In my previous post, I defined the main social-political movements (which were in some aspects religious) that drastically shaped the main decision-makers of medical policy and procedure in the United States. As a result of the Flexner Report of 1910, multiple medical schools and hospitals were shuttered and the remainder were consolidated. Philosophical underpinnings of Humanism helped to bolster public confidence in scientific/ medical research, such as genetics. Moreover, treatments/ over-the-counter medication, such as birth control was supposed to benefit Humanity. While it’s possible that early iterations of Unitarianism influenced some of the US’ founders, the nation’s establishing documents have proven to be extremely sturdy, unlike the fluctuating whims of the intellectual elites, who attempt to dismantle them.
Though no one was necessarily owed an explanation, out of respect for their fellow Human beings the founding fathers of the USA felt it would be in the best interest of all professional gentlemen involved to explain their dissolution of the former long-standing bond between them and the nation from which they were separating. It can be said they were explaining how their actions against their country of citizenship were not treasonous as they appeared, at least not in the traditional sense (e.g. bribery or extortion for power and money). The Declaration of Independence penned in 1776 states,
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
In The Utility of the Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection published in the Daily Advertiser in 1787, James Madison praised those states that had united to form a better society:
Among the numerous advantages promised by a well constructed Union, none deserves to be more accurately developed than its tendency to break and control the violence of faction… The instability, injustice, and confusion introduced into the public councils, have, in truth, been the mortal diseases under which popular governments have everywhere perished; as they continue to be the favorite and fruitful topics from which the adversaries to liberty derive their most specious declamations. The valuable improvements made by the American constitutions on the popular models, both ancient and modern, cannot certainly be too much admired…
These improvements to traditional democracy would ensure the unity, peace and thus prosperity of the people under their rule.
Referencing generations who came before and who (as history now shows) would come after, Madison elaborates,
Complaints are everywhere heard from our most considerate and virtuous citizens, equally the friends of public and private faith, and of public and personal liberty, that our governments are too unstable, that the public good is disregarded in the conflicts of rival parties, and that measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority. However anxiously we may wish that these complaints had no foundation, the evidence, of known facts will not permit us to deny that they are in some degree true. It will be found, indeed, on a candid review of our situation, that some of the distresses under which we labor… These must be chiefly, if not wholly, effects of the unsteadiness and injustice with which a factious spirit has tainted our public administrations.
To this end, in order to safeguard our natural liberties, the founders of the new nation that would become The United States of America designed and implemented a system with elements of democracy that would ultimately be a constitutional republic (as opposed to an oligarchy or even a monarchy). The preamble (i.e. introduction) of that Constitution (the formal charter for the structure of this new form of governance) outlines, “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
They went on to clarify,
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. –That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security…
In similar fashion, The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching declared its intentions for Abraham Flexner’s Report. However, it immediately contradicted itself: “While the Foundation has carefully refrained from attempting to become a standardizing agency… It is indeed only one of a number of agencies… seeking to bring about in American education some fair conception of unity and the attainment ultimately of a system of schools intelligently related to each other and to the ambitions and needs of a democracy.”
In other words, the aim of the Foundation and the report it commissioned was to establish an agency into which all approved schools would be assimilated to bring them into identical conformity to ideas prescribed by an alliance of business monopolies. Rhetorical question: what could possibly go wrong if self-appointed self-proclaimed experts– as determined solely by power and position gained by having the wealth to buy enough shares to represent themselves hundreds of times over in any vote– were allowed to rule? In the midst of preparing their admitted strong-arm approach, “…Colleges and universities were discovered to have all sorts of relations to their professional schools of law, of medicine, and of theology.” Open-minded integration? Why, that’s a step towards collaboration! And they wouldn’t stand for it.
Common Sense should tell you anyone interested in gaining absolute control of the medical field would either have to sever its ties to every other field or equally modify the others to bring them into alignment with its shareholders’ goals. Moreover, logic dictates the whole of Society– let’s be realistic: the potentially disgruntled who’re apt to rise up in outrage– will be far more accepting of the ideals of the ruling class (the elite race promoted by eugenicists as I explained in part 1) if multiple fields are assimilated into, i.e. “unified under” prevailing “ambitions and needs.” This begs another rhetorical question: when elitist business moguls– proponents of limiting populations they consider inferior– deem something necessary for everyone beneath them, what’s the likelihood it’ll be of greatest benefit to anyone but themselves, e.g. a product manufactured by their own company?
Let’s use the non-hypothetical example of Harvard University, whose original motto was, “Veritas Christo et Ecclesiae,” meaning “Truth for Christ and the Church.” The father and husband of England-born, Anne Bradstreet, the Empress Consort of Massachusetts helped found it in 1636. The General Court of Massachusetts approved funding to establish the planned “College at Newtowne,” which was renamed Harvard just a few years later. New England’s First Fruits from 1643 explains (in original old English),
After God had carried us safe to New-England, and wee had builded our houses, provided necessaries for our livelihood, rear’d convenient places for Gods worship, and setled the Civill Government: One of the next things we longed for, and looked after was to advance Learning and perpetuate it to Posterity; dreading to leave an illiterate Ministery to the Churches, when our present Ministers shall lie in the Dust.
And as we were thinking and consulting how to effect this great work, it pleased God to stir up the heart of one Mr. Harvard (a godly gentleman and a lover of learning; then living amongst us) to give one-half of his estate (it being in all about £1,700) towards the erecting of a Colledge, and all his library. After him, another gave £300; others after them cast in more; and the public hand of the State added the rest. The Colledge was by common consent appointed to be at Cambridge (a place very pleasant and accommodate), and is called (according to the name of the first founder) Harvard Colledge.
By 1654, Harvard’s first president, Henry Dunster no longer subscribed to Puritanism; instead he favored the English Baptist denomination. Eventually, he exiled himself and was succeeded by Puritan leader, Increase Mather in 1692, who replaced pagan classics with Christian writers and instituted copious rules. (Recall my previous post in which I highlighted the value placed on eloquent rhetoric.) To earn a Bachelor’s Degree, students not only had to adhere to a strict disciplinary code; they were required to “read the original of the Old and New Testament into the Latin tongue, and resolve them logically.” Rhetorical question: what’s humanly “logical” about a divinely inspired book comprised of a compilation of manuscripts by multiple authors spanning thousands of years, which claims a three-part God sent part of himself to Earth as a Human… etc.? I get it. But some things must be accepted by faith because they defy Human reason, yet somehow prove and reprove themselves. This is not unlike the reason for Gravity. To quote a holistic doctor I used to have: “Skeptics are the best for proving its validity; it doesn’t matter whether you believe in it or not– it just works.”
Incidentally, the progressive Increase and his son, Cotton were pivotal to the forthcoming Salem Witch Trials. Hmm… Regardless, at that time every minister in the surrounding area came from Harvard– about half their graduates– and it became so prosperous it was able to support the community in many ways, thus giving back to those who made their mission possible. 10 out of 12 of its first presidents were ministers but the tenure of Harvard’s first secular president in 1708 ushered in a new era. By the 1760s, few graduates pursued religious degrees. Between 1830 and 1870, Harvard become privatized and by the 1880s, chapel attendance was no longer mandatory.
In 1886, under the influence of transcendental Unitarian principles (“woke” by today’s standards), the school’s president, President Charles W. Eliot wrote, “A university cannot be built upon a sect.” Unless that sect includes all the “educated portion of the nation.” By 1908– just 2 years prior to the publishing of the Flexner Report– the number of enrolled Catholic students had significantly increased and by 1922, Jewish applicants had skyrocketed, yet even though the college’s “enlightened” stance aimed to reflect a more open-minded approach to higher learning, Harvard’s President, A. Lawrence Lowell attempted to impose a quota on Jewish students. Additionally, in 1920 he held a “Secret Court” to deal with any students suspected of being homosexual. Sounds like a variation of witch trials to me. (But what do I know? I’m not an intellectual elite.)
Now, Harvard University’s motto is simply, “Veritas,” which means “truth.” Rhetorical question: which version of truth do they uphold? Moreover, who gets to define what that is? This issue seems the only reasonable explanation for why a US Congressional Government Oversight and Reform Committee attempted to address multiple conflicts of interest within the Center for Disease Control (a public agency operated by the government but funded by private donations), including their ownership of multiple patents for vaccines (at least 20 verifiable but some sources estimate over 50), which are legally required for all children, regardless of religious practice.
With a monetary gift from Coca-Cola, the Center for Disease Control emerged from the US Public Health Service in 1947 as a public agency, which means it’s legally set up to be funded by private donors. Congress created the CDC Foundation in the early 1990s to raise funds for the CDC, oversee their research, and thus protect the health of people around the world. However, in 2018, legal action was the only means by which to force the CDC Foundation to disclose their list of donors. At present, it’s largely supported by corporations, such as Coca-Cola and Pepsi along with wealthy patrons, such as Bill Gates (recall his father was a member of the American Eugenics Society and board member of Planned Parenthood), himself an outspoken proponent of population control. Incidentally, The Gates Foundation is also a major donor of the self-described, “publicly funded private company,” The Pirbright Institute, who holds the US patent for Coronavirus. See how how eugenicists can force federal policy to accomplish their goals while filling their wallets and all while seeming removed from it?
How could this happen? In his book, The Body Keeps the Score (Brain, Mind and Body in the Healing of Trauma), psychiatrist, Dr. Bessel Van der Kolk recounts his early days in Med School:
The Tuesday after the Fourth of July weekend, 1978, was my first day as a staff psychiatrist at the Boston Veterans Administration Clinic… In those early days at the VA, we labeled our Veterans with all sorts of diagnoses– alcoholism, substance abuse, depression, mood disorder, even schizophrenia– and we tried every treatment in our textbooks. But for all our efforts it became clear that we were accomplishing very little… A turning point arrived in 1980 when a group of Vietnam veterans, aided by the New York psychoanalysts Chaim Shatan and Robert J. Lifton, successfully lobbied the American Psychiatric Association to create a new diagnosis: posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD)… This eventually led to an explosion of research and attempts at finding effective treatments.
The opening line of the grant rejection read: “It has never been shown that PTSD is relevant to the mission of the Veterans Administration.” Since then, of course, the mission of the VA has become organized around the diagnosis of PTSD and brain injury, and considerable resources are dedicated to applying ‘evidence-based treatments’ to traumatized war veterans. But at the time things were different… in 1982 I took a position at the Massachusetts Mental Health Center, the Harvard teaching hospital where I had trained to become a psychiatrist. My new responsibility was to teach a fledgling area of study: psychopharmacology, the administration of drugs to alleviate mental illness…
In the late 1960s, during a year off between my first and second years of medical school, I became an accidental witness to a profound transition in the medical approach to mental suffering. I had landed a plum job as an attendant on a research ward at the Massachusetts Mental Health Center… MMHC had long been considered one of the finest psychiatric hospitals in the country, a jewel in the crown of the Harvard Medical School teaching empire… As an attendant I had nothing to do with the research aspect of the ward and was never told what treatment any of the patents was receiving…
I spent many nights and weekends on the unit, which exposed me to things the doctors never saw during their brief visits. When patients could not sleep, they often wandered in their tightly wrapped bathrobes into the darkened nursing station to talk… During morning rounds the young doctors presented their cases to their supervisors, a ritual that the ward attendants were allowed to observe in silence. They rarely mentioned stories like the ones I’d heard. However, many later studies have confirmed the relevance of those midnight confessions…
The way medicine approaches human suffering has always been determined by the technology available at any given time. Before the Enlightenment aberrations in behavior were ascribed to God, sin, magic, witches, and evil spirits. It was only in the nineteenth century that scientists in France and Germany began to investigate behavior as an adaptation to the complexities of the world. Now a new paradigm was emerging: Anger, lust, pride, greed, avarice, and sloth– as well as all the other problems we humans have always struggled to manage– were recast as “disorders” that could be fixed by the administration of appropriate chemicals. Many psychiatrists were relieved and delighted to become “real scientists,” just like their med school classmates who had laboratories, animal experiments, expensive equipment, and complicated diagnostic tests…
So, at this point in our History lesson, the stage was set for unifying scientific/ medical research and practice under a collective approach based upon an outlook devoid of any religious morality or traditional code of ethics. This would usher in a new system of healthcare, one governed by self-appointed socialites and business moguls, who would discredit thousands of years worth of tested and proven methods in favor of treatments from which they could profit by steering research and practice toward their own companies and products. (For instance, the US government has been aware of the Morphine-like pain alleviating ability of acupuncture at least since the 1970s, yet the Food and Drug Administration refuses to officially approve it for treatment.)
This would be accomplished by adapting leadership standards to match elites’ personal credentials so they could tailor job requirements to suit their own purposes while indoctrinating Society with their anti-Integrative Medicine narrative. Their propaganda includes relegating integrative/ functional medicine to an “alternative” category reserved for so-called conspiracy theorists. And it’s no wonder the method of treatment favored by doctors selected and trained by the Flexner Report’s standards and principles is still largely based upon– rather than supplemented by– prescription pharmaceuticals tested and approved by the very agencies who hold the patents!
As I highlighted previously, with Project Mockingbird in full effect, it’s virtually impossible to contradict those who uphold their own version of scientific truth with as much zeal as any religious extremist. How can anyone compete with an artfully crafted narrative endorsed by TV and film that’s corroborated by doctors, researchers, politicians then reported by the main stream media as fact? Recall from my post on Margaret Sanger:
The Rutgers method for establishing new clinics had resulted in a sound system for dealing with the birth rate. The men and women who acted as his councilors understood that a rising birth rate, no matter where in the country, would soon be followed by a high infant mortality rate. Accordingly, they reported this quickly to the society, which sent a midwife or practical nurse, trained in the technique standardized by Dr. Rutgers, into the congested sector to set up a demonstration clinic…
Her duty was to go into the home where a child had died, inquire into the cause, and give friendly advice regarding the mother’s own health. She also encouraged her not to have another baby until the condition of ignorance, poverty, or disease, whichever it might be, had either been bettered or eliminated. Whenever four had been born into such a family this advice was made more emphatic.
As soon as Dr. Rutgers had explained his policy to me I had that most important answer to the puzzling and bothersome problem of the increasing population in the Netherlands brought about by birth control. It was proper spacing. The numbers in a family or the numbers in a nation might be increased just as long as the arrival of children was not too rapid to permit those already born to be assured of livelihood and to become assimilated into the community.
Dr. Rutgers suggested I come to his clinic the next day and learn his technique. He was at the moment training two midwives preparatory to starting a new center… I used to bombard the little man with questions concerning each case. I took issue with him over his autocratic system of dictating without explanation. Merely saying, “This is what you do. Do this always,” had to my mind no educational value.
“Don’t you think it would be a good idea to tell your patients what you’re aiming at and why?” I asked.
“No, can’t take time. They must do as they’re told.”
Sounds about right. Voices of concern are drown out by the elites’ self-defined reason; anyone who questions is shut down by being diagnosed a “conspiracy theorist” or “anti-vaxxer.” After all, that’s the German educational model to which we aspire: sit down, shut up and take your pills. I’m certain every country in the world has both strengths and weaknesses and just as many sources of pride as of shame. Yet, if out of everything another culture has to offer, the only thing we borrow is its least life-affirming, least inclusive, least “tolerant” characteristic, we only have ourselves to blame.
Incidentally, early on in this blog, I referenced German-style schooling and posted a link to the country’s department of education website, on which they outlined their track system. (Early on, children are divided by intelligence as demonstrated by their score on a standardized test. A few students end up college-bound and are educated accordingly. Most are considered average and thus trained in trade skills necessary to work a blue-collar job. The rest are sent to an entirely different school where they’re taught basic self-care, perhaps a rudimentary skill.) Within weeks, the entire website had been rewritten to present the Germany’s education in a more favorable light. Rhetorical question: might I have struck a nerve?
SOURCES CITED & ADDITIONAL RESOURCES:
1999 statement of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons on vaccines: “public safety and personal choice” before the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight– US House of Representatives
National Security Cinema documents (office diary reports from the military entertainment liaison offices, documents from the DOD and CIA on changes they made to film scripts, production assistance agreements signed between the military and film producers, and internal government communications about the entertainment industry)
Church investigative committee via Internet Archive’s full text of “final report of the Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities, United States Senate (together with additional supplemental and separate views”