War on Health

War on Health

2012, Health  -   191 Comments
8.11
12345678910
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

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

191 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
DIMOJABE
DIMOJABE
9 years ago

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.

DIMOJABE
DIMOJABE
9 years ago

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...

mycial
mycial
10 years ago

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

Sy2502
Sy2502
10 years ago

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

minerva
minerva
10 years ago

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.

quisanum
quisanum
11 years ago

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.

locus life
locus life
11 years ago

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.

locus life
locus life
11 years ago

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?

Caiteach Dubhglas
Caiteach Dubhglas
11 years ago

I was just perusing the nasty tête a tête 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.

Caiteach Dubhglas
Caiteach Dubhglas
11 years ago

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

HollowSoul
HollowSoul
11 years ago

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

HollowSoul
HollowSoul
11 years ago

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

mikeysbro
mikeysbro
11 years ago

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.

mikeysbro
mikeysbro
11 years ago

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.

robertallen1
robertallen1
11 years ago

@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

mikeysbro
mikeysbro
11 years ago

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.

mikeysbro
mikeysbro
11 years ago

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

mikeysbro
mikeysbro
11 years ago

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..

mikeysbro
mikeysbro
11 years ago

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

Lau BHS: DETOXIFYING, RADIOPROTECTIVE AND PHAGOCYTE-ENHANCHING EFFECTS OF GARLIC. Int Clinical Nutr Rev 9:27, 1989

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...

mikeysbro
mikeysbro
11 years ago

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.

DrSonny Thompson
DrSonny Thompson
11 years ago

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.

mikeysbro
mikeysbro
11 years ago

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....

mikeysbro
mikeysbro
11 years ago

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.

KsDevil
KsDevil
11 years ago

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.

thissomeoneuk
thissomeoneuk
11 years ago

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.

ross2295
ross2295
11 years ago

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

NaFaMod
NaFaMod
11 years ago

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.

NaFaMod
NaFaMod
11 years ago

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 :-).

d sadler
d sadler
11 years ago

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?

Vinicius Santos Rodrigues
Vinicius Santos Rodrigues
11 years ago

at least the soundtrack is terrifying

robertallen1
robertallen1
11 years ago

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.

Dean Edgington
Dean Edgington
11 years ago

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.

sean c
sean c
11 years ago

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.

NeverStopTrying
NeverStopTrying
11 years ago

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.

Nicolas Mullin
Nicolas Mullin
11 years ago

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.

Simple Simon says
Simple Simon says
11 years ago

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.