The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention once had a rather good reputation among Americans and the world, but that reputation continues to take hits as more information becomes available about how the agency functions and its ties to industry.
Once touted as an "independent" institution, a recent investigative report published in The BMJ (British Medical Journal) by associate editor Jeanne Lenzer calls into question the CDC's integrity. Notably, the report demonstrates how the agency has been less than honest in its publication of disclaimers in its own studies when stating that "they have no financial interests or other relationships with the manufacturers of commercial products."
While the news does not come as a shocker to those of us in alternative media, the information is nevertheless noteworthy in that it was published in one of the premier medical science journals. Lenzer, in her report, described the significance of the report and the platform in which it was published:
The CDC's image as an independent watchdog over the public health has given it enormous prestige, and its recommendations are occasionally enforced by law.
She then went on to quote Marcia Angell, the former editor-in-chief of the New England Journal of Medicine:
The CDC has enormous credibility among physicians, in no small part because the agency is generally thought to be free of industry bias. Financial dealings with biopharmaceutical companies threaten that reputation.
"Authorised" to accept Big Pharma "funding"
Lenzer then provides documentation in her report about how the CDC has gotten millions of dollars in "industry gifts and funding" at least since 1983 (the agency was founded in 1946).
"Despite the agency's disclaimer, the CDC does receive millions of dollars in industry gifts and funding, both directly and indirectly, and several recent CDC actions and recommendations have raised questions about the science it cites, the clinical guidelines it promotes, and the money it is taking," she wrote.
In 1983, Lenzer says, the CDC was "authorised" to accept funding from Big Pharma companies, and that in 1995 Congress approved legislation – signed into law by President Bill Clinton – "to encourage relationships between industry and the CDC."
The report goes on to give a number of examples of how Big Pharma funding has likely affected the outcomes of research that was used to promote questionable medications.
As Natural News has previously reported, the CDC is actually a for-profit corporation, as they are generally defined, much like the rest of the federal government, which has been sold off to the highest corporate bidder.
In that report, we revealed that the CDC was listed in a Dunn & Bradstreet database as a for-profit entity, even though it is supposed to be a public, not-for-profit entity (as Lenzer noted, U.S. taxpayers funded the CDC to the tune of about $6.6 billion last year).
We also tied the CDC to the pharmaceutical industry, which seeks to profit by essentially keeping us sick and dependent on medications.
Compromised by graft and greed
But perhaps none of this should surprise us, considering government agencies of all stripes have no problem lying to the very citizens who pay for their existence.
As Natural News editor Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, noted recently regarding the NSA "head fake," in which mainstream media reported that the nation's premier spy agency really was ending its mass surveillance of Americans when provisions of the USA Patriot Act expired May 31:
There are days I just shake my head in bewilderment at the astonishing, almost incomprehensible gullibility of mainstream Americans and the media that claims to be practicing intelligent journalism. When I see the Associated Press report things like, "The NSA had stopped gathering the records from phone companies hours before the deadline," I'm almost paralyzed with disbelief.
The CDC is not the independent entity that Americans, and the world, have been led to believe it is. Like most other government bureaucracies, it, too, has been compromised by graft – and greed.
When someone downs a Starbucks venti frappuccino, it's probably not the caffeine keeping them addicted, antsy, and wide-eyed. Instead, they are hyper and jumping all over the place because they just downed about 30 cubes of sugar! That's how much sugar is in the new Starbucks Cinnamon Roll venti frappucccino.
Starbucks recently announced the arrival of six new fraps, and the amount of refined sugar in each cup of espresso is through the roof. In fact, the Cinnamon Roll flavored frap contains 400 percent the recommended daily limit of sugar -- an amount that would make any dietician shudder.
Most Americans are already consuming more sugar than recommended. Slurping down 30 more sugar cubes in one sitting is enough overkill to make any metabolic system cry out for help. It wouldn't take long for someone who downs one of these every weekend to be diagnosed with full blown type-II diabetes.
Starbucks six new frap flavors blow the scale for daily sugar intake
A closer look at each flavor reveals escalating levels of sugar content.
The new Lemon Bar Creme clocks in at 71 grams of sugar in one 24-ounce frap. The sweetness escalates from there, with Cupcake Creme totaling 79 grams, Cotton Candy Creme ringing in at 83 grams, and Red Velvet Cake Creme totaling 87 grams. Pushing the limits, Caramel Cocoa Cluster contains 97 grams, and Cinnamon Roll tops them all with 102 grams of sugar.
To put it in perspective, having a Cinnamon Roll frap is equivalent to drinking an entire one-liter bottle of Coca-Cola! The new Cinnamon Roll frap is like the hard liquor of espresso.
Starbucks frappuccinos create an acidic environment for cancer to take hold in the body
While consumers are free to burden their bodies however they choose, companies as influential as Starbucks should voluntarily start showing some sort of discretion when it comes to the sugar levels in their drinks. What kind of moral standard is being set when a company willingly sells and vigorously markets a drink that has more sugar than a person should consume in an entire week? As the sugar cubes dissolve into the frap, one after another, the standard for healthy living dissolves along with it.
Will future generations of obese, lethargic, and diseased people accept 102 grams of sugar as the new normal for espresso and other sweet drinks? Will the boundaries for sugar content in drinks continue to dissolve, pumping the population with more sugar than the body can healthily process?
Where should the line be drawn? Should a line be drawn? Do consumers even know the dangers that come with consuming this amount of sugar? Do consumers know how acidic they are making their bodies? Do they realize that these drinks create a perfect environment for fungus, bacteria, and cancer to thrive within them? As one's lips meet the straw of frappucinno bliss, they are really sucking in one of the most acid-forming substances their body has ever had to digest.
In an age of cancer awareness, it's time to look at what's really fueling the epidemic. Starbucks' new frappuccinos really push the limit, inviting cancer to take hold in the human body. Maybe it's not early cancer screening that everyone should be funding with their cancer research dollars; perhaps they should be looking at the internal environment they are creating within themselves. It starts with awareness of what foods are alkaline-forming and which ones make the body more acidic and put it in a state of disease.
In such a sugary-consumed world, perhaps schoolchildren should be educated about the foods that make their body more alkaline. Shouldn't health freedom be the primary focus of education for children growing up in today's world?
The norms often dictate the crowd's decisions. When standards cease to exist, anyone and everyone is willing to push the envelope, even if it makes them sick, obese, and lethargic throughout their life. Starbucks is setting a sickening norm with their new line of frappuccinos.
As corrupt California lawmakers push to implement Senate Bill 277, which would bar parents from opting their children out of vaccines for personal reasons, a whooping cough outbreak has reportedly occurred at a public school in the coastal town of Salinas, where 99.5 percent of students were vaccinated in accordance with Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommendations.
Reports indicate that all four of the children so far diagnosed with whooping cough, also known as pertussis, . Meanwhile, not a single unvaccinated student came down with the disease, according to reports, suggesting once again that the pertussis vaccine doesn't work.
Local health authorities are still recommending it, though, which isn't all that surprising since the Golden State is right now trying to force all school-age children to be vaccinated in order to supposedly prevent these types of disease outbreaks. Any mention of the fact that the pertussis vaccine, in this case DTaP, didn't prevent this one and the cover is blown.
FDA warned public in 2013 that pertussis vaccine didn't work
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has been aware of this since at least 2013, having published a study in The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) addressing the fact that whooping cough still spreads among the vaccinated.
"Based on an animal model, the study ... suggests that [acellular pertussis vaccines] may not prevent infection from the bacteria that causes whooping cough in those vaccinated or its spread to other people," wrote the FDA in a news release.
Did KSBW.com report on this eye-opening study? No. Did it report on a similar study published the same year in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), which found that pertussis has become resistant to the current pertussis vaccine? No.
What about the recent admission by public health officials in Los Angeles County that nearly every whooping cough outbreak that's ever occurred within county borders almost exclusively affected already-vaccinated children? Once again, no.
Older children previously vaccinated as many as five times for pertussis still contracting disease
Instead, KSBW.com brought in a drone-like pediatrician who contended that the best way to combat pertussis is to get vaccinated, even though the vaccine admittedly doesn't work. Never mind that even older children who've received as many as five vaccinations for pertussis during early childhood are still coming down with pertussis - just do what you're told!
This isn't a valid argument, of course, nor is it even logical. Telling people to get vaccinated for a disease that's spreading exclusively among people who were vaccinated is the antithesis of science-based medicine. A better description is cult-like quackery.
"Today's American attitude toward vaccination IS like a religion," wrote one commenter at VaccineImpact.com. "Nothing whatsoever can shake the faith of vaccine believers in their religion, the principal tenet of which appears to be: get all the shots that are available! All shots are good, all questions are bad! Never read, never study: just get all the shots."