In your opinion, should the government regulate medicines that are non-toxic and proven harmless?
We're not talking about whether the government should pursue mountebanks and incompetents, because that's a given. If the government is not allowed to tell you what to watch on tv, or what kind of car to drive, what Constitutional empowerment entitles any government agency to regulate plants and herbs that were growing on the earth long before there were any government? Of all the issues I've encountered in the past a thousand books, not a one even approaches the deadliness of this issue. People make a big deal out of 911day, when in fact it was a minor event. More than three thousand Americans are killed every week, deader than doornails, every single week JUST from bad reactions to medicine, if you consider death to be a bad reaction. Did you know that all the chemotherapy and radiation treatments all added up together do not help eree of every one hundred patients. In the event that you believe you're in the know, as a doctor or researcher, teacher or news analyst or simply as a reasonably educated individual, let's be certain that you understand the most optimistic numbers produced by the CDC in Atlanta, or any other major medical institution. Ninety-seven out of every one hundred patients who receive chemotherapy or radiation die, from the cancer or from the treatment. Currently, one million Americans are diagnosed each year with cancer, 500,000 Americans die every year from cancer. It is true that only few as 93 of every 100 cancer patients who have epithelial cancer die from the cancer or the treatment. Regarding non-epithelial cancers, which makes up the bulk of all cancer cases, 9,999 out of every 10,000 cancer patients die from the treatment or the radiation. Feel free to call the CDC to ask where you can locate documentation to repeatedly support the reiteration of those numbers. Between 1900 and 2000, no less than six separate cure for cancer were proven. Granted, most of them "only" work fifty to eighty percent of the time, which is more than forty times the success rate of chemotherapy or radiation. Discomfort multiplies with the use of "success" and "chemotherapy/radiation" in the same sentence because in every single case, the immune system is killed off, and a host of horrible side effects accompanies more than ninety-nine percent of all chemotherapy or radiation treatment.Statistically speaking, only a foolish person would even consider chemotherapy or radiation as a treatment for any of the non-epithelial cancers. The FDA approves chemicals that pediatric cancer patients are told will result in "an acceptable reduction of IQ of no more than ten to twenty points." Please do not think that there is a "maybe" or "possibility" or even "probability": EVERY child with cancer who undergoes radiation treatment suffers brain damage so severe that one of the consequences is a reductiobn of IQ of at least 10 to 20 points. Not once since cancer was first identified has a natural approach killed any patient, or made a tumor worse. From hydrazine sulfate to synthetic carbonyls, there are a growing number of inexpensive natural cancer remedies that do not use poison to kill a tumor, rather, using natural substances to restore the body back to normal, where the immune system is empowered instead of depressed. That's a main point in itself for any critical thinker Let's say I have a barely average intelligence, and read a book or two per day for a thousand days and beyond. Is it fair to think that some fair-sized body of information exists between my ears? Heaven and modesty forfend that your author might be one of the seven in every hundred who make a conscious effort to squeeze more out our natural tools, for asseverating that such is the case may well be construed as arrogance, if not arrogation of licit claim of superiority in the arena of cerebral function. You're free to conclude as you wish, provided you acknowledge silently that this is not being written by a moron. I do not to my knowledge have cancer, and I'm fairly certain that beating cancer is not a big deal for those willing to use the methods that have proven to be most successful. This is shared with you to make certain you understand that the ax I'm grinding is yours, and I'm grinding it for you. That leads to a question. Let's say you have six natural approaches to cancer, and they all have 50 to 80% success rates. On the other hand, you have chemotherapy and radiation treatments, all of which are listed by the FDA as carcinogic, In every single case they depress the immune system, killing the immune system as certainly as it tries to kill the tumor. In approximately one case out of every two to three hundred, the tumor does shrink or, at the least, stop growing.temporarily. In one hundred cases out of one hundred, the patient is sickened or killed by the toxic treatments. Do you understand those numbers? I could care less what your opinion or mine on the subject; only the facts can be allowed to influence decisions. Your forgiveness is begged for my stating that, even when you add up the total reading material of every human being that you know personally, that total is not equal to what I've read to date; it doesn't even come close. In my childhood alone I read entire sets of encyclopedias for personal entertainment and enrichment. In the natural arena you have no less than half a dozen proven remedies that work to cure cancer into total or near-total remission. No patient has ever died from such natural treatment, which cannot be patented by pharmaceutical companies, who comprise the only industry on earth richer than the oil companies. Those natural remedies work between fifty to eighty percent of the time. In cases where there has been zero toxic treatment with chemotherapy or radiation, the success rate of natural remedies is even higher than the fifty-to-eighty percent range. Please explain what could possibly induce you to engage in toxic treatments guaranteed to break the patient's health along with costing hundreds of thousands of dollars, when there are so many inexpensive ways to use healthier natural remedies? What in blazes are all those people thinking? Not one patient in twenty gets any observable or realized benefit from toxic cancer treatments, yet the drug companies and doctors who promote these deadly approaches are getting wealthier and wealthier and wealthier. The one and only reason why human life expectancy has appeared to go up by thirty years in this past century is the vast reduction in infant death. When you discount this, you're left with about five to seven years more life. Did you know that if your Doctor.USes any nontoxic treatments with cancer patients he is immediately threatened with losing his medical license and going to jail? Even when Congress finally started to wake up to FDA abuses, far worse than those committed by the IRS, by passing a bill prohibiting FDA or AMA action against a doctor who choses to use non-toxic remedies for cancer, the FDA and AMA continue to act with definably criminal intent. On several occasions, erstwhile FDA Director David Kessler has stated that "the American people are not smart enough to know what is best for them. That is our job." The one-time director of the National Cancer Institute has specifically stated that he is "totally uninterested in a cure for cancer, or finding what causes it." As long as they continue studying cancer and its properties, job security is assured, and a job with the pharmaceutical industry. More than two of every three FDA employees who leave the FDA go to work in the industry that the FDA regulates. Who in the Washington, DC chain of command is on drugs? Oh. No, that's US that's on drugs. Toxic killer drugs. Think I'm exaggerating? Look at the literature for ANY and every single chemotherapy or radiation cancer treatment. 97 to 99 of every 100 die from the cancer or the treatment. Natural approaches work better, cost less, and leave the patient without all the side effects associated with death and dying. The U.S. Congress needs to act unilaterally to impose criminal sanctions on anyone at the FDA regulating or seeking to regulate non-toxic and harmless substances. Those that don't work will not survive in the marketplace. Those that do work will help us to save many hundreds of thousands of lives every year, hundreds of billions of dollars, and countless sicknesses. As well, a prohibition on any government employee going to work as consultant, employee, or executive for any industry being regulated by the agency they work at. This is both impossible and achievable. Impossible to happen without Congress doing so, and Congress, including your elected represenatives, are now accepting far too many dollars from the pharmaceutical industry, will never make that change unless their constiuents force the issue. It is achievable when people such as the human reading this sentence shut up and get busy with the telephone, telegram, snail mail or flowergram or strippergram