Every once in a while, an analysis that explodes confidence in the medical system surfaces.

It might appear as a newspaper article, or a review published in a medical journal.

Its fate is always the same. It sinks like a stone in a dark lake. As if it never happened.

Months or years later, people who read the original article begin to doubt their own memory. "Did I really read that? If I had, surely other articles would have been written. There would have been uproar…"

No. It's par for the press to bury uncomfortable stories and give them a quick death. It's another form of censorship.

For example:

The citation is: BMJ June 7, 2012 (BMJ 2012;344:e3989) "Anticoagulants cause the most serious adverse events, finds US analysis." Author, Jeanne Lenzer.

Lenzer refers to a report by the Institute for Safe Medication Practices: "It calculated that in 2011 prescription drugs were associated with two to four million people in the US experiencing 'serious, disabling, or fatal injuries, including 128,000 deaths.'"

The report called this "one of the most significant perils to humans resulting from human activity."

And here is the final dagger. The report was compiled by outside researchers who went into the FDA's own database of "serious adverse [medical-drug] events."

Therefore, to say the FDA isn't aware of this finding would be absurd. The FDA knows. The FDA knows and it isn't saying anything about it, because THE FDA CERTIFIES, AS SAFE AND EFFECTIVE, ALL THE DRUGS THAT ARE ROUTINELY MAIMING AND KILLING AMERICANS.

And here is another "stone that sank in the lake" I just came across. This one is from the June 27th, 2014, issue of the Harvard Safra Center for Ethics newsletter, by Donald Light, "New Prescription Drugs: A Major Health Risk With Few Offsetting Advantages":