War on Health

War on Health

2012, Health  -   191 Comments
Ratings: 8.11/10 from 97 users.

War on HealthFrom the authors: War on Health is the first documentary detailing and challenging the FDA agenda and its allegiance with the international Codex Alimentarius, which hopes to establish a monolithic food and health regime.

Betraying its founding mandate to assure drug, food and chemical safety in the interests of public health, the FDA today is a repressive bureaucracy serving pharmaceutical and agricultural greed and profits.

Vaccines, medical devices, prescription drugs are fast tracked at alarming rates through the FDA at the expense of scientific oversight to assure their efficacy and safety.

The result is hundreds of thousands premature deaths annually from pharmaceutical drugs, vaccines and medical devices and an epidemic of medical incompetence and fraud sanctioned by federal health officials.

Featuring many pioneering American and European attorneys, physicians, medical researchers and advocates of health freedom, War on Health lifts the veil on FDA's militaristic operations against organic food providers and alternative physicians.

Some other documentaries by Gary Null: Vaccine Nation, AIDS Inc., Gulf War Syndrome: Killing Our Own, Prescription for Disaster, The Drugging of Our Children.

Directed by: Gary Null

More great documentaries

191 Comments / User Reviews

  1. I put a post down lower that the system here won't let me post at the top.

    Basically, the Baby Boomers are the last cash cow for these corporations. Every successive generation is growing more aware, more bitter, and more angry.

    Geoengineering affects everyone... and it is breaking out now from under its "conspiracy theory" rock. This will be the issue that get's everyone to change their lifestyle and realize that they have been chemically manipulated in many ways.

  2. And the 20,000 people involved in the FDA's clinical trials for Prozac turned out to be 7,000 who were able to complete them... the other 13,000 dropped out. (Source: Talking Back to Prozac).

    In the 1990's the FDA was receiving 4-5,000 FOIA's a month from foreign governments through an intermediary US filing company in Rockville, MD who's name escapes me. The purpose was to obtain proprietary formulas for drugs.

    After watching this, my thought is that the foreign governments' seeking to pry that information out of the FDA must have wanted to make their people die or be sick. China was supposed to be the main one. Surprise.

    And then there's Rumsfeld and Aspartame...

  3. Awesome information the only thing we can do as Americans is inform speak out.

  4. The real mystery is... how did this steaming pile of crap get categorized as "documentary"?

    1. you may want to stick to the "Transformers" movies and avoid documentaries.

    2. go back to play with your lego, child. Grown ups are talking here.

    3. Go away. That's an order.

    4. Shhh don't cry.

  5. the music in this doc is loud and so annoying and unfortunately, this is the case with many other docs on this site. not sure if they watch and edit these videos after prodution or just dump it on youtube!

    about the doc content, it's all true. the FDA is nothing but a fraud and in
    fact, it has ganged up with the big corporations to screw the people rather
    than to protect them. also, other entities like EPA, which is fed by big
    corporations and keep a blind eye on many environmental disasters in this
    country. however, we should also remember that supplement business is a multi-billion business!

    about the Codex Alimentarius, all the crooks from developed countries on this planet have gathered together and have formed UN. UN is just a joke and crooked and its function has been modified to benefit the world 1% elite.

  6. Of course the dietary supplement business might also have its fair share of snake oil salesmen, but there is no way to deny what this is really all about: pharmaceutical corporations and government agencies acting in cahoots to fulfill the agenda of complete and total control of the individual food supply on a global scale. If the full implementation of this plan down the road should offer further possibilities to interfere with any and all other human rights and freedoms remaining - and without any doubt it will, as long as most people tacitly consent to their own demise - this would further speed up the process aimed at establishing the final global nightmare of this dark age.

    1. Where is your evidence?

    2. un, cfr, foundations, collectivist academia, intelligentsia, politbureau etc. read their books and papers, see the progressive social engineering and brainwashing, predictive programming in movies and literature, read between the lies and break the noose

    3. You must back up your claims with specific references, not with glittering generalities. Obviously you have no case.

  7. The doc maybe talking about how FDA trying to break up efforts of dietary supplements. But this is not the case as seen from southeast asia as there are plenty supplement products coming from US through MLM scheme.

  8. since FDA is discouraging dietary supplements, I wonder why are there so many supplement product coming out of US to Asia especially. Also there are many such companies favoring multi-level marketing(MLM) as their marketing tool. Does it means all these supplements are not very effective and they are just making claims out of the air or biased review?

    I'm not a person who trust supplements over diet any other day. I do agree supplements consumption for those with deficiency/allergies/illness but not a long term solution. Many people in developing countries in Southeast Asia(base of my network ratio) are telling me that supplements are necessity and they are committed to consume them till authorities told them not to. Many case is a life time consumption. Just exactly what big pharma are doing with their drugs(treating symptom only), but now supplement?

  9. I was just perusing the nasty tĂȘte a tĂȘte toward the 2 month mark. Having 30 years in the feild, I have seen quite alot. I am responding, here, based solely on some of the comments I have seen, have not yet had the time to watch the video and wish this to be known up front. Medicine is as much full of 'quackery' as many of the practices it seeks to subvert and eschew. Each time a medication is prescribed for an off label use this is the case. It is anecdotal evidence, not reasearched evidence which guides this practice. By it's own definition, this is quackery. Medicine, acting under the guise of the 'Scientific Method' has taken it upon itself to be the sole definer of that which it considers proper evidence. It then does not live up to it's own standard, yet obfuscates this fact with bravado and hubris. Not to mention monies. See you when I finish the video. Field-spelling, or mispelling, does not necessarily thwart understanding.

    1. Why do you make general statements without providing examples? What is field-spelling and by the way, the word is misspelling.

    2. Its good to see that other people realize to some extent what is happening. We live in a world dominated by multinational companies owned by the super rich that only have the bottom line in mind and couldn't care less if the poor rich to the poor in the slums die off. The multinationals are destroying our collective freedoms, rights and the right to liberty world wide.

      How can I have freedom if I'm denied even the choice to eat Bill Gates GMO Monsanto health destroying crops? What about my choice of health care? These are basic human rights and those who seek to restrict them are not in favor of democracy, the right to choose, and the right of liberty. These people are the enemy of democracy. Multinational interests are tearing up the constitution with the help of corrupt politicians who work for the very same multinational companies.

    3. You still haven't provided your medical credentials.

    4. when you provide yours I will provide mine

    5. You're the one making unsubstantiated statements, not I. So let's see those medical credentials.

    6. LoL,
      You are making unsubstantiated claims, I am under no obligation to prove your claims. So lets see those medical credentials...

    7. Which claims are these and why do you refuse to provide your medical credentials to back up the claims you make? Is it because you're a fraud?

    8. I used to work in some of these federal agencies as an admin peon. You see everybody's **** from that level because their mistakes are falling on you to fix for them.

      But this stuff? I had pharmaceuticals on my list of 18 things that are being done to, or fed to, the American population to dumb it down or otherwise render it incapable of reacting to reality...

      The baby boomers who trust the medical industry will exit prematurely. They are the last cash cow for these corrupt corporations.

      Each consecutive group will be less tolerant because they have more information and less trust...

      I'm really thinking that GeoEngineering is going to be the issue that break's the collective camel's back because it isn't happening to anyone else exclusively.

    9. Indeed the old order of health care is on its way out. In addition, GMO will be leaving soon as the general public wakes up to the scam that it is. Nutritional science is just beginning to come to light and its absolutely astonishing. I suggest to those interested in nutrition and disease to go to nutrition facts dot org and watch two lectures an apple a day and the leading causes of death... This is the beginning of the real whole food revolution...

    10. I don't see any evidence, just a lot of accusations.

  10. Both 'Sulfur' and 'Sulphur' are acceptable spellings.

  11. By the way, mind sharing a secret - How much they pay you? Maybe me and my colleagues would like to join the circus!b :)

    1. I gladly expose the ignorance you promote for nothing. Asking such a question says a lot about your intelligence and the type of person you are.

    2. Lets start over, if you will. I can see you attack many opinions which makes me curious about you. Won't bother you by my suggestions on the matter, but maybe you would take your time to explain what is the purpose of such persistence? What do you seek by spending your time proving everyone something they don't want to or can't understand while attracting a lot of negative attention to yourself? I mean it without an attempt to insult you, just wish to understand your actions, since clearly your fight does not end on healthcare issues. Sincerely, what is the source of your knowledge and opinions and what are the reasons, your personal reasons, to spread it so insistently?

    3. "What do you seek by spending your time proving everyone something they don't want to or can't understand . . . " Just what is this gibberish supposed to mean?

      However, I'll give you the short answer. I hate ignorance being promoted or masquerading as knowledge.

    4. Thank you for that. We had a bad start partially because I was approached aggressively and I gave an equal response. Please understand that I'm not trying to fight with you. My apologies about the way I express myself, I'm not coming from an English speaking country. However I just have to understand you because you stand out among others and, not having to know you, I can only suggest that you are either a highly educated person that I might like to listen to and discuss with or you are a very ignorant person who has nothing better to do than chat with other ignorant (please don't take this personally). I respect the persistence and your motivation, but lets suggest I want to consider your opinion worthy of my attention, how do I know it is not prejudice speaking? What are the sources of your own knowledge?

    5. You're right. I'm prejudiced--against people who claim knowledge that they don't have which is why I hate all forms of quackery. Before I underwent cataract surgery, I asked my oculist (I was his 6,413th patient) what causes cararacts to which he replied that he didn't know and that the matter was still being researched. If a man with 30+ years of experience can state that he didn't know concerning an issue relating to his field, why can't people simply state that they don't know when they don't and not claim that they do?

      When I wish to learn something, I either try to locate material writtten by someone who knows more about the subject than I do or I seek a qualified person (and I mean qualified in the mainstream sense) to ask directly. I don't guess and I don't claim knowledge that I don't have--and most importantly, I don't mind admitting when I don't know. I noticed that you are tracking my posts. Well, then you will discover that when I have a question on topic of which my knowledge is limited, such as biology, I don't assert; I ask one of several regular posters on this site. Do not take this as self-aggrandizement, but rather as an answer to your question concerning the sources of my knowledge.

      I've answered your question. Now how about answering one from me. Where are you from?

    6. I indeed tracked your posts just to see how you express your opinion on other subjects, since I find your comments on healthcare rather harsh and your character in general intriguing, hope that does not bother you. And thanks for a proper answer. Clearly we have different purposes for being on this website. I keep the gained knowledge and personal research for myself and never join for commenting and discussions online because they tend to end in a very unpleasant ways. Your arguments however got me involved. I hope you consider my first comment impartial as it was intended that way. And the reason why I am not that restrict about healthcare comes from my own experience. No, I won't mention anything about alternatives that work, have no wish to end up in a quarrel... I result in researching alternatives because no doctor so far could explain my health condition or consider it serious enough to continue treating me. At present I wait for a medical card in Ireland, hoping for a new opinion. My premature birth, weak immune system and asthma was in the end explained as a neglect of the GP towards my mother and me. So I hope you would understand my concerns about the quality of mainstream healthcare. I am young and just have to look for ways to improve the quality of my life. So far I only research the alternate and still have hope for mainstream.
      I'm originally from Lithuania, raised in a Russian family, now living in Ireland.
      I laid my background before you, so now you see that for me this subject is personal and I seek an advise and opinion from anyone who can give it, to make my own conclusion afterwards. Thank you for your time and attention

  12. Oh, robertallen1, nice to see you here! AGAIN! :D

  13. lots of fishing going on here; denigrating, consistant, harrassing, behavior stating that there are "quacks" which is an unproven statement of opinion especially when there is no evidence quoted as double blind conclusive peer reviewed evidence at all.

    1. If you're practicing medicine and you don't have m.d. or something indicating a mainstream medical degree after your name, you're a quack. If you're practicing a "treatment" unsanctioned by the AMA or other mainstream licensing association, you're a quack. So it's not a matter of opinion.

      P.S. From everything you've posted, you qualify as a quack.

    2. You are so painful to listen to. Please - make it stop!!!!

    3. I will continue to expose quackery and those like you who support it.

  14. it is well known that surgeons are experts at removing human parts and putting lost parts back together....ie fingers, hands etc they do a great job no question about it...im glad they are around...never know when someone might need one in this insane world. I have/had no problem with surgeons. Surgery is a prime example of an area that doctors are the best in.

    1. So it's just non-invasive procedures that you have problems with? In other words, you have no use for internists, endocrinologists, gerontologists, immunologists, neurologists, pediatricians, radiologists, toxicologists, urologists and the like.

      By the way, just one more time, what type of a "health care professional" are you? How much medical training have you had?

  15. @Achems Razor, Epicurus, Over_the_Edge, etc.

    Give me some help, would you? Two days ago I underwent cataract surgery which turned out quite successfully. I was the doctor's 6,134th operation. If I use this to promote mainstream medicine, do you think I am guilty of employing anecdotal evidence

    1. robertallen1
      if you use the doctors success rate and statistics then no. but if it a personal testimonial then yes

    2. That makes sense. Thank you. As you can see, this mainstream doctor's success rate is sterling. He's been doing this for 30 years now.

    3. robertallen1
      and his success rate says a lot for traditional medicine. also i am glad the surgery went well and you have/had a quick recovery

    4. Thank you. That's my whole point. The quackery promoted by all too many who have posted here could never have accomplished what this doctor and his team did.

    5. Get well soon Mr Allen, not too much winking ok! ;)

    6. Thank you. I can see well enough to read your posts--and once again, you have talent and should seriously consider writing a children's book on a topic you know so well.

      P.S. You still haven't given more your thoughts on the forthcoming abortion clinic in Belfast.

  16. like I said before your mindless dribble attempting to prove who or who is not worthy of questioning, questionable studies is pathetic. Sorry but not all MD'S ARE EXPERTS IN ANY PARTICULAR DRUG.duh In fact only some are. Again you refuse to give any credentials except a bag of hot air! Im Done with you and your pathetic non-evidence based nonsense.Let the people decide who makes sense...
    na na you misspelled again ha ha its congress not contress...Any real researcher wouldnt misspell..Oh yah this is worthy of debate ..what a joke, you must be a serious researcher.

    1. Right, let the peole decide who make sense--and when it comes to medicine, these are the ones who have m.d. after their name. Now, for the seventh time, what type of a "health care provider" are you?

  17. Robert.. you have misspelled too, just go through your posts...Again for the 5 time what health care professional are you? Your seem to think that letters or names make one qualified to bring into question, questionable practices by drug companies. Who cares what letters or names you would like to see as some kind of validation. Here ill make a new one up ..ALHCP total 5 yrs post secondary education....just for you. Happy?
    Yes we know you know that you have never discussed anything relevant including various substances like mercury, sulfer, etc that are well known to be toxic and have been used by doctors to treat ailments.This is the end of my postings to you.nuff said

    1. The letters M.D. at the end of a name mean something to most people, and rightly so, considering all the study and experience it takes to obtain them. So for the sixth time, what type of "health care professional" are you, not that you'll answer which makes me doubt very much that you're a health care professional at all--and this is the real reason behind your groundless accusations against modern medicine and your denigration of it.

      P.S. The word is still sulphur. A real health care professional would get it right the second time.

  18. Ahhh both of you invite me to play your game but are unwilling to play your own game of "peer reviewed scientific conclusive evidence". Neither one can provide proof of any evidence to any questions that I put forth to either of you.Thus I am under no obligation to answer any questions as long as you two refuse. As long as both of you decline to answer any questions this conversation is going nowhere as this is not a conversation, but an interrogation..

    Questioning so called "peer reviewed science" is the heart of the matter. If you need proof that drug companies withhold "peer review studies" that alter the facts of so called "peer reviewed science"(LOL) which alters what is "considered to be factual science" I am willing to provide a list of multiple drugs and drug companies that did just that. Questioning the validity of so called "science" is not only valid but is THE QUESTION at hand. Trying to dismiss any arguement because you say so is just lame. This lame attitude is not adding to this conversation in any way.

    In addition, there is ample evidence on any of the drugs I have listed as to their toxicity, non effacy, and more.

    Conversations are made up by two individuals interacting not a monologue. I find it intresting that you both are completely sceptical of everything I say but dont apply the same scepictism to the so called holy grail of "peer reviewed studies conclusive evidence"(LOL) and give the drug companies the benefit of no doubt.I find that very ironic. Which leads me to think that both of you are stuck thinking in the box of "peer reviewed studies" as the end of all questioning and is infallible.

    As far as what kind of health care professional you are, that qualifys you to dismiss peer reviewed statements is still a mystery. Furthermore, who defines, who is qualified to question "peer reviewed studies" only those who you deem worthy with various letters behind their name?.(LOL)Who has arbitrarly made whom you think is qualified, to be qualified? Once again trying to entice me into playing your childish games.

    Its easy to sit back on your butts and cry where is the proof, proof of this, or proof of that. Even I can do the same thing by transferring the onus of proof as both of you do to me, its simple and I obviously get no answers. Thus I can claim that Ive proved my points by hurling the same accusation that neither of you have submitted anything nor can submit anything. There is no real dialogue other than the same same question put forth time after time. As far as I am concerned this self serving questioning interrogation is over as long as both of you continue in it.

    Ps dont worry ill give you a short list a of some drugs where drug companies falsified "peer reviewed studies" purposely that altered "factual conclusive evidence".In addition, I will provide information about the previously mentioned drugs and their toxicity. Though It may take me sometime..

    1. When asked for evidence, your response is generally pretty much the same, "Find out for yourselves. I'm not offering evidence. It's up to you to prove me wrong." So who wouldn't be skeptical when you state, "there is ample evidence on any of the drugs I've listed as to their toxicity, non-efficacy?" Just what is this ample evidence? And speaking of ample evidence, which deficient peer-reviewed studies would you like us to consider?

      You're right, science and medicine are narrow and for good reason: to keep quacks like you and those whom you support out of its purview. The letters M.D. after a person's name mean something to both professional and layman alike, even if they mean nothing to you. Once again, you haven't told us what type of "health care professional" you are, leaving us the joy and amusement of imagining.

      It's also easy to sit on your butt farting out empty accusations and challenging others to come up with sources to contradict you. I simlpy have too much self-respect to do it, but some take the most convenient route.

      I'm sure I can speak for Over the Edge in stating that we both look forward to your list of drugs for which falsified peer-reviewed studies were conducted and prepared--and take all the time you need to provide it.

    2. There are many many drugs with long questionable historys.
      Once again your ignorance of the toxicity of mercury, sulfer etc is astounding.

    3. I never discussed the toxicity of mercury, sulphur (note "phnur" at the end, as a "health care professional," you should be able to spell the word and histories as well)--I guess you're now trying the same trick with me that you've tried on a large number of occasions with Over the Edge. For the fifth time, what type of a "health care professional" are you?

  19. Once again your disbelief and allegations by dismissing direct quotes from peer reviewed studies is astounding. It is clear that you dismiss any peer review papers that do not fit into your admittedly biased views and as such you obviously cannot be trusted.

    Judging by your comments its clear that your admitted biased disbelief dismisses you as being qualified in any way. Thus you have deceived yourself and are trying very hard to deceive others as well.

    As further proof I am adding a list of just one herb called garlic and its known benefits that you are unqualified to provide.

    Petkov V; on the action of garlic(Allium sativum L.) on the blood pressure. Sovremenna Medizina 1;5, 1950

    Agel M, Gharaibah MN, Salhab AS: Direct relaxant effects of garlic juice on smooth and cardiac muscles. J Ethnopharmacol 33:13, 1991

    Bordia A, Bansal HC: Essential oil of garlic in prevention of atherosclerosis.Lancet 2:1491 1973


    Hikino H, Tohkin, Kiso Y, Namaki T, NishimuraS, Takeyama K; Antihepatotoxic actions of Allium sativum bulbs. Planta Medica 3:163, 1986

    You WC, Blot WJ, Chang YS, Ershow A, Yang ZT, AN Q, Henderson BE, Fraumeni JF, Wang TG: Allium vegetables and reduced risk of stomach cancer. J National CANCER iNST 81:162, 1989.

    Wargovich MJ; Diallyl sulfide, a flavor componet of garlic(allium sativum), inhibits dimethylhydrazine-induced colon cancer. Carcinogensis 8;487, 1987.

    Belman S; Onion and Garlic oils inhibit tumor promotion. Carcinogenesis 4:1063, 1983

    Ip C, Lisk D, Steoewsand GS: Mammary cancer prevention by regular garlic and selenium garlic. Nutr Cancer 17:279, 1992

    Tadi PP, Teel RW, Lau BHS: Anticandidal and anticarcinogenic potentials of garlic Int Clin Nutr Rev 10;423, 1990

    Weisberger AS, Pensky J: Tumor-inhibiting effects derived from an active principle of garlic.Science 126:1112, 1957

    Dorant E, van de Brandt PA, Goldbohm RA, Hermus RJJ, Strumans F: Garlic and its significance for the prevention of cancer in humans: a critical view. Br. J. Cancer 67:424,1993.

    This is just the beginning of your so called all important "qualified" proof. Will you dismiss these studies as you are so apparently "self qualified" to do so with any peer reviewed papers that you choose? I trust that that your medical training is sufficent enough to decipher the meaning of basic medical terminology without the need of a translator?

    By the way, in what dictionary is the definition of science defined as biased peer reviewed studies? Are you able to even provide one peer reviewed study proving that this is true? even one..hmmm pity...Cant provide any evidence but only opinions and baseless allegations...Obviously deceiving is your speciality...

    1. You're the one who accuses mainstream medicine of "biased" peer-reviewed studies. Digression into the well-known beneficial properties of garlic (which is hardly the be all to end all) does not even come close to meeting this requirement.

      Despite being asked to do so, you have failed to provide information as to the type of "health care professional" you are. Once again, judging from your comment two posts back about medical credentials, I doubt if you're very much of one.

      Am I able to provide one peer-reviewed study proving what is true?

    2. ahh adding peer reviewed scientific research is now labeled as digression. Funny how you claim that "its far more intelligent to go with mainstream medicine than with a shady sidetrack quack", "ill go with the (mainstream medicine ie drug companies ) rather than any quackery that you support" intresting. I assume that these statements are non biased based on "peer reviewed conclusive double blind studies"? If not I suggest that someone is blowing alot of hot air out of their human anatomy known as the rectum. In fact, your obvious biases with no supporting evidence dismisses any credibility that you have whatsoever. Any additional, noxious fumes eminating from the rectal area will be understood as just for what it is, toxic waste. Can anyone see a trend here hypocritical perhaps?

      Simple question asked; if you dont understand the question then re- read the question.

    3. The only one blowing a lot of hot air is mikeysbro who has no proof.

    4. evidence has been listed but rejected

  20. First of all, everything written about Rockefeller is well documented history. There is a libary of congress that contains all this information.I suggest that you take a trip and look up the information. Even a basic internet search can find these facts. If you are too lazy to do simple research to verify history that is your problem, not mine as you are claiming.

    Secondly, no medical credentials are needed to read the warning labels on the back of drug packages. I just need basic reading skills.

    Thirdly, you did not answer my question about your evidence that these despotic individuals are not doing what they are doing.

    Fourthly, medical credentials from a biased system that falsifys clinical trials proves only that the information that these so called individuals that hold these "medical credentials" are completely baised. Now why would one go to a completely biased individual knowing already that they are biased based on biased falsified clinical trials? There are many many cases of drugs that have been put on the market with biased information from pharmaceutical companies.A quick research on the net or court documents can easily reveal the names of the drugs and the company responsible.

    In conclusion, your lack of verifying historical facts is your responsibility as you choose not to do any research and your apparent disbelief of what others are writing is self evident. Thus it is my belief that you choose to believe your own disbelief even if historical facts are presented.

    1. I don't have to research your allegations. You make them, you provide the proof and merely referring to the Library Congress is far from adequate. Further, it is not up to me or anyone else to show that these "despotic individuals" are not doing what you allege they're doing. Once again, you allege, you prove.

      And don't try to denigrate the concept of medical creditials by claiming, again without proof that they're the product of a biased system. Do you realize how much education and experience are required to obtain them? Yes, the system is biased--in favor of real medicine not the trash you're promoting.

      Your attempts to place the onus of proof of your allegations on others bears witness not only to the groundlessness of your beliefs, but to your basic dishonesty.

  21. I too am for less government control, however how are we going to protect people against the companies who advertize a product that is bogus ? I any non food idem should at least post the product ingredients and the amounts. I also feel there should be a product date to give the consumer an idea of the age of the product.

  22. Did u watch the documentary? if you did then you would have noticed that Rockefeller was instrumental in closing down all the alternative schools therby creating creating a monopoly in pharmaceutal drugs. Now if you know anything about history you would realize Rockefeller owned standard oil now called esso. At one time many drugs were made from herbs but during the 1930's+ scientists found that they could use petrochemicals to synthisize drugs. A large percent of funding for American university's comes from the Rockefeller institute (and subsiduaries) to the tune of 40%.Everyone knows that universitys run on donations for research.I would have to say that this is just a slight conflict of intrest. Thus he had a vested intrest in funding the AMA as they were loosing money and needed help. This help came from Rockefeller and his petrochemical drugs. Now remember Rockefeller sold crude oil as a health elixer pre 1935. Now who is the REAL QUACK?
    Furthermore on a side note, not only did Rockefeller fund Darwin but his cousin. Darwins cousin dreamed up the eugenics theory. This american theory was borrowed by Hitler and enforced in Nazi Germany.
    In addition, standard oil supplied oil to both sides of the war enabeling hundreds of millions of people world wide to be killed.
    Not to mention how Rockefeller was involved in the steel industry and used child labor,and indebeted his workers into slavery. This gave rise to unions.
    All this is history and I suggest that you might want to do some studying as evidence abounds in almost every field of who these despotic individuals are, and what they are doing now.Including what plans they have for the future. I could write for hours and hours about the evidence, as it is completely overwhelming. Remember that the Rockefellers were made by the Rothchild family who own(ed) the bank of England which in turn owns the Federal Reserve. Rothchilds being directly involved with ww1 as they made loans to the government so England(etc) could go to war and thus into debt.
    All drugs cause necrosis of liver cells (and eventually death), all drugs do not heal. What drugs do is mask the symptoms. Side effect of antiviral drugs is DEATH. Side effect of polio vaccine is POLIO. Side effect of SSRI'S is suicide. Side effect of asprin is DEATH. Almost all street drugs came from the doctors office...FACT.etc etc
    Thus in conclusion the current world wide system of modern medicine is based on biased science(if one can even call it science) and is responsible for tens of millions of deaths world wide and counting.
    Now sir what is your evidence that these despotic individuals have any morals, affiliation to any country, ethics, and are not mass murders. I patiently await your reply in evidence....

    1. mikeysbro
      there are too many conspiracy theories in your post to address them all so i will focus on just a couple.could you provide the proof for the claims of "All drugs cause necrosis of liver cells (and eventually death)" "all drugs do not heal.""most all street drugs came from the doctors office." and if possible could you let me know when you discuss side effects of drugs could you give me the frequency that the drugs cause these side effects? also what i mean by proof is peer reviewed studies performed in a double blind experiment with conclusive results. i am sure you have these facts as nobody would claim as many certainties as you did without being able to back them up. would they?

    2. First of all who are you to decide that peer reviewed studies are science? What is THE definition of science? Is your definition of science the only one? Your definition of science is rather limited. This assumption that peer reviewed studies performed in a double blind study is THE ONLY SCIENCE that exists is more than debateable. Since you assume that double blind studies produced from drug companies on any given drug is science, I say prove to me that these double blind clinically controlled studies ARE science. Obviously you have some proof that these controlled submissions of "peer reviewed studies" are science otherwise no one would make a claim with such certainty as you have without backing your assertions and opinions up.

      Furthermore, prove to me that drug companies do not withhold studies that are contrary to a drugs effacy before being approved by the FDA. Since the FDA does no "scientific studies" to test the VALIDITY of these so called non biased "scientific peer reviewed studies" in order to get any drug approved. The only thing the FDA does is review said "scientific peer reviewed studies" that DRUG companies provide to the FDA(lol). Finally, prove to me why this omission of all "scientific peer reviewed studies" on the effacy of any given drug submitted to the FDA suddenly becomes FACTUAL "peer reviewed science" even though these studies only represent a small limited scope of the entire body of "peer reviewed scientific evidence" that was undertaken. Surely one would have some facts to back up all these certaintys wouldn't they?

      Finally, your assertation that "there are too many conspiracy theories" in my post is nothing more than an expression of opinion. Please submit your corrections in double blind peer reviewed studies to prove with conclusive results that: drugs heal, drugs do not cause liver necrosis, most street drugs did not come from doctors offices. I await your enlightening thesis. Please include drugs that include but are not limited to; cocaine, LSD, heroin, quinine, mercury, sulfur, prozac(aka paxil, zoloft etc). In addition, please include which organ these drugs heal, and which ones did not come from a doctors office. One final thought, please include the safe levels of these currently and previously used drugs that cause toxicity and death. I await your "peer reviewed cilinical conclusive studies".

    3. 1. Questioning the validity of the concept of peer-reviewed studies performed under double-blind conditions not only demonstrates that you don't have the faintest conception of science, but impugns the competence of everything you post.

      2. Over_the_Edge does not have to prove to you that drug companies do not withhold studies contrary to a drugs' efficacy and as you're the accuser, the burden is on you to provide those detailed studies. The only reason I can see for your failure to grasp this simple concept is that you have nothing to submit.

      3. You still haven't told us what type of a "health care professional" you are.

      4. Relegating your accusations to opinions does not grant you immunity from having to back them up.

    4. mikeysbro
      do you have any plans of answering my questions? you make a series of claims that i call you on and in return you ask me to back up claims i never made ( where did i state " drug companies do not withhold studies that are contrary to a drugs effacy" to answer my own question i didn't. so why do i have to back up a claim i never made?) i will back up any claim i did make and if you need a scientific definition use one from and scientific publication and i will most likely agree. but i think it is only fair that you answer my questions before i answer yours. do you agree/ and please don't answer questions i never asked, put words in my mouth or go off on a tangent. that is a tactic used to muddy the waters and distract the conversation from the question asked because i feel you cannot answer them. if you cannot provide an answer within the parameters i provided then widen the parameters but please provide a source so i can double check the credibility of the source.

    5. Let's face it, he has no intention of answers our questions, because he has nothing to answer them with except more blustering superstitions.

    6. mm superstitions? rich real rich.

    7. mikeysbro
      ok i will attempt to answer your questions
      1. "who are you to decide that peer reviewed studies are science? "where did i say it was? but peer review does mean that a proposal is evaluated by experts within a given field.
      2. "What is THE definition of science? " here the Websters definition " knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method" if you have another one please provide it so i cab agree or disagree
      3."his assumption that peer reviewed studies performed in a double blind study is THE ONLY SCIENCE that exists is more than debateable" good thing i never stated anything close to that then
      4."Since you assume that double blind studies produced from drug companies on any given drug is science," i never said that
      5."Obviously you have some proof that these controlled submissions of "peer reviewed studies" are science otherwise no one would make a claim with such certainty as you have without backing your assertions and opinions up. " until you actually provide me with a study i cannot comment on it's validity. my request for peer reviewed studies is backed by the fact that while trying to understand the natural world the scientific method (including peer review) is the most accurate way to the truth.
      6. " prove to me that drug companies do not withhold studies that are contrary to a drugs effacy before being approved by the FDA. " i never made that claim so again why do i have to prove a claim i never made?
      7."Finally, prove to me why this omission of all "scientific peer reviewed studies" on the effacy of any given drug submitted to the FDA suddenly becomes FACTUAL "peer reviewed science" " where did i claim anything remotely similar to this?
      8. your last paragraph is just you asking me to prove your claims wrong. sorry that is not how it works. you make a claim you back it up. i have no onus to disprove your claims . i have answered yours now answer mine.

    8. And sir, where is your evidence for anything in this post, including your medical credentials?

    9. and sir,what are your medical credentials? what is your evidence of shenanigans by those quacks that you are referring to? Peer reviewed studies need only be submitted. Is anything you post supported by any evidence other than continual questioning. Anything of any value?

    10. As you refuse to provide anything approaching sources for your allegations against the mainstream medical industry, none of us have to provide you with any.

      You also stated that you are a "health care professional." Therefore, it is perfectly reasonable to ask what type of a health care professional you are and your failure to provide this information says a lot about you and your qulifications.

  23. This doc shows the point in history the land of the not so free and afraid are at. These branches of government are controlled by foreign big buisness intrests. These individuals have no morals, no ethics, no affiliation with any country, no religion other than self exaltation, and are mass murders. The FDA along with other federal agencys are not protecting the consumer from quacks but they ARE protecting the quacks from the innocent ignorant consumer.

    1. And your evidence?

  24. Of course the FDA has some questionable connections to the corporations they are supposed to regulate. But this documentary doesn't provide much more than a 'because we say so" investigation by people that have an economic interest in relaxing FDA regulation.
    I feel my intelligence insulted by these people.

    1. Thank you! The FDA is not perfect, but it's better to have it than not to have it and at least it puts a damper on the tactics and shenanigans of these quacks, at the same time helping to oversee the mainstream medical industry.

  25. There can be no Governmental body, whether it is food or drugs or industry of any kind that can be regarded as for the benefit of the nation and people if they are run/compromised by companies whose only interest is profit. At a 40% funding ratio, how can anyone regard the FDA as anything other than a professional/government hybrid organization with split conflicts? Even if anyone doubted the belief that the FDA is compromised, evidence of poor regulations and a consistent brute force against anything 'natural' must show its loyalties are for money not public health. So why does it exist?

    And when did 'alternative' become the title of food grown organically? Industrially powerful pesticides etc should be considered the 'alternative' form of food growth. It is madness to say something grown without toxins is 'alternative' to a mainstream food grown with toxins. Part of the problem stems from biological ignorance. Many people don't realise that food you eat can overwrite your own gene sequence. Many people wrongly believe, for a variety of reasons, that genes are 'set'. If they realised that gene sequences are in fact easily overwritten once - but not twice necessarily e.g. overwritten once to switch off function but not twice to switch it on again - they would be much more demanding about knowing that what they eat won't hurt them. If what you eat can hurt you, then what you eat can help you. So why does the FDA hide this information?

    Every cell in the human body is affected by nutrition. Many ailments come from poor nutrition and can be alleviated by good nutrition. To devalue nutrients, ostracize anyone promoting nutrient health, overtly deny access to and prohibit information on nutritional benefits can only be regarded as a deliberate attempt to reduce population wellness levels.

    With regards to quackery, there has always been quackery. But the issue is that Government is supporting and promoting legalised quackery. As outlined in this documentary and numerous other articles, the FDA has approved questionable drugs and hidden the risks. What is this action if not snake-oil quackery with a red, white and blue flag of approval? Quackery is a subjective idea, for example you cannot presume that an individual is a quack but a legally authorised unit is not. Quackery is the deliberate attempt to persuade someone of something known to be untrue or a risk, to lie outright that product 'x' will produce benefit 'y', most likely without risk. The FDA does this and attempts to silence data that conflicts with this quackery objective. The US must put its health above money. And a global totalitarian food agency that is profit and corporate driven can only lead to global breakdown. It is not a solution for global stability.

    I agree with the people in this documentary for not just the US but Europe too. The words 'traitor', 'corrupt' and 'personal liability' need to be instigated into government. People should be labeled traitors if they work against constitutional objectives, be put in prison for profiteering decisions that hurt people, and be stripped of personal assets. Basically you have to take greed out of someone's best interest if they work in public office.

    1. O.K., so all you're saying is let's improve the FDA. It's far more intelligent to go with mainstream medicine than any shady sidetrack.

  26. why does robert like the drug companies so much, i think you need to wake up and stop acting like gorge bush

    1. I'll go with the drug companies (i.e., mainstream medicine) rather than any of the quackery you seem to support.

    2. that mainstream medicine has been around for how long? natural supplements and plants have been used for 1000's of years and by 1000's of cultures. we just come along with the last 3 or 4 generations belief's instilled in us and become ignorant to truth. No one wants to admit their current ideals to be wrong.

  27. Argh I dunno why I always want to cast my stone into the murky pond of this debate. I want people to unite and share knowledge to push humanity into a new prosperous era. I dont feel as if everyone else wants this due to scepticism and stubborness perhaps, but mainly greed. All I want to see is people eat more natural diets, as I believe nature has made all the things we need to be healthy already. We dont need to make trans fats, we shouldnt be killing our natural gut flora with antibiotics, we shouldnt pollute our cities with toxins in cleaning products and perfumes etc. Theres nothing wrong with some of the modern medical breakthroughs, but a lot of them are in response to bad turns we've made in restructuring our diets and lifestyles.

    The reason we tamper so much is greed, and the people that take this route ultimately employ tactics such as those displayed in the doco. We change food in ways that warps economies and has unforseen health impacts, the people who challenge this are "quacks". Thank god I've learnt to decipher quack speak. I

    dont really buy into all the dietry suppliments btw, I think a few are good but I prefer to just get it from the food I eat. But really when we sell such chemically altered detrimental products to our health as I listed in my previous post why is it wrong to sell organic products which are harmless? The world has gone mad and I cant grasp the warped logic which justifies people to defend the status quo.

    1. NaFAmOD... the food you eat is the best medicine, but many on this site are convinced that the FDA knows better. Wow, 6 months and I'm back. I believe that those who deny are trying to protect their fragile egos, as if their belief is their only foundation for exsistence here on earth. Oh well...

    2. Those who deny what?

  28. I wouldnt be so sure the state of the worlds health is doing so great. I cant meet the burden of truth im too lazy haha. Im just a crazy faithful quack lover. Modern medicine didnt work for me, quacks give me better results. One thing I can say is that if they really cared about our health would they sell cigarettes, Alcopops, even soft drinks and worst of all anti biotics? People are slowlyyyyyy starting to wake up but as you guys demonstrate you are perfectly comfortable wrapped up in your scientific reasoning supported by perfectly unbiased pharma companies and it will take a big personal crisis and apithany to change that :-).

    1. People as a whole are living longer--and it certainly is not due to "alternative medicine."

    2. People are living longer but are living sicker. More cancer, heart disease than ever before. Modern medicine doesn't fix it because it is geared towards treating symptoms. You do surgeries to cut out tumors but don't fix the cause of their appearance. You do bypass surgeries but don't address the cause of the clogged arteries. Just give the patient some Lipitor or some other garbage to poison his body more. All chemo therapy is poison. Alternative medicine, if good, addresses underlying causes for disease. The body can heal if it is given the right nutrition and the underlying causes for the disease are removed.
      As for the earlier comment about pharma being allowed to make a profit after performing clinical trials. Who do you think pays for the trials? Do you think they don't chose researchers and labs that will provide the numbers they desire? Aren't you aware of many test results that are buried so that only those that agree with their desired outcome see the light of day? Why are there so many deaths from prescription drugs? Not just mis-use. The side effects are often worse than the disease.

    3. Yeah it just sickens me. Well, it really just scares me. I've seen a lot of people go down hill really fast due to prescription drugs.

    4. I assume that you have in-depth statistics to support your claim that people are living longer, but are living sicker and speaking of living sicker, I assume that you've made a profound study of which age groups (younger or older), etc. are being impacted by this increase in cancer and heart disease.

      I assume that your knowledge and experience in the intricacies of oncology qualify you to assess the quality of operations for removal of tumors and that this acquired knowledge and experience far exceed those of skilled surgeons, especially in fixing tumors of all types. And of course this vast sea of oncological knowledge has endowed you with the competence to comment intelligently on the toxicity of chemotherapy in general.

      I assume that the level of your education in cardiology enables you to critique bypass surgeries, performed again by skilled surgeons, and that based on this level of education, not to mention experience, you have come to understand the causes of cardiological conditions such as clogged arteries far better than those who have spent their professional lives studying them.

      I assume that you've conducted detailed studies into the testing practices of pharmaceutical companies to support your allegations against the industry and with such information at your disposal, it would be child's play for you can lead us to this cache of buried test results. And speaking of pharmaceuticals, you seem to know so much that I assume this knowledge that their side-effects being worse than the disease is based on in-depth studies you've conducted into the deaths attributed to prescription drugs.

      Your claim that modern medicine addresses only symptoms says it all. The only thing you seem to know anything about is quackery--and even that knowledge is at best superficial.

    5. I am one of those who has looked at 'alternative cardiology' as you would put it, after a mild heart attack. That was 20 years ago. I took the 'alternative' route and cleaned out my clogged arteries using the information. I even had an angiogram to prove to my cardiologist that my arteries were clear (less than 20% clogging). They were and I bypassed a bypass operation by 'skilled surgeons' as you would put it. I cheated the medical profession out of almost a hundred thousand dollars. I continue to enjoy good cardio health even though my cholesterol is on the high side. On the other hand, my friends, like you, laughed at me. But in time many of them went through stents and by-passes. I am having the last laugh at them and at you. If I as a layman can understand the underlying cause of arterial congestion and overcome it successfully, I can safely say that these people who have spent their lives on the topic (and still perform such useless surgeries) are charlatans and quacks.

    6. We have only your word for this. So there's no reason to believe you and besides, anecdotes are no evidence of anything.

      I assume you have the medical education and experience to distinguish between necessary and useless surgery?

    7. Um... jsehgal has experienced it, And this may come as a shock to your ego and it could psychologically hurt, but jsehgal doesn't need your approval.

    8. How do you know that jsehgal experienced it, because jsehgal said so? Now what is it that jsehgal doesn't need my approval for?

  29. It didn't take long for the trolls to start in with supporting the quack attacks again. My kudo to Nicolas Mullin and RobertAllen for some well informed, well articulated, and level headed commetary. My hearty laffs to CapnCanard for his canards. May the mystic force be with you Capn.
    Yes... This documentary seems to be little more than another quack assault in their propoganda wars to win over converts to their modern snake oil, plecebo peddling, discredited, naturopathic pseudo scientific authority claims... and to their cries that they're not taken seriously and are not allowed to sell us Wishful Thinking brand mediciine.
    Yep... There's lots of room for improvement with the watchdogs, but would we really rather turn these freemarket charlatans loose on the gullible?

    1. As I've asked one poster on the thread of "The Cancer Sell" twice now, why aren't there HMO's for "alternative medicine?" Do you have any idea why I haven't received an answer?

  30. at least the soundtrack is terrifying

  31. Before taking this documentary too seriously or before even watching it, I suggest goggling quackwatch - Gary Null for an in-depth article by Stephen Barrett, M.D. By the way, Mr. Null is not an M.D. and his educational background might prove enlightening.

    1. If it were only Gary Null talking on the video, your point may have some validity.

      Just listen to many others on the video then, who themselves have impressive credentials.

    2. Like who, for instance?

  32. I've just downed a whole gallon of unfiltered UK tap water and snorted a 7 mile long chemtrail after directly injecting 12 fluid ounces of aspartame into each eyeball and I've never felt better.

  33. It is a recognised fact that food additives in the processed food that the majority of the population of the west and now the east consume has done untold damage to the health of people old and young. Nicolas Muppet takes issue with antioxidents and omega 3's despite their proven health benefits which are demonstrable. I have no doubt the he views Vitamins as bad for us. He is clearly working for the FDA who specialise is promoting poisons of all descriptions in particular the forcing of multi vaccines on new born babies containing mercury. Mr Muppet would rather believe the FDA who are responsible for a deadly outpouring of disinformation on the grand scale. Deaths from FDA approved drugs are in excess of 300,000 each and every year in America alone and yet you Muppet think they are doing a fine job. I'd hate to be one of your kids.

    1. You're putting words in my mouth. I didn't take issue with the health benefits of antioxidants and omega 3's, only the necessity of ingesting these through dietary supplements rather than regular, ordinary food.

      You may believe what you want, I'm not here to infringe on your fantasies about people online that you've never met. I'm not one to feed the trolls.

    2. Regular, ordinary food. Grains, the "staple" of our diet. Vegetables and Fruits, so important. Meats and dairy. Protein.

      Regular? Using methods both crude and increasingly sophisticated food plants have been very unnaturally altered until a mutant is found with what we think are positive attributes. Total harvest per acre and resistance to disease plus less need for water are desirable. ANY other effects were ignored as 1950's-1960's technology was to bombard a seed with gamma rays long enough for genetic change to occur.
      The resulting mutants were planted and after repeating this a thousand times certain mutants inevitably showed these traits.

      Of course, there were many traits, many more that were invisible than were visible. Many were made unable to even germinate due to genetic damage. As it turned out, the chosen strain of wheat, a plant that grows about 18" tall and produces 10 times the harvest of the old wheat plant of the 1800's, had as a by-product a known carcinogen in adequate amounts to be a real concern.

      I don't know if any "staple" grains are still "clean" from genetic manipulation that seems good sense at first but seems always to hold multiple agendas. Corn, rice, wheat are all pretty much GMO in the USA as far as I know. If not, please let me know. Have any available grains escaped this kind of manipulation or were any manipulations actually safe? One?

      I'm dying to know...

  34. There is a cure for addiction that the FDA won't touch. It's called Iboga. It's a root extract from Africa. It has the power to heal the world. **** the FDA.

    1. NeverStop, there are so many things that our current level of thought denies, I would say hubris/arrogance is why we are getting ef-ed. I would reference the doc on Royal Raymond Rife, and no matter what you think of the work of Royal Raymond Rife you may see that there is always an opportunity. Rife used light waves to be able to "see" virus with his microscope. Wacky, but then he took it one step further and used light waves to eliminate the pathogenic virus. It does stretch credibility but at the time he had many who claimed that his methods saved their lives. Then the AMA stepped in and down went Royal Raymond Rife. Look for the documentary "The Forgotten Genius of Royal Raymond Rife"... or take a gander at R Edward Griffin's "A World Without Cancer"... these are not definitive but do shed some light on the whole on some of it all... Ibogaine can work but so can psilocybin or LSD etc. etc. There are multiple cures that the FDA won't touch because profits will be negatively impacted.

    2. maybe u r right but HOW will profits be negatively impacted? Explain that to me please? Seriously, I'm interested.

    3. seriously? Please bear with me a moment... Well, let's speculate that Dean Edgington developed a cure for cancer. I propose that it is likely that Dean Edgington will have a very difficult time promoting his cure.Why? Well because cutting into the bottom line of a standard treatment like chemo/radiation et al would cause the profits and potential profits of standard treatments to possibly diminish, to be negatively impacted/effected. Can we expect them to let a cheaply available cure to happen without any resistance? (In my opinion, this may make them motivated to stop Dean Edgington's enterprise.) Say that the cure were a natural plant product, what happens then? (I very much doubt they'd celebrate and dance in the streets!) All this stuff is economically based motivation. The same is true for energy, imagine what would happen if you were to discover a super cheap replacement for petrol!!! I maintain that it is likely that you'd quietly be shut down very quickly. Keep in mind that all of our wars are generally based on "American Interests" being threatened, which is to say that war is based on economic interests. I maintain that the same is true of medicine and any high profit industry.

    4. No. It would become part of mainstream medicine and the medical industry would stand to make an ever bigger profit from its use.

      Every kook, every quack--the same tired argument, "The only reason my screwball idea (which has no evidence to support it or is completely fallacious) is rejected by the mainstream is because it's so good that it will cut into profits."

      Also, if your statement is true, why is mainstream medicine expending so much effort and money on finding cures (not just one as in your hypothetical) for the various forms of cancer? Why does it not just rest on its laurels?

    5. robertallen1, if only... In a perfect world I would agree, but perfection is an illusion. The expenditures were traditionally paid for mostly by government/public money. So the Land Grant Universities did the hard research work and then Big Industry used the publicly available information to create drugs that they could then profit from. Not saying it was easy, but this system has created monsters. And regulation has been hijacked by interested parties who stand to benefit. i.e. the investment of money by mainstream medicine is declining in relationship to profits, or you could say that they've increased their profit margins... though they would claim that isn't so. The question is: do you trust them?

    6. Where is your proof that regulation has been hijacked by interested parties who stand to benefit?

      Where is your proof that the investment of money by mainstream medicine is declinig in relationship to profits?

      I see nothing wrong with "Big Industry" using publicly available information based on research from Land Grant Universities to create drugs from which they can profit. However, I cannot pass on the truth of your assertion.

      No, the question is do I trust your statements.

    7. Proof? Yeah, where is your proof that huge pharmecutical interests WOULDN'T sell drugs that they know could cause death to patients? And in fact there is the tacit admission that some drugs did lead to the death of patients. In fact, this is why Vioxx isn't available. Remember, originally it was fast tracked, just as Gardisil was. Gee, do you think any deaths may be attributed to those irresponsible acts all to increase profits of the criminal corporations? Gosh, I wonder... Sad, but your apparent inability to pay attention to recent news regarding the Pharmecutical Lobby's "success" makes me suspect that you are beyond redemption, or perhaps you are completely tone deaf and unreachable. Are you, or have you ever been, employed, or in any way accepted any payment from big pharma, big medicine, big insurance or any related industry that profits from the standardized system of "healthcare"?

      BTW I see plenty wrong with Big Industry using the publicly financed research to sell products to the public which can kill members of the public. But by your own admission that isn't a problem for you. If I am to trust your statements, then you are stone cold.

    8. First of all, if you assert, the onus of proof is on you, an onus it is unlikely you are able to meet. Show me your proof that members of the public are being killed through the use of drugs manufactured care of the results of publicly finance research. What is this "success" of the pharmaceutical lobby that you're so up in arms about?

      In addition, you fail to mention that Merck VOLUNTARILY withdrew Vioxx from the market after discovering its deleterious effects THROUGH ITS OWN RESEARCH. So much for the profit motive.

      You also fail to mention that since 2010, Gardisil, also a Merck product, has been approved by the FDA for various types of cancer treatment, except for women between 27 and 45--and I'll trust the FDA before I'll trust any of your nut cases and con men.

      By relying on mainstream medicine, I guess I am beyond redemption, at least in your eyes--but considering that you have nothing better to offer and certainly no qualifications, I hardly consider that a matter of concern.

    9. ok, don't get personal ;-)

    10. Modern cataract surgery entirely supplanted what oculists used to spend their time doing manually. Salk's vaccine entirely supplanted treatment for polio. Open heart surgery entirely supplanted every form of cardiac treatment before it. In many instances, non-invasive treatment is supplanting what used to be attempted through surgery. Stool softeners have supplantated laxatives. So much for your speculation anent cancer cures. Now, where's your evidence for rejection of proven treatments by the mainstream medical industry for the sake of preserving the financial status quo--and I don't mean quack "treatments" discredited by mainstream science for biological untenability, lack of clinical testing or failure to pass clinical tests .

    11. robertallen1, I will agree that there are many useful techniques that are highly successful but they aren't the whole picture and the overall benefit isn't necessarily as positive as we've lead to believe. Polio still effects those who had polio despite Salk's vaccine. BTW, Salk gave his vaccine away free without expecting to make money and he didn't make any money on it! BTW, that's called altruism. Do you think Merck or GSK or any other Pharmecutical company whom you appear to defend are likely to give away such a vaccine? And eye surgery is great, but unfortunately sight isn't a life or death issue. Personally I have an affliction that may put my in wheel chair and has already diminished my vision but the drugs they want me to take are very expensive and potentially deadly with side effects I don't look forward to. Hmmm, I have chosen life. What would you choose?

    12. Dr. Salk certainly placed his research over his personal profit, but where you got your assertion that he gave his vaccine away for free is beyond me, just as it's beyond me to see anything wrong with a pharmaceutical company making a profit from clinically-tested and approved medications. And just how do you know that polio still affects (note spelling) those how had (or do you mean have) it despite Salk's vaccine? From another doctor friend?

      Whether sight is a life or death issue is irrelevant to the point I was making--and you know it.

      Throughout your posts, you come across as someone who feels he knows more than the doctors with umpteen years of education and experience (I wonder what your background is by comparison)--well, it's your life.

    13. I am glad that you admit that Salk didn't profit from his great work as much as he could have. (well, gosh, I apologize for not getting all the information re post polio syndrome in a little post on a semi obscure "Top-Documentary" website.)

      Your quote is very telling:

      "Throughout your posts, you come across as someone who feels he knows more than the doctors with umpteen years of education and experience (I wonder what your background is by comparison)--well, it's your life."

      Curious, I am just giving my opinion and you appear to behave as if you've been besmirched. If I offended you, I apologize but I can't see where I personally singled you out.

      I only have "umpteen" years spent listening to doctors. And no I don't put them on a pedestal. They are human and they make errors just like we all do. As do Pharmacists, researchers, scientists, engineers, lawyers, politicians, economists, bankers, Wall Street traders... If only they were as perfect as your faith in the FDA would seem to imply... if only. If this documentary is so upsetting then please, I implore you, make your own doc to counter the argument of the multiple doctors and researchers and other professionals who support this doc. I look forward to seeing it.

    14. Unless you have something to back it up, your opinion is worthless.

      And yes, we all make errors, even the FDA--but is this any reason to choose quackery over mainstream science?

    15. Radionics--what a joke! Read about it and Mr. Rife on Quackwatch.

    16. Radionics? No, Rife developed a a quartz microscope that was allegedly far more powerful than ever expected, he claimed that he could see a virus in real time by illuminating them with light frequency (particles of dye are to large---"the mouse can't swallow the elephant"), it still sounds unbelievable but it could be tested and repeated. But the current status quo is unlikely to want to invest and/or change as there is far more money in the current system. And there isn't enough doctors and researchers willing to step out of line and demand more research and investigation as it may threaten to kill the goose that lays those golden eggs.

    17. Rife's claims could not be independently verified and were discredited by mainstream medicine (the only type that counts) in the '50's, to be revived a few decades later by the quacks you support.

      If Rife's claims had had any validity, there would have been a lot more research conducted and if the research turned out positive, his "treatment" would have become part of mainstream medicine with greater profits to be made. So there's a good reason why doctors and researchers are unwilling to "step out of line and demand more research," why throw away good money on a dead end?

    18. The power to heal the world? Isn't that the job of Jesus? There is no panacea, grow up!!!

    19. No, it's the job of man.

    20. I agree bob, I was being sarcastic ;-)

    21. I like your posts, but please, my name is Robert.

    22. "The power to heal the world?"

      ? Isn't there an app for that.

    23. I usually just wrap my head in tin foil but then i'm old skool...

    24. The "Lord" works in mysterious ways my friend. You have no idea what Iboga is, so don't knock it.

    25. I do and I don't like it.

    26. Wrong! I know what it is and I'm knocking it. What else you got?

    27. The real problem is that there will be some i*iots and m*rons who will take NeverStopTrying seriously

    28. I hope to God that people with addiction and depression do take me seriously. These people need a window to break through, and Iboga offers this. It's not the ultimate solution, but it's the window that addicts require to get well. Also, don't call people names... it shows a lot.

    29. What else do I have. Nothing. I have watched people be cured of addiction, mental illness and many persoanlity disorders because of a natural plant. You have your opinion and I have mine. I think you were going to "tell on me" to the moderator of this site, but you need to know that the owners are English and in England, Canada, Mexico, Africa and much of Europe, Iboga is legal and proven to be very safe and effective in saving peoples' lives.

    30. And, of course, you have the appropriate medical qualifications (including education and background) to determine whether someone has been cured of addiction, mental illness or personality disorders through iboga. In short, what you have seen has as much value as your opinion--none.

      For your information, iboga has been banned in Belgium, Poland, Denmark, Croatia, France and Switzerland. In the United States, because it is a hallucinogen with dangerous side effects, it can be obtained only through prescription. So as far as the US, unless you are an M.D., by recommending it over this thread, you are in essence practicing medicine without a license and I will indeed "tell on you" and ask for interference by a moderator.

    31. My last reply. I am a Crisis/Addiction Counselor, so, yes, I do have some expertise here. I am not a doctor and I do believe Iboga needs to be taken under supervision. Bottom line, I'm not trying to sell anything. If you knew what a gift Iboga was, and if you dealt with people EVERY DAY that are in living hells, but could be released in less than 48 hours, I'd hope you'd want to help. Take care.

    32. Whether it's a gift has yet to be seen as no comprehensive clinical studies have been performed. However, none of your posts contain the admonition that iboga must be taken under medical supervision, A SERIOUS OMISSION, especially from a "crisis/addiction counselor."

    33. It certainly has the power to heal the world--in a hallucinogenic way.

  35. The credit for this documentary goes to the dietary supplement industry and its financial interests, at least if you would believe the wikipedia sources on the organisations mentioned here. Until someone proves to me otherwise, I might as well go with "established" facts and not spend hundreds of dollars on algae extracts, antioxidants and fish oil. It's a fact that our government health institutions exist largely to protect the corporate interest, but that doesn't mean we should buy into whatever these people sell just because it promises more for our health for less money.

    When it comes to healthcare and nutrition, people have always relied on authorities to tell them what they should and shouldn't stuff into their mouthes. The dietary supplement industry is just another self-proclaimed authority, and like the lobbyist-governed FDA its top priority lies with your money, not your health. But unlike the FDA, which recognises the value of concepts like peer-reviewed studies and double-blind trials, the supplement industry owes its claims of efficacy not from recognised scientists, but rather from recognised bestsellers of books.

    The message this documentary attempts to get through is "they are untrustworthy, so trust us instead". It doesn't amount to anything more than petty propaganda warfare.

    1. unfortunately, your post still manages to support the same system that has approved and fast tracked such wonders like Vioxx and Gardisil! beautiful... such drugs have proven to be deadly to many of those unfortunate enough take them. Long story short: the best medicine is food. Good quality food, preferably organically grown without pesticides/herbicides etc. Allopathic medicine is just a liscense to capture the market without alternative to the consumer. So much for freedom.

      Yes it is a propaganda war, but people are losing this war to those in power. The Supplement people are not nearly as strong as the well healed FDA backers, the status quo. So in essence we are made sick all in the name of keeping the wealthy even more wealthy.

      I like to say it this way: Economic interests trump scientific interests. i.e. science will get screwed and it will never be admissible as evidence in a court of law or even in the peer reviewed FDA. Profit is far more important than safety.

    2. good points.

  36. I imagine that if a very small group wanted to take over a very large group then the first thing you would need to do would be to take over the means of money creation and production, move that away from the large group to another land not affected by the larger group then cull the larger group to a point were the small group can control them, messing with their food would be a way to make them reproduce less and live shorter lives.

    I suppose you could find that story in any si-fi novel involving a small group of aliens taking over a world of billions, of course if the aliens look like the people then it does make the story a bit plain and earthly, don't know i am simple.

    1. Well said Simon. Perhaps the aliens that resemble people could create and unleash a virus on the world and then use their control over the media and governments to scare the people into taking an experimental gene therapy cloaked as a vaxxine which will ultimately turn the larger group into soulless zombies who are mindlessly obedient to the small group of aliens. Things are not as simple as they seem.