Prerequisite for Reform-Three in One:
Table of Contents:
| Printed version of the reform THREE-IN-ONE | |
|
1. An improvement in provided health care should not have direct dependency on the amount of money invested in medicine. 2. It is easier and better to improve the organization of medicine by the removal of obstacles in the way of it's development rather than trying to repair a badly working car by supplying it with superior gasoline. 3. One of the restraints on the development of American medicine is that American doctors don't have the legal right to treat patients in the way they may consider necessary. For example, a doctor (M.D.) does not have a legal right to prescribe medicines, which have been approved as effective medications in other countries, but not in the USA; that usually means products produced from natural sources. There are other limitations and restrictions for the methods and means of treatment, which would be able to improve the health conditions of patients in comprehensive therapy. 4. We can judge the approach of the traditional medicine from an article published in Health Breakthroughs magazine in the Winter issue, 1997 (page 8), by Dr. William C. Douglass, M.D.: "Indeed, side effects from drugs put an estimated 1.6 million people in the hospital every year." Another doctor, David Williams says: "160,000 people die each year because of adverse reactions to prescription drugs." 5. Why do doctors avoid prescribing non-FDA approved medications and methods of treatment? It seems that a response to all doctors could be made by quoting just one doctor, who wanted to remain anonymous: "We all know that drugs don't cure; patients need natural or other nontoxic methods of treatment, but we are afraid to say anything about it, because there is an unwritten rule, that a doctor must treat only with drugs and that doctors, who don't think so, will have big problems with medical establishments and the FDA." Fortunately, not all doctors are chickens, but unfortunately not all the brave doctors are without trouble. It is not only ridiculous, but tragic, that a doctor who saves a hopelessly ill patient's life by a treatment method, not approved by the FDA, could get a jail sentence instead of "thanks" by the FDA. Do you ever ask why the FDA takes away the last hope from the hopeless? Maybe, because "no enemy can bring more harm than your own friend." That fact is known to Europeans, all great dynasties where founded by foreigners, and our great country USA was not founded by Native Americans, but by foreigners. 6. The time has now come to abolish preposterous laws depriving
a patient of the human rights to get any treatment which would improve
health or save his life. This is obvious not only to doctors but
to pharmaceutical firms and possibly even to the FDA, which is the
involuntary executor of very old and worthless laws. Unfortunately, the authors were short of $10,000,000 in order to satisfy the curiosity of the FDA regarding the effect of products from Aloe on dogs. Well, not everybody knows that "it isn't necessary to make a trip around the world just to learn that all the sky is blue." So cats can still meow for a long time by receiving the injections of a product derived from Aloe, but dogs afflicted with the same diseases as cats might not have the opportunity to yelp much longer until they get, from the FDA, the equal rights to be treated like cats. What is the reason for this absurdity? There are "robots in human skin with very old non-upgraded programs. But those researchers, who wish to open those robot's eyes to the new world do not suspect the truth, that regrettably, those robots also suffer from blindness and deafness" and in principle, can not make proper or informed decisions. It's hard to believe, but let's look at one more example. In many commonly available public sources, such as articles, books and the Internet, it has been shown that the FDA, in 1994, gave permission to start clinical trials of products from Aloe on cancer and AIDS patients. But according to the opinion of the FDA officials, they later believed that they acted correctly by prohibiting the spread of information about those trials. Evidently, such interpretation of the freedom of speech is fully justified by the FDA, and the promulgation of true data about how the products from Aloe really acted on the patients, could indeed jeopardize the security of our country. Maybe, we need to delve further and establish very tight censorship on the information from Russia, where since 1957 the Ministry of Health permitted injections of Aloe to be administered to patients. It's probably too dangerous to know, that Aloe injections, which have been used for many years, never harmed anybody. One more story. Please, tell me: does it make any logical sense
to spend a few million dollars to prove that practically proved,
safe natural remedy cannot be more dangerous than a toxic drug?
If your company does not have a superfluous couple millions of dollars
to protect yourself in the court from attacks to obvious justice
- your company should agree that white is black. Some companies,
for example, 'Life Extension', still have money to fight for fairness,
but we are asking our government: is it really the best way to spend
bags of money for the argument that everyone has the right to tell
the truth and should not be forced to lie. Don't laugh: 'Life Extension'
has long history of suffering from the FDA and spent millions of
dollars in courts, because they assert that the FDA should follow
the First Amendment of the United States Constitution (freedom of
speech) and they hardly won. 'Life Extension's' point of view that
to tell the truthful scientific facts to save many lives is right,
but the FDA did not agreed. It's unbelievable but true! You probably
could resolve this issue for much less money. Maybe there was a
better application for those millions of dollars? |
7. All questions of how and
with what to treat a patient are under the jurisdiction of the FDA,
which has become unsupervised and appears to be a country within a
country, with very peculiar policies about what is useful for health.
For example, for the entire history of the FDA, this organization
decided that among all natural products, only oatmeal and vitamin
C are harmless and useful for health, which were approved for traditional
medical use (one can make medical claims on those products). But there are more than 97 powerful remedies the FDA Doesn't Want You To Know About. Those remedies could possibly resolve health problems for many Americans and possibly even save many lives. But instead, 102 out of 198 drugs approved by the FDA between 1978 and 1986 had "serious post-approval risks such as heart failure...convulsions...kidney and liver failure...birth defects and blindness" (reported by the General Accounting Office).
By the way the FDA approved chemotherapy (a real poison) as a treatment method, so the conclusion could be made, that the FDA gives the go-ahead for only those medications, which are toxic. Maybe the FDA figures that there are too many Americans? 8. Do we actually need the New Reform now? Look at the overall picture-puzzle collected from the Fact Database of Health Breakthroughs magazine (Winter 1997) and judge for yourself:
There is only one way to prevent anarchy in drug approval and regulations - create an alternate organization to the FDA, able to control the FDA. Unlimited power always has a single ending - tyranny. It seems that the FDA can wait for a New Reform endlessly, but our HEALTH? If only it were now - (if only it could be caught now, it would be caught in time). For example, today everyone knows that chlorinated drinking water is dangerous to your health. But in 1979, when Dr. Douglass reported this fact, the local medical society called him "irresponsible and unprofessional." If they thought they were right and did nothing, then were they thinking at all?
Our mistakes can cost much more than diamonds, when we have ignorance as the argument. More expensive words can be only words of the most important person (president of a country, etc.): "I never heard about this; therefore, it is not true." Sometimes it's too regrettable, that real troubles that we made don't accept our excuses. 9. It seems strange - this is not only a health problem of the nation, but actually a political and economic problem as well (three in one: health, politics and economy). Why spend millions upon millions of dollars and many years for approval of only one medication, if this medication was already approved in other countries a long time ago? It would be better to spend this money in a much more useful fashion, other than redundant research! |
The purpose of this pamphlet is to help people to execute their own duty, to help those who sincerely could help their own country.
Copyright © 2007 Executive Wellness Consulting, Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this pamphlet may be reproduced in any form or by any means without permission in writing from the authors.