| 20 December,
2003
..."The FDA claims it is afraid that "people
could cancel their surgery, radiation or chemotherapy in favor of
herbal cures that cost hundreds of dollars." I'd like to ask
if the government has totaled up the cost of surgery, radiation
and chemotherapy lately? These established medical treatments total
up into the tens of thousands, not hundreds, per person. But I don't
see the government concerned about these skyrocketing costs...
....That's right, according to the "Journal of the American
Medical Association" Vol. 284 July 26, 2000, things like unnecessary
surgery, medication errors, negative effects of drugs, etc., cause
almost as many deaths as heart disease and cancer.
This comes to a total to 250,000 deaths per year from iatrogenic
causes! Iatrogenic means it was caused by a physician's activity,
manner, or therapy. And these estimates are for deaths only and
do not include negative effects that are associated with disability
or discomfort!
Doesn't this beg the question, "Is treatment from a doctor
safe?" Yet I do not see the government addressing this issue
in any way...
...This prompts me to ask, who is the government protecting? And
why?"...
Given the dismal track record of modern medicine they (FDA etc.)
have no right to force people into dangerous procedures or drugs.
If the mainstream health system provided real solutions and cures
then why should anyone waste their time with alternatives in the
first place. As far as I am concerned no one has the right to tell
me what to do. The medical system should not be a monopoly in the
first place. It is only so because we let them get away with crimes
of medicine day in and day out."...
Chris Gupta
http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/chris/2003/12/11/
operation_cureall_whose_cure.htm
OPERATION CURE
ALL -- WHOSE CURE?
Tue, 4 Sep 2001 22:42:43 -0700
Please read the following excellent but sobering article and spread
it far and wide. Thanks to Myra Elaine for the following:
September 3, 2001
OPERATION CURE.ALL -- WHOSE CURE?
by Ruth James
Something very disturbing happened this week. The long arm of the
government got longer. Going by the name of Operation Cure.All,
the FDA and the FTC have launched a joint campaign to cure themselves
of all competition.
Apparently, the growing popularity of alternative medicine and
sales of health products are putting a dent in big medicine's pockets.
So much so, that they've launched a serious campaign on and offline
against it.
The government's proclaimed goal is protecting the health of citizens.
To that end, testimonials are basically deemed unsubstantiated and
deceptive unless they follow stringent rules and legalities set
up by the government.
One of these rules is that testimonials and endorsements must be
backed up by "competent and reliable scientific evidence"
(i.e., scientific tests, analyses, research, and studies). While
this sounds commendable, what does this really mean?
It means that unless there are clinical studies, research, tests
and analysis behind even the most mundane statement, it cannot be
used. Most of us are not qualified to do scientific research, nor
do we have the money to hire a scientist to do it for us every time
we want to give a testimonial.
The government requires that testimonials cannot imply that they
treat, cure, prevent, or mitigate any disease. What makes it difficult
is that exactly what is permissible and what is not is extremely
complex and baffling. The average person could not possibly understand
the 50 pages the FDA takes up explaning the regulations and all
their intricacies without a skilled lawyer.
In addition, there are only certain ways testimonials can be structured,
called "structure/function" rules. In most cases, a genuine
statement from an average person would not fill the criteria of
"structure/function." Even if someone were aware of the
stringent rules that applied, it would be very difficult for anyone
but a skilled lawyer to give an acceptable testimony.
Since very few testimonies are legal, this nearly completely and
conveniently eliminates using them. As an added burden, if all the
correct documentation exists and the testimony is structured correctly,
a report must be filed with the FDA within 30 days of using the
testimony. It appears the government has found a way to tie the
hands of Internet health companies so that testimonies about their
products cannot be heard.
Another one of the new regulations is under the guise of 'deception.'
While I agree that advertising should not be misleading, it is now
illegal for health websites to mention the name of a condition,
such as 'headache,' 'arthritis,' 'heart disease,' or even 'pain'
anywhere, not only in testimonials. Symptoms relating to diseases
also cannot be used because they IMPLY a disease condition. Even
a factual statement such as, "According to the National Cancer
Institute, ingredient X protects smoker's lungs," is considered
an impermissible disease claim.
Basically, no relationship can exist between a supplement and a
disease condition. Even natural states such as pregnancy, menopause
and menstrual cycles qualify as diseases! All I can say is, its
going to be very hard for health websites, including mine, to explain
their products in anything but the most watered-down terms.
The other major area of concern is that the FDA has taken the position
that Internet advertising qualifies as labeling, and therefore falls
within its scope of its authority.
So, if someone makes a claim that a supplement will treat, cure,
prevent, or mitigate a disease, the supplement loses its status
as a supplement and is then categorized as a drug.
And?all drugs must pass the FDA's review process to ensure that
they are safe and effective for their represented uses. This is
a rigorous and incredibly expensive and lengthy review process that
nobody really wants to go through - not even the drug companies!
But until it is completed, the FDA considers the product to be an
unapproved new drug, which may not be marketed. And putting some
teeth into their decree, the FDA has the authority to seize the
product if it is distributed to the public.
Now that's power! Designed to make Internet health marketers shake
in their boots, no doubt.
The FDA and FTC take the position that they have the jurisdiction
to control freedom of speech for the sake of protecting public health.
They argue that 'deception' is misleading the public. They are doing
their best to discredit promotions that use words like "exclusive
products," "secret ingredient" or "ancient remedy"
-- claiming that these are meaningless scientific terms.
As far as I know, nobody was ever trying to call them scientific
terms. They are marketing terms, pure and simple. They were never
meant to be scientific. I mean, would you mistake "secret ingredient"
or "ancient remedy" for a scientific term? You'll find
these terms in many books on headlines and sales letters. I don't
think anyone would be foolish enough to go searching for them in
a researcher's study. Why is the government implying there is deception
here?
The government gave their approval for drug companies to advertise
their prescription medications in TV commercials and in magazine
ads. TV viewers are blasted with them every night. But they want
to make sure that information about natural products is suppressed.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what's going on
here.
The FDA claims it is afraid that "people could cancel their
surgery, radiation or chemotherapy in favor of herbal cures that
cost hundreds of dollars." I'd like to ask if the government
has totaled up the cost of surgery, radiation and chemotherapy lately?
These established medical treatments total up into the tens of thousands,
not hundreds, per person. But I don't see the government concerned
about these skyrocketing costs.
After all, there's a whole industry out there profiting from it.
Think of all the hospitals and cancer centers in existence with
all the equipment they purchase and all the people they employ.
Think of all the companies that manufacture this specialized equipment.
And think of all the medical schools and nursing schools that train
doctors and nurses to use it. Think of the drug companies that manufacture
chemo and all the money they make from it. And don't forget the
insurance companies.
When you think of all this, you can get a picture of just the 'cancer
industry' alone. Yet the government is afraid a few people might
spend a few hundred dollars on natural substances? No, they are
afraid the cancer industry might lose money. They are afraid that
since the sales of health items are increasing, they are losing
their edge - that their brainwashing of the public is growing thin.
Hence, they have come out with a new campaign of fresh ideas for
re-brainwashing the public.
Also targeted is a device that delivers a mild electric current
that purportedly kills the parasites causing such serious diseases
as cancer and Alzheimer's. I tried such a device personally. Did
it work? No. But I'm glad I had the freedom to try it and find out
for myself. The mild electric current didn't hurt me and the cost
was insignificant.
The FDA and FTC are also concerned that those with HIV or AIDS
could use St. John's Wort as a treatment for the disease. And that
St. John's Wort is known to interfere with proven HIV/AIDS medications.
I seriously doubt that very many HIV or AIDS patients would use
St. John's Wort as their sole treatment. But if they do, why should
the government prohibit them? Why shouldn't they have the choice?
I picked up an issue of 'People' magazine the other day. I was
astounded when I opened to a very convincing full-color, two- page
ad placed by the government discrediting what they called 'unsubstantiated
and undocumented' claims by health companies. They urged readers
not try any health product without discussing it with their doctor
first and going to the government website.
Discussing it with your doctor? We can pretty well predict how
that will turn out. How many doctors know anything about all the
health products available? How many doctors even know anything about
nutrition, considering doctors are only required to take one course
on nutrition? How many doctors are interested in anything natural,
considering they are trained to dispense drugs, and are given bonuses
and incentives to do so (even all-expense paid vacations to exotic
locations for 'training')? How many doctors even care that the medicine
they give you for your heart may damage your nerves or your liver?
Several times, I have refused medication due to side effects. I
was treated with utter disgust and contempt by the doctors and their
staff. A friend of mine cancelled surgery on her nose for a skin
problem, only to receive an irate call from her doctor who blamed
her for negatively impacting his income!
Not only that, but I have seen many of my friends and relatives
go through chemo. I've seen what it can do to the body and the brain.
And I've seen too many young women die horrible deaths shortly after
starting chemo. And still others died the second time around, because
the chemo-treated cancer returned.
Yet the only three legal treatments for cancer in this country
are chemotherapy, surgery, and radiation.
Does the government require doctors to give you the rates of failure
with chemo or the side-effects of radiation? Does the government
even require the doctors to tell you that there were 17,000 deaths
from Aspirin alone last year? How about the fact that doctors are
the third leading cause of death in America today?
That's right, according to the "Journal of the American Medical
Association" Vol. 284 July 26, 2000, things like unnecessary
surgery, medication errors, negative effects of drugs, etc., cause
almost as many deaths as heart disease and cancer.
This comes to a total to 250,000 deaths per year from iatrogenic
causes! Iatrogenic means it was caused by a physician's activity,
manner, or therapy. And these estimates are for deaths only and
do not include negative effects that are associated with disability
or discomfort!
Doesn't this beg the question, "Is treatment from a doctor
safe?" Yet I do not see the government addressing this issue
in any way.
It is a known fact the US health care system is the most expensive
in the world, yet the quality of health in the US rates poorly.
In a recent comparison of the health care in 13 countries, the United
States ranked an average of 12th (second from the bottom) for 16
available health indicators. In another study by the World Health
Organization of 25 industrialized countries, the US ranked 15th.
This prompts me to ask, who is the government protecting? And why?
I'll never forget one brave woman with cancer that I knew who chose
to die naturally, without chemo or radiation. She died in peace,
surrounded by her loving family, with all her wits about her. In
contrast, I remember the horrible deaths of my friends who received
full doses of chemo and died anyway. They had loving families too,
but they did not die gracefully or in peace. The chemo had affected
their mental (and emotional and physical) faculties and they lost
touch with the world long before it seemed right.
And then, I read about how 'required' food labels, mandated by
the FDA, are concealing a hardened killer - trans fat, found in
snack foods. The labels are not required to mention trans fat. Yet
trans fat is considered worse than saturated fat by some scientists.
It elevates bad cholesterol; lowers good cholesterol; increases
triglycerides; and makes blood platelets stickier, increasing the
chance of clots. Even if the saturated fat content of a food is
low, the trans fat content can be very high.
Back in 1999 a cost-benefit analysis done for the FDA estimated
that labeling trans fat would save $3 billion to $8 billion annually
in averted heart disease costs. And labeling would save from 2,000
to 5,000 lives a year. But the FDA has not yet required industrial
trans fat to be listed on labels. This means the labels are actually
MISLEADING heart patients, diabetics, athletes and millions of other
consumers who watch their fat intake.
But the FDA has been reluctant to require labeling. Aren't they
concerned that 'Nutritional Facts' labels on foods are misleading?
Perhaps their logic is, why should they bother the big snack food
manufacturers? After all, they insure the hospitals get plenty of
patients. And nobody knows about trans fat anyway. It's so much
easier to target the health food and supplement industry. It's so
much easier to declare that websites are a form of 'labels' and
slap on regulations. And its easy to discredit a smaller industry
that is concerned about real health.
Every time the FDA attempts to require that nutritional supplements
be obtained by prescription only, there is tremendous public outcry.
Petitions are circulated, letters are send in, calls are placed.
The government is forced to back off due to public indignation.
Now, they have found a way to gain a stronghold. They have found
a way to slip suppression of nutritional information past the public.
They are hoping you never know of this. And that you don't notice
what is not being said so that they can creep a little further,
with each new regulation, into taking your health choices away until
they are eventually controlling all your health decisions.
Ask yourself, whose health is the government really concerned about?
Yours or the pockets of the drug and medical industry? Don't let
them take your choices away from you.
Right now there is no coalition to fight the new regulations.
There is no advocate to represent nutritional companies in Washington
DC. If we don't speak out individually and collectively, the government
will take further infringements upon our freedom of choice in health.
If you would like your voice to be heard, please contact your federal
representatives and complain. You can find the names and contact
information of your representatives here: http://www.house.gov
and your senators here: http://www.senate.gov/
FTC Announcement
Ruth James
rjames@therealessentials.com
========================
Ingri Cassel, President
Vaccination Liberation - Idaho Chapter
P.O. Box 1444
Coeur d'Alene, Idaho 83816
(208)255-2307/ 765-8421
vaclib@coldreams.com
"The Right to Know, The Freedom to Abstain"
www.vaclib.org
See also:
Drugs
Do Not Work On Most Patients
THE
ALPHA OMEGA STORY - another FDA Scam
Death of the newsletter and my FMS/CFIDS website??
http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/chris/
|
