Despite Repeated Fines No One in Big Pharma EVER GOES TO PRISON!??

 Big Pharma

Organized Crime Syndicate

The Forbidden COVID-19 Chronicles
The Makers of COVID-19 Vaccines: Pfizer
Pamela A. Popper, President
Wellness Forum Health

Since the year 2000, Pfizer has been charged 74 times with criminal and civil violations and paid a total of $4,660,896,333 in fines. The top offenses to which the company plead guilty are unapproved marketing of products, bribery, making false claims, safety violations, environmental violations, racketeering, and violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.[1]

In spite of a very long list of criminal convictions, Pfizer and BioNTech were given an emergency use authorization for a COVID-19 vaccine on December 1, 2020.

Here are just a few of the episodes in which Pfizer and its subsidiaries have been found guilty of egregious acts:

In 2001, thirty Nigerian families sued Pfizer, claiming that the company conducted an unauthorized clinical trial of an untested antibiotic on their children without their consent in 1996 during a meningitis epidemic. Eleven children died as a result, and others had brain damage or became partially paralyzed or deaf.[2] In 2009 the company reached an out-of-court settlement with the Kenyan government for $75 million dollars, and in August 2011 the company paid $175,000 to each family to settle the claims.[3]

In 2004, Pfizer’s Warner-Lambert subsidiary paid $430 million to settle criminal and civil charges that it paid doctors to prescribe Neurontin, an epilepsy drug, for conditions for which it was never approved.[4] In 2008 it was discovered that Pfizer suppressed research showing that Neurontin did not work for these conditions and that the company routinely spun negative data about the drug to place it a more positive light. Additionally, the company combined negative studies with positive studies to neutralize negative findings and hide the fact that Neurontin did not work for unapproved uses.[5] A judge ordered the company to pay $142 million to settle racketeering charges.[6]

In 2005, Pfizer agreed to stop advertising Celebrex on television and subsequently admitted that a 1999 clinical trial showed that Celebrex increased the risk of heart disease in elderly patients.[7] 

Pfizer and its subsidiary company Pharmacia and Upjohn can boast that in 2009 it paid the largest criminal fine ever in the history of the U.S. (at that time) for any matter - $1.195 billion dollars. The reason for the fine – the company’s reps were marketing Bextra, a pain reliever, for uses and doses specifically prohibited by the FDA. Additionally, the company was forced to forfeit $105 million which brought the total settlement of criminal charges to $1.3 billion.

In addition, Pfizer agreed to pay $1 billion more to resolve charges brought under the False Claims Act that the company illegally promoted four drugs – Bextra, Geodon (an anti-psychotic), Zyvox (an antibiotic) and Lyrica (an anti-epileptic drug) for off-label uses. The company was also found to have bribed doctors, paying kickbacks as incentives to prescribe these and other drugs.[8]

Subsequently, Bextra was withdrawn from the market after the FDA mandated a black box warning about cardiovascular and gastrointestinal side effects.[9] The company set aside $894 million dollars to settle claims for both Bextra and Celebrex.[10]

One of Pfizer’s biggest scandals involved defective heart valves sold through one of its subsidiaries that killed over 100 people. An investigation of this matter showed that the company deliberately misled regulators while seeking approval for the product. The company agreed to stop making the valves, but they had already been implanted in tens of thousands of people who were now at risk.[11] In 1994, the company paid $10.75 million to settle charges brought by the Justice Department that it lied to regulators about risks associated with these valves.

In 2012 the company settled charges related to a multi-million-dollar bribery scheme involving payments to government officials, health regulators, doctors, and hospital administrators in Bulgaria, Croatia, Kazakhstan and Russia. Pfizer used sham consulting contracts, exclusive distributorships and improper travel and cash payments in order to gain market share, and earned over $7 million in profits as a result of its illegal behavior. The fine – only $15 million.[12]

During one 3-year period, Pfizer Italy provided free cell phones, copy machines, printers and televisions to doctors; gave them paid vacations with companions; and made direct cash payments to doctors which were falsely categorized as speaker fees and professional training. The company paid a fine of $60.2 million which represents about one half of one percent of the company’s annual profits.[13]

And this is the problem. For Pfizer and other drug companies, paying billions of dollars in criminal and civil fines for misrepresentation and hurting and killing people is just a cost of doing business. Employees of Pfizer and its subsidiaries are not indicted and prosecuted, so there really is no reason for the company’s management to stop doing these things.

Would you purchase any product made by this company? I wouldn’t – not even mouth wash. Why? Because Pfizer could not even play it straight with a product like this. The company paid $70,000 in fines to 10 states to settle charges concerning misleading advertising for a mouth rinse called Plax in 1991.[14]

What on earth would possess regulators to allow a company like this to continue to do business in the United States? Or to grant an Emergency Use Authorization to a Pfizer vaccine? Regulators would not allow it, but business partners, of course, would. And it is abundantly clear that U.S. government agencies like the FDA and CDC are not regulators, but rather business partners for drug and vaccine makers.
  

---

[1] https://violationtracker.goodjobsfirst.org/parent/pfizer
[2] Tamar Lewin. Families Sue Pfizer on Test of Antibiotic. New York Times August 30 2001
[3] David Smith. Pfizer pays out to Nigerian families of meningitis drug trial victims. The Guardian August 12 2011
[4] https://www.justice.gov/archive/opa/pr/2004/May/04_civ_322.htm
[5] Stephanie Saul. Experts Concluded Pfizer Manipulated Studies. New York  Times Oct 8 2008
[6] Jef Feeley and Janelle Lawrence. Pfizer to Pay $142.1 Million Over Neurontin Marketing. Bloomberg Jan 28 2011
[7] Alex Berneson and Gardiner Harris. Pfizer Says 1999 Trials Revealed Risks With Celebrex. New York Times Feb 1 2005
[8] https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-announces-largest-health-care-fraud-settlement-its-history
[9] Anna Wilde Mathews and Scot Hensley. FDA Stiffens Painkiller Warnings, Pushes Pfizer to Suspend Bextra. Wall Street Journal April 8 2005
[10] Stephanie Saul. Pfizer to Settle Claims Over Bextra and Celebrex. New York Times Oct 17, 2008
[11] Manufacturer Ends Production of Heart Valve. New York Times November 28 1986
[12] https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/pfizer-hcp-corp-agrees-pay-15-million-penalty-resolve-foreign-bribery-investigation
[13] Paul Knaggs. Coronavirus: what do we know about ‘Pfizer’ and can we trust them with a vaccine. Labour Heartlands November 10 2020
[14] The Media Business: Advertising; Pfizer’s Pact on Plax Ads. New York Times Feb 21 1991

*****************************************************

DYI:  For those of you who wish to do further investigation into big pharma with their non-stop criminal actions here is three books I recommend to get you started.

Deadly Medicines and Organized Crime…How big pharma has corrupted healthcare… by Dr. Peter C. Gotzsche

Virus Mania…How the Medical Industry Continually Invents Epidemics, Making Billion-Dollar Profits at Our Expense… by Torsten Engelbrecht, Dr. Claus Kohnlein MD, Dr. Samantha Bailey MD, Dr. Stefano Scoglio BSc PhD

Our Daily Meds… by Melody Peterson

Thank You Dr. Popper

DYI

Many American's are Saying "No Thanks I'll Pass on this Vaccine!"

 

Big

Pharma

Blows Up!

The Forbidden COVID-19 Chronicles
The Makers of COVID-19 Vaccines: Johnson & Johnson
Pamela A. Popper, President
Wellness Forum Health

While some people enthusiastically anticipated the release of COVID-19 vaccines, others have a much more cautious view, and a significant percentage of people state that they will not receive ANY COVID-19 vaccines. The new term for people who are concerned about vaccines is "vaccine-hesitant" (medical authorities finally acknowledged that negative name-calling was not helping their cause) and health officials are concerned about this rather large and growing group of people. Why are 35-40% of Americans (depending on the survey cited) refusing to take one of these vaccines? One commonly cited reason is the track record of the vaccine makers.

Take Johnson & Johnson, for example. The company announced that it received Emergency Use Authorization for its single injection COVID-19 vaccine on February 27, 2021. The vaccine was developed by a subsidiary, Janssen Pharmaceutical Companies, and is available for individuals age 18 and older.[1]

Both Johnson & Johnson and Janssen have made and distributed drugs and vaccines for a long time in the U.S., and both have paid large fines to state and federal governments. Since 2000, J&J and its subsidiaries have been charged 55 times with criminal or civil crimes and have paid a total of $4,247,381 in fines.[2]

J&J and its subsidiaries paid over $2.2 billion in 2013 in one of the largest healthcare fraud settlements in the history of the U.S.[3] Here are just a few of the details (from Department of Justice documents):[4]

J&J subsidiary Janssen Pharmaceuticals marketed Risperdal, an antipsychotic drug, for unapproved uses. The company’s drug reps promoted Risperdal to doctors and other prescribers who treated elderly dementia patients, falsely claiming that the drug was effective for symptoms like anxiety, agitation, depression, hostility, and confusion.

 

Blatantly disregarding the fact that at the time Risperdal was only approved for the treatment of schizophrenia, Janssen created an "ElderCare sales force" to market the drug to prescribers. The company’s business plan stated that its goal was to "[m]aximize and grow Risperdal’s market leadership in geriatrics and long-term care." Written sales aids and promotional materials were developed for reps to use when calling on doctors. The company provided incentives for off-label promotion and based bonuses for its salespeople on total sales of Risperdal in their territories, not just sales for FDA-approved uses. The company also paid kickbacks to doctors who prescribed the drug. Reps told doctors that they would receive generous speaker’s fees if they were prolific prescribers.

 

The company’s illegal practices resulted in the filing of false claims with federal healthcare programs. Additionally, J&J and Janssen paid kickbacks to Omnicare, Inc., the largest pharmacy specializing in dispensing drugs to nursing home patients. These kickbacks were falsely categorized as market share rebates, data-purchase fees, grants, and educational funding. The kickbacks were designed to incentivize Omnicare’s pharmacists to promote Risperdal to nursing home patients.

Janssen was warned by FDA officials on several occasions that claims that Risperdal was safe and effective were misleading. FDA officials told Janssen executives that behavioral problems in elderly dementia patients were usually not due to psychotic disorders and were more likely "appropriate responses to the deplorable conditions under which some demented patients are housed…"

 

According to the Justice Department, both J&J and Janssen knew that Risperdal increased the risk of stroke in the elderly. The companies manipulated data in order to cover this up. When a J&J study showed that taking Risperdal significantly increased the risk of stroke and other adverse events, Janssen executives combined the data with other studies to make it look like the drug actually lowered the risk

 

A second study confirmed the risk of Risperdal for elderly patients. When it looked like the company was not going to publish the data, a physician involved with the study advised Janssen that "[a]t this point, so long after [the study] has been completed…we must be concerned that this gives the strong appearance that Janssen is purposely withholding the findings."

Another complication of Risperdal was increased risk of diabetes. First, the company outright lied, promoting Risperdal as "uncompromised by safety concerns (does not cause diabetes)." When confronted with research showing that Risperdal increased the risk of diabetes, just like other antipsychotics, the company hired experts to re-analyze the study and to publish articles stating that Risperdal actually lowered the risk of diabetes.

 

The company’s behavior seems particularly egregious since the targeted population for the unlawful prescribing of the drug were some of the most vulnerable people. In addition to elderly nursing home patients, Janssen promoted the drug to children and adults who had developmental disabilities. Records show that both J&J and Janssen executives knew that there were several risks associated with prescribing Risperdal to children. These included the risk of elevated levels of prolactin, a hormone that stimulates breast development and milk production. Nonetheless, Janssen’s "Key Base Business Goals" included growing and protecting market share for children and adolescents for Risperdal. Reps were instructed to call on psychiatrists and facilities that treated children, and to promote Risperdal as a safe and effective drug for children with attention deficit disorder, oppositional defiant disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder, and autism. The company was warned repeatedly by FDA not to promote the drug for use in children.

It is important to note that there are other side effects of Risperdal that are quite concerning, including tardive dyskinesia, fatigue, drowsiness, fever, weight gain, dry mouth, restlessness, anxiety, insomnia, vomiting, stomach pain, constipation, cough, sore throat, and skin rash.[5]

Drug companies make so much money that multi-billion-dollar fines for criminal behavior are just a cost of doing business. Thus it is not surprising that in 2019, an Oklahoma judge ruled that J&J had intentionally minimized the risks and misrepresented the benefits of opioid drugs. The judge wrote that J&J had used "false, misleading and dangerous marketing campaigns" that "caused exponentially increasing rates of addiction, overdose deaths, and babies born exposed to opioids." The company was ordered to pay the state $572 million.[6]

I’ve presented here just a couple of the episodes in which J&J and/or its subsidiaries were caught committing criminal fraud and engaging in activities that resulted in considerable harm and even death for large numbers of people. The company is a serial offender, yet the federal government continues to allow it to do business in the U.S., and routinely approves new products submitted by the company, such as its new COVID-19 vaccine.

I can’t fathom that anyone who knows about J&J and its prior bad acts would agree to any medical intervention produced and marketed by it. I certainly won’t.

---

[1] https://www.jnj.com/johnson-johnson-covid-19-vaccine-authorized-by-u-s-fda-for-emergency-usefirst-single-shot-vaccine-in-fight-against-global-pandemic

[2] https://violationtracker.goodjobsfirst.org/parent/johnson-and-johnson

[3] https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/johnson-johnson-pay-more-22-billion-resolve-criminal-and-civil-investigations

[4] IBID

[5] https://www.rxlist.com/risperdal-side-effects-drug-center.htm

[6] https://www.statnews.com/2019/08/26/oklahoma-judge-finds-johnson-johnson-fueled-opioid-crisis/

Vaccine: twenty countries suspend injections; does that make you "hesitant?"

by Jon Rappoport The Guardian: “Several European countries have halted using the Oxford/AstraZeneca Covid vaccine…” The Guardian has a brand new definition of “several.” Their own article lists the following nations: Austria, Estonia, Latvia, Luxembourg, Lithuania, Romania, Denmark, Norway, Iceland, The Netherlands, Ireland, Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Slovenia, Cyprus, Sweden.  Bulgaria and Thailand have also stopped the jab. The reason for the “pause?” A “small” number of people have developed blood clots. And now, as I write this, the Wall St. Journal is reporting that European Union medical regulators have decided everything is OK---“the benefits of the shots outweigh the risks.” Standard boilerplate language for: “we don’t have to explain the vaccine injuries or deaths.” If you believe just a few people with blood clots caused 20 countries to stop giving the jabs, I have condos on Mars for sale.  Hidden behind the firewall of the vaccine establishment, MANY people are keeling over. And why wouldn’t they? Governments and pharma companies have rushed a new experimental RNA technology into use, for the first time in history. Prior to the COVID injection, all attempts to force approval of RNA tech had failed; dangerous and deadly over-reaction of the immune system was the reason. Since I seem to be one of the only people saying this, I’ll say it again: Bill Gates, Fauci, and other rabid vaccinators are in love with RNA tech. It allows vaccines to be produced far more quickly, easily, and cheaply. For any purported virus, at the drop of a hat, companies can come up with a vaccine. It doesn’t take four years. It takes three months.  “We just discovered a virus that crossed over from geese. And here’s a new one from Easter bunnies. And another new one just drifted in from Jupiter. We’ll have vaccines ready by Christmas. The seventh mutation of SARS-CoV-2 has its own vaccine as of yesterday. If you want to take the kiddies to Disneyland, find one of those pretty pink vans parked in your town, take the shot and receive your updated Immunity Certificate…” Then there is this: the COVID vaccines manufactured by AstraZeneca, Pfizer, and Moderna are completely ineffective at preventing serious illness. BY DESIGN. Months ago, a NY Times piece, by Peter Doshi and Eric Topol, spelled it out. September 22, 2020: “These Coronavirus Trials Don’t Answer the One Question We Need to Know”: “If you were to approve a coronavirus vaccine, would you approve one that you only knew protected people only from the most mild form of Covid-19, or one that would prevent its serious complications?” [Clue: “most mild” means cough, or chills and fever, which cure themselves without the need for a vaccine.] “The answer is obvious. You would want to protect against the worst cases.” “But that’s not how the companies testing three of the leading coronavirus vaccine candidates, Moderna, Pfizer and AstraZeneca, whose U.S. trial is on hold, are approaching the problem.” “According to the protocols for their studies, which they released late last week, a vaccine could meet the companies’ benchmark for success if it lowered the risk of mild Covid-19, but was never shown to reduce moderate or severe forms of the disease, or the risk of hospitalization, admissions to the intensive care unit or death.” “To say a vaccine works should mean that most people no longer run the risk of getting seriously sick. That’s not what these trials will determine.” The COVID shot: dangerous AND ineffective. Trump’s coronavirus task force knew the truth. Biden’s task force knows the truth. But they don’t care.  The CDC and the WHO know. They don’t care, either. But these authorities are very nervous, because droves of people are avoiding the vaccine. It’s not “hesitancy.”  It’s utter rejection. Sensible rejection. It began soon after the initial rollout of the Pfizer vaccine. NBC News, December 31, 2020: “A large percentage of front-line workers in hospitals and nursing homes have refused to take the Covid-19 vaccine…” “About 50 percent of front-line workers in California’s Riverside County have refused to take the vaccine…” “Anecdotally, an estimated 60 percent of Ohio nursing home employees have refused the vaccine already…” “A survey of 2,053 New York City firefighters found that more than half said they would refuse the Covid-19 vaccine when it became available to them…” And all that was long before 20 countries suspended the injection. I’ll close, for now, with two statements about the role vaccines have played in eliminating deaths from diseases---because true history matters: “The combined death rate from scarlet fever, diphtheria, whooping cough and measles among children up to fifteen shows that nearly 90 percent of the total decline in mortality between 1860 and 1965 had occurred before the introduction of antibiotics and widespread immunization. In part, this reduction may be attributed to improved housing and to a decrease in the virulence of micro-organisms, but by far the most important factor was a higher host-resistance due to better nutrition." Ivan Illich, Medical Nemesis, Bantam Books, 1977 [DYI:  Between the aforementioned time periods [1860 to 1965] there was a significant improvement in all aspects of public health infrastructure.  Clean drinking water, modern plumping, sewer systems; garbage collection, vastly improved housing etc. all had a major positive impact upon the lives of average citizens.  Back in 1996 before the CDC was corrupted by big pharma they actually admitted that due to public health measure I just listed the reduction of these diseases was reduced not 90% it is 98%!]      Robert F Kennedy, Jr.: “After extensively studying a century of recorded data, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Johns Hopkins researchers concluded: ‘Thus vaccinations does not account for the impressive declines in mortality from infectious diseases seen in the first half of the twentieth century’.” “Similarly, in 1977, Boston University epidemiologists (and husband and wife) John and Sonja McKinlay published their seminal work in the Millbank Memorial Fund Quarterly on the role that vaccines (and other medical interventions) played in the massive 74% decline in mortality seen in the twentieth century: ‘The Questionable Contribution of Medical Measures to the Decline of Mortality in the United States in the Twentieth Century’.” “In this article, which was formerly required reading in U.S. medical schools, the McKinlays pointed out that 92.3% of the mortality rate decline happened between 1900 and 1950, before most vaccines existed, and that all medical measures, including antibiotics and surgeries, ‘appear to have contributed little to the overall decline in mortality in the United States since about 1900 — having in many instances been introduced several decades after a marked decline had already set in and having no detectable influence in most instances’.” (The link to this article posted on my blog is here.) Pam & John Thank You DYI

High Survival Rate 99.98%+...Extreme Low Death Rate...Massive False Positives...Non-Existent Virus...Vaccine Developed at Warp Speed...This all Points to FRAUD!

 Covid

Hoax Pandemic

Jon Rappoport

My original position on the non-existent virus

About a year ago, I wrote and published my position on the existence of SARS-CoV-2.

I still stand by it.

It’s worth revisiting. File it under: “follow the actual science.”

If researchers had actually been interested in proving the virus exists, they would have a conducted a large-scale study. Here it is.

Take 500 people who have been diagnosed with the pandemic disease, line them up, and take swab samples from them.

Using correct and meticulous procedures, which involve centrifuging those samples, produce 500 clear electron microscope photos---one good photo for each sample.

Place the 500 photos side by side, and answer the following questions:

One: In each and every photo, do you see MANY particles of what is unmistakably a virus?

Two: In each and every photo, are these particles the same virus?

Three: Are these particles of a virus you’ve never seen before?

If you answer any of the three questions with a no, you go back to the drawing board. Your attempt to prove the existence of a new virus which is causing disease has failed. (You might have shown a new virus exists, but it is non-relevant, because you haven’t shown it is causing disease.)

If you answered yes to the three questions, you bring in a new team of researchers, who enroll a new group of 500 volunteers who have been diagnosed with the pandemic disease, and they conduct the same experiment. Why? Because confirmation of results by an independent group is part of what is called the scientific method. At one time, every high school student was taught the scientific method.

If this new group of researchers carries out the study and answers no to any of the three questions, the attempt to prove a new virus exists and is causing disease has failed.

If the new group answers yes to the three questions, a third group of researchers would enlist 500 new volunteers and carry out the test once again. This would constitute further confirmation.

If this third group answers yes to the three questions, then you have strong evidence. (Of course, the electron microscope is registering dead virus. It isn’t looking at viruses in action or motion in the body. So it isn’t infallible.) 

Now you see the futility of claiming that samples taken from one, two, or three patients in a study prove anything at all.

Correct studies of this kind should always use large numbers of people. For example, what would you say to the clinical trial of a new drug that only enlisted three people as volunteers? Would the outcome be sufficient to apply for FDA approval of the drug? Of course not.

The large-scale study---with confirmation---I’ve described above has never been done in the case of “COVID-19.” 

Therefore, no proof exists that SARS-CoV-2 is real and is causing disease.

The burden of proof rests with the researchers who assert that SARS-CoV-2 is real and is the cause of a pandemic.

They have told that story. Since their story can’t be backed up, there is no reason to believe in the existence of SARS-CoV-2.

I could say a new measles virus or a new hepatitis virus or a new virus from outer space is causing a pandemic, but that, too, would just be a story.

(The link to this article posted on my blog is here -- with sources.)

Thanks Jon!

DYI

Big Pharma has been Caught Peddling Worthless and Unsafe Drugs for DECADES!

 Video

Johnson & Johnson

Highlighting their Crimes

Criminal History of Vaccine Makers

Pam Popper Published March 11, 2021

DYI:  For those seeking additional information regarding the pharmaceutical industry's long term sordid career of organized crime below are three books I recommend.  They can be purchased through many of the nationally recognized book sellers.

Virus Mania – How the Medical Industry Continually Invents Epidemics Making Billion-Dollar Profits At Our Expense by Harven & Mutter.

Deadly Medicines and Organized Crime – How big pharma has corrupted healthcare by Peter C. Gotzsche.

Our Daily Meds by Melody Peterson [I bought this one used at ThriftBooks].

DYI

ALERT!...Market Sentiment Change...Stocks Now at Max-Optimism!

 

Market Sentiment

Smart Money - Buys Aggressively!
Capitulation
Despondency
Max-Pessimism Short Term Bonds & MMF
Depression
Hope Silver
Relief *Market returns to Mean

Smart Money - Buys the Dips!
Optimism Gold
Media Attention
Enthusiasm

Smart Money - Sells the Rallies!
Thrill
Greed
Delusional
Max-Optimism - Stocks - Long Term Bonds
Denial of Problem
Anxiety
Fear
Desperation

Smart Money - Buys Aggressively!
Capitulation

DYI

Stock Market Valuations Surge Ahead...Interest Rates Continue To Rise...Setting the Stage for a Stock Market Crash!

 Bubble

News

Insane

Valuations!

DYI:  If the stock market and interest rates continue to rise together a crash scenario will present itself.  I’ve refigured Ben Graham’s Corner the EYC Ratio has now dropped to 1.16!  Under one it is advocated to sell all stocks and purchase bonds.  Currently holding stocks but purchase bonds with any new money as valuations simply do not warrant additional purchases of stocks.

Ben Graham's Corner

Margin of Safety!

Central Concept of Investment for the purchase of Common Stocks.

"The danger to investors lies in concentrating their purchases in the upper levels of the market..."

Stocks compared to bonds:

Earnings Yield Coverage Ratio - [EYC Ratio]

EYC Ratio = 1/PE10 x 100 x 1.1 / Bond Rate

1.75 plus: Safe for large lump sums & DCA

1.30 Plus: Safe for DCA

1.29 or less: Mid-Point - Hold stocks and purchase bonds.

1.00 or less: Sell stocks - Purchase Bonds

Current EYC Ratio: 1.16(rounded)

As of  3-15-21
Updated Monthly

PE10 as report by Multpl.com

Bond Rate is the rate as reported by

Vanguard Long-Term Investment-Grade Fund Investor Shares (VWESX)

DCA is Dollar Cost Averaging.
Lump Sum any amount greater than yearly salary.

PE10  ..........35.47
Bond Rate...2.67%

Over a ten-year period the typical excess of stock earnings power over bond interest may aggregate 4/3 of the price paid. This figure is sufficient to provide a very real margin of safety--which, under favorable conditions, will prevent or minimize a loss......If the purchases are made at the average level of the market over a span of years, the prices paid should carry with them assurance of an adequate margin of safety.  The danger to investors lies in concentrating their purchases in the upper levels of the market.....

Common Sense Investing:
The Papers of Benjamin Graham
Benjamin Graham

DYI