Wednesday, February 13, 2013

    "The War In Medicine"

   Continued from previous post.

   The FDA Versus Freedom of Speech

In truth, however, doctors only present the pros and cons of a specific drug and
never present the pros and cons of using orthodox medicine versus the best of
the alternative treatments for that health condition.

As the article implies, the FDA should be requiring more information
by alternative medicine vendors, not less.

Of course the real problem is not legal or theoretical, but political (i.e. monetary).
The FDA has sold out to the same people the media has sold out to, and is also part
of the suppression of truth. Some people would call this a conspiracy, but many
 people don't believe in conspiracies (I guess they still believe the earth is flat).

The purpose of the first amendment is specifically to declare that the government
does not have the right to favor one side of a critical issue and to suppress the
other side from presenting their view. The amendment is specifically about
suppression of free speech (i.e. suppression of a viewpoint).

In other words, the intent of the constitution was that government
should not be allowed to define truth. If the government is allowed
to define truth, then they are allowed to present only one side of
the issue, the side they define as "truth."

A good example of this is the FDA Modernization Act of 1997 (FDAMA).
First, read a little about it:
    "A provision in the FDA Modernization Act of 1997 (FDAMA) provided
an additional process for manufacturers to use health claims if such claims
are based on current, published, authoritative statements from certain federal
 scientific bodies. These include only those "with official responsibility for
public health protection or research relating to human nutrition" such as the
 National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
and the National Academy of Sciences."

The list of organizations approved by FDAMA is a list of the most
corrupt organizations on earth.

We should ask ourselves: "published by who"? Published by journals
or government agencies approved by the pharmaceutical industry.

The list of acceptable scientific bodys is a "who's who" of scientific corruption.
Did you notice something interesting? Only government controlled experiments
are allowed to be used as scientific evidence! Talk about blatant control of "truth."

Another scam of the FDA, ad nauseum, is the concept of an "evidence-based"
review system. I am not going to say much about this because it is so similar to
what as been already said. All I will say is "who is allowed to present the evidence"
 or "whose evidence are you going to use."


Elvis Presley - Amazing Grace

#1 Publisher of Alternative Cancer Treatments

No comments:

Post a Comment