- Written by Sarah C. Corriher Sarah C. Corriher
"The F.D.A. protects the big drug companies, and is subsequently rewarded, and using the government's police powers, they attack those who threaten the big drug companies. People think that the F.D.A. is protecting them. It isn't. What the F.D.A. is doing, and what the public thinks it is doing are as different as night and day."
-- Dr. Herbert Ley, former Commissioner of the U.S. F.D.A.
Those partnering with, or actively participating in the pervasive allopathic medical industry have long and boldly proclaimed that alternative medicine is somehow dangerous, despite its avoidance of dangerous chemicals in favor of natural substances. This sort of politics is what many industries have participated in, due to their fear of open competition from innovative newcomers. This phenomena in medicine has occurred since Rockefeller hijacked the U.S. medical schools in the depression of the 1930's, by offering funding to submissive medical schools, which eventually allowed Rockefeller (and his F.D.A. cronies) to redefine medicine to mean only treating the symptoms of diseases (no curing) using only invasive surgeries combined with expensive patented pharmaceuticals (i.e. allopathy). It is unfortunate that most of the world followed this despicable corruption that was born in the United States.
Rockefeller proved that if one can influence both the educational system and the media, then one can effectively alter the public's reality by rewriting history. The new-age medical industry was marketed as being more scientific than the old school medicine. This new age version of science was... well... unique. Working in tandem with the F.D.A., and the newly purchased medical school programs, the wealthy Big Pharma (big chemical companies) partners would be allowed to decide which scientific studies were actually valid, and which of their own cherry-picked studies would be publicly distributed in "approved" publications, and they would set-up a system in which only their corporate partners could afford the studies, and only they would ultimately be allowed to get 'approval' for medicines, which by the way, were suddenly required to be only pharmaceutical drugs. It is, in fact, illegal to practice medicine with anything except official pharmaceuticals that have been industry "approved" -- if you know what I mean.
It is obvious that it was all much more a matter of instituting a political system of corporate control than an adherence to scientific principles. Furthermore, the corruption of this beast is so bad that curing any disease is also illegal in the United States, and doctors have actually gone to prison for curing diseases after finding themselves criminally charged for providing an "unapproved treatment", under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. The F.D.A. claims that this behavior is "protecting consumers", and their persistent use of the word 'consumer', instead of 'citizen', is very telling. Furthermore, anyone who accurately describes the biochemical effects of his herbal or nutritional products is immediately branded a criminal by the F.D.A., and is subject to immediate arrest at gunpoint by Federal Marshals, who they always bring with them. This latter situation is to prevent the makers of alternative treatments from marketing their products with meaningful labeling, and is a matter of aggressive repression of alternative health information. In fact, anytime they tell the truth about their products exposes them to arrest for making "unapproved medical claims".
The modern medical industry is a business of stifling competition, creating dependence, and perpetuating illness to maximize profits. Very seldom does true science intersect with it. This industry has transformed doctors from being healers, into treaters, because its drugs are designed to perpetuate illness for increased dependence, in much the same way that illegal narcotics are used to foster addictions in users. How many times have you been lectured that a person may never stop his medication for high blood pressure, for diabetes, or epilepsy without suffering the dire consequences of his disease returning far worse than it was originally? These pharmaceutical problems are terribly convenient for business, aren't they? Have they convinced you that these "side-effects" are accidental, in case after case -- you know coincidentally?
The most notorious example of the industry's fear games would be its condemnations of Ephedra. Marketed as a weight loss aid, Ephedra is an all-natural stimulant. It speeds up the metabolism, and thereby helps one to lose weight. Unfortunately, it was linked to around 100 deaths. These deaths occurred when people with blood pressure problems took the stimulant in ultra concentrated doses, so there is an equally high chance that a large portion of the deaths were produced as a side-effect of their pharmaceutical hypertension medications. As far as we know, Ephedra is the most "dangerous" herbal product ever recorded. Of course, if those same people had taken equivalent doses of caffeine, then it is likely that they would have met with the same demise. Nevertheless, Ephedra was made illegal.
Imagine if a herbal supplement started making the skin fall off of people. A Singapore man who recently came to the U.S. was detained at entry because he had no fingerprints. Of course, it was no herb that had caused his skin to melt off. In fact, this is a known side-effect of the cancer drug that he had been taking. The condition is so common that it has its own official name: hand-foot syndrome. With time, the drug may actually obliterate a person's fingerprints by destroying his skin, so it is prudent to take a moment to consider what is happening to the victim's internal organs, and perhaps browse the long-term implications.
What is even more shocking is the media reaction. Instead of being appalled that a drug could do this to somebody, mainstream reporters made jokes about this incident to protect their corporate partners -- the ones you saw advertisements for immediately after that news segment. Would their reactions have been the same if this had been the effect of a vitamin, mineral, or supplement? Would they still be telling us that "the benefits are worth the risks"? Would people still be given their right to choose it as a treatment, or would the supplement be banned? We already know the answers to these questions. In contrast to Ephedra, how many millions of people has chemotherapy killed? People rarely die from cancer. It is the "treatments" that finish them off.
In 1986, McGill Cancer Center scientists sent a questionnaire to 118 doctors who treated non-small-cell lung cancer. Sixty-four of the 79 doctors (81%) stated that they would refuse to consent to be in a trial containing Cisplatin, which is a common chemotherapy drug, if they had cancer themselves.
How about Vioxx? Vioxx was never banned by the F.D.A., and Merck could continue selling it today if they did not fear the lawsuits. All the same, the F.D.A. itself admits that Vioxx caused over 28,000 deaths. Do you see something wrong with this picture? Can you spot the pattern?
In the case of Ephedra, it should never have been banned. However, something did need to be done. Ideally, they would have forced manufacturers to place warning labels on their products telling people to avoid it if they were being pharmaceutically treated for high blood pressure. Alternatively, they could have mandated that manufacturers did not use extremely high concentrations of Ephedra in their weight loss products.
In the case of Vioxx, the F.D.A. did not step in at all, and class action lawsuits against Merck, the makers of Vioxx, are still ongoing. This is due in part to the fact that Merck went through extraordinary steps to ensure that the unapproved studies never made it out to the public. After over 28,000 deaths, Merck's public relations minions had the audacity to claim that they were removing Vioxx because they were "putting patient safety first". This doesn't explain their hit list that they created to "destroy, discredit, and neutralize" (their words) all doctors and scientists who reported anything negative about Vioxx, which had made Merck $2.5 billion annually in sales.
Someday it will once again be classified as self-evident that any drug which makes your skin melt (and requires a chemical crew in space suits to clean it up) should not be injected into even the worst criminals. Chemotherapy.com matter-of-factly explains that the side-effects of chemo can cause "inconvenience, discomfort, and even death". Notice that it is supposedly the side-effects that are causing deaths, but not the drug itself. Huh? Oh yeah, that's the new and improved F.D.A. science again. We are expected to believe that it is not the poisons being intentionally inserted into the blood that causes the recipient to die a slow, agonizing death. We are expected to believe that the deaths are instead merely a "side-effect" of the drugs, because the drugs themselves are innocent. Are you confused yet? This slight-of-hand would be the envy of any magician.
In Nazi Germany, was it just a side effect of Zyklon B gas that caused the skin of victims to be colored pink with red and green spots, with some foaming at the mouth and bleeding from the ears? It all sounds so much nicer when the effects of poisoning people are referred to as just "side-effects", as if they were just unexpected accidents devoid of all evil intent.
Chemotherapy is specifically designed to attack the body, so poisoning is actually its intended use; and therefore, the horrific destruction of its victims is certainly not just an unintended side-effect. The allopathic medical industry claims that if a body is attacked with a poison, then the cancer cells (which are said to be weaker) will die first. However, chemotherapy does not discriminate, and it weakens the healthy cells to such a point that the victim is almost certain to become cancerous again in the future, even when the treatments appear to work. In some cases, a body will simply shutdown as a side-effect of such poisoning. These are iatrogenic deaths (caused by physicians). Yes, it is so common that they actually have a word for it. We call it genocide.
To truly grasp what happens during chemotherapy, read this article by parents who lost their son to treatments which were known to be completely ineffective against his form of cancer. There is something terribly wrong with our current system of medicine, or should we call it "science"?