Search Results for: popular

It’s bad enough depositing your money into a bank account and earning essentially zero interest on it, or in some countries, having a negative interest rate.

It’s even worse knowing that once you deposit your money in a bank, it’s not really yours anymore. You have turned over your property to the bank in return for a debt claim. You become an unsecured creditor holding an IOU.

Worst of all, there’s the “bail-in,” which we all became familiar with during the 2013 banking collapse in Cyprus. Some uninsured depositors got half of their money back, although, at one bank, customers received nothing of their deposits over the “insured” amount.

In 2014, the leaders of the Group of Twenty (G20) – representing the world’s 20 largest economies – declared the Cyprus model should apply globally. They did so in a mind-numbing tome entitled Adequacy of Loss-Absorbing Capacity of Global Systemically Important Banks in Resolution.

Deposits in banks that are “too big to fail” will be promptly recapitalized with their unsecured debt. And… guess what? The largest chunk of unsecured debt is your bank deposits. Insolvent banks will recapitalize themselves by converting your deposits into worthless bank stock. This avoids taxpayer-funded bailouts that proved politically unpopular during the last financial crisis.

Oh, and get this… the G20 has also declared that derivatives – the toxic contracts Warren Buffett calls “financial weapons of mass destruction” – are secured debts. Since your bank deposits are only unsecured debt, guess who gets your money if the bet goes the wrong way for the bank? Answer: It’s not you.

Heads, the bank wins. Tails, you lose.

It’s practically guaranteed, too, that in the next financial crisis, there’ll be a whole slew of bank failures. That’s despite the fact that the mainstream financial media assures us that central banks have imposed higher capital requirements, stress tests, etc., on banks to ensure that when the “big one” hits, your deposits will be safe.

Don’t believe a word of it. The amount of capital that banks hold compared to the money on deposit is frighteningly low. In the US, the five largest banks have a capital ratio as a percentage of assets of only 6% – although that’s double what it was in 2008. In effect, if every depositor in a bank demands their money back simultaneously – the classic “bank run” – the largest US banks could repay only six cents on the dollar before they ran out of money. And since most banks don’t keep a lot of cash on hand, it could even be less.

It’s worth remembering that historically, US banks were much better capitalized. For instance, in 1842, US banks had an average capital ratio of 60% – ten times that of the largest banks today. That was an era in which bank competition was based on safety because no deposit insurance was in effect.

This chart from Bloomberg News says it all:

Sure, in many countries your bank deposits are “insured.” In the US, the first $250,000 in your account qualifies for deposit insurance through the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). But for every $100 on deposit, the FDIC has only $1.06 with which to back it. Doesn’t that make you feel warm and fuzzy about the safety of your bank deposits?

Continue reading…

From Lewrockwell.com, here.

Economist John Maynard Keynes is often quoted as calling it the “barbarous relic.”

Soviet revolutionary Vladimir Lenin said he would build toilets out of it, as the ultimate symbol of capitalist waste.

More recently, economists have claimed it was “irrelevant,” was “no longer a currency,” and it gave investors “a false sense of security.”

I’m referring, of course, to gold – element #79 on the periodic table (symbol: Au).

For at least 50 centuries, Homo sapiens have used gold as a medium of exchange. It’s easily divisible, transportable, and durable.

Gold is also scarce. If Goldfinger were to come to life and somehow seize all the world’s gold, it would fit into a cube with sides of less than 70 feet each.

Scarcity makes gold difficult for governments to debase. Many have tried, of course, primarily by alloying it with much less valuable metals. Royal dynasties in Rome, China, France, and England all followed this practice. Governments achieved the same goal by increasing the quantity of supposedly gold-backed currency in circulation, without increasing gold reserves. But this policy led to price inflation in the countries that practiced it and eventually forced the US – and effectively, the rest of the world – to gradually abandon the gold standard. Its last vestige was swept away in 1971.

Since 1971, global central banks have created hundreds of trillions of dollars, yen, euros, and other fiat currencies out of thin air – monetary units backed only by the “good faith” of the issuing government. Central banks pump these fiat currencies into their respective economies to maintain growth. Most of this new money has been created since 2008 when the world entered the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression of the 1930s.

This hasn’t led to economic growth, so in a sign of increasing desperation, central banks have also imposed negative interest rates. Negative rates mean lenders literally pay businesses and consumers to borrow money. They also penalize savers for hoarding it.

In theory, that policy should force consumers and businesses to spend their money, rather than save it. That hasn’t happened, so central banks keep pushing rates lower. In Switzerland and Denmark, for instance, the rate the central bank pays on deposits now stands at –1.25%.

In a world with a gold standard, gold prices would have skyrocketed with all the newly created fiat currency sloshing around in the financial system, not to mention negative interest rates. But while gold prices rose sixfold from 2001 to 2011, over the next four years, they fell more than 40%.

Gold’s price decline wasn’t matched by a decline in central bank money creation. Some experts account for this disconnect by observing that bullion banks – banks that lease bullion from central banks – made massive leveraged bets against gold in futures markets. One development that facilitated this strategy is the appearance of securities whose value is tied to the price of gold, such as SPDR Gold Trust (symbol: GLD).

GLD and similar securities give investors a convenient way to purchase gold without needing to store it securely. But these securities also give speculators the ability to bet on gold prices without taking physical possession. This led to a massive growth in “paper gold” transactions – metal that effectively exists only in cyberspace. In September 2015, the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME) revealed that the ratio of paper gold to gold that could actually be delivered had spiked to 200:1.

This strategy also served the interests of central banks and governments. With gold prices stagnating or worse, investors who might have wanted to purchase gold as a hedge against a currency collapse or negative interest rates would instead purchase government bonds, stocks, or other paper assets.

That strategy stopped working in 2016. In the US, the stock market is off to its worst start in its history. Markets in other countries aren’t doing much better: in Japan, stocks are down 15.35% for the year; in Germany, 10.63%.

The barbarous relic, though, has prospered. While investors haven’t been flocking to gold to build 24-karat toilets (although a few exist), gold prices have increased 13.88% since the beginning of the year, including a stunning one-day gain of nearly $50 per ounce (more than 4%).

One reason for this recovery in gold prices is that a growing number of investors are demanding physical delivery of gold. This makes it harder for central banks to slam down gold prices via massive shorting of paper gold. Leading the pack in this regard is the Bank of China, which in January alone added 580,000 ounces of gold to its reserves. That’s especially notable because China’s foreign currency reserves have fallen sharply in recent months, as it tries to prop up its domestic currency and collapsing the stock market.

But the most important reason gold is rebounding, I believe, is the financial alternatives to it have become increasingly less attractive. That’s the only plausible reason China, with its bleeding foreign exchange reserves, is buying so much of it.

Then there’s the “bail-in” issue. Following the 2013 model pioneered by Cyprus, governments worldwide have quietly adopted the bail-in model. For Americans, that means your accounts in domestic banks – possibly earning negative interest rates if former Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke has his way – could be vulnerable. Instead of getting your money back if the bank fails, your IOU (yes, that’s the legal status of a bank deposit) would be forcibly exchanged for worthless bank stock.

Sure, the first $250,000 in your account qualifies for deposit insurance through the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). But that reassuring FDIC logo on your bank’s front door masks the fact that the FDIC Insurance Fund has a reserve ratio of 1.06%. For every $100 on deposit, the FDIC has only $1.06 with which to back it.

And when a banking crisis hits, it won’t occur in a vacuum. It will likely coincide with a collapse in stock prices, real estate, and other assets. It might take some time to retrieve funds from your insured bank account. That’s true even if the feds create more money out of thin air to honor the FDIC’s commitment.

Uninsured deposits, of course, would be bailed in. That prevents those inconvenient – and politically unpopular – bailouts of too-big-to-fail banks.

More and more people have decided to prepare themselves for the plundering of their wealth by getting a portion of their nest egg assets out of the financial system by buying gold. For me, that’s about 25% of my net worth.

Given the alternatives, can you think of any reason not to join us?

Reprinted with permission from Nestmann.com.

From Lewrockwell.com, here.

PBS’ Frontline recently did a hit piece on the supplement industry (see above video if you haven’t already), and your response to them about my Frontline article had a dramatic impact. You clearly have made a difference by pointing out their glaring bias!

PBS Ombudsman Michael Getler — whose job it is to review criticism from viewers and “ensure that PBS upholds its own standards of editorial integrity” — received dozens of emails, plus a number of phone calls.

In his words: “All of them were critical, some sharply.”

On February 5, Getler published a long, detailed review of the critique received, Frontline’s responses, and his own findings. If you have the time it would be worth reading Getler’s article as you can see how many people felt this was a shoddy piece of journalism.¹

While I extend my gratitude to Getler for his common sense admission that vitamin supplements do not pose “a public health calamity” as the show unfairly insinuated, I simply must set the record straight yet again, on the issue of regulation, since he and PBS continue to portray a seriously distorted and inaccurate narrative.

Dietary Supplements Are Fully Regulated by FDA Under DSHEA

While supplements are not regulated as drugs, they are fully regulated under the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 (DSHEA). As the name reveals, supplements have been subject to their own specific set of regulations since 1994. As stated on the FDA’s website:²

“FDA regulates both finished dietary supplement products and dietary ingredients … Under the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 (DSHEA):

• Manufacturers and distributors of dietary supplements and dietary ingredients are prohibited from marketing products that are adulterated or misbranded.

That means that these firms are responsible for evaluating the safety and labeling of their products before marketing to ensure that they meet all the requirements of DSHEA and FDA regulations.

• FDA is responsible for taking action against any adulterated or misbranded dietary supplement product after it reaches the market.”

Which part of “FDA regulates both finished dietary supplements products and dietary ingredients” is confusing enough for anyone to conclude that regulation is absent, missing, or otherwise nonexistent?

More to the point, how can any competent investigative journalist make such a blunder as to misrepresent supplements as unregulated when the law has been in force for more than two decades? Is it ignorance? Is it negligence? Or is it agenda-driven obscuration?

Pre-Marketing FDA Review of Supplements Versus Drugs

Getler reiterates a quote by the acting FDA commissioner, who during the PBS program said that the FDA “does not do any review of dietary supplements before they come onto the market.”

While this is true, appropriate context is needed. The implication is that, were supplements regulated as drugs, they would undergo FDA review prior to marketing and would, therefore, be safer.

On the face of it, that seems to make sense, but the reason why this logic is fatally flawed is that the FDA’s pre-market review for drugs simply involves reviewing the manufacturers own tests.

The FDA does not perform ANY — yes, you read that correctly, ANY — independent testing to verify the manufacturer’s results before approving a drug. They merely rely on the submissions of an industry that has consistently and repeatedly been found guilty of nefarious behavior in this area.

The classic example is Merck withholding studies they performed on Vioxx prior to its release that the drug had cardiac toxicity. They voluntarily removed the drug about five years after its FDA approval, but not before the drug killed 60,000 people.

Contrary to Popular Belief the FDA Does NOT Independently Evaluate Drugs

Contrary to what Getler and PBS would have you and the public believe — the idea that the FDA does independent objective premarket evaluations — the “FDA does not develop or test products; FDA experts review the results of laboratory, animal, and human clinical testing done by manufacturers” only.³

The lack of independent verification of drug companies’ claims is a major problem, as fudging and manipulating research has become commonplace. Investigations have shown that most of the scientific misconduct occur in the drug literature (compared to general biomedical literature).

Nearly 75 percent of retracted drug studies are attributed to scientific misconduct such as data falsification and fabrication. Imagine the potential for tragedy when a drug is based largely on pure fantasy or wishful thinking!

Vioxx and Avandia are but two examples of exceptionally dangerous drugs making it through the FDA’s review process. Between them, these two drugs are responsible for more than 143,000 deaths.

So exactly how would the FDA’s review of manufacturers’ studies make nutritional supplements any safer than they already are?

Legally Prescribed Drugs Kill Hundreds of Thousands Annually

When taken as prescribed, drugs of any category kill more than 106,000 people per year, and 2 million Americans become seriously ill every year because of toxic reactions to drugs.⁴

So the notion that regulating supplements as drugs would make them safer is not based in reality. Current drug regulations allow very dangerous drugs to be marketed, and action is only taken AFTER problems become apparent and severe.

Tens of thousands need to die before a drug is finally removed from the market. It should be a great comfort to everyone to know that the FDA does not drag its feet when it comes to taking dangerous supplements off the market, though.

Ephedra-containing diet pills, for example, were removed⁵ in 2004 after being linked to 155 deaths⁶ from overdosing. Avandia alone — taken as prescribed — killed 83,000 between 2001 and 2007.

The idea that supplements are harmful is not supported by the data. Quite the contrary, yet investigative journalists, like Frontline and CBC, consistently fail to mention statistics that put things into proper perspective. For example, a 2012 report⁷by the U.K.-based Alliance for Natural Health International showed that adverse reactions to pharmaceutical drugs are 62,000 times more likely to kill you than food supplements.

According to the annual report^8,9 from the American Association of Poison Control Centers, there were zero deaths from vitamins, minerals, or any other dietary supplement in 2014. Meanwhile, Tylenol is linked to about 500 deaths annually. The idea that supplements should be regulated as drugs is rooted in financial interests. The supplement industry impinges on drug industry profits, and that’s the only rationale for this campaign to impose drug regulations on supplements.

Supplements Are the Safest Category of Consumable Products — Even Safer Than Food

Supplements are the most regulated food. They ARE NOT drugs. Supplements are consumed by the majority of Americans and Canadians, and statistically, it’s quite clear they are by far the safest consumable product there is, and least likely to hurt or kill you.In fact, most junk food is FORTIFIED with vitamins.  Modern agriculture has favored yield over nutrition, causing poor soil conditions, disease outbreaks, and a less nutrient-dense food supply.   If one is to avoid vitamin fortified junk foods, doesn’t it make sense to eat real food and intelligently use supplements to create a balanced diet?

Food sickens 48 million Americans each year; 128,000 of them severely enough to require hospitalization, and 3,000 die from food poisoning – and tens of thousands die from antibiotic-resistant infections that are primarily caused by our CAFO produced meats.¹⁰

Meanwhile, there were 3,249 adverse event reports for dietary supplements¹¹ in 2012. The No.1 adverse event from supplements was choking, primarily in the elderly. Unsupervised children swallowing pills and heart palpitations due to the ingestion of too many diet pills, libido enhancing supplements, and energy drinks were also among the top problems reported. Again there were no deaths.

Choking is hardly an adverse effect warranting increased regulation, as it is a hazard that goes along with swallowing any food, drug or supplement. As for experiencing side effects from taking too many pills, let me remind you that prescription painkillers are the No. 1 cause of overdose deaths in the U.S., killing approximately 16,600 people each year.

Yes, people don’t always follow dosing instructions, but when it comes to supplements, it’s exceptionally rare to incur serious, permanent harm or death when taking too much. If any value is given to statistics, supplements set the bar for safety that all other consumable products, including drugs, should be measured by.

Supplements Are Also Regulated by the FTC

Supplements are also regulated by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).¹² This agency regulates the advertising of supplements, but it has a close working relationship with the FDA. Aspects of advertising covered by this regulation include but are not limited to:

• Express and implied claims
• Clear and prominent disclosures
• Amount, type, and quality of evidence, and the relevance of the evidence to the specific claim
• Claims based on traditional use
• Use of DSHEA disclaimer

As explained on the FTC’s website, it “enforces laws outlawing ‘unfair or deceptive acts or practices’ to ensure that consumers get accurate information about dietary supplements so that they can make informed decisions about these products.” Any and all advertising “must be truthful, not misleading, and substantiated.”

Given the fact that supplements are regulated both by the FDA under DSHEA and the FTC, it is wildly irrational to state that supplements are unregulated unless one is lying. Frontline and CBC are not saying supplements could be regulated better. They imply supplements are marketed like Snake Oil and Magic Unicorn pills in some Wild West era of lawlessness!

In addition to the FDA regulating both ingredients and final products, supplements must also follow Current Good Manufacturing Processes (CGMP),¹³ which also falls under FDA jurisdiction.

It appears it’s up to informed readers and viewers to educate journalists (and health professionals) of their error, and to set the record straight whenever this fallacy is presented as fact. So, if you ever see supplements presented as “unregulated” again, I hope you step up to the plate and let them know that misrepresenting LAW is simply not acceptable by any journalistic standard.

Deceptions occur in all categories of commerce, and the supplement industry is no exception. But, when the government has to choose where it applies its limited resources for enforcement – shouldn’t it start where you find the highest body counts? That would be the logical priority, but not when you have the best government money can buy. If the policies don’t favor Big Pharma, Big Bank, Big Ag, Big Oil, Big Military, you can bet those resources will be applied elsewhere.

If you want to avoid unsafe supplements, the best way to do so is to stay away from the ‘gas station’ varieties. Those categories are typically focused on weight-loss, sexual performance, muscle growth & energy boosters. These categories have a history of being illegally spiked with pharmaceutical ingredients, so please think twice before purchasing these substances.

Do You Believe the Media Is Providing You With Fair and Balanced Journalism?

Frontline responded to the critique in my first article, saying:¹⁴ “The overarching allegation is that FRONTLINE, the CBC and The New York Times are all doing the bidding of nefarious forces — Big Pharma, Big Food, or some other hidden power pulling our strings. What nonsense.” Is it really nonsense to believe the media is manipulated by financial contributors with very big pocketbooks?

“FRONTLINE was not involved in any aspect of the selection or placement of these spots, which were sold by PBS and run across PBS.org through automated process. (Further, to be clear, FRONTLINE does not have any sponsorship from a pharmaceutical company, as some viewers erroneously alleged.),” Frontline writes.

As I pointed out in my first article, the sponsor list for PBS^15,16,17 includes drug companies, junk food companies, and pesticide producers. Are we really to believe that PBS is just the middle-man, accepting funds from all of these industries, yet have NO influence over the programming? Just how much money is PBS getting from these companies?

If they want to disguise themselves as the “Public” Broadcasting Company, they should prominently disclose their corporate funders when they provide reports that have clear conflicts of interest. Moreover, while initially I did not delve into Frontline-specific sponsors since Frontline wants to make it “clear” that they do not have any pharmaceutical sponsorship, I will address it now.

Frontline Sponsors Include Several Foundations With Drug Ties

Frontline is produced by WGBH Boston and is broadcast nationwide on PBS. Information about Frontline, including its sponsors, can be found in WGBH’s Sharing The Vision member’s guide, and on Frontline’s FAQ page. Frontline is funded through the support of PBS viewers and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. They also receive “major” funding from:

• John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation,¹⁸ which provides financial. support to the Human Vaccines Project;¹⁹the CDC Foundation²⁰ (which “works closely with foundations to build programs that address specific health threats”); and the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health²¹ (which promotes “solutions to four major global health threats” and has  worked to develop various vaccines)
• Reva and David Logan, founders of the Reva & David Logan Foundation for Social Justice, Scholarship, the Arts and Investigative Journalism, which has co-funded drug research with Solvay Pharmaceuticals²² —a company that manufactures more than 30 drugs in the U.S. including Norlac RX, Zenate, Zenate Advanced Formula and Zenate Prenatal, all of which are prescription multivitamins
• Jon and Jo Ann Hagler²³ on behalf of the Jon L. Hagler Foundation. Jon Hagler served on both the World Bank’s Pension-Finance Committee and on the Finance Committee of the Rockefeller Family Fund. The World Bank helps fund vaccines and partners with vaccine and other drug companies. The Rockefeller Foundation helps fund the “Golden Rice” project with Gates to develop GMO rice with beta carotene genetically engineered into it.

Jon and Jo Ann Hagler established two endowed chairs in hematology and oncology at Massachusetts General Hospital,²⁴ which partners with “pharmaceutical, biotech, venture capital and philanthropic communities.”

• The Ford Foundation,²⁵ which in June 2014 made a two-year, $800,000 grant toward a new cross-platform Enterprise Journalism Group within Frontline “that will deepen the series’ in-house investigative bench.” By 2014, the Ford Foundation had given nearly $20 million to WGBH (PBS) over a 55-year period. The Ford Foundation has a long history of funding global projects that include vaccines.

More Frontline Funders With Drug and Vaccine Ties

Frontline also receives funding from:

• The Park Foundation:²⁶ “a longstanding series funder.” In 2004, the Park Foundation also funded the Pan American Health Organization book project: “Vaccines: Preventing Diseases and Protecting Health.”
• The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation has funded Frontline in the past, especially “major funding” for the 2010 to 2011 broadcast season.²⁷ In 2014, Gates was taken to task for its massive funding of NPR, Frontline, PBS NewsHour and Teaching Channel.²⁸ Questions were raised as to whether impartial reporting was really possible in light of Gates’ massive influence. In 2012, Frontline again announced that it is partially funded by the Gates Foundation.²⁹
• The Tow Foundation,³⁰ which co-funded a joint three-year fellowship program between Frontline and Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism.³¹ Columbia University receives a lot of money for drug research. The Tow Foundation was recently recognized by Inside Philanthropy for making “very large contributions” to various “pet projects of the TOW family,” including medical research.³²

All of these groups have links, both major and minor, to drug companies and vaccine research and support. So how can Frontline claim non-biased, non-slanted, independent journalism when their bread is being buttered by a list of foundations that have a history of funding and supporting the drug paradigm?

Like It or Not, PBS, Frontline and CBC Are Bedfellows in This Debacle

Moreover, no matter how “accidental” or “random” the junk food ad featuring Cheez-Its (made with vitamin enriched flour) and Dr. Pepper (soda is a major cause of our obesity epidemic) right before the show might have been, the show featured a food ad that is harmful to health. And I don’t think it’s “nonsense” to point out just how hypocritical that came across.³³ The effect was quite striking!

It’s impossible to view it without getting the idea that Cheez-Its and soda are good while supplements are bad. And I question whether that combination was entirely accidental.

Frontline also complained that it was “unfair” to link their show to the CBC’s shoddy hit piece on supplements, calling it an “attempt to tarnish our work by erroneously linking it to an entirely different program at the CBC.” Any rational viewer will clearly see this link is not in error. PBS partnered with CBC to create this Frontline program.

All three are linked through this partnership. Frontline wants you to believe it is an independent agent, with no financial ties to anyone, not even PBS. This simply fails to line up with reality, especially when the program fails to prominently disclose its funding sources. This atrocious lack of transparency leaves no other rational conclusion other than it’s a massive conflict of interest that endangers the “public” while accepting money from some of the worst multinational corporations on the planet.

You CAN Make a Difference! Write Your Local PBS Station Now

Since PBS is a public broadcasting station, they should publicly disclose their financing. PBS and Frontline, which have had an exemplary track record of providing fair and balanced reporting in the past, utterly failed to do so in this instance. For some reason, they partnered with CBC, which for the past year has been running an organized campaign against supplements, and this bias was clearly revealed in this “Supplements and Safety” episode.

This kind of biased (and inaccurate) reporting is unacceptable. If you agree, I urge you to write your local PBS station with a strong message of your dissatisfaction with their programming and clear collusion with industry.

You can also contact PBS Ombudsman Michael Getler, whose job it is to perform independent reviews of PBS programming to ensure it stands up to journalistic standards and integrity. You can contact him by clicking the “Send an E-mail” on the PBS Ombudsman’s webpage, or call him at (703)-739-5290.

Following are some suggested talking points:

• Any and all potential conflicts of interest of experts interviewed should be disclosed
• PBS corporate funding for programming should be publicly disclosed
• Supplements cannot be accurately portrayed as “unregulated,” since they are regulated by the FDA under DSHEA, the FTC, and Current Best Manufacturing Processes. This is grossly negligent and endangers the public into further vitamin deficiencies (at least two out of every three people are deficient in vitamin D alone)

CBD Now Considered an Unapproved New Drug

The drug industry wants supplements to be regulated as drugs, and this is why such efforts are put into making you think the supplement industry is unregulated, even though it’s not true. Here’s an interesting example of what happens when a simple plant extract becomes a drug.

According to the FDA, once a drug company files an Investigational New Drug (IND) application³⁴ for a supplement, it suddenly becomes a drug, and no one can market it as a supplement going forward — unless the substance has a history of being marketed as a supplement that precedes the IND. In the case of cannabidiol (CBD), the FDA claims a drug company was first on the scene.

British drug company GW Pharmaceuticals gained IND status on a CBD product in 2007, and eight CBD supplement manufacturers were recently issued warning letters^35,36 from the FDA for marketing “unapproved new drugs.”

CBD shows massive potential in the treatment of seizures, and you can be assured the price difference to families for the same product — a CBD supplement versus a CBD drug — will be exorbitant. It’s going to be a boondoggle for big pharma that might even make Martin Shrekli³⁷ proud!

Continue reading here…

From Lewrockwell.com, here.