'Dump Trump': Tens of thousands join global march

'Dump Trump': Tens of thousands join global march
Demonstrators arrive on the National Mall in Washington, DC, for the 'Women's March on Washington' on January 21, 2017 (AFP Photo/Andrew CABALLERO-REYNOLDS)

March for Science protesters hit the streets worldwide

March for Science protesters hit the streets worldwide
Thousands of people in Australia and New Zealand on Saturday kicked off the March for Science, the first of more than 500 marches around the globe in support of scienceThousands of people in Australia and New Zealand on Saturday kicked off the March for Science, the first of more than 500 marches around the globe in support of science

Bernie Sanders and the Movement Where the People Found Their Voice

"A Summary" – Apr 2, 2011 (Kryon channelled by Lee Carroll) (Subjects: Religion, Shift of Human Consciousness, 2012, Intelligent/Benevolent Design, EU, South America, 5 Currencies, Water Cycle (Heat up, Mini Ice Ace, Oceans, Fish, Earthquakes ..), Middle East, Internet, Israel, Dictators, Palestine, US, Japan (Quake/Tsunami Disasters , People, Society ...), Nuclear Power Revealed, Hydro Power, Geothermal Power, Moon, Financial Institutes (Recession, Realign integrity values ..) , China, North Korea, Global Unity,..... etc.) -

“ … Here is another one. A change in what Human nature will allow for government. "Careful, Kryon, don't talk about politics. You'll get in trouble." I won't get in trouble. I'm going to tell you to watch for leadership that cares about you. "You mean politics is going to change?" It already has. It's beginning. Watch for it. You're going to see a total phase-out of old energy dictatorships eventually. The potential is that you're going to see that before 2013.

They're going to fall over, you know, because the energy of the population will not sustain an old energy leader ..."
"Update on Current Events" – Jul 23, 2011 (Kryon channelled by Lee Carroll) - (Subjects: The Humanization of God, Gaia, Shift of Human Consciousness, 2012, Benevolent Design, Financial Institutes (Recession, System to Change ...), Water Cycle (Heat up, Mini Ice Ace, Oceans, Fish, Earthquakes ..), Nuclear Power Revealed, Geothermal Power, Hydro Power, Drinking Water from Seawater, No need for Oil as Much, Middle East in Peace, Persia/Iran Uprising, Muhammad, Israel, DNA, Two Dictators to fall soon, Africa, China, (Old) Souls, Species to go, Whales to Humans, Global Unity,..... etc.)
(Subjects: Who/What is Kryon ?, Egypt Uprising, Iran/Persia Uprising, Peace in Middle East without Israel actively involved, Muhammad, "Conceptual" Youth Revolution, "Conceptual" Managed Business, Internet, Social Media, News Media, Google, Bankers, Global Unity,..... etc.)


Hong Kong's grandpa protesters speak softly but carry a stick

Hong Kong's grandpa protesters speak softly but carry a stick
'Grandpa Wong' is a regular sight at Hong Kong's street battles (AFP Photo/VIVEK PRAKASH)
.
A student holds a sign reading "Don't shoot, listen!!!" during a protest
on June 17, 2013 in Brasilia (AFP, Evaristo)

FIFA scandal engulfs Blatter and Platini

FIFA scandal engulfs Blatter and Platini
FIFA President Sepp Blatter (L) shakes hands with UEFA president Michel Platini after being re-elected following a vote in Zurich on May 29, 2015 (AFP Photo/Michael Buholzer)
"The Recalibration of Awareness – Apr 20/21, 2012 (Kryon channeled by Lee Carroll) (Subjects: Old Energy, Recalibration Lectures, God / Creator, Religions/Spiritual systems (Catholic Church, Priests/Nun’s, Worship, John Paul Pope, Women in the Church otherwise church will go, Current Pope won’t do it), Middle East, Jews, Governments will change (Internet, Media, Democracies, Dictators, North Korea, Nations voted at once), Integrity (Businesses, Tobacco Companies, Bankers/ Financial Institutes, Pharmaceutical company to collapse), Illuminati (Started in Greece, with Shipping, Financial markets, Stock markets, Pharmaceutical money (fund to build Africa, to develop)), Shift of Human Consciousness, (Old) Souls, Women, Masters to/already come back, Global Unity.... etc.) - (Text version)

… The Shift in Human Nature

You're starting to see integrity change. Awareness recalibrates integrity, and the Human Being who would sit there and take advantage of another Human Being in an old energy would never do it in a new energy. The reason? It will become intuitive, so this is a shift in Human Nature as well, for in the past you have assumed that people take advantage of people first and integrity comes later. That's just ordinary Human nature.

In the past, Human nature expressed within governments worked like this: If you were stronger than the other one, you simply conquered them. If you were strong, it was an invitation to conquer. If you were weak, it was an invitation to be conquered. No one even thought about it. It was the way of things. The bigger you could have your armies, the better they would do when you sent them out to conquer. That's not how you think today. Did you notice?

Any country that thinks this way today will not survive, for humanity has discovered that the world goes far better by putting things together instead of tearing them apart. The new energy puts the weak and strong together in ways that make sense and that have integrity. Take a look at what happened to some of the businesses in this great land (USA). Up to 30 years ago, when you started realizing some of them didn't have integrity, you eliminated them. What happened to the tobacco companies when you realized they were knowingly addicting your children? Today, they still sell their products to less-aware countries, but that will also change.

What did you do a few years ago when you realized that your bankers were actually selling you homes that they knew you couldn't pay for later? They were walking away, smiling greedily, not thinking about the heartbreak that was to follow when a life's dream would be lost. Dear American, you are in a recession. However, this is like when you prune a tree and cut back the branches. When the tree grows back, you've got control and the branches will grow bigger and stronger than they were before, without the greed factor. Then, if you don't like the way it grows back, you'll prune it again! I tell you this because awareness is now in control of big money. It's right before your eyes, what you're doing. But fear often rules. …

Wall Street's 'Fearless Girl' statue to stay until 2018

Wall Street's 'Fearless Girl' statue to stay until 2018
The " Fearless Girl " statue on Wall Street is seen by many as a defiant symbol of women's rights under the new administration of President Donald Trump (AFP Photo/ TIMOTHY A. CLARY)



“… The Fall of Many - Seen It Yet?

You are going to see more and more personal secrets being revealed about persons in high places of popularity or government. It will seem like an epidemic of non-integrity! But what is happening is exactly what we have been teaching. The new energy has light that will expose the darkness of things that are not commensurate with integrity. They have always been there, and they were kept from being seen by many who keep secrets in the dark. Seen the change yet?

In order to get to a more stable future, you will have to go through gyrations of dark and light. What this means is that the dark is going to be revealed and push back at you. It will eventually lose. We told you this. That's what you're here for is to help those around you who don't see an escape from the past. They didn't get their nuclear war, but everything else is going into the dumper anyway. … “

Search This Blog

Sunday, September 30, 2012

Will Influential Asia Shape the World?

Jakarta Globe, Shoeb K. Zainuddin, September 29, 2012

Customers talk to a salesperson at a Lenovo shop in Shanghai in this
February 17,  2011 file photo. Experts urged the West not to underestimate
China. (Reuters Photo/Aly Song)
            
Related articles

New York. Fueled by rising incomes and a half billion new consumers by 2020, Asia will dominate the global economy over the next few decades, forcing the world’s financial and security architecture to reflect the rise of emerging nations.

This point, made by Kishore Mahbubani, dean of the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, at the 12th annual Leadership Forum in New York, was countered by billionaire investor George Soros, who said that many emerging powers do not have strong internal systems, such as democratic institutions, to play a leading role on the global stage.

The forum — titled “Defining the Future: How Emerging Powers Will Shape The World Order” and co-sponsored by Strategic Review, an Indonesian journal of leadership, policy and world affairs — brought together Mahbubani, Soros and Lakhdar Brahimi, the United Nations Special Representative for Syria.

Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, who delivered the keynote address, laid the groundwork for the debate when he said the seismic power shifts now underway would continue to have an impact as the Cold War gives way to “Warm Peace.”

“One of the challenges of the Warm Peace is how to accommodate the rise of emerging powers such as Brazil, Argentina, India, Indonesia, China, Turkey and Saudi Arabia,” he said. “Economic growth is what makes a country strong, and it determines a country’s influence in the community of nations.”

The emerging powers, he added, are even more influential today given the gloomy economic outlook in the developed world. “As a result, emerging powers are not just hard to ignore but they are new partners in reshaping the global landscape,” the president said.

This point was picked up by Mahbubani, who argued that despite uncertainty in the short term, the long-term outlook appeared bright as growing numbers of people from emerging powers join the ranks of the middle class.

“Indonesia is part of the larger story and the key word is confidence, which is incredibly high within the emerging countries,” he said.

“But how do we restructure the global order to reflect this significant change? The UN Security Council must change as the current permanent members are dictators as they cannot be voted out.”

Soros, however, was not convinced, saying that the collapse of the Soviet Union and other past emerging powers proved that democracy and freedom of expression are vital components of a nation’s power.

“We must consider this when we talk about the emerging powers and the West, especially so for China. Will it become an open society? That is the single most important development for the world to consider,” he said.

Mahbubani countered by urging bystanders to not underestimate China, because that would be dangerous.

“The Chinese Communist Party of today is very different from the past. More than 70 million Chinese travel every year and they can see how the rest of the world is developing,” he said, adding that the Western mindset is a black-and-white one and cannot comprehend the complexity of China.

Another region of the world that is poorly understood is the Middle East, Brahimi said. The region, he noted, has had many false starts but the Arab Spring has given people a new voice and they are not going to be silenced.

The West, he added, is too preoccupied with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who will soon leave office.

“But Iran is an ancient civilization that has been around for a long time and will continue to be around in the future.”

Related Articles:


Labour conference: Miliband threat to break up banks

BBC News, 30 September 2012

Labour conference 2012 

Labour says banking change is
necessary for an economy that
"works for working people"
Labour leader Ed Miliband has said that if banks do not separate their retail and investment arms, a future Labour government will "break them up".

"The infection of retail banking by the culture of casino banking" had to be tackled, Mr Miliband said, as the party met for its conference in Manchester.

Recommended ring-fencing of retail from investment banking had been watered down by the government, Labour said.

The Treasury said it was "undertaking radical reform" of the banking system.

The Vickers report into banking, launched in the wake of the financial crisis, last year recommended banks split into two parts to separate the High Street side from the riskier investment side and cut their reliance on borrowed money.

The coalition has already said that all of Sir John Vickers' recommendations will be implemented by 2019.

But Mr Miliband said a Labour administration would legislate if major changes were not in place by the 2015 general election.

"Either they can do it themselves - which frankly is not what has happened over the past year - or the next Labour government will, by law, break up retail and investment banks," he said.

"The banks and the government can change direction and say that they are going to implement the spirit and principle of Vickers to the full. That means the hard ring-fence between retail and investment banking.

"We need real separation, real culture change. Or we will legislate. If they don't do it voluntarily, embrace the change Britain needs, then we are going to have to do it by law."

Banks 'changed completely'

The Labour Party conference slogan is "Rebuilding Britain".

A Labour Party statement said: "We need to rebuild High Street banking so that they back British businesses, savers can feel safe, and we get the long-term investment needed to bring the new growth and jobs in our economy.

"That means High Street banks must be properly separated from casino banking."

Recent scandals over Libor interest rate-rigging and payment protection insurance mis-selling had reinforced "how important it is to achieve real culture change", Labour said.

But it went on: "While the case for change has grown, the change we are seeing has diminished.

"The government has caved in to a concerted lobbying campaign to water down the Vickers proposals for the ring-fencing of High Street banks from the casino culture."

Responding to Mr Miliband's comments, a Treasury spokesman said: "The government is undertaking radical reform of the UK banking system to ensure that the mistakes of the past aren't repeated, that the taxpayer is protected and that the banks support the UK economy."

The British Bankers' Association (BBA) said: "Since the onset of the global financial crisis, banks and banking regulation have changed completely.

"The UK's major banks have committed publicly to further change - to do whatever is necessary to restore financial stability, to play their part in economic recovery and to earn back the trust of their customers."

The BBA said it was currently working with the government and regulators to implement ring-fencing.

It added: "The goal of everyone involved in this global banking debate is to create a stronger, more reliable banking system with a customer-focused culture. The only differences are in the remedies proposed."

On Saturday, on the eve of his party's conference, Mr Miliband told a panel of voters in Manchester that the country faced an "economic emergency".

Among policies he has revealed so far are the replacement of Ofgem with an energy regulator which has tougher powers to ensure prices are fair and a cap on pension fund management fees.

He also signalled that Labour was looking seriously at replacing student fees with a graduate tax and wanted to go still further than the party's existing pledge to reduce them to a maximum of £6,000 from the present £9,000.



Saturday, September 29, 2012

Biden: Days into job, news of $1 trillion deficit

Associated Press, Tamara Lush, Sep. 29, 2012

Vice President Joe Biden greets supporters during a campaign event at the
Century Village Clubhouse in Boca Raton, Fla., Friday, Sept. 28, 2012.
(AP Photo/Terry Renna)

FORT MYERS, Fla. (AP) — Vice President Joe Biden says that he and President Barack Obama had been on the job less than a week when a top economic adviser told them the country was facing a trillion-dollar budget deficit.

Biden says that Obama replied, "But I haven't done anything yet."

Biden blames the deficit on the previous Bush administration, adding that it "put two wars on a credit card" and gave tax cuts to the wealthy after inheriting a balanced budget and revenue surplus from the Clinton administration.

Biden hammered GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney for comments on a leaked video in which Romney describes 47 percent of Americans as paying no federal income tax and believing "they are victims."

Biden made his remarks Saturday to more than 2,000 people in Fort Myers, Fla.


Related Articles:



Taiwan hopes to add RMB to foreign reserves within a year

Want China Times, 29 September 2012

Perng Fai-nan takes questions at the legislature. (Photo/Wang Yuan-mao)

Perng Fai-nan, the head of Taiwan's central bank, said Wednesday he hopes to add the renminbi to Taiwan's foreign reserves in a year's time under a landmark currency clearing agreement signed by Taipei and Beijing.

Perng said there is still a lot of work to do following the signing of the memorandum of understanding on currency clearance, including holding negotiations on establishing a cross-strait currency swap mechanism.

He made the comment in response to lawmakers' questions on the progress of the clearing mechanism at a hearing of the Legislative Yuan's Finance Committee Wednesday.

Enabling central banks to swap Taiwan dollars and Chinese yuan will enable Taiwan to diversify its foreign exchange reserves by adding the yuan into its portfolio, which is currently heavily weighted toward US dollars.

The central bank signed the deal on yuan clearing with the People's Bank of China on Aug. 31.

Under the pact, both sides need to designate a clearing bank to activate the mechanism. Taiwan has chosen the state-run Bank of Taiwan's branch in Shanghai as the Taiwan dollar settlement bank in China.

China has yet to announce its clearing bank for the renminbi in Taiwan.

The clearing mechanism will allow Taiwan to become the second offshore yuan trading center after Hong Kong.

Meanwhile, Perng's future was also a hot topic at the committee meeting. His current term is scheduled to end in February 2013, and several lawmakers asked him if he would agree to stay on as head of the central bank.

Friday, September 28, 2012

Israeli leaders meet Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in NYC




This video is banned for broadcast on News Networks in USA, Israel and Europe. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that Israel and US does not want you to see. Jewish leaders and prominent businessmen Greet Ahmadinejad with Inshallah and Bless him for long life. Jews have lived in Iran for thousands of years. Over 50,000 Jews live in Teheran. Israeli Jews Love Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Please also watch http://www.youtube.com/watch.....


Related Articles:

"The End of History" – Nov 20, 2010 (Kryon channeled by Lee Carroll)
(Subjects: Abraham, Isaac, Ishmael, Muhammad, Jesus, God, Jews, ArabsEU, USIsrael, Iran, Russia, Africa, South America, Global Unity,..... etc.) (Text version)

" ..... If an Arab and a Jew can look at one another and see the Akashic lineage and see the one family, there is hope. If they can see that their differences no longer require that they kill one another, then there is a beginning of a change in history. And that's what is happening now. All of humanity, no matter what the spiritual belief, has been guilty of falling into the historic trap of separating instead of unifying. Now it's starting to change. There's a shift happening. ....."



9. It can be no other way—simply, this is the physics that governs life in this universe. As Earth continues apace into successively higher planes, nothing with low vibrations in any form—physical bodies, subversive plans, theft, dishonesty, unjust laws and imprisonment, bigotry, cruel customs and deeds—can survive.

10. Moving on, no, it will not be quite like religions being “totally discarded and replaced by universal laws in the Golden Age.” When the truths come forth that science and spirit are one and the same and that religious dogmas were originated by early leaders of church and state to control the masses, people whose consciousness has risen beyond the constraints of third density will adhere to the spiritual aspects of their respective religions and the devised, controlling aspects will fall by the wayside.

11. One of the truths to come forth is that Zionism, which by dark intent has been made synonymous with Judaism, actually is a bellicose political movement within the Illuminati, and its aim for more than six decades has been to create conflict and instability in the entire Middle East. Zionists, who have wielded powerful influence within and behind major governments and their military forces, do NOT represent the Jewish peoples in Israel or anywhere else. And, like all other Illuminati factions, they have been committed to that cabal’s goal of global domination.

12. Although Semites are of diverse national origins and religions, the Zionists have been successful in convincing many that “anti-Semitic” is exclusively prejudice against the Jewish peoples and opposition to Israel’s right to defend itself from its “enemies.” By means of that blatant distortion, they obtained not only world sympathy, but also massive defense funding from Israel’s allies, most especially the United States, all of which served to increase the Illuminati’s vast profits from their industrial-military machine.

13. In addition to controlling the masses through dogmatic teachings, religions have served the dark purpose of divisiveness to such an extent that it resulted in centuries of trauma and bloodshed. Witness the Crusades, wars between Catholics and Protestants, pogroms against Jews, executions of “blasphemous” individuals who refused to “recant.”  (Read More …)



Thursday, September 27, 2012

RBS trader sent mocking messages as he tried to rig Libor, court told

Online chats between colleagues said to contain boasts such as 'our six-month fixing moved the entire fixing hahahah'

The Guardian, Jill Treanor,  Wednesday 26 September 2012

Filings containing messages to and from an RBS trader in Singapore regarding
Libor have now been sealed by the court. Photograph: Danny Lawson/PA

A former trader at Royal Bank of Scotland sent mocking emails as he attempted to manipulate the price of Libor, according to court filings in Singapore which add to the controversy surrounding the benchmark interest rate.

Inspected by the Bloomberg news agency before they were sealed, the filings also show an RBS trader quipping "hahahah", describing Libor as a "cartel" and claiming that hedge funds would be "kissing" a colleague if the rate was reduced.

The remarks are contained in instant messages, similar to emails, some of which were sent in the months before RBS was bailed out with £45bn of taxpayer funds in October 2008.

With reforms to Libor expected to be unveiled on Friday, the filings in the Singapore court show how traders around the globe appeared to find it easy to move the interest rate benchmark for at least four years.

The filings are part of a sworn statement by Tan Chi Min, senior trader at RBS in Singapore until he was fired last year for attempting to manipulate Libor. The 231-page statement is part of his case for wrongful dismissal, claiming the bank condoned manipulation of the rate and sought out scapegoats.

Bloomberg reported that RBS, in a letter dated 29 August 2011, sent Tan copies of instant message chats he had with others as evidence of potential wrongdoing and informing him the bank was bringing disciplinary proceedings against him.

In April 2008, Tan sent an instant message to a number of traders, saying: "Nice Libor ... Our-six month fixing moved the entire fixing hahahah."

In an earlier message to colleagues and traders at other banks, including Deutsche Bank, Tan writes: "It's just amazing how Libor fixing can make you that much money or lose if opposite ... It's a cartel now in London."

"What's the call on Libor," one Singapore trader asked a London-based trader in a August 2007 chat.

"Where would you like it, Libor that is," the London end replied.

"Mixed feelings, but mostly I'd like it all lower so the world starts to make a little sense," another trader responded.

"The whole HF world will be kissing you instead of calling me if Libor move lower," Tan said, referring to hedge funds.

"OK, I will move the curve down 1 basis point, maybe more if I can," the London man replied.

RBS, 81% owned by the taxpayer, expects to be fined as a result of investigations by a number of regulators. The scale of the penalty is not yet known. Barclays is the highest-profile bank to be penalised so far, with a £290m fine after regulators in the UK and the US found its traders offered each other bottles of Bollinger champagne for attempting to move the rate. The case also forced chief executive Bob Diamond and other top bankers out of Barclays.

While the identities of individuals involved in the Barclays case were concealed, the documents in Singapore offer no such protection, citing messages with a number of former RBS staff and traders at other banks.

RBS has asked for the documents to be sealed by the Singapore high court while investigations by the FSA and US regulators such as the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and the Department of Justice are completed. But Bloomberg said it had inspected the filings before they were closed to viewing.

"Our investigations into submissions, communications and procedures relating to the setting of Libor and other interest rates are ongoing. RBS and its employees continue to cooperate fully with regulators," RBS said.

The process of setting Libor, which determines borrowing costs on $300tn of financial products around the globe, is expected to be overhauled following recommendations to be set out on Friday by Martin Wheatley, top regulator at City watchdog the FSA. The British Bankers' Association is to lose its role in setting the rate to a formal body. It is also expected the rate will be set on levels at which banks have borrowed rather than their predictions. At present a panel of banks is asked the pricethey expect to borrow over 15 periods, from overnight to 12 months, in 10 currencies.

The instant messages released in Singapore quote Tan as saying in May 2011, when investigations into Libor had begun: "This whole process would make banks pull out of Libor fixing.

"Question is what is illegal? If making money if bank fix it to suits its own books are illegal ... then no point fixing it right? Cuz there will be days when we will def make money fixing it."

Former Credit Suisse trader Kareem Serageldin arrested

BBC News, 27 September 2012 

Credit Suisse said Mr Serageldin was
 dismissed in 2008 along with his two
colleagues
A former senior trader from Credit Suisse, Kareem Serageldin, has been arrested in London and faces extradition to the US on fraud charges.

Two of his former subordinates pleaded guilty in February to charges of wire fraud and falsifying books and records.

They admitted to having manipulated prices of mortgage-backed securities to cover up losses at Mr Serageldin's direction.

Mr Serageldin, a US citizen, will appear before magistrates on Thursday.

Credit Suisse said Mr Serageldin and his two colleagues were dismissed in 2008.

In addition to the criminal charges, Mr Serageldin and his colleagues, David Higgs and Salmaan Siddiqui, were the subject of civil charges from the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

A fourth man, Faisal Siddiqui, was also charged by the SEC, but did not receive criminal charges.

Wednesday, September 26, 2012

Netanyahu 'working in every way' to prevent a nuclear Iran

AFP/Google, 26 September 2012 

JERUSALEM — Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Wednesday he was using all available means to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons, on the eve of his address to the UN General Assembly.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu (AFP/File, Gali Tibbon)
"As the prime minister of Israel, the state of the Jewish people, I am working in every way so that Iran will not have nuclear weapons," Netanyahu said in a statement released just before he left to address world leaders assembled at the United Nations in New York.

"Israel is a modern and strong state thanks to the strength and talents of its citizens and to our faith in the justice of our cause," he added.

Netanyahu is due to address the General Assembly on Thursday -- the day after Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who criticised a "continued threat by the uncivilised Zionists to resort to military action against our great nation".

There has been mounting speculation that Israel could launch a military strike against Iran's bunkered nuclear facilities.

The Iranian government faces mounting international pressure over its nuclear programme, which Western powers say hides a bid to develop a nuclear weapon. Iran says the programme is for civilian power generation.


Related Articles:


9. It can be no other way—simply, this is the physics that governs life in this universe. As Earth continues apace into successively higher planes, nothing with low vibrations in any form—physical bodies, subversive plans, theft, dishonesty, unjust laws and imprisonment, bigotry, cruel customs and deeds—can survive.

10. Moving on, no, it will not be quite like religions being “totally discarded and replaced by universal laws in the Golden Age.” When the truths come forth that science and spirit are one and the same and that religious dogmas were originated by early leaders of church and state to control the masses, people whose consciousness has risen beyond the constraints of third density will adhere to the spiritual aspects of their respective religions and the devised, controlling aspects will fall by the wayside.

11. One of the truths to come forth is that Zionism, which by dark intent has been made synonymous with Judaism, actually is a bellicose political movement within the Illuminati, and its aim for more than six decades has been to create conflict and instability in the entire Middle East. Zionists, who have wielded powerful influence within and behind major governments and their military forces, do NOT represent the Jewish peoples in Israel or anywhere else. And, like all other Illuminati factions, they have been committed to that cabal’s goal of global domination.

12. Although Semites are of diverse national origins and religions, the Zionists have been successful in convincing many that “anti-Semitic” is exclusively prejudice against the Jewish peoples and opposition to Israel’s right to defend itself from its “enemies.” By means of that blatant distortion, they obtained not only world sympathy, but also massive defense funding from Israel’s allies, most especially the United States, all of which served to increase the Illuminati’s vast profits from their industrial-military machine.

13. In addition to controlling the masses through dogmatic teachings, religions have served the dark purpose of divisiveness to such an extent that it resulted in centuries of trauma and bloodshed. Witness the Crusades, wars between Catholics and Protestants, pogroms against Jews, executions of “blasphemous” individuals who refused to “recant.”  (Read More …)




U of Calif to pay pepper-sprayed Occupy protesters

Associated Press, Terence Chea, Sep. 26, 2012

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — The University of California is set to pay nearly $1 million to settle a lawsuit filed by demonstrators who were pepper-sprayed during an Occupy protest at UC Davis last fall.

UC and plaintiffs represented by the American Civil Liberties Union filed the preliminary settlement in federal court in Sacramento on Wednesday. The agreement is subject to the approval of a federal judge.

Under the proposal, UC will pay $30,000 to each of 21 plaintiffs named in the complaint and an additional $250,000 for their attorneys to split.

The settlement also calls for the UC to set aside $100,000 to pay other individuals who can prove they were arrested or pepper-sprayed during the Nov. 18, 2011, incident.


Police lieutenant John Pike pepper sprays students at UC
 Davis. Photograph: Brian Nguyen/Reuters



Related Article:



Tuesday, September 25, 2012

Ex-FBI interrogator 'gagged' over 9/11 backstory

BBC News, By Gordon Corera & Steve Swann, 12 September 2011

Related Stories 

A former FBI agent who worked at the heart of America's battle against al-Qaeda has told the BBC he is being prevented from telling the truth as he challenges the back story of 9/11 and what has happened since.

Ali Soufan says techniques like water
boarding were ineffective against 
terrorists
Mr Soufan also argues against the effectiveness of interrogation techniques used by the CIA, such as water boarding.

Ali Soufan has not appeared on camera before, but he has now decided to speak out to counter what he sees as a misleading narrative about the last 10 years.

Mr Soufan has direct, first-hand experience of some of the most heated controversies of the past decade: whether 9/11 could have been prevented and whether tactics like the water boarding of al-Qaeda suspects were effective and justified.

Born in Lebanon, Mr Soufan came to America as a teenager and joined the FBI in the 1990s. As one of the only Arabic speakers he was assigned to early investigations on al-Qaeda.

'I threw up'

When the 9/11 attacks occurred, he was in Yemen investigating the bombing of the USS Cole.

The day after the attacks, he met a CIA officer at the US embassy in Yemen. The officer passed him an envelope.

Inside was a report detailing links between people Mr Soufan had been investigating for the warship bombing and two of the hijackers - who had been living in the US for months.

Mr Soufan says that written requests for this kind of information had been made three times before without any result.

"I think it was probably the worst feeling I have ever experienced in my life," he told the BBC in an interview.

"It was a combination of frustration, anger, sadness, betrayal. The only thing I recall is I left the office, went across the hall to the bathroom and I just threw up."

He believes the material would have made a difference.

"We were looking for them overseas. They were here. People in our government knew that they were here. We were not told," he says.

The CIA denies that it failed to share the intelligence.

"Any suggestion that the CIA purposely refused to share critical lead information on the 9/11 plots with FBI is baseless," a CIA spokesperson told the BBC in a statement.

Interrogator as God

The first senior figure linked to al-Qaeda to be arrested was Abu Zubaydah. He was taken to a secret CIA site. Mr Soufan was told to go out and interrogate him.

He still cannot disclose the site's location, but the BBC believes it to be Thailand. Zubaydah was still in pain from being shot during his capture.

Mr Soufan says he was able to extract valuable intelligence with traditional interrogation techniques. This included the first identification of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed as the mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks.

But some in Washington believed Abu Zubaydah knew more. They sent out a CIA contractor to test out his theories.

Zubaydah would become the guinea pig for what the CIA called "enhanced interrogation techniques". 

Mr Soufan says his more orthodox
 interrogation of Zubaydah (pictured)
 gained useful information
The techniques began with nudity, sleep deprivation and loud noise.

"The idea was the detainee has to look at the interrogator as if he is his God. He is the one who determines if his life is going to be better or worse," Mr Soufan says of the CIA contractor's ideas.

Mr Soufan's objections to the techniques are primarily about their effectiveness.

"I'm not going to lose any sleep if a terrorist is nude," he says. "These things don't work.

"It's not going to work on a top-notch terrorist. My experience is you can catch way more flies with honey than vinegar."

Mr Soufan stood back as the CIA tested out its theories. He says it soon became clear that the techniques employed by the CIA contractor were not working.

The pressure was on to go further.

Mr Soufan became increasingly concerned - witnessing techniques he believed would be criminal in the US. He told the FBI he would arrest the contractor if he stayed.

The FBI told him to come home, and withdrew itself from the interrogation process. Zubaydah was then water boarded 83 times.

Former Vice-President Dick Cheney has argued these techniques were "legal, essential, justified, successful".

Mr Soufan challenges this view.

"Everything the proponents of enhanced interrogation techniques claim was obtained because of enhanced interrogation techniques and water boarding on Abu Zubaydah, we got when we were there on the ground before even enhanced interrogations existed," he says.

In response to his story, a US counter-terrorism official told the BBC that the CIA and FBI had different roles.

"Mr Soufan and his colleague were part of the initial questioning, when Abu Zubaydah was hospitalised, and Mr Soufan was trying to build a rapport," said the official.

"Later when Abu Zubaydah recovered, he stopped any pretence of co-operation.

"The CIA claim that after the FBI pulled its officers from the debriefings, and the decision was made to focus the debriefings on collection of intelligence and on pending attacks, he became very co-operative. "

Major redactions

Mr Soufan - who left the FBI in 2005 - believes that his attempts to challenge the narrative of 9/11 and what came afterwards is being deliberately blocked by the authorities.

His book, The Black Banners, is published in the US and UK on Monday.

The FBI did not object to the manuscript, but the CIA demanded major redactions.

In some cases, entire pages of the book have been redacted, including parts of Mr Soufan's testimony before the US Senate.

In certain passages, the words "I" and "me" have been redacted where Mr Soufan is relating his own eyewitness account of events.

"The suggestion that the Central Intelligence Agency has requested redactions on this publication because it doesn't like the content is ridiculous," a CIA spokesperson told the BBC.

"The CIA's pre-publication review process looks solely at the issue of whether information is classified... just because something is in the public domain doesn't mean it's been officially released or declassified."

Mr Soufan believes that the process has not been about what is or is not classified.

"People over there are redacting narrative; they are not redacting national security information," he told the BBC.

"They are trying to stop me and others from telling the world what really happened."


Monday, September 24, 2012

US Marines recommended for trial for urination video

BBC News, 24 September 2012 

One Marine can be heard saying,
"Have a good day, buddy" in the clip
Two US Marines have been referred for trial by courts martial for a video of troops urinating on Taliban corpses in Afghanistan, the US military says.

Staff sergeants Joseph Chamblin and Edward Deptola are also charged with failure to report or stop misconduct by junior Marines, including random firing of weapons.

Three other Marines were disciplined in August for their role in the clip.

It appeared online in January this year.

In addition, the two non-commissioned officers, who are based at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, are alleged to have posed for photographs with human casualties.

The incidents are believed to have taken place during a counter-insurgency operation in Afghanistan's Helmand Province on or around 27 July 2011, the Marine Corps said.


Related Article:


Sunday, September 23, 2012

The drugs don't work: a modern medical scandal

The doctors prescribing the drugs don't know they don't do what they're meant to. Nor do their patients. The manufacturers know full well, but they're not telling.

The Guardian, Ben Goldacre, Friday 21 September 2012

Drugs are tested by their manufacturers, in poorly designed trials, on
 hopelessly small numbers of weird, unrepresentative patients, and analysed
 using techniques that exaggerate the benefits. Photograph: Photograph:
Getty Images. Digital manipulation: Phil Partridge for GNL Imaging

Reboxetine is a drug I have prescribed. Other drugs had done nothing for my patient, so we wanted to try something new. I'd read the trial data before I wrote the prescription, and found only well-designed, fair tests, with overwhelmingly positive results. Reboxetine was better than a placebo, and as good as any other antidepressant in head-to-head comparisons. It's approved for use by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (the MHRA), which governs all drugs in the UK. Millions of doses are prescribed every year, around the world. Reboxetine was clearly a safe and effective treatment. The patient and I discussed the evidence briefly, and agreed it was the right treatment to try next. I signed a prescription.

Bad Pharma: How drug companies
mislead doctors and harm patients
by Ben Goldacre
But we had both been misled. In October 2010, a group of researchers was finally able to bring together all the data that had ever been collected on reboxetine, both from trials that were published and from those that had never appeared in academic papers. When all this trial data was put together, it produced a shocking picture. Seven trials had been conducted comparing reboxetine against a placebo. Only one, conducted in 254 patients, had a neat, positive result, and that one was published in an academic journal, for doctors and researchers to read. But six more trials were conducted, in almost 10 times as many patients. All of them showed that reboxetine was no better than a dummy sugar pill. None of these trials was published. I had no idea they existed.

It got worse. The trials comparing reboxetine against other drugs showed exactly the same picture: three small studies, 507 patients in total, showed that reboxetine was just as good as any other drug. They were all published. But 1,657 patients' worth of data was left unpublished, and this unpublished data showed that patients on reboxetine did worse than those on other drugs. If all this wasn't bad enough, there was also the side-effects data. The drug looked fine in the trials that appeared in the academic literature; but when we saw the unpublished studies, it turned out that patients were more likely to have side-effects, more likely to drop out of taking the drug and more likely to withdraw from the trial because of side-effects, if they were taking reboxetine rather than one of its competitors.

I did everything a doctor is supposed to do. I read all the papers, I critically appraised them, I understood them, I discussed them with the patient and we made a decision together, based on the evidence. In the published data, reboxetine was a safe and effective drug. In reality, it was no better than a sugar pill and, worse, it does more harm than good. As a doctor, I did something that, on the balance of all the evidence, harmed my patient, simply because unflattering data was left unpublished.

Nobody broke any law in that situation, reboxetine is still on the market and the system that allowed all this to happen is still in play, for all drugs, in all countries in the world. Negative data goes missing, for all treatments, in all areas of science. The regulators and professional bodies we would reasonably expect to stamp out such practices have failed us. These problems have been protected from public scrutiny because they're too complex to capture in a soundbite. This is why they've gone unfixed by politicians, at least to some extent; but it's also why it takes detail to explain. The people you should have been able to trust to fix these problems have failed you, and because you have to understand a problem properly in order to fix it, there are some things you need to know.

Drugs are tested by the people who manufacture them, in poorly designed trials, on hopelessly small numbers of weird, unrepresentative patients, and analysed using techniques that are flawed by design, in such a way that they exaggerate the benefits of treatments. Unsurprisingly, these trials tend to produce results that favour the manufacturer. When trials throw up results that companies don't like, they are perfectly entitled to hide them from doctors and patients, so we only ever see a distorted picture of any drug's true effects. Regulators see most of the trial data, but only from early on in a drug's life, and even then they don't give this data to doctors or patients, or even to other parts of government. This distorted evidence is then communicated and applied in a distorted fashion.

In their 40 years of practice after leaving medical school, doctors hear about what works ad hoc, from sales reps, colleagues and journals. But those colleagues can be in the pay of drug companies – often undisclosed – and the journals are, too. And so are the patient groups. And finally, academic papers, which everyone thinks of as objective, are often covertly planned and written by people who work directly for the companies, without disclosure. Sometimes whole academic journals are owned outright by one drug company. Aside from all this, for several of the most important and enduring problems in medicine, we have no idea what the best treatment is, because it's not in anyone's financial interest to conduct any trials at all.

Now, on to the details.

In 2010, researchers from Harvard and Toronto found all the trials looking at five major classes of drug – antidepressants, ulcer drugs and so on – then measured two key features: were they positive, and were they funded by industry? They found more than 500 trials in total: 85% of the industry-funded studies were positive, but only 50% of the government-funded trials were. In 2007, researchers looked at every published trial that set out to explore the benefits of a statin. These cholesterol-lowering drugs reduce your risk of having a heart attack and are prescribed in very large quantities. This study found 192 trials in total, either comparing one statin against another, or comparing a statin against a different kind of treatment. They found that industry-funded trials were 20 times more likely to give results favouring the test drug.

These are frightening results, but they come from individual studies. So let's consider systematic reviews into this area. In 2003, two were published. They took all the studies ever published that looked at whether industry funding is associated with pro-industry results, and both found that industry-funded trials were, overall, about four times more likely to report positive results. A further review in 2007 looked at the new studies in the intervening four years: it found 20 more pieces of work, and all but two showed that industry-sponsored trials were more likely to report flattering results.

It turns out that this pattern persists even when you move away from published academic papers and look instead at trial reports from academic conferences. James Fries and Eswar Krishnan, at the Stanford University School of Medicine in California, studied all the research abstracts presented at the 2001 American College of Rheumatology meetings which reported any kind of trial and acknowledged industry sponsorship, in order to find out what proportion had results that favoured the sponsor's drug.

In general, the results section of an academic paper is extensive: the raw numbers are given for each outcome, and for each possible causal factor, but not just as raw figures. The "ranges" are given, subgroups are explored, statistical tests conducted, and each detail is described in table form, and in shorter narrative form in the text. This lengthy process is usually spread over several pages. In Fries and Krishnan (2004), this level of detail was unnecessary. The results section is a single, simple and – I like to imagine – fairly passive-aggressive sentence:

"The results from every randomised controlled trial (45 out of 45) favoured the drug of the sponsor."

How does this happen? How do industry-sponsored trials almost always manage to get a positive result? Sometimes trials are flawed by design. You can compare your new drug with something you know to be rubbish – an existing drug at an inadequate dose, perhaps, or a placebo sugar pill that does almost nothing. You can choose your patients very carefully, so they are more likely to get better on your treatment. You can peek at the results halfway through, and stop your trial early if they look good. But after all these methodological quirks comes one very simple insult to the integrity of the data. Sometimes, drug companies conduct lots of trials, and when they see that the results are unflattering, they simply fail to publish them.

Because researchers are free to bury any result they please, patients are exposed to harm on a staggering scale throughout the whole of medicine. Doctors can have no idea about the true effects of the treatments they give. Does this drug really work best, or have I simply been deprived of half the data? No one can tell. Is this expensive drug worth the money, or has the data simply been massaged? No one can tell. Will this drug kill patients? Is there any evidence that it's dangerous? No one can tell. This is a bizarre situation to arise in medicine, a discipline in which everything is supposed to be based on evidence.

And this data is withheld from everyone in medicine, from top to bottom. Nice, for example, is the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, created by the British government to conduct careful, unbiased summaries of all the evidence on new treatments. It is unable either to identify or to access data on a drug's effectiveness that's been withheld by researchers or companies: Nice has no more legal right to that data than you or I do, even though it is making decisions about effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness, on behalf of the NHS, for millions of people.

In any sensible world, when researchers are conducting trials on a new tablet for a drug company, for example, we'd expect universal contracts, making it clear that all researchers are obliged to publish their results, and that industry sponsors – which have a huge interest in positive results – must have no control over the data. But, despite everything we know about industry-funded research being systematically biased, this does not happen. In fact, the opposite is true: it is entirely normal for researchers and academics conducting industry-funded trials to sign contracts subjecting them to gagging clauses that forbid them to publish, discuss or analyse data from their trials without the permission of the funder.

This is such a secretive and shameful situation that even trying to document it in public can be a fraught business. In 2006, a paper was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (Jama), one of the biggest medical journals in the world, describing how common it was for researchers doing industry-funded trials to have these kinds of constraints placed on their right to publish the results. The study was conducted by the Nordic Cochrane Centre and it looked at all the trials given approval to go ahead in Copenhagen and Frederiksberg. (If you're wondering why these two cities were chosen, it was simply a matter of practicality: the researchers applied elsewhere without success, and were specifically refused access to data in the UK.) These trials were overwhelmingly sponsored by the pharmaceutical industry (98%) and the rules governing the management of the results tell a story that walks the now familiar line between frightening and absurd.

For 16 of the 44 trials, the sponsoring company got to see the data as it accumulated, and in a further 16 it had the right to stop the trial at any time, for any reason. This means that a company can see if a trial is going against it, and can interfere as it progresses, distorting the results. Even if the study was allowed to finish, the data could still be suppressed: there were constraints on publication rights in 40 of the 44 trials, and in half of them the contracts specifically stated that the sponsor either owned the data outright (what about the patients, you might say?), or needed to approve the final publication, or both. None of these restrictions was mentioned in any of the published papers.

When the paper describing this situation was published in Jama, Lif, the Danish pharmaceutical industry association, responded by announcing, in the Journal of the Danish Medical Association, that it was "both shaken and enraged about the criticism, that could not be recognised". It demanded an investigation of the scientists, though it failed to say by whom or of what. Lif then wrote to the Danish Committee on Scientific Dishonesty, accusing the Cochrane researchers of scientific misconduct. We can't see the letter, but the researchers say the allegations were extremely serious – they were accused of deliberately distorting the data – but vague, and without documents or evidence to back them up.

Nonetheless, the investigation went on for a year. Peter Gøtzsche, director of the Cochrane Centre, told the British Medical Journal that only Lif's third letter, 10 months into this process, made specific allegations that could be investigated by the committee. Two months after that, the charges were dismissed. The Cochrane researchers had done nothing wrong. But before they were cleared, Lif copied the letters alleging scientific dishonesty to the hospital where four of them worked, and to the management organisation running that hospital, and sent similar letters to the Danish medical association, the ministry of health, the ministry of science and so on. Gøtzsche and his colleagues felt "intimidated and harassed" by Lif's behaviour. Lif continued to insist that the researchers were guilty of misconduct even after the investigation was completed.

Paroxetine is a commonly used antidepressant, from the class of drugs known as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors or SSRIs. It's also a good example of how companies have exploited our long-standing permissiveness about missing trials, and found loopholes in our inadequate regulations on trial disclosure.

To understand why, we first need to go through a quirk of the licensing process. Drugs do not simply come on to the market for use in all medical conditions: for any specific use of any drug, in any specific disease, you need a separate marketing authorisation. So a drug might be licensed to treat ovarian cancer, for example, but not breast cancer. That doesn't mean the drug doesn't work in breast cancer. There might well be some evidence that it's great for treating that disease, too, but maybe the company hasn't gone to the trouble and expense of getting a formal marketing authorisation for that specific use. Doctors can still go ahead and prescribe it for breast cancer, if they want, because the drug is available for prescription, it probably works, and there are boxes of it sitting in pharmacies waiting to go out. In this situation, the doctor will be prescribing the drug legally, but "off-label".

Now, it turns out that the use of a drug in children is treated as a separate marketing authorisation from its use in adults. This makes sense in many cases, because children can respond to drugs in very different ways and so research needs to be done in children separately. But getting a licence for a specific use is an arduous business, requiring lots of paperwork and some specific studies. Often, this will be so expensive that companies will not bother to get a licence specifically to market a drug for use in children, because that market is usually much smaller.

So it is not unusual for a drug to be licensed for use in adults but then prescribed for children. Regulators have recognised that this is a problem, so recently they have started to offer incentives for companies to conduct more research and formally seek these licences.

When GlaxoSmithKline applied for a marketing authorisation in children for paroxetine, an extraordinary situation came to light, triggering the longest investigation in the history of UK drugs regulation. Between 1994 and 2002, GSK conducted nine trials of paroxetine in children. The first two failed to show any benefit, but the company made no attempt to inform anyone of this by changing the "drug label" that is sent to all doctors and patients. In fact, after these trials were completed, an internal company management document stated: "It would be commercially unacceptable to include a statement that efficacy had not been demonstrated, as this would undermine the profile of paroxetine." In the year after this secret internal memo, 32,000 prescriptions were issued to children for paroxetine in the UK alone: so, while the company knew the drug didn't work in children, it was in no hurry to tell doctors that, despite knowing that large numbers of children were taking it. More trials were conducted over the coming years – nine in total – and none showed that the drug was effective at treating depression in children.

It gets much worse than that. These children weren't simply receiving a drug that the company knew to be ineffective for them; they were also being exposed to side-effects. This should be self-evident, since any effective treatment will have some side-effects, and doctors factor this in, alongside the benefits (which in this case were nonexistent). But nobody knew how bad these side-effects were, because the company didn't tell doctors, or patients, or even the regulator about the worrying safety data from its trials. This was because of a loophole: you have to tell the regulator only about side-effects reported in studies looking at the specific uses for which the drug has a marketing authorisation. Because the use of paroxetine in children was "off-label", GSK had no legal obligation to tell anyone about what it had found.

People had worried for a long time that paroxetine might increase the risk of suicide, though that is quite a difficult side-effect to detect in an antidepressant. In February 2003, GSK spontaneously sent the MHRA a package of information on the risk of suicide on paroxetine, containing some analyses done in 2002 from adverse-event data in trials the company had held, going back a decade. This analysis showed that there was no increased risk of suicide. But it was misleading: although it was unclear at the time, data from trials in children had been mixed in with data from trials in adults, which had vastly greater numbers of participants. As a result, any sign of increased suicide risk among children on paroxetine had been completely diluted away.

Later in 2003, GSK had a meeting with the MHRA to discuss another issue involving paroxetine. At the end of this meeting, the GSK representatives gave out a briefing document, explaining that the company was planning to apply later that year for a specific marketing authorisation to use paroxetine in children. They mentioned, while handing out the document, that the MHRA might wish to bear in mind a safety concern the company had noted: an increased risk of suicide among children with depression who received paroxetine, compared with those on dummy placebo pills.

This was vitally important side-effect data, being presented, after an astonishing delay, casually, through an entirely inappropriate and unofficial channel. Although the data was given to completely the wrong team, the MHRA staff present at this meeting had the wit to spot that this was an important new problem. A flurry of activity followed: analyses were done, and within one month a letter was sent to all doctors advising them not to prescribe paroxetine to patients under the age of 18.

How is it possible that our systems for getting data from companies are so poor, they can simply withhold vitally important information showing that a drug is not only ineffective, but actively dangerous? Because the regulations contain ridiculous loopholes, and it's dismal to see how GSK cheerfully exploited them: when the investigation was published in 2008, it concluded that what the company had done – withholding important data about safety and effectiveness that doctors and patients clearly needed to see – was plainly unethical, and put children around the world at risk; but our laws are so weak that GSK could not be charged with any crime.

After this episode, the MHRA and EU changed some of their regulations, though not adequately. They created an obligation for companies to hand over safety data for uses of a drug outside its marketing authorisation; but ridiculously, for example, trials conducted outside the EU were still exempt. Some of the trials GSK conducted were published in part, but that is obviously not enough: we already know that if we see only a biased sample of the data, we are misled. But we also need all the data for the more simple reason that we need lots of data: safety signals are often weak, subtle and difficult to detect. In the case of paroxetine, the dangers became apparent only when the adverse events from all of the trials were pooled and analysed together.

That leads us to the second obvious flaw in the current system: the results of these trials are given in secret to the regulator, which then sits and quietly makes a decision. This is the opposite of science, which is reliable only because everyone shows their working, explains how they know that something is effective or safe, shares their methods and results, and allows others to decide if they agree with the way in which the data was processed and analysed. Yet for the safety and efficacy of drugs, we allow it to happen behind closed doors, because drug companies have decided that they want to share their trial results discretely with the regulators. So the most important job in evidence-based medicine is carried out alone and in secret. And regulators are not infallible, as we shall see.

Rosiglitazone was first marketed in 1999. In that first year, Dr John Buse from the University of North Carolina discussed an increased risk of heart problems at a pair of academic meetings. The drug's manufacturer, GSK, made direct contact in an attempt to silence him, then moved on to his head of department. Buse felt pressured to sign various legal documents. To cut a long story short, after wading through documents for several months, in 2007 the US Senate committee on finance released a report describing the treatment of Buse as "intimidation".

But we are more concerned with the safety and efficacy data. In 2003 the Uppsala drug monitoring group of the World Health Organisation contacted GSK about an unusually large number of spontaneous reports associating rosiglitazone with heart problems. GSK conducted two internal meta-analyses of its own data on this, in 2005 and 2006. These showed that the risk was real, but although both GSK and the FDA had these results, neither made any public statement about them, and they were not published until 2008.

During this delay, vast numbers of patients were exposed to the drug, but doctors and patients learned about this serious problem only in 2007, when cardiologist Professor Steve Nissen and colleagues published a landmark meta-analysis. This showed a 43% increase in the risk of heart problems in patients on rosiglitazone. Since people with diabetes are already at increased risk of heart problems, and the whole point of treating diabetes is to reduce this risk, that finding was big potatoes. Nissen's findings were confirmed in later work, and in 2010 the drug was either taken off the market or restricted, all around the world.

Now, my argument is not that this drug should have been banned sooner because, as perverse as it sounds, doctors do often need inferior drugs for use as a last resort. For example, a patient may develop idiosyncratic side-effects on the most effective pills and be unable to take them any longer. Once this has happened, it may be worth trying a less effective drug if it is at least better than nothing.

The concern is that these discussions happened with the data locked behind closed doors, visible only to regulators. In fact, Nissen's analysis could only be done at all because of a very unusual court judgment. In 2004, when GSK was caught out withholding data showing evidence of serious side-effects from paroxetine in children, their bad behaviour resulted in a US court case over allegations of fraud, the settlement of which, alongside a significant payout, required GSK to commit to posting clinical trial results on a public website.

Nissen used the rosiglitazone data, when it became available, and found worrying signs of harm, which they then published to doctors – something the regulators had never done, despite having the information years earlier. If this information had all been freely available from the start, regulators might have felt a little more anxious about their decisions but, crucially, doctors and patients could have disagreed with them and made informed choices. This is why we need wider access to all trial reports, for all medicines.

Missing data poisons the well for everybody. If proper trials are never done, if trials with negative results are withheld, then we simply cannot know the true effects of the treatments we use. Evidence in medicine is not an abstract academic preoccupation. When we are fed bad data, we make the wrong decisions, inflicting unnecessary pain and suffering, and death, on people just like us.

This is an edited extract from Bad Pharma, by Ben Goldacre, published next week by Fourth Estate at £13.99. To order a copy for £11.19, including UK mainland p&p, call 0330 333 6846, or go to guardian.co.uk/bookshop.