Natural Solutions Foundation
My nominee for the Hall of Shame: FDA with reference to its banning of Pyridoxamine, a form of Vitamin B-6.
Read on and see if you agree with me.
Big Pharma is part of a mega-cartel that makes its money when you are sick. We might want to call it “Big Sick.” The FDA serves the needs of that super cartel without so much as a second thought; it’s built into the bureaucratic structure. It is an agency that Dr. Ron Paul says engages in “abuses of power.” It is increasingly blatant about it, though, as if there is nothing that can be done to stop it.
The FDA has, for a long time, banned truthful claims and information about the health benefits you can expect from foods and nutrients. Nutrient benefits will cut into the drug pushers’ market substantially, after all. Unless you do not know the good things you can expect from those items, leaving you all the more vulnerable to the drug pushers who are permitted to sell their deadly wares to you over the TV, in magazines and through your doctor’s prescription pads.
Remember that the 1994 law which gives us the right to nutrients in whatever dose we want them, the Dietary Supplements Health and Education Act (DSHEA) also gives us the right to truthful information about nutrients, herbs and food components. In clear violation of that law, and the First Amendment of the Constitution, however, the FDA uses a variety of powers, real and assumed, to suppress both science and facts. Take away the information and you effectively kill the alternatives to the deadly drugs the Big Pharma cartel pushes…
To make matters worse, this same gag rule on truthful speech concerning nutrient health benefits has been brought — by the FDA, of course, to Codex Alimentarius (the “world food code”) where it has been globalized through the efforts of the US delegate (previous Hall of Shame “Honoree” Dr. Barbara Schneeman, head of the FDA’s Department of Dietary Supplements, no less!) and approved by the Codex Committee on Food Labeling and then by the Codex Commission.
Codex says that any information offered to consumers about the health benefits of food or food components is illegal because it is advertising as if advertising were banned. The whole thing lacks logic, but has reason: the reason is to kill nutritional medicine in favor of drugs. This process has gone dangerously far in the EU and is advancing through FDA “HARMonization” of US rules with Codex restrictions.
Remember, our video “Nutricide” is called that for two reasons.
First, “Nutricide” means the death of the body of knowledge of the relationship between health and food components
Second, “Nutricide” means the death of a large number of people through the manipulation of the food supply. You can watch this important lecture by going to www.HealthFreedomUSA.org and scrolling down the video section. It is well worth your time.
This effort to kill nutrients is blatant as blatant can be.
How blatant? This blatant. Read the excellent article below which discusses the absurd ban on a form of activated B6, Pyradoxamine, to see just how shameless this organization is. This form of B6 has been available for decades. Then remember that when we, in our numbers, push back against the FDA, experience shows that we deflect their plans. Yes, they come back again, but we do push them away from the brink time and time again. With your magnificent help.
We thank you for your activism. After reading this article, I am sure that you will agree that eternal vigilance is the price of protecting high potency nutrients and information about them, from those who want to take away our right to access natural health options, including foods that heal!
The Natural Solutions Foundation continues to fight for your health. Please “stay tuned” for action items to oppose the evil that FDA’s bureaucrats seek to perpetuate. Remember to open our Health Freedom Action eAlerts when we send them to you! Please give generously so that we can continue that fight, with you by our side.
————————————- Big Pharma and the FDA: Suppress the Science, Ban the Natural Substances, Sell the Drugs!
Michael D. Ostrolenk
Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 12:31 AM
In 2005, an up-and-coming pharmaceutical company made a big mistake: they invested millions of dollars into developing a drug only to discover that the only active ingredient of the drug, pyridoxamine, was really a common, naturally occurring substance that has been sold for decades at low cost to consumers in the form of a dietary supplement, and has always been available in commonly consumed foods such as chicken and brewer’s yeast.
We’re taught as children that when you make a mistake, you should own up to it and face the consequences. Apparently the pharmaceutical company in question, Biostratum, Inc., has yet to learn that lesson. Instead of owning up to their mistake, Biostratum tried to game the system to their advantage by asking the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to declare supplements containing pyridoxamine “adulterated” and effectively ban anyone but Biostratum from selling pyridoxamine.
Sadly, Biostratum’s desperate ploy to save their investment worked. Earlier this year the FDA agreed to ban companies from selling pyridoxamine as a dietary supplement. They denied the request to declare products containing pyridoxamine “adulterated,” but instead they declared that such products are not dietary supplements at all—claiming they are excluded from the definition of dietary supplements under the “prior market clause” [21 U.S.C. 321(ff)(3)(B)(ii)] and so may not be marketed as such.
Please note that nowhere in the FDA’s response letter is anything said about safety concerns. In fact, the FDA’s letter specifically says that “to allow such an article to be marketed as a dietary supplement would not be fair to the pharmaceutical company that brought, or intends to bring, the drug to market.” Fair to the pharmaceutical companies? What about fairness to consumers, some of whom rely on affordable pyridozxamine supplements to provide the levels of vitamin B-6 required for their survival? Is it fair to force those consumers to pay for expensive prescription drugs and doctors’ visits to supply their B-6 needs when they could get the exact same thing for a fraction of the cost in the form of a supplement? Isn’t this why our health care system is so ineffective?
This is hardly the first time the FDA has attacked naturally occurring substances. On October 17, 2005, the FDA banned information about the health benefits of cherries from appearing on websites—scientifically proven benefits, such as tart cherries’ ability to reduce the risk of colon cancer because of the anthocyanins and cyanidin contained in the cherry. Cherries, according to the latest research, help ease the pain of arthritis and gout; reduce risk factors for heart disease and diabetes; help regulate the body’s natural sleep patterns, aid with jet lag, prevent memory loss, and delay the aging process; and helps lower body fat and cholesterol—risk factors associated with heart disease. Moreover, Scientists at Johns Hopkins have found that tart cherry anthocyanins reduced painful inflammation as well as a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug, indomethacin.
When the 2005 ban was instituted, the FDA sent warning letters to twenty-nine companies that market cherry products. In these letters, they ordered the companies to stop publicizing scientific data about cherries. According to the FDA, when cherry companies disseminate this peer-reviewed scientific information, the cherries become “unapproved new drugs” and are subject to seizure. The FDA warned that if those involved in “cherry trafficking” continue to inform consumers about these scientific studies, criminal prosecutions would ensue.
But fresh fruit and vegetables are not the FDA’s only target: As we reported in this newsletter recently, General Mills was recently issued a warning letter by the FDA for illegally marketing Cheerios Toasted Whole Grain Oat Cereal. The problem was the claim on the cereal box that Cheerios can lower cholesterol 4% in six weeks, and the statement on their website that “diets rich in whole grain foods can reduce the risk of heart disease.” The letter, dated May 5, 2009, called the above claims “serious violations” of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and applicable regulations. FDA stated that based on the claims made, Cheerios is now an unapproved drug, and must go through FDA new drug approval process. Note that the FDA isn’t disputing the claim. It’s disputing the company’s right to make the claim.
As one newspaper columnist humorously put it, “One of these things is not like the others: morphine, penicillin, aspirin, Cheerios. Most drugs, if taken improperly, will kill the consumer or cause substantial bodily harm. An entire bottle of aspirin at one sitting will harm or kill. If Cheerios is a drug, therefore, one should be able to commit suicide by consuming the entire box.”
For years, the FDA barred health claims about the benefits of fish oil for heart, cancer, depression, body pain, and various other conditions until a drug company paid a great deal of money to go through the approval process. This type of enforcement effectively censors scientific information and greatly restricts consumer access to scientific studies that provide valuable information.
In the case of pyridoxamine, the FDA did not act out of concern for public safety. This is about money, and about a profit-seeking corporation taking advantage of what is supposed to be a public health organization in order to save their skins.
HIV kills people. Sure enough. HIV “Medications” kill people, too, and make a lot of money while they do. That’s sure enough, too. But what if the rumors circulating that the “HIV Virus” is not the causative factor in HIV/AIDS are true? What if HIV is another political tool, manufactured in the biological weapon laboratories of the US and its insane allies in bio-engineered death? And what if the proof were presented to you.
What would you do?
Where would you take that information?
If you continue reading, you may have to confront those decisions.
I hope you do continue reading.
Then let’s talk.
Write to us at firstname.lastname@example.org with “HIV SCAM” in the subject line and let’s figure out collectively where to go from here.
And if you don’t think for a moment that this battle will take resources, think again.
So I am asking you to include in the email you send some suggestions for resources: human time (volunteer, research assistance, writing, website, etc.), financial resources (donations, fund raisers), dissemination strategies, resources to bring to the table (scientists, organizers, musicians, etc.).
You can donate to the Natural Solutions Foundation at http://drrimatruthreports.com/?page_id=189. All US donations are tax deductible.
Spread the word and ask everyone you know to join the Health Freedom eAlerts, http://drrimatruthreports.com/?page_id=187, for up to the minute information and Action Items.
“To overturn orthodoxy is no easier in science than in philosophy, religion,
economics, or any of the other disciplines through which we try to
comprehend the world and the society in which we live.”
Ruth Hubbard US biologist b.1924
Considering how AIDS saturates our public discourse, galvanises our
politicians, thrills our gee-whiz journalists, inspires our musicians,
worries our clergy, agitates our AIDS-activist lawyers, perturbs the judges
of even our highest court, engages the South African Law Commission’s
energies in cooking up imaginative new bills, dominates our medical research
effort, infuses exciting new relevance into tired careers in virology
departments, and siphons off our tax rands into the pockets of our condom
missionaries and ‘AIDS counselors’ proselytizing indefatigably to a stubborn
public, your regular guy might be excused for believing that our country and
the world were in the throes of a dire public health crisis, a new Black
Death, and for thinking that the fact of it was as certain as any in science
about which there obtains a universal consensus.
In fact, hundreds of scientists of the highest rank disagree with the
HIV-AIDS causation hypothesis. They think ‘AIDS’ as a medical construct is a
passing fad, a fashionable new name for age-old ills, and that boiled down,
AIDS is just money spinning political kitsch. In their most assiduous
dissents they emphasize that ‘HIV’ has never been isolated under the
well-settled rules for viral isolation, assert that ‘HIV’ has never been
shown to exist as an infectious entity of exogenous origin, and demonstrate
that every protein claimed uniquely to be constituent of ‘HIV’ is actually
cellular, not viral – in other words, that all HIV-positive test results are
false positives. In short, they consider the HIV-AIDS paradigm a scientific
blunder of biblical proportions, and its experts foolish quacks. These AIDS
dissidents include professors emeriti at the pinnacle of their specialities
in cell-biology, virology and related fields. They also include leading
mathematicians, actuaries, and law and history professors. Among them are
two exceptionally distinguished Nobel laureates in our time, Walter Gilbert
(Chemistry 1980), and the Einstein of modern biology, Kary Mullis (Chemistry
Dr Peter Duesberg, professor of cell-biology, University of California at
Berkeley, member of The National Academy of Sciences: Before Duesberg’s
wrecking-ball challenge to Gallo’s HIV-AIDS theory was published as an
invited paper in the prestigious journal Cancer Research in 1988, Gallo had
observed, “No one knows more about retroviruses than Peter Duesberg.” Once
acclaimed as a widely published and extensively cited Nobel candidate, but
now ‘delegitimated’ as a scientist, Duesberg was the recipient of the
largest annual research grant in biology for years – awarded for the pursuit
of whatever avenue of scientific enquiry took his fancy. Stripped of his
grant and his post-graduate classes, practically barred from researching and
publishing, and reduced to chairmanship of his faculty’s annual picnic
committee, he continues to point out the fundamental anomalies, deficiencies
and paradoxes of the 15 year old theory that the 29 old diseases renamed
AIDS in the presence of HIV antibodies could have any causal link to a
retrovirus. However, Duesberg finds himself increasingly alone in the AIDS
dissident camp too, eclipsed by Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos et al (below)
whose more fundamental tack in impeaching the HIV-AIDS theory is winning
over its best heterodox scientists, most recently, Kary Mullis (below),
pathology and epidemiology specialist Gordon Stewart (below), and Etienne de
Haarven, pathology professor emeritus at Toronto, renowned for his published
work in the electron photomicrography of viruses.
Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos, bio-physicist, department of medical physics,
Royal Perth Hospital, Australia: Collaborating with, among others, John
Papadimitriou, a practicing pathologist and professor at University of
Western Australia’s medical school, David Causer, senior physicist, head of
the department of medical physics and professor at Royal Perth Hospital, and
Valendar Turner, consultant emergency physician at the Royal Perth Hospital,
Papadopulos-Eleopulos has raised the most radical and dramatic challenges to
the HIV-AIDS theory, by highlighting the lack of a proper gold standard for
the HIV antibody tests, in that unlike other known viruses, HIV has never
been isolated according to the classical procedure for the isolation of
viruses, often referred to as the Pasteur Rules.
Dr Walter Gilbert, formerly molecular-biology professor at Harvard: One of
contemporary science’s most outstanding and accomplished scientists, Gilbert
won his Nobel for inventing the now foundational modern technique for DNA
sequencing. He considers Duesberg to be “absolutely correct in saying that
no one has proven that AIDS is caused by the AIDS virus. There is no animal
model for AIDS, and without an animal model, you cannot establish Koch’s
postulates (to prove the role of the suspected pathogen).” He observes, “The
community as a whole doesn’t listen patiently to critics who adopt
alternative viewpoints. Although the great lesson of history is that
knowledge develops through the conflict of viewpoints.”
Dr Kary Mullis, molecular biologist: Nobel winner Mullis’ watershed
invention of the Polymerase Chain Reaction technology for amplifying minute
DNA fragments for identification has so revolutionised biology that one
might fairly speak of two epochs, the dark ages before and the enlightenment
after it. He deplores the misapplication of his invention to measure “HIV
viral load.” He predicts that, “Years from now, people will find our
acceptance of the HIV theory of AIDS as silly as we find those who
excommunicated Galileo.” Endorsing Duesberg’s rejection of the orthodox
model of infectious AIDS, he says, “As applied, the HIV theory is
unfalsifiable, and useless as a medical hypothesis… I can’t find a single
virologist who will give me references which show HIV is the probable cause
of AIDS. If you ask…you don’t get an answer, you get fury.” The HIV-AIDS
hypothesis, he thinks, is “one hell of a mistake.”
Dr Harry Rubin, retrovirologist, professor of molecular biology, University
of California at Berkeley, member of National Academy of Sciences: “I don’t
think the cause of AIDS has been found. I think (that in) a disease as
complex as AIDS…there are likely to be multiple causes. In fact, to call it
a single disease when there are so many multiple manifestations seems to me
to be an oversimplification.”
Dr Richard Strohman, emeritus professor of cell-biology, University of
California at Berkeley: The HIV-AIDS hypothesis is “bankrupt.”
Dr Beverly Griffin, director and professor of virology, Royal Postgraduate
Medical School in London: “I do not believe HIV, in and of itself, can cause
Dr Gordon Stewart, emeritus professor of epidemiology, University of
Glasgow, and former AIDS advisor to the World Health Organisation: “AIDS is
a behavioural disease. It is multifactorial, brought on by several
simultaneous strains on the immune system – drugs, pharmaceutical and
recreational, sexually transmitted diseases, multiple viral infections…
there is no specific etiologic agent of AIDS… the disease arises as a
result of a cumulative process following a period of exposure to multiple
environmental factors… Nobody wants to look at the facts about this
disease. It’s the most extraordinary thing I’ve ever seen. I’ve sent
countless letters to medical journals pointing out the epidemiological
discrepancies and they simply ignore them. The fact is, this whole
heterosexual AIDS thing is a hoax.”
Dr Albert Sabin, discoverer of live-virus polio vaccine, National Institutes
of Health: “The basis of present action and education is that everybody who
tests positive for the virus must be regarded as a transmitter and there is
no evidence for that.”
Dr Bernard Forscher, former managing editor of the journal, Proceedings of
the National Academy of Sciences: “The HIV hypothesis ranks with the ‘bad
air’ theory for malaria and the ‘bacterial infection’ theory of beriberi and
pellagra (caused by nutritional deficiencies). It is a hoax that became a
Dr Simon Wain-Hobson, immunologist, Institut Pasteur, France: “… an
intrinsic cytopathic effect of the virus (HIV) is no longer credible…”
Dr Alfred Hassig, immunologist, former emeritus professor of immunology,
University of Bern, and former director of a Swiss blood transfusion
laboratory: “The sentences of death accompanying the medical diagnosis of
AIDS should be abolished.”
Sir John Maddox, editor, Nature Magazine: “(Luc) Montagnier said clearly
what he meant. HIV (alone) is… not… a sufficient cause of AIDS.”
Dr Fabio Franchi, specialist in infectious diseases and preventive medicine,
Trieste, Italy: “I am not an agnostic. I am well convinced HIV is harmless.”
Dr Charles Thomas, former professor of molecular biology at Harvard and
Johns Hopkins universities: “It is widely believed by the general public
that a retrovirus called HIV causes the group of diseases called AIDS. Many
biomedical scientists now question this hypothesis. We propose that a
thorough reappraisal of the existing evidence for and against this
hypothesis be conducted by a suitable independent group.” He himself has no
doubts. He rejects the HIV-AIDS hypothesis as a “fraud”.
Dr Phillip Johnson, senior professor of law, University of California at
Berkeley: “The establishment continues to doctor statistics and misrepresent
the situation to keep the public convinced that a major viral pandemic is
under way when the facts are otherwise.”
Dr Serge Lang, professor of mathematics, Yale University and member of the
National Academy of Sciences: “There does not even exist a single proper
definition of AIDS on which discourse or statistics can reliably be based…
the CDC calls these diseases AIDS only when antibodies against HIV are
confirmed or presumed to be present. If a person tests HIV negative, then
the diseases are given another name… I do not regard the causal relationship
between HIV and any disease as settled. I have seen considerable evidence
that highly improper statistics concerning HIV and AIDS have been passed off
as science, and that top members of the scientific establishment have
carelessly, if not irresponsibly, joined the media in spreading
misinformation about the nature of AIDS.”
Dr Joseph Sonnabend, South African born New York physician: “The marketing
of HIV, through press releases and statements, as a killer virus causing
AIDS without the need for any other factors, has so distorted research and
treatment that it may have caused thousands of people to suffer and die.”
Dr Harvey Bialy, editor of the science journal Nature Bio/Technology: “From
both my literature review and my personal experience over most of the AIDS –
so called AIDS centres in Africa, I can find absolutely no believable
persuasive evidence that Africa is in the midst of a new epidemic of
Dr Charles L. Geshekter, professor of African History, California State
University: … From “Cameroon to California, sex education must no longer
be distorted by terrifying, dubious misinformation that equates sex with
death… African poverty, not some extraordinary sexual behavior, is the
best predictor of AIDS-defining diseases… A 1994 report in the Journal of
Infectious Diseases concluded that HIV tests were useless in central Africa,
where the microbes responsible for tuberculosis, malaria, and leprosy were
so prevalent that they registered over 70% false positive results…in
people whose immune systems are compromised for a wide variety of reasons
other than HIV…”
Dr Hiram Caton, ethicist, head of the School of Applied Ethics at Griffith
University, Brisbane, Australia: “The AIDS epidemic was a mirage
manufactured by scientists who believed that integrity could be maintained
amidst the diverting influences of big money, prestige and politics.”
Dr Ralph Moss: author of The Cancer Industry: “The paradigm that was laid
down for how to milk the cancer problem is basically the same paradigm which
is being followed in milking the AIDS problem.”
Dr Frank Buianouckas: professor of mathematics, Bronx New York: “I suspect
everything involved in this AIDS epidemic. If HIV causes anything, it
certainly causes fund-raisers. It sells stocks. It supports dances. It sells
condoms. And it keeps the AIDS establishment going.
Disclaimer: No one knows if the pandemic will be unleashed. Let us pray that it will not. However, we note with alarm that there are an increasing number of indicators suggesting that this Pandemic is being prepared to be used against us all using a variety of weaponized viruses. If our ringing of the alarm bells is successful, we will be spared – and we will have been wrong. Let us all devoutly hope that the Natural Solutions Foundation’s urgent and effective information dissemination is that successful.
Please help to make the Pandemic secret so ineffective that the authors of this nightmare are backed off by our shared awareness. Disseminate this information to everyone you know and ask them to do the same.
HOW COULD THEY ALL BE WRONG? DOCTORS AND AIDS
Anthony Brink email@example.com
I suppose one has a greater sense of intellectual degradation after an interview with a doctor than from any other human experience. –Alice James
A response sometimes heard to the expression of doubt about the integrity of the HIV-AIDS paradigm as a medical model for understanding disease incidence is, “How could all the doctors in the world be wrong?” There are many possible answers to this question.
One might point out that unanimity has never guaranteed the soundness of medical constructs, and examples of this abound. The history of medicine both ancient and modern is a wrecking-yard full of broken and abandoned ideas. In this century alone innumerable medical theses have collapsed to which nearly all doctors once subscribed, such as bacterial theories of scurvy, beriberi, and pellagra, and more recently, the immuno-surveillance and retroviral theories of cancer aetiology – for which billions of dollars funded thousands of convincing research papers during the “War on Cancer” declared by Nixon in 1971. Then there was swine flu: 1976 saw President Gerald Ford on television, at the behest of the American medical establishment, solemnly urging all Americans to get vaccinated against an imminent deadly influenza epidemic. About 50 million Americans were panicked into being immunised with useless or harmful vaccines rushed onto the market. Adverse reactions resulted in damages claims of $2.7 billion. Not a single case of swine flu appeared subsequent to the death of a sick recruit undergoing basic training in a boot camp in New Jersey (hardly an unusual event) that had ignited all the hysteria. Before HIV-AIDS, and alongside the mad cow craze in Britain and the avian flu folly in Hong Kong, the great swine flu fiasco was perhaps the most telling instance in recent times of how Medicine can lose its head.
Another answer to the question goes to the fact that most doctors have scarcely more than a laymanâ€™s grasp of the concepts that populate biology at its molecular horizon. For instance, most would gape dully if asked to define the peculiar characteristics of a retrovirus (like HIV, weâ€™re told) as distinct from other viruses, or distinguish endogenous and exogenous retroviruses, or articulate the rival contentions advanced by molecular biologists about whether the whole of retrovirology might be a mistake, a wrong turn at a scientific road-fork, a bad inference drawn from the evidence of certain metabolic biochemical phenomena which look odd when seen against old-fashioned rules of molecular genetics, and the possibility that retroviruses might not exist as infectious agents at all – that it is rather the classical dogma that needs an overhaul. Taxed about the HIV theory of AIDS, most doctors can do little more than quote the claims of their authorities, like priests citing papal bulls and encyclicals, making obeisance to their cardinals.
A third answer would make the impudent point that it is fallacious to imagine that doctors generally have a superior capacity for reasoning than their patients. The notes given medical students speak to the scant education that doctors receive in this art. To read them is to see how flimsy medical and biological theories are dished up as fact for rote learning, making the kind of call-and-answer instruction one sees in farm schools in this country look like an adventure in lateral-thinking training. Doctors do so well at school because theyâ€™re the kind of guys who are the most easily schooled. In myths and legends to outdo the Hare Krishna people. Especially virologists, who occupy the haughtiest medical echelons, but who seem to have the dimmest bulbs in the upper storey. As revealed by what they swallow without a hiccup. And regurgitate to their students. Like the timeless French fancy (“Le Rage”) that a bite from a dog acting wild and crazy can make you go mad and die. (But not the dog; man is the â€˜end-hostâ€™.) You can go the same way from eating steak. Although nobody can plausibly say why. Or some cancers are caused by viruses and are infectious. Or the most hilarious notion of them all: semen and vaginal secretions can be deadly. Mothersâ€™ milk too. But not spit. All of a sudden. After millions of years. Thanks to a mutated virus from monkeys. Or maybe the moon. And all of this without any evidence. Not a shred. And thereâ€™s a funny part to it. You might be feeling fine. But youâ€™re sure to go in six months time from any one of a couple of dozen diseases or malignancies. No, make that two years, well actually five; shall we say eight, or ten, or twelve, maybe fifteen; OK perhaps your life is just shortened a bit. Definitely? Yes, most certainly; no, not necessarily. Look, we donâ€™t know. How, why? We donâ€™t have the faintest idea. Theories zigzag like a drunk at the wheel. (“We are still confused, only we are now confused at a higher level of understanding.”) Excuse me. Is this the circus?
Nor do doctors necessarily proceed from a more rational mindset than Joe Public does. The opposite may be the case. That HIV-AIDS as a medical construct could have taken root so richly among doctors, despite its absurd fundamental tenets (which fly in the face of everything known to virology), illustrates the point. As Harvey Bialy, scholar in residence at the Biotechnology Institute at the University of Mexico and editor at large of the prestigious science journal Nature Biotechnology puts it, the HIV theory of AIDS “turns immunology upside down and inside out.” To begin with, never before was the presence of antibodies taken to be prognostic of future disease. They used to be thought of as good things â€“ evidence, where the patient appears healthy, of a successful immune response to a pathogen defeated. Former molecular biology professor at Johns Hopkins and Harvard Universities, Charles Thomas predicts that after the balloon pops, historians will be studying the flight of common sense in the lunacy of the AIDS age, “for a 100 years, …how America gave AIDS to the world.” But since HIV-AIDS as a diagnostic construct is still hegemonically regnant in our time, the point about the way doctors as a group tend to think needs illustrating with a different example. What better than the turn Medicine took during the Third Reich.
The Nazisâ€™ virulently irrational and barbarous doctrines of racial hygiene found huge appeal for German and Austrian doctors in that era. No other profession was as well represented on Nazi party membership lists. From an ostensibly sober, rational profession functioning as an elite caste in a culture that seemed itself to be the fruit of the Enlightenment, just under half of them were card-carrying Nazis. Of course not all engaged in the sadistic butchery of untermenschen for which the Nuremberg Doctorsâ€™ Trials were conducted, but it would be a mistake to imagine that such criminals were aberrant quacks from the fringes, flourishing like vermin on the opportunities created within the Nazi eugenics paradigm. In fact many medical practitioners and academics tried or named in testimony at the trials had enjoyed international eminence in their professional fields. Dr Edwin Katzenellenbogen, for instance, (who got life imprisonment) had served on the faculty of the Harvard Medical School.
Scholars of religious thinking have long known that the more horrible and improbable the founding superstitions of a new faith, the greater its capacity to mobilize the popular imagination and the stronger the force of its revolutionary engine. In Medicine, Religionâ€™s first cousin, the same sometimes applies. Like an infant upstart religion with imperial designs, the HIV-AIDS paradigm calls for a vigorous rebellion against long-established models of understanding. Woe betide any conservative scientists reluctant to become conversos to the rude new creed, who point out that the new theory is absurd on its face, that the link between AIDS and sex is no stronger than its link with sleeping; they become marginalised like Jews defying the demands of medieval Christendom, not racked and burned, but ostracised – scientifically defrocked, blacklisted and delegitimated, stripped of research funding, banned from lecturing podia, kicked out of their laboratories, rendered unemployable in academia or industry, menaced with confinement in psychiatric wards, isolated from graduate students in whom they might instill similar heretic doubts, and barred from publishing in the journals that once craved their papers. But naturally; radical political dissident Noam Chomsky, Professor of Linguistics at Massachusetts Institute of Technology has pointed out that “if you serve power, power rewards you with respectability. If you work to undermine powerâ€¦you are reviled, imprisoned, driven into the desert.” The AIDS phenomenon at root is a vast pumping aggregation of interests with enormous political and economic power. Doctors and scientists who challenge its sacred tenets risk attracting the wrath of the revolutionâ€™s red guards. They wonâ€™t be thrown from windows. But their careers will be over. For their reactionary intransigence these critics will be marked always with pejorative epithets, as persistent as tattoos, like â€˜discreditedâ€™, â€˜loonyâ€™, â€˜maverickâ€™, â€˜dangerousâ€™ and â€˜irresponsible and perniciousâ€™. Just to make sure we correctly tell the wits from the dunces. And to discourage us from asking, “Well, what are these guys actually saying?”
A fourth explanation lies in the fact that for all their social status and prestige, in truth doctors generally function close to the bottom of the food-chain in the medical-industrial complex, and serve as little more than a thoughtless delivery system for the pharmaceutical corporations â€“ whose wares they peddle makes the medical drug industry one of the most profitable legal enterprises on the planet. Just how little room doctors are allowed for independent judgment founded on their own observations is revealed in the fact that in some places a doctor who declines to follow an approved treatment regimen such as chemotherapy for cancerous tumours, in view of his empirical assessment of its utter uselessness and lethal toxicity, risks sanctions from his controlling guild. Imagine the trouble a doctor would be in were he brazenly to announce his conclusion that having investigated the business, reactive HIV antibody test results are virtually meaningless – pointers to no more than heightened non-specific immunologic activity. And were he to refuse to diagnose negative or positive, selecting for life or death, like a Nazi doctor calling links or rechts. Or marking â€˜+â€™ on the medical files of slow or crippled German children, to mark them for murder during the euthanasia programme.
In sum, one doesnâ€™t have to cast about too far for answers to the question, “How could all the doctors in the world be wrong about AIDS?” Medicineâ€™s penchant for screwing up magnificently, its characteristic intellectual sluggishness, and the appeal of “magical thinking” for its practitioners is plain to anyone who turns back a few pages. http://health.consumercide.com/brink-wrong.html