What Underwrites the Phenomenon of Illness Marketing

Illness marketing (as distinct from health promotion) has been evolving for just over 100 years, and it has been a relentless process driven by greed and its co-conspirators, power and money.
It has its original roots from within wealthy banking and money-changing families who for centuries, met secretly as an influential group, to devise ways and means to manipulate the economies of various countries for their own selfish benefit.
The group included the Rothchilds of Britain and Europe, and the Rockefellers of Germany and America.

In the beginning, the Rothchilds were known as the “Red Shields” because of the ornament on their door and the Rockefellers of Germany were the “Rye Fields” because of their crops.
In the Spring of 1908, one of their most significant meetings took place.
It was held on Jekyll Island off the Georgia coast.

The late B.C Forbes, editor of Forbes magazine, reported what transpired at this meeting of the world’s wealthy: 
“With Nelson Aldrich were Henry Davidson, of J.P. Morgan and Co.’ Frank Vanderlip, president of the National City Bank; Paul Warburg, of Kuhn Loeb and Co., and A. Piatt Andrew, assistant secretary of the US treasury.
They emerged from this secret meeting with a plan for “a scientific currency system for the United States.” 
They had the power to pressure Congress into establishing the Federal Reserve Board, a private group of bankers who meet to shape the money supply.”

Unlike the Reserve Bank of Australia, the US central banking system is privately owned allowing the US banking system to wield enormous private power.

In 1954, this secretive group of international financiers and invited associates decided that the world had become so small and their interests intersected so often, that they must have regular, annual meetings. 
That year they met at the Bilderberg Hotel in Holland, and took the name “Bilderberg” for themselves.
This Bilderberg Group then articulated their world vision – they wanted the complete removal of tariffs documented as formal treaties that governed the movement of “free trade”.
The treaties would overrule local legislation and empower major global corporates to extract financial penalties for “transgressions”.

The most recent of these treaties involving Australia was the proposed Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA) – a clear threat to Australia’s sovereignty and its democratic integrity.

The TPPA was cancelled by Donald Trump when he won the US presidential election, but Malcolm Turnbull has continued to pursue a TPPA resurrection.
To me, this means that Turnbull takes direction from the Bilderberg Group or one of its front organisations posing as some NGO policy foundation.
And clearly, his coercive legislation regarding removal of financial benefits from Australian families who do not follow government vaccination policy (designed by global drug companies) is an example of his following the “party line”

The two major NGO “front groups” in the US are the Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission.

The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), founded in 1921, is a non-profit “think tank” specializing in U.S. foreign policy and international affairs.
It was chaired in recent times by David Rockefeller who also held simultaneously, the chairmanship of the Bilderberg Group.
He died a few months ago at the age of 101, but his legacy continues.
The CFR has enormous influence on US foreign policy and Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State stated in an address to the CFR on July 15, 2009.
“We get a lot of advice from the Council, so this will mean I won’t have as far to go to be told what we should be doing and how we should think about the future.”
Meaning that the CFR calls all the policy “shots”.
NewsCorp, a Rupert Murdoch interest is described as a “premium member”, as is Google Inc, Glaxo Smith Kline, Merck & Co Inc, Microsoft Corporation, Pfizer Inc, Walmart – just a sample of the global corporate world.

Access this link for a full list.

The US government has a tradition of appointing many of its key departmental heads from among CFR membership.
A report elaborating on this process can be found here:

The Trilateral Commission, another NGO, is charged with the practice of engaging in three-party relations, agreements, or negotiations (read trade treaty development).
It also involves the political and economic policy of encouraging friendly relations among three nations or regions, especially the United States, Western Europe, and Japan, or North America, Europe, and the Pacific Rim.
Membership of the Trilateral Commission is by invitation only and its membership is global in nature, formed up into three groups – European, North American and the Asian-Pacific.
To help preserve the Commission’s unofficial character, members who take up positions in their national administration give up Trilateral Commission membership.
New members are chosen on a national basis.

The procedures used for rotation off and for invitation of new members vary from national group to national group.
Three chairmen (one from each region), deputy chairmen, and directors constitute the leadership of the Trilateral Commission, along with an Executive Committee including 36 other members.

Both the CFR and the Trilateral Commission were set up by David Rockefeller and really do have the characteristics of a one-world government dominated by global corporates.

In the 1930’s an investigative reporter, Morris A. Bealle, (also a former city editor of the old Washington Times and Herald), was running a county newspaper.
He investigated the drug industry and its links to David Rockefeller.
The result was collated into two books – “The Drug Story”, and “The House of Rockefeller.”
They explain in detail the use of foundations and trusts in the dispersing of grants and donations to create massive influence.
An extract from The Drug Story stated:
“A business which makes 6% on its invested capital is considered a sound money maker. Sterling Drug, Inc., the main cog and largest holding company in the Rockefeller Drug Empire and its 68 subsidiaries, showed operating profits in 1961 of $23,463,719 after taxes, on net assets of $43,108,106 – a 54% profit.

Squibb, another Rockefeller-controlled company, in 1945 made not 6% but 576% on the actual value of its property.

That was during the luscious war years when the Army Surgeon General’s Office and the Navy Bureau of Medicine and Surgery were not only acting as promoters for the Drug Trust, but were actually forcing drug trust poisons into the blood streams of American soldiers, sailors and marines, to the tune of over 200 million ‘shots’.

Is it any wonder, with the Rockefellers, and their stooges in the Food and Drug Administration, the U.S. Public Health Service, the Federal Trade Commission, the Better Business Bureau, the Army Medical Corps, the Navy Bureau of Medicine, and thousands of health officers all over the country, should combine to put out of business all forms of therapy that discourage the use of drugs.

“The last annual report of the Rockefeller Foundation itemizes the gifts it has made to colleges and public agencies in the past 44 years, and they total somewhat over half a billion dollars.
These colleges, of course, teach their students all the drug lore the Rockefeller pharmaceutical houses want taught.
Otherwise there would be no more gifts, just as there are no gifts to any of the 30 odd colleges in the United States that don’ t use therapies based on drugs.

“Harvard, with its well-publicized medical school, has received $8,764,433 of Rockefeller’s Drug Trust money, Yale got $7 ,927,800, Johns Hopkins $10,418,531, Washington University in St. Louis $2,842,132, New York’s Columbia University $5,424,371, Cornell University $1,709,072, etc., etc.”

It should be noted that in Australia, the group known as Skeptics Australia and its offshoot, Friends of Science in Medicine (FSM) have agendas similar to that of the Rockefeller Foundation.
I have often asked the question as to why they pursue natural modalities and never mainstream drug companies, even though there are glaring examples of the latter improperly influencing Australian health policy and the promotion of problem-ridden drugs.
I have never received a response.

I think the answer lives in the quotation above and that it reflects a history that has evolved over the past century.
It also appears to be the driver of medical fascism, a phenomenon discussed in the previous edition of i2P

The Rockefellers own the largest drug manufacturing combine in the world, and use all of their other interests to bring pressure to increase the sale of drugs.
The fact that most of the thousands of separate drug items on the market are harmful is of no concern to their Drug Trust.

Morris Bealle wrote on the Rockefeller Foundation, and said:

“The Rockefeller Foundation was first set up in 1904 and called the General Education Fund.
An organization called the Rockefeller Foundation, ostensibly to supplement the General Education Fund, was formed in 1910 and through long finagling and lots of Rockefeller money got the New York legislature to issue a charter on May 14, 1913.

It is therefore not surprising that the House of Rockefeller has had its own “nominees” planted in all Federal agencies that have to do with health.

So the stage was set for the “education” of the American public, with a view to turning it into a population of drug and medico dependents, with the early help of the parents and the schools, then with direct advertising and, last but not least, the influence the advertising revenues had on the media-makers.

A compilation of the magazine Advertising Age showed that as far back as 1948 the larger companies in America spent for advertising the sum total of $1,104,224,374, when the dollar was still worth a dollar and not half a zloty.
Of this staggering sum the interlocking Rockefeller-Morgan interests (gone over entirely to Rockefeller after Morgan’s death) controlled about 80 percent, and utilized it to manipulate public information on health and drug matters – then and even more recklessly now.

Even the most independent newspapers are dependent on their press associations for their national news, and there is no reason for a news editor to suspect that a story coming over the wires of the Associated Press, the United Press or the International News Service is censored when it concerns health matters.
Yet this is what happens constantly.

In fact in the ’50s the Drug Trust had one of its directors on the directorate of the Associated Press.
 He was no less than Arthur Hays Sulzberger, publisher of the New York Times and as such one of the most powerful Associated Press directors.

It was thus easy for the Rockefeller Trust to persuade the Associated Press Science Editor to adopt a policy which would not permit any medical news to clear that is not approved by the Drug Trust “expert”, and this censor is not going to approve any item that can in any way hurt the sale of drugs.

This accounts to this day for the many fake stories of serums and medical cures and just-around-the-corner breakthrough victories over cancer, AIDS, diabetes, multiple sclerosis, which go out brazenly over the wires to all daily newspapers in America and abroad.”

And it happens today in Australia, and still expands and evolves.
Direct to consumer advertising is still an agenda item with mainstream drug companies, and the Murdoch Press still publishes fabricated lies about pharmacy through certain of its well-known reporters.

This article is about the “Dark State” that is substantially controlling the entire government of the US and strongly influences governments around the globe, including that of Australia.
It has been described in a previous i2P article found here.

The “Dark State” was first brought to public attention on January 17, 1961, when President Dwight D. Eisenhower closed out his second term and delivered his farewell speech on live TV, just seven years after the Bilderberg Group emerged in its new format in 1954.

He described a threat that existed as far more deadly than the perceived threats posed by the Soviets and the Chinese (in the “Cold War” era).
It was an unprecedented warning that almost no one paid attention to at the time.

Eisenhower said: “In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence… 
The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. 
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes.”

He passed on this legacy to his successor, John F Kennedy who promised to eliminate the Dark State and scatter it to the winds.
Kennedy was then assassinated.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *