National Solutions Foundation and www.HealthFreedomUSA.org always bring you urgent information about your health freedom and practical steps you can take to make a difference.
“Breakthrough casualty” (aka “collateral damage”) is what happens when a poorly tested, new drug or device (or novel GMO product) is publicized in the mass commercial media in ways that are not truthful and are misleading. Here are Action Steps To Help Prevent Yourself and Your Loved Ones From Becoming A “Breakthrough Casualty”
Today, the biggest causes of “breakthrough casualties” are the very issues that Natural Solutions Foundation has championed: GMOs, degraded organic standards, forced vaccinations and drugging, toxins (like pesticide residua, irradiation free-radicals, and the like) in the food chain, regulatory failures…
Tell Your Legislators Compulsory Drugging, Including Vaccination is NOT OK!
http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/568/t/1128/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=21833
Join the Natural Solutions Foundation’s No Forced Vaccination Yahoo! Forum
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/no-forced-vaccination/join
Support the Child Medication Safety Act So Schools Cannot Hold Parents Hostage For Refusing To Medicate Their Kids
http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/568/t/1128/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=18970
Sign the Historic Tiburon Declaration Protecting Against Forced Vaccination
http://drrimatruthreports.com/index.php?p=460
Join the free Health Freedom eAlerts Distribution List
http://drrimatruthreports.com/index.php?page_id=187
Make Your Tax Deductible Contribution to the Natural Solutions Foundation to further our work.
http://drrimatruthreports.com/index.php?page_id=189
Breakthrough Casualties…
You’ve heard of “Breakthrough Bleeding,” right? That’s when someone starts to bleed in spite of the fact that the body, or a drug, should be keeping them from doing that. Well, there’s another “Breakthrough” problem, and we are all vulnerable to it: “Breakthrough Death” which occurs when the latest medical “breakthrough” is so dangerous, so poorly tested, so poorly understood and so rapidly embraced by the ever-compliant media (“Ask your doctor is it’s right for YOU”) along with the ever time-pressured and sheepish medical practitioner that you, or someone you love, winds up dead or damaged because of a poorly understood, but hastily taken-up “Medical Breakthrough”.
The article posted below questions the wisdom of new medical “wisdom”. Indeed, the bone-fields of Medicine are littered with discarded ” breakthroughs”, too hastily approved, too gleefully adopted, too poorly tested. Of course, the graveyards of medicine are littered with the patients who blindly rushed to line up for the newest alleged “advances” and trusted the “wisdom” of the usually-well-meaning, carefully preselected and obedient sheep in MD’s clothing who blithely make their livings by being there with the new whatever-it-is-this-time. For example, in my educated opinion, the new chemotherapy which turns out to damage your heart and not work any better than any of the other ineffective conventional cancer approaches and, like every form of conventional chemotherapy, is a leading cause of NEW cancer in long term survivors; or the new antibiotic that turns out to cause your body to stop making any blood cells, red or white, or causes you to go deaf, or damages the dental integrity of your unborn child; or the new vaccine that turns out to cause healthy young girls and women to die or develop life threatening conditions; or the vaccine overload that turns so many happy young families into tragic families coping with the vaccine injury called autism, asthma, ADD/ADHD and a host of other names.
You get the idea.
What you may not know yet is that “fast track” approval for drugs and especially vaccines means that even the woefully inadequate safety assurances used by the FDA are shunted aside. And whether a drug, device or vaccine has been fast-tracked or not, that FDA approved-whatever is not deemed safe until after Phase IV Clinical Trials are completed and evaluated. And you may also not know that the FDA review committees and advisory committees, panels and boards are filled with people who have stocks, bonds, shares, patents and other direct financial conflicts of interest in the very products they are regulating, or seeking to evaluate and forbid if dangerous. Good system? For them, maybe. Just look at the state of American health and the trillions of dollars made by the illness care industry using things that make you sick and kill you although they have been through Phase I, II and II Clinical Trials. And although these devices, drugs and vaccines are now in their much-vaunted “Phase IV Clinical Trials”
What is a Phase IV Clinical Trial? It is the voluntary reporting, over time, of adverse reactions in the public. In other words, when doctors notice that patients are dying, or having strokes or heart attacks, or getting rather more cancer than “normal” or having more life-threatening asthma attacks or other reactions and the doctors involved bother to report (and often incriminate themselves if they were the ones who gave the drug or used the device in the first place), and these results pile up and the scientists reviewing these data do not have too many conflicts of interest, and their superiors in the system do not have too many conflicts of interest (which are now officially permitted by the agencies of the US Government charged with protecting our safety), then perhaps something will happen to remove this item from sale. But usually not. I need only say the word “Vioxx” and you get the idea. Or “Gardasil” or “Avienda”.
Or core systemic corruption and inability to protect the public… you get the idea. *
We like to think that clinical trials and other strategies protective of the public when using drugs, pesticides, vaccines and other toxins are iron clad and powerful. Nothing could be further from the truth. The FDA, EPA and USDA, the principle “guardians” of public health, do not allocate their funding efficiently to do their jobs. Congressional report after Congressional report, investigative piece after investigative piece makes that very clear. But the structure of these agencies themselves makes it even more clear.
For the FDA, a large proportion of whose operating budget comes from “user fees” which Pharmaceutical companies pay to have their products approved. Those user fees mean that the FDA is the client, not the regulator, of the drug industry.
Now it looks like the food industry will be asked to pay the same sort of user fees so the food side of the house will also become a client of the industry it allegedly regulates. Wonder what will happen to small local, organic producers in that regulatory world, where only the big and powerful are “too big to fail…”
Between the revolving door policy of the FDA, USDA, EPA and other federal agencies (through which high level employees are recruited from, revolve into, and continue to move back and forth between government, academia and industry as their careers develop) and the lack of oversight allowed or engaged in by these agencies, allowing “new breakthroughs” to create “new wealth” and “new disasters”.
Read the article below by a concerned and thoughtful Mom and take the Action Steps at the head of this article to make sure your State and National Legislators know that you do not want to be exposed to compulsory vaccination, a form of compulsory drugging.
Thanks.
Yours in health and freedom,
Dr. Rima
Rima E. Laibow, MD
Medical Director
Natural Solutions Foundation
www.HealthFreedomUSA.org
www.GlobalHealthFreedom.org
www.NaturalSolutionsFoundation.org
www.Organics4U.org
www.NaturalSolutionsMarketPlace.org
–x–x–
Sometimes ‘new breakthroughs’ in medicine are too new
October 12, 2008
By Kimberly A. Brehm
Every time the medical community changes its mind and announces yet another way to care for your child, I’m amazed that my children made it out of their early years unscathed.
When my babies were young, they slept on their tummies, until the American Medical Association said the position could lead to sudden infant death syndrome. I bathed them in cool water when their fevers ran high, until I heard the tried-and-true practice could cause a seizure. And I gave them over-the-counter cold medicine when they had persistent, hacking coughs and sore throats.
Turns out that wasn’t a good idea, either.
On Tuesday, in response to concerns from medical experts that questioned whether cold and cough remedies do more harm than good to children, drug companies agreed to no longer make such medications for kids younger than 4.
Leading brands like Pediacare, Dimetapp, Robitussin, Triaminic and Little Colds no longer will continue to include dosage information for anyone younger than 4, and some pediatricians are asking the government to go further and ban such medicines for children younger than 6.
Each year, more than 7,000 children – mostly 2- and 3-year-olds – make a trip to the emergency room because of problems with over-the-counter cough and cold medicines. They usually have symptoms such as hives, drowsiness and unsteady walking. The Federal Drug Administration in 2007 pulled over-the-counter cough and cold medications for children younger than 6 to weigh their risks and effectiveness, but it could take another year or more before a final decision is reached.
Since it seems like every decade or so the medical community reverses previous decisions on particular medicines and medical treatments, it’s made me wonder when I can trust “new breakthroughs” and “innovative advances.”
A reversal about something like a cough suppressant – once seen as a benign drug – is the exact reason I have not yet allowed my teen daughters to be vaccinated with the HPV vaccine. It’s too new and hasn’t been researched enough for me to give my approval and feel comfortable.
In 2005, the Food and Drug Administration OK’d Gardasil as a vaccine against four strains of the human papillomavirus, or HPV, which can cause cervical cancer. Since then, more than 8 million girls ages 11 to 14 have been given the vaccine, and some states are considering making the shot mandatory for school enrollment, similar to other immunizations.
When Gardasil was approved a few years ago, my oldest daughter was 11, the ideal age to begin the shots. But I hesitated, thinking about other “new and improved” medicines that later proved to cause harm.
Remember when pregnant women were prescribed Thalidomide for nausea, then it was discovered to cause miscarriages and birth defects? Or when vaccines routinely included mercury, until that too proved to be dangerous? Or how about Fen-phen and Ephedra, which were supposed to be safe weight-loss drugs, and women began dying? In the 1990s, infants were given the rotavirus vaccine, until too many babies died after receiving it, and it was pulled from the market. I could go on and on listing dozens of examples like this, including strong, antidotal evidence of a link between immunizations and autism.
Thousands of parents of autistic children, including my brother and his wife, are firmly convinced their child’s autism was caused by vaccines and no amount of denial from drug companies would convince them otherwise.
And now, three years after young girls starting getting the Gardasil vaccine, it’s being investigated. There have been more than 9,000 complaints of serious ill effects filed with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, including blood clots, genital warts, paralysis and death.
The CDC said the deaths are not linked to Gardasil, but who knows what they’ll discover after further investigation? I personally am not willing to let my daughters be guinea pigs for the fairly new vaccine when even the CDC agrees the vaccine responds differently to each individual’s immune system and should not be mandatory for school participation.
“The overall effect of the vaccines on cervical cancer remains unknown. The real impact of HPV vaccination on cervical cancer will not be observed for decades,” the New England Journal reported in August. “With so many essential questions still unanswered, there is good reason to be cautious.”
When the wrong decision could cause your child harm – or maybe even result in death – it would be negligent not to be cautious. And when the medical experts change their minds every few years on what’s good and what’s harmful, it’s hard to make the right decision.
http://www.southtownstar.com/news/brehm/1213902,101208brehm.article
–x–x–
Please remember the six Action Steps you can take at the beginning of this posting.
(c) 2008
-x——————-x-
Footnote:
* Less than a year ago, a government study of the FDA concluded:
1) The FDA cannot fulfill its mission because its scientific base has eroded and its scientific organizational structure is weak.
2) The FDA cannot fulfill its mission because its scientific workforce does not have sufficient capacity and capability.
3) The FDA cannot fulfill its mission because its information technology (IT) infrastructure is inadequate.
4) FDA does not have the capacity to ensure the safety of food for the nation.
5) The development of medical products based on “new science†cannot be adequately regulated by the FDA.
6) There is insufficient capacity in modeling risk assessment and analysis.
7) The FDA science agenda lacks a coherent structure and vision, as well as effective coordination and prioritization.
8) The FDA has substantial recruitment and retention challenges.
9) The FDA has an inadequate and ineffective program for scientist performance.
10) The FDA has not taken sufficient advantage of external and internal collaborations.
11) The FDA lacks the information science capability and information infrastructure to fulfill is regulatory mandate.
12) The FDA cannot provide the information infrastructure support to regulate products based on new science.
[From: the November 2007 Report of the Subcommittee on Science and Technology, FDA Science and Mission at Risk]
Flu shots are a huge business and a huge threat. 94% of all flu shots avaialble for both children and adults contain mercury. The rest contain “trace amounts” of mercury which are still large enough to be toxic. All the rest of the components are toxic as well, although some are uncharacterized (for example, random bits of stray embryonic tissues, FDA acknowledged “steal viruses”, leukemia or other cancer-causing particles and viruses, etc.)
Despite the increasing number of situations and States in which flu vaccines are mandated (for all children 6 months and older in New Jersey, for example, each and every year after two vaccinations in the child’s first year of life), there is no convincing evidence to show that these shots are safe or effective.
In fact, the CDC and WHO (World Health Organization) literally guess sometime in the Spring what viruses will be circulating to cause a flu epidemic the next fall and winter. They guess wrong a great many times. Vaccines, even if they were effective, would provide no coverage or protection against a virus other than the one that they are made to deal with.
Live virus vaccines may well be dangerous to those who are vaccinated AND to those with whom they come in contact who are immunocompromised through medications like chemotherapy or steroids, are nursing mothers and babies, have a wide variety of diseases or develop the disease for which they have been vaccinated (a not uncommon occurance).
Despite the fact that flu deaths are wildly inflated in the US (since all pneumonia deaths are “counted” as flu deaths, whether they are or not), most cases of flu are similar to most cases of flu vaccination response – self limited fevers, muscle aches, headaches, malaise and weakness. In addition, getting the flu builds immunity to that species of virus without exposure to some of the most toxic chemicals and materials known once they are injected.
The article below calls into question the practice of vaccinating the elderly to protect them against flu. The same serious questions should be asked about vaccinating anyone else for flu.
Yours in health and freedom,
Dr. Rima
Rima E. Laibow, MD
Medical Director
Natural Solutions Foundation
www.HealthFreedomUSA.org
www.GlobalHealthFreedom.org
www.NaturalSolutionsFoundation.org
www.Organics4U.org
www.NaturalSolutionsMedia.tv
www.NaturalSolutionsMarketPlace.org
Flu Shot Does Not Lower Mortality
By Marsha Quinn
(Best Syndication News) Canadian researchers say that the mortality rate among the elderly patients who receive the flu shot is no different than the rate of those who do not. Previous research suggested a benefit to receiving the influenza vaccine, but this new study suggests otherwise. They speculate that the previous research was skewed because of a “health user benefit” or a “frailty bias”.
The study involved about 700 matched elderly participants, of which about half received the vaccine and the other half did not. They accounted for many variables that were not considered in previous studies. “If present at all, (the benefit) was very small and statistically non-significant and may simply be a healthy-user artifact that they were unable to identify,” they reported.
Why Don’t Flu Shots Work?
It is possible that those who received the vaccine in previous studies were more concerned about their health. This means those individuals ate healthy and exercised regularly.
They believe that the “healthy-user effect” was responsible for the mortality benefit associated with influenza vaccination seen in observational studies. There should also be a significant mortality benefit present during the “off-season”, according to Dr. Dean T. Eurich,Ph.D. clinical epidemiologist and assistant professor at the School of Public Health at the University of Alberta.
“While such a reduction in all-cause mortality would have been impressive, these mortality benefits are likely implausible. Previous studies were likely measuring a benefit not directly attributable to the vaccine itself, but something specific to the individuals who were vaccinated-a healthy-user benefit or frailty bias,” said Eurich.
What is the Influenza Vaccine Made Of?
Flu shots are composed of dead viruses. [They may be so-called attenuated live viruses like “Flu Mist” – REL] They are not approved for children less than 6 years of age. They are approved from people with chronic medical conditions, according to the CDC. The flu vaccines prompt the formation of antibodies that protect the patient from the virus.
New Nasal Spray Vaccine
The new nasal-spray flu vaccine (LAIV for “live attenuated influenza vaccine” or FluMist® LAIV (FluMist®) is made up of live but weakened viruses. They do not cause the flu, according to the CDC, and are approved for “healthy” people from 2-49 years of age who are not pregnant.
The Study Results
They analyzed the records of 704 patients 65 years of age and older who were admitted to the hospital for community-acquired pneumonia during non-flu season. Of those patients, 12 percent died with a medium length of stay of 8 days. They matched the vaccinated patients with the non-vaccinated ones with similar demographics, medical conditions, functional status, smoking status and current prescription medications.
Consistent with previous studies, patients who were vaccinated were about half as likely to die as unvaccinated patients. “Controlling for those variables reduced the relative risk of death to a statistically non-significant 19 percent.”
“Over the last two decades in the United Sates, even while vaccination rates among the elderly have increased from 15 to 65 percent, there has been no commensurate decrease in hospital admissions or all-cause mortality,” Eurich said. “Further, only about 10 percent of winter-time deaths in the United States are attributable to influenza, thus to suggest that the vaccine can reduce 50 percent of deaths from all causes is implausible in our opinion.”
These results appeared in the September issue of the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, a publication of the American Thoracic Society.
http://www.bestsyndication.com/?q=200808298_flu_vaccine_not_effective.htm
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.
Our best weapon against the coming Pandemic is truth.
Yours in health and freedom,
Rima E. Laibow, MD
Medical Director
Natural Solutions Foundation
www.HealthFreedomUSA.org
www.GlobalHealthFreedom.org
www.NaturalSolutionsFoundation.org
www.NaturalSolutionsMedia.tv
www.Organics4U.org
www.NaturalSolutionsMarketPlace.org
HIV is caused by a retrovirus, right? Well, no, not really. In fact, there is no evidence whatsoever for this hypothesis. How could they all be wrong, asks Anthony Brink on Consumercide.com.
His article is so well written that we will use it to begin our series of examinations of the discredited, but still widely believed, idea that there is such a thing as the AIDS or HIV virus and that it causes a disease now knows as HIV/AIDS.
Yours in health and freedom,
Dr. Rima
Rima E. Laibow, MD
www.HealthFreedomUSA.org
www.GlobalHealthFreedom.org
www.NaturalSolutionsFoundation.org
www.Organics4U.org
www.NaturalSolutionsMarketPlace.org
www.NaturalSoluitonsMedia.tv
HOW COULD THEY ALL BE WRONG? DOCTORS AND AIDS
Anthony Brink arbrink@iafrica.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 layman’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, we’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 they’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 ‘end-host’.) 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. Mothers’ 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 there’s a funny part to it. You might be feeling fine. But you’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 don’t know. How, why? We don’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 – 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 Nazis’ 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 Doctors’ 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, Religion’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 power…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 revolution’s red guards. They won’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 ‘discredited’, ‘loony’, ‘maverick’, ‘dangerous’ and ‘irresponsible and pernicious’. 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 – 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 ‘+’ on the medical files of slow or crippled German children, to mark them for murder during the euthanasia programme.
In sum, one doesn’t have to cast about too far for answers to the question, “How could all the doctors in the world be wrong about AIDS?” Medicine’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