Given what they are willing to do, why aren't there more? Of course, there are still plenty of people that are disappeared, in China and Russia, in particular. And some edge cases, like Princess Diana, where we aren't sure it was an assassination or not.
Here are few proposals on why there aren't more in places like the USA and the Netherlands, excluding dictatorships or 3rd world countries. Please add more.
-
If you're in the public eye, it looks too suspicious.
-
Counter-blackmail.
-
Most people aren't worth killing. Character assassination is more effective at silencing people.
-
Fear of assassination and counter-assassinations spiraling out of control. This assumes there are multiple groups of competing elites.
Not that much of a conspiracy, per se, just an interesting fact that implicates the whole industry in corruption.
Full Transparency Is the Key to Stopping Drug Diversion in Healthcare Settings January 21, 2020 ‐ PSQH
By Russ Nix
Is drug diversion a problem in the healthcare setting where you work? Chances are the answer is yes—but you might not realize it yet.
Drug diversion costs the healthcare industry more than $70 billion per year, according to one estimate, and some researchers say as many as 10% of all medical professionals will divert drugs from their workplace at some point in their career. This means every adult patient in the United States has likely encountered a healthcare worker who has diverted drugs.
Outbreaks of healthcare-acquired infections that stem from employee drug diversion are becoming more common. Just last year, 12 patients who contracted hepatitis C in a Washington state hospital were linked to one nurse who diverted drugs, according to a CDC report. And it isn’t just patients who are affected. When two Dallas hospital nurses died of drug overdoses in 2017, hospital reports and medical examiner records suggested that the medications were diverted from within the hospital.
So why aren’t these types of incidents at the top of every healthcare leader’s radar?
One of the main reasons is a lack of transparency. We’re either unaware of the drug diversion happening under our noses—a 2017 Porter Research survey of healthcare workers reveals that many drug diversion incidents aren’t detected or reported—or we’re sweeping it under the rug, telling ourselves it isn’t a big problem.
Most healthcare organizations would benefit from better transparency—improving the visibility of medications as they move to their intended destination, and gaining a clearer understanding of the who, what, and why around diversion. The more transparency we have, the more successful we’ll be in stopping diversion and keeping patients safe.
Data transparency
Much of the discussion around transparency centers on data, and with good reason. Physicians need to know when a patient gets only half of her prescribed pain medications, or why the clinical supervisor has ordered certain drugs. Hiring managers, meanwhile, need to know the full employment history of the clinicians and technicians they hire—and be alerted to any discrepancies or red flags in a person’s career that could suggest a history of drug abuse.
With better data transparency practices, doctors, nurses, and other healthcare providers can see the movement of controlled substances like morphine or fentanyl to their intended destination.
More visibility into patient data also allows us to recognize patterns of behavior that are associated with diversion. For example, advanced analytics software can help sift through disparate sources of data—medical records, inventory, confidential reporting, automated dispensing cabinet data, etc.—to unearth trends or patterns associated with drug diversion. From there, we can take the appropriate actions to ensure patient and employee safety.
Beyond the data
As the Porter survey noted, more than one out of five (22%) of providers’ healthcare facilities lack an established diversion prevention program, inclusive of education and training initiatives. Most healthcare organizations ask workers to report anything suspicious that they “see.” But while the intentions are good, this approach is limited—and subjective. Not every healthcare worker who diverts drugs does so for personal use. Also, with self-reporting, there’s a risk of unconscious biases: Without proper education on what behaviors are associated with diversion, healthcare workers may have preconceived ideas of who diverts or uses drugs.
Better education and training go hand in hand with transparency. It starts when healthcare workers are hired via a thorough vetting process that looks deeply into employment history and out-of-state job records. Education—which should be mandatory—should be formalized with programs led by drug diversion experts or other stakeholders. Healthcare organizations should also consider developing comprehensive educational programs based on the best practices of institutions that have learned from their flaws.
Human resource policies may also need to be shaped around these best practices. Most importantly, policies should clearly explain the physical and behavioral signs of drug diversion and the safest way to report diversion to a clinical supervisor. Simultaneously, healthcare organizations should familiarize themselves with online reporting tools and federal and state legislative and/or licensing bodies, so they know exactly what to do when they detect a problem.
While increasing data transparency by leveraging new technologies, improving education, and boosting on-the-job training is not a silver bullet, it is a step toward increasing awareness. A comprehensive effort to improve transparency can help an organization get ahead and stay ahead of drug diversion, avoiding financial, compliance, and safety issues.
Russ Nix is founder and consultant at Aegis RX, LLC. He has over 20 years of investigations experience with 15 years of experience in criminal narcotics investigations. Nix serves on the advisory board for the Healthcare Diversion Network, a nonprofit association dedicated to preventing drug diversion.
Could mean nothing, could be a coincidence, it could be God is pissed, or all three, or something else.
Locations:
Japan, Fiji, Russia, Indonesia, Virgin Island, El Salvador, New Mexico, Puerto Rico, Hawaii, Alaska, California, Yellowstone-Montana, Texas, Chili, Northern Mariana Islands.
For centuries the rich bequeathed their wealth to the Catholic Church. Being childless and done without pay, the work of the priests, monks, and nuns enriched the monastic orders greatly over time, even with the hospitals, orphanages and charities they ran.
Here's where things are difficult to hear for my Protestant brothers in Christ. But....
The Reformation wasn't wasn't really about theology except for the rubes they fooled for popular support. It was a looting operation of the Church, which was richer than kings, by the nobles and Jews who used theology as justification.
This looting operation happened in England, when Henry the VIII took all the church land and gave it to his most loyal supporters, but as he lay on his deathbed sick from syphilis, he had a Roman Catholic priest give him last rites. Ever wonder why "Downton Abby" has no nuns in it? Because the ancestors of the upper crust took it from the Catholic Church.
Likewise, do you know why so many of middling class supported the radical French Revolutionaries? Because, they got fantastically wealth on seized church property.
Only Napoleon, a dictator, could be the one to restore the Church, which is what he did. But to this day, all Church property is owned by the French government.
I'm sorry if this bothers well meaning Protestants. Nor does discount the problems the Catholic Church had, and has, which are numerous.
But your Protestant origin story isn't one of a noble theological disagreement...no that could have been solved by a Council. The elites, many of them Jews, got out their knives and forks to have a hearty feast. And once they enriched themselves with church lands, they used their theology to justify the theft.
From St. John's 2nd letter he says:
"For many seducers are gone out into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh: this is a seducer and an antichrist."
Such "mini" antichrists who deny Christ and practice deceit are the likes of Justin Trudeau, or Gavin Newsome, or Ben Shapiro. I am sure you could name more historically.
Eventually, we'll get the big antichrist as per Revelation. But the word "anti" means against, so anyone who works against Christ, and uses deceit and seduction is an antichrist.
Nobody is perfectly aligned with what you believe, except for you of course (provided your opinions don't change over time, which they invariably do).
I propose a thought experiment. Give me the perfect candidate for high office by mixing and matching historical figures and their abilities and opinions to create who you would want
Ever watch GI Joe and the creation of Serpentor? Same idea.
I'll start: Mix Pope Gregory the Great with the military acumen of Napoleon but the subdued ambition of G. Washington.
The US Coast Guard is rather small, only about 35,000 people in all, so when the recruiting crisis hit them, and they are down 3,500 personnel, it really hits them hard.
They are mothballing 10 ships and closing 29 search & rescue and law enforcement stations.
Granted, you could reject the premise that he won because there were no electronic voting machines and the fix was in the whole time, or that he's aligned to the Jews (I've seen the picture, I think it did that to make them feel safe).
Still, I think his win was a rare "black swan" event. Will he go Milton Friedman on Argentina, like the Chicago economists did in the 1970s and 1980s? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Boy)
I don't know the powers of the president in Argentina, and what legislative majorities he may or may not have, but let's say he eliminates a bunch of federal agencies that I presume is under his control, and cuts spending and limits the printing press. That will help the 143% inflation.
If you were a WEF faggot, how would you undermine it, besides propaganda that is, like they used with Bolsonaro. Sudden problems with imports and exports? Sending caravans of migrants? False flags? "Riots" from disaffected leftists street warriors?
My best guess, is that some social issue, like guns or abortion, will be used to paralyze and divide the country so that much in way of economic reforms can't take place.
EDIT to add - If you reject the premise, as the first sentence says, then this isn't thread for you. Create your own thread to call him a fake.
The mistake most made by members of this community are the use of the words: always, all, every
Secondly, a lack of qualifiers in such expansive statements, because life is messy and there are often exceptions, even if, as the saying goes, "exceptions prove the rule."
Example 1: All swans are white. Response: If I can fine but one black swan, then your assertion, really a hypothesis, has been nullified, or is wrong. Say, your average swan is white.
Example 2: All elections are rigged.
Response: This means that you are saying every election is rigged. Do you really think that the non-partisan off year election for your local community college or library board is rigged? Maybe, but that's fucking moronic. Rather, you should say "all important elections are rigged".
Example 3: All Jews are evil.
Response: All Jews today, or all Jews throughout all of time? Joseph and Mary weren't evil, therefore, your assertion is wrong. Rather, say "modern Judaism is evil as practiced."
We'll go over the ecological fallacy next, which the the second biggest logic mistake made.
This makes the a lot of sense to me:
"....the E.V. push is not about some noble goal of saving the planet and humanity. The left has no heart, we know that—saving humanity is not on their agenda. [snip] But, they persist with the lie and many states, to patronize the irrational leftist agenda, have decided to outlaw the sale of gasoline cars by 2035 with no real good plan to support the move—not to mention, to support cross-country travel, the vast number of charging stations that would be needed at every “rest stop” since, instead of filling up a tank in 10 minutes and moving along, each vehicle will sit at a charger for several hours, and the facilities that will be needed to occupy your time while your car is plugged in. Nor is anyone terribly concerned how long that trip will take even if there were functioning charging stations on the highways… which there will not be. Nobody will want to take long distance trips. I contend this is entirely by design.
But no, airplanes will not be banned because there is no reasonable alternative to jets and, unlike ground transportation where anyone can travel freely on roads and highways and between all the states of America, air travel is completely under government control through the ever-watchful eyes of the FAA, guided by the FBI’s terrorist watchlist. MAGA conservatives are already in the FBI crosshairs as “domestic terrorists,” so it will not be long before we are all banned from commercial air travel.
Therefore, I believe the ultimate goal is to prohibit our freedom to assemble, otherwise guaranteed by the First Amendment."
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2023/10/the_extreme_danger_of_mailin_voting.html