Is Merck behind the teen s*x article?

little shocked


The editor of Teen Vogue has been on the receiving end of some butt sex backlash after publishing a “how to do anal the right way” article this week. I don’t know the true age of Teen Vogue’s largest reader demographic– and I’ve read that they do count young women in their early 20s as readers– but the fact that they have “teen” in the title makes me think there are a lot of parents who feel comfortable allowing their 12 or 13-year old daughters to read it. Assuming this is the August issue, I didn’t find the cover of it yet and have to wonder if they’ll use “five exciting gadgets to stash in your locker” as some kind of euphemism or if they’ll go ahead and announce the anal sex tutorial lurking inside.

Would you want your under-18 teen reading this how-to article in what you thought was a fashion and teen celebrity magazine? I don’t think I knew that anyone inserted anything into someone else’s anus when I was under 18. I wasn’t curious about it and I sure wasn’t in danger of subjecting myself to it, regardless of whether a stranger called it “delightful.”

Supporters of the article argue that teens are going to engage in anal sex anyway (are they really? In Table 7 on page 23, this 2006-2008 HHS survey puts anal sex at only 2.8% of 15-year old boys and 4.6% of 15-year old girls in heterosexual encounters), that kids may as well have information about making “butt play” safe, and anyone who disagrees is a Trump-loving abstinence-demanding ninny.

While the article cautions to go slow and “work up” to inserting larger objects, using lube and wearing a condom (never mind that 40% of teens self-report not using condoms at all so they’re probably not going to start when the risk of pregnancy is removed), the silence about the real dangers of anal sex is deafening.

There is no mention in Teen Vogue that HIV, gonorrhea, chlamydia, genital herpes, chancroid, and syphilis are all transmitted more easily through anal sex. Not a peep about e. coli and urinary tract infections. Any reference to anal fissures, mucosal tears, rectal perforations, sphincter injuries, and perforated colons has been omitted. No hint that even a consenting teen might find the activity to be traumatic.

Teen Vogue didn’t point out that the vagina is actually designed for sex, with its dual lining that allows healing from injury, or that the rectum has a single lining because it’s designed as a one way exit for waste. The two openings are not created equally and are not interchangeable.

I’ve also seen the argument that the anus is an erogenous zone packed with nerve endings and is made up of erectile tissue, and therefore anuses are sexual. I’m fine with consenting adults who find their anuses to be erogenous zones but the nerve endings are there to tell us when we’ve got to poop and the erectile tissue is there to hold it in until you can pop a squat.

Soooo… enough about that.

Some new blog pieces written by anal-defending millennials are now declaring, “Teen Vogue publishes anal sex guide and people can’t deal with it.”

Hm. Not exactly. What bothers me is not my inability to deal with it. It’s your inability to see through it and question why something so grossly inappropriate was written for a teen audience.

All of my thoughts on this subject have me wondering why Teen Vogue really published the piece in the first place. Here are my five possible ideas:

  1. Teen Vogue wrote the anal sex tutorial for the greater good, without motive or compensation, because our young teens are very curious about how to penetrate their partners’ sole solid waste exit and bring more excitement to their stale sex lives.
  2. The magazine is pushing forward an agenda that every child might be gay, bi or trans and every child therefore needs to know how to have anal sex before or just as they begin to sexually blossom.
  3. They are catering to the internet porn culture that has infested our adolescents and teens for the past decade since the smartphone was invented, which has warped teens’ expectation of sex into a violent act that degrades females and teaches them that their every orifice was created to pleasure men.
  4. Teen Vogue has been paid to promote pedophilia and is helping to groom adolescents and their younger siblings who stumble across the magazine to not only accept anal penetration with fingers, objects, or penises, but to think they should find it to be “delightful,” all as part of the new pedophilia-acceptance movement that has been the subject of a bizarre media frenzy this year.
  5. This is a corporate attempt to drive up the number of teens engaging in anal sex so the CDC can conduct a survey next year, announce the raging number of teens engaging in anal sex, and Merck will sell more anal cancer vaccines, also known as Gardasil.


I think you know which one I’m going with.

We all know that magazines take money to write articles without announcing that they are an advertisement in disguise, or that they have have corporate sponsorship. This is our everyday media now.

Merck’s relationship with Teen Vogue can be found in:

Do you think Teen Vogue gave Merck all of that publicity for free? I can assure you they did not.

In fact, just last April FiercePharma wrote that Teen Vogue’s parent company Condé Nast “has launched a new pharma-focused division to amp up its reader-targeting powers and drive more custom branded content for its pharma clients.”

Did you know that your teen magazine’s parent company has a division called Condé Nast Pharma? Isn’t that a kick in the pants?

What we also know is that Merck is suffering because 40% of girls and 50% of boys won’t even submit to one shot of Gardasil, and the CDC just cut Merck’s Gardasil profits by 33% when they put the kibosh on the most-debilitating third dose of the vaccine in December. It’s no wonder Merck began ramping up teen magazine HPV placements in 2016.

Maybe I’m right when I say that Merck would find a jump in teen anal sex just as “delightful” as a toy up a butt, or maybe I’m way off base. But just this month our media subjected us to the (not at all new) situation of antibiotic-resistant gonorrhea on July 8th and then announced our savior, the first vaccine to protect against “super-gonorrhea,” two days later. Spoiler: it’s the already controversial meningitis vaccine that college students get, and then mysteriously die of meningitis.

Does the media think we’re stupid? Were they so late in getting the memo about the Lancet study coming out that they had to quickly dig up old gonorrhea news and regurgitate it ASAP before July 10th?

In closing, I want to say that I don’t care what anyone does with their bodies when they’re 18 or over whatever the age of consent is in their state. I don’t have an issue with anal sex between adults– hetero or homosexual– in the least. I realize that homosexual boys especially are going to experiment and my response would be the same: in most states it is a felony in America for anyone 18 or older to engage in anal intercourse with or anally penetrate a minor under 15 with an object of any kind. There are lesser penalties– but still penalties– for engaging in anal sex with 16 year olds, or if both parties are under age.

To learn more about the very real dangers of the HPV vaccine, please visit Ireland’s R.E.G.R.E.T.

If you’d like to write a letter to the editor of Teen Vogue, do so here:


@realdonaldtrump Why I’m not mad about your new CDC director

do not care

Our troops are up in arms over the Atlanta Journal-Constitution’s article that ran last week, breaking the news that Trump is considering Brenda Fitzgerald, the Georgia Health Commissioner, as the new Director of the CDC. Her confirmation was announced by HHS two hours ago.

Is Dr. Brenda what we call “vaccine friendly?” Not in the slightest. Under her reign, Georgia instituted a requirement that notarized religious vaccine exemptions affirmed that vaccines are necessary to prevent the spread of dangerous diseases, vaccines are safe, and that unvaccinated kids are at risk of spreading those diseases to other people, including to the parent who is signing the exemption.

Three years ago Dr. Brenda wrote a love letter to the prenatal Tdap called “Babies Need Their Vaccines for the same newspaper that had the scoop on her federal appointment.

Do you know what really gets under my skin? Calling vaccines by a name that gives their ownership to a newborn. It’s gross. They are not the baby’s shots. They are Merck’s shots and Pfizer’s shots, and the pediatrician bought those shots, so if anything, they are the doctor’s shots.  “Babies Need Doctor Shots” is a more accurate title for her essay.

In her letter she makes sweeping platitudes such as, “I’ve heard all the arguments against vaccination. All have been debunked.” Sweet Jesus, I don’t even know what she’s talking about–  “all” of these vaccinated vs. unvaccinated studies that debunk the damage our children live with every day?

She signs off with, “I am a mother. I am vaccinated. And I ask you to join me.”

Bless her heart. This lady is 72 years old. She got all the way to the age of 10 before the polio vaccine was even invented. If we didn’t vaccinate kids until they were 10 our autism rates would be down to the 1 in 10,000 people that actually have a genetic predisposition for it.

Anyway. She’s obviously not a top 100 choice for any of us.

I don’t know why she’s been appointed. I watch House of Cards so I can only imagine the deals that go down before this kind of decision is made. She’s had political aspirations for a while; she’s run for Congress twice and lost.

In my opinion, the only business Dr. Brenda has being director of the CDC is if she’s there to dismantle it because she’d eventually be out of a job anyway, and Trump or someone else has promised to give her a juicy position afterward.

Despite the fact that the CDC owns vaccine patents and the CDC publishes the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommended schedule that’s adopted by the states, here’s why I’m not going to lose any sleep over a vaccine zealot being appointed to the CDC:

Dr. Brenda ultimately answers to Dr. Tom Price, and Tom Price, at minimum, doesn’t think the Feds have any business regulating vaccines. I’ve heard that autism-and-vaccines is not Tom Price’s specialty, but I’ve also heard– and one important person made reference to this possibility in a Vaxxed video– that there’s a chance that we’ve got someone coming into the CDC who does specialize in it, and they want to prove it.

So, President Trump can appoint a vax lover to the CDC to appease whomever he needs to appease right now, as long as he tells her “You’re fired” sooner than later.

Then guess what? Other people get to be the head honcho of vaccine safety– maybe one of our people.

If I’m wrong about all of this, I’ll come back and let you know in the comments, but stay tuned. Watch the lineup. Don’t give up hope.


John Oliver, you unfunny schmuck @iamjohnoliver

Oh, John. I don’t even know how to begin this conversation.

Screen Shot 2017-06-26 at 3.25.22 PM
{RFK Jr. said he’s spent years trying to get mercury out of fish without anyone ever accusing him of being anti-fish. Here is John explaining how stupid fish are.}

I have friends who think you’re brilliant. I’ve only seen one of your monologues since you’ve been on the air, and I don’t have HBO (and if I did, I would have cancelled it after your show), so I didn’t have an opinion of you before yesterday.  And now I feel compelled to warn you that something’s not computing in your brain. I hope you take heed.

So you went on your show yesterday to attack people who either stop vaccinating their children or never vaccinated in the first place. It was a 27-minute angry, condescending, sometimes-loony but never-funny rant.

Someday, John, you’re going to realize that it is not acceptable to attack the parents of children killed or disabled by vaccines, and that is exactly what you did yesterday.

Two years ago you came to my attention because of an in-depth and eye-popping piece you (or your writers, rather) did on the unethical marketing behaviors of pharmaceutical companies. I’m going to do a quick run-down of the 14 points that stuck out to me when I saw it.


  • While pharmaceutical companies spend a shocking $4 billion marketing to consumers each year, they spend six times that amount marketing to doctors.
  • 9 out of the top 10 pharmaceutical companies spend more on marketing than they do on research.
  • How pharmaceutical companies spend money is highly secretive, and we only find out what goes on behind the scenes from lawsuits. But we see in a video obtained through discovery that while the pharmaceutical foot soldier reps claim to be there to “educate doctors,” behind closed doors their own bosses refer to them as people who are “making an ungodly sum of money.”
  • You say that “the problem” with the current setup is that those pharma reps don’t understand the effects of the drugs they’re pushing. You shared one video where a rep said that none of his coworkers have a background in science, and video of a political science major who was giving a doctor medical advice for a complex patient.
  • You point out that doctors’ offices brag in their job advertisements that they get “free lunch every day” from pharma reps.
  • There was a lawsuit against Novartis that alleged their reps were taking doctors to Hooters in exchange for prescribing its drugs. The reps were also taking doctors out to dinner at restaurants where the reviews say “the tab will bring a tear to your eyes unless dinner is on someone else’s dime.”
  • Many doctors named in that lawsuit took money for speeches they never gave.
  • Many doctors who are the top prescribers of a drug are also getting money from that drug company, which you say is worrying, “because we trust doctors.”
  • Pharmacies are selling patient prescription information back to pharma companies so the reps get to see if the doctor is prescribing as promised, and put more pressure on the doctors for not complying.
  • You seemed outraged that pharma reps attempt to interfere with doctors making medical decisions based on their best judgment.
  • You said that drug companies have crossed the line with off-label uses for drugs with dangerous side effects; “You can’t just give people potentially dangerous drugs and see what happens.”
  • For the doctors who refuse to see drug reps, pharma reps will tell them they have been identified as a “thought leader” and proceed to pay that doctor to talk to other doctors about the company’s products over dinner. Unbeknownst to the guests, the slides, the content and the script the thought leader doctor uses are prepared by the drug company.
  • You hammered home that when you’re a doctor regurgitating a script, you aren’t a “thought leader.” You’re a “thought sayer.”
  • Lest your viewers think the problem is just with one company and one drug, you point out that Johnson & Johnson has also paid $2.2 billion fines, Eli Lilly paid $1.4 billion, Pfizer paid $2.3 billion, and GlaxoSmithKline paid out a record $3 billion.

Now here we are, almost two and a half years later, and you’re defending pharmaceutical products like they’re God’s own gift to mankind. Do you know what pharma doesn’t pay for?  The multi-million dollar payouts in the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. Parents pay for that– a 75 cent tax on a single vaccine and a $3 tax on a four-in-one. Two doses of MMRV? The parents who vaccinate pay $6 to the parents whose kids are killed by it.

Why was that missing from your show? Didn’t your researchers come across it? Or did your talking points come from the Hollywood Health & Society arm of the CDC?



Last night your tone was one of total trust for these products from the companies you destroyed in 2015. You seemed to be able to perceive some kind of upstanding ethics behind the creation, marketing, and necessity of all vaccines. You were condescending to people who do not want to consume a sacred product made by the very same companies you railed on– the ones who have been fined billions, and whose extremely attractive sales reps make “ungodly sums of money” selling to doctors.

Maybe you’ve been putting too much aluminum in your armpits but the exact companies you tore to shreds two years ago are the companies manufacturing vaccines, heavily influencing the schedule, lobbying for state mandates, and paying none of the compensation when victims of vaccine injury win in court.

How do you think Merck handles the fact that only 6 in 10 girls in the US have had even one Gardasil shot? They fight every day to get their vaccine mandated by state laws. Their product is so wonderful that they need to get legislators to shove it down our kids’ throats. And Gardasil is still a very new vaccine but the damage it’s done is substantial. Just last month a girl was awarded $11.5 million over her lifetime (not paid for by Merck) for the autoimmune disease that’s attacking her optic nerve and spine, which was caused by Gardasil. Do you think the vaccine court concedes an $11.5 M case just to get rid of the plaintiff, and that vaccines aren’t really wrecking lives?

I noticed that you showed a clip of the 1955 celebrations for Salk’s new polio vaccine but forgot to include the worst pharmaceutical disaster in history that followed immediately after: the Cutter Incident at the lab that produced the vaccine, which caused polio in 40,000 children, paralyzed 56, and killed 5, then further led to 113 new cases of polio and 5 additional deaths.

The CDC must have left that out of your Hollywood talking points.

You did say that the “confusion about vaccines” (we are not confused, I assure you) has caused real problems like in Minnesota, where it’s “terrible” that there has been 78 cases of measles. I bet, if you give me 24 hours, I could come up with 5,000 parents who would gladly trade a temporary case of the measles for the lifetime autism sentence their kids got with the MMR. Hit me up if you want to place a wager.

Do you seriously think you are self-educated enough on the topic of thimerosal to tell your 5 million viewers with 100% certainty that the mercury in fish is bad and the mercury in vaccines is good? Do you honestly believe that mercury was removed from most of the childhood vaccines– not because it was a highly unethical experimentation on children– but because there was “intense public concern” so pharmaceutical companies “spent time and energy solving a problem that never existed?”

Do you hear yourself? When vaccines were already mandated to attend all public schools in America in 2001 do you seriously think pharma gave a shit about “intense public concern?” Stop and click here to read a 1991 Merck memo that a friend of mine sent to the LA times a few decades ago and tell me if this is a problem that never existed.

And then listen to this 60-second clip of a CDC scientist talking about how injecting pregnant women with mercury-containing flu vaccines causes tics in their unborn babies– otherwise known as autism-like behavior. “Pregnant women are the last person I’d give mercury to,” he says.

While you’re at it, watch this video where my friend Forrest teaches the public about how much vaccine education doctors receive in medical school. Spoiler: almost none.


I can see that you pretended you were not being a total hypocrite by acknowledging your piece from two years ago, twenty-something minutes into your vaccine rant as if most people will even make it that far. You said, “I’m not saying there are not problems with big pharma… but on the rare occasions where there have been issues with vaccines, they have been pulled and fast.” What the hell are you even talking about? When Paul Offit got the rotavirus vaccine pulled for causing intussusception in newborn intestines so that he could conveniently replace it with his own rota vaccine? Because if that’s it, that doesn’t count as looking out for our kids, John. It’s greed. Not protection. Very different.

And John, I can’t even go down the rabbit hole of how ridiculous you look using a clip of Seth Mnookin, a former drug dealer and burglar who once bit a police officer, but if you’d like to know more about your expert witness you can read about him here.

And as for Alison Singer, who appears toward the end of your clip, you do know that she was staunchly vaccines-cause-autism until she was blinded by the cash offered her to publicly switch sides, right? In fact, it was only in 2001 that the New York Post wrote this about her reaction to seeing the writers of ER attack parents who don’t vaccinate for believing in the autism link:

“Alison Tepper Singer, a former vice president in NBC’s desktop video division, faulted the ‘ER’ episode for its ‘complete belittling of another viewpoint,’ she told The News. Singer resigned from NBC in 1999 when her older daughter was diagnosed with autism.

“‘It was so irresponsible and so callous and so heartbreaking for parents who are dealing with this issue that I found it sad,’ she said of the ‘ER’ episode.”

Yes, the woman you featured to bolster your stance once said that people like you completely belittle other viewpoints. And you do.

Ooooh, I forgot. I have an even better clip of Alison Singer that you should have used. Here she is fantasizing about killing her autistic daughter. You know, because autism is such a gift.

I’m going to sign off with a few videos from parents whose children you say suffer from “nonexistent and wildly unlikely harms.” You owe them a listen.

Here’s a message from a compelling father who lost his child before his very eyes decades ago.


Here are two parents who have unfortunately conducted a vaccinated verses unvaccinated study in their own family.


And here’s a mother who wants heartless people like you to see the type of autism that nobody ever writes about.


Here’s a child who was compensated by the vaccine court. I’ll tell her mom that you think what happened to her was wildly unlikely. See, I’ll have to tell her mom and not her because she died recently.


And last, but certainly not least, I present to you: fraternal triplets who all developed autism after vaccination. All three. Same day. Triple “wildly unlikely harm,” am I right?

You were once a thought leader for many people, John. But last night you exposed yourself as being a thought sayer, reading a script. It was shameful and disappointing, and one day you’ll look back and realize you were on the wrong side of history in the most public way possible.

That day is coming soon.

Why government allows kids to be hurt @POTUS @realdonaldtrump


Sometimes I lay awake at night and wonder why Monsanto is allowed to poison our kids and submit falsified safety studies to our FDA. I wonder why pharmaceutical companies are allowed to pack the vaccine schedule tight with new shots. I wonder why we have an epidemic of “ADHD” for which the only acceptable answer is to put children on speed. I wonder why our government stands by as 3% of our little boys are diagnosed with autism each year, a quarter of them with brains damaged so badly that they will never speak.

I wonder why we give schools financial incentives when teachers get parents to take kids in for an ADHD diagnosis. I wonder why we have shot programs in schools. I wonder where the messaging that “autism is a gift” came from and why the media runs feel-good stories of kids with autism that work at Starbucks and never mention the kids with autism who wear helmets and diapers. I wonder why our media is a mouthpiece for pharmaceutical press releases that the masses think are news.

I wonder why the CDC refused to let Dr. Bill Thompson rework the MMR study numbers once they caught wind that he was going to show the autism impact was on all children, not just African Americans.

I wonder why the top allergists at university hospitals will admit that vaccines cause anaphylactic food allergies and yet they are forbidden by university policy to research it.

I wonder how debilitating the American people is of financial benefit to anyone, because the severely debilitated kids aren’t paying into income tax or social security.

Who is pulling the strings here? Why isn’t our government looking out for us?

It’s easy enough to say “Pharma runs the US” but that doesn’t answer the question of why this pool of children who are disabled to the point that they are a drain on the economic system aren’t being protected by the government that’s being drained?  Our vaccine schedule has passed the breaking point. Why isn’t the government fighting back, based on the economics alone?

I posed this question to my favorite 100 thinkers the other day and eagerly sifted through their answers. One in particular pointed me to a documentary called The Money Masters, by journalist Bill Still, and I feel like it is the explanation I was looking for. You can watch the documentary here (yes, it’s 3 and ½ hours long) or you can read the summary here. {Interesting tidbit: Wikipedia has deleted the entry describing The Money Masters documentary.}

But I’ll make it easy for you. The answer to who is profiting off of causing disability is: privately owned Central Banks.

Central Banks are different from commercial and retail banks. They tend to make loans to governments, though some are adding retail now. For commercial banks, Central Banks are the banks of last resort to get loans from.

The top 30 most influential Central Banks run the entire world. They run our country through making loans to the government, they (and their affiliate investment banks) run American corporations through buying corporate shares, and they run our universities through their financial service affiliates making multi-million dollar endowments. They write the platforms our political candidates run on.

What makes Central Banks rich? Our wars. Our debts to their retail and commercial affiliates. Our college students getting credit cards on campus. Our sick kids who financially devastate families, causing us to go into debt, and have our homes repossessed. If we can’t fund the Affordable Care Act, no problem. Central Banks will.

The owners of Central Banks make their money through creating misery and chaos for everyone else, lending money to get through it, and charging interest on tragedies. They control the economy of every nation far more than any president ever could.

This makes me feel hopeless. What can the average person do to get the US out from under Central Banks?

The Money Masters documentary begins in 33 AD with an explanation of the very first “money changers.” In Jesus’ time the Palestinian Jewish temples only accepted tax payments in one particular coin; the half shekel. When every male Israelite over the age of 20 from surrounding parts of the world arrived with only their local money, it needed to be exchanged for the Jewish half shekel to pay the tax.  But the money changers had cornered the market on the half shekel and began to charge as much for the exchange that the market would bear. When Jesus saw the money changers in the temple he overturned their tables and physically threw them out.

Why?  Because usury, or charging excess, was forbidden. It has been forbidden in Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, and later, Islam. Eventually texts of every major religion had a reference that is interpreted to mean it is unacceptable to charge excess for a loan. This directive was not being observed by the money changers in Biblical times.

Granted, governments eventually outlawed Jewish people from working in various trades and crafts beginning with the First Crusade, so finance was a natural choice for people who could not work elsewhere. But the temple money changers predated this by over 1,000 years.

{Note—my spouse is of Ashkenazi Jew bloodline so while hating on this piece, my critics are going to have to table any anti-Semitic allegations.}

In reading about the root cause of anti-Semitism in the world I’ve come across three reoccurring explanations:  the refusal of Jews to convert to Christianity, the Jewish belief that they are God’s chosen people, and interest rates charged by Jewish bankers on loans, which dates back to the money changers cornering the market in Biblical times.

Skipping forward 1,660 years, the Bank of England was chartered in 1694. Don’t let the name fool you—the Bank of England was not a government agency. It is the first privately owned Central Bank that was allowed to engage in legal counterfeiting of a national currency for private gain. Central Banks literally print money.  When the government needs to borrow, the Central Bank prints money, secured by tax on citizens, and suddenly the money people previously held is worth a whole lot less. They control inflation. They control interest rates. They control the economy. They determine whether or not you have a job.

In 1743 there was one family that took banking to an unprecedented level of dominance and influence: the Rothschild family. Mayer Amschel Bauer, an Ashkenazi Jew born in Frankfurt, opened a coin counting shop. He created a red shield with a Roman eagle and called his shop Rothschild. He went from loaning money to individuals to loaning money to governments and kings. Later his sons changed the family name from Bauer to Rothschild, and they went on to dominate the major financial centers of the world—and dominate the central banking system.

Allegedly, nearly every Central Bank in the world is owned by the Rothschilds today.

Permit me to issue and control the money of a nation and I care not who writes the laws.”
Mayer Amschel Rothschild, 1790

It’s no coincidence that Benjamin Franklin wrote that the real reason for the Revolutionary War stemmed from the English banks prohibiting the colonies from using their own money, and insisting on gold and silver issued by the English bankers, with interest. The first law was passed in 1751, and then a harsher law in 1763.

Franklin wrote about the Revolutionary War, “In one year, the conditions were so reversed that the era of prosperity ended, and a depression set in, to such an extent that the streets of the Colonies were filled with unemployed. The Colonies would gladly have borne the little tax on tea and other matters had it not been the poverty caused by the bad influence of the English bankers on the Parliament, which has caused in the Colonies hatred of England and the Revolutionary War.”

But what does this have to do with America today? Our economy is set by the Federal Reserve. That sounds like a government-owned agency, right? Power to the people?

Nope. Our Federal Reserve is a privately owned Central Bank. We gave up power over our own money, and our economy, on December 23, 1913, when the Federal Reserve Act was passed when only three Senators were in Washington, DC. Again, it is deceptively named, as is every single Central Bank on the planet. It is not Federal and it doesn’t have any reserves. Central Banks are all private banks for the private gain of a select few individuals.

In 1930 the governors of the Bank of England created a bank to be on top of their power pyramid, and it’s a bank that most of us have never heard of—the Bank for International Settlements. It is the bank for all Central Banks. It was open for business in WWII, exchanging looted Nazi gold and today makes tax-free profits in the billions of dollars. No surprise that it wants to build a global financial architecture.

When I first began researching who controls America I looked up who we owe the most of the national debt to. I came across this infographic that says “we owe the most money to ourselves.”  In looking at it, the author meant that the Federal Reserve is part of the Federal Government, and we owed the Reserve $2.1 Trillion in 2013. Someone needs to tell Business Insider that the Federal Reserve is a private bank, definitely not part of the US Federal Government.

For banks, controlling our economy is as simple as buying US bonds with electronic credits whose value is based on nothing. The receiving banks use these worthless credits as reserves, and the receiving banks are allowed to loan out ten times the amount that they have in reserves, even though their credits are based on nothing. This debt is based on an amount that 90% of doesn’t exist, and yet lives, countries and economies are destroyed over it.

This cash influx causes inflation. To reduce the amount of money in the economy, the Fed reverses the process.

No wonder we have problems. Central Banks control every aspect of our economy and your own financial health. They make money through our government depending on their cash, and through creating your own dependence on debt for your survival. They finance both sides of war and finance rebuilding nations. They cause economic crises and finance the bailouts. They control it all—why would our kids matter? We are easier to gain control of in times of despair.

Hell, Swiss Central Bank owns more Facebook stock than Zuckerberg, and we think we can use it to communicate our message? Just six companies like Sony and Disney own almost all media, and guess who owns major pieces of those media companies? Banks.

Why would Central Banks allow pharmaceutical companies to back off from creating havoc in our lives when their affiliate banks own large chunks of the pharmaceutical companies? They wouldn’t. They never will.

The only good news is that while the Federal Reserve is a private bank, the President of the United States appoints the Federal Reserve Board of Governors. Halfway through Obama’s second term he gave one of the seats to a former Vice Chairman of Citigroup. Why is that OK?

Remember in last year’s wikileaks that a month before the 2008 election a guy from Citigroup– which ended up being the recipient of the largest bailout in the financial crisis– had already chosen Obama’s key cabinet members? Why is a bank choosing cabinet members? How long was getting a Citigroup guy onto the board of the Federal Reserve in the works?

In a stroke of luck, Donald Trump will have the chance to appoint five of the seven Federal Reserve board members in 2017 and 2018. The Chairman of the Federal Reserve said in a press conference in late 2016 that with Trump’s election, our nation’s Central Bank is “operating under a cloud of uncertainty.” One possible route Trump will take is to dilute the bank’s “independence” and its power over interest rates. Here, we thought pharma and the CDC were our biggest problems.

What if we had a president who ran on a platform of overhauling the Federal Reserve and restoring power to Americans for the first time in over 100 years? Bernie Sanders went on record about the Wall Street banks, saying, “The sad reality is that the Federal Reserve doesn’t regulate Wall Street. Wall Street regulated the Fed.” He also said, “Board positions should include representatives from all walks of life, including labor, consumers, homeowners, urban residents, farmers and small businesses.”

And we all know how his presidential run went—the Democratic National Committee had it in for him from the beginning.

Which begs the question: what big donors does the DNC answer to? The answer is investment firms. Try going down the rabbit hole of who owns investment firms like Blackstone—a multinational private equity firm with $368 billion in assets that is the largest real estate holder in the world, and which was one of the largest donors to the DNC, a major donor to Hillary Clinton, and whose members were on Hillary’s economic advisory team. Blackstone funded another global investment firm “shadowbank” named Blackrock, which has institutional holdings in 10% of Pfizer and 9% of Merck, 8% of Facebook, 8% of Monsanto, and 8% of Disney. It’s the complete circle of political control, pharmaceutical and chemical destruction, choking mainstream media, and inhibiting our ability to talk about it on Facebook.

{While the investment firms hold “institutional ownership” of corporations because they buy stock to manage on behalf of their investors, Blackstone’s donations are said to have come from its members.}

I am officially out of time to wonder about these things but I’m interested in hearing your feedback in the comments.

Are most kids who die of the flu really unvaccinated @CDCgov?


Blazing hot news today! NBC’s favorite pharma whoo-a Maggie Fox has published a story about a new CDC study that claims that “most kids” who die of the flu are unvaccinated.  This really is news to me since I have never– and I mean never, not once– read about a child flu death where the parents weren’t saying, “She had the flu vaccine, why did this happen?”

So, we’re told what?  That 40,000 kids die of the flu every year or some such, right?  Just an outrageous number comprised mostly of 105-year old nursing home patients with pneumonia.

But this study says that in the four years from the summer of 2010 to the summer of 2014, there were just 358 lab confirmed flu deaths in children aged 6 months to 17 years. Losing even one child to illness is a tragic event and I don’t mean to minimize any death when I point out that we are talking about 90 deaths per year in a country with 73 million kids under the age of 17. That’s a 1 in 800,000 statistic.

For whatever reason Maggie Fox linked to a story she wrote herself in 2013 rather than linking to the study, so make sure to click here to read the actual study itself.

Here’s what stood out the most during my reading of it.

Out of the 358 kids who died of the flu, 67 did not have medical records available, so the study is really about 291 kids.

Of these 291 kids who died of the flu, 75 were in the “vaccinated” category while 216 were in the “unvaccinated” category, which means, by CDC standards, 1/4 were vaccinated and 3/4 were not.

You’d assume “unvaccinated” means never vaccinated, right? Or at least never vaccinated for the flu? Nope. It turns out that if a child received the flu vaccine in previous years, but their medical record didn’t mention that season’s flu vaccine, they were automatically deemed to be “unvaccinated” by the CDC.

So if a seven-year old got a flu vaccine at four years old, five years old, and six years old and it’s in their record, but they didn’t get it when they were seven, they are “unvaccinated” for this study. Or, maybe their mom popped into Walgreens for the vaccine when they were seven, or they got the shot at school, and it didn’t make it into the record for whatever reason, they are also “unvaccinated” for the study. The CDC was not looking for “mom refused the flu shot” in the records before labeling a child “unvaccinated.”

Of the 291 kids who died of the flu, 153 were labeled “high risk” children because they had one or many serious underlying conditions such as chronic lung disease, heart disease, kidney or liver disorders, or neurological disorders like brain or spinal cord injuries. Almost 1/3 of these chronically ill children who died were vaccinated.

So now we’re down to talking about 138 kids who weren’t already in and out of the hospital all the time, which is not a very respectable number for a study.

Oh, wait! The authors also included asthmatic kids as “high risk” which sounds like a vaccine marketing ploy despite the 2012 study that discovered that asthmatic kids vaccinated for the flu were THREE TIMES more likely to end up hospitalized. But we don’t know how many of the kids who died had spinal tumors or congenital heart disease versus how many of the kids just had asthma.

Seven deceased vaccinated children were left out of the study because they had received the flu vaccine within two weeks of catching the flu and dying. Rather than considering the flu vaccine’s role in killing the child, the study authors claim that a vaccine given 14 days ago is life-saving while a vaccine given 13 days ago is not.

My takeaway here is that 53% of the 291 children with vaccination records who died of lab-confirmed flu from 2010 to 2014 were probably so seriously ill with a chronic condition that any number of viruses that we don’t sell a vaccine for could have been fatal to them.

And that the “unvaccinated” category of children who passed away may have been vaccinated to the hilt for all we know, but they certainly don’t fit into the public’s understanding of what an unvaccinated child looks like, which would be a child who has never received a vaccine.

Can someone explain #ButIVaccinate to me?


I stepped away from social media for a few weeks and have no idea what the freaky frack is going on with this stupid hashtag. Is this some mommy war shit? A blatant attempt at straight up mom-shaming?

Like, you are such a horrible mom, please take a moment to reflect on and confess what a terrible parent you are and wallow in it. Are you up to your ears in dirty laundry? Did you miss the first 20 minutes of the school play because your boss wanted you in a meeting? Did you forget about the tooth fairy money two nights in a row?

Never fear! We, the pharmaceutical industry (with assistance from your national health department and our paid mommy bloggers), hereby grant you permission to cut yourself some slack because lady, at least you vaccinated.

Your child exists on mac & cheese but at least you vaccinate? Well no shit, Sherlock. Dairy and gluten acts like a drug in your child. How is a vaccine going to counter that?

Your kid got sent to detention because you forgot to give him his ADHD meds but at least you vaccinate? Are you joking?

You let your toddler walk around all day with an upper lip encrusted with snot and didn’t bother to clean her up but at least you vaccinate? Truly shocking. I wouldn’t have guessed.

Your son spent 12 straight hours on the iPad this weekend but at least you vaccinate? You know what this sounds like, right?

I saw a tweet that read, “At least we get the big things right, like vaccinating.”

Um, no. The big things are giving your child love and attention, healthy food, and plenty of room and freedom to play. Providing an education, clean drinking water, a safe home, and raising them with respect.

I’d also argue that “the big things” include limiting their exposure to endocrine disruptors, preservatives, heavy metals and unnecessary antibiotics, but maybe that’s just me.

How does injecting your child with mercury and aluminum make up for the fact that they’ve eaten nothing but Ritz Bits for the past five days? Did you think you were injecting nutrients?

The biggest parenting fail I can think of is living in ignorant bliss despite the warning bells going off in the media that vaccines are so great they’ve got to be shoved down our throats against our will and anyone who thinks otherwise is a nut case.

The only one getting immunity from vaccines is the pharma industry, but you vaccinate.

I’m going to leave you with the words of Jane Know It All who wrote the greatest poem in the history of poems that sums up how I feel about people who perpetuate pharmaceutical propaganda.

“Just saw another story about suing the unvaxxed.
Friend asked, “When did Americans become such pussies [over measles]?” and I replied, “When their Pharma overlords told them to be.”
Afraid of measles?
you’re an asshole who has never heard of Vit A and proper nutrition –WAIT! I take that back!
YOU morons SHOULD fear measles.
Consider most of these parents who fear the unvax’d think proper nutrition is a fucking HOT POCKET and a Flintstones vitamin.”

But at least you vaccinate.

Update: it looks like the ladies of TMR already investigated this ill founded campaign. Click over and give them a read.

Research confirms what moms already know


Making mainstream news today: researchers at the University of North Carolina have confirmed in a new study published in Nature this month that yes, Gigantic Autism Forehead does in fact precede autism.

Now there’s something you don’t see everyday…

No, wait. We actually do see it everyday. We see it in our daily lives, we see it in our neighbor’s kids, we see it in the CDC’s own #teamvax photo.

We all know the Gigantic Autism Forehead. They weren’t born with it.

All of our born-normal babies had normal heads with circumference measurements that plot somewhere around the 50th percentile. That means that at the two-month vaccine appointment your baby’s head was clocking in at a normal 40 centimeters.

But then sometime after the 6-month vaccine appointment you might have noticed your child had a slight resemblance to Baby Frankenstein. Rather than growing the usual 2 to 4 centimeters in that time, his head has expanded by 6 or 7 centimeters, and now he’s off the growth chart completely, or hovering just at the 99th percentile so your doc says he’s fine, no cause for worry. But you can’t help but notice this new growth is centered around a bulging forehead.

When the hell did that start? Look back at old photos. If you adhered to the vaccine schedule, you’ll probably notice the bulging forehead beginning at three months old, a few weeks after that first vaccine appointment. Request your child’s records from the ped and see for yourself when the circumference projection began to creep off the line it started on at two months old.

This research team performed brain scans on sleeping high-risk-for-autism babies who already had an autistic sibling and discovered an initial “hyperexpansion” of the outer brain tissue between 6 and 12 months old (coughENCEPHALITIScough, cough).

But what about the brains of kids who were younger? What about kids too young to be vaccinated? They left them out of the study, of course. God forbid we look into kids before they receive three full rounds of the vaccination schedule.

Then it gets worse. Starting at 12 months, the kids with hyperexpansion went on to have measurable “brain volume overgrowth.” Then, sometime after two years old, come the classic symptoms and the autism diagnosis.

In this study, 15 of the 106 high risk infants showed this hyperexpansion before 12 months old, and the researchers predicted they would go on to have brain overgrowth, show autism symptoms, and receive a diagnosis down the road.

And guess what? The prediction was right. With an 81% accuracy rate. Can’t help but wonder if the other 19% quit vaccinating at that point.

The Gigantic Autism Forehead isn’t really news, though. The press has been writing about “autism features” such as the “broad upper face” for five years now, putting the effect before the cause by acting like children are born with autism features.

And that brain overgrowth bit isn’t news either– for the past 18 months it’s been the pro-vaccine favorite autism-is-genetic argument. They say that since autism appears to be caused by having too many synapses in the brain; too many connections, not enough pruning going on, leading to sensory overload and epilepsy– and that autism begins in utero.

But look closely. These researchers just confirmed the brain overgrowth is post-natal, not in the womb. 

Unfortunately, these researchers don’t delve into theories of why in their discussion about the new study. Why are these infant brains swelling? Why are the brains overgrowing? Why has the pruning mechanism been turned off?

The Gigantic Autism Forehead part of it isn’t a mystery– it’s the result of the baby’s skull accommodating both the initial swelling and the later overgrowth. Every enlightened autism mom already knows where the forehead came from.

So naturally the BBC signed off the article in the link above with the declaration, “This pours cold water on the debunked claims that the MMR jab causes autism.”

Wait, what?  The researchers studied children at 6, 12 and 24 months old who most likely already had three rounds of vaccines by 6 months, resulting in the initial brain tissue inflammation. They said that volume overgrowth in those inflamed brains then begins in the 12th month– which is when the MMR is given in the US.

Where is this cold water, BBC?

All I’m seeing is smoke leading to fire.

A trigger finger on a loaded chamber.

One last chance to pull the brakes on a train before it goes off the rails.