Former FDA Commissioner Dr. Herbert Ley stated: "The thing that bugs me is that people think the FDA is protecting them. It isn't. What the FDA is doing and what the public thinks it's doing are as different as night and day."
"If people let the government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls who live under tyranny." -- Thomas Jefferson
"Unless we put medical freedom into the Constitution, the time will come when medicine will organize into an underground dictatorship . . . To restrict the art of healing to one class of men and deny equal privileges to others will constitute the Bastille of medical science. All such laws are un-American and despotic and have no place in a republic. The Constitution of this republic should make special privilege for medical freedom as well as religious freedom." Dr. Benjamin Rush, signer of the Declaration of Independence
"Let food be thy medicine, thy medicine shall be thy food", said Hippocrates, the Father of Medicine, who compiled a list of over four hundred herbs and their uses. He also said, "Nature is the healer of all disease."
The doctor of the future will give no medicine, but will interest his patients in the care of the human body, in diet, and in the cause and prevention of disease. -- Thomas Edison
"Unless we put medical freedom into the Constitution, the time will come when medicine will organize into an underground dictatorship . . . To restrict the art of healing to one class of men and deny equal privileges to others will constitute the Bastille of medical science. All such laws are un-American and despotic and have no place in a republic. The Constitution of this republic should make special privilege for medical freedom as well as religious freedom." Dr. Benjamin Rush, signer of the Declaration of Independence
I am appalled at the prospect of using water as a vehicle for drugs. Fluoride is a corrosive poison that will produce serious effect on a long-range basis. Any attempt to use the water this way is deplorable. -- Charles Gordon Heyd, M.D., Past President, American Medical Association.
"Everyone should know that the "War on Cancer" is largely a fraud." -- Dr Linus Pauling (Nobel Prize (Chemistry) 1954, Nobel Peace Prize 1962
"For the medical profession this era may well be one of the most shameful and ethically questionable periods of its history." -- Stanley Wohl, M.D. - The Medical Industrial Complex (1984)
"Dr. James Watson won a Nobel Prize for determining the shape of DNA. During the 1970's, he served two years on the National Cancer Advisory Board. In 1975, he was asked about the National Cancer Program. He declared, 'It's a bunch of shit.'
"In 1953, a United States Senate Investigation reported that a conspiracy existed to suppress effective cancer treatments. The Senator in charge of the investigation conveniently died. The investigation was halted. It was neither the first nor the last of a number of strange deaths involving people in positions to do damage to those running the nation's cancer program.
"In 1964, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) spent millions of dollars to stop an alternative cancer treatment which had cured hundreds, if not thousands, of cancer patients according to documented records. It was later disclosed that the FDA had falsified the testimony of witnesses. The FDA lost the court case because the jury found the defendants innocent and recommended that the substance be objectively evaluated. It never was. Instead, it was totally suppressed.
"In the early 1960's, two New York City doctors, one associated with the leading cancer center in America and the other the medical director of a Brooklyn hospital, decided to inject live cancer cells into 22 unknowing patients. When they were discovered, Dr. Chester M. Southam of the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center and Dr. E.E. Mandel of the Jewish Chronic Disease Hospital of Brooklyn were put on "probation" for a year. The three physicians who "blew the whistle" on Dr. Southam and Dr. Mandel were dismissed.
"For many years, the American Medical Association (AMA) and the American Cancer Society (ACS) coordinated their "hit" lists of innovative cancer reseachers who were to be ostracized. One investigative reporter declared the AMA and ACS "for a network of vigilantes prepared to pounce on anyone who promotes a cancer therapy that runs against their substantial prejudices and profits."
"In the late 1950's, it was learned that Dr. Henry Welch, head of the FDA's Division of Antibiotics, had secretly received $287,000 from the drug companies he was supposed to regulate. In 1975, an independent government evaluation of the FDA still found massive "conflicts of interest" among the agency's top personnel.
"In 1977, an investigative team from the prominent Long Island newspaper Newsday found serious "conflicts of interest" at the National Cancer Institute (NCI). In 1986, an organized cover-up of an effective alternative cancer therapy, orchestrated by NCI officials, was revealed during Congressional hearings.
"These examples are only the tip of a huge iceberg. The cancer establishment now has a 50-year history of vast corruption, incompetence and organized suppression of cancer therapies which actually work. Millions of people have suffered terrible torture and death because those in charge took payoffs, played it safe, had closed minds to the innovative, or simply were afraid to do what was obviously and morally right...
"The doctor's union (AMA), the cancer bureaucracy (NCI), the public relations fatcats (ACS) and the cancer cops (FDA) are conspiring to suppress a cure for cancer.... It would be easy for any Congressional committee, major newspaper, television network or national magazine to confirm and extend the evidence presented here in order to initiate radical reform of the critical cancer areas--the hospitals, the research centers, the government agencies, and especially state and local legislation regarding cancer treatment.
"But that will not happen without a struggle. Neither Congress nor the media desire to lift the manhole cover on this sewer of corruption and needless torture. Only organized, determined citizen opposition to the existing cancer treatment system has any hope of bringing about the long-needed changes. I expect the struggle to be a long, difficult one against tough, murderous opposition. The odds against success are heavy. The vested interests are very powerful.... "
-- Barry Lynes, author of "The Healing of Cancer, The Cures-The Cover-ups and the Solution Now"
Everything your family doctor, oncologist or other allopathic doctor has been told since medical school has been heavily influenced by the big drug companies, and by a host of government agencies and special interest groups dedicated to keeping the gravy train on track. The facts speak for themselves: Merck knew for years that their pain reliever Vioxx caused heart attacks and they tried to cover it up! A recent study found that millions of unnecessary surgeries are performed each year, and that millions of patients take drugs that harm them, don't help them, or for which there are safer, more effective, less expensive alternatives. It can take up to 10 years for a better treatment to replace an existing drug or surgical procedure. Meanwhile, you get the outdated, less effective (or dangerous) drug or procedure -- unless you know better. Today your health, freedom from pain and suffering -- even your life -- depend on your ability to separate fact from fiction. This is why YOU must take charge of your own health, not delegate it to someone else and then ask "permission" when you suspect that there might be a better treatment or alternative for a drug. -- BottomLine Publications
The greatest mistake in the treatment of diseases is that there are physicians for the body and physicians for the soul, although the two cannot be separated. -- Plato
It is a mathematical fact that fifty percent of all doctors graduate in the bottom half of their class. --Author Unknown
It is a wise mans part, rather to avoid sickness, than to wishe for medicines. ~Thomas More, Utopia
The art of medicine consists in amusing the patient while nature cures the disease. ~Voltaire (François Marie Arouet)
Drugs are not always necessary. Belief in recovery always is. ~Norman Cousins
Symptoms, then are in reality nothing but the cry from suffering organs. ~Jean Martin Charcot, translated from French
Poisons and medicine are oftentimes the same substance given with different intents. ~Peter Mere Latham
He's the best physician that knows the worthlessness of the most medicines. ~Benjamin Franklin
The fact that your patient gets well does not prove that your diagnosis was correct. ~Samuel J. Meltzer
The public blabbers about preventative medicine, but will neither appreciate nor pay for it. You get paid for what you cure. ~Martin H. Fischer
One doctor makes work for another. ~English Proverb
Doctors are just the same as lawyers; the only difference is that lawyers merely rob you, whereas doctors rob you and kill you, too. ~Anton Chekhov, Ivanov
Formerly, when religion was strong and science weak, men mistook magic for medicine; now, when science is strong and religion weak, men mistake medicine for magic. ~Thomas Szasz, The Second Sin, 1973
Anyone who believes that anything can be suited to everyone is a great fool, because medicine is practised not on mankind in general, but on every individual in particular. ~Henri de Mondeville
My soul is dark with stormy riot, Directly traceable to diet. ~Samuel Hoffenstein
When diet is wrong, medicine is of no use. When diet is correct, medicine is of no need. ~Ayurvedic Proverb
The Lord hath created medicines out of the earth; and he that is wise will not abhor them. ~Ecclesiasticus 38:4
He that takes medicine and neglects diet, wastes the skill of the physician. ~Chinese Proverb
Leave your drugs in the chemist's pot if you can heal the patient with food. ~Hippocrates
Let nothing which can be treated by diet be treated by other means. ~Maimonides
A physician is obligated to consider more than a diseased organ, more even than the whole man - he must view the man in his world. ~Harvey Cushing
I am convinced digestion is the great secret of life. ~Sydney Smith
Indigestion is charged by God with enforcing morality on the stomach. ~Victor Hugo
The longer I live the less confidence I have in drugs and the greater is my confidence in the regulation and administration of diet and regimen. ~John Redman Coxe, 1800
Foolish the doctor who despises the knowledge acquired by the ancients. ~Hippocrates
One-quarter of what you eat keeps you alive. The other three-quarters keeps your doctor alive. -- Hieroglyph found in an ancient Egyptian tomb.
Doctors give drugs of which they know little, into bodies, of which they know less, for Diseases of which they know nothing at all. -- Voltaire
The physician should not treat the disease but the patient who is suffering from it. -- Maimonides
And we have made of ourselves living cesspools, and driven doctors to invent names for Our diseases. -- Plato
When you are sick of sickness, you are no longer sick. -- Old Chinese Proverb
The work of the doctor will, in the future, be ever more that of an educator, and ever less that of a man who treats ailments. -- Lord Horder
All that man needs for health and healing has been provided by God in nature, the Challenge of science is to find it. -- Philippus Theophrastrus Bombast of Aureolus Paracelsus (1493-1541) Unless we put medical freedom into the Constitution, the time will come when medicine will organize into an undercover dictatorship to restrict the art of healing to one class of men and deny equal privileges to others; the Constitution of the Republic should make a Special privilege for medical freedoms as well as religious freedom. -- Benjamin Rush, MD., a signer of the Declaration of Independence and personal physician to George Washington
If we doctors threw all our medicines into the sea, it would be that much better for our Patients and that much worse for the fishes. -- Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendel Holmes, MD
It is not... That some people do not know what to do with truth when it is offered to them, But the tragic fate is to reach, after patient search, a condition of mind-blindness, in which The truth is not recognized, though it stares you in the face. -- Sir William Osler, physician, 1849-1919
We must admit that we have never fought the homeopath on matters of principle. We fought them because they came into our community and got the business. -- Dr. J.N. McCormack, AMA, 1903
It's supposed to be a secret, but I'll tell you anyway. We doctors do nothing. We only help and encourage the doctor within. -- Albert Schweitzer, M.D.
One of the biggest tragedies of human civilization is the precedents of chemical therapy over nutrition. It's a substitution of artificial therapy over nature, of poisons over food, in which we are feeding people poisons trying to correct the reactions of starvation. -- Dr. Royal Lee, January 12, 1951
The human body heals itself and nutrition provides the resources to accomplish the task. -- Roger Williams Ph.D. (1971)
What makes me so certain that the natural human lifespan is far in excess of the actual one is this. Among all my autopsies (and I have performed over 1000), I have never seen a person who died of old age. In fact, I do not think that anyone has ever died of old age yet. We invariably die because one vital part has worn out too early in proportion to the rest of the body. -- Dr. Hans Selye
God, in His infinite wisdom, neglected nothing and if we would eat our food without trying to improve, change or refine it, thereby destroying its life-giving elements, it would meet all requirements of the body. -- Jethro Kloss
You cannot poison your body into health with drugs, chemo or radiation. Health can only be achieved with healthful living. -- T.C. Fry
Health requires healthy food. -- Roger Williams
Nutrition can be compared with a chain in which all essential items are separate links. We know what happens if one link of a chain is weak or is missing. The whole chain falls apart. -- Patrick Wright, Ph.D.
What is impossible to see from the viewpoint of those who believe in cures is that the very symptoms the good doctors have suppressed and turned into chronic disease were the body's only means of correcting the problem! The so-called disease was the only cure possible! -- Dr. Philip Chapman - 1981
It is time to lay to rest the notion that germs jump into people and cause diseases. -- Emanuel Cheraskin, M.D., D.M.D.
It seems that some consideration should be given to the cause of our mounting physical disabilities, but instead of going to the root of our troubles -- wrong habits of eating and drinking -- we rush to the medicine shelf and smother our uncomfortable and distressing symptoms under an avalanche of pills, potions and palliatives. -- Brother Roloff
The consideration of man's body has not changed to meet the new conditions of this artificial environment that has replaced his natural one. The result is that of perceptual discord between man and his environment. The effect of this discord is a general deterioration of man's body, the symptoms of which are termed disease. -- Professor Hilton Hotema
Vitality and beauty are gifts of Nature for those who live according to its laws. -- Leonard Da Vinci
When you're green inside, you're clean inside. -- Dr. Bernard Jensen
If people only knew the healing power of laughter and joy, many of our fine doctors would be out of business. Joy is one of Nature's greatest medicines. Joy is always healthy. A pleasant state of mind tends to bring abnormal conditions back to normal. -- Catherine Ponder
DO GERMS CAUSE DISEASE? Or could it be the other way around... first the disease, then the germs? Natural Hygiene contends that germs do not cause disease. They are not the originators. Most diseases occur when people allow themselves to become enervated, that is, low in nerve energy and low in immunity. As a consequence, the organs of excretion fail to function normally and waste material accumulates in the body. When this waste continues to build up, exceeding the body's toleration point, a crisis arises. The body, to offset this overabundance of poisonous matter, begins to react. The result of this reaction is sometimes a cold, the flu, pneumonia, or some such, depending on the individual. At this crisis point of elimination, germs may or may not be present. They are sure to come later, not to attack, but to assist in the cleanup or cleansing process. -- Dr. Alec Burton
Disease is the warning, and therefore the friend - not the enemy - of mankind. -- Dr. George S. Weger
Actually bacteria are our symbiotic partners in both health and disease. They serve a useful role. As scavengers, they make harmless or remove undesirable substances within our bodies. They also elaborate certain of our body needs. That is, they help build complex organic compounds from simple ingredients. A notable example of this is the production of vitamin B-12 in our intestines. -- T. C. Fry
Infection is no war in which the body is fighting invaders. The bacteria that come to these sites are symbiotic and help the body in elaborating dead cells and tissues for expulsion - they are partners in the cleanup process. When this has been accumulated, the bacteria disappear and the wound heals. Infection...is a body cleaning process for a body burdened with toxic materials. -- T. C. Fry
Germs do not cause disease! Nature never surrounded her children with enemies. It is the individual himself who makes disease possible in his own body because of poor living habits... Do mosquitoes make the water stagnant; or does stagnant water attract the mosquitoes? We should all be taught that germs are scavengers attracted by disease, rather than enemies causing disease... As their internal environment is, so will be the attraction for any specific micro-organism... The germ theory and vaccination are kept going by commercialism. -- Dr. Robert R. Gross
The absorption and organization of sunlight, the essence of life, is derived almost exclusively through plants. Since light is the driving force of every cell in our bodies, that is why we need green plants. -- Dr. Bircher-Benner
The medical profession has worked itself into hysteria over the germ theory and is using it to exploit an all too credulous public. Germs are ubiquitous. They are in the air we breathe, the food we eat, the water we drink. We cannot escape them. We can destroy them only to a limited extent. It is folly to attempt to escape disease by attempting to destroy or escape germs. Once they are in the body, the physician has no means of destroying them that will not, at the same time, destroy the patient. We cannot avoid germs. We must be proof against them. We have to accept them as one of the joys of life. -- Dr. Herbert Shelton
(Natural) Hygienists object to the germ theory of disease because germs do not cause disease. They may be present in disease processes, and they may complicate a disease with their waste products which can be very toxic at times, but the germ or virus alone is never the sole cause of disease. -- Dr. Virginia V. Vetrano
Forgiveness, love and our connection with the Divine is the medicine that is healing the sickness of our time. -- J. Artos Roske
When you see the Golden Arches you are probably on the road to the Pearly Gates. -- William Castelli, MD - Director, Framingham Heart Study
I am appalled at the prospect of using water as a vehicle for drugs. Fluoride is a corrosive poison that will produce serious effects on a long range basis. Any attempt to use water this way is deplorable. -- Dr. Charles Gordon Heyd - Past President of the American Medical Association
According to the World Health Organization (WHO), America is the 37th healthiest nation in the world. Basically the American Medical Association's team is in 37th place. When was the last time you took the word of a 37th place team as Gospel? Steve Plog - Founder, Results Project.
People may wonder why the American public hasn't heard of Hoxsey, if his treatments were so effective and cured so many. The answer is because large-scale, vicious attacks by U.S. health agencies eventually sent Hoxsey packing to Mexico, where he could finally practice herbal healing in relative peace. One might also wonder what "health" agency would ever knowingly drive a cure for cancer out of the country. The American Medical Association (AMA), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the National Cancer Institute (NCI) would, just to name a few. Why? Cliché as it may sound, they did it for political power. The AMA has historically been considered the "gold standard" of Western medicine -- a privilege that comes with vast control over what is and is not considered genuine medicine. Efforts to preserve and gain such political power have garnered the AMA a shady history rife with efforts to suppress natural and alternative treatments. For example, a small group of chiropractors won a landmark antitrust suit against the AMA in 1990 in the U.S. Court of Appeals 7th circuit, which ruled the AMA had violated the Sherman Act by "conducting an illegal boycott in restraint of the trade directed at chiropractors generally, and at the four plaintiffs in particular." This demonstrates the association's willingness to target entire alternative fields, as well as individuals within them. In 1987 the AMA was found guilty of attempting for 20 years to destroy the profession of chiropractitioners.
Though a large part of the AMA's stated mission is to be "an essential force for progress in improving the nation's health," it was without a doubt Hoxsey's biggest enemy, and is largely responsible for driving him and his treatments out of the country. Morris Fishbein, editor of the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) -- the AMA's flagship medical journal -- from 1924 to 1949, particularly targeted Hoxsey and his therapy, labeling Hoxsey a "quack" while simultaneously refusing to study his therapies or their efficacy. Fishbein went out of his way to sully Hoxsey's name in JAMA publications, and was eventually found guilty of libeling Hoxsey in two 1947 suits. "Fishbein had written an 'excoriating editorial' in JAMA titled 'Hoxsey -- Cancer Charlatan.' He also co-authored an article in the Hearst newspaper chain's weekly newsmagazine, titled 'Blood Money,'" writes Moss in "Herbs Against Cancer." Without evidence, Fishbein's JAMA articles attacked Hoxsey's treatment, claiming it "ate into blood vessels" and killed patients, Moss writes.
To most Americans, the concept of "nonprofit" goes hand-in-hand with trust. If a person or an agency isn't driven by money, they seem more likely to be trustworthy and unbiased. They should have the public's best interests at heart, right? The American Medical Association (AMA) is a nonprofit agency whose mission is "to be an essential part of the professional life of every physician and an essential force for progress in improving the nation's health," according to the AMA's website. It makes you wonder, then, why the AMA gladly accepted huge sums of advertising fees from tobacco companies who advertised heavily in its flagship journal, JAMA, throughout the 20th century.
The AMA claims to support "progress," but history shows that the AMA has worked diligently to block much in the way of real progress in order to control medicine and shut out competition. Consider chiropractic medicine, which is categorized as an "alternative" treatment by most Americans. It involves healing the human body through adjusting the spinal column and other musculoskeletal structures in the body. More than 60,000 chiropractors are practicing in the United States today, and 10,000 students are studying to become doctors of chiropractic medicine, or DCs. It is a legitimate medical practice that often solves medical problems conventional medicine can't.
As an agency that proclaims itself to be concerned with improving the nation's health, the AMA has a duty to accept the field of chiropractic medicine as having proven medicinal value. But history shows just the opposite. Until recently, the AMA viewed chiropractors as competition and tried to destroy the practice of chiropractic medicine in its entirety. In When Healing Becomes and Crime, Kenny Ausubel writes, "For over 12 years and with the full knowledge and support of their executive officers, the AMA paid the salaries and expenses for a team of more than a dozen medical doctors, lawyers and support staff for the expressed purpose of conspiring (overtly and covertly) with others in medicine to first contain, and eventually, destroy the profession of chiropractic in the United States and elsewhere."
This was not speculation. The actions taken by the U.S. Court of Appeals 7th circuit support Ausubel's accusation. In 1990, chiropractic doctors Chester A. Wilk, James W. Bryden, Patricia B. Arthur and Michael D. Pedigo won a landmark antitrust lawsuit against the AMA. The court ruled that the AMA had violated the Sherman Act by "conducting an illegal boycott in restraint of the trade directed at chiropractors generally, and at the four plaintiffs in particular." This 1990 verdict against the AMA followed three other antitrust cases against the association in 1978, 1980 and 1986, all of which were settled.
The fact that the AMA tried to eliminate the profession of chiropractic is fairly well known in the medical community. But there are other skeletons in the AMA's closet that aren't as well known. Have you ever heard of Morris Fishbein? The University of Chicago's Center for History of Science and Medicine is named after him. He was editor of the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) from 1924-1949. Oh, and he was a racketeer, too.
Fishbein apparently operated the AMA for the sole purpose of dominating medicine and discrediting anything he could not control. He also masterminded a scam where he determined what products were fit to carry the AMA's "seal of acceptance" and then accepted money from the manufacturers of those products in exchange for permission to use the AMA seal.
But in reality, the association had no facilities in which to conduct tests of foods or drugs to evaluate their so-called "fitness." Gaining the seal was merely a matter of paying Fishbein shady advertising fees to feature the products in AMA publications. Those fees were in fact "protection" fees paid to keep AMA membership. As editor of JAMA, Fishbein had full control over what information reached the public and what did not.
Thanks to Fishbein, you most likely haven't heard of the Rife Beam Ray. It is a holistic treatment for cancer and infectious diseases. Fishbein single-handedly stifled its research when he learned of the technology. "Sadly, the research was suppressed by medical authorities under the covert direction of Morris Fishbein … who sought to buy into and control the use of the Rife Beam Ray," writes Richard Gerber, author of Vibrational Medicine. "Fishbein (who was later convicted of racketeering charges) was spurned by Rife [creator of Beam Ray treatment] when he attempted to buy into his company. In response, Fishbein decided that if he could not control the therapy, he would suppress it."
Although Fishbein's legacy is tainted with corruption and his misuse of an agency the public trusts, he is remembered by many as the AMA's spokesman for medical orthodoxy, which advocates sticking to what is commonly accepted, customary or traditional.
Take the case of Hoxsey Cancer Clinic in Dallas, which was the world's largest private cancer center in the 1950s. Harry Hoxsey, the clinic's founder, was a self-taught healer who treated cancer patients with herbal folk remedies that proved amazingly effective.
"A Dallas judge ruled in federal court that Hoxsey's therapy was 'comparable to surgery, radium and x-ray in its effectiveness, without the destructive side effects of those treatments'," writes Dr. John Heinerman in Natural Pet Cures. "[Hoxsey] faced unrelenting opposition and harassment from a hostile medical establishment. [But] even his archenemies, the American Medical Association and the Food and Drug Administration, admitted that his treatment could cure some forms of cancer." Despite the courts' approval of Hoxsey's treatment, the Dallas clinic was shut down in the 1950s at the end of the McCarthy Era. "The AMA, NCI (National Cancer Institute), and FDA organized a 'conspiracy' to 'suppress' a fair, unbiased assessment of Hoxsey's methods, according to a 1953 report to Congress," writes Heinerman.
But that was all in the 50s. Surely the AMA has improved with time, right? Perhaps not. According to a 1998 article in The New York Times, the AMA paid Sunbeam Corp. $9.9 million to avoid a breach-of-contract trial with the company after pulling out of a five-year, multi-million-dollar endorsement deal. The AMA would have made millions of dollars in royalties by endorsing Sunbeam's blood pressure monitors, humidifiers and other products, but the association backed out of the deal after being criticized because it had no plans to test the products. The AMA had basically made a profit-making deal to endorse products they had no plans of testing beforehand. The AMA only pulled out once the public got wind of the deal.
Does this situation sound familiar? It sounds a bit Fishbein-esque; although Fishbein's "seal of acceptance" program was abandoned in 1955 after a lawsuit was brought against the AMA. It was settled out of court – much like the Sunbeam suit.
After the settlement with Sunbeam, the AMA said it was "now fully focused on its historic mission to serve America's patients and the quality of American medicine." What, then, had been its focus before the Sunbeam settlement? Was it making money? Was it controlling what medical information is "fit" to reach the American public?
Despite the fact that the AMA is stated to be a nonprofit association, it nevertheless has a troublesome history of focusing on money and control. Even its longtime campaign against chiropractic medicine appears grounded in money-making motives, since the association was attempting to eliminate orthodox medicine's "competition."
Today, the AMA boasts that its core purpose is "to promote the science and art of medicine and the betterment of public health." The AMA further claims "only the AMA has the national voice, the reputation and the stature to be a strong advocate for physicians and their patients."
Reputation? For those inclined to place trust in the "reputation" and "stature" of the AMA, just take a look at the association's history. In doing so, you will find an organization operated with questionable ethics.
Even today, the AMA continues to make decisions obviously designed to protect organized medicine, not patients. For example, the AMA is right now engaged in the following actions:
Refusing to support the ban of direct-to-consumer drug advertising, a dangerous phenomenon that is partly responsible for the vast over-prescribing of prescription drugs that are right now killing 100,000 Americans each and every year. Continuing to support the prescribing of antidepressant drugs to children, even though such drugs are now clearly linked to violent thoughts and suicidal behavior and have been banned from use in children in the U.K.
Continuing to accept tens of millions of dollars each year in advertising funds from drug companies whose products dominate the pages of the Journal of the American Medical Association. Many of the drugs advertised in JAMA are, in fact, the very same drugs that are right now killing tens of thousands of Americans each year, according to senior drug safety researchers at the FDA. This massive funding of the AMA by drug companies creates a clear conflict of interest.
The experts speak on the AMA and Fishbein Judge Getzendanner ruled, "I conclude that an injunction is necessary in this case. There are lingering effects of this conspiracy; the AMA has never acknowledged the lawlessness of its past conduct and in fact to this day maintains that it has always been in compliance with the antitrust laws." The AMA was forced to circulate the contrite Order of Injunction through medical journals, hospitals, and many other outlets, and to cease and desist from obstructing the professional rights of the chiropractic profession. The conviction marked the third time in the century that the AMA was found guilty of antitrust violations for conspiracy and restraint of trade. The medical association was first convicted in 1937 under Dr. Fishbein for trying to destroy an autonomous doctors' group applying cost-cutting health delivery and insurance in Washington, D.C. It was again found guilty in 1982 by the Federal Trade Commission—a decision upheld by the Supreme Court, just as the earlier conviction was. This time the verdict confirmed the AMA's decades-long, systematic violation of antitrust statutes. -- When Healing Becomes A Crime by Kenny Ausubel, page 265
Cigarette manufacturer Philip Morris, the Journal's biggest single advertiser, also ran into some problems. Blitzing the AMA Journal and thirty-one state and regional medical journals, the start-up tobacco company was eager to publicize its innovative use of diethylene glycol as a hygroscopic agent (to retain moisture), in place of the glycerin used by other manufacturers. Philip Morris pegged its campaign on hyping the breakthrough that its cigarettes were consequently "less irritating to the throat." When the corporation approached the Journal with its ads, Dr. Fishbein courteously advised it how to go about conducting acceptable scientific testing to validate its unsubstantiated claims and thereby qualify. The cigarette manufacturer was eager to link its product with health benefits, and Dr. Fishbein saw a vast new opportunity for revenues from nonmedical products, despite the fact that by this time in the 1930s medical journals were already publishing studies associating smoking with lung cancer. The company completed its testing at the Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons with findings that the cigarettes with diethylene glycol caused three times less swelling than other brands. The company used these studies to launch its medical ad campaign, while supplying free smokes to doctors. One Journal ad read, "Patients with coughs were instructed to change to Philip Morris cigarettes. In three out of four cases, the coughs disappeared completely. When these patients changed back to cigarettes made by the ordinary method of manufacture, coughs had returned in one third of the cases. This Philip Morris superiority is due to the employment of diethylene glycol." (Note: this is what was substituted for glycerin in toothpastes, cough syrups, etc. recently by the Chinese and which killed hundreds of people and sickened many others). -- When Healing Becomes A Crime by Kenny Ausubel, page 90
The AMA was also composed almost entirely of male doctors and there were many swipes at women in Fishbein's writing. It is interesting from a sociological point of view that nutrition and herbalism were opposed, in part, because they were associated with women. For example, Fishbein considered Eclecticism "the apotheosis of the old grandmother and witch-doctor systems of treatment." It arose out of "the medical practice of an old-woman herb doctor." Herbal remedies, built up over decades of careful observation, were mockingly derided as "veritable vegetable soups". Fishbein considered anything traditional in medicine to be abhorrent. He saw the botanical drugs of the late 19th century as "almost a replica of the herbals of the 17th and 18th century Europe." ...Of course, the vast majority of phytochemicals now known to reside in plants and herbs (many with unique physiological effects) were undreamed of in Fishbein's day. To put it colloquially, he was simply blowing smoke. While the AMA was successful in eliminating most competition, Fishbein became concerned, and then obsessed, by "the worst cancer quack of the century," Harry Hoxsey. -- Herbs Against Cancer by Ralph W Moss PhD, page 75-76
One of the landmark days in the recent history of alternative medicine in the U.S. was August 27, 1987. On that day, District Judge Susan Getzendanner found the American Medical Association (AMA) and fourteen associated parties guilty of waging a conspiracy against chiropractors to contain and eliminate them entirely, in violation of the Sherman Antitrust law. …the fourteen litigators probably cost AMA at least $15 million. -- Physician by Richard Leviton, page 28
Fishbein's early success combating quackery revealed to him a gold mine of limitless possibilities. In rapid-fire succession he cranked out three books: Fads and Quackery, Medical Follies, and The New Medical Follies. "As one reads the rolls of fakirs down through the ages," Fishbein gleefully penned, "one becomes almost convinced of the doctrine of transmigration of souls." Dr. Fishbein also utilized the "Devil theory of history," as one observer put it, exemplified by his quackdown. In Medical Follies, he dubbed the profession of chiropractic a "malignant tumor" whose theory was "so simple that even farm-hands can grasp it. It has been said that osteopathy is essentially a method of entering the practice of medicine by the back door. Chiropractic, by contrast, is an attempt to arrive through the cellar. The man who applies at the back door at least makes himself presentable. The one who comes through the cellar is besmirched with dust and grime; he carries a crowbar and he may wear a mask." Under Dr. Fishbein's direction, the AMA Bureau of Investigation's quack files swelled to a prodigious 300,000 names. -- When Healing Becomes A Crime by Kenny Ausubel, page 88
...Even the American Medical Association (AMA) was complicit in suppressing results of tobacco research. In 1964, the Surgeon General's report condemned smoking, however the AMA refused to endorse it. … -- Death By Medicine by Gary Null PhD, page 25
…. By the 1950s, the Hoxsey Cancer Clinic in Dallas was the world's largest private cancer center, -with branches in seventeen states. Born in Illinois, the charismatic practitioner of herbal folk medicine faced unrelenting opposition and harassment from a hostile medical establishment. Nevertheless, two federal courts upheld the 'therapeutic value' of Hoxsey's internal tonic. Even his archenemies, the American Medical Association and the Food and Drug Administration, admitted that his treatment could cure some forms of cancer. A Dallas judge ruled in federal court that Hoxsey's therapy was 'comparable to surgery, radium, and x-ray' in its effectiveness, without the destructive side effects of those treatments.' But in the 1950s, at the tail end of the McCarthy era, Hoxsey's clinics were shut down. The AMA, NCI [National Cancer Institute], and FDA organized a 'conspiracy' to 'suppress' a fair, unbiased assessment of Hoxsey's methods, according to a 1953 federal report to Congress." -- Natural Pet Cures by Dr John Heinerman, page 81
The campaign was wildly successful and established Philip Morris as a major tobacco player, until, in 1937, seventy-two people died as a result of using a drug called Sulfanalamide Massengill. With help from the AMA itself, the toxic agent was determined to be diethylene glycol. Dr. Fishbein hit the ground backpedaling. He defended his advertiser in an editorial by saying "There is no evidence that the ordinary use of diethylene glycol in industry, or as an ingredient in the manufacture of cigarettes, is harmful." The company was so grateful that it offered him a retainer for his services, which he refused, tipping his editor's public health hat. Other cigarette manufacturers quickly followed suit in their entry into the medical market using physician testimonials. More Doctors smoke Camels than any other cigarette was the slogan at Camel's exhibit at the 1947 AMA convention. Only in the 1950s, when overwhelming evidence of the causation of lung cancer by smoking reached the public, did the Journal stop accepting tobacco ads, though Dr. Fishbein was by then serving as a paid consultant to the Lorillard tobacco company. Through its Members' Retirement Fund, the AMA continued to own tobacco stock in the seven figures until the mid-1980s. Numerous physicians complained of other high-pressure tactics from Chicago. Dr. George Starr White, a respected physician who lectured extensively to doctors and reputedly had the largest private practice in the country, described how two doctors from AMA headquarters approached him with a proposition. -- When Healing Becomes A Crime by Kenny Ausubel, page 91
The AMA could not survive on membership dues alone, and without the income secured by him, the Association would undoubtedly flounder. The key to financial solvency for the organization has been its monthly publication, the AMA Journal. It was begun in 1883 by Dr. Simmons as a last-ditch effort to save the infant association from bankruptcy. Its first press run was 3,500 copies and sold at a subscription rate of five dollars per year. But it was anticipated that the bulk of the revenue would be derived from advertisers. By 1973, under the tight control of Managing Editor Dr. Morris Fishbein, it had a print run of almost 200,000 copies each month and had extended its publication list to include twelve separate journals including the layman's monthly, Today's Health. Altogether the AMA now derives over ten million dollars per year in advertising, which is almost half of the Association's total income. Who advertises in the AMA Journal and related publications? The lion's share is derived from the Pharmaceutical Manufacturer's Association whose members make up ninety-five percent of the American drug industry. -- World Without Cancer by G Edward Griffin, page 274
The National Council Against Health Fraud (NCAHF) is widely considered the unofficial propaganda arm of the American Medical Association. After a federal court ruling that found the AMA and other medical organizations had conspired to disseminate misinformation about chiropractic in an attempt to destroy its "competition," the NCAHF became the front man for the attack. -- Under The Influence Modern Medicine by Terry A Rondberg DC, page 143
When Dr. Fishbein took the stand under cross-examination, the digging done by Hoxsey's lawyers paid off. Under oath, Dr. Fishbein made shocking admissions. He failed anatomy in medical school. He never completed his internship before going to work at the Journal. He never practiced a day of medicine or treated a single patient in his entire career. Dr. Fishbein was sweating profusely by the time he left the stand. His definition of a quack as "one who pretends to medical skill he does not possess" now reflected back in an unseemly mirror. -- When Healing Becomes A Crime by Kenny Ausubel, page 117
One may ask why no one has heard of the Rife Beam Ray if it had such a high success rate in treating cancer and infectious diseases. Sadly, the research was suppressed by medical authorities under the covert direction of Morris Fishbein, a powerful editor of JAMA (the Journal of the American Medical Association) who sought to buy into and control the use of the Rife Beam Ray. Fishbein (who was later convicted of racketeering charges) was spurned by Rife when he attempted to buy into his company. In response, Fishbein decided that if he could not control the therapy, he would suppress it. -- Vibrational Medicine by Richard Gerber MD, page 515
… The American Medical Association had just been convicted in federal court of a "conspiracy to destroy and eliminate" the chiropractic profession." The court judgment was unequivocal. "For over twelve years and with the full knowledge and support of their executive officers, the AMA paid the salaries and expenses for a team of more than a dozen medical doctors, lawyers, and support staff for the expressed purpose of conspiring (overtly and covertly) with others in medicine to first contain, and eventually, destroy the profession of chiropractic in the United States and elsewhere." Also convicted with the AMA were the American College of Surgeons and the American College of Radiologists. -- When Healing Becomes A Crime by Kenny Ausubel, page 263
Historically, this was a period in which the AMA had recently established its hegemony over American medicine. It was headed by Morris Fishbein, a pugnacious physician who was to make himself infamous in the eyes of many advocates of unconventional cancer therapies for his attacks on Gerson, Hoxsey, and other pioneers of unconventional therapies. It is no surprise to me that Fishbein, faced with congressional hearings inimical to conventional cancer treatment and AMA hegemony, went on the attack. The details of the process by which the AMA destroyed Gerson's professional reputation have been described by Ward and others. Gerson lost his hospital affiliation and was denied malpractice insurance: -- Choices In Healing by Michael Lerner, page 612
The Journal, after all, solicits advertisers to pay top dollar for its pages, whose 750,000 circulation still commands the greatest market share of doctors (including fifteen international editions in 150 countries). The lure of advertising profits continues to compete with the impartiality of "scientific medicine." The AMA medical publicity machine Dr. Fishbein founded is running in perpetual overdrive today. The "JAMA Report," a video news release, goes out weekly on satellite to every TV network and local station in the United States, reaching between 25 and 110 million viewers. Most major newspapers routinely scan JAMA for breaking stories, as do wire services and radio. The AMA also floods about 2,500 press outlets worldwide with weekly e-mails and faxes. The credibility of the AMA's vaunted Code of Ethics, which ostensibly puts the profession of healing above business, is in tatters today. In 1998 the AMA once again was mired in negative publicity as the Seal of Acceptance experienced its latest devaluation. After the AMA granted the Sunbeam corporation an exclusive product endorsement for the manufacturer's medical devices without even testing them, the medical association was set to receive millions of dollars in licensing fees, which it planned to use to offset declining membership dues. Outrage from the medical community and other competing companies crashed the nakedly commercial transaction. The mass media roasted the AMA's signature cupidity. -- When Healing Becomes A Crime by Kenny Ausubel, page 331
Historian Harris Coulter, PhD, has called Eclecticism "a more sophisticated system of practice drawing on the same intellectual and philosophical sources" as Thomsonianism (86). However, they had no systematic theory of diagnostics or pharmacology, and basically accepted allopathic medicine's systems, substituting their own vegetable cures. Regular and Eclectic physicians competed for the same clients and generally despised each other. JAMA editor Morris Fishbein, MD, called Eclecticism "the apotheosis of the old grandmother and witch-doctor systems of treatment" (132). He championed chemotherapy and denied any utility to herbs, whatsoever. -- Herbs Against Cancer by Ralph W Moss PhD, page 39
In 1912, 1921 and 1936, the AMA issued three volumes called Nostrums and Quackery. These described the "evils" of patent medicines, which a few years before had been a mainstay of the Journal of the American Medical Associations revenue. In 1927, Morris Fishbein, MD, the editor of JAMA, issued a popular book that included an "Encyclopedia of Cults and Quackery." Fishbein saw "cults" everywhere. It is amusing that he even considered beauty parlors to be part of the medical cult phenomenon. And he filled page after page with descriptions of cults from Aero- to Zonotherapy. "The appeal of the bizarre is strong even to enlightened men," wrote the enlightened Fishbein. "To a public educated to a belief in the black art, magic, alchemy, and the miracles of the saints, the unusual necessarily has an absolute fascination. Medicine in this way became inordinately complex and chaotic". Fishbein and his colleagues set out to make medicine simple and well organized, by centralizing everything under the control of the AMA. They especially aimed at the destruction of Eclecticism and its heirs. This set the stage for the great battle of the 20th century concerning herbs and cancer, the Hoxsey saga. -- Herbs Against Cancer by Ralph W Moss PhD, page 48
Throughout Hoxsey's era, organized medicine denied any link between diet and cancer. As Dr. Morris Fishbein contended, "There is no scientific evidence whatsoever to indicate that modification in the dietary intake of food or any other nutritional essentials are of any specific value in the control of cancer." Science has since contradicted him. In general terms, contemporary research has shown that the Hoxsey diet does directly serve important anticancer functions. -- When Healing Becomes A Crime by Kenny Ausubel, page 211
Over the years Fishbein not only established himself as the gifted editor of the most widely read medical journal in the United States; he also learned how to extend his editorial position, how to project his opinions nationwide. He became, as the saying went in those years, a "personality." TIME referred to him as "the nation's most ubiquitous, the most widely maligned, and perhaps most influential medico." In addition to his development of JAMA as an editorial and personal voice, Fishbein also continually railed against "quackery." -- Textbook of Natural Medicine Volumes 1-2 by Joseph E Pizzorno and Michael T Murray, page 35
In a brief twenty years, the AMA came to dominate medical practice through brute financial force, political manipulation, and professional authority enhanced by rising public favor with "scientific" medicine. The AMA emerged as the supreme arbiter of medical practice, making binding pronouncements regulating even the most picayune details. American medicine surged forward as a profit-driven enterprise of matchless scope. By the time Dr. Morris Fishbein assumed the mantle of Dr. Simmons, who had himself started out as a homeopath, the AMA was at the helm of a strapping new industry flying the allopathic flag. The code word for competition was quackery. -- When Healing Becomes A Crime by Kenny Ausubel, page 291
Rife's discovery was mysteriously burned to the ground. Rife was dragged through the California court system on trumped-up charges. So powerful were Fishbein's connections to major medical groups of the day that many doctors who were successfully using the Rife Beam Ray had to cease their use of it for fear of being blacklisted. Because the Rife Beam Ray was suppressed by greedy, unscrupulous people, this cure for cancer was buried and nearly forgotten. It turns out that Rife was not the only researcher experimenting with using an electromagnetic field device to treat cancer. -- Vibrational Medicine by Richard Gerber MD, page 516
Dr. Fishbein's crusade to eliminate the irregulars played no small part in the AMA's financial success by throttling economic competition. While member dues accounted for half the AMA's revenues, the balance flowed from the Journal, now the most profitable publication in the world. Flush with revenues, it soon became known as "the tail that wagged the dog." In addition, the Journal owned or controlled another half-dozen medical journals along with the thirty-five state society journals, with advertising revenues of over $2 million, a huge sum in those days. -- When Healing Becomes A Crime by Kenny Ausubel, page 89
The AMA's core mission of preserving the power, privilege, and financial prosperity of doctors has established it as an organization "notorious for confrontation, ultimatums, and hardball politics".17 Its political action committee, AMPAC, has given over $100 million over the last twenty years to 83 percent of federal congressional representatives and senators. The AMA actually owns the very building in the nation's capital that the government leases for its federal political action committee monitoring program. -- When Healing Becomes A Crime by Kenny Ausubel, page 330
Morris Fishbein became a lot more to the AMA than his title of Managing Editor would suggest. He was its chief executive and business manager. He brought in the money and he decided how it was spent. His investments on behalf of the Association were extremely profitable, so the grateful membership could not, or at least dared not, complain too bitterly. One of the reasons for this investment success was that over ten-million dollars of the organization's retirement fund had been put into leading drug companies. -- World Without Cancer by G Edward Griffin, page 274
A Federal appeals court has upheld a 1987 ruling that the American Medical Association violated antitrust laws by trying to destroy the chiropractic profession.
On Wednesday, the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the finding of Federal District Judge Susan Getzendanner, who barred the medical association from boycotting chiropractors, whose treatment is manipulation focusing on the spine.
George McAndrews, a lawyer for the chiropractors, said the rights they want include ''fair treatment by tax-supported institutions, hospitals, insurance plans, H.M.O.'s and other groups that have burdened those patients with anticompetitive barriers.''
A.M.A. policy, the plaintiffs charge, has prevented doctors from referring patients to chiropractors or taking referrals from them. The doctors were accused of preventing chiropractors from treating patients at hospitals controlled by medical doctors.
Association's Curbs Enjoined
On Sept. 25, 1987, Judge Getzendanner, who has since retired, permanently enjoined the A.M.A. from ''restricting, regulating or impeding'' its 275,000 members or hospitals where they work from associating with chiropractors. Earlier she found a conspiracy ''to contain and eliminate the chiropractic profession.''
A three-judge appellate panel ruled that Judge Getzendanner had reached a ''reasonable'' decision. The panelists were Judges David Manion, Harlington Wood Jr. and Kenneth Ripple.
She ''found a cognizable danger of recurrent violations, was unimpressed with the A.M.A.'s expressed intent to comply with antitrust laws, was unpersuaded by the effectiveness of the A.M.A.'s discontinuance of its boycott and properly considered the systematic and long-term nature of the boycott,'' the appeals panel said.
Internal Amendment Is Directed
Judge Getzendanner also directed the A.M.A. to publish a copy of her order in the Journal of the American Medical Association and mail all of its members and employees copies.
She also required that the association amend its Current Opinions of the Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs, guidelines on ethical behavior to reflect that it is ethical to associate with chiropractors.
The lawsuit, filed in 1977 by four chiropractors, did not seek money damages but challenged the medical doctors' refusal to acknowledge chiropractors' professional abilities.
http://www.chirobase.org/08Legal/AT/at00.html Chiropractic Antitrust Suit Wilk, et al., v. AMA, et al. Summary of Injunction Issued September 25, 1987 The American Medical Association and its 275,000 members, when working in concert with the AMA, were permanently enjoined today by United States District Court Judge Susan Getzendanner from "restricting, regulating or impeding or aiding and abetting others from restricting, regulating, or impeding the freedom of any AMA members or any institution or hospital to make an individual decision as to whether or not that AMA member, institution, or hospital shall professionally associate with chiropractors, chiropractic students, or chiropractic institutions."
The Order of Permanent Injunction issued by the Court requires the AMA to send copies of the Order of Injunction to each of its 275,000 members, to modify the official AMA Judicial Council Opinions and Reports to reflect the AMA's representations to the Court that it is now "ethical for a medical physician to professionally associate with chiropractors provided the physician believes that such an association is in the best interest of its patient," and to publish the Injunction Order in the Journal of the American Medical Association.
The AMA, which in 1963 commenced working aggressively, in the words of the Court, to "overtly and covertly" eliminate the profeseion of chiropractic.in the United States, found itself on the day the injunction was issued precisely where it was in 1963 - standing alone. In the lost three days prior to the issuance of the Court's injunction against the AMA, codefendants American College of Radiology and the American College of Surgeons reached settlement agreements with the four plaintiff chiropractors terminating the litigation as to them in return for policy statements of those organizations to their members affirming the right of their members to freely associate with doctors of chiropractic in hospitals, private practice, research, educational endeavors and any other legal setting.
Both the ACS and the ACR made payments of $200,000.00 - the ACS payment being made to Kentuckiona Children's Center in Louisville, Kentucky, a home for mentally and physically retarded children, which, the evidence in the trial demonstrated, was the victim of a concerted effort by various medical associations to either close the Center or forbid medical physicians to cooperate with the Center's founder Dr. Lorraine Golden, a chiropractor, in the health care of the children. With the support of the City of Louisville, Kentuckiano has just launched an aggressive expansion program to build new facilities to care for up to 1,000 mentally and physically retarded children and the $200,000.00 gift by the American College of Surgeons is the first contributions to the fund drive for the expansion.
The $200,000.00 payment by the American College of Radiology was to help defray the plaintiff chiropractors' legal expenses in bringing the suit.
Chiropractic Antitrust Suit Wilk, et al., v. AMA, et al. Summary of Judge's Opinion and Order On August 27, 1987, Judge Susan Getzendanner, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Illinois Eastern Division, found the American Medical Association, The American College of Surgeons, and The American College of Radiology, guilty of having conspired to destroy the profession of chiropractic in the United States.
In a 101-page opinion, Judge Getzendanner ruled that the American Medical Association and its co-conspirators had violated the Sherman Antitrust Laws of the United States. Judge Getzendanner ruled that they had done this by organizing a national boycott of doctors of chiropractic by medical physicians and hospitals using an ethics ban on interprofessional cooperation.
Evidence at the trial showed that the defendants took active steps, often covert, to undermine chiropractic educational institutions, conceal evidence of the usefulness of chiropractic care, undercut insurance programs for patients of chiropractors, subvert government inquiries into the efficacy of chiropractic, engage in a massive disinformation campaign to discredit and destabilize the chiropractic profession and engage in numerous other activities to maintain a medical physician monopoly over health care in this country.
Judge Getzendanner ruled:
I conclude that an injunction is necessary in this case. There ore lingering effects of the conspiracy; the AMA has never acknowledged the lawlessness of its post conduct and in fact to this day maintains that it has always been in compliance with the antitrust laws; there has never been an affirmative statement by the AMA that it is ethical to associate with chiropractors; there has never been a public statement to AMA members of the admission made in this court about the improved nature of chiropractic despite the fact that the AMA today claims that it made changes in its policy in recognition of the change and improvement in chiropractic; there has never been public retraction of articles such as "The Right and Duty of Hospitals to Deny Chiropractor Access to Hospitals"; a medical physician has to very carefully read the current AMA Judicial Council Opinions to realize that there has been a change in the treatment of chiropractors and the court cannot assume that members of the AMA pore over these opinions*, and finally, the systematic, long-term wrongdoing and the long-term intent to destroy a licensed profession suggests that an injunction is appropriate in this case. When all of these factors are considered in the context of this "private attorney general" antitrust suit, a proper exercise of the court's discretion permits, and in my judgment requires, an injunction. (Opinion pp. 11).
Evidence in the case demonstrated that the AMA knew of scientific studies implying that chiropractic care was twice as effective cis medical care in relieving many painful conditions of the neck and back as well as related musculoskeletal problems. The court concluded:
There also was some evidence before the Committee that chiropractic was effective - more effective than the medical profession in treating certain kinds of problems such as workmen's back injuries. The Committee on Quackery was also aware that some medical physicians believed chiropractic to be effective and that chiropractors were better trained to deal with musculoskeletal problems than most medical physicians. (Opinion pp. 7)
The Opinion found:
The AMA and its officials, including Dr. Sammons, instituted a boycott of chiropractors in the mid-1960s by informing AMA members that chiropractors were unscientific practitioners and that it was unethical for a medical physician to associate with chiropractors. The purpose of the boycott was to contain and eliminate the chiropractic profession. This conduct constituted a conspiracy among the AMA and its members and an unreasonable restraint of trade in violation of Section I of the Sherman Act.
The AMA sought to spread the boycott to other medical societies. Other groups agreed to participate in the boycott by agreeing to induce their members to forego any form of professional, research, or educational association with chiropractors. The defendants which knowingly joined in the conspiracy were ACS, ACR, and AAOS. None of the defendants established the patient care defense. The plaintiffs are entitled to injunctive relief against the AMA, ACS, and ACR, but not against AAOS or Dr. Sammons. The court shall conduct further proceedings regarding the form of the injunction. The actions of the other defendants, JCAH and ACP, were taken independently of the AMA boycott and these defendants did not join the conspiracy. Accordingly, defendants JCAH, ACP, AAOS and Dr. Sammons are dismissed. (Opinion pp. 2)
The Committee on Quackery disbanded in December 1974 and considered its activities a success:
The AMA believed that chiropractic would hove achieved greater growth if it had not been for the Committee's activities. (opinion pp. 4)
The Court of Appeals stated that enforcement of a code of ethics was not necessary to obtain compliance with the boycott:
The anti-competitive effects of the boycott were generally conceded by the defendants' expert, William J. Lynk of Lexecon, Inc. Some of the anticompetitive effects acknowledged by Mr. Lynk include the following: it is anti-competitive and it raises costs to interfere with the consumer's free choice to take the product of his liking; it is anti-competitive to prevent medical physicians from referring patients to a chiropractor; it is anti-competitive to impose higher costs on chiropractors by forcing them to pay for their own x-ray equipment rather than obtaining x-rays from hospital radiology departments or radiologists in private practice; and it is anti-competitive to prevent chiropractors from improving their education in a professional setting by preventing medical physicians from teaching or lecturing to chiropractors. Mr. Lynk agreed that in an economic sense a boycott such as the one described by plaintiffs raises the costs of chiropractic services and creates inefficiencies and economic dislocations. (Opinion pp. 6)
The anti -competitive effects of the AMA boycott were established by defendant's witnesses:
The activities of the AMA undoubtedly have injured the reputation of chiropractors generally. This kind of injury more likely than not was sustained by the four plaintiffs. In my judgment, this injury continues to the present time and likely continues to adversely affect the plaintiffs. The AMA has never made any attempt to publicly repair the damage the boycott did to chiropractors' reputations. (Opinion pp. 10).
Based on the findings of fact and conclusions of low set forth in this opinion, the case is dismissed against defendants JCAH, ACP, AAOS, and Dr. Sammons, and an injunction shall issue against defendants AMA, ACS, and ACR. The plaintiffs and the AMA, ACS, and ACR, are directed to confer on the form of injunction and to report to the court on the progress of those discussions. The case is set for an in-chambers conference on September 4, 1987 at 3:00 P.M.
It is so ordered.
August 27, 1987 Susan Getzendanner United States District Judge
Memorandum Opinion and Order: Liability of the American Medical Association (AMA) and Dr. Sammons 1. Boycott Activities In the early 1960s the AMA became concerned that medical physicians were cooperating with chiropractors. In 1963, the AMA hired as its general counsel the author of the Iowa Medical Society plan to contain chiropractic in Iowa. As early as September 1963, the AMA's objective was the complete elimination of the chiropractic profession. In November of 1963, the AMA authorized the formation of the Committee on Quackery under the AMA's Department of Investigation.
In 1964, the Committee's primary goal was to contain and eliminate chiropractic. Throughout the 1960s and early 1970s, H. Doyl Taylor, the chairman of the Department of Investigation, repeatedly described the Committee's prime mission to be the containment and elimination of chiropractic as a recognized health care service. I found his video deposition denials, and his explanation that at all times he and the Committee only meant to eliminate chiropractic as a health hazard, incredible and unworthy of belief. Mr. Taylor believed that chiropractic was based on a "single cause -- single cure" theory of disease and that given this baseless foundation, the entire profession should be "swept away."
The Committee worked aggressively to achieve its goals in several areas. it conducted nationwide conferences on chiropractic; prepared and distributed numerous publications critical of chiropractic; assisted others in the preparation and distribution of anti-chiropractic literature; regularly communicated with medical boards and associations, warning that professional association between medical physicians and chiropractors was unethical; and attempted to discourage colleges, universities, and faculty members from cooperating with chiropractic schools. [The Committee worked to influence legislation on the state and federal levels and engaged in informational activities to inform the public on the nature of chiropractic. All of this activity is protected under the Noerr-Pennington doctrine, and I have not relied on any such conduct in reaching any conclusion in this case. The Wilk Court specifically approved the jury instruction used in the first trial that stated that defendants advocacy activity directed to legislative and administrative agencies, or bodies was protected if the "defendants undertook such efforts to influence governmental bodies with a sincere purpose to obtain the governmental actions that they sought." 719 F.2d at 229.]
In 1966, the AMA adopted an anti-chiropractic resolution. This resolution, recommended by the AMA Board of Trustees and adopted by the House of Delegates, called chiropractic an unscientific cult. This label implicitly invoked Principle 3 of the AMA's Principles which made it unethical for a physician to associate with on unscientific practitioner. In 1967, the AMA Judicial Council issued an opinion under Principle 3 specifically holding that it was unethical for a physician to associate professionally with chiropractors. [The Judicial Council is now known as the Council on Judicial and Ethical Affairs, but I shall refer to it in this opinion by its original name.] "Associating professionally" would include making referrals of patients to chiropractors, accepting referrals from chiropractors, providing diagnostic, laboratory, or radiology services for chiropractors, teaching chiropractors, or practicing together in any form. This opinion was published in the 1969 Opinions and Reports of the Judicial Council of the AMA ("1969 opinions") which was widely circulated to members of the AMA. The opinion on chiropractic was also sent by the AMA to 56 medical specialty boards and associations.
The AMA and the Committee on Quackery used the anti-chiropractic policy statement as a tool -- what the Committee called a necessary tool" -- to spread the boycott to other medical groups. The Committee's efforts were successful. Other groups, including some of the defendants, specifically adopted or approved the policy statement on the ethical prohibition against association with chiropractors. In 1971, the Committee made a report of its activities to the AMA Board of Trustees and described the policy statement as follows:
This was the necessary tool with which your Committee has been able to widen the base of its chiropractic campaign. With it, other health-related groups were asked and did adopt the AMA policy statement or individually-phrased versions of it. These, in turn led to even wider acceptance of the AMA position.
The hoped-for effect of this widened base of support was and is to minimize the chiropractic argument that the campaign is simply one of economics, dictated and manipulated by the AMA.
The memorandum further stated:
The Committee has not submitted such a report (earlier) because it believes that to make public some of its activities would have been and continues to be unwise. Thus this report is intended only for the information of the Board of Trustees.
Principle 3 was widely viewed as proscribing association with chiropractors. The four defendants who issued the Status Report on Chiropractic Lawsuits in 1978 acknowledged in that Report that Principle 3 proscribed association with chiropractors. Any reasonable medical physician who read Principle 3 and either the AMA policy statement or any AMA reference to chiropractors as unscientific practitioners, would conclude that it was unethical for medical physicians to associate with chiropractors.
In 1973, the AMA drafted Standard X, which incorporated the unscientific practitioners ethics bar into the JCAH hospital accrediting standards. The AMA urged JCAH to adopt Standard X, and JCAH complied. Keeping chiropractors out of hospitals was one of the goals of the boycott. When chiropractic was included under Medicare in 1973, the AMA become concerned that this would open the way for chiropractors to be on hospital staffs. Doyl Taylor caused the Office of General Counsel of the AMA to publish an article entitled "The Right and Duty of Hospitals to Exclude Chiropractors" in the Journal of the American Medical Association. This was intended to offer advice to hospital trustees across the country. it also told every hospital attorney that JCAH accreditation might be lost if hospitals dealt with chiropractors. [The JCAH accreditation standards prior to 1983 did not permit a hospital to allow chiropractors on the medical staff or to obtain hospital privileges, except to the extent allowed by state low. The legality of JCAH's actions prior to the 1983 revisions to the JCAH standards, and the responsibility of the member owners for such actions, will be discussed fully in the section of this opinion dealing with JCAH. I do not find that the AMA, or any other member of JCAH, is legally responsible for the pre-1983 accreditation standards.]
The Committee on Quackery disbanded in December of 1974. By this time, chiropractic had achieved licensing in all fifty states, chiropractic services had become reimbursable through Medicare, Medicaid, and virtually every private health insurance pion, and the chiropractic educational system hod been given official sanction by the United States Office of Education. Nevertheless, the Committee pronounced itself a success. The AMA believed that chiropractic would have achieved greater growth if it had not been for the Committee's activities. In May of 1975 the AMA Department of Investigation was disbanded and Doyl Taylor left the employ of the AMA.
This lawsuit was filed in 1976. In that year, the Judicial Council suspended distribution of the 1969 Opinions which contained the anti-chiropractic policy. Later that year the AMA Judicial Council adopted Opinion 3.50 and in March of 1977 Opinions 3.60, 3.70, and 3.71 were adopted. Under these opinions, a medical physician could refer a patient to a "limited licensed practitioner" for diagnostic or other health care services. Although there was no express reference to chiropractors, chiropractors would fall within the definition of "limited licensed practitioners." Next, a medical physician could choose to accept or decline patients sent to her or him by a licensed practitioner or by a layman. Finally, a medical physician could engage in any teaching permitted by low for which she or he is qualified. However, the relaxation of the right to refer patients was not without qualification. Opinion 3.60 specifically required that a medical physician should not refer a patient unless she or he is confident that the services provided on referral will be performed in accordance with accepted scientific standards. In addition, Opinion 3.01 provided that it is 11 wrong to engage in or aid and abet any treatment which has no scientific basis and is dangerous." Distribution of the revised opinions began in May of 1977. Principle 3 was still in effect.
In July of 1979, the AMA House of Delegates adopted Report UU. Report UU was the AMA's new policy statement on chiropractic. It was a very begrudging change of position. Although it is now hailed by the AMA lawyers and Dr. Alan R. Nelson, present Chairman of AMA's Board of Trustees, as a recognition by the AMA of the growth and development of chiropractic as a valid health care service, the Report does not convey that change of heart. First, Report UU states that the AMA knows of no scientific evidence to support spinal manipulation and adjustment as appropriate treatment for such diseases as cancer, diabetes, and infections. It does not declare support for that which the AMA seemingly now approves -- manipulation for musculoskeletal problems. Next the Report condemns the single cause of disease theory and states that "chiropractors disagree on the extent to which they accept or reject traditional chiropractic doctrine." The Report does not state that the two major chiropractic associations had rejected the doctrine in 1969. But the Report continues:
Describing chiropractic as an "unscientific cult" does not, however, necessarily mean that everything a chiropractor may do when acting within the scope of his or her license granted by the state is without therapeutic value, nor does it mean that all chiropractors should be equated with cultists. It is better to call attention to the limitations of chiropractic in the treatment of particular ailments than to label chiropractic an "unscientific cult."
The Report then reaffirms that a physician should at all times practice a method of healing founded on a scientific basis. This again directly tied into Principle 3 which prohibited association with unscientific practitioners. Although the Report ends by stating that a medical physician may refer a patient to a limited licensed practitioner permitted by low to furnish such services, there is no particular reference to chiropractors. Report UU was obviously written by lawyers in an effort to bring the AMA into compliance with the antitrust laws, and not a bold change of position designed to reverse the attitudes of the AMA members formed, at least in port, by the then eleven-year-old boycott.
In December of 1978, the AMA House of Delegates adopted Resolution 14 which provided that medical physicians "continue to exercise the duty to expose unscientific practices and practitioners while supporting and protecting the freedom of individuals to choose among physicians, other licensed practitioners or religious healers as part of the American tradition." It is hard to tell the purpose of this resolution, other than to suggest a similarity between chiropractors and Elmer Gantry, but it once again keyed into Principle 3 which condemned association with unscientific practitioners.
In 1980 the AMA adopted a completely revised version of the principles of medical ethics. Principle 3 finally was eliminated. The new principles provided that a medical physician "shall be free to choose whom to serve, with whom to associate, and the environment in which to provide medical services." The revised principles theoretically do allow association with chiropractors but there is no explicit reference to chiropractors in the new code.
The revised code received a fair amount of publicity in the medical and private press in 1980. The revision was interpreted as changing the AMA's position on chiropractic in response to various pressures, including the legal climate. And yet, two years later, when Dr. Daniel T. Cloud, who was then finishing his term as president of the AMA, was asked in a formal interview whether the 1980 ethics code changed the position of doctors with regard to chiropractors -- "Was there a change?" -- he stated, "No." This fairly bizarre answer (considering the nature of the publicity the ethics revision received) today is explained by the AMA's lawyers-as a technically accurate answer since, they assert, the change in position was accomplished in 1977 and 1979. Yet today the AMA relies on the revision of the ethical standards in 1980 as part of its change in position on chiropractic. The lawyers' argument is not persuasive. In 1982 the president of the AMA appears to be announcing that the AMA has not changed its position on chiropractic.
In 1983 the AMA participated in the revision of the JCAH accreditation standards for hospitals. The revision process started in 1982 with recommendations from the JCAH staff and the JCAH Standards-Survey Procedures Committee that each hospital, through its governing body, be permitted to decide for itself, under applicable state low, which licensed health care providers would be allowed hospital privileges and membership on the medical staff. The AMA initially supported this approach but it was severely criticized by its members and other medical societies which wanted to ensure medical and osteopathic physician control of the medical staff and patient care in hospitals. As a result of this criticism, the AMA changed its position and supported revisions which would ensure such control. In February of 1983, the AMA voted to recommend revised standards that would require the medical staff of each hospital to have an "executive committee," the majority of which had to be medical or osteopathic physicians. The executive committee would make recommendations to the hospital's governing body for its approval of credentialing, membership on the medical staff, hospital privileges delineations, and structure of the medical staff. Any dispute between the medical staff and the governing body of the hospital would have to be resolved jointly by them. In late 1983, JCAH adopted the new standards which included the mandatory, medical physician dominated executive committee concept.
The plaintiffs rely heavily on the 1983 accreditation standards to show that the conspiracy was ongoing. This issue is discussed generally in the section of this opinion dealing with JCAH, and, in short, I have rejected the argument. What is noteworthy with respect to the AMA, however, is that although it believed that the standards originally proposed by the JCAH Standards-Survey Procedures Committee were more in tune with the existing antitrust "legal climate," it was unable to sustain its position when faced with substantial criticism of its members and other medical groups.
Through the date of the trial, the AMA continued to respond to requests for information on chiropractic which it received from AMA members and others by sending out anti -chiropractic literature. The old boycott language has been eliminated, but the AMA has not had anything positive to say about chiropractic. It was not until mid-way through the trial of this case that the AMA announced that chiropractic has improved and that at least some forms of chiropractic treatment and joint adjustments are scientific. The membership has never been informed of this position.
The plaintiffs argue that the AMA boycott began in 1966 and continued until 1983 when the JCAH accreditation standards were revised. The AMA argues that Report UU and the 1977 opinions constituted a change in the AMA's policy on chiropractors. I reject both positions. Report UU and the 1977 opinions were clearly inadequate to announce a change in the AMA policy, and probably deliberately so. This is well demonstrated by the American College of Physicians' analysis of the 1977 revisions of the opinions. In a 1978 report to its members, the ACP stated:
In 1977, as noted above, a revision of the Judicial Council interpretations of the AMA Principles of Medical Ethics appeared. The explicit language of 1966 was absent; there was no reference to chiropractic per se. In many places, the language used was unclear and ambiguous.
Paragraph 1, Section 3.50, of the 1977 Judicial Council Opinions and Reports does, however, remain forthright:
"A physician should not use unscientific methods of treatment, nor should he voluntarily associate professionally with anyone who does. it is wrong to engage in, or to aid and abet in treatment which has no scientific basis and is dangerous, is calculated to deceive the patient by giving him false hope, or which may cause the patient to delay in seeking proper care until his condition becomes irreversible."
This interpretation supports the court's view that the 1977 opinions were ambiguous and that the use of the key phrase "unscientific methods" continued to signal the existence of the boycott. I conclude that the AMA and its members engaged in a group boycott or conspiracy against chiropractors from 1966 to 1980, when Principle 3 was first eliminated. [Dr. Sammons was a willing participant in the conspiracy. An AMA trustee, Dr. Sammons was on the Committee on Quackery Oversight Panel of the Board of Trustees of the AMA and recommended continued funding of the Committee with knowledge that its prime mission was to be to contain and eliminate chiropractic. Dr. Sammons presently is the Executive Vice President of the AMA.]
Memorandum Opinion and Order: Liability of Remaining Defendants 4. American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) From early on, the exact date is not known, AAOS required its members to pledge compliance with the AMA's Principles of Medical Ethics. This required compliance with Principle 3. Prior to January 30, 1981, again the exact date is not known, AAOS's bylaws were amended to delete this requirement.
In 1966, Dr. David B. Stevens, a Kentucky orthopedic surgeon, sent a copy of the Kentucky Medical Society's anti -chiropractic resolution to Sam Youngerman, a lawyer with the AMA's Department of Investigation. Stevens also sent Youngerman a draft of a resolution to be proposed by Stevens to the AAOS. Youngerman proposed less "monopolistic" language which would have the 11 some intent." Stevens adopted Youngerman's proposed changes and deleted references to the "elimination" of chiropractic. Some argument could be made that at this point Stevens and the AMA are conspiring and that only they knew that the true intent of the resolution was to eliminate and contain chiropractic (which, according to Youngerman would indicate a monopolistic intent).
On January 16, 1967, there was a meeting of the AAOS resolutions committee. Stevens and three others proposed affirmance of the AMA anti -chiropractic policy. Youngerman was an "official guest" at the meeting and "was able to offer the committee helpful advice and suggestions." The AMA's 1966 anti-chiropractic policy statement was presented. AAOS adopted a resolution affirming the AMA's policy statement that chiropractic was an unscientific cult and constituted a hazard to health. The resolution also requested the Executive Committee of AAOS to establish activities to alert the professional and lay public of the hazards of unscientific practice and to participate in the medical profession's program to reduce such dangers to the public health. Although there was no explicit reference to the prohibition of professional association with chiropractors, the reasonable inference is that AAOS knew that a significant part of the medical profession's program to reduce chiropractic dangers to the public health was the prohibition against association with chiropractors. This inference is based on Youngerman's participation at the meeting of the resolutions committee and it is also further supported by the admission made by AAOS in the Status Report on Chiropractic Lawsuits dated October 27, 1978. In this report AAOS acknowledged that Principle 3 proscribed all voluntary association with chiropractors and submitted to the belief that this interpretation of Principle 3 should not be changed.
AAOS argues that the passing of the 1967 resolution was protected Noerr-Pennington activity because the AAOS resolution was obtained by the Committee on Quackery in connection with the Committee's legislative activities. In support of this argument, AAOS relies on a portion of Dr. Stevens' testimony (at pp. 2196-98) during which he is responding to a series of leading questions which assumed that at the time Stevens was presenting his resolution to AAOS he was also a member of the Committee on Quackery, and that his activity was on behalf of the Committee on Quackery. The evidence in this record does not support that assumption. Dr. Stevens testified that he joined the Committee in 1967, but he did not state it was as early as January. He frankly could not recall. The Court of Appeals in Wilk referred to the fact that Stevens joined the Committee on Quackery in 1968. During the first trial AAOS's counsel informed the court that Dr. Stevens joined the Committee on Quackery one and one-half years after the AAOS resolution was adopted. (See p. 866 of the first trial transcript.) AAOS cannot argue in one trial that Stevens joined the Committee on Quackery in 1968 and in this trial that he joined the Committee before January 17, 1967. There is no factual basis for the Noerr-Pennington argument made before this court. There is no evidence that AAOS was acting in furtherance of any political goals when it adopted its anti-chiropractic policy.
In 1972, a member of the AAOS complained to the Academy about pro-chiropractic legislation in California and AAOS wrote to the AMA stating "we are aware of your stated position in this matter." This shows an awareness of the AMA's position but not of any particular activities.
In 1974, there was some activity involving AAOS and the American College of Surgeons regarding the study of chiropractic being undertaken by the NINDS. I have already held, in connection with ACP, that attempts to influence NINDS, a governmental agency, was protected activity. Also in 1974, a neurosurgeon told the American College of Chiropractic Orthopedists that Principle 3 prevented him from speaking to the group and he canceled his commitment to speak. There is no evidence, however, that this doctor was acting this way because of his membership in the AMA or in AAOS.
On February 23, 1986, AAOS formally rescinded its anti-chiropractic resolution. It included the resolution among several other obsolete" resolutions and the membership was asked to approve the deletion of these "obsolete" resolutions. There was no affirmative statement that the policy had been rescinded or was wrong.
During the entire relevant period AAOS never attempted to enforce the AMA's Principles against any members. However, the bylaws did have discipline procedures. Dr. Freitag, an orthopedic surgeon who testified on behalf of the plaintiffs, regularly associates with chiropractors. He had some concerns about his association with chiropractors in connection with passing his specialty boards, but he in fact encountered no difficulty. Several of the plaintiffs have professionally associated with orthopedic surgeons,
In a separate order dated October 25, 1983, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's denial of AAOS's motion for directed verdict at the end of the first trial, holding as follows:
However, the evidence permitted the jury to find: that there was communication between the AMA and AAOS on the subject of chiropractic; that this communication revealed acquiescence by AAOS in the AMA view that chiropractic is unscientific cultism; and that by adopting the essence of the 1966 AMA policy statement, in combination with AMA's Principle 3, AAOS endeavored to discourage medical doctors from professional association with chiropractors.
On the basis of the evidence, I find that AAOS knowingly joined the conspiracy. Whether it adopted Principle 3 of the AMA's Principles intending to boycott chiropractors is not decisive. When AAOS adopted the 1966 AMA policy statement branding chiropractors as unscientific cultists, it knew that it was prohibiting association with chiropractors. This is clear from the 1978 Status Report. AAOS consciously participated in the conspiracy. The evidence clearly establishes that AAOS was not acting independently.
AAOS relied on the same evidence as the AMA on the patient care defense. That evidence is inadequate to establish that defense.
The question of whether an injunction should issue is not so easily answered. AAOS took no corrective action until 1986, many years after the corrective action taken by the AMA. Orthopedic surgeons are direct competitors of chiropractors and they directly benefited from the boycott. However, the actions of AAOS which tied it to the AMA conspiracy occurred in 1966. Apart from protected activity, it did not actively participate in the boycott after 1967. Most of the facts which led the court to enjoin the AMA simply are not present in the evidence against AAOS. I conclude that there is no likelihood that AAOS would renew any boycott or conspiracy against chiropractors. I find that an injunction should not issue against AAOS.
CHESTER A. WILK, et al., Plaintiffs, v. AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, et al., Defendants. No. 76 C 3777
The court conducted a lengthy trial of this case in May and June of 1987 and on August 27, 1987, issued a 101-page opinion finding that the American Medical Association ("AMA") and its members participated in a conspiracy against chiropractors in violation of the nation's antitrust laws. Thereafter on opinion dated September 25, 1987 was substituted for the August 27, 1987 opinion. The question now before the court is the form of injunctive relief that the court wi I I order.
As port of the injunctive relief to be ordered by the court against the AMA, the AMA shall be required to send a copy of this Permanent Injunction Order to each of its current members. The members of the AMA are bound by the terms of the Permanent Injunction Order if they act in concert with the AMA to violate the terms of the order. Accordingly, it is important that the AMA members understand the order and the reasons why the order has been entered.
The AMA's Boycott and Conspiracy In the early 1960s, the AMA decided to contain and eliminate chiropractic as a profession. In 1963 the AMA's Committee on Quackery was formed. The committee worked aggressively -- both overtly and covertly -- to eliminate chiropractic. One of the principal means used by the AMA to achieve its goal was to make it unethical for medical physicians to professionally associate with chiropractors. Under Principle 3 of the AMA's Principles of Medical Ethics, it was unethical for a physician to associate with an "unscientific practitioner," and in 1966 the AMA's House of Delegates passed a resolution calling chiropractic an unscientific cult. To complete the circle, in 1967 the AMA's Judicial Council issued an opinion under Principle 3 holding that it was unethical for a physician to associate professionally with chiropractors.
The AMA's purpose was to prevent medical physicians from referring patients to chiropractors and accepting referrals of patients from chiropractors, to prevent chiropractors from obtaining access to hospital diagnostic services and membership on hospital medical staffs, to prevent medical physicians from teaching at chiropractic colleges or engaging in any joint research, and to prevent any cooperation between the two groups in the delivery of health care services.
The AMA believed that the boycott worked -- that chiropractic would have achieved greater gains in the absence of the boycott, Since no medical physician would want to be considered unethical by his peers, the success of the boycott is not surprising. However, chiropractic achieved licensing inall 50 states during the existence of the Committee on Quackery.
The Committee on Quackery was disbanded in 1975 and some of the committee's activities become publicly known. Several lawsuits were filed by or on behalf of chiropractors and this case was filed in 1976.
Change in AMA's Position on Chiropractic In 1977, the AMA began to change its position on chiropractic. The AMA's Judicial Council adopted new opinions under which medical physicians could refer patients to chiropractors, but there was still the proviso that the medical physician should be confident that the services to be provided on referral would be performed in accordance with accepted scientific standards. In 1979, the AMA's House of Delegates adopted Report UU which said that not everything that a chiropractor may do is without therapeutic value, but it stopped short of saying that such things were based on scientific standards. It was not until 1980 that the AMA revised its Principles of Medical Ethics to eliminate Principle 3. Until Principle 3 was formally eliminated, there was con. siderable ambiguity about the AMA's position. The ethics code adopted in 1980 provided that a medical physician "shall be free" to choose whom to serve, with whom to associate, and the environment in which to provide medical services."
The AMA settleck three chiropractic lawsuits by stipulating and agreeing that under the current opinions of the Judicial Council a physician may, without fear of discipline or sanction by the AMA, refer a patient to a duly licensed chiropractor when he believes that referral may benefit the patient. The AMA confirmed that a physician may also choose to accept at to decline patients sent to hini by a duly licensed chiropractor. Finally, the AMA con. firmed that a physician may teach at a chiropractic college or seminar. These settlements were entered into in 1978, 1980, and 1986.
The AMA's present position on chiropractic, as stated to the court, is that it is ethical for a medical physician to professionally associate with chiropractors provided the physician believes that such association is in the best interests of his patient. This position has not previously been communicated by the AMA to its members.
Antitrust Laws Under the Sherman Act, every combination or conspiracy in restraint of trade is illegal. The court has held that the conduct of the AMA and its members constituted a conspiracy in restraint of trade based on the following facts: the purpose of the boycott was to eliminate chiropractic; chiropractors are in competition with some medical physicians; the boycott had substantial anti-competitive effects; there were no pro-competitive effects of the boycott; and the plaintiffs were injured as a result of the conduct. These facts add up to a violation of the Sherman Act.
In this case, however, the court allowed the defendants the opportunity to establish a "patient care defense" which has the following elements: (1) that they genuinely entertained a concern for what they perceive as scientific method in the care of each person with whom they have entered into a doctor-patient relationship; (2) that this concern is objectively reasonable; (3) that this concern has been the dominant motivating factor in defendants' promulgation of Principle 3 and in the conduct intended to implement it; and (4) that this concern for scientific method in patient care could not have been adequately satisfied in a manner less restrictive of competition.
The court concluded that the AMA had a genuine concern for scientific methods in patient care, and that this concern was the dominant factor in motivating the AMA's conduct. However, the AMA failed to establish that throughout the entire period of the boycott, from 1966 to 1980, this concern was objectively reasonable. The court reached that conclusion on the basis of extensive testimony from both witnesses for the plaintiffs and the AMA that some forms of chiropractic treatment are effective and the fact that the AMA recognized that chiropractic began to change in the early 1970s. Since the boycott was not formally over until Principle 3 was eliminated in 1980, the court found that the AMA was unable to establish that during the entire period of the conspiracy its position was objectively reasonable. Finally, the court ruled that the AMA's concern for scientific method in patient care could have been adequately satisfied in a manner less restrictive of competition and that a nationwide conspiracy to eliminate a licensed profession was not justified by the concern for scientific method. On the basis of these findings, the court concluded that the AMA had failed to establish the patient care defense.
None of the court's findings constituted a judicial endorsement of chiropractic. All of the parties to the case, including the plaintiffs, and the AMA, agreed that chiropractic treatment of diseases such as diabetes, high blood pressure, cancer, heart disease and infectious disease is not proper, and that the historic theory of chiropractic, that there is a single cause and cure of disease was wrong. There was disagreement between the parties as to whether chiropractors should engage in diagnosis. There was evidence that the chiropractic theory of subluxations was unscientific, and evidence that some chiropractors engaged in unscientific practices. The court did not reach the question of whether chiropractic theory was in fact scientific. However, the evidence in the case was that some forms of chiropractic manipulation of the spine and joints was therapeutic. AMA witnesses, including the present Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the AMA, testified that some forms of treatment by chiropractors, including manipulation, can be therapeutic in the treatment of conditions such as back pain syndrome.
Need for Injunctive Relief Although the conspiracy ended in 1980, there are lingering effects of the illegal boycott and conspiracy which require an injunction. Some medical physicians' individual decisions on whether or not to professionally associate with chiropractors are still affected by the boycott. The injury to chiropractors' reputations which resulted from the boycott has not been repaired. Chiropractors suffer current economic injury as a result of the boycott. The AMA has never affirmatively acknowledged that there are and should be no collective impediments to professional association and cooperation between chiropractors and medical physicians, except as provided by low. Instead, the AMA has consistently argued that its conduct has not violated the antitrust laws,
Most importantly, the court believes that it is important that the AMA members be made aware of the present AMA position that it is ethical for a medical physician to professionally associate with a chiropractor if the physician believes it is in the best interests of his patient, so that the lingering effects of the illegal group boycott against chiropractors finally can be dissipated.
Under the law, every medical physician, institution, and hospital has the right to make an individual decision as to whether or not that physician, institution, or hospital shall associate professionally with chiropractors. Individual choice by a medical physician voluntarily to associate professionally with chiropractors should be governed only by restrictions under state low, if any, and by the individual medical physician's personal judgment as to what is in the best interests of a patient or patients. Professional association includes referrals, consultations, group practice in partnerships, Health Maintenance Organizations, Preferred Provider Organizations, and other alternative health care delivery systems; the provision of treatment privileges and diagnostic services (including radiological and other laboratory facilities) in or through hospital facilities; association and cooperation in educational programs for students in chiropractic colleges; and cooperation in research, health care seminars, and continuing education programs.
An injunction is necessary to assure that the AMA does not interfere with the right of a physician, hospital, or other institution to make an individual decision on the question of professional association.
Form of Injunction 1. The AMA, its officers, agents and employees, and all persons who act in active concert with any of them and who receive actual notice of this order are hereby permanently enjoined from restricting, regulating or impeding, or aiding and abetting others from restricting, regulating or impeding, the freedom of any AMA member or any institution or hospital to make an individual decision as to whether or not that AMA member, institution, or hospital shall professionally associate with chiropractors, chiropractic students, or chiropractic institutions.
2. This Permanent Injunction does not and shall not be construed to restrict or otherwise interfere with the AMA's right to take positions on any issue, including chiropractic, and to express or publicize those positions, either alone or in conjunction with others. Nor does this Permanent Injunction restrict or otherwise interfere with the AMA's right to petition or testify before any public today on any legislative or regulatory measure or to join or cooperate with any other entity in so petitioning or testifying. The AMA's membership in a recognized accrediting association or society shall not constitute a violation of this Permanent Injunction.
3. The AMA is directed to send a copy of this order to each AMA member and employee, first class mail, postage prepaid, within thirty days of the entry of this order. In the alternative, the AMA shall provide the Clerk of the Court with mailing labels so that the court may send this order to AMA merpbers and employees.
4. The AMA shall cause the publication of this order in JAMA and the indexing of the order under "Chiropractic" so that persons desiring to find the order in the future will be able to do so.
5. The AMA shall prepare a statement of the AMA's present position on chiropractic for inclusion in the current reports and opinions of the Judicial Council with an appropriate heading that refers to professional association between medical physicians and chiropractors, and indexed in the some manner that other reports and opinions ore indexed. The court imposes no restrictions on the AMA's statement but only requires that it be consistent with the AMA's statements of its present position to the court.
6. The AMA shall file a report with the court evidencing compliance with this order on or before January 10, 1988.
It is so ordered.
August 27, 1987 Susan Getzendanner United States District Judge
http://www.chirobase.org/08Legal/AT/at032.html Chiropractic Antitrust Suit Wilk, et al., v. AMA, et al. Memorandum Opinion and Order: II. Summary of This Court's Rulings In view of the length of this opinion, I shall summarize my principal findings. The AMA and its officials, including Dr. Sammons, instituted a boycott of chiropractors in the mid-1960s by informing AMA members that chiropractors were unscientific practitioners and that it was unethical for a medical physician to associate with chiropractors. The purpose of the boycott was to contain and eliminate the chiropractic profession. This conduct constituted a conspiracy among the AMA and its members and an unreasonable restraint of trade in violation of Section I of the Sherman Act.
The AMA sought to spread the boycott to other medical societies. Other groups agreed to participate in the boycott by agreeing to induce their members to forego any form of professional, research, or educational association with chiropractors. The defendants which knowingly joined in the conspiracy, were ACS, ACR, and AAOS. None of the defendants established the patient care defense. The plaintiffs are entitled to injunctive relief against the AMA, ACS, and ACR, but not against AAOS or Dr. Sammons. The court shall conduct further proceedings regarding the form of the injunction. The actions of the other defendants, JCAH and ACP, were taken independently of the AMA boycott and these defendants did not join the conspiracy. Accordingly, defendants JCAH, ACP, AAOS and Dr. Sammons are dismissed.
The plaintiffs' Section 2 claim was limited to the defendants' alleged conspiracy to monopolize the hospital health care market through restrictive hospital accreditation standards promulgated by JCAH. In view of the court's finding that JCAH did not join the conspiracy, the Section 2 claim is dismissed.
The medical profession has a long history of opposing alternative healing professions. While always claiming public safety as its reasons for the attacks, the true reasons involve protecting their monopoly of the health care market.
In the past, medicine has fought battles to limit the practices of such professionals as homeopaths, naturopaths, osteopaths, podiatrists, optometrists, dentists, psychologists and chiropractors. In the case of osteopathy and chiropractic, there are distinct differences in the approach to healing and health when compared to medicine. The last thing that organized medicine wants is for there doctrine of drugs and surgery to be challenged.
Osteopaths allowed themselves to be absorbed by medicine--today there is little difference between an M.D. and a D.O. Chiropractic on the other hand, fought hard--through the personalities of those like B.J.Palmer to remain a separate and distinct profession.
Medicines opposition to chiropractic was at its strongest under the leadership of Morris Fishbein. Fishbein as Secretary of the American Medical Association from 1924 to 1949, lead a 50 year anti-chiropractic campaign in both professional publications and the public media. Fishbein called chiropractors "rabid dogs" and referred to them as "playful and cute..but killers." He tried to portray chiropractors as members of an unscientific cult, caring about noting but taking their patients money.
In 1949 the AMA removed Fishbein but continued its wage an anti-chiropractic campaign. In 1971, H. Doyle Taylor, the Director of the AMA Department of Investigation, and Secretary of its Committee on Quackery (COQ), submitted a memo to the AMA Board of Trustees stating:
Since the AMA Board of Trustees decision, at its , meeting on November 2-3, 1963, to establish a Committee on Quackery, your Committee has considered its prime mission to be, first, the containment of chiropractic and, ultimately, the elimination of chiropractic.
The following is an excerpt form the COQ's first annual report to the Board of the AMA:
...The Involvement (and indoctrination) of the State Medical Society leadership, in our opinion, is vital to the success of the chiropractic program...We hope and believe that, with continued aggressive AMA activity, chiropractic can and will be contained at the national level and that steps are being taken to stop or eliminate the licenser of chiropractic at the state level.
In 1967 the COQ released its anti chiropractic campaign goals:
Basically, the Committee's short-range objectives for containing the cult of chiropractic and any additional recognition it might achieve revolves about four points:
1. Doing everything within our power to see that chiropractic coverage under title 18 of the Medicare Law is not obtained.
2. Doing everything within our power to see that the recognition or listing by the U.S. Office of Education of a chiropractic accrediting agency is not achieved.
3. To encourage contained separation of the two national chiropractic associations.
4. To encourage state medical societies to take the initiative in their state legislatures in regard to legislation that might affect the practice of chiropractic.
The AMA through its Committee on Quackery continued its war against chiropractic through such acts as, distributing propaganda to the nations teachers and guidance councilors, eliminating the inclusion of chiropractic from the U.S Department of Labor's, Health Careers Guidebook, and establishing specific educational guidelines for medical schools regarding the "hazards to individuals form the unscientific cult of chiropractic."
The AMA did not stop with these acts of propaganda against the chiropractic profession. They worked both publicly and politically to insure that chiropractic failed as a profession. But, even with all of this negative publicity against the profession, chiropractic continued to gain acceptance with the general public, because chiropractic got results.
In 1975 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the case of Goldfarb vs. The Virginia State Bar, that learned professions are not exempt form antitrust suites. In 1982 the Court ruled that the FTC can enforce antitrust laws against medical societies. These two suites paved the way in 1976 for five chiropractors to file an anti-trust suite against the AMA and several other heath care agencies and societies in Federal District Court (known as the Wilkes Case).
Similar suites were filed in New York and Pennsylvania in 1979. The pressure of these law suites forced the AMA even before these suites went to court to propose a modification of their Medical Code of Ethics which prohibited M.D.s from associating with chiropractors. But, it was not until 1980 that the Ethics Code was changed to reflect that each individual doctor may decide for themselves whether to accept a patient from or refer a patient to a chiropractor or other limited practitioner.
The law suites caused so much fear in the medical profession that Mike Wallace (of 60 minutes) was unable to find an M.D. to take the anti-chiropractic side for a 1979 documentary piece on chiropractic.
In 1980 the Wilkes suite went to court, were the AMA and other defendants were found not guilty of all charges. That decision was overturned and a new trial was ordered by the U.S. Court of Appeals in February 1983.
Judge Susan Getzendanner found the AMA and others guilty of an illegal conspiracy against the chiropractic profession in September of 1987, ordering a permeate injunction against the AMA and forcing them to print the courts findings in the Journal of the American Medical Association. Several other of the defendants settled out of court helping to pay for the chiropractors legal expenses and donating to a chiropractic non-profit home for disabled children, Kentuckiana Children's Center.
This decision was upheld in the U.S. Court of Appeals in 1990 and again by the U.S. Supreme Court that same year.
Even with success of the Wilkes Case and other anti-trust litigation, the AMA continues to this day to wage a campaign against chiropractic. Today the attacks take the form of over-stated concerns for the safety of chiropractic health care. The truth is that chiropractic has proven it self over the last 100 plus years, to be a safe and effective means of maintaining health and treating musculo-skeletal injuries.
JAMA Stats Tell the Tale (From the Journal of the American Medical Association)
Doctors kill more people than guns and traffic accidents: by Don Harkins
In the last century we chose the wrong fork in the road with regard to our health care paradigm.
Most people have been conditioned to believe in what is called the germ theory of disease -- that germs cause disease. The truth is that germs are everywhere and they are attracted to and proliferate in diseased tissues.
Bacteria decompose dead matter. That is their job. For instance, when a tree dies, bacteria come in and eat the tree and it eventually becomes soil. Bacteria does not eat a live, healthy tree.
The same thing is true in people -- bacteria are attracted to dead matter. Therefore, if you have dead matter in your body, bacteria will get to work decomposing the dead tissue so that it may eventually become soil. Ashes to ashes, dust to dust.
In the mid 1800s, western medical science had the choice of going one of two ways. Antoine Bechamp's theory of disease maintained that every living thing has arisen from the microzyma (the fundamental unit of the corporate organism ) and every living thing is reducible to the microzyma. Bechamp believed that microzymas secrete fermentative substances that aid in digestion in a healthy body and evolve into bacteria when they encounter dead or damaged cells. This theory has been tested and amplified by a string of scientists since then, including Carl Edward Rosenow, William F. Koch, Otto Warburg, Gunther Enderlein, Royal Rife, Alexis Carrel, Rene Dubos and Gaston Naessens.
Louis Pasteur's competing germ theory of disease maintained that diseases come into our bodies from outside germs, so that we must fight to kill them.
Bechamp's theory placed all of the responsibility of disease prevention on the individual and his lifestyle. In a practical sense, there was no money in that because people would be able to resist disease simply by taking care of themselves, and would require no store-bought potions.
Western medical science went with Pasteur's theory because it opened the door which created the world's medical and pharmaceutical industries, and because it seemed to support Darwin's new theory of survival of the fittest. Since the 1850s, we have been developing new drugs to attack and kill the disease invaders and the result has been epidemics of sickness and disease -- and a very rich and powerful pharmaceutical industry.
Last year, the pharmaceutical industry did $182 billion in drug sales world wide. In contrast to that figure, it cost approximately $183 billion to treat adverse reactions from all of those drugs. The following admissions were taken from JAMA (Journal of the American Medical Association) : The top five causes of death in the United States, in order, are: 1) Tobacco 2) Alcohol 3) Medical malpractice 4) Traffic accidents 5) Firearms
According to JAMA, doctors kill more people than auto accidents and guns put together. With that in mind, one has to wonder why gun control is such a hot legislative issue when, perhaps, we should be more concerned about doctor control.
Statistics show that when allopathic doctors are on strike, fewer people die from disease.
The number of people that doctors kill per day from allopathic medical malpractice is roughly equal to the amount of people that would die if every day, three jumbo jets crashed and killed everybody on board. Just imagine what headlines would result if a chiropractor or a naturopath accidentally killed just one patient?
Another JAMA statistic stated that 20 percent of all people who see an allopath will suffer an iatrogenic (doctor-induced) injury.
Again, according to JAMA, 16 percent of all people who die in the hospital are determined by autopsy to have died of something other than their admission diagnosis. In other words, the doctor had no idea what was really wrong with the patient and, therefore, the patient may have died for want of appropriate care that would have been subsequent to an accurate diagnosis.
Another trade publication, American Medical News, stated that 28 percent of people admitted to hospitals are there because they have suffered an adverse reaction to prescribed drugs.
Allopaths are miserably losing the battle against viruses and bacteria. Antibiotics do not work. We need to take a different tack because this is obviously not working. Only ozone therapy offers hope against the increasingly resistant 'germs'.
The British Medical Journal Lancet states that only one percent of all scientific research papers which explore medicine are scientifically sound. So, if that is true, then not only are allopathic doctors incorrect in their understanding of the basic nature of disease, they are basing their conclusions, and therefore their diagnosis and treatment of people, on flawed science. And it is killing us.
In recent years, there has been an upsurge of police activities in the USA, the nature of which most Americans would more readily associate with repressive dictatorships. We Americans have been educated to believe that democracy, due process, assumed innocence-until-proven-guilt, and Constitutional protections against illegal search and seizure are the laws of the land. On paper, these protections are there; but in reality, these basic Constitutional rights and freedoms have been gradually and steadily eroded away by new laws, judicial rulings, and bureaucratic decrees. One of the lesser-known but more significant leaders of this assault on American freedom has been the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
Background to FDA Police-State Activities
As early as the 1950s, the FDA was engaged in aggressively spying on health-care providers who employed medications and approaches which were not considered "acceptable" by mainstream orthodox medicine. Notably, it was and has been the American Medical Association (AMA) which has dominated ideas within the medical community, as well as nearly all legislation related to health care. If the AMA dislikes a particular health care approach, they work to banish such methods within hospitals, and to suspend the medical licenses of any doctor who employs them. They have often been able to rely upon state licensing boards and legislatures, and even the US Congress, to pass laws outlawing natural healing methods and the non-MD practitioner (such as midwives, herbalists or acupuncturists). Failing here, the AMA and friends in the drug industry have relied upon their allies in the FDA to aggressively assault the advocates of natural treatment methods.
Many new health care discoveries have thereby remained "underground", never being allowed to flower productively in the light of day. Inexpensive, non-toxic and unpatentable natural healing methods have never been seriously or honestly evaluated by the AMA-FDA pharmaceutical-dominated medical establishment. Instead, policemen have been called in to simply arrest and jail the offending practitioners, seize their files, mailing lists and other property, burn their books, and otherwise trample the US Constitution into the dirt.
* Dr. Royal Raymond Rife was crushed when his new microscopical techniques demonstrated the pleomorphic nature of viruses and bacterium.(1)
* Harry Hoxsey's successful herbal formulas for the treatment of cancer, used in dozens of clinics across the USA in the 1950s, were stomped into oblivion by an enraged FDA, after Hoxsey refused to sell his formula to Dr. Morris Fishbein, then president of the AMA.(2)
* Max Gerson's dietary immune-boosting treatments for degenerative disease were criminalized by the FDA at the very time he published scientific evidence and clinical reports on their effectiveness.(3)
Today, none of these treatments are openly used in the USA, but only in clinics south of the Mexican-California border. The FDA also attempted to ban and burn Rodale's Organic Farming and Gardening magazine as "advertising literature" not covered by the First Amendment; many vitamin companies were advertising in it, and Rodale claimed -- to the annoyance of the chemical fertilizer and drug companies -- that the vitamin and nutrient values of plants were increased by use of natural-organic farming methods, thereby improving human health. The FDA lost that case, but Rodale was forced to spend a fortune in legal fees to defend his right of free speech.
Probably the most significant and blatant example of FDA aggression and anti-Constitutional activity is the case of Dr. Wilhelm Reich. The Reich Legal Case surpassed the Scopes Monkey Trial in legal and historical significance, as it clearly marked the willingness of the US courts to condone the censoring of speech, the burning of books, the unreasonable seizure of property, and the willful ignoring of written documents presented to judges. Reich may not have been what one could call a "model legal client", but the willingness of the US courts to incarcerate him, burn his books, and in general treat him like a criminal, demonstrated how far legal technicalities and procedural issues had replaced the original intent and spirit of the law. Certainly, all the various judges who reviewed Reich's case and ruled against him, from the local and district court judges to the US Supreme Court judges, knew they were agreeing to censorship of speech and to the burning of books. The judges also demonstrated no interest in any of the technical/procedural issues which would have weighed in Reich's favor, such as the fact that the prosecutor was himself Reich's former personal attorney, or that Reich had submitted documents (his "Response to Ignorance") to the lower courts which were, essentially, thrown into the trash. Indeed, the deep significance the courts gave to procedural technicalities in his case was exclusively to those matters which worked against Reich. Clearly, they were out to "get Reich", no matter what. On the basis of legal technicalities, his many books and research journals were burned in incinerators by court order, and both Reich and a co-worker, Dr. Michael Silvert, were sentenced to over a year in prison. Reich died in prison, while Silvert committed suicide shortly afterward. Other FDA violations at the time included the warrantless invasions and searches of the homes of people peripherally associated with Reich. In one such case, a home was searched and Reich's books were confiscated from private bookshelves. School teachers and doctors who worked with Reich were fired from their jobs, in a manner reminiscent of the more purely political repressions of that time, the McCarthy period.
The Reich Legal Case has been discussed in detail elsewhere, and so will not be repeated here, but its importance lies in the fact that the FDA was able to commit severe anti-Constitutional actions, indeed, murderous actions, against an internationally-known and respected scientist without so much as a peep of protest from the various academic "scholarly societies", "civil liberties" or "free speech" groups, etc. This lack of significant social protest was an encouragement and green light of approval to nearly every federal agency wanting to shape public or private behavior to one or another government policy. While blatant political repression of politicians has declined over the years, with increasing protections afforded to political speech, the political repression of unorthodox scientific discoveries related to health and sickness has not declined at all. In fact, repression of non-political speech has increased, especially when it is linked with concrete marketplace activities which conflict with official government policies or big business monopolies.
In the years since Reich's death, Constitutional protections against illegal seizure of property, assumed innocence-until-proven-guilt, and due process of law have been flagrantly violated and trampled into the dirt by the FDA leaders and field agents, who are increasingly teaming up with other arms of the federal bureaucracy to increase their power. Numerous medical pioneers have been assaulted and personally destroyed, in a manner so blatant and aggressive it makes Reich's treatment by the FDA appear almost gentle by comparison. The FDA's police-state activities are taking place all across the USA, but little of it is being reported in the mainstream media -- or if so, generally with biased justifications given for the FDA actions, that "the FDA is combatting health fraud" or "medical quackery". Here, the reader will be informed of more recent assaults by the FDA against the natural health movement.
The AMA-FDA-Pharmaceutical Cartel Increasingly, health care decisions in the USA are being mandated by small cadres of "specialists" who decide whether this or that medication will be made legal and available to the American public. Where scientific evidence once was the criteria for extended use of a new medication, such decisions are today being made more on the basis of the profits which can be made from a particular medication -- too many of the top physician-bureaucrats working in the FDA, National Institutes of Health (NIH), American Cancer Society (ACS), etc. are themselves often drug-company millionaires, with personal stock holdings or investments in the companies whom they regulate. Drug companies provide large sums to political campaigns so as to definitively influence legislation, and to various medical institutes, to "research" their products. Their full-page color advertisements for new drugs in medical journals essentially pay for those publications. Pharmaceutical companies are one of the highest profit margin industries in the U.S. who do not have to account for the often extreme prices they charge - higher than anywhere else in the world. Drug company money plays a powerful role in shaping health policy, the approval process for new patent drugs, and publishing (or censoring) research findings about the effectiveness or side-effects of those drugs.
Additionally, nearly every major medical organization and medical society in the USA, to include many governmental agencies like the FDA, NIH, and ACS, expend significant sums of money each year to fund unfactual, even slanderous propaganda against relatively inexpensive natural healing methods, which might otherwise substitute for the expensive and often toxic medications and surgical procedures pushed by the medical-pharmaceutical cartel. "Quack-busting" groups, such as the National Council Against Health Fraud, team up with various medical societies, licensing boards, and the FDA to efficiently snoop upon and "police" the medical community, making sure that only the most orthodox medical treatments will prevail. Word quickly spreads, through the medical gossip system, if a doctor does not prescribe the usual drugs or treatments. Any doctor employing vitamins, herbs, nutrition, energetic medicine (homeopathy, orgone accumulator), chelation therapy, or any other progressive, innovative or unorthodox treatment can expect great pressure from these groups, up to and including visits from aggressive, gun-waving "health-care" policemen.
Similar, or even more aggressive treatment is meted out to midwives, herbalists or to other health care providers who lack the MD degree, and employ methods which compete with the entire lucrative doctor-hospital system. A doctor or midwife who is today labeled a "quack" in the newspapers can expect as bad and unfair a treatment as did a "witch" in the Middle Ages. The quite telling consequences of this anti-scientific pogrom against the new and unorthodox health research findings are that a higher percentage of people are dying from degenerative illness today than in the 1950s, while cancer cure and survival rates are essentially unchanged from when the multi-billion dollar orthodox "war" against cancer was initiated.(5) Like the "wars" against crime, poverty and drugs, the "war against cancer" has been a huge, expensive flop, benefiting only the over-bloated cancer industry -- today more people are engaged in the "treatment" of cancer than those who die from it in a given year. Obviously, the attitude that "war" is necessary to solve a social or health-care problem is itself part of the problem, and not part of the solution.
The Abraham Cherrix cancer story the media won't print: Harry Hoxsey's cancer cures and the US government campaign to destroy them by Jessica Fraser (August 3, 2006 http://www.newstarget.com/019852.html): The idea of health freedom is one Americans likely never consider. Certain freedoms in this country are taken for granted -- like the freedoms of speech and religion -- so freedom to choose a method of health care seems a given. Unfortunately, recent cases have brought to the public's attention the startling truth that the government can (and does) make medical decisions for Americans, whether or not they agree. This is especially the case concerning parents' decisions to treat their children's diseases with alternative therapies over traditional, and often harmful, treatments. The most recent in a host of such cases involves a 16-year-old Virginia boy named Abraham Cherrix, who was diagnosed in August 2005 with Hodgkin's disease -- a cancer of the lymph nodes. After his initial diagnosis, Abraham submitted to chemotherapy, which made him feel sick and weak. His cancer went into brief remission before returning earlier this year, when he decided he would not undergo more chemotherapy, but rather try alternative herbal treatments. Abraham's parents supported their son's decision and began taking him to the Hoxsey Clinic in Mexico for treatments involving cancer-fighting herbs and an organic diet.
The story should end there. Abraham and his parents should be taking their son to the clinic in Tijuana, with no interference. However, the Virginia Department of Social Services decided to get involved, and asked the state court to require Abraham's parents to return him to a hospital in Virginia for conventional treatment, which would include stronger chemotherapy than he'd previously undergone, as well as radiation therapy. The court agreed and ordered Abraham's parents to give consent for their son to be treated with harsh chemo treatments at Children's Hospital of the King's Daughters in Norfolk.
That's right: The court ordered his parents to give consent, which flies in the face of the spirit of "consent," which by definition involves a willing agreement between the consenting parties. Fortunately for their son's health, Abraham's parents refused, and an ongoing court battle began -- but for how long can Abraham's family fend off the courts seeking to subject their son to a "therapy" that comes with side effects ranging from pain and hair loss to vomiting and infections?
Does the state own your body? Americans should be disturbed by Abraham's ordeal, regardless of whether or not they believe alternative treatments work. As Abraham's family lawyer put it: "This is not a case about what treatment is best. It's a case about who gets to decide." Other recent cases of health authorities revoking parents' rights to treat their children with natural therapies eclipse even Abraham's nightmare. Take, for instance, the case of 13-year-old Katie Wernecke, a Texas girl diagnosed with Hodgkin's disease in January 2005. After her parents took her to the hospital for what they believed was pneumonia, she was treated with chemotherapy, and doctors also wanted to give her radiation therapy. Her parents declined, citing possible complications such as stunted growth, an increase in breast cancer risk and learning difficulties. They opted to try an alternative therapy involving high doses of intravenous vitamin C, but before they got to try the much safer therapy, Texas Child Protective Services intervened.
Unlike Abraham's case, Katie was taken away from her parents after they were labeled "neglectful" by the state, and her mother was arrested and thrown in jail for taking Katie to hide at a family ranch to avoid the ordered "treatment."
On a June 9 episode of NBC's "Today Show," viewers saw a videotaped statement from Katie, who said, "I don't need radiation treatment. And nobody asked me what I wanted. It's my body."
Apparently, the state of Texas disagreed with the ownership of Katie's body -- a district court judge eventually ruled that the Werneckes would be allowed to treat Katie with the vitamin C treatments, but only after she underwent five days of court-ordered chemotherapy. What's worse, her parents weren't allowed to be with her during the chemo they'd fought so hard to avoid.
Outrage at medical terrorism is compounded by efforts of medical establishment to silence cancer cures People might be justifiably outraged to hear of Abraham's and Katie's trials, or they might believe that the government acted in the best interest of the young patients in attempting to force on them the only known "treatment" for cancer. Hold the phone, though. What would Americans think if they heard that traditional cancer treatments are not the only therapy, and that safe, effective cancer cures have been around for decades? Moreover, what would they think if they heard that trusted medical establishments charged with protecting the health of Americans -- such as the American Medical Association -- have waged a decades-long battle against such cancer cures in an attempt to keep them from the public? Enter Harry Hoxsey, founder of the "Hoxsey Method" with which Abraham Cherrix is attempting to treat his cancer. Hoxsey is the great-grandson of John Hoxsey, an American physician who discovered a remarkably effective cancer cure in 1840 by watching horses with cancer cure themselves by foraging for certain rare herbs.
Harry Hoxsey, a coal miner with no formal medical training, began promoting his great-grandfather's cancer formula -- which contained a number of herbs, including bloodroot, burdock, red clover, licorice root, pokeroot, barberry root, buckthorn, prickly ash, stillingia root and cascara -- in the 1930s. He also marketed a salve for external cancers, called an "escharotic," which essentially burns off external cancers. His treatments proved amazingly effective at curing cancer, and word of his cancer treatments spread. People from all over the country -- including "terminal" patients conventional doctors had given up on -- sought out his treatments, no matter where he was practicing, and a high number of them were successfully cured.
Hoxsey was not a doctor, and could not legally practice medicine -- even if he was offering genuine cancer cures -- so to stay in business, he partnered with various MDs throughout his life, letting them do the official "treatments" while he acted as "technician." Though he never claimed to be a licensed physician, he was arrested hundreds of times over the course of his life, mostly for practicing medicine without a license -- including 119 arrests between 1926 and 1931 alone. According to Ralph W. Moss' "Herbs Against Cancer," Hoxsey had even taken to carrying $10,000 in cash every day to bail himself out of jail.
At the height of his popularity in the 1950s, Hoxsey was operating a chain of cancer clinics in Texas, and had seven licensed physicians working for him. He'd earned a Doctorate of Naturopathy in Texas, and helped tens of thousands of patients cure their cancer without surgery, chemotherapy or radiation, using herbal treatments and escharotic therapies.
Organized medicine's campaign to eradicate cancer cures People may wonder why the American public hasn't heard of Hoxsey, if his treatments were so effective and cured so many. The answer is because large-scale, vicious attacks by U.S. health agencies eventually sent Hoxsey packing to Mexico, where he could finally practice herbal healing in relative peace. One might also wonder what "health" agency would ever knowingly drive a cure for cancer out of the country. The American Medical Association (AMA), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the National Cancer Institute (NCI) would, just to name a few. Why? Cliché as it may sound, they did it for political power. The AMA has historically been considered the "gold standard" of Western medicine -- a privilege that comes with vast control over what is and is not considered genuine medicine. Efforts to preserve and gain such political power have garnered the AMA a shady history rife with efforts to suppress natural and alternative treatments. For example, a small group of chiropractors won a landmark antitrust suit against the AMA in 1990 in the U.S. Court of Appeals 7th circuit, which ruled the AMA had violated the Sherman Act by "conducting an illegal boycott in restraint of the trade directed at chiropractors generally, and at the four plaintiffs in particular," This demonstrates the association's willingness to target entire alternative fields, as well as individuals within them.
Though a large part of the AMA's stated mission is to be "an essential force for progress in improving the nation's health," it was without a doubt Hoxsey's biggest enemy, and is largely responsible for driving him and his treatments out of the country. Morris Fishbein, editor of the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) -- the AMA's flagship medical journal -- from 1924 to 1949, particularly targeted Hoxsey and his therapy, labeling Hoxsey a "quack" while simultaneously refusing to study his therapies or their efficacy. Fishbein went out of his way to sully Hoxsey's name in JAMA publications, and was eventually found guilty of libeling Hoxsey in two 1947 suits. "Fishbein had written an 'excoriating editorial' in JAMA titled 'Hoxsey -- Cancer Charlatan.' He also co-authored an article in the Hearst newspaper chain's weekly newsmagazine, titled 'Blood Money,'" writes Moss in "Herbs Against Cancer." Without evidence, Fishbein's JAMA articles attacked Hoxsey's treatment, claiming it "ate into blood vessels" and killed patients, Moss writes.
The FDA used money and corrupt political influence to chase Hoxsey out of America, state by state The FDA, for its part in the Hoxsey debacle, used its influence to get courts in the states in which Hoxsey tried to practice to revoke the licenses of the physicians he worked with. "The FDA had limitless financial and publicity resources," writes Moss. "When Hoxsey employed physicians to give his treatment, Texas courts revoked their licenses and forbade him from operating a clinic. When he turned the clinic over to someone else, FDA secured a court order requiring the Hoxsey clinic to write individually to all patients and inform them that the treatment was no longer available. The final blow came on October 29, 1958 when the FDA simultaneously padlocked his clinics in a single day." Hoxsey's longtime nurse and current operator of his clinic in Mexico, Mildred Nelson, said, "In no way did Harry have the money to fight that state by state." The NCI helped eradicate the Hoxsey method from U.S. soil in a somewhat different manner -- by giving him hope that the government would finally investigate his treatment, only to let him down on more than one occasion.
In 1945, Hoxsey met with three congressmen at the NCI offices in Maryland, where NCI director R.R. Spencer laid out the details of what the institute would need to review Hoxsey's method. Hoxsey went back to Texas and compiled above and beyond what the NCI had asked for, only to be told that his information was too incomplete and fragmented for investigation. However, in 1947, the NCI asked him to resubmit the information he'd sent before, for reconsideration by new staff members at the institute. He sent it, and soon received a reply that his records were still inadequate for consideration, and no government investigation would occur.
However, Hoxsey's cancer cures were not entirely without government approval. Dr. John Heinerman writes in "Natural Pet Cures" that: "A Dallas judge ruled in federal court that Hoxsey's therapy was 'comparable to surgery, radium and x-ray in its effectiveness, without the destructive side effects of those treatments.' (Hoxsey) faced unrelenting opposition and harassment from a hostile medical establishment. The AMA, NCI, and FDA organized a 'conspiracy' to 'suppress' a fair, unbiased assessment of Hoxsey's methods, according to a 1953 report to Congress."
In spite of that court's approval, Hoxsey's clinics in Dallas were shut down in the 1950s, and he moved his practice to Mexico. Hoxsey died in 1974, and his nurse, Mildred Nelson, has carried the torch at the Tijuana-based Bio-Medical Center ever since, caring for patients such as Abraham Cherrix.
Hoxsey's cancer cures really work Though the government agencies that drove Hoxsey from the United States never bothered to test his therapy and called him a "quack" out of hand because he did not have a medical license, research has proven the efficacious effects of the herbs in his formulas. For example, red clover has long been used as an herbal remedy for cancer, infections, tumors and menopause symptoms. It also supports the immune system and the blood. Burdock fights skin disorders and cancer, and supports the liver, skin and immune system. Licorice root is used for a myriad of health conditions ranging from inflammation and arthritis to cancer and heart disease. It supports the immune system, the blood, and the function of the spleen.
Pokeroot has shown anti-cancer properties, especially for breast cancers. Similarly, bloodroot is a powerful fighter against skin cancer. Cascara is a natural treatment for leukemia and liver disorders, and supports liver and gallbladder function. Stillingia root also treats skin conditions and acts as a blood purifier.
Though Hoxsey's formula often uses broad combinations of powerful herbs such as red clover and bloodroot, as well as many others, his formula is adapted to specially fit each individual patient, adding or removing herbal components case-by-case. The Hoxsey method also incorporates a healthy organic diet, along with vitamins and immune stimulation. While official government studies have never been performed, other forms of honest evidence support the benefits and success of Hoxsey's method.
"Today substantial laboratory data indicates that the Hoxsey herbal tonic could have genuine value against cancer," writes Kenny Ausubel in "When Healing Becomes A Crime." Ausubel continues, "Thousands of patients believe it saved their lives. There is no dispute that the Hoxsey remedies for external cancer are effective. Over the course of this century, numerous prominent figures including senators, congressmen, judges, and even doctors have affirmed Hoxsey's reputed cures and repeatedly called for an investigation. Why, then, has it taken so long? The answer is buried in medical politics. It revolves around a fierce trade war fought over money as well as fundamental conflict of medical opinion. Its consequence has been the exclusion and outright suppression of Hoxsey as well as numerous other unorthodox cancer therapies."
Alternative practitioners suffer from medical establishment's meddling, but patients suffer more Unfortunately, Hoxsey's therapy is far from the only alternative treatment to be railroaded by conventional medical authorities. Unorthodox medical therapies have been forced to relocate to Mexico and other countries free of the red tape surrounding American medical politics. Who suffers most from such medical bias and political lust? Sure, the alternative practitioners suffer, but so do countless Americans who are kept in the dark about natural, effective, safe treatments for diseases traditional practitioners treat with toxic chemotherapy and radiation -- which seem to kill the patients more often than save them. What's worse, the U.S. medical establishment seems to have convinced much of the country that its poisonous cancer "treatments" are the only option, and anyone who does not subject themselves or their children to it are criminals who must be punished.
"Since the early 1970s when President Nixon declared the War on Cancer, two trillion dollars have been spent on conventional cancer treatment and research, with the result that more Americans are dying of cancer than ever before," writes Walter Last in "The Natural Way to Heal: 65 Ways to Create Superior Health."
That's $2 trillion down the drain studying dangerous treatments that likely cause cancer as often as they temporarily delay its symptoms. Meanwhile, how much money does the FDA, AMA and NCI waste forcing holistic therapies like Hoxsey's out of the country? Today, such agencies have the public convinced that anyone seeking alternative therapies for serious diseases like cancer is misguided, uninformed and naive, and must be forced to submit to conventional treatments ostensibly for their own good, even if it is against their will.
A foundational principle of the United States is the freedom of its citizens to choose what is best for them, including how best to treat disease. With cases like Abraham Cherrix and Katie Wernecke seeing increasing media coverage, perhaps Americans will begin to realize how close they are to losing their health freedom. Medical agencies have already won many of the health freedom battles by successfully driving alternative therapies from U.S. soil, but it is far from too late for such offenses to be reversed. Americans may yet re-win their right to be in charge of their own bodies, regardless of the medical political scheming of the AMA, FDA and NCI.
Perhaps Abraham Cherrix says it best: "I think it's my body. I can choose what's best for my body. If I don't have the right to do that, then I don't have any rights at all anyway."
WOULD YOU BUY A USED CAR FROM FDA? DISTORTING THE "PURE FOOD" (AND OTHER) LAWS SINCE 1906 by Maureen K. Salaman & Jonathan V. Wright, M.D. (http://members.iimetro.com.au/~hubbca/fda.htm and http://www.geocities.com/HotSprings/7776/FDA1.htm) I remember listening to a news report in the 1970s about a man who was arrested for having a Volkswagen full of apricot pits. As absurd as that sounds the FDA is still waging war against natural, God-given remedies and the people who promote them. The latest casualty is Jason Vale who is currently in federal prison for selling and promoting apricot pits on his website. Jason used apricot pits to successfully treat his own cancer.
Government statistics reveal that drugs approved by the FDA kill over 100,000 Americans every year! The number of Americans killed by herbal remedies is 0. Why then is the FDA aggressively attacking people who sell cancer herbs and other natural remedies? The answer to this question was given by the most credible witness you could imagine -- Dr. Herbert Ley, former Commissioner of the FDA:
“The thing that bugs me is that people think the FDA is protecting them. It isn't. What the FDA is doing and what the public thinks it's doing are as different as night and day.
“First, it is providing a means whereby key individuals on its payroll are able to obtain both power and wealth through granting special favors to certain politically influential groups that are subject to its regulation. This activity is similar to the 'protection racket' of organized crime: for a price, one can induce FDA administrators to provide 'protection' from the FDA itself.
“Secondly, as a result of this political favoritism, the FDA has become a primary factor in that formula whereby cartel-oriented companies in the food and drug industry are able to use the police powers of government to harass or destroy their free-market competitors.
“And thirdly, the FDA occasionally does some genuine public good with whatever energies it has left over after serving the vested political and commercial interest of its first two activities.”
Dr. Herbert Ley became the Medical Director for the FDA in 1966. In July of 1968 Dr. Ley was appointed head of the FDA. He resigned in December 1969.
According to the FDA's own website “Ley also strongly castigated drug industry practices in general, warning them that 'unless there is a major change in the drug industry emphasis on sales over safety, the industry as we know it today may well be buried within the next several years in a grave it has helped dig inch by inch, over-promotion by over-promotion, bad drug by bad drug.'“
When Dr. Ley resigned, Secretary of HEW Finch praised him as a “gifted scientist and a dedicated public servant who coped strenuously with an unwieldy agency.”
Severe criticisms have been leveled against FDA since its inception as the Bureau of Chemistry in 1906. Harvey W. Wiley, M.D., the first head of the Bureau, resigned in disgust in 1912.
"Dr. Wiley resigned because the fundamental principles of the Pure Food Law have been strangled; because he has been powerless to punish the manufacturers of misbranded and adulterated drugs." -Rocky Mountain News, March 21, 1912
Severe criticisms have been leveled against FDA since its inception as the Bureau of Chemistry in 1906. Harvey W. Wiley, M.D., the first head of the Bureau, resigned in disgust in 1912.
"Dr. Wiley resigned because the fundamental principles of the Pure Food Law have been strangled; because he has been powerless to punish the manufacturers of misbranded and adulterated drugs." -Rocky Mountain News, March 21, 1912
He felt so strongly about what he witnessed he wrote a book: "The History of a Crime Against the Food Law: The Amazing Story of the National Food and Drugs Law Intended to Protect the Health of the People, Perverted to Protect Adulteration of Foods and Drugs"
Dr. Wiley knew the value of whole foods; knew the repercussions of "junk" foods; knew even back then what the future held. Just think--we've been eating these chemicals for 65 years! No wonder our medical establishment specializes in crisis medicine--our food and health is in crisis! He describes the dilemma most aptly in his treatise on depravity:
"If the Bureau of Chemistry had been permitted to enforce the law as it was written and as it tried to do, what would have been the condition now (1929)? No food product in our country would have any trace of benzoic acid, sulphurous acid or sulphites...no soft drink would contain caffeine...no bleached flour would enter interstate commerce...
"Our food and drugs would be wholly without any form of adulteration. The health of our people would be vastly improved and their life greatly extended...The manufacturers of our food supply would (provide) whole ground, unrefined cereal flours and meals.
"The resistance of our people to infectious diseases would be greatly increased by a vastly improved and more wholesome diet...The cause of a wholesome diet would not have been put back for fifty or a hundred years...and this History of a Crime would never have been written." --Harvey W. Wiley, M.D., History of a Crime, 1929, pgs.401-402.
In 1927 the Bureau of Chemistry became the Food, Drug and Insecticide Administration; then in 1930 became the Food and Drug Administration. Criticism and charges of fraud continued among its ranks and among government overseers.
"The activities of...so-called health food lecturers have increasingly engaged our attention...(we are fighting) the good fight against dried vegetables, mineral mixtures, vitamins and similar products." -Dr. George Larrick, FDA Commissioner, Minutes of the Proprietary Association Convention, 1949, White Sulphur Springs, Virginia (as reported by Omar V. Garrison in The Dictocrats, ARC Books, New York, 1970, pg. 30)
"The Committee wishes to express its particular concern with the current state of FDA- industry relationships...these are found not to be based upon common understanding, trust and respect, but rather upon fear, questioning of basic motives, and lack of opportunity for discussion before drastic action is taken on violations, many of them minor and not related to health hazards...there is a distinct feeling within the present Committee that FDA has used recommendations of the earlier Committee to obtain considerably expanded staff and budget, but (FDA has ignored) important recommendations which.. the expanded staff and budget would be able to achieve." -1962 report of the Second Citizens Advisory Committee to FDA (appointed by U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare)
"The Food and Drug Administration is charged by Congress with an onerous responsibility--that of protecting the nation's health. Instead of shouldering this heavy responsibility, we find the agency engaged in bizarre games of cops and robbers. Instead of a guardian of the national health, we find an agency which is police-oriented, chiefly concerned with prosecutions and convictions, totally indifferent to individuals' rights, and bent on using snooping gear to pry and invade citizens' right of privacy.
"If the Food and Drug Administration would spend a little less time and effort on small manufacturers of vitamins and milk substitutes and a little more on the large manufacturers of...dangerous drugs...the public would be better served." --Senator Edward V. Long, 1965 hearing of the Senate Subcommittee on Administrative Practice and Procedure.
TODAY'S JUDGES AGREE Over FDA's 65-year history, numerous lawsuits and litigation have focused on their practices and policies. Judges involved in these lawsuits often comment on the outlandish logic used by FDA.
"The FDA's broad definition...subverts Congressional purpose..." "...it defies common sense to say that a substance can be a food additive when there is no (other) food to which it is added..."
"Distorts the plain meaning of the provision..."
"The only justification for the Alice-in-Wonderland approach is to allow the FDA to make an end run around the statutory scheme..."
"Contrary to the intent of Congress..." -Judges of the U.S. Court of Appeals, 7th Circuit in the Traco Laboratories case, January 1993 "It apparently is FDA's view that if a company makes a claim that milk helps prevent rickets, milk suddenly becomes a drug." -Federal Judge Lowell Jensen, District Court, San Francisco, in the Nutricology case, September 23, 1993
FDA'S FRIENDS, THE DRUG COMPANIES As a stockholder, would you tolerate blatant bias? If you knew your corporation was favoring one group over another, jeopardizing the lives and health of your family and friends, would you put up with it? Even after countless hearings, reports witnesses and lawsuits, FDA continues to favor and forgive an industry with a long, long history of death and disability. Follow along as we listened to those who know firsthand.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Senator Long: "Did you notice a tendency (by FDA) to spend a great deal of their time going after a little manufacturer rather than some of the large ones?"
Witness: "I have definitely noticed that...when a small company is purchased by a large company, the needling attacks...stop."
Senator Long: "The merchandise becomes all right then?"
Witness: "Becomes sacrosanct." -1966 Senate Subcommittee hearings as reported in Omar Garrison's The Dictocrats, ARC Books, New York City, 1970, pg. 64
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"(It is) not our (FDA) policy to jeopardize the financial interests of the pharmaceutical companies." --FDA Commissioner Charles C. Edwards in testimony before the House Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Relations, 1970, as reported in "Who Blocks Testing of Anti-Cancer Agent," Alameda (California) Times Star, August 3, 1970
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"The FDA...(is) actively hostile against the manufacture, sale and distribution of vitamins and mineral as food or food supplements. They are out to get the health food industry and drive the health food stores out of business. And they are trying to do this out of active hostility and prejudice." --Senator William Proxmire, National Health Federation Bulletin, April 1974
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"I never have and never will approve a new drug to an individual, but only to a large pharmaceutical firm with unlimited finances." --Dr. Richard J. Crout, Director, Bureau of Drugs, FDA, quoted in the Spotlight, January 18, 1982
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"...the task force considered many issues in its deliberations including: to ensure that the existence of dietary supplements on the market does not act as disincentive for drug development..." -- FDA Dietary Supplements Task Force Final Report, pgs. 2 and 71, June 1992, released June 1993
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"...pay careful attention to what is happening (with dietary supplements) in the legislative arena...if these efforts are successful, there could be created a class of products to compete with approved drugs that are subject to less regulation than approved drugs...the establishment of a separate regulatory category for supplements could undercut exclusively rights enjoyed by holders of approved drug applications." --David Adams, FDA Deputy commissioner for Policy before the Drug Information Association Annual Meeting, July 12, 1993, D-C-A Tan Sheet 11, July 19, 1993
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"During the eight years I was an investigator with the Texas Attorney General's Office, I had numerous occasions to work with the FDA on cases involving potential health fraud. I repeatedly saw cases against large corporations...go unchallenged...instead, the agency chose (to pursue) cases against alternative health care providers and minor companies...Chinese herbalists, health food stores, and chiropractors were among their favorite targets..." --Marion Moss, former investigator, Texas Attorney General's office, writing in New Times, Seattle, Washington, 1992
A LITTLE INCEST "Since 1965, federal executive orders and implementing regulations have prohibited employees from engaging in outside activities that are not compatible with the full and proper discharge of the duties and responsibilities of their government employment. The prohibition includes activities that involve the acceptance of a fee or anything of value in circumstances in which acceptance may result in or create the appearance of conflict of interest or that may result in the appearance using public office for private gain."
(United States General Accounting Office, GAO/GGD-92-34 Employee Conduct Standards, February 1992). Despite this, FDA has a documented history of conflict of interest.
"A General Accounting Office (GAO) study of FDA in 1975 revealed that 150 FDA officials owned stock in the companies they were supposed to regulate." -Barry Lynes, The Healing of Cancer, Marcus Books, Box 327, Queensville, Ontario, L0G 1R0, Canada, 1989, pg. 22
"In 1964, Congressman Melvin Laird (Wisconsin), demanded from FDA data concerning the number of FDA officials who left the agency to take their next job with FDA-regulated industry. FDA responded that one in ten (83 of 613) who left FDA between 1959 and 1964 had done so." -Omar Garrison, The Dictocrats, ARC Books, New York, 1970
"A study conducted by the US Congress in 1969 revealed that 37 of 49 top FDA officials who left the agency moved into high corporate positions with the large companies they had regulated." -Barry Lynes, The Healing of Cancer, Marcus Books, Box 327, Queensville, Ontario, L0G 1R0, Canada, 1989, pg. 22
PROTECTORS OF PUBLIC HEALTH? While FDA attacks and condemns purveyors of alternative nutritional therapies, it overlooks and allows dangerous toxic chemicals to be ingested by the citizens. What do you think would happen if 14,100 people reported that a certain product caused them to behave in an unusual manner and that 500 people had attempted to kill themselves after using it? If you assumed the product would be removed from the market, you would be wrong.
As of June, 1991, 16,899 cases of adverse reactions from the use of Prozac, a commonly- prescribed anti-depressant, have been reported, with over 100 lawsuits filed against Eli Lilly, the manufacturer of the drug. The drug continues to this day to be prescribed widely.
Chris Wallace (ABC News): "How often do you take legal action against a drug company for misleading advertising?"
Mr. Feather (FDA): "There has not been legal action through the courts since about 1974."
Wallace: "Fifteen years?"
Wallace: "You have ...30,000 cases a year of advertising, and you haven't taken one case of legal action in 15 years?"
Feather: "That's right." -Primetime Live transcript, ABC News, Show #110, October 15, 1989
"In 1963, (FDA) conducted a prosecution against Dr. Steven Drovic who had produced...Krebiozen...a non-toxic substance...useful...in the treatment of cancer. The trial lasted 289 days, the jury heard 288 witnesses...the jury found the defendant not guilty of 240 charges which FDA had brought against them..." -Martin J. Walker, Dirty Medicine, Slingshot Publications, BM Box 8314, London, WCIN 3XX, UK, pgs. 17-18
"If there is any plausible excuse for the Gestapo-like tactics used in a raid on a Kent (Washington) alternative medicine clinic last week, it had better be forthcoming and fast. King County police officers, drafted by agents in the Food and Drug Administration, kicked in the door of (the) clinic with guns drawn. There are serious questions not only about the raid's tactics but its motivation. It must be kept in mind that (the clinic) had filed suit against the FDA..." -Lead editorial, Seattle-Post Intelligencer, May 11, 1992
"A study by UCLA researchers published in Annals of Internal Medicine in 1992 found that 92% of 109 drug company advertisement violated FDA regulations. Sixty-one percent were inaccurate, misleading and even dangerous." - Wall Street Journal, June 1 and July 31, 1992
"The problem of misleading advertisements is real...injury or death may occur because physicians have been persuaded to prescribe (inappropriate) products..." -FDA Commissioner David Kessler, in Annals of Internal Medicine, commenting on the above UCLA study [Editor's note: Despite the words of Dr. Kessler, to date, no legal action (or raids) have occurred in the cases noted by Annals and Dr. Kessler himself.]
"V.E. Irons went to prison for a year after FDA accused him of making 'unscientific claims that his food supplements were beneficial to health." -Martin J. Walker, Dirty Medicine, Slingshot Publications, BM Box 8314, London, WCIN 3XX, UK, pgs. 17-18
"Mrs. Sissy Harrington-McGill (owner, Solid Gold Pet Foods, El Cajon, California) in 1990 was sentences to 179 days in prison and fined $10,000, in a case brought by FDA for allegedly mislabeling natural dog food." - FDA vs The People of the United States, documented on pg. 11 of a 47-page report available from the Jonathan Wright Legal Defense Fund, Box 368, Tacoma, Washington, 98401
"Dean Burk, PhD, of the National Cancer Institute (head of their Cytochemistry Section and 32-year veteran at the agency) declared in a (May 30,1972) letter to (congressman Louis Frey, Jr.) that high officials of the FDA, AMA and ACS (American Cancer Society), were deliberately falsifying information, literally lying...and in other ways thwarting potential cancer cures to which they were opposed." -Barry Lynes, The Healing of Cancer, Marcus Books, Box 327, Queensville, Ontario, L0G 1R0, Canada, 1989, pg. 22
"During Congressional hearings on vitamins, FDA introduced a supposedly "independent" poll entitled A Study of Health Practices and Opinions" conducted by 'National Analysis' of Philadelphia to show that American citizens are misinformed about vitamins. Every question in the "independent poll" was written by FDA officials." -Omar Garrison, The Dictocrats, ARC Books, New York, 1970
"Despite the government's (FDA) multimillion dollar prosecution which included falsified testimony, later confessed by the government, the four defendants (including Dr. Stephen Druovic and Dr. Andrew Ivy) were acquitted...the jury went to extraordinary lengths to say it believed Krebiozen had merit and should be tested, based on the positive, well-documented testimony it had heard." -- David Rorvik, "A Defence of Unorthodoxy", Harper's Magazine, June 1976
"The Food and Drug Administration report, "Unsubstantiated Claims and Documented Health Hazards in the Dietary Supplement Marketplace", released July 29, 1993 at a House Subcommittee hearing on dietary supplements, should be immediately withdrawn and FDA should apologize to the Congress and the public for its release. This false and misleading document is so riddled with inaccuracies that it lacks any evidentiary value and raises serious questions about the motives of those who are responsible for its preparation."
"FDA has knowingly submitted false information to Congress...it has willfully violated the presumption of accuracy and impartiality traditionally granted the agency. The report conclusively proves FDA's animosity to dietary supplements." "The Clinton Administration must take immediate steps to discipline those who have participated in the preparation and submission of this misleading document..." - False and Misleading: Unsubstantiated Claims and Documented Health Hazards in the Dietary Supplement Marketplace, A Staff Report to Senator Orin G. Hatch, October 21, 1993, pg. 1
DID SOMEONE MENTION SAFETY?
Do you realize the FDA does no testing of pharmaceuticals? They are wholly dependent on the word of the manufacturer, who does the preliminary testing and may or may not give FDA all the facts. When a pharmaceutical company lies about testing, and it results in deaths and disability, the company may be fined and ordered to do community service. It amounts to a slap on the hand. The company is free to continue its business unencumbered by the laws that are supposed to protect us.
"Safety should be the overriding concern for FDA in regulating dietary supplement..." -FDA Commissioner David Kessler, Dietary Supplements Task Force Final Report, May 1992, pg. 1, released May 1993
"GAO (General Accounting Office) found that of the 198 drugs approved by FDA between 1976 and 1985...102 (or 51.5%) had serious post approval risks...the serious post approval risks...(included) heart failure, myocardial infarction, anaphylaxis, respiratory depression and arrest, seizures, kidney and liver failure, severe blood disorders, birth defects and foetal toxicity and blindness." -FDA Drug Review: Postapproval Risks 1976-1985, GAO/PEMD 90-15, pg. 3
1. Classen, et al., "Surveillance of Adverse Drug Events," JAMA, 1991 2. Centers for Disease Control
3. FDA Fact Sheet, July 1971
4. American Association f Poison Control Centers (data for years 1983-1990 as published in American Journal of Emergency Medicine )
"With respect to vitamin and mineral products, the primary recommendation of the Task Force was that FDA should establish through rulemaking for each vitamin and mineral a safe daily intake level." -FDA Commissioner David Kessler, Dietary Supplements Task Force Final Report, May 1992, released May 1993
SO, SAFETY'S NOT AN ISSUE?... LET'S PERSECUTE THOSE VITAMIN QUACKS ANYWAY! By now, you might have the impression that FDA's sole purpose is to guarantee the survival and profit of pharmaceutical companies by reducing the health food supplement industry to a pile of ashes. The following will show you just how low the FDA will go.
"My first encounter with (FDA agent) George Daughters was in San Francisco in...1944, where I was lecturing at the Women's Club. During intermission I went into the supply room and found George Daughters holding one of my sons--then about eight--on his lap...(he was asking him) 'How much money does your daddy earn? Does your daddy take these vitamins? Where do you go to school? At what hotel do your mommy and daddy live?'...later I learned that Daughters was one of the team who arranged to ransack my hotel room..." -Lelord Kordel, in an epilogue to The Dictacrats, Omar Garrison, ARC Books, New York, 1970
"FDA agents accompanied by a U.S. Marshall arrested naturopathic doctor William Abt in the middle of his Detroit public lecture on nutrition. They explained to reporters that Dr. Abt 'sold vitamins, herbs and seasoning.' They told the media that they had followed Dr. Abt for a year making concealed recordings of his lectures." - Detroit Free Press, March 10, 1962
"The use by FDA of other agencies in their war against vitamins is illustrated by the example of the Cardiac Society, a non-profit group of several hundred heart patients formed in the 1960's. The group of several hundred heart patients formed in he 1960's. The group promoted...vitamin E...When the Society started a buyer's club for vitamin E, FDA came down on them...the Postal Service...(returned)...all mail addressed to the Society...stamped 'Fraudulent." -Martin J. Walker, Dirty Medicine, Slingshot Publications, BM Box 8314, London WCIN, 3XX, U.K.
"...access was also given to a file kept under lock and key in the desk of the head of the fraud division of the California Food and Drug Branch, Mike Bogumill. This file revealed there had been a special meeting...in May 1984...in Sacramento...Present at this meeting were: California Food and Drug Branch, U.S. FDA, Board of Medical Quality Assurance (California medical licensing board), U.S. Postal Service, Federal Trade Commission, National Council Against Health Fraud...an effort to launch attacks against chiropractors, nutritionists, vitamin companies...chelation therapy, homeopathy, naturopathy, alternative cancer remedies, and so on." -P.J. Lisa, The Great Medical Monopoly Wars, International Institute of Natural Health Sciences, Box 5550, Huntington Beach, CA 92615, pgs. 12 and 14
"The Pharmaceutical Advertising Council (PAC) and the United States Food and Drug Administration have just announced a unique program...to warn the public about the dangers of quack medical products..." -From an October 22, 1984 letter signed jointly by Frank Young, FDA Commissioner and Roger O'Neill, president of PAC, on PAC/FDA letterhead
"...attached is a list of companies...who have donated money to the PAC/FDA anti-quackery program..."
Beecham Laboratories Merck Sharpe and Dohme Bristol Meyers Company Organon, Inc. Burroughs Wellcome Co. Pennwalt Co. Carter Wallace Inc. The Proprietary Association A.H. Robbins Hoechst-Roussel Pharmaceuticals Hoffman-LaRoche Inc. Rover Group Janssen Pharmaceutical Sandoz Jeffrey Martin Inc. Schering Corp. Johnson & Johnson Squibb Knoll Pharmaceutical Sterling Drug, Inc. Lederle Laboratories Stuart Pharmaceuticals McNeil Company Syntex Corporation Warner Lambert Company -from a November 15, 1985 letter on PAC/FDA letterhead signed by John Chusid, coordinators, PAC/FDA anti-quackery program
HUMANITARIANISM AT THE FDA Despite compelling scientific evidence, despite decades of usage in other countries, despite countless successes and few failures, the FDA still continues to deny the public access to nutritional therapies, and persecute and imprison qualified physicians who choose to use them. In 1993, the FDA finally did accept the claim of folic acid for prevention of neural tube defects; too late for millions of children born with these preventable birth defects. In the meantime, our friends and loved ones die of other preventable and treatable diseases, thanks to the FDA's campaign against natural substances.
"Women who take over-the counter multivitamin pills early in pregnancy sharply reduce the risk of having a baby with (neural tube defect which) affect 4000 babies a year. Neural tube defects include anaecephaly (missing brain)...and spina bifida..." - New York Times, November 24, 1989, pg. 1, (reporting on an article published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, same date
"Several studies, conducted in the United Kingdom and the United States, have shown that multivitamin use is associated with decreased risk of neural tube defects, including both anacephaly and spina bifida." - Nutrition Reviews, 1990;48 (1):15, (January)
"This study has established the specific role of folic acid in the prevention of neural tube defects." -Medical Research Council (UK), Vitamin Study Research Group, Lancet, 338(8760):131- 137, 20 July 1991
"The Centers for Disease Control has recommended daily vitamin supplements containing folic acid for women who have given birth to a child with neural tube defect. The guidelines were released because of...evidence...that folic acid can reduce the possibility (of recurrent) neural tube defect." - Medical Tribune 1991,:32(17):4 (August 22, 1992)
"The Food and Drug Administration is proposing note to authorize the use of the label and labelling of foods, including dietary supplements, of health claims relating to an association between folic acid and reduction of risk of neural tube defects." -Proposed Rules published in the Federal Register, November 27, 1991. "The Food and Drug Administration said...it will require all makers of bread and grains to add folic acid to products labeled 'enriched' in an attempt to reduce birth defects in the United States." - The New York Times, October 10, 1993 "Treating only terminal cancer patients, the Rand (anti-cancer) vaccine produced objective improvement in 35% of 600 patients while another 30% demonstrated subjective improvement. FDA stopped the vaccine's use in a federal court hearing where neither the cancer patients nor their doctors were allowed to testify." -Barry Lynes, The Healing of Cancer, Marcus Books, Box 327, Queensvile, Ontario LOG 1R0, Canada, 1989, pg. 21
"On July 17, 1985 agents of the FDA and Harris County Sheriffs Office entered (Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski's) clinic and seized 11 filing cabinets containing past and current medical records...despite many apparent successes in the treatment of usually incurable cancers, (Burzynski's) antineoplaston therapy remains unrecognized by the AMA, the National Cancer Society...as of March 1992, FDA had not brought charges...nor returned the clinic property..." -- Meg Smith, The Burzynsky Controversy in the United States and Canada, Canadian Journal of Sociology, 1992; 17(2):133
FREEDOM OF THE PRESS, FDA-STYLE
Are you getting the impression we are living in a medical police state? Freedom in America includes the right to choose and the right to be informed. FDA is working very hard to make sure our medical choices are limited to chemicals; and to ensure this, they are censoring information we need to make intelligent choices.
"Two days before the San Mateo Times (California) was to print a serialization of nutrition pioneer Lelord Kordel's book, the general manager of the Times received a call from FDA San Francisco District Director McKay McKinnon, objecting to the publication. McKinnon explained that FDA was not in sympathy with Kordel's view on nutrition." -Omar Garrison, The Dictocrats, ARC Books, New York, 1970, pgs. 120-122
The agency requests comments on whether it should consider all third-party endorsements that imply a nutrient in a food has an effect on a disease...to be health claims..." (It is illegal to public "health claims" unless FDA "approves" - editor). "Examples of...(third party) labeling endorsement programs that FDA has considered to be implied health claims include programs...sponsored by the American College of Nutrition, the American Heart Association, the American Medical Association (campaign against cholesterol), and the American Medical Women's Association..." (FDA hearby proposes to make endorsements by even these professional groups illegal...unless FDA approves! - editor) -FDA Proposed Rules, Federal Register, November 27, 1991, pgs. 60, 554-60.
"In December 1991, Dr. John Vanderveen, Director of the Division of Nutrition at FDA Office of Nutrition and Food Science called the managing editor of The Journal of the American College of Nutrition inquiring about an article critical of the FDA. He asked that a copy of the article be sent to him, and material favorable to the FDA be published. He was told it was not the Journal's policy to make articles available prior to publication. Vanderveen then threatened the Journal's editor and its executive director Mildred Seelig, M.D., M.P.H., stating that if the Journal did not follow FDA's recommendation, FDA 'would come down very hard on the American College of Nutrition.'" - Food Chemical News, April 277, 1992
"It was in 1936 that I copyrighted Cancer, Its Cause and Control . They (FDA) forced me to spend a whole year in jail...When I heard everything was ready to put out a third edition, they notified me in no uncertain terms that 'Unless you stop...we will snatch you...and do a lobotomy on you.'" -Emerson Hartman, Cancer News Journal, 1977
THE ULTIMATE TYRANNY "When books are burned, the ultimate tyranny has happened." -John Steinbeck
"On August 22, 1956, FDA supervised the burning of all Dr. Wilhelm Reich's scientific books, journals, pamphlets. and 'all documents' concerning his scientific experiments as part of an injunction obtained against him because FDA disagreed with his theories." -Aubrey Westlake, M.D., The Pattern of Health, Shambala Publications, Berkeley, California, 1973, pgs. 59-62, (backed up by a variety of other historical sources)
On October 21, 1969, Abbott Laboratories reported that the artificial sweetener cyclamate (in a saccharin-cyclamate mixture) had caused liver tumors in rats. Cyclamates were removed from the list of Generally Recognized As Safe (GRAS) ingredients at Dr. Ley's direction on October 30, 1969.
Ley resigned his position on December 11, 1969, and declined to accept an offer to serve as Deputy Assistant Secretary for health research, development, and delivery services in HEW. In accepting Ley's resignation, Secretary of HEW Finch praised him as a "gifted scientist and a dedicated public servant," saying that he had "coped strenuously with an unwieldy agency."
DR HERBERT LEY (FDA Commissioner 1968-69) Dr Herbert Ley was FDA Commissioner from 1968-9. He blew the whistle on the FDA being under the influence of the pharmaceutical companies and made a much-quoted statement in the San Francisco Chronicle on January 2, 1970. However, sometimes this quote is confused as being made in 1965, possibly due to it being run together with another quote.
Herbert Ley was born on September 7, 1923 in Columbus, Ohio. He attended Harvard College from 1941-1943, and returned there after WWII, where he received his M.D. degree, cum laude, in 1946. In 1951, he earned an Master's of Public Health degree from the Harvard School of Public Health. From 1951 until 1958, he worked with the Army Medical Service Graduate School in rickettsial disease research, the Office of the Surgeon General, and as an epidemiologist in Korea and Vietnam. In 1958, he accepted a position as Professor of Bacteriology and Chairman of the Department of Bacteriology, Hygiene, and Preventive Medicine at George Washington University. In 1963, he was appointed Associate Professor of Epidemiology and Microbiology at the Harvard School of Public Health, and became chairman of the Department in 1964.
In September 1966, Ley took a leave of absence from his position to become Medical Director at FDA. Ley became Commissioner Goddard's choice as a successor, and Ley's takeover from Goddard seemed, in the words of one trade press observer, "to herald a period of quieter, more deliberate regulation."
Ley found himself immediately enmeshed in controversy when the Fountain Committee criticized his ten month delay in removing mislabeled stocks of parenteral chloramphenicol from the market. This experience strengthened his regulatory commitment. In light of recommendations made by the National Academy of Sciences and National Research Council in their drug efficacy review, Ley took a strong and unwavering stance against fixed combination drugs and ordered 49 off of the market. Ley also strongly castigated drug industry practices in general, warning them that "unless there is a major change in the drug industry emphasis on sales over safety, the industry as we know it today may well be buried within the next several years in a grave it has helped dig -- inch by inch, over promotion by over promotion, bad drug by bad drug."
1965 Senator Edward Long holds U.S. Senate hearings where Dr. Herbert Ley, FDA Commissioner testifies that the FDA "protects" the big drug companies and are subsequently rewarded, and using the government's police powers they attack those who threaten the big drug companies. [This appears to be incorrect as Dr Herbert Ley wasn't FDA commissioner until 1968.]
1970 [San Francisco Chronicle] "FDA Commissioner Dr. Herbert Ley blows the whistle on the FDA and its corrupt relationship with the medical and pharmaceutical cartels. It is ignored by an intimidated government. Ley is forced out and replaced."
"The people think the FDA is protecting them. It isn't. What the FDA is doing and what the public thinks it's doing are as different as night and day...Key individuals are...granting special favours...similar to the 'protection racket' of organized crime..." -(former) FDA Commissioner Herbert Ley, M.D.
" ... While monopoly control of INDUSTRIES was once the objective of (such "robber barons" as) J.P. Morgan and J.D. Rockefeller, by the late nineteenth century the inner sanctums of Wall Street understood that the most efficient way to gain an unchallenged monopoly was to "go political" and make society go to work for the monopolists - UNDER THE NAME OF THE PUBLIC GOOD AND THE PUBLIC INTEREST. This strategy was detailed in 1906 by Frederick C. Howe in his Confessions of a Monopolist. Howe, by the way, is also a figure in the story of the Bolshevik Revolution..." - Prof. Anthony Sutton,
Google: Cancer cured [alt.support.cancer]
1965 Senator Edward Long holds U.S. Senate hearings where Dr. Herbert Ley, FDA Commissioner testifies that the FDA "protects" the big drug companies and are subsequently rewarded, and using the government's police powers they attack those who threaten the big drug companies.
http://www.motherjones.com/mother jones/N79/mintz.html On May 27, 1969, FDA Commissioner Herbert Ley Jr., himself a specialist in antibiotics, testified before a Senate committee about the effects of novobiocin, one of the two ingredients of Panalba. Roughly one out of every five patients who receives it, Ley said, has an allergic reaction.
"Dr. Laurence Landow, who was a team leader in the Anesthetic and Critical Care Drug Section for the FDA from 1996 to 1998 and is now an instructor at Harvard, wrote in the British Medical Journal, "....in the past few years the FDA's role has changed. Rather than regulating the drug industry to protect the health of consumers of prescription drugs, the administration has become the industry's partner, rapidly approving drugs for marketing even when medical experts on its own panels raise serious safety questions," (BMJ, 1999; 318:944, 3 April).
http://hcvets.com/data/transmission methods/published articles/fda role.htm You will find two articles that quote him plus the original quote was in the San Francisco Chronicle but do not have that copy.
The best information that we in India can get about the FDA is what we read in the journals and the media. Though the average Indian physician holds the FDA in high esteem very few know what is happening behind the scenes. Formidable forces, both political and economic, have insisted that new drugs and devices be approved more quickly than even before by the FDA. Many health care policy academics, patient advocate organisations and conscience watchdog groups feel the same. Instead of being a regulatory body the FDA has become a licensing partner (1). The Orphan drug Act was enacted by the Congress in 1983 to encourage drug companies to develop remedies for people who have rare diseases. Any company that develops such a drug gets a tax credit of up to 50% of the development and marketing costs plus a seven year monopoly on the drug if it is not patentable. Though, by definition, natural substances are not patentable, the FDA approved a patent for Taxol, a natural product derived from the Yew tree, under the Orphan Drugs Act. Taxol is presently being tested for about 20 different malignancies! (2). Drug companies are slicing up the market for a drug and applying for the Orphan Drug status for the same drug under different conditions. The FDA has approved the "r-INF-Beta" as an orphan drug for five different conditions, with the Biogen Inc. slicing the salami into five different applications (2). Given the fact that there are a lot of effective therapies out there, why not be safe with the patients? It was reported that in 1992 on the suggestion of the FDA the State Health Inspectors of Texas State raided health foods and vitamin stores throughout the state and even confiscated Vitamin C and Vitamin B-complex. In one case they even arrested the doctor (Dr. Jonathan Wright), saying that he was making illegal drugs. But Alex Strauss, the Director of the Citizens for Health, said: "For God's sake, we're talking about Vitamin C and B-12 shots!" For over a year the FDA failed to prosecute or impose criminal charges against Dr. Wright, but they did not return his equipment either, essentially putting the man out of business (3).
According to Marrion Moss, former investigator with the Texas Attorney General's office, "the FDA chose to pursue cases involving alternative health care professionals" (3). The General Accounting Office reported that 102 out of the 198 patent drugs approved by the FDA between 1978 and 1986 had serious post-approval risks such as heart failure, myocardial infarction, convulsions, kidney and liver failure, birth defects and blindness (3). So much for the FDA approval. Sure, watchdogs must bite (4). But they must first watch ! References: 1. Landow L. FDA approves drugs even when experts on its advisory panel raise safety questions. BMJ 1999; 318: 944 2. Amazing medicines the drug companies do not want you to know. Univesity Medical Research Publishers, Tempe, Arizona: 1993 3. Douglas WC. Second Opinion. Atlanta, GA: (?) 1993 4. Oommen T. Watchdogs must bite. eBMJ. January 04, 1999
From San Francisco Medical Society http://www.sfms.org/sfm/sfm301k.htm Dr. Herbert Ley, former FDA Commissioner, in the San Francisco Chronicle, Jan. 2, 1970 "People think the FDA is protecting them. It isn't. What the FDA is doing and what the public thinks it's doing are as different as night and day. First, it is providing a means whereby key individuals on its payroll are able to obtain both power and wealth through granting special favours to certain politically influential groups that are subject to its regulation.
This activity is similar to the 'protection racket' of organized crime: for a price, one can induce FDA administrators to provide 'protection' from the FDA itself. Secondly, as a result of this political favouritism, the FDA has become a primary factor in that formula whereby cartel- oriented companies in the food and drug industry are able to use the police powers of government to harass or destroy their free- market competitors. And thirdly, the FDA occasionally does some genuine public good with whatever energies it has left over after serving the vested political and commercial interest of its first two activities." (quoted in Medical Dark Ages, by R.Hovnavian)
President's Message: The FDA Has Failed Us George Susens, MD "Primum non nocere"*When I studied pharmacology over 30 years ago I recall the professor telling us that the United States had the safest drug supply in the world due to the Federal Drug Administration-its stiff regulations and its well-known vigilance. During the period between 1973 and 1997, only eight drugs had to be withdrawn after introduction to the market. What is the situation now? Ten new drugs have been withdrawn in the past three years because of serious complications and, in some cases, deaths. This and other evidence suggests that the so-called "fast track" approval is harming our patients and the integrity of what we do as physicians. It is easy to blame Congress, which mandated this change in FDA rules, for bowing to money offered and other pressures exerted by pharmaceutical companies. But that does not, in my opinion, relieve the FDA of the moral and ethical responsibility to demand more thorough testing of new drugs. How can the FDA justify its recent disastrous record? And who gets sued when an inadequately tested medication produces a bad outcome?
In the past, most of us have had confidence that an FDA-approved drug would be safe. We all learned the possible side effects of new drugs and warned our patients. Now I am inclined to avoid using new medicines until they have been on the market for two or more years. But even that precaution doesn't always work-witness Seldane, left on the market for years despite numerous deaths. One of the most recently withdrawn drugs was Lotronex, prescribed for irritable bowel disease in women. Glaxo had pledged to study the incidence of ischemic colitis in exchange for early approval-but that study never took place. Other recent drug withdrawals are Rezulin (pain killer/liver failure), Redux and Pondimin (diet pills/mitral valve dysfunction), Duract (pain killer/liver toxicity), Seldane and Hismanal (allergic rhinitis/ventricular fibrillation), Posicor (antihypertension/ECG abnormalities), Raxar (antibiotic/cardiovascular problems), and Propulsid (heartburn/arrhythmias).
This situation has received ample publicity. The newspapers report each new drug withdrawal with the usual FDA disclaimer. Our journals are filled with reports of drug reactions and even deaths. Individual physicians call for the withdrawal of a particular drug (e.g., Dr. Robert Misbin, Los Angeles Times, 2.19.00) and editorials call for FDA reforms (NEJM, 2000; 342:1824-26).
Dr. Laurence Landow, who was a team leader in the Anesthetic and Critical Care Drug Section for the FDA from 1996 to 1998 and is now an instructor at Harvard, wrote in the British Medical Journal, "....in the past few years the FDA's role has changed. Rather than regulating the drug industry to protect the health of consumers of prescription drugs, the administration has become the industry's partner, rapidly approving drugs for marketing even when medical experts on its own panels raise serious safety questions," (BMJ, 1999; 318:944, 3 April).
It puzzles me why Congress continues to ignore this highly disturbing message. It is even more confounding that the FDA itself has not recognized, or at least refuses to acknowledge, the hazards endemic to the "fast track" program and terminated it. One is led to conclude that this once great world exemplar has lost its moral compass.I have written a resolution, which I hope the CMA House of Delegates will approve, calling for the AMA to lobby Congress to repeal "fast track" drug approval and to adequately fund the work of the FDA, including testing of herbal remedies-but that last is another editorial. This critical issue is a perfect example of when and how organized medicine can have a significant impact. Physicians-right now-must say "enough is enough." *First do no harm
WOULD YOU BUY A USED CAR FROM THIS AGENCY NOW? "If you buy that, I've got some Florida swampland I'll sell you." -Anonymous.
Some examples of how homeopathic and herbal alternatives that were much safer were rejected by allopathic medicine and it's massive propaganda campaign to elminate all competition in the name of greed are as follows. Note that other countries, notably France, at that time were treating these very same illnesses with "more gentle approaches", and (even as today) called our methods dangerous -- but our medical establishment did not listen, even as they don't today, particularly in the treatment of cancer in other countries. You might be interested in knowing that in surveys taken of oncologists, the overwhelming majority of them would not take the treatments (or administer them to loved ones) that the medical establishment dictates that they use for cancer patients. When asked why, they said that they were dangerous, not effective for most cancers. Some doctors also stated that chemotherapy and radiation shortened the patient's lifespan and caused them to have a much poorer quality of life during their remaining time than doing nothing at all.
While criticizing and attempting to eliminate homeopaths, chiropractors, herbalists and other naturopathic doctors, the allopathic medical profession selected a host of mostly disastrous therapies, mainly lethal doses of mercury and bloodletting. Possibly as many people died from the "cures" as from the disease. Allopathic medicine killed George Washington with constant bloodletting and mercury poisoning, and Abraham Lincoln suffered chronic mercury poisoning and crippling constipation from his allopathic treatments,
What does this event tell us about our society's willingness to accept authority, when a small dose of open-mindedness and willingness to work together for the good of mankind, instead of the greed of medical and pharmaceutical organizations, would go a whole lot further?
Modern-day doctors continue to kill patients with barbaric bedside practices...
When I was in medical school, I was taught the science of hygiene (i.e. the technique of preventing the spreading of disease from one patient to another). Objects such as towels, clothing, and dishes; medical equipment such as stethoscopes; and especially hands were (and still are) the main sources of the spreading of diseases from one patient to another. This has been common knowledge for well over 100 years.
Back in the 1800s, before the germ theory of disease was well known, a doctor in Vienna named Ignaz Semmelweis suggested that doctors could be spreading disease from patient to patient. He knew that pregnant women were dying by the thousands when they went to the hospital to give birth. The carnage was so horrific––and so widespread––that many women refused to go to the hospital for delivery. These women didn’t know anything about medicine, but they did know that more women died during childbirth in the hospital than at home––or even on the street for that matter. Birth at home was safe and uneventful in most cases––more so if the attendant was a midwife and not a doctor. The patients saw doctors as angels of death––and they were right.
Semmelweis theorized that the doctors were to blame for the high mortality rate. Back then, it was common for doctors (including the learned professors) to go from an autopsy dissection to the delivery room with- out changing their clothing or washing their hands. It’s no wonder patients were dying by the thousands.
Dr. Semmelweis went to great lengths to prove that the doctors were to blame for the skyrocketing death rates––that they were killing their patients through cross infection. No one had heard the term bacteriology back then, but Semmelweis knew there were “humors” of some sort that the doctors were carrying from dead patients to live, healthy ones via their blood- and pus-stained formal black frocks and their filthy hands. He set up a separate delivery suite and required the doctors to wear fresh, clean clothes and to wash their hands before entering. Because of these simple steps, the death from childbirth plummeted to less than 1 percent. Despite the good results, such precautionary practices were deemed insulting by the medical hierarchy, full of its typical pride and ignorance. How dare he suggest that they were dirty and––God forbid–– WRONG! They were threatened by him, so it’s not surprising that they plotted to destroy him.
The Church of Medical Infallibility pummeled him unmercifully. He was driven insane and was committed to a mental hospital (that proved their case, didn’t it?), and he died at the age of 47. OK, by now you’re probably wondering what this has to do with you. After all, the germ theory of disease is now widely accepted, and the rules of sterility are practiced in surgical suites and delivery wards of all hospitals.
But here’s the catch: In other areas of the hospital, the doctors of today are little better at practicing sterilization than they were 150 years ago. True, they’re scrupulous in using sterilization techniques in the surgery room, but anywhere else in the hospital––even in situations demanding strict isolation, such as a raging strep infection or an AIDS patient with TB, hepatitis B, or both––they seem to forget everything they were taught.
Hard to believe? You bet. But here’s a story straight from the trenches that illustrates my point perfectly. I was talking with a close friend in California about the infectious disease problem in the U.S., and she told me the story of her daughter, a nurse in training. She said, “Madelyn says she can see why the doctors are responsible for spreading these infections. She said they won’t gown up when they come in to see the patients, their ties fall on the babies when they are examining them, and they insist on using their own stethoscopes on the children (instead of the one designated for each child)––and then they’re off to the next patient.”
Believe it or not, as many as 1.4 million people are infected at any given moment by doctors and nurses who don’t wash their hands between patients. Don’t be fooled into thinking this only happens in “undeveloped” countries––the statistics show it happens to 5 to 10 percent of patients in developed countries an that up to 10 percent of those who are infected die.
But doctors today are every bit as stubborn and proud as they were in the 1800s, so getting them to wash with soap and water between every single patient is like getting a teenager to make his bed or clean his room––in other words, it’s virtually impossible. There might be an alternative, though, that’s efficient for the medical staff and safe for the patient.
The World Health Organization has suggested a solution to this unfortunate problem: Instead of using soap and water, doctors should use alcohol-based wipes as a quick and easy way to stop the spread of bacteria from patient to patient. Sounds like a good idea to me. In fact, why not just use Huggies Wipes? The doctors could have a pack attached to their belts so they wouldn’t even have to miss a beat in their already-too-hasty rounds. In fact, why not keep a pack by every bed and crib throughout the hospital? I guarantee you, if everyone who walked into the room wiped his hands with the wipes, that “5 to 10 percent” infection rate statistic would drop overnight.
(Just to be clear: I don’t own any stock in Kimberly-Clark, the manufacturers of Huggies Wipes, or in Disney, which has endorsed the product.)
When we all scratch our heads and wonder why the medical establishment has added the thimerosal containing flu vaccine to the infant / toddler schedule amongst the concerns of congress and many doctors with the safety of the current vaccine schedule we can look to history for the answer.
I read about this Doctor Semmelweis in Bob Barefoot's Book "Death by Diet." I then researched and found two pages on him in the encyclopedia Britannica. One thing my encyclopedia states is that after he encouraged hand washing in Vienna the mortality rate fell from 18.27 to 1.27 percent for those women having babies delivered in the hospital. In March 1848 and August of 1848 the mortality rate was zero while hand washing was taking place. These doctors and their students would go from conducting autopsies on people who died from a disease directly to operating on and delivering babies. No hand washing at all.
So what was Vienna's response? They fired Semmelweis, he went to a different hospital in Pest and began saving lives there. Vienna went back to NOT washing and then mortality went back up to 10 to 15 percent. Things did not change for literally decades.
*** Reluctance to change ***
That is what continued to kill woman having babies delivered in the hospitals by the doctors. The midwife wing did not have the severity of the problem nor did those who were delivering at home.
History has many answers. So, when you leave the hospital or doctors office with your autistic child. Just think of Dr. Semmelweis, and the lives he saved by standing up for common sense and cause and effect medicine. The DAN protocol has been written by the Dr. Semmelweis' of our day. They hold some measure of relief for your suffering children. Buy the protocol and read, and don't stop. Your child is where your responsibility is at.
However, one last fact to remember. Dr. Semmelweis is said to have gone insane as a result of his inability to understand why peoples "pride" and "reluctance to change" took precedence over the health of their patients. So be careful, don't expect things to change overnight. A generation will have to die off prior to common sense ever taking hold again. If it ever does.
Ignaz Philipp Semmelweis Every woman who has given birth in the last century owes a huge debt of gratitude to a doctor born in 1818 in Buda, Hungary and who died insane because the scientific world refused to accept his simple solution to a medical problem that was killing thousands of women every year.
Ignaz Philipp Semmelweis was born July 1, 1818, and received his MD in 1844 in Vienna, where he was appointed to be an assistant at the Maternity Hospital. The hospital primarily served poor women or women in extreme circumstances, such as illegitimate births. Very soon, Semmelweis became distressed at the number of patients who died from puerperal infection, commonly known as childbed fever. Healthy women would come into the clinic, deliver their babies and, within a few days, be dead from childbed fever. Women who were able to give birth at home rarely died of childbed fever, while the disease was rampant in maternity hospitals all across Europe. The situation was so desperate that women would beg to give birth in the streets and be admitted to the hospital after the delivery. For some unknown reason, admission after the birth led to fewer deaths. Women who were forced to enter the hospital before delivery lived in a state of fear, terrified that they would not leave alive.
Most doctors considered childbed fever unpreventable, but Semmelweis's tender heart was touched by the screams and moans of the dying women, and he decided to put all his energies into finding the cause and cure of childbed fever. He spent hundreds of hours autopsying the bodies of dead patients. After several months, he noticed that the death rate in Ward One, where doctors and medical students were in charge, was around 29%, while the death rate in Ward Two, where midwives were in charge, was only 3% (Roy Porter, The Greatest Benefit to Mankind (New York: W.W. Norton & Co.), p 369. As an experiment, the midwives and doctors changed wards for awhile, and the same death rates followed each group. The final clue came when a colleague of Semmelweis's, Doctor Jakob Kolletschka, received a cut during the autopsy of a woman who had died of childbed fever. The cut became infected, and Doctor Kolletschka died in 1847 of puerperal infection. Semmelweis realized that something from the dead woman had infected his friend, and therefore something the medical students carried on their hands from one patient to another was causing the childbed fever. Doctors were carrying something from sick patients and dead bodies to healthy patients; men who were dedicated to healing were transmitting the disease themselves.
To Semmelweis, the solution became obvious. In May 1847, he ordered all doctors, students and midwives in the hospital to wash their hands thoroughly in chlorinated water before every examination or delivery. At the time, doctors usually washed their hands briefly after a delivery, but after an autopsy or examination of a pregnant woman, they would just wipe their hands off with a towel and go on to the next patient. When Semmelweis ordered the student doctors to wash their hands, many of them became outraged. He had the authority, however, and under his new rule, the death rate from childbed fever dropped to below 1%. Some of the younger doctors realized that Semmelweis was right about handwashing, but the more established doctors disparaged his findings. Many deliberately disobeyed the order to wash their hands, calling it "undignified". Year after year Semmelweis provided clear proof that handwashing saved lives, and year after year he was ridiculed and criticized in scientific journals, and by leading obstetricians in Europe. He was eventually fired from his job at the hospital because of his insistence on handwashing, against the orders of his superior.
In 1861, Semmelweis published his principal work, The Cause, Concept and Prophylaxis of Childbed Fever, in which he carefully explained, with years of data to prove his theory, how handwashing by doctors would save thousands of lives every year. He sent copies of his book to all prominent obstetricians and medical societies he knew, but the general reaction was hostile. "The weight of authority stood against his teachings". (Imre Zoltan, "Semmelweis, Ignaz Philipp", Encyclopedia Britannica, 1981 ed.) Prominent scientists and physicians, many of whom had published their own books on childbed fever, actively ridiculed his ideas. Any doctor who supported Semmelweis's ideas was in danger of losing his own job.
After years of attempting to persuade other physicians to follow his ideas, and knowing that thousands of women were dying needlessly every year, the strain proved too much for Semmelweis. He was admitted to a mental hospital in Vienna in August of 1865, after suffering a mental breakdown, and died on August 13, 1865, of puerperal infection, from an infected cut on his right hand. The same disease he had fought all his life finally killed him. Semmelweis died feeling defeated by the very same medical establishment which had taken the Hippocratic oath, vowing "The regimen I adopt shall be for the benefit of my patients. . . and not for their hurt. . ." The people who were supposed to be dedicated to saving lives were instead more committed to preserving their own entrenched academic and political interests. Because doctors and scientists ignored the clear evidence presented to them, hundreds of thousands of women died needlessly. It took many years for doctors to become convinced of the necessity for cleanliness. Today, Semmelweis is hailed as a hero, the "Savior of mothers". But we must never forget how long and hard he had to fight for his ideas, because they were not part of the "accepted" science of his day. (http://www.projectcreation.org/creation_station/station_detail.php?PRKey=13)
AMA endorses hand hygiene principles for back-to-school season
If you were to ask a public health worker, “What are the ten most deadly weapons?” the answer wouldn’t be “guns” or “drugs” or “knives.” It would be “hands.”
More specifically, our ten fingers – those seemingly innocuous digits that, when they’re not grasping doorknobs or handling money or flushing the toilet, are busy spreading everyday bugs like E. coli or Shigella or simply the common cold. Hands can prove to be particularly perilous during the back-to-school season, when students flood back into classrooms, carrying with them a summer’s worth of bad hand washing habits.”
Not so fast, says Will Sawyer, MD, a solo practice family physician in Cincinnati and an AMA member for 16 years. First you have to get past Henry the Hand. In an effort to battle the unhygienic habits of Americans, Henry travels across the nation, spreading the word about proper hand washing and reinforcing hand-healthy behaviors in children and adults.
Much of the population does not fully understand the tremendous impact that regular, thorough hand washing can have on disease rates, especially in the back-to-school and hospital environments. “We known this for multiple decades, prior to the antibiotic era,” Dr. Sawyer said. “Hands are the number one vector of transmission of communicable disease.”
Dr. Sawyer said a spike is seen every year in the incidence of illness several weeks after school starts in the fall. When students are sick, they miss school; when students miss school, the cumulative effects ripple throughout the community. “Absenteeism is a big issue, to not only schools from a funding perspective, but in terms of learning capacity,” he said. “A healthy student is a better learner.” Additional costs are felt by parents who must miss work in order to stay home and care for their child.
In light of this, Dr. Sawyer saw an opportunity to implement a significant yet easy-to-understand behavioral change among students. The concept is more than just hand washing; it’s hand awareness. Henry the Hand teaches four basic principles of hand awareness, endorsed by the American Medical Association.
First, and most obvious: “Wash your hands when they are dirty and before eating.”
Second: “Do not cough into your hands.”
Third: “Do not sneeze into your hands.”
Fourth:" Above all, do not put your fingers into your eyes, nose or mouth.”
This last principal, Dr. Sawyer says, is the most important in terms of disease prevention. Placing one’s fingers into the mucus membranes of the eyes, nose, or mouth can easily lead to self-innoculation with bacteria such as strep (common in preschool, middle school and high school students) as well as viruses such as the common cold, pink eye and various flu-like viruses, Dr. Sawyer said.
To promote Henry the Hand’s mission in this back-to-school season, Dr. Sawyer has created an Adopt-a-School program. The program allows all physicians and health care workers to “adopt” a local school to help teach Henry’s four principles for good hand hygiene, hence improving the health of the student population. In Cincinnati, several doctors have already brought Henry to school with them. The program has also been implemented in Rochester, Minn., Chicago and Kalamazoo, Mich. “All the doctor has to do is make the connection with the school,” Dr. Sawyer said, “so an interested teacher, parent or nurse can implement the program.” Physicians who participate in the Adopt-a-School program will receive helpful materials from Dr. Sawyer, such as a classroom hand washing schedule
“We want to spread the word, not the germs,” Dr. Sawyer urged. “This program will decrease absenteeism from schools and maintain healthy learners. We need to make it a natural, innate behavior. It needs to be consistently demonstrated to children, because children learn from what we do, not what we say. Kids are observant, so they’re more likely to say ‘Gee, that person didn’t wash their hands in the bathroom.’”
An added bonus: as these doctors teach proper hand hygiene, the concept seeps into their subconscious and translates into their own practice. While Dr. Sawyer is not advocating repetitive hand washing that borders on the compulsive, he does believe that Henry the Hand’s Adopt-a-School program has the potential to improve student’s health in a very real way. “The point is not to raise everyone’s level of paranoia or fear; it’s to increase awareness about how very simple it is to decrease disease.”
Each year, about 2 million American patients develop infections while hospitalized. An estimated 90,000 of them die as a result. Additionally, infections are a complication of care in numerous other settings, including long-term-care facilities and clinics. The problem revealed by these statistics is not new. But reducing its cost, in terms of human suffering as well as actual health care dollars, is literally within reach. Physicians and other health care professionals could make significant inroads by increasing their vigilance in a key area: hand hygiene. And that's why the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention last month issued new guidelines on this very topic.
The agency's directive, which is in sync with current American Medical Association policy, is very clear: Clean 'em up."Clean hands are the single most important factor in preventing the spread of dangerous germs and antibiotic resistance in health care settings," said CDC director Julie Gerberding, MD, MPH. The American Medical Association has long advanced the importance of hand hygiene in minimizing the spread of infection, both within the practice of medicine and among members of the general population.
Now, the CDC guidelines move into new territory by advising the use of alcohol-based hand rubs by health care professionals in addition to traditional hand washing with soap and water. First off, recent studies indicate that these hand rubs reduce the number of bacteria on hands more effectively than does soap and water. These products should not be confused with anti-microbial soaps, gels and lotions that have proliferated the consumer market. While the AMA has raised red flags about these anti-microbials and their possible role in antibiotic resistance, alcohol rubs do not pose the same risk.
The CDC offers other practical reasons for its guidance.
Data show that health care personnel may find alcohol-based hand rubs more convenient than traditional hand washing. One study concluded that, during the course of an eight-hour shift, an intensive-care unit nurse could save about an hour by using an alcohol-based hand rub.
The reality is that health care personnel are always on the go, running from room to room, patient to patient. This sometimes makes hand washing with soap and water difficult. But these hand rubs are more accessible -- a tube can be carried in the pocket of a doctor's white coat or clipped on to scrubs. The CDC also emphasizes some important how-tos. First, when using an alcohol-based hand rub, apply it to the palm of one hand and rub hands together, covering all surfaces of hands and fingers, until hands are dry. And these rubs do not preclude other infection-control basics. When hands are visibly soiled, wash with soap and water. Additionally, the use of gloves does not eliminate the need for hand hygiene or vice versa.
According to agency data, gloves reduce contamination by 70% to 80%, preventing cross-contamination and protecting patients and health care personnel from infection. But hand rubs should be used before and after each patient, just as gloves should be changed before and after each patient.
The CDC's new recommendations are an important reminder for physicians -- and just one aspect of the continued struggle against the spread of these pernicious germs. AMA policy encourages doctors to talk to patients, young and old, to remind them to wash hands when they are dirty and prior to eating, to avoid coughing or sneezing into hands and to keep fingers away from the eyes, nose or mouth.
Dec. 8-14 is National Hand Washing Awareness Week. This will provide a perfect opportunity for physicians to drive home these hand-awareness principles -- in the hospital, in their practices, in communicating with patients and in their own lives.
The History of Hand Hygiene
1843 - Oliver Wendell Holmes investigated the circumstances around puerperal (or childbed) fever and concluded that puerperal fever was transmitted from patient to patient by doctors and nurses on their hands and clothing (Holmes, 1843)
1847 - Ignaz Semmelweis was the first clinician to reduce mortality by introducing a handwashing policy (Semmelweis, 1847)
2000 - Didier Pittet and colleagues conducted one of the more recent major studies to show how a sustained improvement in compliance with hand hygiene can coincide with a reduction in hospital-acquired infection (Pittet et al, 2000)
In 1847 Dr Ignaz Semmelweis was an assistant in the maternity wards of a Vienna Hospital. He observed that puerperal fever in the delivery room staffed by medical students was up to three times higher than in a second delivery room staffed by midwives. He recognised that the students might be transferring the disease from their dissections to their hands and ordered that students must wash their hands after dissection and before patient examination. The mortality rate dropped from over 20% to 3%. (Semmelweis, 1847)
Despite these results, Semmelweis's colleagues treated his findings with hostility and he eventually resigned his position.
NOW WASH YOUR HANDS: Our children may do it, but our doctors won't
Possibly the greatest breakthrough in hospital care was the novel idea that doctors should wash their hands after seeing a patient. It was an observation first made in the 1850s, and there was a sudden and dramatic improvement in patient recovery.
Patients will not be delighted to hear that it remains a rare event. The vast majority of doctors still do not wash up, but instead spread germs to the next patient on their rounds. In an attempt to encourage doctors to visit the little boys' room, the Mayo Clinic is recommending a super alcohol-based hand rub as a great way to keep down those nasty germs.
But if the average doc shirks away from good old soap and water, it's unlikely he's going to run for the new hand wash. (Source: Mayo Clinic Proceedings, 2004; 79: 109-16).
Study: Doctors' ties and stethoscopes may be health threat Neckwear & stethoscopes can harbor disease-carrying bugs By Roni Rabin, Newsday Staff Writer, May 24, 2004
New research suggests doctors should dress down, and not just on Fridays. A small study of neckties worn by doctors at a Queens hospital found almost half the 42 ties tested harbored microorganisms that can cause illness. By comparison, only one of ten ties worn by security guards tested positive for a disease-carrying microorganism. The study is being presented Monday at the American Society for Microbiology meeting in New Orleans. Steven Nurkin, one of the authors, says the findings aren't entirely new:
Earlier studies have found bacteria on everything from doctors' stethoscopes to pagers and pens. But there's a critical difference, said Nurkin, who graduates from medical school in two weeks: Neckties need to be dry cleaned.
"Most people don't do that every time they wear a tie," he said. "You come home and throw the tie on your tie rack and a week or so later, you wear it again. It's rarely clean." Nurkin, a native of Brooklyn studying medicine in Israel, said he got the idea for the research while doing a surgery elective at the New York Hospital-Queens. He noticed the doctors' neckties because in Israel, physicians rarely wear ties.
"I watched the doctors come over for a physical exam or procedure and saw the neckties would swing in front of the patient's face, or patients would cough on them," he said. Occasionally a doctor would wash his hands -- and then adjust his tie, Nurkin said. "I thought: maybe that's a point of interest." Nurkin emphasized the ties tested did not harbor any multi-drug resistant bacteria, but said, "The potential is there."
Of the 42 physician neckties sampled, 20 contained one or more microorganisms known to cause disease, including 12 that carried Staphylococcus aureus, five a gram negative bacteria, one that carried aspergillus and two ties that carried multiple pathogens. Staph bacteria, which often live harmlessly on the skin, can cause serious wound infections; Aspergillus, a mold, is an opportunistic infection that threatens vulnerable patients. Gram negative bacteria refers to a type of staining in the lab.
Of the 10 security guards' ties, only one grew Staphylococcus aureus. Some 5 to 10 percent of all hospital patients acquire an infection in the hospital, which translates into over 2 million infections, 90,000 deaths and over $4.5 billion in annual costs, the study notes.
While being well-dressed is encouraged by hospital administrators and may add to "an aura of professionalism" and inspire patient confidence, the authors note, "As the clinician moves from patient to patient, the tie may serve to carry microorganisms from patient to patient as well." Physicians may also unwittingly carry microbes from the hospital into the community. "This study brings into question whether wearing a necktie is in the best interest of our patients," the authors conclude.
Nurkin, 27, graduates in two weeks from medical school at the American-Technion Program of the Bruce Rappaport Faculty of Medicine in Haifa, Israel. ---
Vienna physician Ignaz Semmelweis made an observation 160 years ago triggering a change in the way medical personnel dealt with patients: He recommended that doctors simply wash their hands. Many physicians of the day would conduct an autopsy on a decaying corpse then proceed to deliver a baby - without bothering to scrub.
Now, Betsy McCaughey, New York's former lieutenant governor, is reinvigorating Semmelweis' message, emphasizing that people do not have to die because they've been admitted to a hospital. U.S. hospitals, she said, continue to record hundreds of thousands of hospital-acquired infections annually - and at great human and financial cost. Medical personnel, she underscored, still are not following simple steps of hygiene.
Dr. Janet Stout of the University of Pittsburgh, an expert in Legionella, the bacteria that cause Legionnaire's disease, said at the seminar that hospitals must put surveillance strategies in place to prevent bacteria from colonizing in the first place. Hospital plumbing is one site. In addition to Legionnaire's Stout described several other pneumonia-causing pathogens, such as Pseudomonas aeruginosa, that also routinely inhabit hospitals and colonize plumbing.
Hospital instruments, McCaughey added, are a frequent source of infections, pointing to blood pressure cuffs and stethoscopes that are not sanitized between patients. "Hospitals are losing their shirts on these infections. They cost $30 billion a year," said McCaughey, who also estimates that 1 in every 20 patients admitted to a U.S. hospital contracts an infection.
Her key target is methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus - MRSA, a bug whose very origin is in hospitals. MRSA is noteworthy because it gets its name from its ability to repel the antibiotic methicillin. Recently, another form of MRSA has been developing in communities. McCaughey said if patients were tested for MRSA before hospital admission fewer cases would occur.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates 2 million people a year acquire a hospital infection and that about 20,000 die. But McCaughey estimates a higher number of deaths - about 100,000 a year - because some infections do not manifest until patients are released and they die at home or in other facilities.
In New York, health officials estimate about 100 hospital-acquired infections annually, but the figure probably reflects only a fraction of cases. The state will begin a "report card" system in 2008 to reveal hospitals with the best and worst records. Pennsylvania, the first state to require reporting, announced in November that 19,000 infections occurred in 2005, thousands more than were known before mandatory reporting.
McCaughey honed her skills as a medical policy expert at think tanks where she has written prolifically about health care issues. As lieutenant governor from 1994-98, she put an emphasis on health care legislation. In 2002, she founded the Committee to Reduce Infection Deaths, called RID.
Stephen Signorile of Port Washington, who volunteers at RID, said he wishes he knew in 1999 what he knows now. His wife, Helene, was admitted to a hospital to have a small brain tumor removed, but acquired a brain infection in the facility that left her partially paralyzed. He identified the institution only as a major cancer center in Manhattan.
"She's one of the lucky ones who survived, but her life has been ruined," Signorile said.
Tips for patients
The Committee to Reduce Infection Deaths has developed a 15-point primer on ways patients can protect themselves from hospital infections. Here are a few steps.
Always demand that health care providers wash their hands before treating you.
If you are to have surgery, ask your surgeon to limit the number of personnel in the operating room.
Avoid a urinary tract catheter, if at all possible. Ask for diapers or a bedpan.
Choose a surgeon with a low infection rate. If your surgeon won't reveal his or her rate, find another surgeon.
One week before surgery, shower frequently with chlorhexidine soap. You can purchase it over-the-counter under the brand name, Hebiclens.
Before a health care provider uses a stethoscope, ask that the diaphragm, the device placed on your chest, be sanitized with alcohol.
Ghostwriting of clinical studies exposed: "Evidence-based medicine" is a fraud http://www.naturalnews.com/023074.html Drug companies are reeling from recent revelations about their common practice of using in-house marketing writers to ghostwrite "scientific" studies. It turns out they were conducting drug safety studies in-house, writing up the "scientific" papers in-house, and then bribing doctors and academics to slap their names on the papers as if they were the actual authors. Today's feature story reveals this massive scam and how all four of the big players in conventional medicine have conspired to deceive the public: Drug companies, the FDA, the medical journals and the academics. Read the first story below for full details... (and share this story with anyone still gullible enough to believe that FDA-approved pharmaceuticals are somehow safe and effective...)
(NaturalNews) The discovery that drug companies have been ghostwriting scientific studies using in-house writers, then paying (bribing) doctors and high-level academics to pretend they were the author of the article is making shockwaves across conventional medicine. This latest revelation of scientific fraud exposes a massive, widespread system of fraud involving not only the drug companies, but also hundreds of different peer-reviewed, "scientific" medical journals that have published these ghostwritten articles. This scam is the latest embarrassment to conventional medicine; a system built on such a foundation of scientific fraud that the admission of dishonesty no longer surprises anyone. The pharmaceutical industry, it seems, is now supported almost entirely by fraudulent science fabricated by marketing personnel.
Remember, it is these studies -- the very ones now discovered to be ghostwritten by Big Pharma's in-house authors -- that the FDA uses to approve these drugs, unleashing them onto the public where potentially hundreds of millions of doses of the drug may be sold in just the first few years of its approval. But what we're learning now is that the whole system is an elaborate scam. For these studies, there's no real science involved at all.
To back this up, let me explain how this scam works in seven simple steps:
Step 1: A drug company runs an in-house study (using fraudulent study design from the start) to "prove" that their drug is both safe and effective. If the study produces negative results, it is thrown out. If it produces positive results, proceed to step 2.
Step 2: That same drug company uses in-house writers ("ghost writers") to write up the results of the study in a favorable light by discarding any data that doesn't fit the desired outcome. Note that these in-house writers are marketing people, not doctors or scientists, and they are on Big Pharma's payroll!
Step 3: The drug company contacts a noted doctor or academic and offers to pay them a bribe (a "writing fee") to put their name on the paper as if they were the original author. In reality, the paper has already been completely written and the doctor needs to write nothing.
Step 4: The paper is submitted to peer-reviewed academic journals (such as JAMA) for publication. Since the paper appears to have been independently written by an outside scientist or doctor, the journal is far more likely to consider it credible. Thus, it gets more easily published. The drug company reveals nothing about the true origins of the paper.
Step 5: The drug company that sponsored all this forwards the peer-reviewed, published study to the FDA, claiming this is now "scientific fact" that proves their drug is both safe and effective. Since the study was published in a peer-reviewed medical journal, it must be true, right?
Step 6: The FDA, which conducts no drug safety studies of its own, automatically believes the conclusions of the study (since it was published in a credible journal, after all), and therefore approves the drug for sale! From there, the FDA claims its decisions are based on the "gold standard of evidence-based medicine!"
Step 7: Once the drug is approved by the FDA, the drug company then claims the drug has been declared safe and effective by an independent government agency, and therefore the drug must indeed be both safe and effective. In other words, even though the drug company fabricated much of the evidence used by the FDA to make their approval decision, the drug company still claims that the FDA's decision is an independent, science-based approval of their drug! Furthermore, the drug companies are now arguing that FDA approval should immunize them from any lawsuits or claims of harm stemming from their drugs. Amazing, huh?
From here, doctors are medical personnel are taught that the drug is backed by good science and that the FDA has independently reviewed the evidence and approved the drug. Therefore, it's safe to prescribe to patients. What nobody has been told, however, is that the entire process -- from the drug studies to drug approvals -- was fabricated!
Or, put another way, as long as ghostwriting is tolerated in conventional medicine, the pharmaceutical industry has lost all credibility and is now clearly based on science fraud and marketing gimmicks, not genuine evidence. And remember, ghostwriting is not a new issue. It's been going on for decades. The only thing new about this issue is that it has been exposed in once-secret court documents that just happened to come out during a recent Merck trial.
Medical Journals Should Retract All Ghostwritten Articles NaturalNews is now calling for all peer-reviewed medical journals to determine the true authorship of all scientific articles they've published over the last ten years and retract all ghostwritten articles.
That would be quite a list, likely involving tens of thousands of published studies. The medical journals, of course, won't bother with that process. You know why? Because just like the drug companies, they'd rather sweep their scientific fraud under the rug than admit they've been played by Big Pharma or participated in a massive campaign of scientific fraud that now calls into question the credibility of virtually all medical journals (except for PLoS Medicine, of course, which remains independent and honest).
You see, all the big players were in on this scam: The drug companies, the medical journals, the FDA, the researchers and even the doctors and academics who accepted as much as $25,000 per study to slap their name on a paper already written by Big Pharma's in-house marketing writers. I guess credibility is cheap in conventional medicine. The entire reputation of a doctor can be purchased for as little as $10,000. Similarly, the integrity of the entire industry can be bought with Big Pharma's dollars. There's nothing in modern pharmaceutical medicine that isn't for sale... not even scientific credibility.
The FDA Should Retract its Approval of All Drugs Based on Ghostwritten Studies Think about this: The evidence used by the FDA to approve drugs is now known to be tainted. If this were a state or federal court, that evidence would be thrown out as being "inadmissible." But at the FDA, there's no such thing as pro-drug evidence that's too tainted to accept as fact. (There are truly zero standards for scientific evidence at the FDA, at least with the top decision makers. They can accept any piece of fraudulent evidence as fact, no matter how "poisoned" the evidence might be.)
Based on what we now know, the FDA needs to retract its approval of numerous drugs that were approved based on ghostwritten papers. In other words, if the FDA's original approval of these drugs was based on scientific fraud, then the FDA needs to rectify the situation and withdraw the approval of those drugs until proper studies can be conducted.
Will the FDA engage in such retractions? Of course not. There's not motivation to do so. The FDA isn't interested in good science or protecting the public. It's only interested in boosting Big Pharma's profits using whatever methods of collusion, corruption and scientific fraud it can get away with.
I say that if the FDA refuses to retract the approvals of drugs based on ghostwritten studies, the FDA has zero remaining credibility and has abandoned anything resembling "evidence-based medicine." In other words, the FDA is a willing partner in this widespread campaign of scientific fraud, and even when the fraud is discovered, the FDA does nothing to attempt to reestablish scientific credibility. Real science, it seems, has zero priority at the FDA.
The Pharmaceutical Racket So now we have Big Pharma, the FDA and the top medical journals all engaged in a massive conspiracy to deceive the public, to win approval for dangerous drugs, and to prop up the pharmaceutical industry with fabricated evidence on drug safety that was actually written by Big Pharma's in-house marketing writers. This is clearly a grand pharmaceutical racket, operated much like a system of organized crime. Except these criminals, it seems, have not yet been arrested and charged with any crimes. (That day is coming, however...)
Now I ask you this: How stupid are doctors if they still believe in all this fabricated evidence? Because I've met a lot of M.D.s who believe so strongly in the "evidence" behind pharmaceuticals that they'll argue your ears off about the science of pharmaceuticals vs. the "wishful thinking" of nutritional supplements. It makes you wonder just how gullible doctors really are. (In truth, they're incredibly gullible. All it takes is a visit by a young, bubbly drug rep wearing a push-up bra to radically alter the brand-name drug prescribing habits of a typical M.D.)
And how gullible are patients who believe Big Pharma or the FDA? To believe in this system of fraudulent "junk" science and manipulated clinical trials is downright foolish. And yet hundreds of millions of Americans take pharmaceuticals every single day -- drugs that make them no healthier and that, in fact, may harm them or kill them.
Folks, it is time for the United States of America to wake up and realize we've all been conned by Big Pharma. We've been hoodwinked by a band of clever hucksters sporting academic degrees and authoritative-sounding titles. We've been had. Let us now end this foolishness by retracting all published studies based on fraudulent ghostwriting, retracting all FDA-approved drugs based on these fraudulent studies, and prosecuting the top pharmaceutical companies for the widespread fraud they have so cleverly designed and unleashed in pursuit of the almighty dollar. It is time to invoke established federal anti-trust laws and go after these companies, putting them out of business once and for all and thereby saving countless American children, adults and senior citizens from death by dangerous pharmaceuticals.