The best doctor is the one that prescribes the least medicine
popular wisdom
Where does that come from and what does it mean for health-related businesses?
Actual old Nye post
Before admitting pharmaceuticals and medical treatments for quality assessment, before assessing manufacturers’ expertise, before giving them any attention at all, first and foremost we have to consider that:
Sheep don’t benefit wolf’s expertise. Same for sheeple and their predators.
So we have to make sure we’re from the same side of the fence. If I am to be a sheep, I can only count on sheep support. The best way to clear that out is by looking at two things:
Incentives
History
You don’t judge Mafia by Mafia laws, only mobsters do that. Same for Pharmafia.
1. Incentives
“Freakonomics”, a global best-selling book which shaped a generation, has dedicated a solid chapter to experts and their incentives, which obviously dictate how the expertise is used.
An incentive is a bullet, a key: an often tiny object with astonishing power to change a situation
Steven D. Levitt, “Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything”
In “for-profit healthcare”, the main incentive is in the name. “For-profit”. What drives profit up? Diseases. What drives profit down? Health.
Disease is demand for health, the demand needs to be maintained above the offer, insatiable. Selling health lowers the demand, cures kill it. Imagine if Coca-Cola cured thirst for good, instead of boosting it and being addictive. There would be no Coca-Cola today. So selling health and cures is a cannibalistic unsustainable business model. As admitted by Goldman-Sachs experts in a letter to a bio-tech client:
The potential to deliver ‘one shot cures’ is one of the most attractive aspects of gene therapy, genetically-engineered cell therapy and gene editing. However, such treatments offer a very different outlook with regard to recurring revenue versus chronic therapies… While this proposition carries tremendous value for patients and society, it could represent a challenge for genome medicine developers looking for sustained cash flow.
Goldman-Sachs analyst Salveen Richter cited by CNBC
Drug-addicted mainstream-media tried to spin it and inject doubt. As you can see from the actual quote, the analyst didn’t ask a thing, he stated.
For as long as humanity has been mentally functional and intelligence has been a successful adaptation tool, common sense (seen as natural logic based on personal and peer experience) used to determine our actions. Common sense guided our species’ survival just until corporate education and propaganda took over our minds. Common sense helped us realize that the better the healer, the less you need to see him.
As opposed to most other businesses and occupations, healthcare has a particularity: Its success kills its demand. The better the medicine, the less you need to take it. The perfect medicine would end the need for medicine.
SELLING HEALTH IS COMMERCIAL SUICIDE
So what’s a businessman supposed to do in the commercial-suicide business?
“If they’re selling glass and the business is slow, they grab some bricks and break some windows”
Popular wisdom
Which, in medical business terms, translates as:
YOU CAN PROFIT SELLING HEALTH ONLY IF YOU SPREAD MORE DISEASE THAN HEALTH
There’s no other way to maintain a “health-care” business.
The biggest profit is always in returning customers, which, for a health-care business, identify as people with real or imaginary diseases who can live with them (and spread them, preferably) so they can buy products and services for long enough. The diseased and the hypochondriacs are the market. The market needs perpetually expanded. Of course, if a disease is killing the customers too quickly, you can jack up some prices so you can milk same money or more in a shorter time span. Or life span. See the cancer industry. Better health makes customers return less, unless it’s on subscription. And “a patient cured is a customer lost”.
So spread a bit of health for public image and marketing purposes, spread as much illness and fear as you possibly can without fully destroying your market, and you’re set for an unlimited cash-flow. Worked every time. Success depends only on how you balance the health and the disease you put out. Bonus: this way you also get to control population development, which is a very marketable service too.
The fear created by commercial experts may not quite rival the fear created by terrorists like the Ku Klux Klan, but the principle is the same.
– Steven D. Levitt, “Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything”
This business model has been already successfully implemented by every ideology ever. Ideologists sell fear of fictitious dangers and suffering, usually from an imaginary future, demanding actual present tangible benefits as protection tax. The climate industry is booming on the same principles. This sort of mental racketeering is actually the core of our society, it fuels politics, business, religion, and even science.
And that puts the healthcare customer on the other side of the fence from the healthcare business.
In healthcare business, the customer and the seller are in a conflict of interests
2. History
An expert with good intentions and good methods should have a history to vouch for him. According to the officially registered and reported history, every Pharma giant is a felon with multiple convictions for false, fraud, bribery, and other forms of deceit and corruption. Don’t believe what I say, research what I say, just look up whatever your favorite sources are, they all reported the crimes, “the truth is not hidden, people are hiding from it”.
That’s all there is to this chapter, and below is what common-sense should’ve already dictated (and what made my most successful meme to date):
There is no long-term profit in selling health and taking health advice from disease-profiteers is a suicidal policy. They employ experts capable to make you their returning customer, aka perennial patient. The better they get at it, the sicker you get.
The original classic by yours truly
Thus we have shown that the race for profit turns healthcare businesses into expert predators, not helpers. I chose not to become their pray. You?
</debate>
To be continued? Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous supporters. But we’re not really covering our costs so far, and we’re in dire needs to upgrade our equipment, especially for video production. Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!
! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them
Big Oil is huge! But it’s still just a segment of the energy market, and whoever controls energy, controls the human species. Foreseeable, technology is bound to make oil obsolete sooner or later, it was already one of the least efficient combustibles available when the Rockefellers turned it into a standard. So, as moguls always do, instead of letting a demise take them by surprise, they organize a “controlled demolition show”, and they sell tickets (taxation) to the poor to make some extra-profit. The Rockefellers, the most notorious rock-stars on this stage, are known as Big Oil moguls, but they are actually way bigger than that. They’ve been always acting like they aspire to be planetary moguls, through the control of energy, food, health and media. The old decrepit Big Oil is actually just holding them back now and they’ve been wanting to end it for quite a while. Exxon, Russia and the rest of the oil/gas-reliant forces on the planet are just annoyances for the Rockefellers and friends. They’ve already ensured themselves a leading position in the next level of the game and have been eager to get there for a while. They’re already selling solutions to the problem they created, instead of letting others steal that market from them. Problem – Reaction – Solution, right?
As mega-financiers, the Rothschilds profit from any controlled demolition or construction, as long as they’re on the controls too. And with mega-vultures like these, always comes a menagerie of predators and corpse-eaters. Projected on the TV screens, this story translates as a “climate emergency”. Below you have a little collection of evidences that prove climate alarmism has always been an elite-sponsored movement , despite the popular belief.
Billionaires are the most invested people in climate alarmism on the planet. Here’s some of the evidence:
THE ROCKEFELLERS HAVE PLEDGED BILLIONS IN THE POST-OIL ENERGY MARKET
The Ecologist, 27th September 2014: ” The movement to divest from fossil fuels is gaining strength, writes Ruth Lumley, with $50 billion of institutional investment behind it. This week’s news that almost $1 billion of Rockefeller money is moving from fossil fuels to clean energy shows that the world is changing faster than most ever imagined.
The latest fund to announce its divestment from fossil fuels is none other then the heir to the Rockefeller fortune, built on oil and coal.
Coinciding with today’s UN Climate Change Summit in New York, the Rockefeller Brother’s Fund said that not only would it pull vast sums of money out of fossil fuels, but that it would funnel the money into clean energy.
This latest announcement is further evidence that the divestment movement is unstoppably gaining traction and snowballing, fast.
Institutions across the globe have begun to pledge to divest from fossil fuels in support of the climate change campaign. This list includes the British Medical Association and the Church of Sweden.
The combined asset size of the 837 institutions and individuals committing to divest amounts to more than $50 billion, campaign group 350.org has calculated.
$50 billion moving out of fossil fuels
The move towards rapid divestment form individuals and institutions has been a result of support for the climate change movement.
The demand for climate change action was evident on Sunday when an estimated 40,000 people took to the streets of London for the Peoples Climate March, which saw over 2,000 protests take place around the world in a bid to make world leaders take solid action towards a stopping climate change.
The movement also took New York by storm with an estimated 400,000 marchers, as well as Rio, Jakarta, Brisbane and hundreds of cities around the world.
In New York, many of the 50,000 students, faith groups, state contingents, and groups carrying banners representing cities or towns, also wore orange squares representing fossil fuel divestment.
Records show that 181 institutions and local governments and 656 individuals representing over $50 billion dollars have pledged to divest to-date.
That number includes the $860 million which will be redirected from fossil fuels by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund. The report indicates that divestment commitments have doubled in the eight months since January 2014.”
As I said earlier, The Rockefellers have been long selling solutions to the problem they’ve created. Fast forward from 2014 to present time and go on their website to watch Katherine Hamilton – Chair of 38 North Solutions, a boutique consulting firm that provides a suite of business strategy, public policy, and communications services to innovative businesses and organizations. She currently serves as Co-Chair of the World Economic Forum’s Future of Energy Global Future Council and was formerly the President of GRID Alternatives Mid-Atlantic. In a nice video, she will tell you all about how “ we can transition to a clean energy economy through the advancement of technology and leadership to end dependence on fossil fuels like coal, oil, and gas. “ Aren’t you already starting to love the Rockefellers?
Under the guise of fighting alleged “man-made global-warming,” the Rockefeller family and its billions have been bankrolling everything from “climate” journalism (propaganda) efforts, politicians, and “academia” to politically motivated “investigations” of energy companies and non-profit organizations by government officials. Billionaire extremist George Soros also helped fund the efforts, according to the report by the Washington, D.C.-based watchdog Energy and Environment Legal Institute (E&E Legal) entitled The Rockefeller Way: The Family’s Covert “Climate Change” Plan.
“The billionaires’ goal, according to the report, was to crush the oil and gas industry, using government power as the weapon of choice, to ultimately gain greater control over the energy sector once again. “Not surprisingly, the Rockefellers are heavily invested in renewable energy,” the report explains, offering examples. But Rockefellers are no strangers to underhanded machinations to gain market share. Using extremely shady tactics, the report also details how John D. Rockefeller Sr., the founding patriarch of the Rockefeller dynasty, gained a virtual monopoly over the U.S. energy industry by the 1880s — at least until the feds broke it up into smaller companies.” noted The New American in January 2107
“EVEN THE ROTHSCHILDS ARE WEATHER OBSESSED”
Can you believe it?! 🙂
Evelyn de Rothschild and Lynn Forester de Rothschild said they are buying a majority stake in weather-data service Weather Central L.P., marking a significant expansion of the Rothschilds’ investments into media and information.
The couple’s private-investment company, E.L. Rothschild LLC, is slated to acquire 70% of Weather Central, which provides weather forecasting services and graphics to local television stations and TV programs such as ABC’s “Good Morning America.”
Ms. Forester de Rothschild, a former telecommunications executive and a prominent Democratic fund raiser, is CEO of E.L. Rothschild. Evelyn, her husband, is chairman of the investment company and was chairman of the NM Rothschild & Sons investment bank until 2007, when he cashed out his investment. His cousin, Baron David de Rothschild, now runs the investment bank.
E.L. Rothschild also holds the couple’s investments in the U.K.’s Economist Group and agricultural company FieldFresh Foods, majority owned by India’s Bharti Enterprises.
“We have been looking for an investment to partner on an operating basis — as we did with our investment in agriculture in India and with the Economist — since my husband sold his position in NM Rothschild,” Ms. Forester de Rothschild said in an interview.
This is what happened right after the acquisition.
Before Greta Thunberg, there was David de Rothschild
David de Rothschild was a romantic climate warrior before it was cool, basically he’s the proto-climate-hipster. Here he is, in 2009, at the Climate Summit in Copenhagen, whining they can’t fix the weather without a global government and that’s hard to get.
One year earlier, “Simon Linnett, Executive Vice-Chairman of Rothschild, has called for a new international body, the World Environment Agency, to regulate carbon trading. In a recently published paper, Trading Emissions, for the Social Market Foundation, Mr Linnett argues that the International problem of climate change demands an international solution. Unless governments cede some of their sovereignty to a new world body, he says, a global carbon trading scheme cannot be enforced and regulated.” – The Telegraph, 2008 We can see what you’re doing there!
It all goes back to 1987, when the Rothschilds, through their proxy Maurice Strong, ignited the theory that CO2 is driving global warming. The subtext was that it will cost some money to solve the problem, but they can lend them to any government in need. Which they did, through a host of financial bodies and instruments they control: IMF, World Bank, World Conservation Bank which later became Global Environment Facility, Edmond de Rothschild Private Equity and many more. And the world has never been the same since.
OF COURSE SOROS IS OVER HIS HEAD INTO SPONSORING CLIMATE WARRIORS…
Billionaire George Soros said on Saturday that he would invest $1 billion in clean energy technology as part of an effort to combat climate change.
The Hungarian-born U.S. investor also announced he would form and fund a new climate policy initiative with $10 million a year for 10 years.
“Global warming is a political problem,” Soros told a meeting of editors in the Danish capital where governments are scheduled to meet in December to try to hammer out a new global climate agreement to replace the 1997 Kyoto Protocol.
“The science is clear, what is less clear is whether world leaders will demonstrate the political will necessary to solve the problem,” he said, according to a brief email statement.
In 2016, DC Leaks has released documents showing that AlGore pulled in $30 million over three years from the Open Society Foundation: “This budget item captures George Soros’s commitment of $10 million per year for three years to Al Gore’s Alliance for Climate Protection, which conducts public education on the climate issue in pursuit of creating political space for aggressive U.S. action in line with what scientists say is necessary to put our nation on a path to reducing its outsize carbon dioxide emissions.”
ONE FOUNDATION AKA THE HOLY CLIMATE ALLIANCE: GATES, SOROS, BONO, GRETA. BARE THIEVES.
According to their own website: “ONE originated in conversations between Bill Gates and Bono in the early 2000s about the need to better inform Americans about extreme poverty around the world. Together with Melinda Gates, Bobby Shriver, George Soros, Ed Scott, Bob Geldof, and Jamie Drummond, they created an anti-poverty advocacy organization called DATA that focused on deploying celebrities and other influential individuals to urge world leaders to take action on specific development issues. Within a few years, DATA had joined with several other organizations to form ONE, with major backing from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. The goal was to create a political constituency for development priorities—particularly the UN Millennium Development Goals, which in 2000 set specific global targets to address disease, poverty, and other pressing development issues. “ They are baby-sitting Greta Thunberg too, and the rest is history:
An anonymous source claims to have extracted lots of documents from Extinction Rebellion’s computer database and has put them up online.
The documents, if genuine, seem to have been exposed through carelessness on the part of Extinction Rebellion, not a computer hack. Anyway, Paul Homewood has been filleting some of the best bits and here is what he has found.
The richest people on the planet, representing a small sliver of the total population, are emitting carbon dioxide at a rate that’s imperiling hopes of keeping global heating below 1.5°C, prompting fresh calls for government action to rein in “luxury” pollution and combat the intertwined crises of inequality and climate change.
New research by the Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP) and the Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI) shows that by 2030, the carbon footprints of the wealthiest 1% of humanity are on track to be 30 times larger than the size compatible with limiting global warming to 1.5°C by the end of the century, the Paris Agreement’s more ambitious temperature target.Bezos: “We must conserve what we still have, we must restore what we’ve lost.” Image: EPA
If current trends continue, the richest 1% will account for 16% of global CO2 emissions in 2030.
The carbon emissions of the poorest half of the global population, meanwhile, “are set to remain well below the 1.5°C-compatible level,” according to the analysis, which was commissioned by Oxfam International and published Friday. The planet has already warmed by roughly 1.1°C, and scientists have said any heating beyond 1.5°C would have destructive consequences worldwide.
“The emissions from a single billionaire spaceflight would exceed the lifetime emissions of someone in the poorest billion people on Earth,” Nafkote Dabi, Oxfam’s climate policy lead, said in a statement. “A tiny elite appear to have a free pass to pollute. Their oversized emissions are fueling extreme weather around the world and jeopardizing the international goal of limiting global heating.”
“The emissions of the wealthiest 10% alone could send us beyond the agreed limit in the next nine years,” Dabi added. “This would have catastrophic results for some of the most vulnerable people on Earth who are already facing deadly storms, hunger, and destitution.”
Authored by Tim Gore, head of the Low Carbon and Circular Economy program at IEEP, the new research paper notes that “while carbon inequality is often most stark at the global level, inequalities within countries are also very significant.”
“They increasingly drive the extent of global inequality, and likely have a greater impact on the political and social acceptability of national emissions reduction efforts,” the paper reads. “It is therefore notable that in all of the major emitting countries, the richest 10% and 1% nationally are set to have per capita consumption footprints substantially above the 1.5⁰C global per capita level.”
To slash the outsized planet-warming emissions of the global rich, the study calls on policymakers to pursue restrictions on mega-yachts, private jets, and recreational space travel. In a paper published last month, French economist Lucas Chancel estimated that “an 11-minute [space] flight emits no fewer than 75 tonnes of carbon per passenger once indirect emissions are taken into account (and more likely, in the 250-1,000 tonnes range).”
“At the other end of the distribution, about one billion individuals emit less than one tonne per person per year,” Chancel observed. “Over their lifetime, this group of one billion individuals does not emit more than 75 tonnes of carbon per person. It therefore takes a few minutes in space travel to emit at least as much carbon as an individual from the bottom billion will emit in her entire lifetime.”
In addition to targeting sources of “luxury carbon consumption,” the analysis by IEEP and SEI also proposes restrictions on “climate-intensive investments like stock-holdings in fossil fuel industries.”
“The global emissions gap to keep the 1.5°C Paris goal alive is not the result of the consumption of most of the world’s people: it reflects instead the excessive emissions of just the richest citizens on the planet,” Gore said in a statement. “It is necessary for governments to target measures at their richest, highest emitters―the climate and inequality crises should be tackled together.” Emily Ghosh, a scientist at SEI, agreed, arguing that “carbon inequality must urgently be put at the center of governments efforts to reduce emissions.”
“Our research highlights the challenge of ensuring a more equitable distribution of the remaining and rapidly diminishing global carbon budget,” said Ghosh. “If we continue on the same trajectory as today, the stark inequalities in income and emissions across the global population will remain, challenging the equity principle at the very heart of the Paris Agreement.”
I’ve only scratched the surface in this article, this is just a trailer of a saga, the rabbit hole looks more like an old termite colony. I will try to come back with more in depth information and research on the topic, but the main point is beyond evidenced here already, I think: Environmentalism is super-rich men’s business and we’re just pawns in it.
To be continued? Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous supporters. But we’re not really covering our costs so far, and we’re in dire needs to upgrade our equipment, especially for video production. Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!
! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them
SILVIEW.media 
