"The War In Medicine"
Continued from previous post.The FDA Versus Freedom of Speech
Now things get complicated. The issue here is whether a reasonable
person should have the right to make their own health decisions or
whether Big Brother should make those decisions for them.
But therein lies the paradox. In order for a reasonable person
to make a decision they must have information from the people
on both sides of the argument. But the FDA (and the media) does
not allow people to hear both sides of the argument, thus how
can Big Brother pronounce that it has proven that a reasonable
person doesn't know how to think?
In order to make a decision, a person should have the right
to the information from the people on both sides of the fence
(where have you heard that before?). The concept of "both sides"
of an issue is something the FDA is specifically commissioned
by Congress (who have also sold-out to Big Pharma) and Big
Pharma to crush.
The FDA tells people how good chemotherapy is by approving
these drugs. Then the FDA tells people how bad natural medicine
is by not approving these products. Thus people know what is
good about chemotherapy (actually there is nothing good about
chemotherapy) and what is bad about natural products. Somehow,
the FDA wants to convince people that this is telling both sides
of the story.
Thus, worrying that the American people might become healthy
(and thus not need prescription drugs), and fearing that people
are smart enough to come to a logical conclusion, the FDA has
long decided that reasonable people should not be presented
with both sides of the issue from both sides of the fence.
Roy Orbison - You Got It
Income for the 98% that fail in Their Internet Business.