Afleveringen
-
I first met Christian Nix at the Sovereign Man conference in Austin Texas last summer and then again at the Total Access Sovereign Man conference in Mexico City this fall. Christianâs mix of professionalism, confidence and empathy immediately put me at ease and we began to dialogue about the state of medical care in the United States as opposed to other countries throughout the world. He spoke at length about his training as a traditional healer in multiple disciplines, and I was really intrigued by what he was sharing. Christian truly has a different perspective than most on what it takes to heal a chronically damaged body. I suggested that he consider writing a Substack about medical freedom and the state of medical care in the USA. This essay is a product of that discussion.
Christian has studied and practiced traditional medicines for decades. He has lectured and taught about these methods at some of the best universities in the world. What he has to say may seem strange to you, and some aspects seem strange to me. But please keep an open mind, because what we have for chronic care in the USA is not working. We need to expand our minds and worldviews, and learn about different methods of staying healthy. Christian offers a different perspective on how to stay healthy, and I think that what he has to say is worth listening to.
The âNewâ Medical Freedom
By: Christian Nix
There are many important lessons to be learned from the last several years of COVID drama. Perhaps the most important of all isâŠ
Medical Freedom matters.
The idea that drug companies are allowed to create an injectable gene therapy⊠hide the ingredients from public disclosure⊠and remain immune to any legal liability for the harm that is now undeniably linked to their actions - as they roll in billions of dollars of profit, we should expect to see the masses whetting the guillotine.
Yet, no such outrage is apparent - anywhere.
Instead, thereâs a renewed determination to clamp down on any and all dissent.
For example:
Dr. Peter McCullough - one of the select few Physicians who laid his career credentials on the altar in speaking out about the dangerous madness of vaccine mandates for an illness with a 99.5% survival rate - may end up paying the ultimate career price.
The medical authorities have moved to strip him of his credentials.
What does medical freedom even look like in a world where officials lie with impunity and system-wide censorship is the new normal?
What can a regular person hope to do in light of the fact that, well, we need doctors? We need a medical system we can trust⊠And we need to be able to rely on medical professionals for all kinds of careâŠ
What can you do to individually reclaim some medical freedom for yourself and your family?
My answer may come as a surprise. But then my experience in medicine was far from ordinary.
The modern medical system in the United States is a marvelous example of how to provide emergency care.
But the incidence and prevalence of chronic functional conditions in the âStatesâ provide a fairly strong indicator of where people are falling through the cracks (or getting caught in the gears) of modern medicine.
From IBS (inflammatory bowel syndrome) to autoimmunity⊠mental health to metabolic disorders⊠not to mention all kinds of chronic pain...
These and other chronic conditions have one thing in common:
They almost all respond favorably to changes in lifestyle, diet, targeted exercises and simple, safe home remedies and treatment.
Unfortunately, a lot of health-and-wellness advice is so generic itâs essentially useless.
The good news is, the majority of chronic conditions that donât respond well to modern medical protocols will respond favorably to âtargeted solutionsâ from ancient medical systems.
How do I know? And why should you care what I have to say on this topic?
In 1999 I began an odyssey in medicine few would believe possible. I met and apprenticed with a curandero - a type of old-time, natural healer - who gave me an excellent base for what would become my medical career.
I obtained a license to practice acupuncture and Chinese medicine in 2005.
And since then, Iâve lectured at places like Cleveland Clinic, UVA Medical center, Stony Brook University Medical center, and UCSF.
I even created two hospital teaching clinics on two continents, including Mercy Hospital in Chicago.
And I did all of this without going to any medical school as a student. The only reason any of this was possible in the first place is becauseâŠ
The system of self-healing I learned from my mentor works.
Unlike modern emergency medical care, ancient medical systems have incredibly sophisticated ways of evaluating and counteracting the one category of illness affecting more patients than all others: chronic conditions.
In fact, you could say that just as modern medicine is an almost magical system for handling serious health emergencies from life-threatening infections to serious traumaâŠ
Ancient medical approaches (like the one I learned) are equally as impressive in teaching patients how to target and even reverse their own chronic conditions.
Of those two categories, chronic, daily symptoms are by far the biggest unmet market need. That trend shows no signs of slowing down.
Ask any patient how they feel about taking multiple prescriptions for their chronic conditions, and the likely response is something like, âI would love to get off all these pills⊠but whatâs the alternative?â
If your bank account will allow it, expensive superfoods⊠supplements⊠nutraceuticals⊠and even radical so-called ânatural therapiesâ like chelation and stem-cell treatments are options.
The problem, even for the rich, is that most diet and lifestyle advice is still incredibly unsophisticated and generic.
âDon't drink too much alcohol⊠try to reduce your exposure to radiation⊠go for a walk in nature if you are feeling stressed⊠get your vitamin D checkedâŠâ etc.
All thatâs fine, as far as it goesâŠ
But real medical freedom goes beyond generic advice and expensive alternatives to modern medicine.
Medical freedom means learning targeted, self-healing methods that go way beyond the kind of generic advice usually referred to as âwell-being.â
To me, medical freedom means something specific:
It means having the power to heal and maintain your bodily and psychological health without relying on modern medicine for simple, common, everyday complaints.
At a minimum, medical freedom means government and private corporations donât get to mandate untested âvaccinesâ on an unwary population.
I'll even go one step furtherâŠ
Medical Freedom means using the modern medical system for the conditions it treats best - while avoiding any reliance on pills and sugary foods when self-healing is clearly a better option.
Most people have no idea how to heal on their own - without falling into the hands of our very dysfunctional medical system.
Hereâs an example:
Say you have something common like acid reflux...
Are you really better off going to your doctor?
Well, if you need an endoscopy to rule out the pre-cancerous condition of Barrett's esophagus, sure. Go to your doctor. High-tech, early diagnosis is one of the marvels of our modern system. We should all be grateful.
But should you really take acid blockers simply because your doctor doesnât have any other option available?
Don't you need your stomach acid if you want to have healthy digestion?
Isn't the blocking of stomach acid the kind of thing that leads to other complications from opportunistic infections⊠to bone density issues⊠and even kidney disease as you age?
These are just a few of the well-documented complications associated with PPIs and H2 blockers, the two most common types of acid-blocking medications.
If better ways exist to get your digestive system working again, wouldnât that be preferable to taking pills?
In the case of reflux, simple food-combining principles go a long way in alleviating the underlying organ imbalances leading to constant regurgitation of acid, bile and half-digested food.
Certain foods simply donât combine well with others. Take meat and potatoes for example.
The idea that meat and potatoes are somehow easy to digest is a total non-starter. Especially if you have a digestive illness like reflux.
Meat requires a lot of stomach acid. Potatoes require a more alkaline environment in order to break down. Put those two things together and you get a big ball of âmudâ in your intestines.
When you build up stagnant food in your intestines like this, you also end up with something ancient (Chinese) medicine refers to as âdampness.â
Dampness is exactly what it sounds like⊠Fluids and mucus are accumulating inside your guts, blocking the movement of blood and other normal organ functions.
Getting dampness out of your body can be simple. But you need a medical model that actually acknowledges such a condition in the first place.
Modern medicine has nothing to say about symptoms of dampness - because itâs not even something your doctor knows to look for.
The bottom line isâŠ
When you have something like chronic reflux, you are much better off learning how to get your organs working together again - not isolating stomach acid and then trying to cancel it out with pills.
A basic understanding of how your digestive organs work together is far better for healing chronic reflux than taking pills to block stomach acid.
Yet, no part of modern, high-tech medicine is even remotely concerned with teaching patients how to âreadâ symptoms⊠interpret what those symptoms mean about your organ (dys)functions⊠and then subsequently âcancelâ out your common, chronic symptoms using simple everyday food combinations.
None of that is part of our societal thinking about health and healing. And thatâs too bad - because it creates a huge and unnecessary dependence on pills and risky surgery.
Acid reflux is only one example of how modern medicine prefers a pill-based solution when the right targeted advice would prevent a lot of complications.
The truth is, your body's own healing ability can be hyper-focused in a way that goes far beyond generic fad âhealth-and-wellnessâ advice.
In fact, there's an entire system out there designed to help regular people like you read your bodyâs signs and symptoms - and then adjust your lifestyle, diet and exercise routine in very specific ways based on your exact imbalances.
No doctors in modern medicine are taught about this level of self-healing. And they never will be.
But it works.
In part two I will share details of how you could identify the basic organ imbalances leading to something complicated like IBS - one of the most common chronic conditions and a total nightmare for millions of people worldwide.
Until thenâŠ
Regards,
Christian Nix
Who is Robert Malone is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
âLies My GOVâT Told Meâ
Available and shipping now for Christmas gifts!
Here are a couple of recent Amazon reader reviews.
Get full access to Who is Robert Malone at www.malone.news/subscribe -
The transcript and voiceover is from Whitney Webbâs Speech to the First Annual Childrenâs Health Defense Conference, October, 2022
Introduction and Background
For years, the censorship of factual information that is inconvenient to certain powerful actors, including the US Federal Government and Big Pharma, has been steadily increasing as âinformation warfareâ has become an ever present force in our lives.
In a world where what were once obvious truths are under attack, even the very definitions of âjournalistâ and âjournalismâ have themselves become controversial and contested. Too often in this âinformation warâ, the first casualty is the truth itself. Facts are rarely treated as sacred by the worldâs largest and most influential media outlets, but instead are treated as something to be twisted and manipulated for the benefit of their paying sponsors. In this environment, too many media personalities have become mercenaries for hire and, as a consequence, public trust in the media is cratering. Meanwhile, those who do aim to champion truth in their work are targeted, smeared and censored by tech companies and platforms aligned with âmercenary mediaâ, unaccountable intelligence services, and out of control oligarchs.
The following essay focuses on the ongoing insidious effort to normalize the censorship of factual information, the historical context of this war on dissenting voices, and how âjournalismâ today has increasingly become about protecting the powerful rather than holding them to account. Potential solutions to this existential crisis in journalism are also discussed.
Journalism in Crisis: The War on Dissent
With each passing day, it seems that Journalism is becoming less of a profession and more of a war zone. Indeed the difference between journalism and âinformation warfareâ is becoming increasingly difficult to pinpoint.
Whereas journalism continues to be defined as âwriting characterized by a direct presentation of facts or description of events without an attempt at interpretationâ â in practice, it has become a battlefield where the most powerful media outlets - that is, those closest to the centers of power â deliberately manipulate or omit facts to craft narratives that expressly benefit the powerful while also colluding to censor their more truthful competition. These media outlets act as mercenaries, with little or no regard for how their actions negatively impact our society and distort reality. Their allegiances lie not with the public, but with those with the deepest pockets.
In doing so, in many cases these media mercenaries actively work to suppress the facts and malign those in journalism who do strive to champion the truth above all else. Instead of holding the powerful to account, many so-called journalists today act more as accessories to the crimes committed by the powerful against the public.
Objective presentation of the facts, as far as the bulk of mainstream media is concerned, is dead and has been dead for some time. As a consequence, public trust in these media outlets has completely cratered. Yet, even the ostensible challenge to mainstream media, so-called independent or alternative media, is often troubled by similar issues, as the quest for clicks and fame can often supersede objective, factual reporting even outside the bounds of mainstream media. As a result, navigating the world of journalism has never been more difficult or more precarious than it is right now.
But if some get their way, navigating the media landscape in search of truth will soon become impossible. There are major efforts, years in the making, to censor dissenting opinions under the guise of censoring âmisinformation.â As many readers are undoubtedly aware, what was last yearâs âmisinformationâ with respect to COVID-19 injections has only recently undergone a dramatic change into âbreaking news.â Yet, many of us who were right all along and were censored when factual information that is now recognized as true was erroneously labeled âmisinformation,â have received no apologies or compensation from our lost income. In many cases, our old platforms have not been returned to us. The censorship hammer has not been wielded with incompetence, instead it has been and is being intentionally used to squeeze out those of us who would dare to speak the truth, no matter how inconvenient it may be at the time.
As the online censorship onslaught continues, it is becoming increasingly normalized. Growing restrictions, deplatforming and its other manifestations have become so pervasive that many have simply come to accept it as a ânew normal.â This ânew normalâ for free speech is as insidious as it has been gradual, as we are being trained to accept unconstitutional limitations on what we can express on the websites that dominate online socialization.
The argument that is often deployed to dismiss concerns regarding online censorship is the claim that the dominant social media companies are private, not public, entities. However, in reality, the Big Tech firms that dominate our online lives, particularly Google and Facebook, were either created with some involvement of the U.S. national security state or have become major U.S. government and/or military contractors over the past two decades. When it comes to censoring and deplatforming individuals for claims that run counter to U.S. government narratives, it should be clear that Google-owned YouTube, and other tech platforms owned by contractors to the U.S. military and intelligence communities, have a major conflict of interest in their stifling of speech.
The line between âprivateâ Silicon Valley and the public sector has become increasingly blurred, and it is now a matter of record that these companies have illegally passed information onto intelligence services such as the NSA, for use in what are blatantly unconstitutional surveillance programs aimed at American civilians. All indications point to the military-industrial complex having now expanded into the military-technology-industrial complex.
These days, one need only look at important government commissions â such as the National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence, which was headed by former Google/Alphabet CEO Eric Schmidt â to see how this de facto public-private partnership between Silicon Valley and the national security state functions, and its outsized role in setting important tech-related policies for both the private and public sectors. For example, that commission, largely comprised of representatives of the military, intelligence community and Big Tech, has helped set policy on âcountering disinformationâ online. More specifically, it has recommended weaponizing Artificial Intelligence (AI) for the express purpose of identifying online accounts to deplatform and speech to censor, framing this recommendation as essential to U.S. national security as it relates to âinformation warfare.â
There are already several companies competing to market an AI-powered censorship engine to the national security state as well as the private sector, for use against journalists and non-journalists alike. One of these companies is Primer AI, a âmachine intelligenceâ company that âbuilds software machines that read and write in English, Russian, and Chinese to automatically unearth trends and patterns across large volumes of data.â The company publicly states that their work âsupports the mission of the intelligence community and broader DOD by automating reading and research tasks to enhance the speed and quality of decision-making.â Their current roster of clients includes not just the U.S. military and the U.S. intelligence community, but major American companies like Walmart and private âphilanthropicâ organizations like the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
Primerâs founder, Sean Gourley, who previously created AI programs for the military to track insurgents in post-invasion Iraq, asserted in an April 2020 blog post that âcomputational warfare and disinformation campaigns will become a more serious threat than physical war, and we will have to rethink the weapons we deploy to fight them.â In that same post, Gourley argued for the creation of a âManhattan Project for truthâ that would create a publicly available Wikipedia-style database built off of âknowledge bases [that] already exist inside many countriesâ intelligence agencies for national security purposes.â Gourley wrote that âthis effort would be ultimately about building and enhancing our collective intelligence and establishing a baseline for whatâs true or not.â In other words, Gourley says we should let the CIA tell us what is true and what is false. He concludes his blog post by stating that âin 2020, we will begin to weaponize truth.â And, two years later, it seems that Gourley was right. That is what they have done.
Since that year, Primer has been under contract with the U.S. military to âdevelop the first-ever machine learning platform to automatically identify and assess suspected disinformation.â That the term âsuspected disinformationâ was used is no accident, as many instances of online censorship have involved merely assertions, as opposed to confirmations, that censored speech, including censored journalism, is part of a nation state-connected or âbad actorâ-connected disinformation campaign. While those campaigns do exist, legitimate and constitutionally protected speech that deviates from the âofficialâ or government-sanctioned narrative are frequently censored under these metrics, often with little to no ability to meaningfully appeal the censorâs decision. In other cases, posts âsuspectedâ of being disinformation or that which are flagged as such (sometimes erroneously) by social media algorithms, are removed or hidden from public view without the posterâs knowledge.
In addition, âsuspected disinformationâ can be used to justify the censorship of speech that is inconvenient for particular governments, corporations and groups, as there is no need to have evidence or present a coherent case that said content is disinformation â one must only cast suspicion upon it in order to have it censored. Further complicating this issue is the fact that some claims initially labeled âdisinformationâ later become accepted fact or recognized as legitimate speech. This has happened on more than one occasion during the COVID-19 crisis, where journalists had their accounts deleted or their content censored merely for broaching issues like the lab-leak hypothesis as well as questions over mask and vaccine efficacy, among many other issues. A year or two later, much of this supposed âdisinformationâ has since become acknowledged as legitimate avenues of journalistic inquiry. The initial bout of blanket censorship on these topics was done at the behest of public and private actors alike due to their inconvenience to what had once been the prevailing narrative.
In what appears to be the apparent fulfillment of Primer AIâs pleas, the Biden administration has recently announced a push to âincrease digital literacyâ among the American public, while censoring also âharmful contentâ disseminated by so-called âdomestic terroristsâ as well as by âhostile foreign powers seeking to undermine American democracy.â The latter is a clear reference to the claim that critical reporting of U.S. government policy, particularly its military and intelligence activities abroad, is synonymous with âRussian disinformation,â a now-discredited claim that has been used to heavily censor independent media.
Regarding âincreasing digital literacy,â the policy documents from the Biden administration make it clear that this refers to a new âdigital literacyâ education curriculum that is currently being developed by the Department of Homeland Security, the U.S.â domestically-focused intelligence agency, for a domestic audience. This âdigital literacyâ initiative would have previously violated U.S. law, until the Obama administration worked with Congress to repeal the Smith-Mundt Act, which lifted the World War II-era ban on the U.S. government directing propaganda at domestic audiences.
The Biden administrationâs war on domestic terror policy also makes it clear that the censorship, as described above, is part of a âbroader priorityâ of the administration, which it defines as follows:
â[âŠ] enhancing faith in government and addressing the extreme polarization, fueled by a crisis of disinformation and misinformation often channeled through social media platforms, which can tear Americans apart and lead some to violence.â
In other words, fostering trust in government while simultaneously censoring âpolarizingâ voices who distrust or criticize the government is a key policy goal behind the Biden administrationâs domestic-terror strategy. In addition, this statement implies that Americans not agreeing with each other is problematic and frames that disagreement as a driver of violence, as opposed to a normal occurrence in a supposed democracy that has constitutional protections for freedom of speech. From this framing, it is implied that such violence can only be stopped if all Americans trust the government and agree with its narratives and âtruths.â Framing deviations from these narratives as national security threats, as is done in this policy document, invites the labeling of non-conforming speech as âviolenceâ or as âinciting violenceâ through the fomentation of disagreement. As a result, those who post non-conforming speech online may soon find themselves being labeled as âterroristsâ by the state if this policy is not reversed.
So what does this mean for journalists? Must all journalists conform to government-approved talking points lest they be accused of âinciting violenceâ and âterrorismâ? If a journalist reports truthful information that makes the public angry at certain government institutions, are they to be deemed a national security threat in such a framework? While such a scenario may seem fantastical to some, one need look no further than the case of Julian Assange, who is currently being treated as a terrorist for publishing factual information that was inconvenient to powerful factions that manage the American empire.
Information warfare, when waged by the powers that be in this country, is a war on the truth. It is a war to replace the truth with a narrative that supports their needs, not ours. It is a war to distort reality and to manipulate the public to support policies that are against their best interests. While they may frame such measures as necessary to âprotectâ democracy, the elimination and imminent criminalization of legitimate speech and legitimate journalism is the true threat to democracy, one that should deeply disturb all Americans. If the national security state controls and enforces the only permissible narratives and the only permitted version of the âtruth,â whether for journalists or everyday Americans, they will then also control human perception, and â as a consequence â human behavior. One could argue that this is the ultimate goal of so much of what we are facing today â total control over human behavior.
Thankfully, for those that seek to âweaponizeâ the truth and stamp out dissent, the truth is not as easily manipulated and distorted as they may think. At a visceral level, people gravitate towards the truth. They may succeed in hiding the truth from many or even most of us for a time, but â once it comes out â it spreads like wildfire. Governments around the world, the biggest media outlets in the world and even groups like the World Economic Forum are desperate to ârebuild trustâ with the public. Despite these efforts, polls indicate that the public trusts them less than ever before. They may deplatform the truth, they may censor the truth and they may imprison those who tell the truth or label them terrorists â but their lies and their distortions can never, ever replace it.
Whitney Webb
Whitney Webb has been a professional writer, researcher and journalist since 2016. She has written for several websites and, from 2017 to 2020, was a staff writer and senior investigative reporter for Mint Press News. She currently writes for The Last American Vagabond and hosts an independent podcast called Unlimited Hangout. You can support her work directly on Patreon. Her latest book has been published as a two volume set, which is readily available from Amazon and other booksellers.
One Nation Under Blackmail: The Sordid Union Between Intelligence and Crime that Gave Rise to Jeffrey Epstein, (Volume 1)
One Nation Under Blackmail: The Sordid Union Between Intelligence and Organized Crime that Gave Rise to Jeffrey Epstein (Volume 2)
Who is Robert Malone is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Get full access to Who is Robert Malone at www.malone.news/subscribe -
Zijn er afleveringen die ontbreken?
-
Fentanyl is number one killer in the USA for most age cohorts. Unfortunately, the CDC doesnât track deaths in a timely manner to confirm that easily⊠But here is their position: they will say that they donât really âknowâ, because âoverdose deaths are spread out across four different death categories: accidents, suicide, homicide and undetermined.â
The implication of this CDC spokespersonâs statement is that we live in some reality where the 1950s never ended. Where it is either too painful, shameful or irrelevant for our society to track drug overdoses in a meaningful way. For me, I think the answer is obvious. I think we can probably all know cultural shame when we âseeâ it. The definition of shame is well known.
Shame: [noun] a painful emotion caused by consciousness of guilt, shortcoming, or impropriety. the susceptibility to such emotion.
OK - but here is where it gets weird. Searching and shifting though the CDC webpages - it turns out that the CDC writes that it does track overdose deaths through a system called SUDORS and another program called DOSE. These are programs that extract data from state death reports. It is a complex program and fairly new, but they basically extract IC-10 death codes and other relevant data from state death reports. But many (most) states donât track overdose deaths by drug. So, there is a âwhich comes first, chicken or egg?â problem in fentanyl death data tracking.
Could it be that the CDC is hiding the data? Now that has never happened before . We all know that during the COVIDcrisis, the CDC was caught numerous times hiding analyzed data as well as not not analyzing data or reporting data. My fear that that maybe this behavior is not new. That the CDC doesnât want the American public to know that real numbers.
So, I am reading pages and pages on the CDC website about how overdose deaths can be tracked (which is quite complex) and this whole systems appears to be a âwork aroundâ because tracking deaths from overdosing from fentanyl does not appear to be a primary CDC objective.
I have a goal. I am searching for numbers - fresh numbers. Numbers that support the claims that we are now are 300 deaths per day from fentanyl overdoses (a number I never could verify). Because that is the number that is âout thereâ in the press. But on the CDC site - the actual numbers are STILL buried. For instance, at the bottom on one report - there is a link: âDrug Overdose Deaths and where does it take me?
Then I find what appears to be it. The page with my answers. A June 2022 report - and⊠the data on the June 2022 report is that from 2020⊠another dead end.
OK- so the CDC most up to date report on drug overdoses is from deaths in 2020.
OK - enough of this.
At this point, I have to give up on the CDC for answers as to how fast this epidemic is growing. I have to trust that the non-profit groups working on this issue have numbers that are trustworthy because our government, near as I can tell, is either completely incompetent or playing âhide the data.â You decide. I know which answer I am betting on.
Then finally, when digging around - I find some more recent data from a CDC website (it turns out there are data on combined drug overdoses).
Basically, about 120,000 people will die from drug overdoses in 2022 (the downturn of the curve in 2022 is a reporting bias - as it is an incomplete data set). That is 334 deaths per day. Now we know where the 300 deaths per day came from!
To put this in perspective, right now -the 7 day rolling average for COVID-19 deaths in the USA is 304 deaths per day.
âHouston we have a problem.â
In the meantime, by extrapolating IC-10 death codes from the CDC databases, various groups have come up with some numbers.
Which donât always match the official numbers or each otherâs numbers.
Fentanyl overdoses have surged to the leading cause of death for adults between the ages of 18 and 45, according to an analysis of U.S. government data.
Between 2020 and 2021, nearly 79,000 people between 18 and 45 years old â 37,208 in 2020 and 41,587 in 2021 â died of fentanyl overdoses, the data analysis from opioid awareness organization Families Against Fentanyl shows. FOX NEWS
Fentanyl overdoses have become No. 1 cause of death among US adults, ages 18-45.
This is something everyone agrees on.
NOT COVID-19. Not car accidents. Not suicides.
FENTANYL.
This is a national crisis.
Even CDC will (sort of) admit it.
"If one assumes that the other synthetic narcotics category for those 18 to 45 is 90% fentanyl, then one can argue that unintentional fentanyl overdose is likely the leading cause in that age group. However, because we donât have exact numbers of fentanyl deaths for that age category, we cannot say for certain that this is accurate."
- CDC spokesperson
Despite all of the CDC tracking programs, the truth is that most state crime laboratories and coronerâs offices do not track fentanyl-related deaths, and official fentanyl death statistics can be difficult to come by. This may or may not be why the CDC hedges.
But what everyone can agree on is that is why the numbers produced by the CDC can only be an underestimate of the true death rate.
One thing that shocked me in looking at this data, was that this is not teenagers âoverdosing.â
These deaths are adults, mostly between the ages 25-64! These are our parents and grandparents. These are our adult family members dying of drug overdoses.
What is going on?
In reading about fentanyl, it is clear that the problem is multi-factorial. Fentanyl is extremely cheap and extremely potent. It is easily cut into other drugs, so that the newly formulated product potency is much greater than the actual product.
Because the potency of fentanyl is so high, it is hard to meter out correctly. The tiniest amount can be lethal. Combine this with the fact that there are some drugs, like marijuana, where people view the product as not having significant toxicity. Basically they smoke a lot. So, on the weekend maybe - they smoke âa bunch of weedâ and donât realize they have ingested a lethal dose of fentanyl. Yes, this actually happens.
This is important. For me, I donât smoke. Heck, I rarely have a drink. I prefer to keep my mind clean. However, I am from California and I have a lot of friends and family that âusedâ to, or maybe still do smoke. What comes to my mind is that one thing people can do to protect themselves, other than quitting - is to ensure a safe source of Marijuana or other drug product. But Fentanyl-laced Marijuana in particular is problematic. Maybe it is time for some people to invest in an aero garden? Better yet, quit. Marijuana is a drug that people use recreationally. It is not in my place to lecture, but knowing this risk is out there, is it worth it?
The other issue is that fentanyl is being cut into cocaine, and this is now a fairly routine practice. Near where I live, there was recently a news story of multiple overdoses, which resulted in a conviction.
BAILEY'S CROSSROADS, VA â On Wednesday, a Dumfries man was convicted by a federal jury for six overdoses, including one death in Bailey's Crossroads.
According to prosecutors, Michael Vaughn, 28, distributed cocaine laced with fentanyl at a party in the Skyline area of Bailey's Crossroads. He was convicted on charges of distribution of fentanyl resulting in death and serious bodily injury, and possession with the intent to distribute fentanyl.
Then there is this fact:
Powdered fentanyl looks just like many other drugs. It is commonly mixed with drugs like heroin, cocaine, and methamphetamine and made into pills that are made to resemble other prescription opioids. Fentanyl-laced drugs are extremely dangerous, and many people may be unaware that their drugs are laced with fentanyl.
Synthetic opioids such as fentanyl are now the most common drugs involved in overdose deaths in the US. The percentage of opioid-related deaths involving fentanyl increased from 14.3% in 2010 to 59% in 2017.
Then there is the fact that fentanyl has âcut into, or even replaced entirely, the supply of heroin and other opiates (wiki).â Fentanyl is mainly coming from Chinese factories and is then trafficked to other countries for illicit production and sale. In the United States, a lot of the fentanyl is coming in through Mexican cartels - having been imported from China. Although it is unclear how much is coming directly from China into the USA and then added directly to other products for distribution. This is a border security issue. And the current executive branch (and UN Agenda 2030) position is pro- âopen bordersâ. To a significant extent, the flood of fentanyl that is killing as many or more Americans than COVID currently on a daily basis is a consequence of USG Executive Branch policies. Which may account for the reluctance of the CDC to provide timely data.
But letâs face it. A lot of people were abruptly weaned off of oxycodone when the prescription crack down occurred in 2014 and they have found fentanyl to be a good substitute. There are many who are chose this drug because they are already addicted to prescription opioids or heroin. Most addicts hold jobs, have families, or go to school. They are people that we interact with daily. They maintain their addiction through time - and are careful to keep their addiction under wraps.
A dear friend of mine who lives in rural Georgia lost her daughter in 2016 to oxycodone. The backstory was that her daughter had been addicted, got clean through the help of an inpatient rehab. Soon after release, she went to a wedding where a cousin brought over her stash. They got high together. So, she took the same amount of oxycodone that she had been taking prior to getting clean. Because her body was no longer acclimated to the drug, it was a lethal dose. This death changed my friend and her family forever. It is cliche to say that that there is nothing worse than losing a child, but in this case it was true.
I have another friend who we have known since 2003, who has been suffering from addiction for the past decade. Like many now addicted to opioids, she âusedâ to be an alcoholic. After almost losing her marriage, and months in and out of rehab to the tune of $100,000+ dollars, she kicked alcohol. Only to find opioids the year after. This addiction has cost her marriage. Her husband of 20 years finally gave up after a decade of watching her decline and doing everything possible to save her. Finally, he had to save himself. I have watched her go from a promising young scientist, with a passion for horses and gardening to a shell of herself. And she is a shell. Her mind is blown. Her body is wasted. Jill and I have had her stay with us - have tried to help her over the years, but she just canât escape her addiction. The end stage of this addiction is not pretty, not for the faint of heart to witness. It is devastating.
The impact of losing a functioning adult with years of potential left is enormous. An adult who has a family, maybe with children - who is unable to function normally in society or dead. Children who have to watch their parents unconscious on the couch, unable to cook dinner day after day. These drugs cause real damage not only to those addicted but to those who love them, live with them and are with them. We all know this. But what to do? That is the question.
Unfortunately, at the individual level - the âhelpâ all seems to center around expensive rehab centers.
Outpatient centers are generally thought to be good transitions from in-patient to outpatient. But not so good for actual detox.
I tried it hard to find âthe officialâ number of people who regularly use or are addicted to opioids. That number is curiously elusive. For instance, HHS cites the following numbers but fails to include fentanyl in their survey instrument.
In 2019, an estimated 10.1 million people aged 12 or older misused opioids in the past year. Specifically, 9.7 million people misused prescription pain relievers and 745,000 people used heroin.
They also write that, 1.27 million Americans are receiving medication-assisted treatment (this data appears to be from 2019).
The average cost of treatment per episode are enormous.
Hypothetical numbers: If each episode cost $32,000 and five million people were treated - that would be 160 billion dollars per year.
There are 14,000+ in substance abuse facilities in the USA.
In the end, on a national level - what can be done.
The non-profit group, Families Against Fentanyl argues that Congress must call fentanyl a âweapon of mass destruction.â That the war on drugs must be taken to the next level. That would mean of course, World Health Organization and United Nations involvement.
To me, that seems extreme for what is a homegrown societal problem, aided by countries like China and Mexico.
Even if we shut down all of these drugs from entering through Mexico, how does the US government stop entry through the Chinese shipping channels? I donât see an answer to stopping the flow of fentanyl in the USA by involving the United Nations. I do believe that negotiations with China to stop drug production must be a priority for the administrative state. But that is only part of the answer.
The bigger issue, the elephant in the room is âhow does America stop its drug addiction problem?â This is âourâ problem - we must own it, before we can fix it.
In researching this article, I discovered that the CDC puts little effort into understanding this crisis. Outdated webpages and outdated statistics. Government pages that have different statistics from differing years. The lack of solutions and cohesion on these pages is astounding. To say there is a lack of resources coming from the US government is the under statement of the year. This isnât a âwar on drugs.â Our government seems to have opened the flood gates on drugs coming in overseas.
Fentanyl addiction is the elephant in the room that the CDC and the US government have virtually ignored for years.
To end, below are a few resources and some ideas about what to do and not do if you suspect an overdose.
If you suspect an overdose, lay the person on their side to prevent choking.
About narcan (naloxone):
There is no happy note to conclude this essay with except to love your family and friends, discuss the issue of fentanyl addiction with everyone you know, and keep careful watch.
Who is Robert Malone is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Get full access to Who is Robert Malone at www.malone.news/subscribe
