Monday, February 11, 2013

    "The War In Medicine"

   Continued from previous post.

   The FDA Versus Freedom of Speech

Who exactly is "everyone" in the phrase "everyone agrees?"
Surprise, it is the orthodox medicine people who are under
the total control of Big Pharma. Who else would the FDA quote?
Thus, if the case was between alternative medicine and orthodox
medicine, as long as orthodox medicine agrees among themselves,
orthodox medicine constitutes "significant scientific agreement."
They have won the case without presenting any evidence.

But when natural substances are tested, suddenly "not everyone
agrees." How can someone disagree with a well-done, quality,
honest scientific study? How can they ignore overwhelming,
repeatable, scientific statistics? Do you see a pattern here?

I have done many experiments myself, and it is well-known that
if you don't agree with something, do it yourself. In other
words, a good scientific experiment is verifiable and repeatable.
You don't "disagree" with a quality, honest experiment that is
verifiable and repeatable. Such an experiment is irrefutable.

So why is the FDA talking about "not everyone agrees?" Perhaps
they should have said: "not everyone thinks it leads to more
profitable techniques."

So, the LEF wanted to tell their customers about scientific
experiments that were not profitable to orthodox medicine.
We see that the FDA was willing to accept scientific evidence
if it benefited and profited the pharmaceutical industry,
but when the scientific evidence benefited the health of the
public it was not allowed because orthodox medicine (i.e. the
pharmaceutical industry) did not consider the scientific
evidence to lead to more profits.

I continue the previous quote:

    "We believe that consumers are perfectly capable of judging
for themselves whether they want to take a dietary supplement
as long as they have truthful information. Fortunately, the
Court agreed with us and the FDA's "Father Knows Best" approach
was soundly rejected by the Court which apparently found some of
the agency's arguments about a person's ability to make their
own decision ridiculous. We got a laugh out of the Court's take
on some of the FDA's arguments. In responding to the assertion
that all claims lacking "significant scientific agreement" (we
still don't know what that is) are misleading, the Court wrote:

    'As best we understand the government, its first argument
runs along the following lines: that health claims lacking
significant scientific agreement' are inherently misleading
because they have such an awesome impact on consumers as to
make it virtually impossible for them to exercise any judgment
at the point of sale. It would be as if the consumers were
asked to buy something while hypnotized, and therefore they
are bound to be misled. We think this contention is almost

Elvis Presley - Amazing Grace

   How Can I Solve My Problem?

No comments:

Post a Comment