The Laws of the
It is not in the financial interests of the pharmaceutical industry to prevent or cure common diseases but rather manage them in the most profitable way.
The maintenance and expansion of diseases is a precondition for the financial growth of the pharmaceutical "disease business".
1 The pharmaceutical industry is an investment industry driven by the profits of its shareholders. Improving human health is not the driving force of this industry.
2 The pharmaceutical investment industry was artificially created and strategically developed over an entire century by the same investment groups that control the global petrochemical and chemical industries.
3 The huge profits of the pharmaceutical industry are based on the patenting of new drugs. These patents essentially allow drug manufacturers to arbitrarily define the profits for their products.
4 The marketplace for the pharmaceutical industry is the human body – but only for as long as the body hosts diseases. Thus, maintaining and expanding diseases is a precondition for the growth of the pharmaceutical industry.
5 A key strategy to accomplish this goal is the development of drugs that merely mask symptoms while avoiding the curing or elimination of diseases. This explains why most prescription drugs marketed today have no proven efficacy and merely target symptoms.
6 To further expand their pharmaceutical market, the drug companies are continuously looking for new applications (indications) for the use of drugs they already market. For example, Bayer’s pain pill Aspirin is now taken by 50 million healthy US citizens under the illusion it will prevent heart attacks.
7 Another key strategy to expand pharmaceutical markets is to cause new diseases with drugs. While merely masking symptoms short term, most of the prescription drugs taken by millions of patients today cause a multitude of new diseases as a result of their known long-term side effects. For example, all cholesterol-lowering drugs currently on the market are known to increase the risk of developing cancer – but only after the patient has been taking the drug for several years.
8 The known deadly side effects of prescription drugs are the fourth leading cause of death in the industrialized world, surpassed only by the number of deaths from heart attacks, cancer and strokes (Journal of the American Medical Association, April 15, 1998). This fact is no surprise either, because drug patents are primarily issued for new synthetic molecules. All synthetic molecules need to be detoxified and eliminated from the body, a system that frequently fails and results in an epidemic of severe and deadly side effects.
9 While the promotion and expansion of diseases increase the market of the pharmaceutical investment industry - prevention and root cause treatment of diseases decrease long-term profitability; therefore, they are avoided or even obstructed by this industry.
10 Worst of all, the eradication of diseases is by its very nature incompatible with and diametrically opposed to the interests of the pharmaceutical investment industry. The eradication of diseases now considered as potential drug markets will destroy billions of investment dollars and eventually will eliminate this entire industry.
11 Vitamins and other effective natural health therapies that optimize cellular metabolism threaten the pharmaceutical "business with disease" because they target the cellular cause of today’s most common diseases - and these natural substances cannot be patented.12
Throughout the more than one hundred year existence of the pharmaceutical industry, vitamins and other essential nutrients, with defined functions as cofactors in cellular metabolism, have been the fiercest competition and the greatest threat to the long-term success of the pharmaceutical investment business.
13 Vitamins and other effective natural health therapies that effectively prevent diseases are incompatible with the very nature of the pharmaceutical "business with disease."14 To protect the strategic development of its investment business against the threat from effective, natural and non-patentable therapies, the pharmaceutical industry has – over an entire century - used the most unscrupulous methods, such as:
15 The pharmaceutical "business with disease" is the largest deception and fraud business in human history. The product "health" promised by drug companies is not delivered to millions of patients. Instead, the "products" most often delivered are the opposite: new diseases and frequently, death. [I think the petroleum industry would have to appear somewhere on the list - i.e., for suppression of free energy.]
16 The survival of the pharmaceutical industry is dependent on the elimination by any means of effective natural health therapies. These natural and non-patentable therapies have become the treatment of choice for millions of people despite the combined economic, political and media opposition of the world’s largest investment industry.
The Pharmaceutical Cartel
The Pharmaceutical companies are certainly NOT "leading the search for cures" but are in fact responsible for "creating" some devastating diseases and squelching any independent research that does discover a cure.
"It used to be that drug companies simply gave grants to academic medical centres for the use of their clinical researchers to do a study and that was it. It was at arm's length. The researcher did a study and he or she published the results, whatever those results would be. Now, it's very, very different.
"The drug companies increasingly design the studies. They keep the data. They don't even let the researchers see the data. They analyse the data. They decide whether they're going to even publish the data at the end of it. They sign contracts with researchers and with academic medical centres saying that they don't get to publish their work unless they get permission from the drug company.
"So, you can see that the distortion starts even before publication. It starts in determining what's going to be published and what isn't going to be published. This is no longer arm's length. It's treating the researchers and the academic medical centres as though they were hired guns or technicians or something.
"They just do the work. And the drug company will
decide what the data show, what the conclusions are and whether it will even be
& Sabins' Tainted Polio Vaccine?"
Cancer Cure you'll never get!
links on everything about Vaccines & much more
Berlin Tribunal (Acrobat Reader file)
CHICAGO—Adverse drug reactions (ADRs) in U.S. hospitals may be responsible for more than 100,000 deaths nationwide each year, making it one of the leading causes of death, according to an article in the April 14 issue of The Journal of American Medical Association (JAMA).
Bruce H. Pomeranz, M.D., Ph.D., and colleagues from the University of Toronto, analyzed 39 studies of ADRs in the United States to estimate the incidence of serious and fatal adverse drug reactions in hospital patients. To obtain overall incidence rates of ADRs in hospitalized patients, the researchers combined the incidence of ADRs in the hospital and the incidence of ADRs causing admission to the hospital.
The authors estimated that 2,216,000 hospital patients experienced a serious ADR and 106,000 deaths were caused by ADRs in the United States. This could account for 4.6 percent of all causes of recorded death in 1994, making these reactions between the fourth and sixth leading cause of death.
The World Health Organization defines ADRs as any noxious, unintended and undesired effect of a drug, which occurs at doses used in humans for prophylaxis [prevention], diagnosis or therapy. The authors define a serious ADR as one requiring hospitalization prolonging hospitalization, or one that is permanently disabling or results in death.
The researchers found no significant correlation between ADR incidence and year the studies were conducted. They write: "This result seems surprising since great changes have occurred over the last four decades in U.S. hospitals that should have affected the incidence of ADRs. Perhaps, while length of hospital stay is decreasing, the number of drugs per day may be rising to compensate. Therefore, while the actual incidence of ADRs has not changed over the last 32 years, the pattern of their occurrence has, undoubtedly changed," the authors write.
The authors determined that ADRs are one of the leading causes of death by using the highest and lowest possible estimates. Using the higher estimate placed ADRs as the fourth leading cause of death, behind heart disease (743,460 deaths), cancer (529,904 deaths) and stroke (150,108 deaths). Using the lower estimate placed ADRs as the sixth leading cause of death behind those previously mentioned, as well as pulmonary disease (101,077 deaths) and accidents (90,523 deaths). ADRs would then rank ahead of pneumonia and diabetes.
The authors conclude: "While our results must be viewed with some
circumspection because of the heterogeneity among the studies and small biases
in the sample, these data suggest that ADRs represent an important clinical
Editorial: How Worried Should We Be?
In an accompanying editorial in the April 15 JAMA, David W. Bates, M.D., M.Sc., of Partners Healthcare Systems, and Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Mass., cautions that there are several concerns about the way the study was done, although the authors adhered to the generally accepted criteria for meta-analyses. "First, an inherent limitation of meta-analysis is that combining the results of small, heterogeneous studies does not necessarily bring one closer to truth, particularly if the processes used to identify and to validate the presence of the events were heterogeneous. Second, the hospitals studied are probably not representative of hospitals at large. Such studies are more likely to be conducted in academic, tertiary care hospitals; these hospitals have sicker patients, and these patients have more ADRs. Another issue is whether the sites of care sampled within the institutions were representative of the institutions."
Dr. Bates adds: "Nonetheless, these data are important, and even if the
true incidence of ADRs is somewhat lower than that reported ... it is still
high, and much higher than generally recognized."
Side-effects of drugs kill thousands
Friday July 2, 2004
The study, published in the British Medical Journal today, finds that one in 16 of all admissions to hospital is caused by the side-effects of a drug. The cost to the NHS of the mostly avoidable treatment of these patients is estimated at £466m a year.
The researchers investigated the reasons why 18,820 patients were admitted to two hospitals in Merseyside during a six-month period. They found that 1,225 were suffering from an adverse drug reaction (ADR). Most patients recovered, but 28 died.
The authors, Munir Pirmohamed, professor of clinical pharmacology at Liverpool University, and colleagues, say that their figures suggest that drug side-effects caused the deaths of about 5,700 patients.
They say that at any one time "the equivalent of up to seven 800-bed hospitals may be occupied by patients admitted with ADRs ... Measures are urgently needed to reduce the burden on the NHS".
Drug giant accused of
July 11  — The questions began with the confession of an insider at one of the nation’s largest pharmaceutical firms. He says his former company deliberately distorted information about one of its drugs, possibly putting lives at risk, and costing patients and taxpayers millions of dollars. "Dateline" went looking for some answers and has the results of a year-long investigation into what may be one of the biggest medical deceptions in history. NBC’s John Hockenberry reports.
DAVID FRANKLIN: "I was trained to deceive, to lie to doctors."
John Hockenberry: "So these doctors were completely misled?"
Franklin: "It was my responsibility to leverage the trust that physicians had with pharmaceutical companies to corrupt the relationship between the physician and the patient."
John Hockenberry: "Your job was to find trust, and exploit it, to produce more sales for Warner-Lambert."
Franklin: "The medical liaison was supposed to be fair and balanced, where the physician could trust what the medical liaison was telling them."
Hockenberry: "So, doctors wouldn’t necessarily see you as a company guy, as much as they would see you as a scientist. As as a medical doctor, like them in a way."
Franklin: "Exactly. A person whose primary responsibility is to care of the patients, making sure that the doctor, to enable the doctor to practice the best possible medicine that science would allow at this point in time."
Hockenberry: "So, a doctor needs more drugs for their practice. They call the salesman. But if they have questions about the medical use of that drug, they call you."
Franklin: "It was a matter of leveraging, corrupting, if you would,
perverting the science, to greatly increase sales and profitability."
But mostly this is the story of how David Franklin helped one little drug
become a star: Gabapentin, one of the drugs Franklin was responsible for, which
goes by the brand name Neurontin. Neurontin is a useful and generally safe drug.
The Food and Drug Administration approved it in 1993, but for only one use —
to help control epileptic seizures and only if taken in conjunction with another
Hockenberry: "Warner-Lambert basically told you, ‘The FDA says, scientifically, Neurontin treats epilepsy. But we can convince doctors. And here’s how you’ll do it, to use Neurontin for a dozen other things."
Franklin: "Absolutely. This was holding their hands and pushing them
into to using Neurontin off-label."
Hockenberry: "So it’s legal for doctors to say, ‘You know what? I think this drug that is approved for your ear might be good for your throat.’"
Franklin: "Not only is it legal, but it’s good medical
Sheehan: "Every prescription drug is an inherently dangerous product
with the potential to kill people as well as cure them. That’s why we have
very strict regulation, that’s why we have rules about what marketing and
promotion they can do. That’s why we have rules about what they can produce
and how they produce it."
Franklin: "If I were to show up at a doctor’s office and say, ‘Dr.
Franklin is here to speak to Dr. Smith,’ Dr. Smith is much more likely to
respond, as opposed to his receptionist calling him in his office, and saying,
‘The Warner-Lambert sales rep is here to talk to you.’"
Hockenberry: "So, you could have had a Ph.D. in economics or metallurgy, and it would have been just as fine?"
Franklin: "As long as it granted me the title of Dr. Franklin."
Hockenberry: "What were you told to tell doctors about your background?"
Franklin: "We actually trained the sales representatives to introduce me as an expert in cardiovascular medicine."
Hockenberry: "Were you?"
Franklin: "Absolutely not. My Ph.D. was in microbiology. At 9 in the morning I was an expert in cardiovascular medicine. At 10 when we walked across the street to a neurologist office, I was an expert in neurology."
Was there a risk? Adams’ dosage was tripled. Neurontin is known to have few if any side effects, one of its big selling points. But Neurontin was now Adams’ only treatment for bipolar disorder, which was very risky because Neurontin, it turns out, does essentially nothing for bipolar disorder — and that’s a scientific fact.
Dr. Gary Sachs: "Neurontin’s a drug that has been studied under double-blind conditions twice. And in neither case did it prove to have any efficacy at all."
Hockenberry: "In neither case?"
Sachs: "In neither case."
Hockenberry: "So, based on the science, someone with bipolar who’s only taking Neurontin is essentially untreated."
Sachs: "I think that’s a fair assumption."
Hockenberry: "If your doctor gives you something, your assumption is that it works, and that somebody’s shown that it works, right?"
Hockenberry: "In the case of Neurontin, was any of that true?"
Adams: "Not for me."
Hockenberry: "What do you have to say to the drug company that might have been very interested in doctors’ prescribing their medication?"
Adams: "I think that they’re greedy, and they just are after
money. And they don’t really care about the person who takes the medicine,
Hockenberry: "And would they do it?"
Franklin: "It’s remarkable the high percentage of physicians that would do this."
Hockenberry: "How did you feel?"
Franklin: "I would leave a physician’s office in pain. There was
no other way of describing it. This is — I was in — a combination of
embarrassed by what I had just done, felt responsibility to the patient, to the
doctor and the patient, that I had just misled this individual. And that some
third party that wasn’t even in the room, some patient, may actually be
impacted by it."
Franklin: "I was pressured to fill the gap that the sales team, the
actual sales representatives weren’t filling. That the sales representatives
weren’t as effective as medical liaisons. And that we had to, I think the
quote was, to take the ball and run with it."
Franklin saved this voicemail because he could barely believe what his boss was saying: sell Neurontin expressly for uses not approved by the FDA. Franklin was frightened. What he was being asked to do, he believed, was illegal. So he began to tape more conversations and messages from company officials. Here’s a quote from a senior Warner-Lambert executive on a conference call:
And then he said this:
We showed Assistant U.S. Attorney Jim Sheehan that colorful quote.
Hockenberry: "You know, I don’t know if I’d use the word advocacy. I might use, like, threat."
Sheehan: "When I look at this, Neurontin not for pain, not an
on-label use, Neurontin for bipolar, not approved, no application for that
either. Neurontin for everything, well, that’s pretty obvious."
Franklin: "If you are willing to allow a sales representative to
spend a day with you as you see patients, we’ll compensate you for that. We’ll
pay you for it."
Franklin: "I knew that in the period of time that I had been there,
my own personal behavior was illegal, that I had done things that were simply
Franklin: ""Either I needed to own up to this now and put it behind me, or at some point in the future, this could come back, and I’d find myself on the wrong side of this investigation. I did believe, when I left, that they were so aggressively ramping this up, that at some point, someone would expose what was going on there. And therefore, I would find myself in the equally, or even more difficult, position of trying to explain why I ignored an obvious illegal and immoral activity within the company."
So on July 29, he drove to a co-worker’s home, dropped off his office keys and company car and turned his back on Parke-Davis for good. Next stop? Greene and Hoffman attorneys at law.
Franklin: "I showed up to their office saying, I’ve— I’m in
trouble. And I need some help out of this."
Tom Greene: "We had no idea the extent of the Neurontin
prescriptions, how successful this program had been."
Greene: "There are countless documents that support what he says and
go far beyond his story and bring the level of knowledge of this illegal
marketing program to the highest levels of the company."
Greene: "They wanted to disseminate knowledge of these off-label
uses throughout the medical literature. They hired outside companies to write
articles about off-label uses so that the message about off-label use of
Neurontin could be planted in the medical literature around the country, and
indeed around the world."
Sheehan: "You are attempting to create a false impression, and you are making false representations, and you’re doing it for money. I just don’t see how that approach can be supported or can be viewed as appropriate."
Hockenberry: "You know, it’s always been my impression that the finding of an author precedes the actual writing of the paper."
Sheehan: "One would hope that’s what would happen."
Hockenberry: "Did you pay doctors?"
Franklin: "I personally did not pay physicians. What my
responsibility was, was to let physicians know that there was money available to
Relman: "What you have is an unproven drug being widely used for
difficult problems by doctors who are given a powerful economic incentive to do
it, spurred on by a company that’s wildly aggressive in its marketing."
Adams: "Now that I look back, and that I know what I know now, I
wouldn’t have ever taken the drug. I want everybody to know that’s taking
this drug the truth about it."
Franklin: "Actually interviewing for this position, I was asked
about giving examples of where I had to bend the rules in the past and how I
handled that and how comfortable was I working in gray areas."
Hockenberry: "But even after you get a settlement, if you do, or a judgment if you do, or the case just completely goes away if it does, there are patients out there who took drugs based on decisions doctors made relying on your judgment."
Hockenberry: "They could be hurt because of that."
Franklin: "They may have been hurt. And that’s something that I wrestle with."
Hockenberry: "What’s to wrestle with? If they’re hurting, it’s because of you."
Franklin: "It’s because of me. There hasn’t been a day in six years that I haven’t thought about this and wrestled with my involvement in it and the guilt I feel associated with it, and the sense that I need to correct it."
"The sincerest motives of the medical PROFESSION are derailed by the greed and power of the medical INDUSTRY."
The Medical System in the USA is guilty of deception, fraud, murder, and cover-ups. But this does not mean the entire system is useless. Rarely is anything bad w/o some good. An MD's skills are wonderfully used when they can save lives from accidents, gunshots, birth defects, and such. If you are ever shot or injured, the first place you want to go is the Emergency Room, staffed with well-trained, competent surgeons! It is not this area of medicine that is the problem. It is the area of treating illness or diseases where the problem exists, and the problem lies mainly with the system's control over what options the MD's have available.
For example: if you are ever diagnosed with cancer, you need to know that your MD or Oncologist is legally forbidden from curing your cancer. Their hands are tied by the FDA and AMA, who have used their power to pass legislation forbidding any licensed MD from treating cancer with anything other than treatments that have never proven to work - surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy.
Did you know? The average lifespan of the average American is 75 years, while the average lifespan of your MD is 58 years! Following your doctor's advice can cost you 17 years of your life (if you're lucky)!! Is there something our Doctor's are not being taught?
In spite of our supposedly superior medical technology, the USA is #1 in the world in degenerative disease and the 20th in life expectancy. - World Health Organization.
"Heart disease, cancer, stroke are the top 3 killers in our country [Despite the fact that all 3 of these diseases have been curable for decades]. The 4th major killer in the US is prescription drugs." - USA Today
Did you know that each of these diseases was cured over 20 years ago: diabetes, heart disease, muscular dystrophy, cystic fibrosis, osteoporosis, arthritis, ulcers and others? Yes, each of these diseases has been cured - in animals, not in people! Why not in us? Could there be something veterinarians know that our doctors are not allowed to tell us?
Any treatment that you can obtain and self-administer threatens to remove your doctor from the treatment program. Although your doctor may not object to this, the American Medical Association (AMA) is strongly opposed to such a trend. For this reason the American Medical Association has pushed for legislation to prevent the public from ever being exposed to alternatives.
The term conspiracy has become extremely unfashionable. It is popular to label anyone who points out a conspiracy as paranoid. This reaction is so prevalent that we have developed into a society of closed minds. Open up a bit and consider what powerful drug companies have accomplished after decades of a Congress for sale. The legislation that the Pharma-Cartel companies have managed to get passed has a real effect on anyone who becomes sick.
Table of Contents
Is US Health Really the Best in the World?
These total to 225,000 deaths per year!!!225,000 deaths per year constitutes the third leading cause of death in the United States, after deaths from heart disease and cancer. Journal of the American Medical Assoc.
Comparative cost: new drugs
v older drugs
"The cost per pill is roughly ONE TO THREE CENTS per pill in contrast to A DOLLAR OR MORE per pill for some of the more expensive medicines that are currently available," Dr. Appel said.
Dr. Appel adds the results of the study may encourage doctors to prescribe diuretics more often for their patients with hypertension.
But then again maybe not, since he says the drugs are no longer aggressively made and promoted by large pharmaceutical companies.
Revealed: how drug firms 'hoodwink' medical journals
Pharmaceutical giants hire ghostwriters to produce articles - then put doctors' names on them
Antony Barnett, public affairs editor
Sunday December 7, 2003
Hundreds of articles in medical journals claiming to be written by academics or doctors have been penned by ghostwriters in the pay of drug companies, an Observer inquiry reveals.
The journals, bibles of the profession, have huge influence on which drugs doctors prescribe and the treatment hospitals provide. But The Observer has uncovered evidence that many articles written by so-called independent academics may have been penned by writers working for agencies which receive huge sums from drug companies to plug their products.
Estimates suggest that almost half of all articles published in journals are by ghostwriters. While doctors who have put their names to the papers can be paid handsomely for 'lending' their reputations, the ghostwriters remain hidden. They, and the involvement of the pharmaceutical firms, are rarely revealed.
These papers endorsing certain drugs are paraded in front of GPs as independent research to persuade them to prescribe the drugs.
In February the New England Journal of Medicine was forced to retract an article published last year by doctors from Imperial College in London and the National Heart Institute on treating a type of heart problem. It emerged that several of the listed authors had little or nothing to do with the research. The deception was revealed only when German cardiologist Dr Hubert Seggewiss, one of the eight listed authors, called the editor of the journal to say he had never seen any version of the paper.
An article published last February in the Journal of Alimentary Pharmacology , which specialises in stomach disorders, involved a medical writer working for drug giant AstraZeneca - a fact that was not revealed by the author.
The article, by a German doctor, acknowledged the 'contribution' of Dr Madeline Frame, but did not admit that she was a senior medical writer for AstraZeneca. The article essentially supported the use of a drug called Omeprazole - which is manufactured by AstraZeneca - for gastric ulcers, despite suggestions that it gave rise to more adverse reactions than similar drugs.
Few within the industry are brave enough to break cover. However, Susanna Rees, an editorial assistant with a medical writing agency until 2002, was so concerned about what she witnessed that she posted a letter on the British Medical Journal website.
'Medical writing agencies go to great lengths to disguise the fact that the papers they ghostwrite and submit to journals and conferences are ghostwritten on behalf of pharmaceutical companies and not by the named authors,' she wrote. 'There is a relatively high success rate for ghostwritten submissions - not outstanding, but consistent.'
Rees said part of her job had been to ensure that any article that was submitted electronically would give no clues as to the origin of the research.
'One standard procedure I have used states that before a paper is submitted to a journal electronically or on disc, the editorial assistant must open the file properties of the Word document manuscript and remove the names of the medical writing agency or agency ghostwriter or pharmaceutical company and replace these with the name and institution of the person who has been invited by the pharmaceutical drug company (or the agency acting on its behalf) to be named as lead author, but who may have had no actual input into the paper,' she wrote.
When contacted, Rees declined to give any details. 'I signed a confidentiality agreement and am unable to comment,' she said.
A medical writer who has worked for a number of agencies did not want to be identified for fear he would not get any work again.
'It is true that sometimes a drug company will pay a medical writer to write a review article supporting a particular drug,' he said. 'This will mean using all published information to write an article explaining the benefits of a particular treatment.
'A recognised doctor will then be found to put his or her name to it and it will be submitted to a journal without anybody knowing that a ghostwriter or a drug company is behind it. I agree this is probably unethical, but all the firms are at it.'
One field where ghostwriting is becoming an increasing problem is psychiatry.
Dr David Healy, of the University of Wales, was doing research on the possible dangers of anti-depressants, when a drug manufacturer's representative emailed him with an offer of help.
The email, seen by The Observer, said: 'In order to reduce your workload to a minimum, we have had our ghostwriter produce a first draft based on your published work. I attach it here.'
The article was a 12-page review paper ready to be presented at an forthcoming conference. Healy's name appeared as the sole author, even though he had never seen a single word of it before. But he was unhappy with the glowing review of the drug in question, so he suggested some changes.
The company replied, saying he had missed some 'commercially important' points. In the end, the ghostwritten paper appeared at the conference and in a psychiatric journal in its original form - under another doctor's name.
Healy says such deception is becoming more frequent. 'I believe 50 per cent of articles on drugs in the major medical journals are not written in a way that the average person would expect them to be... the evidence I have seen would suggest there are grounds to think a significant proportion of the articles in journals such as the New England Journal of Medicine, the British Medical Journal and the Lancet may be written with help from medical writing agencies,' he said. 'They are no more than infomercials paid for by drug firms.'
In the United States a legal case brought against drug firm Pfizer turned up internal company documents showing that it employed a New York medical writing agency. One document analyses articles about the anti-depressant Zoloft. Some of the articles lacked only one thing: a doctor's name. In the margin the agency had put the initials TBD, which Healy assumes means 'to be determined'.
Dr Richard Smith, editor of the British Journal of Medicine, admitted ghostwriting was a 'very big problem' .
'We are being hoodwinked by the drug companies. The articles come in with doctors' names on them and we often find some of them have little or no idea about what they have written,' he said.
'When we find out, we reject the paper, but it is very difficult. In a sense,
we have brought it on ourselves by insisting that any involvement by a drug
company should be made explicit. They have just found ways to get round this and
Written by Scott Tips
Three years ago a film came out of Hollywood that was conceptually great
even if the execution was fatally flawed. Called Idiocracy, this
It is a lesson that modern-day fighters for individual liberty learned
On the other hand, much of today's political and economic structure is
With this in mind, we can see that the larger structures being created
That is precisely why the National Health Federation (NHF)
In particular, NHF has opposed the Codex Vitamin and Mineral Food
In another area, ironically enough, the EU and NHF have worked
Codex guidelines and standards cover many more subjects than those
Bigger Is Not Always Better
In the European Union, which began innocently enough as nothing more
And therein lies the major problem, for the more that you distance the
The problem with the latest attempt to accumulate even more power in
But as unlikely as it may seem now, there is another, more important
The Banality of Centralization
While some might scoff at a future EU dictator in the same way that
This is already taking place. The heavy hand of distant bureaucrats is
Codex and the EU
This, too, is where the worlds of the EU and Codex intersect. Unknown
At Codex meetings, the EU representative has been pushing his narrow
So the EU Superstate - claiming all the while that it of course has
Unless resisted successfully, the end result will be EU markets full of
foods that are less healthy without the availability of food supplements to
bridge the gap. The Idiocracy will have arrived - literally - as the general
population is starved of real nutrition for their brains and bodies. A
compliant, non-rebellious citizenry, what more could our distant Rulers ask
Scott Tips is the President of the National Health Federation (www.thenhf.com)
and the Editor of Health Freedom News magazine.