The
Pharmaceutical RacketIn the early half of this century
the petrochemical giants organised a coup on the medical
research establishments, hospitals and universities. The
Rockefellers did this by sponsoring research and donating
monetary gifts to US universities and medical schools where
research was drug based and
further extended this policy to foreign medical establishments
via their International Education Board. Those who were not drug
based were refused funding and were soon dissolved in favour of
the more lucrative pharmaceutical-based projects.
In 1939 the 'Drug Trust'
alliance was formed by the Rockefeller Empire and I.G. Farben.
After the war, I.G. Farben was dismantled but later emerged in
the many guises of the companies with whom they had signed
cartel agreements. These companies include: Imperial Chemical
Industries (ICI), Borden, Carnation, General Mills, M.W. Kellogg
Co., Nestle, Pet Milk, Squibb and Sons, Bristol Meyers,
Whitehall laboratories, Procter and Gamble, Roche, Hoechst and
Beyer and Co. (two extant pharmaceutical companies who initially
employed convicted war criminals Friedrich Jaehne and Fritz ter
Meer as board chairmen). The Rockefeller Empire in tandem with
the Chase Manhattan Bank now owns over half of the USA's
pharmaceutical interests and is the largest drug manufacturing
combine in the world. Since the war the drug industry has
steadily netted an ever increasing profit from sales of drugs to
become the second largest manufacturing industry in the world
next to the arms industry (also owned by the self same Elite
agencies).
Today, health care is a
multi-billion pound industry world-wide with ever increasing
expenditure by taxpayers into the system which funnels the
majority of this staggering profit into the hands of the drug
manufacturers who are, as we have seen, headed by the major
Elite manipulators of this century. These companies now control
the vast majority of health care and set the standards for the
practice of medicine in all developed countries. Doctors are no
longer free to choose the most reliable and safe forms of
therapy available but are at the mercy of their financial
reliance on sponsoring (frequently bribing) drug companies. Once
out of drug-company sponsored medical school, doctors embark on
a career of increasing workloads and have ever increasing
amounts of new pharmaceutical products to use and understand.
The sheer volume of literature which a GP will receive from drug
sales reps has resulted in
the present situation whereby GPs are poorly educated about the
chemicals which they are giving to their patients and are
essentially gleaning most of their post-graduate training from
the salesmen of private business. The moral implications of this
are staggering.
The number of available
drug preparations is now well in excess of 200,000. In 1980, the
World Health organisation advised that a mere 240 drugs are
necessary in order to provide good health care in the Third
World (which should be more than adequate for First World needs
considering we are a significantly healthier proportion of the
population) whilst in 1981 the United Nations Industrial
Development Organisation stated that a mere 26 of these are
considered 'indispensables'. Most of the many drugs which are
now available are known as 'me-too' drugs, i.e. recombinations
and exact reproductions of drugs already available but which are
irresistible to other companies who wish to share in their
market. For example, the standard analgesics Paracetamol and
Aspirin come in a multitude of forms under a variety of
different brand names and yet these products can vary in price
to a factor of ten or more times for the exact same formula
depending on brand type chosen. Often the consumer erroneously
presumes that increased price is equivalent to increased quality
in this case and are entirely unaware that the drugs they are
buying and those which they are rejecting are identical. Doctors
are also often guilty of prescribing drugs by trade name and
thus netting greater profits for the favoured company whilst
cheaper versions are available to the unwary consumer/patient.
Usually, before handing in a prescription it pays to consult the
attending pharmacist if there is an equivalent and cheaper drug
available. This can save some chronic drug users hundreds of
pounds per year.
Pharmaceutical companies
rely upon ill health in the population to survive and reap their
profits. No drug company has a vested interest in curing
disease. They do, however, have a massive vested interest in
maintaining ill-health, creating disease and manufacturing
chemicals which will promote this under the guise of 'therapy'
for the symptoms rarely ever the cause of disease. Dr John
Braithwaite, now a Trade Practices Commissioner, in his expose,
Corporate Crime in the Pharmaceutical Industry, states:
'International
bribery and corruption, fraud in the testing of drugs,
criminal negligence in the unsafe manufacturing of drugs
the pharmaceutical industry has a worse record of
law-breaking than any other industry.'
In the US in 1978 1.5
million people were hospitalised because of medication
side-effects alone. In 1991 in the US, 72,000 people were killed
due to iatrogenic that is doctor-induced causes whilst
24,073 died of victims of firearms shootings, which makes
doctors nearly three times more lethal than guns! This has
serious implications for other countries including Britain
because the US are the foremost pioneers in the health care
field and what occurs in health care in the US is usually
implemented in Britain a decade later.
The drugs industry has
managed to sell to the majority of the world the idea that
disease is largely an inevitable part of life, especially during
the later years. Through its front-line representatives the
medical system it has effectively reduced the range of choices
of health care to which the public has access. Through funding
and educational control it has seen to it that natural forms of
treatment are largely ignored and grossly under-researched.
Those organisations which do reveal the true causes of disease
and promote effective forms of disease prevention, such as
nutritional medicine, healing and naturopathy are regularly
attacked in the mass media and publicly labelled as quacks by
pharmaceutically-sponsored de-bunking organisations such as the
Campaign Against Health Fraud, now called Healthwatch.
They have also sold to
us the idea that natural remedies and cures which have been
successfully employed for centuries are 'alternatives' and to be
treated with great scepticism and caution. Frequently, we are
told of how one or two people have been injured or killed
through the misapplication of a herbal remedy by dubious
alternative practitioners but are not told at the same time of
the thousands who are damaged by the conventional drugs which
are handed out like sweets by our doctors.
During their initiation
into the Western medical tradition most of our young doctors are
repeatedly informed by their superiors that therapies which are
alternative to classic western medicine are fraudulent and
quackish. They are told that there is no scientific evidence to
support any of the claims of psychic healing, crystal therapy,
colour therapy and the like and the whole area is dismissed with
a superior grin and a wave of the hand. A mountain of study is
then hurled at the junior doctors, on top of an already inhumane
workload of practical hours, to be spent absorbing the biased
views of their forebears. A junior doctor has not even enough
time to explore the realms of stress-free relaxation never mind
alternative thought and therapies. Much the same methods are
used by certain religious organisations to indoctrinate the
minds of their followers into a single belief system. The key
tactics, to which most doctors will relate, are: maintenance of
sleep deprivation so as to minimise resistance to teachings,
isolation from the outside world until one is literally eating,
breathing and sleeping the set doctrine of the cult, and
maintenance of a fear of failure to conform through almost
unachievably high level goal setting; often via frequent
examinations.
I believe that western
medicine is as much a dogmatic cult as popular Christianity or
the Moonies. It breeds its young on dogma to the exclusion of
free will and reasoned thought in order to perpetuate itself. It
is controlled by instilling into its members the fear of failure
and it thrives by exploiting the initial motivation of its
members, which is love and a desire to help and heal others.
At the apex of the
pyramid of medicine lie the controllers; not doctors, but the
multinational pharmaceutical companies who exist, not for the
benefit of others, but for the desire for money and power. And
behind them lies the sinister organisation of global secret
societies headed by the Illuminati.
It is through this
subtle mind control that the System maintains itself. Veiled in
secrecy and fuelled by fear, the monster machine controls every
aspect of our lives. The medical system is an integral part, but
nevertheless only one aspect, of the overall design which seeks
power and neither cares how this power is achieved, nor how many
individuals are destroyed in the process.
As an example of the
fraud perpetuated by the pharmaceutical companies, the next
section will take a close look at the AIDS scandal, which
illuminates how these companies have infiltrated every area of
the healthcare system are willing to endanger people, allowing
them to be killed, for profit via the industry's tool of
corruption and front organisation, our own medical system:
What is
AIDS?
AIDS is defined as any
one of twenty five unrelated diseases plus a positive test for
the presence of antibodies to the Human Immuno-deficiency Virus
(HIV). It is said to be transferred through intimate sexual
contact via the transfer of bodily fluids such as semen and
blood. It is also said to be passed on through intravenous means
by needle-sharing drug users and infected blood transfusions.
Nearly five hundred
scientists world-wide, including eminent doctors such as leading
University of California Professor of Molecular Biology, Peter
Duesberg, and Australian biophysicist Eleni
Papadopoulous-Eleopoulos, Dr Charles Thomas (former Harvard
Professor of Biochemistry), Dr Kary Mullis (1993 Nobel
Prize-winner for Chemistry), Dr Hank Loman (Professor of
Biophysical Chemistry, Free University of Amsterdam), and Dr
Steven Lomas (Professor of Preventative Medicine, State
University of New York) are now convinced that AIDS is not
caused by HIV.
In simple terms, the
facts just do not add up. For example, there are many people
with AIDS but without HIV and vast numbers of people who are HIV
positive are not developing AIDS. The tests for the presence of
retrovirus HIV the Western Blot Test and the ELISA Test
which show up HIV positive status, are so inaccurate that false
positive tests can occur due to many diseases such as
malnutrition, multiple infections, multiple sclerosis,
tuberculosis, leprosy, having once had the 'flu' or measles and
the bodies natural response to anal semen.
Once diagnosed as HIV
positive, patients are given regular blood tests to monitor
their immunological responses, particularly for a drop in T-cell
count. T-cells are released in the immune response to disease to
attack invading antigens. A significant T-cell drop, in many
clinics, is the indicator that active drug therapy should be
commenced. However, using T-cell counts as an indicator of
disease is entirely useless as the average T-cell count for a
healthy person can range from 200 to 2000 over the course of a
normal day. Professor Ian Weller, who co-ordinated the British
arm of the Concorde AZT trial testing the drug on healthy
HIV-positive volunteers, commented:
'The thing we have
to remember about CD4 (T-cell) counts is they are very variable.
They can vary in an individual over the time of day... lower in
the morning and higher in the evening. They can be affected
by things that you do such as walking to the clinic, as opposed
to riding a bike... the amount of sunshine can affect them.
Smoking as well.'
This whole area of
inaccurate testing in the area of AIDS and AIDS Related
Conditions (ARC) has accounted for many people being incorrectly
diagnosed as HIV positive, such as in Africa where there is a
supposed epidemic; there is also a massive amount of otherwise
unrelated disease there too and it is this factor which is
causing the false positives.
Once diagnosed, patients
are then initiated onto courses of highly toxic drugs such as
AZT, DDI and Septrin, many of the side effects of which are the
self same symptoms as those of AIDS.
None of these AIDS
defining diseases are new. What is new, however, is the HIV
test. All research into this syndrome has been based upon the
findings of Robert Gallo, the co-founder and patent holder of
the test, which have since been found to be fraudulent. Gallo's
partner and co-founder of the HIV theory, Luc Montagnier,
declared in 1989:
'HIV is not capable
of causing the destruction to the immune system which is seen in
people with AIDS'.
One medical doctor who
has practised and lectured on medicine world-wide for over
thirty five years, Dr. Robert E. Wilner has even publicly
demonstrated that HIV does not cause disease by injecting
himself with the blood of an HIV positive patient on Spain's
most popular television show; yet this never made it to the
press outside of Spain! In his book 'Deadly Deception: The
Proof That Sex And HIV Absolutely Do Not Cause AIDS', Dr.
Wilner cites AZT as one of the major causes of AIDS, he also
insists that 'HIV is simply a harmless piece of tissue, not
unlike numerous other retroviruses that exist in our body' and
that 'AIDS is not transmitted sexually nor is it contagious by
any method!'
Dr Duesberg, recognised
as one of, if not the foremost retrovirus expert in the world,
points out:
'AZT is A Random
Killer Of Infected And Non-Infected Cells. AZT cannot
discriminate among them. It kills T-cells, B-cells, red cells,
it kills all cells. AZT is a chain terminator of DNA synthesis
of all cells no exceptions. It wipes out everything. In the
long run it can only lead to death of the organism and the
cemetery. AZT is a certain killer! Who will be responsible for
the death of patients (some 200,000 now being treated with AZT
and countless thousands who have already died from it in the
past decade) that results from AZT therapy pharmacological
homicide?'
And furthermore, that:
'HIV does not cause
AIDS... The point that everyone is missing is that all of those
original papers, Gallo wrote on HIV have been found
fraudulent... The HIV hypothesis was based on those papers.'
It is my opinion that
these scientists are correct and that HIV is not the cause of
AIDS. AIDS is not a single viral disease but a collection of, in
part, unrelated diseases which are caused by disharmonious
energies in the fields of the holistic body, brought about by
all sorts of reasons. Undoubtedly one of the major causes of
death by AIDS-related diseases is the inability of the body to
fight off the manifested disease because the body has been
weakened by the very drugs given to suppress the disease. Tests
have shown that the only effective treatments for AIDS are those
which involve the cessation of conventional drugs in favour of
unconventional natural therapies such as Essiac, Oxygen/Ozone
Therapy and CanCell. However, these natural therapies share a
common theme in that they have all been suppressed or withdrawn
by governmental agencies and those with vested interests in the
pharmaceutical industry.
(To further support the
fact that HIV is not transferred sexually, Cathy O'Brien in her
book Trance Formation Of America, points out that,
despite being prostituted to men in areas supposedly rife with
AIDS, none of her political abusers ever wore protection during
sex with her.)
Wellcome
to Hell (compiled from Dirty Medicine by Martin
J Walker see reference below)
Wellcome (Wellcome
Burroughs in the US) began as a pharmaceutical company set up in
1880 by Henry Wellcome and Silas Burroughs. Its links to the
Rockefeller Empire were apparent in Henry Wellcome's appointing
of John and Allen Dulles of the Sullivan and Cromwell law firm
as those responsible for any legal matters relating to the
company and his own will. With Henry Wellcome's death in 1936,
the Wellcome Trust was set up in conjunction with the company
(now the Wellcome Foundation) and this has now become one of the
largest funders of medical research in Europe. The Rockefeller
connection was also strengthened in the late 50's when Wellcome
took over the running of aspects of the Rockefeller funded
London University College Hospital Medical School and their
joint interests in tropical illness research via the London
School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.
Over the following
decades, Wellcome pursued several aspects of pharmaceutical
healthcare with interests in general over-the-counter remedies,
anti-virals, animal healthcare, genetic engineering and
biotechnology. It strengthened its connections within the
government, the media, medical academia and the various
committees, societies and associations that were continuously
being set up to review, regulate and control all aspects of
scientific medical research and education. It did this by making
donations to many of these organisations, such as the British
Association for the Advancement of Science, the Parliamentary
Science and Technology Foundation, the Parliamentary Office of
Science and Technology, and the British Medical Association's
Foundation for AIDS (to which it gave ฃ144,000 between 1988 and
1992), and by placing its own trustees, researchers and
'experts' in prominent positions within them. For example: Sir
Alastair Pilkington one time vice president of the Foundation
for Science and Technology was a research scientist for Wellcome;
Professor C. Gordon Smith, Dean of the London School of Hygiene
and Tropical Medicine was a Wellcome trustee; Lord Swann,
Director of the BBC in the 1980's was a Wellcome trustee; Sir
Alfred Shepperd, a member of the Advisory Council on Science and
Technology(ACST) was Chairman of Burroughs Wellcome and the
Wellcome Foundation until 1985; Professor Roy Anderson, Head of
Pure and Applied Biology at London Imperial College of Science,
Technology and medicine and a member of ACST was also a Wellcome
trustee.
In the 1980's however,
the company went through some major rationalisations. In 1986
the decision was made to sell shares in the Welcome drug company
which had previously been owned in its entirety by the Wellcome
Trust. In the following six years it also sold off several areas
of business including Cooper Animal Healthcare a joint venture
with ICI producing organo-phosphate sheep dip and its
interests in vaccine production. Production of general cough and
cold remedies was also reduced to a mere 14% of sales while it
began concentrating its funds in the more profitable areas of
genetics, biotechnology and anti-virals.
AZT, marketed by
Wellcome as Retrovir, had been developed in the 60s as a drug to
treat cancer but it had proved to be highly toxic as well as
ineffective as it appeared unable to distinguish between
cancerous and healthy cells. However, tests in vitro appeared to
show some anti-viral properties which was why, after being
shelved in the 60s, AZT was re-tested for use in the treatment
of AIDS in the 1980s.
Human clinical drug
trials, following extensive (though useless) animal testing,
usually take place in two parts. Phase I tests for toxicity;
Phase II concentrates on the long-term side-effects and
efficacy, all of which can take several years. In the case of
AZT the Phase II trials in America were halted after 4 months
when only 1 of the AZT users as opposed to 19 of the control
group had died and the drug was granted a license despite the
fact that the patients in the trial were given regular blood
transfusions to alleviate the possible side-effects (this
should, under usual circumstances, have negated the results of
the trial). This licensing of AZT so quickly was unprecedented
and made Wellcome's profits double to ฃ1132 million in the space
of 4 years! As if this wasn't enough, subsequent licenses for
other AIDS drugs were issued subject to the condition that they
would have to be tested against AZT and then only prescribed in
conjunction with it.
Incredibly, AZT was
licensed in the UK without any clinical trials four weeks before
it was licensed in the US. This, perhaps, may have been due to
the fact that, of the 25 members of the Medicines Commission who
are parliamentary advisers on medicine, 5 had interests in
Wellcome; one prominent member being Professor Trevor M. Jones,
Director of Research and Development at Wellcome. And of the 21
members of the Committee on the Safety of Medicines who grant
the licenses, two had interests in the Welcome Foundation.
Within a short space of
time, AZT was licensed in 35 countries around the world and
Wellcome were promoting it with media advertising, press
releases and all-expenses-paid conferences to which they
regularly invited the world's top scientists and physicians, all
the while denying any suggestions that it caused harmful
side-effects.
Wellcome's influence on
the media and the government continued with its donation of
ฃ10,000 to the All Party Parliamentary Group on AIDS (APOGA) as,
with the Medical Research Council, Wellcome began the trials of
AZT on asymptomatic HIV positive patients the Concorde trials
in October 1988. From that point onwards most of the doctors
presenting information and writing for APGOA were also involved
in these trials. Not content with promoting their own research
in the area of AIDS they also began to attack any alternative
treatments or anyone who challenged the HIV=AIDS hypothesis.
Wellcome had also
cornered the British market in AIDS testing kits. With the help
of Dr. Robin Weiss and Angus Dalgleish from the Institute of
Cancer Research, a second generation kit was marketed based on
the research by Campaign Against Health Fraud (now Healthwatch)
member, Professor Vincent Marks, head of the Biochemistry
Department of Surrey University a department which has
received over half a million pounds from Wellcome since 1985. In
order to ensure that anyone found to be HIV positive was
immediately directed towards 'help' from AZT-promoting doctors,
GP's were given very limited access to the testing kits. They
had no choice but to send their patients to Wellcome-infiltrated
teaching hospitals and STD clinics in London while the promotion
and sale of home testing kits was banned in the UK (in 1992),
thereby ensuring Wellcome's complete monopoly in all aspects of
AIDS treatment and diagnosis.
Education about HIV and
AIDS could also not be overlooked and Wellcome donated
substantial funds to pay for a ฃ150,000 package for GPs,
produced by the British Medical Association.
The Concorde trials
themselves, instead of being independent, were almost totally
under Wellcome's influence. The initial reason for the trials
was to prove that AZT would be effective in preventing the
development of ARC and AIDS in otherwise healthy HIV+ patients.
Going against all established regulations for the independence
of such trials, which in the past had the drug companies
supplying the drug and paying the hospitals to do the trials,
the Concorde trial was set up jointly between Wellcome, the
Medical Research Council (MRC) and the Department of Health. The
MRC paid for the treatment and the Department of Health granted
the use of six London hospitals, NHS staff and facilities.
Anyone with an HIV positive test was encouraged to join the
trial without discussion of any alternative treatments whilst
being promised up to 3 years of free healthcare despite the fact
that the AZT drug was to be administered at 1000mg per day
twice the dose recommended by the US Food and Drug
Administration and the recent reports of serious side-effects
such as muscle wasting, anaemia and impotence. Wellcome's
crowning glory in this deal, though, was to also insist that the
contract gave them complete control over the writing of any
reports about the trial. The only report which had to be agreed
between all parties was the one for general publication, if
indeed any published report was even deemed necessary.
Just to make absolutely
sure of obtaining the desired outcome, Wellcome had the help of
several 'friends' in the MRC who had just as many, if not more,
commitments to industry and business matters than they did to
the medical establishment or the government. Lord Jellicoe,
Chairman of the MRC's AIDS committee, was a director of the
Rockefeller company Morgan Crucible as well as the sugar company
Tate and Lyle and was later chairman of Booker Tate
confectionery; Sir Donald Acheson worked for the Department of
Health but left in 1991 to work in the Rockefeller funded School
of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine; Sir Austin Bide was Chief
Executive of Glaxo (now in partnership with Wellcome) and had
been a director of J. Lyons & Co confectionery in the 70's. Sir
David Crouch, MP for Canterbury until 1987, was director of
Pfizer Ltd., a pharmaceutical company which was the only
manufacturer of a synthesised ingredient of AZT at that time and
also ran several public relations companies one of which,
Kingsway Rowland, handled Wellcome's AZT account; Dr J. W. G.
Smith, director of the Public Health Laboratory Service since
1985 used to be a Senior Lecturer at the School of Hygiene and
Tropical Medicine before going to work for Wellcome as head of
Bacteriology in 1969; Professor D. A. Warrell was a director of
the Wellcome Tropical Research Unit and has also done malaria
research funded by Wellcome and the Rockefeller Foundation;
Professor C. N. Hales is a specialist in diabetes whose research
is often funded by pharmaceutical companies including Wellcome.
With the above as the
only 8 members of the MRC Committee on AIDS and their Chairman
Lord Jellicoe, it is not surprising that a drug once deemed to
be too toxic, which has never been properly tested and whose
side-effects, according to the British National Formulary, bear
s striking resemblance to the symptoms of AIDS itself, has been
allowed to become the AIDS drug of the 90's and has kept the
profits rolling in for Wellcome to the tune of an estimated ฃ400
million a year.
Walker, Martin J.;
Dirty Medicine: Science, big business and the assault on natural
health care, (Slingshot Publications, London, 1994).
AIDS
Care and Treatment
'I will give no
deadly medicine to any one if asked.'
(from the Hippocratic Oath)
Walter's position as a
staff nurse at Newcastle General Hospital's Infectious Disease
Unit (ward 25), which is affiliated with the London School of
Tropical Medicine, has given me an insight into the world of
AIDS treatment which is rarely seen and it only serves to
corroborate the research of the aforementioned enlightened
scientists, whose numbers are ever increasing. The world of AIDS
care and treatment at the NGH has some very sinister elements
and I have no reason to suspect that it is isolated to this
regional unit alone. Here is an outline of some of the
information which Walter has provided:
According to the
code of conduct provided by the United Kingdom Central Council
for nursing and midwifery, the nurse's role is to be the
patient's advocate and is, therefore, entrusted to provide care
in the best interest of the patient and to decline from doing
anything which is detrimental to their well being. One of the
major areas covered by this is in the administration of drugs;
the nurse is responsible for ensuring the correct dosage of drug
is given and is responsible also for being aware of the effects
and possible side effects of the medication.
However, in the NGH
unit, nurses are expected to give all drugs prescribed by the
doctor whether or not any information on the effects of the drug
are available. Frequently the prescribing doctor is unaware of
the true nature of the drugs and thus unable to inform the
nursing staff of the effects and side effects of the drugs they
are using. Many and varied substances appear and disappear
periodically from the drugs cupboard, often named only as a
series of numbers or letters. When challenged as to the reason
why they have prescribed such unknown entities, the doctors
usually reply that their consultant has ordered it to be given.
The consultant is usually unavailable for comment.
The side effects of
the drugs have been seen to be potentially harmful. For example,
one commonly used drug, Foscarnet, which is given directly into
the heart or eyes of a patient, when dropped on a nurse's tights
dissolved them on contact. Common side effects of this drug
include epilepsy, blindness and dementia. Many patients have
entered the unit with minor symptoms such as weight loss and
have, in a short space of time, become blind and epileptic
through using it. Walter has frequently said to me, 'I'm
poisoning people for a living', but if he refused to give the
drugs as prescribed he would lose his job and someone would be
found who would administer them. The same is true of the junior
doctors who are afraid of the vengeance from above if they were
to challenge the status quo. No challenge has yet been made,
even after I presented the unit with detailed papers outlining
the research which has negated the 'HIV equals AIDS' myth.
Once diagnosed as
HIV positive, many patients are then informed that the only
chance they have for extended survival is to use the drugs
provided. Obviously the majority of patients, many of whom show
very few symptoms, are too afraid not to co-operate with the
regime. They then suffer terribly and die a lingering and
undignified death.
As a response to
many challenges Walter has made to the medical staff to justify
their drugs regime, he has been branded cynical and defeatist;
as not wishing to give the patients a chance for survival. In
reply to this he has asked on many occasions for the doctors to
give him even just one example of anyone whom they have cured of
AIDS or significantly improved the quality of life. Not one of
them has been able to give such an example.
Even if we were
extending people lives, in doing so we also inflict upon them
such diseases as makes for little or no quality of life. What is
the point of an extra year of life if that year is spent as a
living vegetable? If we do have a prognosis of death, then
surely it is better to live that remaining life to the full with
our eventual demise being as gentle and as dignified as
possible.
On one occasion,
the unit exceeded its drugs budget and feared a crisis in care.
At this point Wellcome stepped in and offered its services for
free on the condition that they would supply the drugs as long
as all research notes were given directly to them in return. It
appears that the only figures who were aware of anything like
the full picture were the consultants in charge and the research
nurse appointed by the company, none of whom were willing to
reveal anything of the results of these apparently blind drugs
trials.
In effect, this
means that the patients on this unit are being treated by the
pharmaceutical scientists as human guinea pigs, in order to test
the various drugs supplied. How are we to know that these drugs
are genuinely safe for the purpose of therapy? Might they simply
be poisons or ineffectual chemicals thrown onto the research pot
in a vain attempt to happen across some element of cure? Are
they even actively seeking a cure, knowing what we do of their
motivation?
Some of the drugs
which have been identified and are in regular use have long
since been discontinued in other areas of medicine because they
are ineffective and/or dangerous. For example, A.Z.T. was once
considered too toxic to be given to terminally ill cancer
patients!
Interestingly, the
official patient leaflet, 'HIV and AZT, the choices', as
supplied to AIDS departments by Wellcome, gives merely
three examples of side effects of the drug, i.e. anaemia,
which they say effects up to 40% of users; headaches in 1-10% of
users; and sickness in 25% of users which: 'almost always
disappear after a few weeks of treatment'. The leaflet also
states:
Most people do
not suffer side effects when they take AZT early. If they do
occur, there are ways of coping with them. They may be reversed,
if necessary by stopping treatment.
If you thought that
you may be facing death through an incurable disease would you
stop taking the drug that has been hyped as giving an extension
of lifespan, I wonder?
Septrin is a
combination of two antibiotics and has been shown to be far less
effective and far more liable to dramatic side effects than
either of the components when used individually (interestingly,
it is also nearly three times more expensive than the more
effective and less harmful constituent ingredient Trimethorprim).
Even Thalidomide is
now being used on Ward 25 for its anti-emetic properties.
Many patients
diagnosed as terminally ill have drawn up living wills in which
they often request a cessation of active treatment in the
end stages of disease. These are frequently ignored by the
doctors who continue to pump toxins into dying patients and
claim to be simply following orders from above. The point of
which escapes myself and Walter and quite often the doctors
themselves.
When a patient
dies, relatives are officially informed that their loved ones
are deemed as
dangerous waste and must, therefore, be sealed and cremated
for hygiene reasons. No mention
is made of autopsy or further experimentation and yet
Walter has witnessed conversations
amongst doctors regarding autopsy findings on such people
who were supposed to have gone to
cremation unmolested. Is this further pharmaceutical
research?
One evening, in the
absence of an available doctor from the unit, Walter had to call
upon a
consultant from another area to advise upon a matter.
Whilst this covering doctor was attending to
the issue Walter made known his concerns about the
dangerous amounts of drugs a patient was
prescribed. This consultant agreed with Walter that it was
excessive and dangerous and complied
with his request to discontinue the majority of the drugs.
He also admitted to Walter that there
was definitely something extraordinary and far reaching
going on in this area which was beyond
his jurisdiction. Furthermore, if he had his way, the
majority of the drugs given on the unit would
never have been prescribed in the first place. However,
'see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil'
seemed to be the order of the day and that was the end of
the matter.
All of this information
is deeply disturbing. As more and more evidence mounts against
the HIV theory, it
seems that the only way to survive AIDS is to steer clear of the
medical profession and its terrible
drugs. If it is true of this one syndrome then how true is it of
other areas of disease? Just how
manipulated are we by these companies? And how much wheeling and
dealing is going on behind the
scenes between consultants and pharmaceutical companies which
directly effects our well-being?
AIDS is a huge money
spinner providing millions of pounds of profit per day in drugs
sales and its
offshoot market of condom sales (Wellcome also has links with
the London Rubber Company). It has
instilled a fear in the heart of our society of free sexual
expression and has given rise to much bigotry
from the poorly educated who see AIDS as a judgement from God or
a punishment for active
homosexuality. It has created a huge charity industry, netting
millions of pounds from the world
population to fund further research to rid the world of this
affliction. And how much misery and negativity
has it generated? Further research means more experiments on
both animals and humans. And the
figures for economic growth just rise and rise.
Truth
A Cure For All Disease
As another example of
the medical conspiracy; would it shock you to find out that
there are, in use today, several medically proven cures for
cancer? One such cure is Essiac and has been in use since at
least 1922; it has no known adverse side effects. It is made
from four common herbs and elevates the
immune system. In 1937 it came within three votes of being
legalised as a cancer treatment in Canada and was passed on to
the British Cancer Campaign by its founder, Rene Caisse, via the
Prince of Wales. And yet today, it is still only available
through selected, virtually underground, outlets world-wide.
I have many dozens of case studies which testify to the efficacy
of this treatment (see Appendix IV).
Furthermore, in the
1930s a man named Royal Raymond Rife developed a very high
powered microscope, almost seven times more powerful than those
in use at the time, which could detect organisms which cause
diseases such as infections and cancers. He did this by
illuminating these organisms at their own specific frequency of
light and could, therefore, examine them and their effects
whilst they remained alive as opposed to killing them first
using dye stains or high powered electron microscopy as was the
norm. He then discovered that, by altering the frequency of
their environment microbes could mutate and change their size
and shape to resemble viruses and bacteria alike, thereby
enabling the same microbe to cause many diverse diseases. For
example, the same germs which cause pus streptococci could
also become the germs which cause pneumonia pneumococci in
response to an alteration in their environment. Rife also
discovered that by bombarding these organisms with higher
frequencies of light, he could destroy them. He demonstrated
that it was possible to create and destroy cancers at will and
succeeded in curing otherwise terminal patients of this disease,
as well as others such as polio and typhus, in almost 100% of
cases.
Today, it is
conventionally accepted that single specific germs are
responsible for single specific forms of infection. This theory
was advanced by the French scientist Pasteur but was disputed by
his rival Bechamp who was in favour of the mutation theory known
as pleomorphism. We are rarely informed in text books that,
according to his co-worker, Dr Duclaux, Pasteur himself changed
his mind and revoked his 'germ theory' in favour of one closer
to that of pleomorphism. However, over 100 years later,
Pasteur's original germ theory is still the standard working
model for the understanding of the action of microbes in the
body.
Many types of bacteria
exist in a symbiotic relationship with our bodies all of the
time and only become symptomatic once the physical body begins
to deteriorate due to an unhealthy lifestyle. Bacteria are then
free to scavenge the 'soil' produced in the disease process,
i.e. when the tissues degenerate to a similar frequency as the
microbes, releasing dead organic matter similar to viruses upon
which these microbes feed (remember Wilner's definition of the
HIV retrovirus?). They then excrete this dead matter as waste
products via the bloodstream, faeces or other exudates such as
mucous. The extent to which the bacteria can multiply is limited
to the amount of soil upon which they have to feed and could not
be capable of invading the body to the extent to which science
would have us believe unless there was already an adequate food
supply. Furthermore, as has been demonstrated in Rife's
vibratory work, it is possible for these microbes to mutate into
other forms and even to cancer-causing agents according to their
environmental conditions, defined by the degree of concentration
of waste products and the vibratory rate. The subsequent
systemic and metabolic reaction to these toxic excreted waste
products, such as sore throat and high temperature (the body's
natural way of eradicating the bacteria), are generally the
symptoms of diseases which are given priority in day to day
general medical practice, whereupon drugs are usually given to
suppress them. In giving antibiotics we often succeed in killing
the very microbes which are removing the diseased body's dead
matter during the natural healing process. In doing so we also
open up our bodies to other forms of disease such as fungal
infections which are usually kept at bay by the natural presence
of bacteria.
Another effective cure
for AIDS and cancer has been successfully employed in clinical
practise all over the world for at least fifty years and is a
cure for virtually all germ diseases. This is Oxygen/Ozone
therapy. The principle behind it is simplicity itself and is the
reason why the pharmaceutical companies and drug agencies are so
afraid of it that they have conspired to suppress it also. It is
conventionally accepted that the majority of germs are
anaerobic, which means that they survive without oxygen.
Therefore, if one floods the bloodstream with oxygen, these
organisms cannot survive. Oxygen is one of the fundamental and
most necessary elements to human survival. It exists as air,
water and most of our food sources such as carbohydrates. The
human race has evolved in levels of oxygen far higher than exist
in today's polluted and tree-depleted world and we are all
running on less than is desirable for optimum health; especially
the city-dwellers. Foods and food supplements which release high
levels of oxygen such as in the form of Hydrogen Peroxide are
beneficial to our well-being. Indeed, Hydrogen peroxide itself,
when taken in dilute form or applied directly to wounds is one
of the most effective antiseptics and healing compounds there
is.
I believe disease is the
result of disharmonious energy fields which can be caused by
both physical and non-physical disharmony. Thus, dis-ease can be
eradicated by oxygen therapy because it boosts the immune system
by raising our vibratory rate, thereby making our bodies
healthy. It is a simple fact that disease cannot exist in a
healthy body.
According to the
testimonies of international MD's assembled at the May 1983
Sixth World Ozone (a concentrated form of Oxygen Therapy)
Conference in Washington, D.C.:
Ozone eliminates...
viruses and bacteria from blood, human and stored... Medical
ozone is successfully used on AIDS, Herpes, Hepatitis,
Mononucleosis, Cirrhosis of the liver, Gangrene, Cardiovascular
Disease, Arteriosclerosis, High Cholesterol, Cancerous Tumours,
Lymphomas, Leukaemia... Highly effective on Rheumatoid and other
Arthritis, Allergies of all types... Improves Multiple
Sclerosis, ameliorate Alzheimer's Disease, Senility and
Parkinson's... Effective on Proctitis, Colitis, Prostate,
Candidiasis, Trichomoniasis, Cystitis; Externally, ozone is
effective in treating Acne, burns, leg ulcers, open sores and
wounds, Eczema and fungus.
In 1976, the US FDA
hindered the progress of this form of therapy by stating: "Ozone
is a toxic gas with no known medical uses".
And yet, one doctor
using ozone in his work with colonic cancer patients, Dr Hans
Neiper, from Hanover, despite refusing to divulge the names of
his cancer patients, stated in 1987:
'President Reagan
is a very nice man.' And, 'You wouldn't believe how many FDA
officials or relatives or acquaintances of FDA officials come to
see me in Hanover. You wouldn't believe this, or directors of
the American Medical Association (AMA), or American Cancer
Association, or the residents of orthodox cancer institutes.
That's the fact.'
Oxygen/Ozone therapy
researcher and ambassador, Ed McCabe states:
Let's compare
medical ozone therapy with prescription drugs. In 1978 the FDA
reported 1.5 million were hospitalised in the USA due to the
side-effects of medication. On the other hand, medical ozone has
been legally used in clinics world-wide on a daily basis since
the forties, and in Germany 644 ozone therapists were surveyed,
and they reported 384,775 patients had received 5,579,238 ozone
treatments. The side-effect rate was only 0.0007% during 5.5
million dosages! Yet, each year approximately 140,000 people in
the US die from prescription drug usage.
To this day researchers
maintain that the exact causes of and cures for cancer are
unknown whilst many others who claim that they do know are
frequently the victims of a conspiracy of suppression by
governmental agencies and corporate business interests.
It is vital that we
understand the true nature of disease if we are to be effective
in its eradication. It is imperative that we use the total sum
of our knowledge to combat disease and work together as a
multi-disciplinarian society, not in isolated, self-interested
units. We must open our eyes to the realities and seek the best
of conventional and unconventional medicine. We must concentrate
on why we are ill and not simply seek to eradicate symptoms of
disorders which we often see as inevitable. Disease is not our
natural state, it is not inevitable. It is an outward physical
display of disharmony whose cause is far more significant than
its symptoms. The responsibility for health lies with all of us,
not only with doctors or governments.
How many millions flock
to the doctor and expect some treatment for a symptom, caring
not for the cause but seeking only the relief of discomfort? And
who is to blame them? They are victims of the pharmaceutical
conspiracy too. According to these scientists, and medical
practitioners who find employment within the System, there is
little evidence to give credence to any form of medicine other
than their own. Or so they and we are told.
They seem deaf to the
testimonies of the healers and the healed who stand before them
as living proof of the power of mind over matter, homeopathy and
herbalism etc. It is healthy to be sceptical but there is a
danger of sceptic thought becoming septic thought if it fails to
reason with an open mind and allow for progress. Any doctor who
fails to open their mind to the information such as is presented
in this book is missing the opportunity to fulfil their true
role as healers of the sick. There is without doubt a conspiracy
of wilful ignorance amongst the cult of western medicine, as
even scientifically verified proof of the healing power of
channelled energy has been ignored by the majority of
practitioners.
One smoke-screen which
is constantly employed by the major drug companies is the
regular promise that they are 'currently working on a new form
of treatment which could soon revolutionise the treatment of
'.
Such stories are picked up by the press and t.v science
programmes with great fervour. They are nearly always described
in terms of 'miracle cure' and point out that adequate funding
is necessary for the fulfilment of the prophecy in another 2 or
3 years time. However, when 2 or 3 years time finally arrives we
have all conveniently forgotten about the promised miracle drug
whilst anxiously awaiting the fulfilment of yet further promises
of drugs which are 'hoped' will one day prove to be the end of
yet another terrible disease.
And this is the industry
which denigrates the field of natural health for taking
advantage of the sick and for so cruelly promising fake cures
and providing false hope! The obvious lesson here is that to
disguise your own sins you must accuse your enemies of them and
to always do it before your enemy has a
chance to formulate their defence. Mud usually sticks to the one
it first lands upon. This a political trick which has been used
to devastating effect by the key manipulators of this century in
all areas and has been used to shift public opinion in favour of
some of the greatest atrocities ever committed.
The Elite via
chemo-pharmaceutical companies and food and water production
services penetrate all areas of health care and use it to
promote and execute their policies of population control, mind
control and 'divide and rule', whilst making vast sums of money
into the bargain.
Vivisection
far more than an animal rights issue!
This section is intended
to be read in order that the sinister implications of animal
experiments upon the whole of mankind are thoroughly understood.
I am aware, from personal experience of street campaigning for
animal rights issues, that many people who care passionately
about animals find it simply too distressing to see or read any
form of evidence to this effect. Consequently, I have chosen not
to give practical details about individual animal experiments in
the coming discourse
Instead I will focus
upon the scientific fraud perpetrated by vivisectors and how
their warped ethos that vivisection is a valuable scientific
tool has corrupted the progress of medicine and upset the
delicate balance of the minds of millions world-wide. I seek to
show how vivisection is an integral part of the manipulation of
society (the vivisectors themselves being amongst the most
completely manipulated of all) by the very same consciousness
and indeed the very same people I have already discussed.
Nothing is worse than
vivisection! No other single factor causes more pain, distress
and death to humans and animals.
Nor is there any less
scientific or ethical method of research currently being
employed in industry or educational establishments anywhere in
the world.
Unless you have read the
books and seen the video footage which I and thousands of other
anti-vivisection campaigners have been required to endure,
nothing in your imagination can paint for you anything like the
true picture of the hell of animal experiments. In fact, if you
can conjure up the most heinous spectacle of abuse within your
mind, be assured that this is precisely what is being done
today, but probably much worse, around the world in schools,
universities and research labs owned by private companies and
then some. It is being done with our money, and in order to
provide huge mega-wealthy pharmaceutical companies with
staggering profit and as an excuse to provide jobs for
vivisectors. It is also perpetuated to ensure that mankind never
becomes learned about the true nature, cause and cure of
disease.
Two thousand animals per
minute die as a result of gruesome experiments; that is 250
million per year; approximately 3.5 million per year in Great
Britain alone. Over 75% of these experiments are done without
anaesthetics, and when they are, they are often inadequately
applied. Most experiments are done with public money. 0.2% of
the animals used are for the testing of cosmetics. In Britain
there are merely 19 Home Office inspectors to cover 20,000
licensed vivisectors.
The practise of animal
experimentation has been the mainstay of medical and biological
research since the early 1800s even though it has brought about
not one major breakthrough in medical science. And yet, every
medical student, in order to pass his or her exam and advance in
their chosen career must quote the results of animal
experiments.
How can respect for
life, compassion and empathy be taught to and nurtured in our
doctors through a practise which necessitates the ignorance of
pain, suffering, anxiety terror and death, as is the case with
the training process of US doctors who regularly dissect live
animals as part of their training? The answer is simple: It
can't.
The animal experimenters
are the cornerstone of the highly corrupt and manipulative
pharmaceutical industry. These are a pseudo-scientific
fraternity who earn vast amounts of money for their employers by
performing unbelievably barbaric experiments which can be used
to (falsely) substantiate claims that their drugs are safe for
human use. Dr. James D. Gallagher, Director of Research of
Lederle Laboratories in the Journal of the American Medical
Association, March 14, 1964 stated:
'Animal studies are
done for legal reasons and not for scientific reasons. The
predictive value for such studies for man is meaningless which
means our research may be meaningless.'
There is no British or
European law which states that new drugs, chemicals or cosmetics
must be tested on animals. However, animal testing ensures that
vivisectors get the results they want in order to sell their
dangerous chemicals to an unwary public. In numerous legal
trials of drug companies who have caused fatalities and
injuries, the most effective defence which has been used time
and again is that: 'All of the usual and required testing had
been done to establish the safety of the drug in question'. A
standpoint which most legal authorities are not qualified to
dispute. Indeed, the 'experts' upon whom they call for advice in
such matters are invariably members of other drug companies or
drug sponsored agencies and therefore the animal testing
fraternity.
Animal experiments have
been cited in many court battles over drugs damages claims and
have been used both to defend the idea that such disasters were
unforeseen because adequate testing had been employed, but have
also been successfully used, as in the Thalidomide case in
December 1970, to admonish the drug company (in this case Chemie
Grunenthal) who testified that animal tests could never be
conclusive for humans.
The very idea that a
test or operation done on an animal will show results which are
directly translatable to humans is plainly ridiculous. As has
been stated by some of the greatest and most influential
physicians in medical history: the anatomy, physiology and
psychology of animals is entirely different to our own in many
ways, and this difference is further exaggerated in the case of
animals bred for and/or housed in laboratories. This can be
plainly illustrated in many ways; here are just a few:
The LD 50 (Lethal
Dose 50%) test, which is the standard toxicity technique used to
establish how much of a chemical toxin is required to kill
half of a number of animals. These animals are specifically
bred to be exactly identical in every way, i.e. genetically and
physically they are the same size and weight. And yet, an
equivalent dose of a toxin, in equal quantity and strength will
succeed in killing merely half of the batch whilst leaving
half to suffer varying degrees of disablement. These
results are then haphazardly translated to give the figure for
safe and fatal levels for humans. There are 12 different
methods which determine statistically the safety of
chemicals for humans from animal experiments. These may disagree
by up to a factor of four. It is accepted that animal tests
are successful in identifying cancer-causing agents in only 37%
of cases. This means, in effect, that the results of the
tests are more times wrong than right and are significantly
statistically worse than tossing a coin. As stated by Hans
Ruesch in The Naked Empress or the Great Medical Fraud:
'Two grams of
scopolamine kill a human being, but dogs and cats can stand
hundred times higher dosages. A single Aminata
phalloides mushroom can wipe out a whole human family,
but is health food for the rabbit, one of the favourite
laboratory animals. A porcupine can eat one lump
without discomfort as much opium as a human addict
smokes in two weeks, and wash it down with as much
prussic acid to poison a regiment of soldiers. The sheep can
swallow enormous quantities of arsenic, once the
murderer's favourite poison. Morphine, which calms and
anaesthetises man, causes maniacal excitement in cats and mice.
On the other hand our sweet almond can kill foxes, our
common parsley is poisonous to parrots, and our
revered penicillin strikes another favourite laboratory animal
dead the guinea pig.'
It is fortunate for many
that penicillin was never tested on guinea pigs at the outset
where it would have immediately been discarded as dangerous. And
if you want to prove that vitamin C is useless, withhold it from
the diet of dogs which produce vitamin C in the gut. Moreover,
the whole discipline of surgery and post surgical recovery was
hindered for hundreds of years after the Greek Galen (Second
Century AD) showed through animal experimentation that the
principle laid down by Hippocrates (Fifth century BC) was
incorrect that hygiene and a good diet (as well as
establishing the simple fact that nature heals) was essential to
good health and medicine. Galen maintained this standpoint,
which seems bizarre by today's standards, because animals did
not readily succumb to infections following childbirth and
surgical procedures. Galen's animal experiments caused a
rejection of Hippocratic values and a reduction in surgical
asepsis. This destructive attitude was supported by the Catholic
Church and was
only substantially reversed in the 1800s following the discovery
of the germ and how cleanliness and
sterilisation could prevent bacterial infection.
The following is a list
of drugs which were passed as safe for human consumption on the
back of animal
tests and the damage which they subsequently caused:
Eraldin (for heart
disease) Corneal damage including blindness.
Paracetamol (painkiller) 1,500 people had to be
hospitalised in Great Britain in 1971.
Orabilex caused kidney damages with fatal outcome.
MEL/29 (anti-hypertensive) caused cataracts.
Methaqualone (hypnotic) caused severe psychic
disturbances leading to at least 366 deaths,
mainly through murder or suicide.
Thalidomide (tranquilliser) caused 10,000 malformed
children.
Isoproterenol (asthma) caused 3,500 deaths in the
sixties.
Stilboestrol (prostate cancer) caused cancer in young
women.
Trilergan (anti-allergic) caused viral hepatitis.
Flamamil (rheumatism) caused loss of consciousness.
Phenformin (diabetes) caused 1,000 deaths annually until
withdrawn.
Atromid S (cholesterol) caused deaths from cancer, liver,
gallbladder and intestinal disease.
Valium (tranquilliser) addictive in moderate doses.
Preludin & Maxiton (diet pills) caused serious damage to
the heart and the nervous system.
Nembutal (insomnia) caused insomnia.
Pronap & Plaxin (tranquilliser) killed many babies.
Phenacetin (painkiller) caused severe damages to kidneys
and red blood corpuscles.
Amydopyrine (painkiller) caused blood disease.
Marzine (nausea) damaged children.
Reserpine (anti-hypertensive) increased risks of cancer
of the brain, pancreas, uterus, ovaries,
skin and women's breasts.
Methotrexate (leukaemia) caused intestinal haemorrhage,
severe anaemia and rumours.
Urethane (leukaemia) caused cancer of liver, lungs and
bone marrow.
Mitotane (leukaemia) caused kidney damage.
Cyclophosphamide (cancer) caused liver and lung damage.
Isoniazid (tuberculosis) caused liver destruction.
Kanamycin (tuberculosis) caused deafness and kidney
destruction.
Chloromycetin (typhoid) caused leukaemia, cardiovascular
collapse and death.
Phenolphthalein (laxative) caused kidney damage, delirium
and death.
Clioquinol (diarrhoea) caused blindness, paralysis and
death.
DES (prevent miscarriage) caused birth defects and
cancer.
Debendox (nausea) caused birth defects.
Accutane (acne) caused deafness and kidney destruction.
(Taken from Vivisection:
Science or Sham by Dr. Roy Kupsinel, and Naked Empress by Hans
Ruesch)
Vivisectors often claim
credit for many advances in medicine which have been brought
about by
non-vivisection methods. Frequently, they will quote animal
experiments which show the same results
without also disclosing the pioneering previous non-animal
discovery. One example of this is the case of
vaccinations. Whilst it is certainly true that many diseases
which have decimated mankind for centuries,
such as polio, smallpox, whooping cough, tuberculosis,
diphtheria and tetanus have seen a dramatic
decline over the last century or so, it is not because of the
introduction of vaccinations. Figures show
that such diseases were long in decline before the introduction
of vaccinations and that the rate of fall
was severely impeded once they were introduced. Advances in
hygiene, sanitation, nutrition and wealth
status are the obvious reasons for the improvement of the
world's health overall. Vaccinations are
responsible for causing many of the diseases they are supposed
to cure as well as compromising the
immune systems of the vulnerable, especially babies who are
statistically more likely to suffer Sudden
Infant Death Syndrome within weeks of having their initial
standard vaccinations.
The vivisectionists are
master manipulators. They invest huge amounts of money in
massive PR
organisations such as the Research Defence Society in the UK.
Furthermore, they have infiltrated many
areas of the Anti-Vivisection (AV) movement and have created
much confusion in the minds of the public
as to the truth behind this barbaric trade in misery. An example
of this was highlighted in possibly the
greatest expose of vivisection industry ever written, The
Slaughter of the Innocent by Hans Ruesch:
An interesting case
was the Animal Protection league of Basel. Its president, Dr
Rudolph
Schenkel, professor of ethology, criticised the revival of
antivivisectionist feeling in
Switzerland. Thereafter, the establishment press could
write that 'even the animal
defenders disapprove of the antivivisectionists' views.' A
closer look at Schenkel revealed
that:
1.His league had
received a donation of 200,000 Swiss francs (about $100,000)
from
Hoffman-La Roche, 'for its animal shelter' with no
questions asked.
2.His own wife was experimenting on animals in the
endocrinology department of
Ceiba-Geigy.
When my CIVIS
organisation brought about these facts, Schenkel dropped all
pretence of
being an animal protectionist: at the next convention of
Swiss animal protection groups
(SPCAs), he argued that 'since laboratory animals are a
product of human enterprise, we
can do with them as we please.' (My highlight added.)
(This infiltration
tactic is not solely within the realms of the AV movement but is
widespread throughout
the animal rights movement. This is exemplified at present by
the large scale enrolment of blood-sports
practitioners [fox and stag hunters etc.] with the RSPCA whereby
they are steadily creating a significant
policy influencing force by taking advantage of the apathy of
many members who do not turn out to vote
upon Society matters. The RSPCA also has financial investments
in companies that support vivisection.)
The smoke-screen
perpetuated by vivisectors that it is preferable to test drugs
on animals than on
humans, and the emotive stance that 'it's your child or an
animal', is probably the most effective way that
they ensure public support for their industry. What they always
fail to say is that all drugs are tested on
humans immediately after the animal trials and often without the
patient's knowledge or consent. Those
that are informed of the trial are usually reassured to know
that 'animal studies have shown the drug to
be safe'.
AV supporters are simply
people who have come to realise the truth about this situation
and have
committed themselves to being a part of the process of change
and reformation to abolish this massive
and system of cruel fraud, both for the sake of the animals and
humans. However, they are usually
portrayed in the media as extremists; an inevitable side-effect
of a necessary evil. Ordinary people who
are deemed responsible enough to bear and raise children,
minister to the sick, save lives, handle the
nation's wealth, run for political seats etc., once they have
made an AV stance, are immediately
demoted to, at best 'irrational' and 'oversensitive', or, at
worst, 'people-hating terrorists' with no right to
express an opinion about such matters. Once branded as such they
are given about as much regard as
are the animals in the laboratory cages and are made largely
impotent on the political scene because
MPs do not consider it a wise career move or vote winner to
consort with anyone considered to be
extremist.
In the case of
vivisection, the public is all too willing to accept that it is
a necessary part of modern
progress and not really cruel at all. One reason for this is
because the alternative, i.e. the truth, is almost
too great a burden to accept. Such a stance is often taken in
defence of one's own sanity as a mental
survival technique in order that one does not go mad with the
anger, sorrow, frustration and terrible
empathy which the idea of vivisection evokes in us. Therefore,
the vivisectors have yet another advantage
over the masses in the battle to keep them convinced of the
verity of their cause, whilst the AV
organisations have to face a perpetual uphill struggle against
the tide of wealth, mind control, tradition
and human apathy which is forever on the side of the
manipulators.
As George Bernard Shaw
once stated, 'Whoever doesn't hesitate to vivisect will hardly
hesitate to lie
about it'.
By creating a
'healthcare' (more accurately termed 'ill-healthcare') system
which relies upon the
misleading results of animal experiments, the manipulators of
this century have ensured that, within the
system, the true causes and cures for disease will never be
revealed. This in turn creates a
self-perpetuating industry for the multinationals who, by
creating disease via their drugs, can be assured
of massive funding in order to discover a) the reason for the
drug error, which is guaranteed to involve
further animal studies, and b) further drugs to treat the
results of the initial drug error. In the, by now, all
too familiar pattern: the manipulators perpetuate the problem of
a state of global ill health and therefore
the need for the solution which is offered in the form of more
and more pharmaceutical involvement.
For the sake of your
selves, your children and the animals: WAKE UP PEOPLE! Take back
your power
over your own health and stop supporting these barbaric and sick
individuals. Only you can do this. The
time to do this is now.
Brotherhood Part 10
Web posted at: (http://www.truthcampaign.co.uk)
Reproduced gratefully
from:
http://www.educate-yourself.org