D. Willinger Banned From Commenting At "Natural News"

"Natural News"- an "alternative" media outlet that alas promotes irresponsible reactive policies regarding "opioids", and censors people questioning such. 

"Natural News", like countless other media outlets such as The New York Times has adopted the lets kill more people with adulterated, UN-standardized "opioids" so we can continue the drug war after Marijuana is legalized.

For further details about this story, see: https://freedomofmedicineanddiet.blogspot.com/2018/08/wierdness-at-natural-news.html

excerpt-  "Natural News claims to be for medical freedom.

Yet it has debased itself by jumping on this 'how we continue the misery of the drug war after Marijuana becomes legalized" mass media "'opioid' epidemic" campaign bandwagon.

Centered around a new scare word "opioid", and a lying through their teeth that they are working to thwart a problematic situation which they actually make worse, by unjustifiably further curtailing people's access to regulated pain meds, in order so we get a huge growth in essentially unregulated, wildly unpredictable potency black market opiates adulterated with far far more potent synthetic opiates (which the previously obscure term "opioid" initially referred to).  Countless talking heads lied through their teeth tat too many prescriptions were being written (too many, yet never questioning qualitative matters as to why such prescriptions always insist upon taking such meds every single day without break).  Yet when doctors thus began placing such dirty politics even moreso over the interests of patients, with prescriptions going down, yet fatal overdoses going up, we get such illustrious mass  media organs misleading their readers with headlines reporting on such as "Prescription Dip Seen as Advance in Opioid Battle"

All of this simple, destructive, one-mindedness, reeks of some sort of organized campaign to lie to the general public for the sake of promoting evil polices designed to maximize human misery."

The New York Times De-Evolution: 1892 & 1915 Examples

Devolution, de-evolution, or backward evolution is the notion that species can revert to supposedly more primitive forms over time.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devolution_(biology)

Examples from 1892 and 1915 reveal that The New York Times was a better news source before its 1896 purchase by Adolph Ochs.

https://continuingcounterreformation.blogspot.com/2010/07/1892-1915-new-york-times.html

A curious development of the concept of 'the news fit to print'

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?_r=1&res=9B07E3DA1738E233A25757C2A9679C94639ED7CF&oref=slogin

SHOULD OLD POPE LEO DIE
The Political Tendencies of his SuccessorThe Cardinal who would probably win the prize- his Polish supporter – affairs in France and Germany – Spurgeon’s Return – Lord Lorne’s Appointment
By the commercial cable from our own correspondent

Copyrighted 1892 by the New York Times

LONDON, Jan. 23- This evil Winter of fogs, plagues and famine bids fair to be long remembered. We are being passed from funeral to funeral about as it were a time of war. While the effects of the general mourning and idleness during the young Duke’s burial on Wednesday and the solemnly ornate obsequies of the old Cardinal through the darkened noonday streets on Thursday are still resting like a pall on Thursday are still resting like a pall on the public spirits, Rome sends out tidings which read like a summons to the deathbed of the Pope. At this hour it is difficult to get at the exact truth in the conflicting dispatches received, but it is at least not re-assuring to learn that the Italian government has established a rigorous telegraphic censorship over all of the messages about the Pope’s condition.

Republics never get to realize by their own experiences that curious phase of Europe’s condition, where all sorts of changes in the political, social, and commercial life of nations are continually hanging contingent upon the death of some very old man. Republics use up their public men more rapidly, and those who survive are relegated to private life at an age when in England they would have arrived at a reasonable expectation of getting into the Ministry.

In Europe old men hang on till they die. The new generations wait with more or less politeness and patience for their departure and then rush in forcibly to drag everything forward to date. Four years ago it was old William whose remarkable longevity was keeping the whole Empire back in the reactionary shadows of Metternich’s time. Since then it has been Mr. Gladstone’s amazing strength and virility which have bodily held back the swelling tide of Radicalism from bursting forth and overwhelmingly the old Liberal party organization. Watching him has become such a hopelessly stale story, however, that it needs only a hint to divert the general attention of the Vatican, where untold things depend on the waning life of another aged man.

The Papacy since 1870 has been in a position where practically everything turns upon the personality of the Pontiff and his choice of advisers. There can be no more mediocre Popes under whose nominal guidance matters can go on in commonplace routine. Every successor of Peter now must make a big mark in the history of the Church, for good or bad. If he is not very strong, he will be found lamentably weak. There is no longer any middle course.

Leo has been one of the strong kind. His fourteen years of reign have been devoted to building a new sort of Papacy beside rather than upon the ruins of the old structure. Considering the great difficulties and obstacles in the way of his task, proceeding even more from within then without, the result is exceptionally successful. Perhaps the outcome of his labors is best defined by saying that he has shown those who thought the Papacy need no longer be taken into account in the world’s affairs because Rome has been wrestled from it that they were profoundly mistaken. The Vatican to-day wields far greater influence in Europe than it has done since the French Revolution.

But it is a peculiarly personal influence. The next Pope will inherit only the opportunities of securing it for himself and failing to improve these will be vastly easier than success.

It seems to be taken for granted that Cardinal Raphael Monaco la Valetta will secure the succession. He is the doyen of the Sacred College and Secretary of the Inquisition - an amiable, unambitious priest of sixty-five, who has the very slenderest notions of or interest in the general European situation. He is extremely simple in his tastes, is not in the least stirred by all the great outside social and political problems with which Leo has striven to grapple with as a sacerdotal Tory. By temperament he always belonged to the conservative wing of the college. He will assume the tiara, if elected, as its representative and as opposed to the small liberal group headed by Cardinal Parocchi. If he stood by himself there would be no risk in predicting that his would be a reign under which the papacy would lose more prestige than Leo had gained for it.

It is very well understood, however, that Monaco is entirely under the control of Ledochowski, that proud, imperious, and able Pole who made Bismarck such worlds of trouble in the old Kulturkampf day and who has been able to impose his will very often upon even the present Pope. This powerful man was in a German prison when Pius IX created him a Cardinal in 1875.

Next year he was released and banished, and he has since lived in Rome, devoting his great wealth and talents to building up a militant Ultramontagne party about him. His wrath at the treatment he received at the hands of Bismarck has colored all his political views. He has hated both Germany and Italy and has looked un ceasingly forward to the time when French bayonets should restore the temporal power of the Vatican in the old Roman States.

If we assume that this spirited and resolute prelate will shortly be ruling the Church through its nominal head, it becomes a most anxious question how he will accept the existing political conditions of Europe which have so radically changed since 1875. The new rulers of the Germans have been at pains to show their desire to abolish the last traces of the Kulturkampf. When the pending Prussian Education bill is passed, the German Catholics will be actually stronger than they were before the May laws. During the last half year these dispatches have frequently reflected the new interest which William and his immediate entourage are displaying in the Polish question. Of course a good deal of this has arisen naturally from the contemplation of the necessity of sooner or later fighting Russia: but even more it represents the effort to allure Ledochowski into friendship with Germany by an appeal to his national sentiment. How far this has successor will be, as has been said, a most anxious question.

In any event under this new regime there would be an abrupt cessation of pastorals on Socialistic and labor problems and of poems about St. Thomas Aquinas. We should instead see the Vatican boldly embark upon the troubled waters of European diplomacy, seeking alliances and taking desperate risks upon the fortune in the next war. The outcome of this altered policy it is wholly impossible to foretell, but at least it does not bid fair to lie in the direction of an increased spirituality.

Today William has been receiving the new King and Queen of Wurtemberg at Berlin with ceremonial pomp equal to that bestowed upon the most important of foreign monarchs. In this characteristically exuberant fashion he marks the fact that the old King Charles hated Prussia, whereas the present ruler admires it. With this demonstration particularism may be said to have been buried in Germany. Wurtemberg’s soldiers are to abandon the old double-breasted coat for the Prussian government, and in the coming maneuvers the Bavarian and Wurtemberg corps are to work side by side for the first time in the empire with Prussian troops. Even Posen is being coaxed and conciliated into harmony with the rest of Prussia and furtively excited by rumors of a restored Poland being set up on her borders.

Poland itself is likely to furnish food for a sensation before the year closes. Her patriots have been for months planning to commemorate this hundredth anniversary of the great partition by wearing mourning and abstaining from all festivities during twelve months. Gen. Gourko, the brutal Satrap of Poland, got the leading Polish nobles together at his New Year’s reception and brusquely advised them to give up their intentions of not dancing this year, “it would be better,” he said, “for you to dance of your own free will than that I should make you dance.”

The Poles are however, obstinately wearing black and avoiding social services, and as a consequence the stories of persecution, arrests and a wholesale reign of terror which cross the border are more distressing than ever.

Russia is at last reluctantly recognizing her powerlessness this year to do anything but fight the famine. Alll projected measures against the Jews and foreigners and what little remains of the Liberator Czar’s reformed institutions have been in definitely postponed, and by all officialdom has been set at work to keep the demon of starvation at bay. No news comes out save of hunger and pestilence punctuated with official piracy and emphasized by grave popular turbulence.

In France, accordingly, one hears very little now about Russian friendship, and nobody feels impelled to sing a Russian hymn. Paris has suddenly discovered that foreign politics are uninteresting and has concentrated her attention upon an amusing blackguard Deputy named Laur, who serves as the exiled Rochefort’s mouthpiece in the campaign of revolting defamation against Minister Constans. The whole episode is distinctly of an Elysee-Montmartre oder- that is to say, it couldn’t happen anywhere else than in Paris. It is only there that one has journals daily charging a Minister with unmentionable crimes and the Minister publicly thumping the head of the Deputy while he reiterates these charges in the Tribune. But perhaps even this is better business than subscribing to Russian loans.

Poor little Portugal, after prolonged wriggles and wry faces, has at last swallowed an ugly dose, and is openly discussing the necessity of selling some of her colonies. The fateful proposition has been made in the Cortes, and the newspapers are approving it. What makes this final sacrifice of dignity still more terrible to national contemplation is the abiding fear that it will be made in vain and that no buyers will appear. Unhappily, it seems rather more probable that the big States will now take what they want without mooting the question of payment at all.

The epidemic called influenza shows no signs of abating, either here or on the Continent, one day this week the London Time’s advertising columns recording this unprecedented number of 157 deaths. Of these the age was given in over 100 cases and the average of these was sixty-two years. Everywhere it is noted that the mortality among aged people is phenomenal.

One other curious fact common to England, France and Germany is the special severity of the epidemic at the seaside. All the North Sea and Channel towns, from Konigsberg to Havre, have suffered much more than the inland places. Portsmouth and Brighton have led the English death rate lists. Outlying islands like man and the Scillies have been literally ravaged by the disease.

Perhaps there is a hint in this for scientists.

Mr. Spurgeon is recovering his health in the south so rapidly that he is expected now soon to return. The thanks offering of his parishioners will take the curios form of a thirty five hundred dollar hydraulic elevator from the floor of his church up to the pulpit, which is now being put in. No other gift would have been so accept able to the pastor, for he is increasingly fat and short of breath, and the exertion of climbing the pulpit stairs used often to induce faintness and vertigo.

Not all of the pathos of the recent royal bereavement was concentrated on the person of the young Princess May.

Her father must feel convinced at last that he was born to bad luck. He poor man has been entangled in a fringe of bankruptcy for twenty years and bullied by Parlia mentary reformers whenever royal grants came up, and sarcastically alluded to in the flippant papers as the Duke of Tick. Finally, when the gates of fortune opened and a golden vista dazzled his vision, he could have had hardly time to borrow interest on his debts before they were shut again with a slam. To make matters worse, he was to receive the fat sinecure of Governor of Windsor Castle, but now, so completely is his nose out of joint that the berth has been given to the Marquis of Lorne, who is not in the least need of it.

This probably marks Lord Lorne’s apogee in the official position. He is not likely to get into the House of Commons and will carry no weight when he succeeds his father in the Lords. His attempts to secure distinction as an author have been sad failures. His last look on Viecount Palmerston took him an unconscionable while to do, and then was so badly written that the publishers had to have it done over again by a hack, although Lord Lorne’s name alone appears.

The Spectator gives a long critical notice of the warm praise to the two latest volumes of Henry Adams “United States.”

H.F.

Contrast that 1892 article with that in 1915 essentially announcing the February 11, 1915 election of the 26th Jesuit Order Superior General, Wlodimir Ledochowski.
The New York Times, February 14, 1915

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9E01E4DF1E3EE733A05757C1A9649C946496D6CF

Calls “Black Pope” Kaiser’s Tool
Special cable to The New York Times[no author given]

PARIS, Feb. 13 -- The Laterne, which is generally considered to represent the views of the Socialist section of the Cabinet, alludes to the election of a new General of the Jesuits, saying, “It is ridiculous to try as has been attempted by certain Catholic newspapers to persuade the public that the Jesuits are Francophile. Father Ledochowski’s election shows clearly that their efforts, as they always have been, are in opposition to French liberalism. We predict the ‘New Black Pope’s” policy in one phrase: he will act according to the Kaisers [sic] orders.

History since demonstrates this was a freudian slip of deliberate disinformation over a very critical point- the view of the Kaiser, and by extension the Kaiser Reich.

------- 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_York_Times

excerpts:

Origins: The New York Times was founded as the New-York Daily Times on September 18, 1851.^[a] Founded by journalist and politician Henry Jarvis Raymond (1820–1869), and former banker George Jones, the Times was published by Raymond, Jones & Company (which raised about $70,000 initially).^[25] Early investors in the company were Edwin B. Morgan,^[26] Christopher Morgan,^[27] and Edward B. Wesley.^[28] Sold for a penny (equivalent to 29 cents today), the inaugural edition attempted to address various speculations on its purpose and positions that preceded its release:^[29]

We shall be Conservative, in all cases where we think Conservatism essential to the public good;—and we shall be Radical in everything which may seem to us to require radical treatment and radical reform. We do not believe that everything in Society is either exactly right or exactly wrong;—what is good we desire to preserve and improve;—what is evil, to exterminate, or reform.

The newspaper shortened its name to The New-York Times on September 14, 1857. It dropped the hyphen in the city name on December 1, 1896.^[31] On April 21, 1861, The New York Times began publishing a Sunday edition to offer daily coverage of the Civil War. One of the earliest public controversies it was involved with was the Mortara Affair, the subject of twenty editorials it published alone.^[32]

The main office of The New York Times was attacked during the New York Draft Riots. The riots, sparked by the beginning of drafting for the Union Army, beginning on July 13, 1863. On "Newspaper Row", across from City Hall, Henry Raymond stopped the rioters with Gatling guns (early machine guns), one of which he manned himself. The mob diverted, and attacked the headquarters of abolitionist publisher Horace Greeley's New York Tribune until forced to flee by the Brooklyn City Police, who had crossed the East River to help the Manhattan authorities.^[33]

In 1869, Raymond died, and George Jones took over as publisher.^[34]

The newspaper's influence grew during 1870–1871 when it published a series of exposés on William Tweed, leader of the city's Democratic Party—popularly known as "Tammany Hall" (from its early 19th century meeting headquarters)—that led to the end of the Tweed Ring's domination of New York's City Hall.^[35] Tweed offered The New York Times five million dollars (equivalent to more than 100 million dollars today) to not publish the story.^[26]

In the 1880s, The New York Times transitioned gradually from editorially supporting Republican Party candidates to becoming more politically independent and analytical.^[36] In 1884, the paper supported Democrat Grover Cleveland (former Mayor of Buffalo and Governor of New York State) in his first presidential campaign.^[37] While this move cost The New York Times a portion of its readership among its more progressive and Republican readers (the revenue declined from $188,000 to $56,000 from 1883-1884), the paper eventually regained most of its lost ground within a few years.^[38]

Ochs era: After George Jones died in 1891, Charles Ransom Miller and other New York Times editors raised $1 million dollars to buy the Times printing it under the New York Times Publishing Company.^[39][40] However, the newspaper was financially crippled by the Panic of 1893,^[38] and by 1896, the newspaper had a circulation of less than 9,000, and was losing $1,000 a day. That year, controlling interest in it was gained by Adolph Ochs, publisher of the Chattanooga Times for $75,000.^[41]

Shortly after assuming control of the paper, Ochs coined the paper's slogan, "All The News That's Fit To Print". The slogan has appeared in the paper since September 1896,^[42]

....

Ochs-Sulzberger family

In 1896, Adolph Ochs bought The New York Times, a money-losing newspaper, and formed the New York Times Company. The Ochs-Sulzberger family, one of the United States' newspaper dynasties, has owned The New York Times ever since.^[37] The publisher went public on January 14, 1969, trading at $42 a share on the American Stock Exchange.^[94] After this, the family continued to exert control through its ownership of the vast majority of Class B voting shares. Class A shareholders are permitted restrictive voting rights while Class B shareholders are allowed open voting rights.

The Ochs-Sulzberger family trust controls roughly 88 percent of the company's class B shares. Any alteration to the dual-class structure must be ratified by six of eight directors who sit on the board of the Ochs-Sulzberger family trust. The Trust board members are Daniel H. Cohen, James M. Cohen, Lynn G. Dolnick, Susan W. Dryfoos, Michael Golden, Eric M. A. Lax, Arthur O. Sulzberger, Jr. and Cathy J. Sulzberger.^[95]

Turner Catledge, the top editor at The New York Times from 1952 to 1968, wanted to hide the ownership influence. Arthur Sulzberger routinely wrote memos to his editor, each containing suggestions, instructions, complaints, and orders. When Catledge would receive these memos he would erase the publisher's identity before passing them to his subordinates. Catledge thought that if he removed the publisher's name from the memos it would protect reporters from feeling pressured by the owner.^[96]

See:

Additional blog articles about The New York Times in Continuing Counter Reformation

In particular, see this one:

Mass Media Lying To Continue The Drug War/Pharmacratic Inquisition

Lie about opiates to continue the drug war, even as more jurisdictions legalize Marijuana.

Use a new scare word, scare phrase: "opioid" and "opioid epidemic".

Never-mind that "opioid" is an obscure word previously found only in a few medical journals to refer to totally synthetic opiates

Never-mind that the same press that is obsessing about an "opioid epidemic' rarely or never uses the term epidemic with Tobacco despite Tobacco claiming some nearly half a million shortened deaths annually just within the U.S.

Lie to make the problem worse.

Lie that the "epidemic" is largely or primarily fueled by licit prescriptions, ignoring that the overwhelming majority do not go on to becoming addicts to either the pills nor heroin

Ignore that most of the deaths involving pills is with taking them in combination with certain other drugs such as benzos as Valium.

Ignore the sharp rise in overdoes fatalities from contraband heroin that is adulterated with far stronger synthetics as fentanyl and carfentanil which is meant for elephants, particularly with the sharp rise in such overdoes in 2014-1015.

Ignore the insult to pain sufferers, and ignore the problems with non opiate pain medications, such as Tylenol induced liver damage.

Lie to bring about more restrictions upon prescribing pills of measured, consistent guaranteed potency, so that people instead go to contraband powders of highly variable potency, as if that is somehow serving people's safety. 

We have a 1st amendment, so we can not prosecute "journalist" sell-outs as talking-head Tucker Carlson for lying.

Why not prosecute the politicians who fail to allow adults to purchase opiates OTC, denying opiate users and addicts the equal protection of the law given to nicotine users/addicts, and instead giving more of the market to contraband adulterated "heroin", and those pushing this political campaign to even further restrict prescriptions?

Charge them with restraint of trade/anti-trust and even murder.

New York Times Misleading Headlines- A Textbook Example

The New York Times 

May 21, 2016

IMHO The New York Times is notorious for its practice to sometimes place a highly misleading headline to imply something that is belied within the body of the article, as if they want to sway opinion among those that are more prone to skim headlines, rather than more thoroughly digest articles and ask questions.

A recent example of this is with their May 21, 2016 article by Abby Goodnough and Sabrina Travernise about the simultaneous fall in the number of prescriptions in the U.S. being issued for opioids, and the rise in the number of opioid related fatal overdoses.

An honest headline would have been: "U.S. Opioid Prescriptions Down; Deaths Up".

However, the headline appearing on their print edition,
prominently at top right of page one, was: "Prescription Dip Seen as Advance in Opioid Battle"

The headline appearing on the print edition's continuation of this article on page 3 was:
"Opioid Prescriptions Drop For The First Time In 20 Years" 

Notably, it is the 2nd rather than the 1st of these headlines that now appears at the top of this article upon the New York Times web-site:

From within the body of the article:

(excerpts)

"...for each of the past three years — 2013, 2014 and 2015 — prescriptions have declined, a review of several sources of data shows."

" IMS Health, an information firm whose data on prescribing is used throughout the health care industry, found a 12 percent decline in opioid prescriptions nationally since a peak in 2012. Another data company, Symphony Health Solutions, reported a drop of about 18 percent during those years. Opioid prescriptions have fallen in 49 states since 2013, according to IMS, with some of the sharpest decreases coming in West Virginia, the state considered the center of the opioid epidemic, and in Texas and Oklahoma. (Only South Dakota showed an increase.)" ...

... One important development that may have helped propel the decline came in 2014, when the federal government tightened prescribing rules for one of the most common painkillers: hydrocodone combined with a second analgesic, like acetaminophen. In the first year after the measure took effect, dispensed prescriptions declined by 22 percent, and pills by 16 percent, according to an analysis in JAMA Internal Medicine. Refills — which the change made much more difficult — accounted for 73 percent of the decline.

Yet:

" So far, fewer prescriptions have not led to fewer deaths: fatal overdoses from opioids have continued to rise, taking more than 28,000 lives in 2014, according to the most recent federal health data. That number includes deaths from both prescription painkillers, like Percocet, Vicodin and OxyContin, and heroin, an illegal opioid whose use has been rising as access to prescription drugs has tightened."

Fewer prescriptions, yet more deaths is see as an advance?
 
This should be regarded as a textbook example of the New York Times issuing a misleading headline to conform with its slavish devotion to the incorrect position of the political campaign that it has advanced in numerous editorials and quest pieces, in favor of further overriding doctors and patients on decisions regarding opioids. 

For more on this, please see my concurrent piece in my other blog "Freedom of Medicine and Diet"

http://freedomofmedicineanddiet.blogspot.com/2016/05/opioid-prescriptions-down-deaths-up-ny.html