WAR ON HEALTH - The FDA's Cult of Tyranny

Strangely enough i didn't find any results using different searches on the forum where this docu was covered.
If so please feel free to point out the thread.
The docu starts with a 30 minutes speech by the director following the actual documentary(1hour and a half).
I posted this earlier in a thread in hope to receive some comments and discussion on the matter. Maybe it wasn't the proper thread, therefore i made a new one.

Gary Null directed and produced many documentaries in the health sector, for which he was awarded and written several books. He also hosts a radio show.
The 'mainstream medecine' sees him as a practitioner of pseudoscience or quackery, which is not new and so is any other holistic doctor.
He is a promoter of alternative medicine and dietary supplements.

The docu covers the ban of dietary supplements by big pharma, the GMO issue and some history and the corruption inside the FDA.
IMo it's a topic that everyone needs to be aware of and know what is realy going on, for ourselves and future.
I realy wonder why they would like to ban organic gardening and forbid us from growing our own food?
What's the reason for this? Do they know something we don't?
For now i'm happy to have my own garden and hoping to do so for as long as i live, as for my children and the next generation.

Several weeks ago i read in the local newspaper that only recognized or licensed doctors will be able to practice holistic medecine in addition to their normal practice, i wonder if big pharma has something to do with this new law.

Hope to get some positive and negative comments on this issue.
If you're interested check out his other documentaries too.




Do we really want those guys at the top decide what's best for us, do you want to believe these men with only one goal in mind, profit and more profit, people who only care for themself, their own wealth and power.

Well how about setting an example for all the readers here,
and you tell us. Is Obama a shill for big pharma, or does
big pharma hate him, and spend millions trying to stop him?

I mean seriously. Quit fence sitting, and pick a side.


Where were you when he wanted the public option?
If both parties and big pharma were against it, by
elimination that must have been the right choice.

Right?


Mike

reply to post by mikegrouchy


I'm not here to tell people what to do, just share this information. What you do with it is up to you.
I will never pick sides to the ones who have power and decides how we should live our lives.
I don't believe what any major corporation says or the governement tells me.
Any political leader is just a puppet no matter what change they promise, at the end it's not them who decides.
If they really care about our heath as much as they say, why don't they do something about it?
Why won't the governement shut down all fast food restaurants,
why let they keep the industry poluting our air,
why won't they stop big pharma at experimenting their drug on people?
If they know a long time that's all bad for our health. Maybe because they aren't the ones who are making the decsision.

Something else.
An example from the documentary: a drug is banned in certain countries due to it's side effects, it creates more disease than it cures. Tell me the reason why they would keep it as long as they can available on the market for other countries?

Independent studies has shown us that GMO's are bad, so why are they still on the market?
Tell me again the president cares for us.

All these things seems to have one thing in common,... no it's not bananas.

reply to post by intergalactic fire

Do we really want those guys at the top decide what's best for us, do you want to believe these men with only one goal in mind, profit and more profit, people who only care for themself, their own wealth and power.

Yeah, I want more capable (scientists) people to find a use for food and medicine that benefits health standards for us commoners, but scientists aren't being compensated by gaining better health in the end; in the end they are fueling an economic dystopia...?

reply to post by loveguy


I believe there is enough proof that food and health are linked as well as environment and living conditions.
Why not start there and see what happens.
Why not give the poor countries acces to fresh food and clean water instead of offering them medecine who imo in most cases only treats the symptoms and not the cause.
I'm sure many third world countries would prefer acces to clean water and fresh food than getting injected with pharmaceuticals.
Yes, they are glad that we try to help them curing diseases but what about those who die daily of starvation? That's a far bigger number.
It's not about money for these countries nor should it be for us. It seems the whole world is just a big competition.

reply to post by intergalactic fire


I have known for a very long time that the public health is not and never has been of concern to the mega corporations that profit from our ill health.

I have no need for western medicine, unless, if for some reason, I need trauma care, broken leg, stuff like that, the only thing that doctors and nurses are capable of taking care of. Health issues I leave in my own very competent hands.

I'll watch the video when I have time. Thanks for posting.

reply to post by Witness2008


Thanks for sharing and that's good to hear.
It's been well over 15 years i stopped believing that mainstream medecine is good for you.
The times i had a cold, headache or other pain, people offered me painkillers which i always refused.
Off course they didn't really understand why and said, if you want to suffer that's your choice but there is no need to it, just take this pill and all will be well.
I believed and still believe that it was better my body was the healer than a pill masking the pain. I always recovered from it without any interventions.
So believing 'big pharma wants us cured' was really out of the question and this docu points it out again.



For those interested, I just finished reading an interview with virologist and molecular biologist Stefan Lanka from 2005 on bird flu, vaccination and aids.
www.whale.to...

More from him
www.whale.to...

He has got some video interviews and presentations in german on YT.

Read my threads about nestle ,and codex alimemtarius .
I have known all of this for years ,and yes Obama is a complete shill for big pharm and taking away any and all of our choices for health care ,except what they will force us to use .

It's western medicine and tons of pharm ,or you die . Period. WHO has a big hand in it,and they will try again to force unnecessary vaccinations ,world wide .

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I think you're giving big pharma a bad rap.

We should accept their output happily, but only if the company can meet these criteria:

* Never have caused a death from normal use of their products.
* Never have caused a death from side effects of their products under normal use.
* Never have caused any negative ecological impact.
* Never have caused a death or serious illness due to indirect contamination of water/food.
* Never have caused a death or serious illness from direct contamination or 'treatment' of water/food.
* Never have created a product designed specifically to kill people.
* Never have created a product designed to indirectly kill people.
* Never have had a class-action lawsuit won against them (or settled out of court) for serious illnesses or deaths caused by any of their products.
* Never have 'lobbied' [wink, wink] to push through an unsafe product.
* Never have used a product for a purpose other than for that which it was originally designed, with no ill effects.
* Never have 'lobbied' [wink, wink] to prevent generic versions of their product to be sold.
* Never have used political influence to ensure government purchases of their products.
* Never have used influence to suppress a known cure for any illness or symptom for which they have a specific drug.
* Never have advertised with the list of side effects taking 60% of the content.
* Never have advertised with "death" or "cancer" or "anal leakage" as a listed side effect.
* Never have caused as a side effect of one of their products an illness similar or worse than that which they purported to cure.
* Have given back to the consumers all profits for vaccines - such as the flu shot - that had no impact whatsoever.
* Never have considered profits more important than public safety.

Other than that, they're alright.
So who's left?
The list just kept getting shorter, didn't it?
Only 18 things they shouldn't have done. Out of all the things they could have done, only 18 against them!

Any takers? Which big pharma will step up and say, with all honesty, "We hit every one of your bulleted points, Badgered!"

Thought so.

I'm sorry, sir/ma'am, you have what doctors call, "Very, very expensive."
Here's a prescription, a credit application, and a waiver of liability.
Thank you for using big pharma.
We 'promise' that your doctor/pharmacist will receive absolutely no compensation for using this product.

The FDA, IMO, no longer fills the role they were meant to play - if they ever have at all. Well, I can give them some credit I suppose... they tend to do fairly well with the "Food" part of their name in some senses. Food poisoning is far less prevalent than it could or would be without their influence.

But then again - GMO's, irradiated foods, saturated fats, processed sugars, etc... There are those in our community who argue quite passionately that these are all facets of population control. Another tangent for another day however.

My biggest gripe with the FDA comes when thinking about the "Drugs" aspect. And, no, this is not going to be a diatribe about any illicit substances. Though I will mention that caffeine very nearly wound up on that now infamous list of banned things. Can you imagine a world where coffee were considered felonious contraband?

Where I take issue with it all is where the FDA and big pharma cross paths. In my humble opinion this intersection of interests is one of the biggest problems we face as a culture presently. This dysfunctional and criminal meeting of interests is literally costing millions of lives each year, worldwide. Bad medications seem to get approved - and by that approval in America it sets precedent for being legalized elsewhere. Good medications, on the other hand, are often buried... considered bad for the bottom line. These two examples are just the tip of the iceberg.

The point is that the regulatory agency we have to watch pharmaceutical companies, the FDA, no longer behaves as a regulatory agency. It behaves more like a restrictive licensing agency that caters only to those who can afford to line the right pockets with the right amount of money. It's a case of taxpayers being forced to pay one wolf to make sure that the other wolves don't get into the hen house and it's reprehensible and very indicative of the current state of the world.

S&F OP

Originally posted by intergalactic fire
Why won't the governement shut down all fast food restaurants,

Profit. The same reason why they still let us buy cigarettes.

It's funny how so many people actually believe that the government doesn't want us to smoke.

Let me put it this way. If I sell you a bag of heroin, but I tell you that it's bad for you and will eventually kill you, why does that make me the good guy?

reply to post by NuclearPaul


Indeed that's one reason.
One party creating problems, another party offering the sollution.
But they are not different parties as you would have guessed.

reply to post by Hefficide


Yeah, the FDA has done some definite good, especially in the realm of non-germy food and b.s. cure-alls preying on scared, uninformed people. The fact that lobbying-bribing is a factor now can't be stressed enough, though.

I know people involved in alternative medicine and supplements and know they occasionally catch heat from our rulers when they tread too close to an issue that might impinge on big pharma's ability to make big money.

One issue that springs to mind is Pauling's assertion that vit C can help prevent the most common forms of heart disease and seems to help with the body's cancer fight... the plain fact is there isn't a whole lot of money involved (heh, though some supplements are sure expensive) and thus noticing "studies" periodically coming out against C 's efficacy in odd conjunction with other studies and/or articles that have results supporting Pauling's observations.

It's enough to make some folks lean towards a conspiracy theory that there exists a group that uses media to fight alternative findings and thus muddy the waters. If this is true, there isn't a hell horrible enough for them.

If one searches for pro-vitamin news articles and notes the date, and then searches for anti-vitamin articles, there is correlation, but it might be standard responses from alternate views as opposed to an organized effort.

But it IS a fact there is organized effort to block non-patented cures/prevention and affect legislation in favor of band-aid, patented medicines in the form of bribes to our lawmakers from big pharmacology. There is a valid reason lobbying is seen as scummy.