FAKE DOCTORS and INNOCENTS IN PRISON
charle...@hotmail.com
Vet, wrongly held in a mental ward in Wales.
He also criticised celebrities for supporting only fashionable
subjects, like the Dr. Hadwen Trust, whilst deserting the real
victims.
"Special Care" has touched on a thorny subject.
Celebrities do, for the most part, do "good works" in order to enhance
their reputations.
Even worse are GOVERNMENTS, with such things as the British "CHARITIES
COMMISSION". They gather news of all new charities, then either
destroy such charities (to keep people dependent upon the government)
or INFILTRATE those charities and steal the money for the WAR CHEST.
The National Lotteries (with their ostensible "good works") are
RIGGED. You cannot win, but you can help finance the wars in Kosovo,
Afghanistan and Iraq by playing.
Perhaps the "Doctor Hadwen Trust" has been infiltrated.
At the bottom of this page is an interview by Hans Ruesch of Dr.
Werner Hartinger - unfortunately in German.
http://www.whale.to/vaccine/ruesch.html
In the process, they mention Professor Dr. Julius Hackethal, who was
persuecuted in the Seventies and Eighties for his views:
http://www.julius-hackethal.de
Firstly, he took the professor who had trained him to court, accusing
him of irresponsibility in the death of a young patient with an
inflamed appendix. The entire medical profession turned against
Hackethal.
Regarding the disappearance of medical documents and the "mislaying"
of X-rays, he advocated that every patient be allowed to have a
"Hackethal Case", in which he keeps his medical records safe. The
records become the property of the PATIENT. The patient has the
strongest reason to want his records preserved.
Hackethal was driven out of Germany, and had to start up again in
Bavaria (the Republic is a FEDERATION, so Bavaria is not Germany - it
is just joined to Germany).
The "establishment" in all European and north American countries is
corrupted by a "society with secrets". Their secrets are their names,
and the disgusting crimes they have committed. They BLACKMAIL each
others into role-playing, like pretending to be doctors.
Virtually every "doctor" is a complete PHONEY. Each started out by
committing such things as drugs crimes, or knifings. Based on the
"FORMULA" of the Gang that WRONG IS RIGHT, each became a "doctor".
Knife-men become "surgeons".
There is the case of Reinaldo Sylvestre, who was commanded by his
Master at the lodge to give FEMALE breasts to bodybuilder Alexander
Baez:
http://www.ergogenics.org/silvestre.html
The problem for the Flying Vet is that, although he himself is
properly medically qualified, the "doctors" in whose hands he is are
PHONEY. They are PERMITTED to carry out the most irresponsible of
medical experiments upon those in their charge, and their lodges will
protect them from any criticism regardless of the outcome.
We need the Flying Vet, Maurice Kirk, to be freed as soon as possible.
We need also to protect the POPULATION of the West against fake
doctors.
Charles Douglas Wehner
Special Care
PETER TATCHELL IS ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF A "CELEBRITY" OBSESSED BY HIS
*GLORY RATING*
--------------------------------------------------------------------
I am well aware that only a few people will understand what is written
here.
Most of us are "too far gone" by now.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The Dr Hadwen Trust was founded in good faith, but in the 1970s it was
taken over by the vivisection syndicate, and used as a vehicle for the
fake debate that conceals the truth as revealed by Hans Ruesch.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-109311127133979046#
This is a real treat.
Hee hee hee hee hee
Peter Tatchell interviewing Gill Langley.
Hee hee hee hee hee
Tweedle Dum Tweedle Dee
Peter Tatchell is all about self glorification.
He's a chancer.
But a less successful chancer than Gill Langley.
Why do you think Gill Langley agreed to be interviewed by Tatchell?
Do you think Gill Langley would ever agree to be interviewed by me?
I asked people like her to let me interview them in the 1980s.
They responded with total silence.
But they know they are perfectly safe with an imbecile glory seeker
like Peter Tatchell.
Gill and Chris and their bosses in the Vivisection Syndicate knew
Tatchell is "harmless."
Peter Tatchell is classifed as a "USEFUL IDIOT" by the vivisection
syndicate.
He will never know how they used him, as his intellect is too limited
to grasp the wider picture.
Gill Langley and her husband Christopher Kenneth Langley - they were
recruited at an early age, while at university, and were persuaded to
sell their souls to the Vivisection Syndicate, to pioneer in England
the FAKE DEBATE on vivisection, to obscure the TRUTH as revealed by
Hans Ruesch.
In return, they are guaranteed a comfortable lifestyle and occasional
celebrity status, and the adulation of other USEFUL IDIOTS like Joanna
Lumley, via the financial proceeds of vivisection, which they promote
indirectly by organising a DELIBERATELY INEFFECTIVE "opposition" to
vivisection via the fake, fraudulent "Dr Hadwen Trust" and similarly
fake, DELIBERATELY INEFFECTIVE "protest" groups elsewhere.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Tatchell has got his half hour of glory from this interview.
Little Pete can sound almost like a "scientist," or at the very least,
a "scientific correspondent," which greatly enhances Peter Tatchell's
glory rating, which is the ONLY thing Peter Tatchell ever cares
about.
Gill Langley and her bosses have used Tatchell as a vehicle for their
pro-vivisection propaganda, the FAKE DEBATE to obscure the truth.
"It is better to travel hopefully than to arrive."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://groups.google.com/group/uk.legal/msg/a4c61c277fd314f7?hl=en&&q=hans+ruesch+bulletin+number+1
Extract from
CIVIS Bulletin Nr 2, New Year 1988 (Part Two)
by Hans Ruesch
LIGHTNING RODS
When governments want to infiltrate, say, a Communist cell, they
don't
send in uniformed policemen for the task, but much rather carefully
disguised, fist-swinging and slogan-shouting proletarians. Similarly,
when the governments - meaning the Powers-that-be, always closely
allied with the big, job providing industries and the tentacular
"health" organisations - proceed to infiltrate a new, upcoming Animal
Welfare society, they first build up some "recognized, fearless
animal
defenders" - who get specially groomed for the task; men or women who
must establish a reputation for themselves by doing all that the
sincere protectors do: vibrantly denouncing the culling of baby seals
on Arctic ice fields, the cruel corridas in exotic Spain, the
massacres of kangaroos in remote Australia, the extermination of
whales in far-flung oceans, the capture of monkeys in African
forests,
the shooting of wolves in the Canadian wilds, the hunting of animals
wherever game is left; and when they then even protest the bobbing of
the dogs' ears and tails at home, they are bound to win the
gratitude,
respect and loyalty of all true animal defenders.
When then these same men, by now certified animal protectors,
sanctimoniously declare that they would love to see the end of
vivisection, but that to demand abolition is just "unrealistic" for
the time being, how many of their sincere followers would question
their motives? These have been the tactics used by the vivisection
and
allied syndicates ever since strict "regulations" have been imposed
by
laws which pretended to protect the laboratory animals but in effect
have protected vivisectors only.
In this way all the big animal welfare societies are organized to
function as lightning rods, as magnets that attract the sincere anti-
vivisectionists into their ranks, the easier to lull and paralyze
them
with misinformation and false promises: misinformation as to the
still
ineluctable necessity of vivisection, and the false promise that it
will be stopped only if and when those animal defenders will lavishly
pour money into the newfangled "funds for alternative, humane
research" - as if animal-based medical research had any scientific
value for which a "replacement" has as yet to be "found".
The first of these fraudulent business enterprises was Britain's
FRAME
(Fund for the Replacement of Animals in Medical Research), founded
and
directed by British vivisectors. Seeing AV contributions pouring
generously into their coffers, they concluded that they may have hit
on the greatest scientific discovery since skinless frankfurters, so
those "funds for finding alternatives" quickly proliferated and grew,
to the delight of the international vivisection family - in
Switzerland, West Germany, Austria, Italy, etc. They serve a double
purpose. They syphon off money that should be spent informing the
public about the uselessness and counter-productiveness of
vivisection, and then direct these moneys straight into the
vivisectors' pockets, with which to buy pleasure yachts and more
laboratory animals with which to be able to continue traditional
pseudo-research.
In fact the huge funds the Revlon company "donated" (from its
advertising budget) to the University of New York as far back as
1980,
publicizing its intention of "developing alternatives" to the
notorious Draize test on rabbits' eyes for the production of
cosmetics, (as reported in our CIVIS Bulletin Nr 1) has to this day
achieved nothing else but to persuade the animal welfare societies,
who had launched the boycott against Revlon, to call it off again.
Jean Pink's and Gill Langley's AA was one of them. Meanwhile the sale
of Revlon products continued unabated - and so did the Draize tests
on
rabbits' eyes. Vivisectors have grown richer thanks to those funds
for
"alternatives", and the heads of the welfare societies who called off
the boycott just when it was beginning to worry the manufacturers
have
not grown any poorer either.
Wrote Italy's Prof. Pietro Croce, MD, well known pathologist,
microbiologist, researcher, lecturer at Milan University and author
of
medical treatises, in his book Vivisection or Science - a Choice:
"There is no alternative to vivisection, because any other method, to
be called an alternative to it, should have its same qualities; but
it
is impossible to find anything in biomedical research that is, and
always was, equally misleading, false, deceitful and dishonest as
vivisection. That is why the methods we propose to medical research
must be called scientific methods rather than alternatives." And the
professor goes on showing in his book what these scientific methods
are.
BRITAIN FIRST IN INFILTRATION
Because Great Britain was the first country in the world to
introduce,
as far back as 1876, an apparently very strict legislation, designed
to curb vivisection drastically - at a time when the practice was
still in its infancy - it was also the country where the vivisection
interests have had more time and reason to develop and perfect
countermeasures. The first of these was infiltration into, and
subsequent take-over of, the protectionist societies, whose duty if
was to make sure that those strict laws be ruthlessly enforced,
instead of being systematically circumvented, as has been the case.
In the USA there are no laws capable of seriously interfering with
the
activities of the vivisectors and of their natural allies - the
medical, chemical and animal breeders' syndicates - because even the
cruelest experiments, including those that any layman can recognize
as
utterly senseless, are permitted there in the name of a "Science"
that
is being revered as a national divinity, whose motives it would be
boorish and unpatriotic to question. So what little infiltration
exists in American societies is amateurish, compared to some of its
European counterparts.
In Great Britain the entire "anti-vivisection" movement is bogus,
solidly controlled by experienced professionals, mostly veterans of
the research laboratories, who claim to have recanted their former
trade, like Richard Ryder and Gill Langley, or are still engaged in
it, like Michael Balls and some of the other directors of FRAME (Fund
for the Replacement of Animals in Medical Experiments). Let us
examine
some of them.
RICHARD D RYDER
To rate the definition of "greatest and sincerest anti-vivisectionist
in the UK", Mr Richard D Ryder, Senior Clinical Psychologist at
Warneford Hospital, Oxford, had first of all to stop working on
animals, as he admitted having done for his confessedly useless
"psychological" studies, and then to write a book, Victims of
Science,
in which he chidingly described the long series of horrors he had
"witnessed" in laboratories on both sides of the Atlantic. He only
described his colleagues' experiments, not his own. Also missing from
all his written and spoken denunciations is any indication of the
damaging, tragic counter-productivity of vivisection; instead, there
are innumerable, indirect and very subtle endorsements of it - the
kind that most uninformed readers or listeners won't recognise as
such.
In 1979, in an address to a hopeful A V crowd at Oxford University,
he
assured the audience that "not all animal experiments can be
dispensed
with". If a repentant, so outspoken and "sincere" scientist sets up
such a claim, how many "unscientific" laymen would dare doubt his
word?
In fact, in his role as Britain's topmost "anti-vivisectionist",
endorsed as such by all the leading A V societies, he represents
British anti-vivisectionism in all national and international
discussions and political hearings - as in the European Council at
Strasbourg. In these hearings he let all the traditional untruths of
the vivisection propagandists - mostly British Parliamentarians like
Lord Adrian, a lobbyist for the chemical interests, and University
professors like assiduous vivisector W.D.M. Paton of Oxford - go
undisputed, thus validating them by silence, although he was accorded
plenty of time and occasions to refute them authoritatively.
Details of the proceedings at the European Council at Strasbourg -
which were organized and dominated by the British chemo-medical
combine and culminated into the acceptance in Brussels of the
scandalous "new" Convention which imposes the cruelest alibi tests on
animals for many decades to come, even to countries where no such
experiments had been
compulsory before, like Spain - are to be found in the CIVIS Bulletin
Nr 1, published in 1983 and repeatedly reprinted since.
We present a few more examples of Richard Ryder's covert propaganda
for vivisection, too subtle to be recognized as such by unalerted
readers. In Victims of Science we find statements like the following
ones (and many more of the same kind, always in reference to
vivisection):
p. 11: "A large amount of the research which is done is trivial and
the knowledge gained has no medical importance". (This implies that
some animal research has medical importance.)
p. 11: "It must not be forgotten that this knowledge could often have
been acquired by other means." (This suggests that sometimes this
(unspecified) knowledge could only have been acquired through
vivisection.)
p. 57: "Very often the validity of much of the research can be
questioned." (This short sentence, a classic of its kind, suggests
that sometimes the validity of this research is indisputable. But one
cannot dispute where no examples are given.)
p. 57: "In the examples of medical research I have cited (tobacco
experiments, infliction of bums, monkey head transplants) the
validity
of much of the work is certainly dubious." (This implies that the
validity of some of this work is not dubious.)
Ryder's book as well as his numerous conferences, many of which are
still being published and circulated by the British A V societies,
are
generously endowed with similar statements that can only be regarded
as plugs for vivisection, the more effective for being voiced by a
leading "anti-vivisectionists", in fact the Number One in Great
Britain; to wit, from his pamphlet, titled Scientific Cruelty for
Commercial Profits:
p. 1: "Physiologists doing fundamental research that could and dill
sometimes produce striking benefits for mankind."
p. 2: "The really high-grade medical research work being
done..." (The
reader is left to wonder what this might be.)
Dr GILL LANGLEY, MA, PHD, FRSM, MIBIOL
Another trained vivisector, who at the time of this writing (Summer
1987) was still directing the scientific information of a major
British A V society and soliciting funds for "alternative" research,
is Dr Gill Langley of Animal Aid (AA). In the early '80s, after being
fired - for incompetence - as Technical Adviser from BUAV, she
managed
in some undisclosed way to take over the advisory department of AA,
Britain's youngest and fastest growing A V society, replacing Jean
Pink, who had founded it in 1977.
At one time, Jean Pink had been considered The Great White Hope of
anti-vivisectionism in Great Britain, to the point of becoming known,
at home and abroad, as la pasionaria, thanks to her drive and
uncompromising ways. But one day she surprised everybody by suddenly
deciding to get out of it all, to surrender the most important
department of her and any other AV society, the Information, to Dr
Gill Langley, whom she had previously taken on as "Technical
Advisor",
and to withdraw to private life without any explanation, to the
disappointment and dismay of her many devoted followers, some of whom
had poured considerable sums of money into her kitty. One more
blighted hope of British anti-vivisectionists.
Having acquired a free hand in AA, Gill Langley lost no time plugging
the Fund for Alternative research that she was running from her home
and palming off to gullible AA members this fund for "alternative"
methods as their only hope for an "eventual" end to vivisection.
Alternative funds can only thrive so long as the laymen can be made
to
believe that vivisection is useful and saves human lives. Besides
asserting this innumerable times, Dr Gill Langley made great efforts
to discredit Naked Empress in the eyes of the anti-vivisectionists
when it came out in 1983, by calling it "filled with inaccuracies" in
the book review she published in Outrage, AA's organ, but very
shrewdly failing to name any. What she wanted to pass off as
"inaccurate" was of course the mass of precisely documented health
damages, incontrovertibly due to animal experimentation, which the
book listed.
Meanwhile she conducted an intense private correspondence designed to
discredit Hans Ruesch and the scientific works of CIVIS still
further,
while propagandizing alleged blessings derived from vivisection.
In a letter about us but sent to Norman Giffard of Greater Manchester
she wrote among other things:
"There are three main areas where I disagree with HaIls Ruesch.
Firstly I do not believe that any advance made in medicine is quite
independent of animal experiments. Secondly I disagree with Ruesch
that there are enough validated and applied non-animal research
techniques to replace animal experiments." (She could not keep up her
begging organization if she stated differently, ie the truth. H.R.).
"Thirdly I think Ruesch is wrong about the so-called infiltration of
the British anti-vivisection movement. We have been subjected to a
lengthy campaign of misinformation and vilification by Ruesch and his
supporters, which has caused me to lose any respect for him."
In the same letter she makes a deliberate misstatement when she says:
"So I believe that as a tactic, concentrating solely on the medical
irrelevance of animal experiments rather than the ethical argument
against them, will not be effective."
But we never said that "A Vs must concentrate solely on medical
arguments." Instead, we always said that "A Vs must not concentrate
solely on ethical arguments", meaning they must not deliberately
ignore the enormous arsenal of medical arguments that is at their
disposal. Ignoring it is treason to the A V cause.
And obviously Gill Langley does not like this reasoning. But now a
question arises: what is such a firm believer in vivisection as Gill
Langley doing at the head of an A V society? Is it only to draw money
into the fund for alternatives that she runs from her home? And
otherwise to misinform the members?
-----------------------------
End of extract from Bulletin Number 2, by Hans Ruesch.
Special Care
know him, please forward this thread to Peter T. He probably is well
intentioned, and didn't know what Gill Langley was doing to him. It's
just possible.
Special Care
fake debate on vivisection.
The train driven by fakers like Gill Langley has travelled so far,
through so many stations now, that to acknowledge that it's on the
wrong track is too embarrassing.
Peter Tatchell has received a copy of the above message via email, but
I expect both him and Gill Langley and everybody else to just remain
silent, knowing everyone else will too, as we just wait for the
avalanche of "animal tested" [=untested] poisons to rot our brains to
such a degree as to drive us completely insane... and then the end
will come.
It's as I said in that slogan I introduced in 1987:
WE ARE NOT GOING TO ABOLISH VIVISECTION.
VIVISECTION IS GOING TO ABOLISH US.
...wont be long now...
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE VIVISECTION SWINDLE /
= THE COLLECTIVE SUICIDE OF THE ENTIRE HUMAN SPECIES:
Animal Experimentation: the Hidden Cause of Environmental Pollution
http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dddp6bt4_174g5kg85dn
Vivisection - Its Crucial Role in the Scheme of Things
http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dddp6bt4_83w8mzhvgj
The Vaccination Fraud (Rattigan / Mendelsohn)
http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dddp6bt4_126hgz9s8fb
The Cancer Business (Rattigan)
http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dddp6bt4_178fz8mgvgw
The Only Sane Response to the Vivisection Swindle (1990):
http://www.nzavs.org.nz/mobilise/27/12.html
charle...@hotmail.com
Gang.
Here is a Papal condemnation of the Gang - there were EIGHT:
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Clem12/c15inemengl.htm
The Gang uses BLACKMAIL. Sylvestre's MASTER commanded him to put
female breasts into Alexander Baez.
Then the MASTER says "We will PROTECT YOU from Baez, if you obey us
without question". Sylvestre is scared of such a strong man.
So, a senseless crime makes a SLAVE of a Brother.
After he was caught in Belize, they started to do a "head job" on him.
They are TERRORISTS. They made him SCARED, SCARED, SCARED.
Technique 1
As they began to sense that his determination to resist them was
flagging, they began to smuggle the words "by mistake" into the news
reports. Does anybody seriously believe that a macho body-builder
would WANT female breasts? Does anybody seriously believe that the
"plastic surgeon" might BELIEVE he was doing the right thing by means
of such an implant? Can it in ANY WAY be a "mistake"?
The Gang controls the Press. So they can use the Press to spread the
word that it was just a "mistake". Nobody gets punished for
"mistakes". So if he becomes an obedient SLAVE, they can use the Press
to trivialise his crime. This keeps him out of prison to commit his
crimes for THEM, and UNPAID.
Technique 2
A deal was struck. Instead of going to prison for fifty years, he
goes for just seven and a half. The Gang controls the law. So, after
three years (time off for "good behaviour") he is back on the streets
to commit his crimes for the GANG, and UNPAID.
Sylvestre will not be allowed to play the role of a doctor. One would
not expect it. The huge amount of bad publicity means that the whole
world has heard the story. So the Gang pretend that as "punishment" he
will no longer play doctors. He could play any other role, though.
The Gang specialise in changing the names and appearances of its
Brothers.
John Ball, for example, was a "Teddy Boy" with a liking for "older
women" and their money. Did he rape and rob an old lady? Ball had huge
sideburns and a leather jacket.
Ball reappeared in a BANK. Now he had a grey suit, and grey short
hair. Nothing like a Teddy Boy. His name was now Majjor.
Ball's job at the bank was to report to his lodge which accounts had
money. The lodge would then arrange for the "doctors" to kill old
ladies, or others with money. Ball would then empty their accounts
into the WAR CHEST.
Ball also kept an eye on the accounts of other Brothers. If any
Brother tried to withdraw money, it would be reported to the lodge.
The Brother would be tortured to stop him.
Later, Ball was commanded to enter politics. He became a "Whip".
In the Evening Standard, a "Whip" was asked about his job.
"You look into their past. There is always something. It might be
debt, or something sexual involving boys. But if you can help a chap
out, he will do what you want forever."
So Ball was BLACKMAILING Members of Parliament, by looking into their
past. The Teddy Boy was corrupting the government of England.
He became Prime Minister.
Every time he tried to resist the slightest demand of his MASTER, they
kept reminding him via the Press, of his "love for older women".
Such is "democracy". It has been like that for three centuries.
Charles Douglas Wehner
Special Care
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't have much difficulty imagining how they recruited Gill Langley
and her husband Christopher Kenneth Langley.
Some people are putty in the hands of the ruling group.
Money talks.
Glory talks.
------------------------
Yeah but what about Jan Creamer, that big fat tub of lard down at NAVS
headquarters in London?
http://www.navs.org.uk/media/uploads/normal_pages/v6t9y_navsandanimalaid.jpg
Jan Creamer was a real dollybird in 1986, when she was recruited in
response to the exigincies of the situation in 1986, and started
placing those full-page advertisements in the London Times and
Telegraph... featuring a completely naked male baby, which would not
be allowed today under child porn rules................ but our AV
dollybird at NAVS, Jan Creamer did place those full-page
advertisements in the Times and Telegraph in late 1986......
Why?
It could only have been because of me.
But I saw the bigger picture, after observing The Kathryn Reynolds
Show in Yorkshire.
So I just walked away.
Then the full-page advertisements in the Times and the Telegraph
ceased.
Next they wheeled out Vernon Coleman and Milly Schaer-Manzoli.
Oh and don't imagine we've heard the last of Vernon Coleman.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The Pete Singer Show"
http://groups.google.com/group/the-voice-of-the-voiceless/msg/26497400881e81a4?hl=en&&q=imperatrice+nuda+revisited
Special Care
---------------------------------------------------------
October 18, 2009
LOS ANGELES: In an unprecedented display of desperation, UCLA
vivisectors have taken out a full-page paid advertisement in Sunday's
Los Angeles Times to decry not the suffering of the thousands of
innocent animals they torture and kill annually, but the lousy media
attention they have received recently as activists have exposed their
misdeeds.
The newspaper advertisement, apparently paid for by a medical industry
schill group, is full of the usual lies and justifications propping up
the outmoded, inefficient and cruel practice of killing animals to
look for new ways to treat human diseases. In reality, most useful
research that improves human health comes from modern techniques that
no longer depend on gruesome and bloody animal mutilation, but instead
make use of modern computer technology, epidemiologic studies, CT, MRI
and PET scanning, microarrays and dozens of other methodologies.
In still a further sign of desperation, vivisectionists have also
erected billboards claiming the Los Angeles populace is free of, get
this, leprosy, because of animal experimentation. There were 91 cases
of leprosy, or Hansen's Disease, in the entire United States in 2000;
treatment has been effective since at least the 1940's, with new drug
regimens in place to counter resistance to the causative bacterium
since the 1980's. Implying that the continued killing of animals in
the 21st century is a "necessary evil" to prevent leprosy is just
another attempt to keep UCLA rolling in research grant money, most of
it taxpayer funds wasted on addicting non-human primates to
methamphetamines and other utterly ridiculous, useless and cruel
experiments.
Recent attempts by physicians to debate UCLA researchers have been
rebuffed by the university, knowing that their practices cannot stand
exposure to the public eye. CNN recently invited Drs. Jerry Vlasak and
Ray Greek to debate UCLA vivisectors, albeit not physicians, Dario
Ringach and David Jentsch. Vlasak and Greek jumped at the chance to
dispute the medical efficaciousness and morality of animal
experimentation; Ringach and Jentsch refused to appear.
When attempts at dialogue and peaceful attempts to make change and
alleviate suffering are frustrated, some activists are willing to use
more forceful means to help animals. North American Animal Liberation
Press correspondent Camille Marino makes an apt comparison: "LA
citizen Richard Ramirez, known as the “Nightstalker”, was a cold,
sadistic and violent serial murderer — his behavior was eerily similar
to that of any vivisector. While he was actively inciting an
atmosphere of terror, the media relentlessly covered the newsworthy
developments. While vivisectors like J. David Jenstch and Dario
Ringach are active, the animal liberation networks are committed to
relentlessly cover their sociopathic reign of terror. When average
citizens finally
apprehended Ramirez, they beat him mercilessly for his crimes.
Jentsch and Ringach have earned the right to fear retaliation for
their crimes. Ramirez or Jentsch or Ringach, all are equally guilty,
and warrant a response...both seem unable to control their bloodlust.
They each make a potent case for individuals who need to be stopped by
any means necessary."
For more information visit, www.animalliberationpressoffice.org.
More by Camille Marino at http://negotiationisover.com/?p063
Animal Liberation Press Office
6320 Canoga Avenue #1500
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
www.animalliberationpressoffice.org
pr...@animalliberationpressoffice.org
Special Care
Special Care
wrote:
> DO YOU RECOGNISE ANY FAMILIAR FACES HERE?
Special Care
http://www.labnews.co.uk/cms_images/Image/JAN08/Photo%204%20Gill%20Langleyweb.jpg
http://www.visionaryrevue.com/webmedia3/kalmedia/k.satan.600x770.jpg
http://www.ukresistance.co.uk/wp/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/PeakCavernSign.jpg
http://www.navs.org.uk/media/uploads/normal_pages/jancreamer2010905.jpg
------------------------------------------------------------------
Return to Index
Return to PDR Main Page
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Pharmaceutical Drug Racket - Part One
THE ROCKETING COST OF HEALTH CARE
"Medical 'ignorance' is costing us billions" reads a heading in the
Daily Telegraph Mirror of February 24, 1991, over an article:
"Poor funding and a lack of knowledge about preventive medicine has
led to a $2 billion blow-out in public health spending, experts say.
"These costs rose nationally from $26 billion to $28 billion [in one
year] - an average of $1700 per person - according to figures to be
released by the Australian Institute of Health."
Writing in an article in the Sunday Telegraph on October 27, 1991, the
Federal Minister for Community Services and Health, Brian Howe,
expresses his concern:
"Health care costs a huge amount of money: $1796 for every man, woman
and child....
"The trouble is that if Medicare becomes too costly, this country
can't afford to keep footing the bill: which means that individual
Australians will have to foot the bill instead or go without the
necessary health care.
"I believe the Federal Government should continue to pay much of the
health care cost, but my concern has been that one day the Government
will have to say it can no longer afford Medicare.
"Medicare is getting increasingly costly. Total government expenditure
on Medicare benefits rose by 70 per cent between 1984-85 and 1989-90,
and by another 11.2 per cent in 1990-91.
"Before the changes in the Budget were announced, Medicare benefits
were expected to rise by another 28 per cent in real terms over the
three years to 1994-95: that's approximately $1.3 billion...." (1)
The rocketing cost of health care in Australia is not unique to this
country, but is typical of all industrial nations. In his book Limits
to Medicine (1979), prominent medical historian, Ivan Illich, writes:
"During the past twenty years, while the price index in the United
States has risen by about 74 per cent, the cost of medical care has
escalated by 330 per cent. Between 1950 and 1971 public expenditure
for health insurance increased tenfold, private insurance benefits
increased eightfold, [2a] and direct out-of-pocket payments about
threefold. [2b] In overall expenditures other countries such as France
[2c] and Germany [2d] kept abreast of the United States. In all
industrial nations - Atlantic, Scandinavian, or East European - the
growth rate of the health sector has advanced faster than that of the
GNP [gross national product]. [2e] Even discounting inflation, federal
health outlays increased by more than 40 per cent between 1969 and
1974 [2f]." (2)
ARE WE CONSUMING TOO MANY DRUGS?
As was reported in the Bulletin, March 24, 1992, one of the fastest-
growing components of Australia's costly health bill is the
pharmaceutical drug trade, which accounts for $2 billion a year for
prescription drugs. The Bulletin article reveals that "Australians are
on a drug binge, consuming twice as many antibiotics per capita as
Sweden and far more than the US and Britain". (3) The situation in the
United States and Britain sixteen years ago was bad enough for Illich
to write:
"In the United States, the volume of the drug business has grown by a
factor of 100 during the current century: [4a] 20,000 tons of aspirin
are consumed per year, almost 225 tablets per person. [4b] In England,
every tenth night of sleep is induced by a hypnotic drug and 19 per
cent of women and 9 per cent of men take a prescribed tranquillizer
during any one year. [4c] In the United States, central-nervous-system
agents are the fastest-growing sector of the pharmaceutical market,
now making up 31 per cent of total sales. [4d] Dependence on
prescribed tranquillizers has risen by 290 per cent since 1962, a
period during which the per capita consumption of liquor rose by only
23 per cent and the estimated consumption of illegal opiates by about
50 per cent [4e]." (4)
At the time of Illich writing this (1976), it is estimated that 50 to
80 per cent of adults in the United States and the United Kingdom were
consuming a medically prescribed chemical every 24 to 36 hours. (5) In
his book Confessions of a Medical Heretic (1980), famed medical writer
and paediatrician, Dr Robert Mendelsohn, accused doctors of having
"seeded the entire population with these powerful drugs". Mendelsohn
further states that "Every year, from 8 to 10 million Americans go to
the doctor when they have a cold. About ninety-five percent of them
come away with a prescription - half of which are for
antibiotics." (6)
A recent report by the National Health Strategy (1992) has pointed out
that 160 million prescriptions are being dispensed from Australian
pharmacies every year, and an estimated further 20 million from
hospital pharmacies. (7) This figure represents a 640 per cent
increase since 1949, during which 280,719 prescriptions were
dispensed. (8)
As reported in Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics (1976), a study
in a large country town in Australia has revealed that people who
reported no illness took as many drugs as those who reported a chronic
and acute illness. The authors noted that "the rate of increase in
drug usage at around 25 per cent per year can only be explained by
increased drug usage of both prescription and OTC [over-the-counter]
drugs by the majority of the population". (9) At the time of the
report Australians were consuming half the number of prescription
drugs compared to today. (10)
Recent figures of how many OTC or non-prescription drugs consumed by
Australians are difficult to obtain. Industry sources are reluctant to
divulge this information. However, a study by the Health Commission of
NSW in 1979 that stated that "at present Australia has one of the
leading rates of per capita consumption of analgesics in the world",
quoted 1973 figures for sales of OTC medications at $166 million.
(11)
It is estimated that in 1991 $1.4 billion was spent on OTC
medications, (12) which when added to the $2 billion spent on
prescription drugs, (13) totals a staggering $3.4 billion.
DRUGS IN THE FOOD WE EAT
Apart from the vast number of drugs taken directly, people are also
unknowingly consuming large amounts of drugs and other chemical
substances indirectly from the food they eat. Most food industries
rely on chemical substances from soil to supermarket and the animal
products industries are by far the most excessive users of these
substances. (14) The avalanche of drug and chemical usage by these
industries occurred with the shift in production methods from free-
range farming to factory and feedlot farming in the last 20 to 30
years. (15)
Over 15 years ago, there were more than 1,000 drug products and as
many chemicals in use by the livestock and poultry producers in the
United States. (16) Also, more than 40 per cent of the antibiotics and
other antibacterials produced every year in the US were used as animal
feed additives and for other animal purposes. Almost 100 per cent of
poultry, 90 per cent of pigs and veal calves, and 60 per cent of
cattle have regular amounts of antibacterials added to their feed.
(17) Seventy-five per cent of hogs have their feed supplemented with
sulphur drugs (18) and almost 70 per cent of US beef is from cattle
fed on hormones to promote growth. (19)
The amount of drugs and chemical substances used on farm animals in
the industrialised nations is enormous.
THE CONSEQUENCES
As could be expected, one result of the vast over-consumption of drugs
is the astronomical profits generated by the drug industry. Since the
beginning of the sixties, drug industry profits (as a percentage of
sales and company net worth) have surpassed all other manufacturing
industries listed on the Stock Exchange. (20)
Another result is the inevitable deterioration of public health.
According to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), 1.5 million
Americans were hospitalised in 1978 as a consequence of taking drugs
and some 30 per cent of all hospitalised people are further damaged by
their treatments. Every year, an estimated 140,000 Americans are
killed because of drug taking (21) and one in seven hospital beds is
taken up by patients suffering from adverse drug reactions. (22)
A report by the General Accounting Office in the United States
revealed that 51.5 per cent of all drugs introduced between 1976 and
1985 had to be relabelled because of serious adverse reactions found
after the marketing of these drugs. These included heart, liver and
kidney failure, foetal toxicity and birth defects, severe blood
disorders, respiratory arrest, seizures and blindness. The changes to
the labelling either restricted a drug's use or added major warnings.
(23)
HOW COMMON ARE DRUG ADVERSE REACTIONS?
According to the Adverse Drug Reactions Advisory Committee (ADRAC),
the official federal government body responsible for monitoring the
safety of drugs already in use: "There is a dearth [scarcity] of
published information on the medical and economic importance of
adverse drug reactions in Australia." (24) However, a recent study
(1991), cited by the National Health Strategy report on drug use,
claims that in 1987-88 there were between 30,000 and 40,000 hospital
admissions in Australia because of drug taking and also that adverse
drug reactions (ADRs) would have been a major factor for between 700
to 900 deaths a year. (25)
There are some who are highly critical of the official estimation of
the extent of drug reactions within communities. Dr Julian Gold, head
of the National Health Surveillance Unit of the Commonwealth Institute
of Health, whose job as a medical epidemiologist is to collate
information on the total health environment, estimates that up to 40
per cent of all patients in Australia may actually be victims of
doctor induced (iatrogenic) illnesses. (26) A 40 per cent figure has
also been estimated for the United Kingdom. (27) Generally of this
amount, half are from drug reactions. (28)
UNDER-REPORTING OF DRUG REACTIONS
Many drug reactions go unnoticed. In Controversies in Therapeutics
(1980), Dr Leighton Cluff comments:
"National Health statistics do not reflect the magnitude of the
problem of drug-induced diseases. A death certificate may indicate
that a person died of renal failure, but it may not state that the
disease was caused by a drug." (29)
According to a US Senate Select Committee, hundreds of victims of the
drug chloramphenicol died undiagnosed in the United States. (30)
Dr Leighton Cluff further states: "Physicians are currently not
required to report observed cases of drug-induced diseases to a
centralized registry." (31)
In Australia, the reporting by doctors of adverse reactions is
voluntary. Postage-paid forms are provided to doctors who are asked to
report adverse reactions to ADRAC. Due to complacency, ignorance, and
perhaps guilt that their prescribed treatment has caused harm, most
doctors fail to fill in these forms.
Even when doctors are willing to report ADRs, there are significant
problems that add to the under-reporting of drug reactions. ADRs can
sometimes be difficult to identify and Dr Judith Jones, Director of
the Division of Drug Experience at the FDA in the United States, has
listed three factors that inhibit detection:
1. Difficulty in distinguishing the reaction from underlying diseases,
or negative placebo effects.
2. Many ADRs have a silent nature and if not specifically looked for,
they may not be found. For example, kidney and liver damage.
3. In multi-drug regimes it is difficult to identify the particular
drug which is causing the suspected reaction. (32)
Only 5 to 10 per cent of actual cases are believed to be reported to
ADRAC. (33) In the United Kingdom, which has a similar reporting
system to ours, only 1 to 10 per cent of cases are revealed. (34) The
inadequacy of the reporting system in the UK was demonstrated by the
fact that only about a dozen of the 3,500 deaths, later linked with
isoprenaline aerosol inhalers during the 1960's, were actually
reported by doctors at the time. (35)
Because most adverse reactions to drugs go unreported, the official
estimates must be only the tip of the iceberg.
WHO IS TO BLAME FOR DRUG DAMAGES?
Not only do health officials grossly underestimate the extent of drug
reactions, they also try to convince the unwary public that drug-
related illnesses are largely due to inappropriate drug usage.
Officials try to place the onus on consumers and prescribing doctors,
and reassure the public that problems rarely occur if drugs are used
as prescribed. To protect the drug industry from blame, officials
purposely ignore the fact that most drugs are harmful; even if used
"appropriately".
EPIDEMIC IATROGENESIS
On doctor or hospital induced illnesses, a once active member of the
Doctors' Reform Society and author of the book Medicine Out Of Control
(1979), Dr Richard Taylor, writes:
"In fact, because of the increasing complexity of medical technology
and the increase in the variety of chemicals available for treatment,
iatrogenic disease is on the increase....
"Unfortunately iatrogenic diseases may be self-perpetuating. Many
iatrogenic complications require specific treatment, thus exposing the
patient to the possibility of yet another iatrogenic disease. A
patient may even experience an iatrogenic complication from a
diagnostic test which was required to diagnose the initial iatrogenic
disease. The situation in which an iatrogenic disease provokes a
second iatrogenic complication could be termed second level
iatrogenesis. In a hospital setting these situations are not uncommon.
It is even possible for third and fourth level iatrogenesis to
occur." (36)
Dr Beaty and Dr Petersdorf write in the Annals of Internal Medicine
(1966):
"...it should be pointed out that iatrogenic problems are cumulative,
and in an effort to extricate himself from complications of diagnosis
and therapy, the physician may compound the problem by having to
employ manoeuvres that are in themselves risky." (37)
Dr Taylor further explains:
"Every drug administered, every diagnostic test performed, every
operative procedure entered into, carries with it the risk of
iatrogenic complications. The more medication, tests and operations a
patient experiences, the more likely he or she is to develop an
iatrogenic disease. Because of the present fragmentation of medical
care with each sub-specialist looking after his own particular organ
system, the total risk to which the patient is exposed is often
forgotten." (38)
Taylor, Beaty and Petersdorf are not alone in their criticisms of
allopathic medicine, also known as "modern medicine". More and more
physicians and other medical professionals are becoming increasingly
disillusioned with their own profession. Allopathic medicine has
become more of a band-aid treatment. In their attempts to "patch-up"
symptoms of illnesses, doctors are known to use poisonous chemical-
based drugs, radical surgical operations and dangerous radiation,
which often cause more harm than the original problem.
Apart from introducing more illnesses, allopathic "treatments" mask
symptoms of the underlying causes of the illness, which inevitably
make it more difficult to detect and treat, and thereby causing it to
become more chronic.
Allopathic medicine can be useful and sometimes life-saving for
emergency situations (for example, car accidents), yet its harmfulness
and ineffectiveness cannot be over-stated.
A prominent critic of allopathic medicine has been the late Dr Robert
Mendelsohn, who exposed much corruption in American medicine. Dr
Mendelsohn published the following best-selling books: Confessions of
a Medical Heretic (39) (1980), Mal(e) Practice: How Doctors Manipulate
Women (40) (1982), and How to Raise a Healthy Child...In Spite of Your
Doctor (41) (1987). These books are highly recommended.
In Limits to Medicine, Ivan Illich warns:
"The pain, dysfunction, disability, and anguish resulting from
technical medical intervention now rival the morbidity due to traffic
and industrial accidents and even war-related activities, and make the
impact of medicine one of the most rapidly spreading epidemics of our
time." (42)
DOCTORS STRIKE: DEATH-RATE DROPS
With the above in mind, it is not surprising that during a one month
physicians' strike in Israel in 1973, the national death-rate reached
the lowest ever. According to statistics by the Jerusalem Burial
Society, the number of funerals dropped by almost half. (43)
Identical circumstances occurred in 1976 in Bogota, the capital city
of Columbia; where there, the doctors went on strike for 52 days and
as pointed out by the National Catholic Reporter; during that time the
death rate fell by 35 per cent. This was confirmed by the National
Morticians Association of Columbia. (44)
Again in California a few years later, and in the United Kingdom in
1978 identical events have occurred. (45)
THE SMALL ROLE OF MEDICINE IN MORTALITY
It is important to understand that the vast majority of people are
born healthy and, if not tampered with, are "equipped" to remain
healthy throughout life. We seldom require intervention with illnesses
because the body, as well as the mind, is usually able to defend and
heal itself against disease and injury. Only infrequently do we
require assistance.
Medical intervention is the least important of the four factors that
determine the state of health. The Centers for Disease Control
analysed data on the ten leading causes of death in the United States,
and determined that lifestyle was by far the most important factor
(51%), followed by environment (20%), biologic inheritance (19%), and
lastly medical intervention (10%). (46)
According to a classic analysis by Professor Thomas McKeown of
Birmingham University, medicine played a very small role in extending
the average lifespan in Britain over the past few centuries, the major
benefit to people having been improvements in nutrition and public
sanitation. (47,48)
Researchers, John McKinlay and Sonja McKinlay came to similar
conclusions. They showed that medical intervention only accounted for
between 1 and 3.5 per cent of the increase in the average lifespan in
the United States since 1900. (49)
The above statistics prove that health depends primarily on
prevention, through hygiene and proper nutrition.
In the few instances, when therapy of any sort is warranted, it must
deal with the whole person (the holistic approach), treating the
actual cause rather than attempting to isolate and suppress symptoms.
Allopathic medicine fails in comparison to the holistic approach, and
in many instances damages the patient even more than the illness it
intends to treat.
Natural medicines and therapies, such as herbalism, homoeopathy,
naturopathy, osteopathy and acupuncture, to name a few, work on the
holistic approach, and are generally far superior in safety and
efficacy than allopathic "treatments".
DRUG COMPANIES BRIBING DOCTORS
A major reason why health care is in such a shambles is that the
medical establishment has allowed itself to be bought off by the
pharmaceutical industry, whose prime motive is profit. In the book
Dissent in Medicine - Nine Doctors Speak Out (1985), Dr Alan Levin
writes:
"Health care in the United States has become a megabillion-dollar
business. It is responsible for over 12 percent of the gross national
product. Revenues from the health industry, which currently exceed
$360 billion a year, are second only to those of the defense industry.
True profits are much higher. [In 1991 the US had spent $750 billion
on health care. It has been estimated that by the year 2000, annual
health care costs in the US will have increased to at least 1.5
trillion dollars. (50)] It is not difficult, then, to see why this
industry is so appealing to corporate investors. Many industrialists
determined to profit from health-care products have encountered one
major obstacle: Practicing physicians remain the primary distributors
of health care products. Physicians, who have traditionally existed as
independent entrepreneurs do not fit easily into the corporate mind-
set. If corporations did not have control over their distributors (the
physicians) they would not be able to guarantee profits to their
stockholders.... Thus, we need not wonder why senior executives of
major health care-oriented corporations have decided to woo physicians
into their camps.
"Pharmaceutical companies have curried the favor of practicing
physicians for many years... As the cost of development and marketing
of pharmaceuticals increased [during the 1960's], the drug companies
efforts to attract the allegiance of practicing physicians
intensified.
"Not only did drug company operation costs increase markedly, but the
rewards of the marketplace rose tremendously.... The increase in
revenues brought competition which led to a nationwide increase in
drug advertising. Advertisements in medical journals and public
magazines were popularized by carefully controlled news releases
associated with 'medical breakthroughs.'
"These advertising efforts, which began with gifts to practicing
doctors and medical students, have become a massive campaign to mold
the attitudes, thoughts, and policies of practicing physicians. Drug
companies hire detail men to visit physicians' offices and to
distribute drug samples. They describe the indications for these drugs
and attempt to persuade physicians to use their products. Like any
other salesman, they denigrate the products of their competitors while
glossing over the shortcomings of their own. Detail men have no formal
medical or pharmacological training and are not regulated by any state
or federal agencies. Despite their lack of training, these salesmen
have been very effective. Their sales campaigns have been so
successful within the United States that the average physician today
has virtually been trained by the drug detail man. This practice has
led to widespread overuse of drugs by both physicians in their
everyday practice and the lay public.... With the exception of heroin
and cocaine, 85 percent of all drugs currently abused in the streets
are manufactured by 'ethical' drug companies.... Gross sales forecasts
from these 'ethical' drug companies deliberately include profits made
from illicit sales to drug peddlers.
"The drug industry woos young medical students by offering them gifts,
free trips to 'conferences', and free 'educational
material.' [Emphasis added.] (51)
A double page article titled "$200m 'bribe' to lure our doctors",
appearing in the Sun Herald (August 18, 1992), reported that:
"Drug companies spend a massive $200 million every year in Australia
on marketing their products... That represents almost $10,000 a year
spent attempting to woo each of Australia's 21,000 'actively
prescribing' GPs, according to Dr Ken Harvey from La Trobe
University."
The article cited Theo van Lieshout, secretary of the NSW Doctors'
Reform Society as saying that 50 per cent of drugs on the market did
not exist 10 years ago - and doctors had not learned about them in
medical school. Busy physicians therefore rely mainly on drug company
sales staff to tell them about new medications.
As reported in the Bulletin (March 24, 1991), Dr Ken Harvey stated:
"The students concede concern. The problem is, after five years out in
practice, with six drug reps a week coming in, they have gone away
from prescribing sensibly and by scientific name to prescribing the
brand promoted by the last rep who walked in." (52)
UNIVERSITY SCIENTISTS - THE WILLING PAWNS
Drug companies employ many means in bribing doctors and medical
institutions. Dr Levin writes:
"Young physicians are offered research grants by drug companies.
Medical schools are given large sums of money for clinical trials and
basic pharmaceutical research. Drug companies regularly host lavish
dinner and cocktail parties for groups of physicians. They provide
funding for the establishment of hospital buildings, medical school
buildings, and 'independent' research institutes.
"The pharmaceutical industry has purposefully moved to develop an
enormous amount of influence within medical teaching institutions.
This move was greatly facilitated by several factors. The first was
the economic recession, which caused a marked constriction in federal
funding for research programs. Academic scientists lacked funding for
pet research projects. The second was the tremendous interest that
academic scientists held in biotechnology, the stock market, and the
possibility of becoming millionaires overnight. The third is the fact
that academic physicians tend to lack real clinical experience. In the
university, the physician is an expert in esoteric disease, end-stage
disease, and animal models of human disease. He or she has little or
no experience with the day-to-day needs of the chronically ill patient
or the patient with very early symptoms of serious illness. As the
academic physician does not depend upon the good will of the patient
for his or her livelihood, the patient's well-being becomes of minor
consideration to him or her. All these factors make the academic
physician a very poor judge of treatment efficacy and a willing pawn
of health industrialists.
"Pharmaceutical companies, by enlisting the aid of influential
academic physicians, have gained control of the practice of medicine
in the United States. They now set the standards of practice by hiring
investigators to perform studies which establish the efficacy of their
products or impugn that of their competitors....
"Practicing physicians are intimidated into using treatment regimes
which they know do not work. One glaring example is cancer
chemotherapy....
"Your family doctor is no longer free to choose the treatment modality
he or she feels is best for you, but must follow the dictates
established by physicians whose motives and alliances are such that
their decisions may not be in your best interests. [Emphasis
added.]" (53)
Dr Alan Levin is an Adjunct Associate Professor of Immunology and
Dermatology at the University of California. He is a Fellow of the
American College of Emergency Physicians, the College of American
Pathologists, and the American Society of Clinical Pathologists. Dr
Levin is also a recipient of fellowships and awards from Harvard
Medical School and other medical institutions, and was Director of
various research laboratories.
Ivan Illich echoes Levin's last comment: "The medical establishment
has become a major threat to health. The disabling impact of
professional control over medicine has reached the proportions of an
epidemic." (54)
THE DRUG STORY
How the pharmaceutical industry took control of the hospitals,
universities, research and other institutions in the early part of
this century is amply demonstrated by world-famous medical historian
and author, Hans Ruesch, in his devastating expose: Naked Empress or
The Great Medical Fraud (55) (1992). The book is an absolute must to
read. Naked Empress exposes massive corruption and fraud in medicine,
science, industries, governments, media, and various organisations.
The importance of this book cannot be overstated.
In Naked Empress, Ruesch cited another important expose titled The
Drug Story (56) (1949), by American investigative reporter, Morris A.
Bealle. According to Bealle: "America's largest and most ruthless
industrial combine, the Rockefeller Empire" (which was built on
Standard Oil Company) in the early part of this century became
interested in the drug trade after making breath-taking profits from
palming off bottled petroleum called Nujol as a supposed cure for
cancer and later constipation.
In 1939 the Drug Trust was formed by an alliance of the world's two
greatest cartels in world history - the Rockefeller Empire and the
German chemical company, I.G. Farbenindustrie (I.G. Farben). Drug
profits from that time onwards curved upwards into gigantic
proportions and by 1948 it became a 10 billion dollar a year industry.
(57)
I.G. Farben's unsavoury past is highlighted by the fact that during
the Second World War it built and operated a massive chemical plant at
Auschwitz using slave labour. Approximately 300,000 concentration-camp
workers passed through I.G. Farben's facilities at Auschwitz and at
least 25,000 of them were worked to death. (58) Also, others were
brutally killed in I.G. Farben's drug testing programs. (59) Twelve of
I.G. Farben's top executives were sentenced to terms of imprisonment
for slavery and mistreatment offences at the Nuremberg war crime
trials. (60)
Hoechst and Bayer, the largest and third largest companies in world
pharmaceutical sales respectively, are descended from I.G. Farben. In
September 1955, Hoechst appointed Friedrich Jaehne, a convicted war
criminal from the Nuremberg trials, as Chairman of its supervisory
board. Also, a year later, Bayer appointed Fitz ter Meer, another
convicted war criminal, as Chairman of its board. (61)
On the Rockefellers' moves towards "influencing" medical colleges and
public agencies in the United States, Bealle writes:
"The last annual report of the Rockefeller Foundation itemizes the
gifts it has made to colleges and public agencies in the past 44 years
[from 1948], and they total somewhat over half a billion dollars.
These colleges, of course, teach their students all the drug lore the
Rockefeller pharmaceutical houses want taught. Otherwise there would
be no more gifts, just as there are no gifts to any of the 30 odd
drugless colleges in the United States." (62)
The Rockefellers did not restrict their "educational" activities to
the US alone. In 1927 they formed the International Education Board
which "donated" millions of dollars to foreign universities and
politicos, with all the usual strings attached. (63)
As these huge amounts of money were being "donated" to drug-
propagandising colleges, the Rockefeller interests were expanding
world-wide. It was large enough 40 years ago for Bealle to state:
"It has long been demonstrated that the Rockefeller interests have
created, built up and developed the most far reaching industrial
empire ever conceived in the mind of man. Standard Oil is of course
the foundation industry upon which all of the other industries have
been built....
"The keystone of this mammoth industrial empire is the Chase National
Bank with 27 branches in New York City and 21 in foreign countries
[now renamed the Chase Manhattan Bank with over 200 branches in the US
and abroad]. Not the least of its holdings are in the drug business.
The Rockefellers own the largest drug manufacturing combine in the
world, and use all of their other interests to bring pressure to
increase the sale of drugs." (64)
THE NOT-SO-INDEPENDENT MEDIA
Instrumental in Rockefellers' moves towards making the world drug-
dependent is their enormous influence on the media. Commenting on
this, Ruesch explains:
"So the stage was set for the 'education' of the American public, with
a view to turning them into a population of drug dependents, with the
early help of the schools, then with direct advertising and, last but
not least, the influence the advertising revenues had on the media.
"A compilation of the magazine Advertising Age showed that as far back
as 1948 the larger companies spent for newspapers, radio and magazine
advertising the sum total of $1,104,224,374, when the dollar was still
worth a dollar. Of this staggering sum the interlocking Rockefeller-
Morgan interests (gone over entirely to Rockefeller after Morgan's
death) controlled about 80 percent, and utilized it to manipulate
public information on health and drug matters - then as now.
"Anybody who tries to get into the mass media independent news,
contrary to the interests of the Drug Trust, will sooner or later run
into an unbreakable wall....
"For big advertisers it is easy not only to plant into the media any
news they wish to disseminate, but also to keep out the news they
don't want to get around. A survey in 1978 by the Columbia Journalism
Review failed to find a single comprehensive article about the dangers
of smoking in the previous seven years in any major magazine accepting
cigarette advertising....
"Even the most independent newspapers are dependent on their press
associations for their national news. And there is no reason for a
news editor to suspect that a story coming over the wires of the
Associated Press, the United Press or the International News Services
is censored when it concerns health matters.
"Yet this is what happens constantly." [Emphasis added.] (65)
Ruesch showed how the above-mentioned international media were taken
over by the Drug Trust and he further explains:
"So this sews up the press associations of the Rockefeller Drug Trust,
and accounts for the many fake stories of serums and medical cures and
just-around-the-corner-breakthrough-to-cancer, which go out brazenly
over its wires to all daily newspapers in America and abroad....
"Thus newspapers continue to be fed constantly with propaganda about
drugs and their alleged value, although 1.5 million people landed in
hospitals in 1978 because of medication side effects in the U.S.
alone, and despite recurrent statements by intelligent and courageous
medical men that most pharmaceutical items on sale are useless and/or
harmful." (66)
Among the many publications owned by the Rockefeller Drug Trust, there
are: Fortune, Life, Time, Readers Digest and Newsweek magazines, and
the Encyclopedia Britannica. These publications are constantly pushing
drugs.
FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION - SERVING WHOM?
Leaving no stone unturned, Ruesch shows how the Drug Trust, in
securing their drug interests, planted stooges into senior positions
of colleges, universities, and government bodies. About the Food and
Drug Administration, Ruesch charges:
"When a good law was enacted many years ago for protecting the
American public from spoiled food and poisonous drugs, the Drug Trust
lost little time to get its hooks into the government bureau that was
charged with enforcing the law." (67)
Ruesch cited Morris Bealle who wrote that the FDA "is used primarily
for the perversion of justice by cracking down on all who endanger the
profits of the Drug Trust". (68) Ruesch further states:
"Apparently, the FDA doesn't only wink at the violations of the Drug
Trust whose servant it is (such as the mass deaths in the ginger jake
and sulfathiozole cases), but it is particularly assiduous in putting
out of business all competitors of the Drug Trust, like the vendors of
natural therapeutic devices that improve the health of the public and
thus decrease the profits of the Drug Trust....
"And the situation is practically identical in all the other
industrialized countries, notably Great Britain, France and West
Germany." (69)
THE UNDECLARED WAR ON NATURAL MEDICINE
The Civil Abolitionist carried an article rightly titled "FDA: The
American Gestapo Prosecutor or Persecutor?", which reported that on
May 6, 1992, the clinic of Jonathan Wright MD, a highly regarded
nutrition specialist, was assailed by 22 armed men because the doctor
had been treating his patients with safe natural substances that
didn't meet the FDA's approval. During the SWAT type attack the front
door was kicked open, guns were pointed directly at staff and the
shocked patients were herded into a room. Also patient records,
equipment, business records and vitamin supplies were confiscated. At
the time of the article, the FDA had not as yet filed charges against
Dr Wright. (70)
During last year, similar actions have taken place against three
manufacturers of vitamin supplements (Allergy Research, Thorne
Research and Highland Laboratories). (71)
The Nexus magazine, reporting in their Aug.-Sept. 1992 issue, writes:
"This undeclared war on 'unconventional' medicines has been followed
up with the introduction of bills in Congress which are making it
difficult, if not impossible, to obtain vitamins, minerals and herbs,
and which legalise their search-and-seizure techniques." It revealed
that:
"There is a bill currently pending in the House called H.R. 3642
(written and sponsored by FDA allies Representative Henry A. Waxman,
and Representative John Dingell) that would:
* Make vitamins, minerals and herbs unavailable except through
prescription from Medical Doctors.
* Prevent food supplements from entering the country.
* Make it illegal for anyone to sell vitamins, mineral and herbs, with
a fine of up to US$1 million for each violation, plus a $250,000
against the store.
* Permit the IRS to make collections.
* Permit the FDA not only to seize but to also destroy all vitamins,
minerals and herbs found on the premises.
* Permit the FDA to inspect records, embargo and recall products, and
assess civil penalties for 'serious' violations with any judical
review.
Nexus was recently contacted by an international businessman who
mentioned that a bill identical in nature to the one above has been
passed in the UK, that one similar was on the table in several
European countries and Canada, and that one was being discussed for
Australia." (72)
In Australia, a repeal of Schedule 1, Exemptions of the Therapeutic
Goods Act, scheduled for January 1994, would minimize access to
natural therapy remedies by natural therapists and would threaten the
existence of the natural therapy profession and manufacturers of
natural therapy remedies. (73)
CORRUPT FDA OFFICIALS
Nexus reported that it is a matter of public record that the FDA
indulges in the following practices:
* Many of the so-called "research grants" that the FDA receives are
"donated" by the very drug companies they were supposed to be
regulating.
* Mid- and upper-level FDA officials enjoy "revolving door" status
when they leave the FDA, wherein they go to cushy, well-paying jobs in
those very same drug companies they were supposed to have been
regulating.
* Currently, 150 top FDA officials hold significant amounts of stock
in the pharmaceutical companies they were supposed to be regulating.
(74)
AMERICAN 'MURDER' ASSOCIATION
The AMA, once openly declared by Dr Richard Kunnes at an AMA
convention that it shouldn't be the acronym for American Medical
Association but for American "Murder" Association, is, according to
Morris Bealle, the front for the Drug Trust. (75) When the FDA has to
put an independent operator out of business, they get the AMA to
furnish quack doctors to testify that while often knowing nothing
about the product involved, it is their considered opinion that it has
no therapeutic value.
Bealle cited an example in which the AMA furnished ten medicos to
testify in court that "vitamins are not necessary to the human body",
in order to close down an independent distributor of natural vitamins.
(76)
J.W. Hodge, MD, of Niagara Falls, New York, writes about the AMA:
"The medical monopoly or medical trust, euphemistically called the
American Medical Association, is not merely the meanest monopoly ever
organized, but the most arrogant, dangerous and despotic organization
which ever managed a free people in this or any other age. Any and all
methods of healing the sick by means of safe, simple and natural
remedies are sure to be assailed and denounced by the arrogant leaders
of the AMA doctors' trust as 'fakes, frauds and humbugs.' Every
practitioner of the healing art who does not ally himself with the
medical trust is denounced as a 'dangerous quack' and impostor by the
predatory trust doctors. Every sanitarian who attempts to restore the
sick to a state of health by natural means without resort to the knife
or poisonous drugs, disease imparting serums, deadly toxins or
vaccines, is at once pounced upon by these medical tyrants and
fanatics, bitterly denounced, vilified and persecuted to the fullest
extent." (77)
It comes as no surprise that the Australian counterpart, the
Australian Medical Association, in conjunction with the Royal College
of General Practitioners, as reported in the Australian (July 21,
1992) are pushing for legislation that would cause medical doctors
using natural therapies to lose Medicare status. This would mean that
their patients would not be able to have bills rebated by Medicare.
(78)
THE MASTERS OF GOVERNMENT
If to you it seems inconceivable that governments have allowed a
ruthless industry to dictate health matters, consider what Woodrow
Wilson stated during his first presidential campaign in 1912:
"The masters of the government of the United States are the combined
capitalists and manufacturers of the United States. It is written over
every intimate page of the record of Congress, it is written all
through the history of conferences at the White House, that the
suggestions of economic policy in this country have come from one
source, not from many sources. The benevolent guardians, the kind-
hearted trustees who have taken the troubles of government off our
hands have become so conspicuous that almost anybody can write out a
list of them... The big bankers, the big manufacturers, the big
masters of commerce, the heads of railroad corporations... The
government of the United States at present is a foster child of the
special interests." (79)
Writes Ruesch:
"Woodrow Wilson's words have remained as true today as they were when
he pronounced them from his campaign train. The American Presidents,
unless they want to end up like John Kennedy, do not rule their
country anymore than the official governments of the other so-called
democracies, for the big boys in industry and finance have long since
taken over that task." (80)
Morris H. Rubin, Editor and Publisher of The Progressive, writes in an
article in January 1977:
"Corporate power has become the dominant force in our society... All
attempts to check the mounting power of the corporate giants have
failed. Consider the two most important instruments forged by the
progressive forces of the country in their crusade to curb the march
of monopoly: the regulatory system and the antitrust program...
"The regulatory system lies in shambles, and the corporations which
were intended to be regulated in the public interest now dominate
these regulatory agencies. The betrayal of the public trust is
virtually complete... The antitrust laws are virtually dead letters.
It is clear from recent disclosures that the Antitrust Division of the
Justice Department is almost immobilized because of deals made over
its head and behind its back in the White House and other corridors of
power..." (81)
"The oil lobby, perhaps the most powerful lobby on earth, is almost
matched by hospital owners and doctors." - President Carter, 1979.
(82)
Incidently, in 1980, Exxon became America's largest corporation. Exxon
is the new name for the old Rockefeller Standard Oil Trust.
For a further insight on how the cartels have turned democracies into
private oligarchies, the books Naked Empress by Hans Ruesch and None
Dare Call It Conspiracy (83) (1971) by investigative journalist, Gary
Allen, are highly recommended.
AUSTRALIA'S HEALTH SYSTEM UNDER THREAT FROM US CORPORATIONS
Because the Australian Government can no longer afford to fund our
ailing public health care system, privatisation is inevitable. A major
concern is that the ruthless US corporations will be the principal
buyers. An article appearing in the Daily Telegraph Mirror (October 1,
1992), titled "U.S. Giants 'Threat To Hospitals'", reports:
"Huge American corporations soon will control Australia's public
hospitals forcing health care costs to double, a leading health expert
claims.
"Dr Ron Williams says the public health care system is facing a bleak
future because governments can no longer afford to fund it.
"And as they are forced to sell off hospitals to private interests,
American corporations will step in and take over, leaving ordinary
Australians unable to afford skyrocketing health care costs.
"'I see little but doom and gloom,' says Dr Williams, who has spent 11
years researching the Australian and American health care systems.
"'I wish I could say that if we all pulled together we could avert the
coming brutality... but today's reality is that for the health
industry, compassion will give way at an increasing rate to
profit....
"'As public hospitals are sold to privates, and as nursing homes join
national chains, as nurses move out of government employment on to
contract, as individual doctors lose ever more control over their
practices; no government will say that the processes it is promoting
might lead to disaster.'" [Emphasis added.]
Return to the Top
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright 1993, 1995 by the Campaign Against Fraudulent Medical
Research, www.pnc.com.au/~cafmr
This article may be copied or distributed, provided the copyright and
disclaimer messages are clearly attached.
Disclaimer: This article is presented for educational purposes only
and is not intended as a substitute for professional or medical
advice. CAFMR disclaims all liability to any person arising directly
or indirectly from the use of the information provided.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REFERENCES AND NOTES
1. Brian Howe, "The cost of health care is rocketing", Sunday
Telegraph, 27 Oct. 1992.
2. Ivan Illich, Limits to Medicine - Medical Nemesis: The
Expropriation of Health, Pelican Books, 1979, pp. 57-8.
2a. Robert W. Hetherington, Carl E. Hopkins, and Milton I. Roemer,
Health Insurance Plans: Promise and Performance, Wiley, New York,
1975. Cited in ref. 2, p. 57.
2b. Martin S. Feldstein, The Rising Cost of Hospital Care, Information
Resources, Washington, D.C., 1971. Cited in ref. 2, p. 57.
2c. CREDOC (Centre de recherches et de documentation sur la
consommation), Evolution de la structure des soins medicaus,
1957-1972, Paris, 1973. Cited in ref. 2, p. 57.
2d. "Krankheitskosten: 'Die bombe tickt'; Das westdeutsche
Gesundheitswesen", 1. "Der Kampf um die Kassen-Milliarden"; 2. "Die
Phalanx der niedergelassenen Arzte", Der Spiegel, no. 19, 1975, pp.
54-66; no. 20, 1975, pp. 126-42. Cited in ref. 2, p. 57.
2e. R. Maxwell, Health Care: The Proving Dilemma; Needs vs. Resouces
in Western Europe, the U.S., and the U.S.S.R., McKinsey & Co., New
York, 1974. Ian Douglas-Wilson and Gordon McLachlan, eds, Health
Service Projects: An International Survey, Little, Brown, Boston,
1973. Cited in ref. 2, p. 57.
2f. Louise Russell et al., Federal Health Spending, 1969-74, Center
for Health Policy Studies, National Planning Association, Washington,
D.C., 1974. Cited in ref. 2, p. 58.
3. "Drug doctors under fire", Bulletin, 24 Mar. 1992, pp. 20-1.
4. Illich, op. cit., pp. 77-8.
4a. John M. Firestone, Trends in Prescription Drug Prices, Enterprise
Institute for Public Policy Research, Washington, D.C., 1970. Cited in
ref. 4, p. 77.
4b. Edward M. Brecher and Consumer Reports Editors, Licit and Illicit
Drugs: The Consumers Union Report on Narcotics, Stimulants,
Depressants, Inhalants, Hallucinogens and Marijuana - Including
Caffeine, Nicotine and Alcohol, Little, Brown, Boston, 1973. Cited in
ref. 4, p. 78.
4c. D.M. Dunlop, "The use and abuse of psychotropic drugs", in
Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine (1970) 63: 1279. G. L.
Klerman, "Social values and the consumption of psychotropic medicine",
in Proceedings of the First World Congress on Environmental Medicine
and Biology, North-Holland, Haarlem, 1974. Cited in ref. 4, p. 78.
4d. James L. Goddard, "The medical business", Scientific American, no.
229, Sept. 1973, pp. 161-6. Cited in ref. 4, p. 78.
4e. Drug Use in America: Problem in Perspective, Second Report of the
National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse, 1972, 1973, 1974, 4
vols, Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., stock no.
5266-0003. National Commission for the Study of Nursing and Nursing
Education, An Abstract for Action, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1970. Cited
in ref. 4, p. 78.
5. Illich, op. cit., p. 36.
6. Robert S. Mendelsohn, Confessions of a Medical Heretic, Warner
Books, New York, 1980, p. 56.
7. National Health Stategy, Issues in Pharmaceutical Drug Use in
Australia, Issues Paper no. 4 (Prof. R. Harvey, Chairman), National
Health, Housing and Community Services, Canberra, June 1992, p. 50.
8. "The alternatives to pill-popping", Sydney Morning Herald, 2 July
1988.
9. D. Wade, "The background pattern of drug usage in Australia",
Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics, vol. 19, May 1976, pp. 651-6.
10. Calculated by comparing statistics provided in refs 7 & 8.
11. Australian Consumers' Association, "Pills for Pain", Choice, ACA,
Marrickville, NSW, June 1991, p. 11.
12. In 1973, $166 million was spent on OTC drugs (see ref. 11) and
$240 million was spent on prescription drugs (Pharmacy Guild of
Australia, Guild Digest, 1991, tables 27 & 31). From this it was
calculated that in 1973 the cost of OTC was 69% of the cost of
prescription drugs. If the rate of increase of OTC drugs is
proportional to the rate of increase of prescription drugs, then it
could be estimated that OTC drugs in 1991 would amount to 69% of $2
billion (cost of prescription drugs in 1991. See ref. 3), which equals
to $1.4 billion.
13. See ref. 3.
14. Jim Mason & Peter Singer, Animal Factories, Crown Publishers, New
York, 1980, p. 56.
15. John Robins, Diet for a New America, Stillpoint Publishing,
Walpole, 1987, p. 109.
16. Bureau of Veterinary Medicine, Department of Health, Education and
Welfare, FDA 76-6012, "Drug use guide: swine", B.V.M., Industry
Relations Branch, Rockville, Md., May 1976, p. 1.
17. Drugs in Livestock Feed, vol. I, Technical Report, Office of
Technology Assessment, Washington, D.C., June 1979, p. 3.
18. Food Safety and Quality Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture,
"Industry-government 'self-help' sulfa campaign underway", Northeast
Regional Information Office Newsletter, New York, 15 June 1978, p. 1.
19. Drugs in Livestock Feed, op. cit., vol. I, p. 3.
20. Illich, op. cit., p. 79.
21. Hans Ruesch, Naked Empress or The Great Medical Fraud, CIVIS
(Latin acronym for International Center of Scientific Information on
Vivisection) Publications, POB 152, Via Motta 51, CH-6900 Massagno/
Lugano, Switzerland, 1992, p. 12.
22. R.D. Mann, Modern Drug Use, an Enquiry on Historical Principles,
MTP Press, 1984.
23. FDA Drug Review: Postapproval Risks 1976-1985, U.S. General
Accounting Office, April 1990.
24. Adverse Drug Reaction Advisory Committee, The New Epidemic: A
Collection of Case-Studies by ADRAC, AGPS, Canberra, 1987, p. 3.
25. I. Lamour, R.G. Dolphin, H. Baxter et al., "A prospective study of
hospital admissions due to drug reactions", Australian Journal of
Hospital Pharmacy, 1991, vol. 21(2), pp. 90-95.
26. "A crisis of confidence", Australian Penthouse, April 1983, p.
39.
27. R.D. Mann, op. cit.
28. Richard Taylor, Medicine Out of Control - The Anatomy of a
Malignant Technology, Sun Books, Melbourne, 1979, p. 46.
29. Leighton Cluff in Controversies in Therapeutics, ed. Louis
Lasagna, Saunders, 1980, p. 44.
30. U.S. Senate, Select Committee on Small Business, Subcommittee on
Monopoly, Competitive Problems in the Drug Industry, 90th Congress,
1st & 2nd Sessions, 1967-8, pt. 2, p. 565.
31. Leighton Cluff, op. cit.
32. Arabella Melville & Colin Johnson, Cured to Death - The Effects of
Prescription Drugs, Angus & Robertson Publishers, London, 1982, p.
123.
33. Health Care Reform Group, Compulsory Immunisation - A Statement of
Concern, HCRG, Glebe, NSW, 1991, p. 13.
34. New Scientist, no. 218, 17 July 1980.
35. W.H. Inman in Monitoring for Drug Safety, ed. W.H. Inman, MTP
Press, 1980.
36. Taylor, op. cit., pp. 46-7.
37. H. Beaty & R. Petersdorf, "Iatrogenic factors in infectious
disease", Annals of Internal Medicine, 1966, vol. 65, p. 641.
38. Taylor, op. cit., pp. 47-8.
39. Robert S. Mendelsohn, Confessions of a Medical Heretic, Warner
Books, New York, 1980.
40. Robert S. Mendelsohn, Mal(e) Practice: How Doctors Manipulate
Women, Contemporary Books, Chicago, 1982.
41. Robert S. Mendelsohn, How to Raise a Healthy Child...In Spite of
Your Doctor, Ballantine Books, New York, 1987.
42. Illich, op. cit., p. 35.
43. Ruesch, op. cit., p. 13.
44. ibid.
45. ibid.
46. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, Ten Leading Causes of
Death in the U.S., 1977, July 1980.
47. T. McKeown, The Role of Medicine, Blackwell Scientific
Publications, 1979.
48. T. McKeown and C.R. Lowe, An Introduction to Social Medicine,
Blackwell Scientific Publications, 1976.
49. J.B. McKinlay & S. McKinlay, Health & Society, Millibank Memorial
Fund, 1977, pp. 405-28.
50. Wisconsin Action Coalition and Citizen Fund of Washington, D.C.,
Milwaukee Sentinel, 30 Apr. 1990.
51. Alan S. Levin, "Corruption in American medicine", in Dissent in
Medicine - Nine Doctors Speak Out, The New Medical Foundation, 36th
Floor, 115 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60603, publ. by
Contemporary Books, Chicago, pp. 78-80.
52. See ref. 3.
53. Levin, op. cit., pp. 80-4.
54. Illich, op. cit., p. 11.
55. Hans Ruesch, Naked Empress or The Great Medical Fraud, CIVIS
Publications, Massagno/Lugano, Switzerland, 1992.
56. Morris A. Bealle, The Drug Story, Biworld Publishers, Orem, Utah,
1949 (original edition titled as The Super Drug Story, publ. by
Columbia Publishing Company, Washington, D.C.; also retitled as The
New Drug Story) , Cited in ref. 55, pp. 98-9.
57. ibid.
58. Joseph Borkin, The Crime and Punishment of I.G. Farben, Free
Press, New York, 1978, p. 127.
59. John Braithwaite, Corporate Crime in the Pharmaceutical Industry,
Routledge & Kegan Paul, London, 1984, p. 4.
60. Borkin, op. cit.
61. ibid.
62. Bealle, op. cit., reproduced in ref. 55, p. 100.
63. Ruesch, op. cit., p. 116.
64. Bealle, op. cit. repr. in ref. 55, pp. 100-1.
65. Ruesch, op. cit., pp. 101-2.
66. ibid., pp. 103-4.
67. ibid., p. 105.
68. Bealle, op. cit., repr. in ref. 67.
69. Ruesch, op. cit., pp. 105-6.
70. Bina Robinson (ed.), "FDA: The American gestapo protector or
prosecuter?", Civil Abolitionist, P.O. Box 26, Swain, New York 14885,
vol., IV, no., 3, Summer 1992, ps 1 & 7.
71. Duncan Roads (ed.), "Alternative medicine beware", Nexus New
Times, vol. 2, no. 8, June-July 1992, p. 9.
72. Duncan Roads (ed.), "Natural medicine in the USA - a warning to
Australia", Nexus New Times, vol. 2, no. 9, Aug.-Sept. 1992, p. 9.
73. Freedom of Choice in Health Care, circular, FCHC - P.O. Box 2651,
Alice Springs, NT. 0870, 1992.
74. See ref. 72.
75. Ruesch, op. cit., pp. 108-9.
76. ibid., p. 106.
77. J.W. Hodge quoted in ref. 75.
78. "Unorthodox medicos to lose rebates", Australian, 21 July 1992, p.
3.
79. Woodrow Wilson in The New Freedom, Doubleday & Co., New York,
1913, pp. 57-8. Repr. in ref. 55, p. 117.
80. Ruesch, op. cit., p. 118.
81. Morris H. Rubin (ed.), The Progressive, Jan. 1977. Repr. in ref.
55, p. 119.
82. Jimmy Carter in AMA News, 8 June 1979.
83. Cary Allen, None Dare Call It Conspiracy, Concord Press - P.O. Box
2686, Seal Beach, California 90740, 1971.
Return to the Top
Special Care
problem.
For best results just read
"Slaughter of the Innocent"
and
"Naked Empress"
by
Hans Ruesch.
No one will ever be able to say it any better than Hans Ruesch said
it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXCdrjLeWCU&feature=player_embedded
Special Care
Hans Ruesch was such a wonderful man.
But...they don't make them like him any more.
We're all very much DUMBED DOWN now, and very few people today can
even begin to grasp what Hans was getting at in Los Angeles in
1984....
Ironically, it is the avalanche of "animal tested" [=UNTESTED] poisons
in our brains that is DUMBING US DOWN now so that we don't know
whether we are coming or going today.................
Los Angeles 1984, with Hans and Javier and....... seems like a lost
Golden Age now....
It can never be repeated, for the simple reason that the avalanche of
"animal tested" [=UNTESTED] poisons have kept flowing into our brains
since then, DUMBING US DOWN.
=======================================
WE ARE NOT GOING TO ABOLISH VIVISECTION.
VIVISECTION IS GOING TO ABOLISH US.
========================================
Special Care
Then think of Peter Tatchell interviewing Gill Langley.
Are you still ALIVE enough to see the contrast?
Peter Tatchell is all about DUMBING DOWN and getting glory from
playing to the gallery of people who are even more DUMBED DOWN than he
is.
You can really hype up your *glory rating* there, Pete, bejayzizz.
------------------------------
That is why Gill Langley is not afraid of Peter Tatchell.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdIQAvSu7NI&feature=related
Hans was so wonderful in Los Angeles in 1984.
Despite the fine words at UCLA in 1984, Hans Ruesch failed.
Why?
The Sheeple?
Yes, partly.
But...............
Immanuel Velikovsky has another piece of the picture.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdIQAvSu7NI&feature=related
Special Care
That was the highest point our civilisation reached.
It's been downhill all the way since then.
HANS RUESCH AT THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES (UCLA), 1984
-
WAS THE HIGH WATER MARK / HIGH TIDE MARK OF THE PRESENT CIVILISATION.
-------------------
One thing we can say for sure: everything has been going steadily
downhill in our civilisation since that day when Hans Ruesch
addressed
the progressives in Los Angeles on that memorable day in 1984.
If nobody else will say it, I'm going to say it.
I am saying that that was the 'high water mark' of our civilisation -
that day when Hans Ruesch came to Los Angeles and said what he said
in
1984.
THAT was our civilisation's FINEST HOUR.
THAT was the HIGH WATER MARK of the present civilisation.
When Hans came to L.A. in 1984.
---------------------------------------------------------
And it's been downhill all the way since then.
---------------------------------------------------------
The fact that humanity did not progress, did not go forward, but only
went steadily backward, after Hans Ruesch made that speech at the
University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) in 1984 - tells us all we
need to know about our mental state, the mental state of collective
humanity.
When I look again at the video recording of that amazing presentation
by Hans at UCLA 1984, I am filled with embarrassment.
Nothing progressive happened after Hans made that speech in Los
Angeles in 1984.
We went backward instead of forward after Hans came to L.A.
And now it's all over bar the dying.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-W6td_EHsY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wh3YYgBzb-I&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9qXhdR21zPc&feature=related
Special Care
Special Care
mind.............
just for the sake of discussion...................
PETER TATCHELL INERVIEWING HANS RUESCH.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
hee hee hee hee hee hee hee hee hee
Special Care
wrote:
> Seriously.............. just put the picture into your
> mind.............
>
> just for the sake of discussion...................
>
> PETER TATCHELL INERVIEWING HANS RUESCH.
>
>
> hee hee hee hee hee hee hee hee hee
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The interview between Gill and Pete was all well rehearsed and stage
managed.
That's how these things work.
It's terribly embarrassing to those of us who understand how these
things work.
Is Peter Tatchell a person of great naivety and of very low
intelligence who genuinely did now know what Gill Langley was doing to
him?????
Special Care
Special Care
DOING TO HIM?
Special Care
Special Care
that supports many interest groups. These groups, which are all
interrelated, consist of the following: the chemical empire, the
petroleum empire, the pharmaceutical empire, the food industry, the
tobacco industry, the research institutes, the “health” institutes,
the military, the government, and even the so-called environmental
movement. In other words, one group creates the problem, one group
claims to be assessing and studying the problem, and yet another one
pretends to be fighting and solving the problem."
"...and yet another one pretends to be fighting and solving the
problem."
That last statement refers to Gill Langley's fake, fraudulent Dr
Hadwen Trust.
They all get their 'cut' from the Vivisection Swindle.
"...and yet another one pretends to be fighting and solving the
problem."
-----------------------------------------------
Special Care
a happy person.
People who, for example, have lost a child in tragic circumstance,
often say the pain never goes away. The same applies if you see the
world as it really is. The feeling of unease and sadness will never go
away, and you will seek refuge in alcohol. If you tell anyone what the
world actually is like and what the mental state of humanity actually
is, the response will be only to say you are mentally ill or words to
that effect. People are afraid of seeing what we are actually doing -
the collective death wish and all that goes with it.
Why do supposedly sophisticated environmentalists like Greenpeace
accept the climate change hype, when the greatest and most immediate
threat to the environment always was the fake animal tests which
facilitate humanity's collective suicide / self genocide / biocide?
It's not really a case of Greenpeace being misled by government
propaganda. They want to be misled. They can't cope with the emotional
burden of seeing the vivisection swindle and what it means.
What is frightening about this is not just the slow-motion collective
suicide of humanity, but even more terrifying is what the vivisection
swindle tells us about our collective mental state.
Looking at Hans Ruesch's discourse at Los Angeles in 1984, then
looking at Peter Tatchell's recent chat with Gill Langley, you see
both avoidance and dumbing down. You also see the collusion in the
fake debate peddled by Gill Langley. Everybody wants that fake debate,
because we are unable to cope with the emotional burden of the truth,
both the truth about our slow-motion collective suicide and the truth
about our mental state as indicated by that slow-motion collective
suicide.
If you see it clearly, the pain will never go away.
'Ignornace is bliss' is not really an Orwellian slogan. That was
'ignorance is strength.'
'Ignorance is bliss' really describes our collective mental state.
The ever-increasing build up in the concentration of "animal
tested" [=untested] poisons cannot be reversed. Eventually it will
cause our civilisation to collapse. It could happen in several ways.
The poisoning effect could destroy a vital part of the food chain, so
that our food supply is wiped out. Or, the ever-increasing level of
poisons flowing into our bodies could so weaken our immune response
that we succumb to worldwide disease plagues. That's what AIDS
actually is. AIDS is not caused by any virus, but by some of us
succumbing before others to the build up of "animal
tested" [=untested] poisons which weakens some people's immune system
more than others. Eventually we'll all succumb. People like Greenpeace
are not saying any of this simply because they can't cope with the
emotional burden of the truth. And so they sit on a roof and talk
about climate change.
For those who see the truth, who see you as you really are - the pain
never goes away.
You have no right to drag me down with you in your slow-motion
collective suicide. But I accept that I can't stop you.
-------------------------------------------------------
Thinking again of Peter Tatchell... and others, for example John
Pilger, Michael Moore and the like...you know the type of person I am
referring to..... well, I just find them terribly annoying because
they seem so smug and pleased with themselves... but it's a case of
*always the non-essential, never the essential* .
The only sane response to the world we live in was the one proposed in
1990 - citizens arrests of every vivisector in the world, to stop the
flow of "animal tested" [=untested] poisons, and alongside that,
exercises to overcome our state of amnesia, as it relates to our
infancy - both the infancy of the tribe as shown in the geological
record and the infancy of the personality - both of which are a total
blank to collective humanity, hence our irrational and chaotic
behaviour. And as we recover our memory, we would realise where our
pain-generating societal arrangements originated and make a start
toward eventually abolishing those bizarre pain-generating societal
arrangements, which again are the mother-infant relationship, the
incest taboo and the ban on loving more than one. All three are
symptoms of mental illness and eventually will be abolished, but not
in the present era.
But if I were to approach the likes of Pilger etc. with the actual and
obvious analysis and healing formula, I'd get only a blank stare, and
perhaps something from the fake debate - "Gill Langley's dedicated
team is working to find alternatives to animal tests..."
Well the alternative to slow-motion suicide by poisoning our bodies
and our ecosphere is not to "look for alternatives" but to simply STOP
poisoning our bodies and our ecosphere. And the first step toward
stopping our collective suicide is to end all "animal tests" [non-
tests] immediately. It's not going to happen, because the collective
death wish rules us all. We all have in us this compulsion to recreate
and relive the forgotten survivalist emergencies in which our madness
is rooted. So I write only for the few who want to heal before the end
comes, and in the forlorn hope that something good might happen after
the collapse if conditions are favourable among some of the survivor
groups.
I've written "happiness is a symptom of mental illness." It is. The
only happiness on earth resides in not knowing what is going on in the
world, not knowing what the mental state of humanity is. On that
basis, I don't want to be happy - not like that, not by adjusting to
your scotoma-based, global looney bin.
OK, lets get on with it.
============================================
"The octogenarian founder of psychoanalysis was not yet at the end of
his insights and revelations.
A repressed thought was asking to be spelled
out.
"If we consider mankind as a whole and substitute it for a single
individual, we discover that it too has developed delusions which are
inaccessible to logical criticism and which contradict reality. If, in
spite of this, they [the delusions] are able to exert an extraordinary
power over men, investigation leads us to the same explanation as in
the case of the single individual. They owe their power to the element
of historical truth which they have brought up from the repression of
the forgotten and primeval
past."
-Freud, "Construction in
Analysis."
Freud speaks here of mankind's delusions, therefore delusions in which
all of us take part and which are deaf to logical criticism; at the
bottom, however, is a historical truth. What, then, is this truth, the
happening that once overwhelmed the human race and traumatised and
poisoned and scorched the minds of all generations that
followed?"
-from "Mankind In Amnesia" by Immanuel Velikovsky, 1982.
===================================================