information:”

“’All patients being treated with antidepressants for any indication should be monitored appropriately and observed closely for clinical worsening, suicidality, and unusual changes in behavior, especially during the initial few months of a course of drug therapy, or at times of dose changes, either increases or decreases. The following symptoms, anxiety, agitation, panic attacks, insomnia, irritability, hostility, aggressiveness, impulsivity, akathisia (psychomotor restlessness), hypomania, and mania, have been reported in adult and pediatric patients being treated with antidepressants for major depressive disorder as well as for other indications, both psychiatric and nonpsychiatric’.”

“These adverse drug effects—including agitation, irritability, hostility, aggressiveness, akathisia, and impulsivity—are an obvious prescription for violence. Akathisia, which I also described in my article, is a psychomotor agitation that is strongly associated with violence.”

“The FDA Medication Guide for antidepressants warns clinicians, patients and families to be on the alert for the following:

  • acting on dangerous impulses
  • acting aggressive or violent
  • feeling agitated, restless, angry or irritable
  • other unusual changes in behavior or mood”

“This list (above) of antidepressant adverse effects from the Medication Guide should make clear that antidepressants can cause violence.”

“The FDA also acknowledges the risk of both psychosis and aggression from the stimulant drugs used to treat ADHD…”

“In the study of violence reports to the FDA, any predisposition toward violence in the patients themselves was largely ruled out because some of the most violence-inducing drugs were not psychiatric drugs, and were being given to a more general population. Some of the violence-inducing drugs were antibiotics, including Lariam (Mefloquine), which Sgt. Robert Bales was taking when he slaughtered 16 helpless, innocent villagers in Afghanistan.”

“[The authorities] do not foresee that the psychiatric strategy for treatment will sometimes lead to tragic outcomes like the school shootings. Nor do they realize that the overall evidence of harm from psychiatric drugs is infinitely greater than the evidence for good effects, as scientist Peter Gøtzsche has confirmed in Deadly Psychiatry and Organized Denial.”

“Calling for more spending on mental health and on psychiatry will make matters worse, probably causing many more shootings than it prevents.”

Recommended: Gluten, Candida, Leaky Gut Syndrome, and Autoimmune Diseases

“Not only do psychiatric drugs add to the risk of violence, but psychiatric treatment lulls the various authorities and the family into believing that the patient is now ‘under control’ and ‘less of a risk.’ Even the patient may think the drugs are helping, and continue to take them right up to the moment of violence.”

“Even when some of their patients signal with all their might that they are dangerous and need to be stopped, mental health providers are likely to give drugs, adding fuel to the heat of violent impulses, while assuming that their violence-inducing drugs will reduce the risk of serious aggression.”

NOTE: DR. BREGGIN ISSUES THIS WARNING: “Most psychiatric drugs can cause withdrawal reactions, including life-threatening emotional and physical reactions. So it is not only dangerous to start psychiatric drugs, it can also be dangerous to stop them. Withdrawal from psychiatric drugs should be done carefully under experienced clinical supervision. Methods for safely withdrawing from psychiatric drugs are discussed in Dr. Breggin’s book: Psychiatric Drug Withdrawal: A Guide for Prescribers, Therapists, Patients and Their Families.”

My comments: The tragedy of many mass shootings—many more than are highlighted by the press—is mirrored by the tragedy of psychiatric drug treatment.

Overwhelmingly, psychiatrists bury their heads in the sand, as they continue to dose patients with compounds that cause horrendous effects, including violence.

The psychiatric solution to mass shootings—more diagnosis and more drugs—becomes the cause for increased shootings.

Many mainstream reporters are aware of this, but they are constrained from telling the whole truth. Their media outlets are relying on pharmaceutical advertising for their very existence.

Legal authorities make it very difficult, if not impossible, to obtain information about which psychiatric drugs shooters were taking before they went on their rampages. Case in point, Sandy Hook, 2012—the (purported) killer, Adam Lanza, had been under psychiatric treatment. But an assistant attorney general for the state of Connecticut stated that the list of Lanza’s meds would not be disclosed, because that “can cause a lot of people to stop taking their medications.” Better for patients to keep taking those drugs—and then some of them will violently go off on innocent persons.

Recommended: Hypothyroidism – Natural Remedies, Causes, and How To Heal the Thyroid

In conversations with attorneys over the years, I’ve been told that judges, police officers, and prosecutors avoid the “psychiatric drug issue.” They don’t want to touch it. After all, friendly psychiatrists are part of the legal system. They often testify at trials. Further, “medical experts” will lash out and go on the attack against law enforcement if an attempt is made to link a violent crime to the effects of psychiatric drugs. (Dr. Breggin has managed to break through this code of silence. He is one of the only psychiatrists who has been able to testify in court about the true effects of psychiatric drugs.)

At the federal level, lobbyists for drug companies are crawling all over Washington DC. They exert an astonishing level of influence on law makers and bureaucrats. The issue of psychiatric drug-induced murder is obviously not on the list of permitted issues for open and extensive discussion.

Then there is the FDA. This is the agency tasked with approving every medical drug as safe and effective before it can be released for public use. The FDA will never admit its decisions have been fueling mass shootings across America. The Agency views the pharmaceutical industry as its partner. Placing warnings on informational drug inserts (as described above by Dr. Breggin) easily escapes the attention of psychiatric patients. Doctors who prescribe the drugs may or may not read those warnings. Even if they do read them, the drugs are THE solution to “mental disorders.” Very few doctors will seek other means of treatment.

The public is in the middle of a psychiatric plague. Learning the truth is the first step forward.

After that, we MUST preserve the right to refuse medication.

Freedom and life itself hang in the balance.

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, The Matrix Revealedclick here.)

Drug Companies Responsible for Massive Environmental Pollution

(Dr. Mercola) Environmental pollution is a tremendous concern, and the sources of toxic pollution are many. One source that has managed to skirt below the radar is the drug industry.1,2,3,4 In 2016, the nonprofit foundation Changing Markets issued a report on “Impacts of Pharmaceutical Pollution on Communities and Environment in India,”5 on behalf of Nordea Asset Management, a major investment firm in Sweden.

According to this report, the severe water pollution problem in India can be, to a significant extent, traced back to the generic drug industry. Between 2010 and 2015, the number of contaminated waterways in India more than doubled, and by 2015, more than half of the nation’s rivers were polluted. India’s low cost of manufacturing has lured a number of drug companies to set up shop, congregating in the city of Hyderabad and along the Andhra Pradesh coastline.

Recommended Reading: How to Detoxify From Antibiotics and Other Chemical Antimicrobials

According to a recent economic survey by the Finance Ministry of India, Hyderabad’s drug industry accounts for nearly half of the country’s drug exports.6 “Outsourcing of production to the emerging markets, where labor is cheap, workforces skilled and environmental standards lax, has now become second nature for the pharmaceutical majors, many of which are based in the United States and Europe,” the report noted.

The report also stressed that there’s a disturbing lack of transparency within the drug industry about the origin of active ingredients and the finished drugs, and that while regulators “who could easily demand greater transparency from the drug industry, have so far shied away from taking action.”

New Report Calls Renewed Attention to India’s Pollution Crisis

In a follow-up report,7 the Changing Markets Foundation now calls renewed attention to the pollution crisis in Hyderabad, with a focus on heavy metal and other toxic waste pollution created by the “bulk drug” industry operating in India.

Based on visits to the area, interviews with experts and locals, and analysis of published research and media articles, the report concludes that drug companies in Hyderabad continue to “discharge untreated or inappropriately treated wastewater into the environment and that local and national authorities are failing to get the situation under control.”

In fact, in the two years since the publication of the first report, the situation in Hyderabad has deteriorated further. What’s worse, plans to expand drug production in the city, combined with a lack of regulations to control toxic waste emissions, makes for “a grim future” for local residents in the area, the report warns.

In addition to the release of untreated effluent, local media investigations have revealed the practice of illegal toxic waste dumping, where drug companies are discarding hazardous waste under the cover of night, using unmarked vehicles.8,9 Mass die-offs of fish have also made headlines, and the dead fish were found to contain toxic solvents used during the drug manufacturing process.

Source: Changing Markets Foundation, 

Hyderabad’s Pharmaceutical Pollution CrisisWater sampling near drug factories in the area, collected in September 2017, reveal significant amounts of heavy metals — including leadmercury, copper, cadmium, vanadium, hexavalent chromium, nickel, zinc and arsenic — as well as toxic industrial solvents, are being released into the city’s waterways.

“In some cases, these were found to be present at extremely high concentrations, orders of magnitude higher than maximum regulatory limits or safe exposure levels, which points to substantial human and ecological risk potential,” the report states, adding “The mere presence of some of these substances is cause for alarm given their extreme toxicity.”

Antibiotic Production Poses Grave Risks

The report also highlights previous studies showing factories manufacturing antibiotics pose a grave risk by fueling antibiotic resistance in the environment. Antibiotic pollution is a problem not only in India, but also in China, Pakistan, Korea, Denmark, Norway and Croatia, and promotes the development of drug-resistant pathogens.

In November 2016, German researchers collected water samples from “the direct environment of bulk drug manufacturing facilities, the vicinity of two sewage treatment plants, the Musi River and habitats in Hyderabad and nearby villages.”10

Twenty-eight sampling sites were surveyed, and the water samples were analyzed for 25 anti-infective pharmaceuticals as well as multidrug-resistant pathogens and certain resistance genes. Disturbingly, all of the samples were contaminated with antimicrobials, including high concentrations of moxifloxacin, voriconazole and fluconazole. Area sewers also contained elevated concentrations of eight other antibiotics.

Some of the water samples contained antimicrobials at levels up to 5,500 times higher than the environmental regulation limit. What’s more, more than 95 percent of the samples also contained multidrug-resistant bacteria and fungi. The researchers called the contamination “unprecedented” and blamed it on “insufficient wastewater management by bulk drug manufacturing facilities, which seems to be associated with the selection and dissemination of carbapenemase-producing pathogens.”

Toxic Antibiotics Pollute India’s Waterways and Farmland

What happens is that during the drug manufacturing process, significant quantities of antibiotics are flushed out into wastewater, which then find its way into rivers, drinking water and farmland. The Patancheru water treatment plant, located near Hyderabad, receives 400,000 gallons of wastewater from 90 drug companies each day. All of this manufacturing effluent is combined with domestic wastewater, less than 25 percent of which actually undergoes treatment.

Swedish researchers, who have studied and published environmental reports about Hyderabad since 2007, have reported that some drug levels found in wastewater are higher than what is found in patients’ blood.11 The worst water contaminant detected was the antibiotic ciprofloxacin, which was found at a concentration high enough to give 44,000 people a full course of treatment.

Cipro is a fluoroquinolone antibiotic, a class of synthetic antibacterial drugs that directly inhibit bacterial DNA synthesis, and has been linked to permanent nerve damage in some patients. Due to their tremendous health risks, fluoroquinolones should be reserved for treating serious bacterial infections that will not respond to any other treatment. The idea that Cipro is being disseminated at those levels into the environment and people’s drinking water is disconcerting, to say the least.

Antibiotic Pollution Promotes Spread of Drug-Resistant Genes

Researchers have also confirmed that this wastewater is toxic to a number of organisms, and promotes drug-resistant genes. DNA samples taken downstream from drug manufacturing facilities reveal nearly 2 percent of the samples contain drug-resistant genes. Aside from direct ingestion, contaminated wastewater also finds its way onto crop fields via irrigation and sludge (biosolids) used as fertilizer.

In this way, drug-resistant genes are spread, shared and multiplied throughout the environment. A 2013 paper12 published in Environmental Health Perspectives addresses management options for reducing antibiotics and drug-resistant genes into the environment — such as safe disposal practices, wastewater and biosolid treatment, limiting agricultural and aquacultural use of antibiotics — and using alternatives to antibiotics whenever possible. But, so far, regulators and the industry itself have done virtually nothing.

Indian Drug Manufacturers May Lose European Supply Contracts

According to Changing Markets, Indian drug manufacturers who fail to clean up their act may soon lose their competitive advantage though. According to the report:13

“European NGOs have recently called for major procurement bodies, including the U.K.’s National Health Service, German health insurance companies, and French hospitals, to blacklist the worst-offending polluters and embed environmental criteria in all the contracts with pharmaceutical suppliers. Several of these organizations are now reviewing the situation. In Sweden, the country’s regions have come together and introduced environmental criteria and audits in their contracts.”

Sasja Beslik, who heads Nordea’s Group Sustainable Finance, also warned that “The pharmaceutical industry has to take action to tackle pollution at Indian factories supplying medicines to the global market,” adding that Nordea is willing to “continue the engagement with the pharma industry in order to find constructive and concrete solutions for these significant challenges that are impacting millions of people and the environment.”14 Changing Markets’ campaign manager Natasha Hurley also stressed that:15

“Multinational pharmaceutical companies which outsource API [active product ingredient] production to India to cut costs and maximize profits have a responsibility to take rapid action to put a stop to pollution in their supply chains.

Given the lack of transparency within the industry and the slow progress the global pharma giants have made on this to date, it is of paramount importance that regulators introduce environmental criteria that guard against such bad practices, both at national and international level.”

Pollution From Drug Manufacturing — A Supply Chain Problem That Must Be Tackled

According to the report, pollution from drug manufacturing has been “clearly exposed as a supply chain problem,” and the answer lies in holding drug companies responsible for their supply chains. While some have started taking steps in the right direction, “the industry and regulators are not moving fast enough to address the threat,” Changing Markets warns, saying that multinational drug companies that outsource production of active ingredients to India must step up and “take rapid action to end pollution within their supply chain.”

Regulatory agencies and medical agencies must also add environmental criteria to the good manufacturing practices standards, to prevent uncontrolled pollution within drug manufacturing. It’s a truly sad irony that millions of people in India are being poisoned by the very industry producing “lifesaving” medication for the rest of the world.

On a personal level, there’s not much you can do about this state of affairs. Governments and the drug industry need to address these problems head on, and hopefully Nordea’s push to hold drug companies accountable will have a marked effect.

Cleaning Up Your Own Household

That said, it’s important to remember that pollution is a global problem, and that pollutants don’t stay in any one area. Toxins and drug-resistant pathogens in India’s waterways spread far and wide. As noted in a 2008 report16 by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, multidrug-resistant E.coli bacteria have even been found in the Arctic; brought there by migrating birds!

So, no matter where you live, it would be wise to consider the purity of both your food and water. Also be mindful of not adding to the problem yourself. Never dispose of unused drugs by flushing them down the drain or toilet. It’s also inadvisable to throw them out in your garbage, as then they just end up in a landfill. For guidance on proper drug disposal, see this previous article.

Unfortunately, toxic biosolids may be used even in organic farming, and may be found in USDA 100 percent organic compost, mulch and potting soil for use in your own backyard. These products do not need to disclose the presence of biosolids, but some companies will list “milogranite” on the label, which means it contains toxic biosolids.

Your best alternative is to contact your local nursery and ask them if they use biosolids in their compost. Another alternative is to make your own, using a composting bin or wood chips for example. When it comes to buying organic food, the only way to find out if biosolids were used is to talk to the farmer.

Lastly, consider installing a high-quality water filtration system in your home, as drugs are a commonly occurring contaminant just about everywhere. The reason for this is because water treatment facilities are not equipped to filter these substances out. For more information and guidance on water filtration, see “How to Properly Filter Your Water.”

 Recommended Reading:

Marijuana Advisor To Sessions Wants To Drug Test Everyone

Drug Test

(Natural Blaze by Heather Callaghan)  “We want [drug screens] to be routine in all medicine…” It’s bad enough in 2018 that the war on drugs still exists in the deluded minds of government higher-ups, just as some states begin to legalize recreational marijuana. And just as they do, Attorney General Jeff Sessions dropped the bomb that the Federal Government ended its leniency toward states’ rights for medical marijuanaThus, we devolve as a nation.

But the biggest blow to Americans was when Sessions’ DEA, although going after marijuana as a dangerous substance – in essence gave a Pharma opioid maker the rights to a partial national monopoly on synthetic THC!

What’s worse, it looks like the War on Drugs has just collided with Mad Medicine.

Herb.co reports:

A top-level advisor to Attorney General Jeff Sessions wants doctors to drug test all their patients, and to force users, they suspect of addiction into rehabilitation against their will. If Robert DuPont gets his way, drug testing could become a required part of your visit to the doctor.

DuPont, 81, is one of a small group of drug-policy “experts” Sessions invited to a closed meeting last month to discuss federal response to marijuana legalization. He is one of the most hardline and influential architects of the Drug War, having started out in the 1970s as a liberal on the drug control issue. But by the 1980s DuPont had taken a hard right turn, popularizing the long-debunked claim that cannabis is a “gateway drug.”

DuPont wants to force people into treatment for up to 5 years.

In an interview last year, DuPont pushed for expanding drug testing. His idea includes having physicians force patients whom they believe to have substance abuse problems to submit to drug tests, or lengthy stays in treatment facilities reportsNewsweek.

“Among other things, he proposed giving doctors the authority to compel suspected substance abusers into treatment against their will,” reportsThe Daily Beast. “Once in treatment, patients could face up to five years of monitoring, including random drug tests.”

“We want [drug screens] to be routine in all medicine,” DuPont said. “Doctors already check for things like cholesterol and blood sugar, why not test for illicit drugs? Right now the public thinks that if we provide treatment the addicts will come and get well … that’s not true. So let’s use the leverage of the criminal justice system.”

It is quite the understatement to say that America has been ejected right off that proverbial slippery slope. Can you imagine anything more invasive when modern medicine and drug laws are already so intrusive?

DuPont doesn’t even want to try treatment but views all drug use as a forbidden crime for which there must be government intervention.

In 2010, he penned a national model bill that “called on cops to test anyone stopped for suspicion of driving under the influence for all controlled substances, and arresting them on the spot if the slightest trace showed up — regardless of the amount. While the bill includes an exemption for drivers with prescriptions, cannabis users would still get busted. Medical-marijuana patients don’t have prescriptions (due to federal law), just doctor recommendations.”

That bill would not only punish legal medical marijuana patients in states which permit its use, but anyone for any substance that is legal to consume – even alcohol or medicine. Any failure of a bodily drug test would constitute possession of the substance!

So with DuPont’s ideas, we could look forward to a nation of forced drug testing, invasive extraction of bodily fluids, zero tolerance of substances including alcohol or cold medicine, instant arrests and federal charges of crimes for any deviation. Bye, bye 4th Amendment.

A few notable things about DuPont:

  • He was the former drug czar to Richard Nixon.
  • Vaguely warned The Washington Post the marijuana would have “horrendous” effects on society.
  • Although serving for the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) he later had ties to the drug-testing industry. (source)
  • “In 2000, he appeared before the federal Food and Drug Administration, pushing for expanded hair follicle testing.” ! (source)
  • Yes, it is and would be financially gainful for him to continue opposing friendly cannabis legislation. He was a ” paid consultant and shareholder in Psychemedics, which offered costly hair testing analysis.”

What else can we say? Whereas the state laws allowing cannabis freedom were a breath of fresh air in the midst of a war on freedom – we are heading back to the dinosaurs where the breath of aging, drug-war addled elites whispers into the ear of the Attorney General. President Trump is strangely absent from these conflicts.

Recommended Reading:

Who Does The Childhood Vaccine Injury Act Protect?

(Natural Blaze) The laws of a country are, generally, designed to protect its citizens. How this ideal is interpreted is a topic of debate in various circles, but its goal is lofty, if not quite perfect. Of specific necessity are laws aimed at protecting children, including child abuse, welfare, and labor laws. Of zero necessity, in my view, is the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act(NCVIA), which sounds like it has the best interests of this nation’s young citizens in mind, but actually serves a much different purpose.

Congress passed the NCVIA in 1986, and President Ronald Reagan signed it into law soon after. Taken at face value, the law has some admirable provisions: it established improved communication regarding vaccines across all Department of Health and Human Service agencies; required health care providers who administer vaccines to provide a vaccine information statement to the person getting the vaccine or his or her guardian; and established a committee from the Institute of Medicine to review the literature on vaccine reactions.

 Recommended Reading: How to Detoxify from Vaccinations & Heavy Metals

Dig a little deeper, however, and the NCVIA does less to protect patients than it does drug companies making vaccines. When Reagan signed the NCVIA, he also created the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP), which allows anyone—children and adults—who have suffered an injury (or worse) following a vaccination to file a claim. To date, it has paid out nearly $4 billion in compensation since 1988, including the 2008 case of Hannah Poling, whose family received more than $1.5 million in a landmark court award for a vaccine-autism claim.

Lifting liability

While this might sound like a good thing, one must read between the lines. The NCVIA also sets limits on the liability of vaccine manufacturers. They don’t have to pay a dime, in most cases, if someone is injured as a result of a product they make. Is there any other industry afforded such immunity? The pharmaceutical industry makes billions of dollars annually producing, promoting, and injecting a product that is known to injure people in myriad ways, and bears zero responsibility when a child—or an adult—suffers as a result.

The system is broken, and it’s why the founders of the nonprofit National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC), which worked with Congress in the 1980s to get the NCVIA passed, began calling in 2015 for its repeal. In a press release, NVIC co-founder Barbara Loe Fisher noted that the federal vaccine injury compensation program has become “a drug company stockholder’s dream and a parent’s worst nightmare.” In the same document, co-founder Kathi Williams argues that the provisions that their organization helped secure in the law are not being enforced, and most children getting government-recommended vaccines are denied vaccine injury compensation.

That zero liability rests on the vaccine manufacturers is a travesty of epic proportions.
Recommended Reading: How Plumbing (Not Vaccines) Eradicated Disease 

I echo their calls for repeal. Children are given between 53 and 56 vaccine doses containing 177 to 232 antigens between birth and age 18. Vaccine reactions range from a mild fever, muscle/joint pain, and injection site swelling to seizures, trouble breathing, vomiting, and permanent brain damage. Though considered “rare” by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, these more serious effects admittedly occur, and people suffer. That zero liability rests on the vaccine manufacturers is a travesty of epic proportions.

And yet, is anyone truly surprised? This is the same cast of characters that knowingly inserts neurotoxins such as mercury and aluminum into its products, and uses advertising and public awareness campaigns to further enrich themselves and ensure that vaccine injury stories are never shown to the public.

Vaccines and vaccine safety are emotionally charged issues. But setting aside the history of this controversy and its consequences, the passage of NCVIA raises an overarching issue that should concern consumers of any product, vaccine or otherwise.

Perhaps not surprisingly, vaccine safety deteriorated when consumers were no longer able to sue vaccine manufacturers.

Safety vs. profit

 A 2017 study published in the Review of Industrial Organization looked at whether removing the right to sue—called “delitigation”—affects product safety, and highlighted specifically the effects of NCVIA on the vaccine industry. Perhaps not surprisingly, vaccine safety deteriorated when consumers were no longer able to sue vaccine manufacturers.

Author Gayle DeLong, PhD, an economist at Baruch College, attributes this decrease in safety to the expanded array of vaccines allowed by NCVIA, and argues that some vaccines likely never would have been developed at all if consumers had retained the right to sue. Losing the ability to sue companies for bad products results in the production of more bad products, or maybe not as many good ones, because the companies are inoculated from harm.

The VICP is a no-fault program designed specifically and intentionally to shield vaccine manufacturers, rather than protect the people harmed by vaccines. This system has lined the pockets of pharmaceutical companies for decades, while simultaneously giving them the green light to continue making unsafe vaccines that put people—particularly children—at risk for lifelong, serious health problems and even death.

Rewarding bad behavior

Rather than continue under an arrangement that essentially rewards bad behavior, NCVIA should be repealed and eventually replaced with more thoughtful legislation regarding vaccines. Given the sheer number of things with which we inject millions of children on a daily basis in this country, shouldn’t someone be held responsible when things go awry? The knee-jerk reaction of our government shouldn’t be to protect the entity that is hurting people. It should be to clearly and concisely articulate how vaccines can be made safer, and penalize those who don’t comply.

Recommended Reading: Vaccine Propaganda Vs Vaccine Truth

We all try to take personal responsibility in our lives, whether for our own actions or for those of our children. We try to teach them right from wrong, to admit when they’ve done something they shouldn’t have, and show them how to correct it. It’s unfortunate that the same standards that apply to seven-year-olds don’t apply to pharmaceutical companies.