from GreenMedInfo

The Polio Global Eradication Initiative (PGEI), founded in 1988 by the World Health Organization, Rotary International, UNICEF, and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, holds up India as a prime example of its success at eradicating polio, stating on its website (Jan. 11 2012) that “India has made unprecedented progress against polio in the last two years and on 13 January, 2012, India will reach a major milestone — a 12-month period without any case of polio being recorded.”

This report, however, is highly misleading, as an estimated 100-180 Indian children are diagnosed with vaccine-associated polio paralysis (VAPP) each year. In fact, the clinical presentation of the disease, including paralysis, caused by VAPP is indistinguishable from that caused by wild polioviruses, making the PGEI’s pronouncements all the more suspect.¹

According to the Polio Global Eradication Initiative’s own statistics² there were 42 cases of wild-type polio (WPV) reported in India in 2010, indicating that vaccine-induced cases of polio paralysis (100-180 annually) outnumber wild-type cases by a factor of 3-4. Even if we put aside the important question of whether or not the PGEI is accurately differentiating between wild and vaccine-associated polio cases in their statistics, we still must ask ourselves: should not the real-world effects of immunization, both good and bad, be included in PGEI’s measurement of success? For the dozens of Indian children who develop vaccine-induced paralysis every year, the PGEI’s recent declaration of India as nearing “polio free” status, is not only disingenuous, but could be considered an attempt to minimize their obvious liability in having transformed polio from a natural disease vector into a man-made (iatrogenic) one.

VAPP is, in fact, the predominant form of the disease in developed countries like the US since 1973.³ The problem of vaccine-induced polio paralysis was so severe that the The United States moved to the inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV) in 2000, after the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommended altogether eliminating the live-virus oral polio vaccine (OPV), which is still used throughout the third world, despite the known risks.

Polio underscores the need for a change in the way we look at so-called “vaccine preventable” diseases as a whole. In most people with a healthy immune system, a poliovirus infection does not even generate symptoms. Only rarely does the infection produce minor symptoms, e.g. sore throat, fever, gastrointestinal disturbances, and influenza-like illness. In only 3% of infections does virus gain entry to the central nervous system, and then, in only 1-5 in 1000 cases does the infection progress to paralytic disease.

Due to the fact that polio spreads through the fecal-oral route (i.e. the virus is transmitted from the stool of an infected person to the mouth of another person through a contaminated object, e.g. utensil) focusing on hygiene, sanitation and proper nutrition (to support innate immunity) is a logical way to prevent transmission in the first place, as well as reducing morbidity associated with an infection when it does occur.

Instead, a large portion of the world’s vaccines are given to the Third World as “charity,” when the underlying conditions of economic impoverishment, poor nutrition, chemical exposures, and socio-political unrest are never addressed. You simply can’t vaccinate people out of these conditions, and as India’s new epidemic of vaccine-induced polio cases clearly demonstrates, the “cure” may be far worse than the disease itself.

¹ Cono J, Alexander LN (2002). “Chapter 10: Poliomyelitis” (PDF). Vaccine-Preventable Disease Surveillance Manual.
² http://www.polioeradication.org/Dataandmonitoring/Poliothisweek.aspx
³Strebel PM, Sutter RW, Cochi SL, et al. Epidemiology of poliomyelitis in the United States one decade after the last reported case of indigenous wild virus-associated disease. Clin Infect Dis 1992;14:568-79.

Please visit GreenMedInfo to access their vast database of articles and the latest information in natural health.

Related Posts (automated):

• Fluoride Poisoning: It’s All Over
• What they won’t admit about measles outbreaks: Most children who catch measles were already vaccinated
• Cannabis Treatment Threatens Deadly Painkiller Industry
• The Farm Bill is a Climate Bill
• Dow’s Deadly Harvest: The Return of Agent Orange

Monsanto is not simply a company who sells genetically modified products to those seeking them.

This massive corporation is actually very much involved with the passing and proposals of regulations concerning the very GM ingredients they are responsible for.

You may think those helping to pass the GMO bills truly believe that genetically engineering the food supply is beneficial to public health, but the scary truth is that many of said individuals couldn’t care less about humankind or the future of the planet. As far as many government regulators are concerned, Monsanto can spread its wings far and wide – so as long as those in power are living large.

Exposing Monsanto’s Financial Interest in Government

During the 3rd quarter of 2011, biotech giant Monsanto spent a whopping $2 million lobbying the federal government. The lobbying focused on issues like regulations for genetically modified crops and patent reforms, a previous report says. The recent lobbying was aimed at the US congress as well as the USDA to weaken regulatory requirements for the production of GM sugarbeets and alfalfa. This kind of lobbying from Monsanto has been going on for years, with over $8 million spent annually over the last few years.

It is this kind of government lobbying that ignites so much backing from government agencies like the USDA. In 2011 the USDA was going to let Monsanto conduct its own environmental studiesas part of a two-year USDA experiment. But there is no good that can possibly come of an experiment where the company behind nearly every genetically modified crop in our daily diets is allowed to decide whether its products are causing any environmental harm. Allowing a company with such incredible negative influence to police itself will only result in individual and environmental harm.

More recently, the United States Department of Agriculture has decided to deregulate two of Monsanto’s genetically modified seed varieties, giving the company a further grasp on the already dominated food supply of the nation.

Amazingly, it gets even worse.

What may be most shocking is the latest  leaked information regarding Monsanto and its future expansion. The United States is threatening nations who oppose Monsanto’s genetically modified (GM) crops with military-style trade wars, according to information obtained and released by the organization WikiLeaks.

The WikiLeaks cable reveals that in late 2007, the United States ambassador to France and business partner to George W. Bush, Craig Stapleton, requested that the European Union along with particular nations that did not support GMO crops be penalized. Perhaps the most shocking piece of information exposed by the cables is the fact that these U.S. diplomats are actually working directly for biotech corporations like Monsanto.

Amazingly, this is not the only case of corruption revealed. In similar newly released cables, United States diplomats are found to have pushed GMO crops as a strategic government and commercial imperative. Furthermore, advisers to the pope were specifically targeted by the United States. This may very well have to do with the fact that many Catholic bishops and figureheads have openly denounced GMO crops.

Given the evidence revealing Monsanto’s ability to ‘legally’ persuade government officials, it seems the company is obviously pulling every move they can possible make in order to push their health-endangering agenda.

Related Posts (automated):

• WWF beds with Monsanto to steal public lands, promote GM crops
• Court rules organic farmers can sue conventional, GMO farmers whose pesticides ‘trespass’ and contaminate their fields
• GM Foods Touted “Benefits” are Actually False Claims
• Frito-Lay sued for labeling its GMO-filled snacks as “All Natural”
• Published review highlights lack of proper GMO safety studies in scientific journals

Pharmaceutical painkillers are now responsible for more deaths in the United States than heroin and cocaine combined.

These pharmaceuticals are responsible for more than 15,000 deaths conservatively in 2008 alone. With no sign of slowing down, the painkiller industry is becoming wildly popular among Americans — as a result, so is the high rate of painkiller abuse.

Classified as dangerous by the U.S. government, cannabis (even in THC-free form, or free of psychoactive effects) has been identified as a powerful pain reliever in more than 80 peer-reviewed studies.

You may be aware of the fact that marijuana is usually quite high in THC (delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol), which is the compound responsible for the psychoactive effect of cannabis.

In contrast, it is also low in CBD (cannabidiol) content. Both THC and CBD are known as cannabinoids, however, which interacts with your body in a very unique way.

In fact, cannabinoids are key when it comes to pain relief. While this information alone is enough to shatter the traditional beliefs on government marijuana regulation, the relationship between CBD and THC is even more revealing.

What you may not be familiar with is how CBD has been shown to block the effect of THC in the nervous system. This allows for marijuana to be used with little or no psychoactive effects. Hemp, on the other hand, is high in CBD and low in THC. This is due to the fact that it is bred to maximize its fiber, seeds, and oil. Of course these key properties are what it is most commonly used for.

Trials Indicate Cannabis as an Effective Treatment for Chronic Pain

In a 2011 study published in the British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, researchers examined the effects of cannabinoids on chronic pain and proper sleep. What they found in their trials challenges federal government claims that cannabis has ‘no accepted medical use’. The researchers conducted 18 trials using cannabinoids in the treatment of chronic pain, and found that cannabinoids demonstrated a significant painkilling effect as well as noticeable improvements in sleep in 15 of trials. Compared, to placebo, the cannabinoids were extremely effective.

Most importantly, there were no adverse effects.

Another study, performed in 2002, reached similar conclusions. Finding cannabis to aid in pain relief as well as quality of sleep, researchers from the McGill University Health Centre stated in summary that cannabis can be used as an effective way of improving pain, mood, and sleep in some patients with chronic pain.

There are many forms of the cannabis plant, many without mind-altering properties, many of which can be utilized without adverse reactions, as detailed in the peer-reviewed research. It is also quite clear that the painkiller industry simply cannot continue to wreak havoc on the lives of many, and a natural alternative must soon emerge to prevent another 15,000 plus deaths this year.

Why is the federal government refusing to admit the medicinal properties of cannabis and the unique ability of this substance to curb pain, insomnia, and impaired mood? This is only one example of how the government decides what is and what is not good for your health.

Explore More:

1. Why is Marijuana Illegal? | Examining the Health Aspects of Cannabis
2. Prescription Painkiller Deaths on the Rise
3. Magnetic Fields Now Used in Cancer Treatment
4. Foods for Sunburn Treatment and Protection
5. African Country Threatens to Jail Parents for Skipping Polio Vaccination
6. ‘Cause Labeling’ Threatens Future of Humankind

Related Posts (automated):

• Feds Order CA Medical Marijuana Dispensaries to Shut Down Within 45 Days
• Cannabis As Medicine – the Medical Uses of Marijuana
• What America Would Look Like If Marijuana Were Legalized Tomorrow
• Marijuana Fanaticism – The Argument Rages Because It’s Become a Religion
• America’s First House Made of Hemp

Climate Change activists should be concerned about proposed cuts to farm bill conservation programs, which would be the carbon emissions equivalent of adding 2 million cars a year to America’s roads.

As a possible 2012 farm bill looms, the ag committee leaders and their industrial agriculture lobby remoras are sorting through the smoking ruins of the 2011 secret farm bill process. They hope to come up with a unified position from which to begin deliberations on a new farm bill. Sadly, one thing they’ve all agreed to cut is 7 million acres from the Conservation Reserve Program. The CRP is administered through the U.S. Department of Agriculture and pays farmers to keep highly erodible land out of production.

While many recognize that putting land into conservation programs leads to cleaner water, healthier soil and robust wildlife habitat, few realize that CRP land also plays a major role in fighting climate change. According to the USDA, one acre of protected land sequesters 1.66 metric tons of carbon every year, carbon that would otherwise end up in the atmosphere.  The 7 million acres about to be cut from the Conservation Reserve Program have been putting 11.6 million metric tons of carbon into the soil every year.

The Environmental Protection Agency says that this amount of carbon is equivalent to the annual emissions of 2 million passenger vehicles. All that stored carbon will be sent back into the atmosphere if those 7 million acres are plowed under to plant more industrial-scale corn for ethanol and livestock feed.

A recent poll conducted by Iowa State University Extension and Outreach found that 68 percent of Iowa farmers surveyed say climate change is occurring; many of those same farmers likely experienced the devastating weather events of the past few years. So you’d think that there would be a clarion call from agriculture to have the federal government do whatever it takes to protect farmers against climate change. Instead, taxpayers have to pick up the rapidly increasing insurance tab after climate-related disaster strikes.

And had industrial agriculture lobbyists not help scuttle climate change legislation, farmers would be collecting payments today via carbon credits for their conservation practices.

The main impetus for cutting conservation acres is the mad rush to plant every available inch of ground –whether it’s highly erodible land or a golf course – to capture high prices for corn propped up by Washington’s misguided corn ethanol mandate.

Speaking of corn ethanol, the industry and its lobbyists should be gravely concerned about the carbon emissions released by plowing under Conservation Reserve Program land. Political support for corn ethanol – which has been slipping – depends in part on whether it is better for the environment than gasoline. Most believe that corn ethanol currently is no better, emissions-wise, than gasoline.

America’s water, soil and wildlife habitat have never been under greater assault from the ravages of modern industrial agriculture. And since industrial crop production is exempt from most federal regulations, farm bill conservation programs like the Conservation Reserve Program are often our only line of defense against erosion and water contamination by toxic agrichemicals. Conservation is the rare investment in agriculture that pays every taxpayer a positive return.

Meanwhile lavish government payments to highly profitable mega-farms continue. Astonishingly in this tea-flavored budget environment, farm state lawmakers and agribiz lobbyists are working toward newer programs that could increase taxpayers’ burden. Farm income has been white-hot for a decade and shows no sign of diminishing. But if you quiz  industrial ag lobbyists about why agribusiness subsidies should be spared the budget axe while conservation gets whacked, they’ll tell youfarm bills are written for the bad times, not for the good times.

Well, it’s pretty obvious these are the bad times for conservation.

The conservation community needs to fight back hard against these proposed cuts. EWG president Ken Cook said it best:

No conservationist worthy of the name should accept legislation that cuts another $6-plus billion from the farm bill’s programs to protect land, water and wildlife. Nor should conservationists accept subsidy programs that give incentives to farmers who drain wetlands, plow up prairies or recklessly increase already severe runoff pollution from farm fields.

And if the climate change community can engage the debate on the farm bill with the same intensity it used to postpone the Keystone Pipeline, we may just have a conservation battle we can win this time around.

Related Posts (automated):

• Top 10 Things You Should Know About The Farm Bill
• Using Your Tax $ To Lie About Pesticides
• We Already Gave at the (Insurance) Office
• Subsidy Defenders Cheerleading for Super Congress Failure
• 9 Farm Subsidy Myths

The veil is lifted on the world of food processing and manufacturing in an eye-opening new report published by nutritional advocacy media group NaturalNews.com. They’ve just released a free, downloadable (PDF) report entitled, “25 Amazing (and Weird) Facts about How Food is Made and Where it Comes From.” The report is freely downloadable at:

www.naturalnews.com/RR-25-Amazing-and-weird-Facts-About-Food.html

It reveals some very surprising facts about food processing and manufacturing, including:

• The chemical flame retardant chemical you’ll find lurking in most citrus-flavored sodas.

• How factory-farmed egg-laying chickens are deliberately fed brightly-colored objects (such as yellow flower petals) to result in a more appealing color of their egg yolks.

• How a high-tech company reverse-engineered the human genome to develop chemically-targeted taste blockers and enhancers that are secretly added to snack foods.

• What hot dog casings are really made out of.

• Why high-fructose corn syrup, in addition to being linked to diabetes and obesity, is almost always extracted from genetically modified corn (GM corn).

• How Textured Vegetable Protein is often processed using a highly explosive chemical solvent.

• Why french fries create an internal cancer-causing chemical when they’re fried in hot oil.

All these facts, plus over a dozen more, are documented in the new report: “25 Amazing (and Weird) Facts about How Food is Made and Where it Comes From.”

This report is the latest in a series of educational documentaries and downloadable guides created by NaturalNews and Mike Adams, a consumer health advocate and industry whistleblower. His hugely popular “Food Investigations” video documentary on fake blueberries in breakfast cereals has received over two million views:www.FoodInvestigations.com

Adams is the executive director of the non-profit Consumer Wellness Center (www.ConsumerWellness.com) and the editor of NaturalNews.com, one of the top 1,000 highest-trafficked websites in America and now read by nearly four million people each month.

Learn more at:
www.naturalnews.com/RR-25-Amazing-and-weird-Facts-About-Food.html

Learn more:http://www.naturalnews.com/034621_amazing_facts_food_special_report.html#ixzz1jVklAdfV

Related Posts (automated):

• Rawesome Foods founder to be prosecuted under special environmental crimes unit in LA
• U.S. food companies caught faking blueberries with artificial colors and liquid sugars, reveals Health Ranger investigation
• High-Fructose Corn Syrup Getting Rebranded as Corn Sugar
• Join the Organic Consumers Association’s national boycott of “organic cheater” brands
• Awesome New Resource: NaturalPedia From NaturalNews

Related Posts (automated):

• No Related Posts

Genetically Modified foods are prominently featured in today’s food supply. In fact, GMOs are so prominent that if a product is not labeled as GMO free, then it can be assumed that there is at least some amount of genetic alteration within the food.

GMOs dominate conventional food supplies and popular products, perpetuating their adverse effects on the people who eat them.

Before the whistle was blown on the dangers of GM foods, like any other invariably unpopular thing pushed by corporations, claims were that GMOs could actually be beneficial to the food supply, and provide positive value. But how legitimate are any of these claims?

“GM Crops Require Less Herbicide/Pesticide Usage”

Pesticide toxicity is an obvious concern when dealing with crops. Gene tailoring the crops into producing a pesticide theoretically means that you should have to use less.

However, the effectiveness of this method diminishes when insects build an immunity to the pesticide being genetically engineered. This actually creates a need for more additional and more varied application of pesticides to crops, destroying the initial premise that using GM to produce pesticides would lessen their application overall.

“GM Foods Will Help Provide for Poor Starving Populations”

One could argue that the use of GMOs provides more opportunities to give food to the poor, despotic countries. However, genetic engineering of food is often an expensive and extensive process. The application of genetically altered seeds used by farmers also poses a threat to the integrity of a whole environmental food supply. As GMO crops spread, they can easily contaminate surrounding crops that are free of engineering, producing adverse effects. Some crops engineered with ‘terminator’ genes actually cause the seeds of the next generation to be rendered sterile. This would actually limit the ability for any kind of farmer to reliably produce food in cycles, unless they can afford to buy more seeds from a company providing them.

“GM Foods are Normal Foods, Cause no Threat to Your Health, and Can Even be Nutritionally Enhanced”

Various studies suggest that consuming any amount of GMOs lead to a number of adverse side effects, ranging from organ failure, to infertility. The nature of attempting to manipulate genetic boundaries produces an uncontrollable amount of anomalies, all of which diminish the quality and purpose originally intended for the food. Essential nutrients can be rendered ineffective, and the mutagenic nature of genetic tampering can actually destroy any of the benefits that the foods originally held.

In actuality, it’s better to entirely abstain from the use and advocation of any form of genetic modification on foods. The so-called benefits are actually non existent, and the nature of the situation actually threatens the integrity of the world food supply. Genetic tampering opens a figurative Pandora’s box of unforeseen consequences, including the contamination of nutritionally sound foods.

The safety of our food supply must be maintained by foregoing the use of GMOs, and preserving the purity of organically farmed, nutritionally satisfying fruits and vegetables. Being a part of the solution is as easy as refusing to use any GM foods, and maintaining your own form of clean and sustainable produce. Like many countries that are now are deciding to reject these foods, you also have an individual opportunity to secure your own health by doing the same.

Related Posts (automated):

• Frito-Lay sued for labeling its GMO-filled snacks as “All Natural”
• Beware of GMOs: Genes Remain a Mystery to Scientists
• USDA gives AquaBounty half million dollars to study its own GE salmon
• WWF beds with Monsanto to steal public lands, promote GM crops
• Court rules organic farmers can sue conventional, GMO farmers whose pesticides ‘trespass’ and contaminate their fields

Related Posts (automated):

• No Related Posts

Is it possible to thrive without antipsychotics, high-powered painkillers, and statin drugs?

More importantly, are natural alternatives really as ‘dangerous’ as mainstream health officials claim?

Sure, there have been some great advancements in the field of medical science, but profit mongering and a blatant disregard for public health has driven big pharma giants to throw science to the wind and unleash a variety of harmful yet profitable pharmaceuticals.

It is thanks to this motive that pharmaceuticals have now led to more deaths than traffic fatalitiesin the United States.

Killing at least 37,485 people nationwide in 2009, the mainstream medical structure continues to not only ignore natural alternatives but actually goes as far as to label them ‘dangerous’ and completely deny their effectiveness. Vitamin D, which can be obtained by simply stepping outside, has been found to slash your risk of cancer, obesity, and the flu. Of course, unless you are supplementing thousands of times over the safe limit of vitamin D, there are virtually zero side effects to accompany these benefits.

Meanwhile, statin drugs have been linked in peer-reviewed research to more than 304 diseasesconservatively.

This information directly challenges and disproves the claims of many supposed health ‘experts’ that pharmaceuticals and invasive mainstream medical interventions are the only answer to treating (certainly not curing) disease. If we were to see a medical paradigm shift into natural, or at least integrated medicine, we would see a dramatic slash in cancer rates simply from educating the world about the benefits of free vitamin D. Some estimates place 70% of U.S. children in the vitamin D deficiency category, as well as a large number of adults. Imagine if health officials were to adopt more integrated health principles, such as the consumption and supplementation of a spice known as turmeric.

Turmeric is known to positively affect over 573 diseases according to peer-reviewed research. Why have the governments of the world not recommended these free or inexpensive supplements to their citizens, potentially saving billions in healthcare costs per year? Instead, government organizations like the CDC and the FDA push pharmaceuticals on the public while suppressing many health-promoting supplements like turmeric.

The truth of the matter is that big pharma cannot profit on free vitamin D, or extremely inexpensive turmeric. In a nation where public health was truly a concern, these substances would be readily available and replacing harmful pharmaceuticals that contain 70 negative side-effects on average.

Hospitals, which offer no form of prevention against disease, would slowly begin to disappear as the need diminishes. Citizens would optimize their health through avoiding toxic ingredients likemercury-containing high-fructose corn syrup, BPA, and genetically modified ingredients after they were all outlawed from domestic and imported food products.

Currently, we live in a very unnatural society. You are not meant to feel sick, broken down, and rely upon invasive surgeries and damaging pharmaceuticals to sustain your health. It’s time to shift to a new health paradigm, where natural living is paramount.

Related Posts (automated):

• Alternative Medicine Has Broad Appeal Amongst Veterans – Study
• Nevada SB 412 to make felons out of natural health practitioners
• The Push to Outlaw Alternative Medicine
• Study Finds People of All Walks Using Alternative Care
• Part II: Evidence-Based Medicine is Not Exclusive of Alternative Medicine (Opinion)

The medical profession has a long history of opposing alternative healing professions.

While always claiming public safety as its reason for the attacks, the true reasons often involve protecting their monopoly of the healthcare market.

Medicine’s opposition to chiropractic was its strongest under the leadership of Morris Fishbein, Secretary of the American Medical Association from 1924 to 1949, who led a 50-year anti-chiropractic campaign in both professional publications and the public media.

Historical Antitrust Lawsuits Against Medical Societies

In 1975 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the case of Goldfarb vs. the Virginia State Bar, that learned professions are not exempt from antitrust suits.

In 1982 the Court ruled that the FTC could enforce antitrust laws against medical societies.

These two suits paved the way for five chiropractors to file an anti-trust suit against the American Medical Association (AMA) and several other heath care agencies and societies in Federal District Court (known as the Wilkes Case).

Judge Susan Getzendanner found the AMA and others guilty of an illegal conspiracy against the chiropractic profession in September of 1987, ordering a permanent injunction against the AMA and forcing them to print the court’s findings in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

Even with success of the Wilkes Case and other anti-trust litigation, the AMA continues to this day to wage a campaign against chiropractic.

The American Medical Association (AMA) has maintained a decades-long battle against “alternative” healing traditions, dating back to the 1920s and arguably even earlier. The courts eventually ruled in favor of the chiropractors in 1987, finding the AMA guilty of a conspiracy to take down the chiropractic profession, as the above article recounts in detail.

But was this the end of it? Has the AMA resigned itself to the fact that chiropractic, as well as other forms of natural medicine, are here to stay? Not a chance.

The AMA’s Bedfellows

Even with the success of the Wilkes Case, the AMA has continued to wage war against natural medicine for the past 20 years—but in more covert ways. It’s the “Cold War” phase of this battle, but every bit as fierce. And now the AMA has rallied up a few significant allies, including:

• The American Dental Association (ADA)
• The American Cancer Society (ACS)
• The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), and
• The American Psychiatric Association (APA)

… not to mention governmental regulatory agencies; all willing to march toward a common goal—a monopoly on medical care in this country. Together, they form a formidable lobbying force that controls just about every regulatory and legislative body in America. The truth is that chiropractic, naturopathic, and osteopathic medicine have PROVEN to be medically effective and cost effective for the patient, and the AMA can’t stomach this, viewing natural medicine as a huge threat to their bottom line.

Federal Courts Rule AMA “Guilty as Charged”

In 1987, the federal courts found the AMA and several other medical groups guilty of seeking to create a healthcare monopoly. Specifically, they were found guilty of the following actions (published in the January 1988 issue of JAMA):

1. Systematic defamation of naturopathic, chiropractic, and osteopathic physicians
2. Publishing and distribution of propaganda specifically intended to ruin other healthcare professionals’ reputations
3. Forcing MDs to refuse collaboration with naturopathic, chiropractic, and osteopathic physicians in the co-management of patients
4. Denying hospital access to naturopathic, chiropractic, and osteopathic physicians

The attack on osteopathic medicine has largely faded away since then, but chiropractic and naturopathic practitioners, as well as other legitimate natural medicine practitioners, continue to be the targets of suppression and misrepresentation. The war isn’t over, but the rules of engagement have changed.

AMA Declares New War on Natural Medicine in 2006

In 2006, the AMA declared war on natural medicine by publicly stating on its website its intention to forcibly oppose licensure and practice of naturopathic physicians. Although they quickly removed this from their site, the following is a direct quote from that post, according to Naturopathy Digest:

“RESOLVED, That our American Medical Association work through its Board of Trustees to outline a policy opposing the licensure of naturopaths to practice medicine and report this policy to the House of Delegates no later than the 2006 Interim Meeting. (Directive to Take Action) Fiscal Note: Implement accordingly at estimated staff cost of $10,836.”

Translation: Eliminate the competition.

According to The Integrator Blog, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) joined the battle with a statement that their goal was to “thwart the growing threat of expansion of scope of practice for allied health professionals” and included psychologists on the list of medical practitioners who needed to be “thwarted” (in addition to naturopaths, chiropractors, and midwives). The APA pledged their allegiance to the AMA in assisting them with “coordinating research to help medical specialty societies and state medical associations fight expansions in non-medical scope of practice, and improve information sharing among those groups.”

Other medical associations have made similar pledges, such as the Minnesota Medical Association and the New York Academy of Family Physicians. They maintain that their position is based on concern for quality of care and patient safety, but the REAL agenda is just an attempt to destroy the competition.

As Chiropractor Louis Sportelli writes in his 2010 article in Dynamic Chiropractic:

“Just look around and you will see clear and compelling evidence that the long-standing war between the AMA and everyone else who does not come under the AMA umbrella is far from over. The names have changed, the venue has changed, but the intent has remained the same: to maintain monopolistic control over the delivery of health care.”

Old Mission, New Tactics: AMA Learns How to Discriminate with Impunity

In 2010, the AMA House of Delegates introduced a resolution regarding scope of practice that contains limitations on who can be considered a legitimate physician, and who can medically diagnose. Specifically, the AMA’s “Definition of a Physician” (H-405.969) contains the following language:

“The AMA affirms that a physician is an individual who has received a ‘Doctor of Medicine’ or a ‘Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine’ degree.”

This is proof, without a doubt, that the AMA as well as individual state medical associations intend to continue doing everything they can to prevent you from accessing natural healthcare. Texas and Connecticut medical associations were the first to join the cause, and others will likely follow. Similarly, the AMA’s “Comprehensive Physical Examination by Appropriate Practitioners” reads as follows:

“…the performance of comprehensive physical examinations to diagnose medical conditions [should be limited] to licensed MDs/DOs or those practitioners who are directly supervised by licensed MDs/DOs.”

State Medical Associations Jumping on Board

In 2010, the Texas Medical Board of Examiners filed an action against the Texas Chiropractic Board of Examiners challenging the authority of DCs (Doctors of Chiropractic) to perform some of their medical procedures, and challenging their authority to diagnose. How can medical associations get away with such shenanigans now, when they were given such a clear message to back off in the injunction of 1987? After all, these are very similar tactics to what they were found guilty of back in 1987.

Well, according to Sportinelli, the AMA has learned some lessons about how to beat the law—loopholes that allow them to go on the attack while sidestepping “restraint of trade” or “illegal boycott” violations:

“It [AMA] now understands that government action is protected under the Constitution, as is action in petitioning the government. It can lawfully petition local, state and federal legislators and attempt to influence any legislation without fear of committing actionable restraint of trade or illegal boycott. (However, the AMA does seem to be getting dangerously close with its resolution regarding the “definition of a physician,” in that it appears to involve hospital action without the intervention of government.)”

And what does one need in order to effectively influence the government? Money. This is something the AMA has—and piles of it.Sportinelli goes on to say that the medical industry is likely gearing up for a 50-state effort to put non-MD/DO physicians out of business. And this means fewer choices about your own medical care.

Profit Motives Cleverly Disguised as Concern for Your Health and Safety

According to Naturopathy Digest, the AMA and other medical groups justify their opposition to natural medicine on the basis of three areas of concern:

1. Quality of patient care
2. Patient safety
3. Quality of education of medical practitioners

As the article so eloquently points out, none of these arguments holds up, and most are based on medical and pharmaceutical industry propaganda. If they were TRULY concerned about patient care and safety, they would not be targeting natural medicine, which has an incredibly low incidence of adverse consequences, but instead going after their own allopathic medical practices that are leaving a trail of death and destruction.

Drug “side effects”, prescription errors, unnecessary surgeries, nosocomial infections, and hospital “errors” are a leading cause of death in the United States. In fact, one estimate is that allopathic medicine kills 493 American patients daily. The number of people who die each week as a result of medical treatments surpasses the number of deaths caused by the September 11^th terrorist attacks.

Yes, each and every week!

Many of the drugs advertised in JAMA (the AMA’s scientific journal) are the very same drugs that are killing tens of thousands of Americans each year. This massive funding of the AMA by drug companies is a blatant conflict of interest. If the AMA really cared about your safety, they’d be putting their substantial assets into overhauling the American healthcare system. The AMA is fond of lambasting the education and training of chiropractors, when in actuality, they should be more concerned about the educational qualifications of their own physicians. In their own publications, they have stated:

“Medical education is failing to prepare students adequately for their future practice… medical education is currently being held together with peanut butter and bubble gum.”

At least four consecutive studies have documented that most MDs are incompetent when it comes to diagnosing and treating musculoskeletal problems, something at which chiropractors excel. Another example of an abysmal lack of education of Western physicians is in the area of diet and nutrition. The AMA itself has published research showing that dietary interventions should be used before drugs in the treatment of heart disease. Yet, medical students receive virtually NO training in nutrition. Naturopathic and chiropractic physicians, on the other hand, are usually well versed in the importance of nutrition and exercise.

It’s Not Just the AMA

Perhaps it’s time to take a real look at medical associations, and the concern that they may be doing more harm than good. For groups who claim to exist in order to protect your health, they inevitably end up sabotaging it. It isn’t just the AMA. Other medical associations that claim to exist for the betterment of public health include the following:

• American Dental Association (ADA): Continues to support the use of mercury fillings and demonizes biological dentists who oppose the use of mercury in dentistry; continues to support fluoridation, in spite of the evidence it does more harm than good.
• American Cancer Society (ACS): This charity has close ties to the mammography industry, the cancer drug industry, and the pesticide industry; has rampant conflicts of interest; consistently promotes drugs and screening procedures while ignoring environmental causes of cancer.
• National Cancer Institute (NCI): Has spent billions of taxpayer dollars promoting treatments while ignoring strategies for preventing cancer; abundant ties to the cancer drug industry (for more information, read Samuel Epstein’s new book, National Cancer Institute and American Cancer Society: Criminal Indifference to Cancer Prevention and Conflicts of Interest)
• American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP): Claiming to be protecting your children, the AAP is largely funded by vaccine manufacturers but refuses to disclose just how much money it gets from them; partners with Congress to protect pediatricians and drug companies from liability for vaccine injuries, while preventing you from getting truthful vaccine information.

Actions Speak Louder than Words

When someone’s words differ from their actions, chances are that their actions more accurately reflect their values—and this is true for organizations, as well as individuals. Although medical associations claim to have your best interests at heart, their actions tell a different story. It’s time to begin holding them accountable for their behavior and stop letting them hide behind the same old tired rhetoric.

You have a right to make your own choices about your healthcare, be it allopathic or naturopathic—whether you see an MD, an ND, or a DC should be YOUR decision and yours alone.

References:

• JAMA January 1988
• Naturopathy Digest August 2006
• The Integrator Blog May 2006
• Dynamic Chiropractic July 2010
• Clin Orthop Relat Res. August 2005

Related Posts (automated):

• Many medical journals have no policies regarding conflicts of interest in published research studies
• Fluoride Poisoning: It’s All Over
• Nevada SB 412 to make felons out of natural health practitioners
• How Can We Have A Healthy Economy If Virtually Everything We Eat And Drink Is Constantly Making Us All Sick?
• Why isn’t it called Breast Cancer Prevention Month?