By: Mary Sue Haliburton

Note: Mary Sue Haliburton is a great Canadian and a true 'one percenter' who has done a tremendous amount of work on this paper which she submitted to The Romano Commission. Mary Sue Haliburton has requested that fellow-citizens read this document and browse the bibliography and circulate the URL so that others can likewise read and review it. All readers are invited to forward constructive, critical feedback to Mary Sue at this email address: ocelot@jungle.ottawa.on.ca


Collective rights, and the common good, are central principles of our country. The primary “stakeholders” in Medicare are Canadian Citizens, whose rights take precedence over all commercial and special interest groups; it is our lives that are tied to the stake! Logically, then, it is the obligation of the government, our legal system, and the business sector to uphold the right to universal health care with efficiency and fairness.

PART ONE: Toward Free Enterprise in Medicine

Responsibility for the astronomical cost of medicare lies squarely at the door of those major players in the business world who have dictated both the direction of research and what doctors and the public are permitted to believe about medicine. It is they who set the prices, and also wrote the rules requiring us to buy only what they are selling.

This situation is only today’s version of a centuries-long history of struggle between alternative approaches and the toxic drugs and heroic surgeries of allopathic medicine. In every era people have voted with their feet and pocketbooks for herbal and gentler forms of care. The ascendancy of allopathy depended, therefore, on anti-democratic activities of that one interest group. In 1910, to gain higher incomes for allopathic doctors, Abraham Flexner advocated reducing their numbers and eliminating competition from other health professions (chiropractic, homeopathy et al.). To remain open, medical schools had to agree to teach only allopathic approaches. The financial clout driving this change came from industrial magnates such as John D. Rockefeller who saw the tremendous profit potential in drugs that did not heal and would have to be taken for life.

By manipulating laws, allopaths successfully excluded alternative practitioners and their ideas from all policy-making. In Canada we see Medical Fingers in Every Pie, in tax-supported institutions such as hospitals to workman’s compensation boards, and at any level where preventive healthcare ideas could have reduced costs. The allopathic Medical Association’s drug-based agenda also controls non-profit agencies like the Cancer Society, the Arthritis Society, and other disease-specific charities that “raise money for research to find a cure”. Doctors ensure that this money goes only to pharmaceutical research projects, and little or nothing to real prevention, especially not alternative therapies.

A. Monopolistic Practices and Horizontal Integration

The companies that sell cancer drugs also make other chemicals such as pesticides. This horizontal integration both spreads risk and expands profit potential, enabling these companies to control larger sectors of the marketplace. Drugs and pesticides are mutually supportive. Keeping agriculture dependent on chemicals makes people sick and increases sales for the drug branch of the company. It sounds brutal, but these are the two sides of the same gold coin that buys out the politicians. These companies are so big that if they offer to invest in a country, or threaten to withdraw if they don’t get their way, elected leaders back down from human-rights and forward-looking health legislation.

The lucrative market for pesticides is maintained by denying the harmful effects observed in countless studies. Manufacturers pretend that these chemicals play no part in human cancers and other diseases, calling their products “safe” and “beneficial”, and “based on science”. What they are based on is the science of killing. When wars end, new markets must be found for chemical agents that were invented to kill soldiers (Ausubel, p. 289). Scientists who derive their incomes from this industry explain away inconvenient facts, and executives who have close ties to polluting industries sit on boards of directors of major cancer treatment centres such as Sloan-Kettering. 

The Green Report in Alive Magazine’s June 2001 issue states that Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE, or “mad cow disease”) did not exist until after 1982. In that year, to combat a non-fatal warble fly infestation, the British government ordered cattle to be treated with organophosphates, a chemical invented by the Nazis to penetrate cowhide. In the days before synthetic “decontam” suits, leather was part of a soldier’s protective gear. After the BSE prion was identified, it was assumed to have been transmitted by scrapies-infected sheep brains in animal feed. The evidence that organophosphates are responsible for BSE is already strong: one British scientist duplicated chemically all four changes that convert normal proteins into the prions. Researchers studying this organophosphate/BSE link theory have been dogged by an unusual string of “accidents”. Arson, a cluster of car crashes, a vehicle forced off the road, and even a gangland-style hit have taken numerous lives among this small group. Some mysterious powerful organization had motive, means and opportunities, but these suspicious deaths remain unsolved.

Meanwhile, Bayer, Monsanto, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche and Schering-Plough have launched legal action to stop this research. Obviously they don’t expect to be vindicated by science! The corporations are doing all they can to (mis)direct research into seeking “cures” for BSE and for human-variant CJD. Two lucrative businesses are at stake. First, organophosphate sales would plummet if BSE were proven to be chemically created. Without proof, BSE/CJD control measures are still limited to costly wholesale slaughter of livestock that mostly turn out not to be infected. Second, these manufacturers would lose out on research funding to combat CJD, and would not be able to sell a drug or vaccine against that disease. We are now being told that CJD “has peaked”, and will not affect as many people as feared; obviously not all who ate British beef get CJD (but possibly only those exposed to organophosphates). If the chemicals do cause this disease, we already know how to prevent it: stop using organophosphates!

The tendency of large corporations to become larger by swallowing up smaller ones removes consumer choice and product competition. Novartis bought out Doctor Fowler’s Wild Strawberry Extract, a foul-tasting but reliable herbal remedy for diarrhea. Unwilling to grow non-patentable plants, they replaced the formula they bought with a synthesized active ingredient (plus sugar and other additives). Retaining the name “Fowler” on the school-bus yellow label illegitimately gained them all the free word-of-mouth promotion from satisfied users of the old formula. (A CBC radio down-home story years ago about how people trusted the old herbal remedy may have prompted the takeover.) Anti-trust legislation hardly ever comes into the picture. The federal and provincial governments pass the responsibility buck back and forth in a maze of jurisdictional confusion. Though the regulatory agency is national (Health Canada), health care is a provincial matter. While these squabbles occupy our different levels of government, corporate assimilations undermine marketplace diversity and competition. A federal Health Guardianship Law must enforce anti-monopoly provisions nationally. 

B. Vertical Integration

Maximization of profit governs both drugs and medical procedures. Cancer hospital policy board members have close ties to companies that manufacture chemotherapy drugs (Ausubel, p. 272.). Doctors Samuel Epstein  (The Politics of Cancer) and Ralph Moss (The Cancer Industry), and Kernay Ausubel (When Healing Becomes a Crime) have detailed the court-proven examples of corruption and the long war against truth that are rampant in the lucrative business of cancer treatment. In the U.S., drug companies own treatment clinics which dispense only their own products.

Similarly, radiation therapy has been an industrial cash-cow since its inception. The price or radium increased by 1000% as soon as it was touted as a cancer treatment, and it has been the hottest business for American hospitals since early in the twentieth century. The head of a mining company “donated” money for a new hospital wing under an agreement that radium would be used from then on in every cancer case. (Ausubel, p. 289)  Building hospital capacity was simply a business expense, doubly deductible.

General Electric enjoys annual sales of $100 million in mammography machines and supplies. A campaign to discredit breast self-examination will force all women to accept frequent mammograms, although annual radioactive imaging may increase breast cancer rates. JAMA gave approval to publish overnight during the New Year holiday a study claiming to “prove” mammograms more accurate. In their rush to promote the study’s conclusions that were so favourable to the greedy radiation industry, they made a mockery of the peer-review system (interview on CBC Radio’s ThisMorning).

C. Inhibition of Research  

Patent Protection should mean that no other company can copy your formula and sell it for a lower price during a specified period of time. Drug patent protection goes way beyond that to include financial and regulatory coercion, intimidation, bribery, abuse of authority, unfounded fraud charges, suppression of freedom of speech, and many other strong-arm methods that can be and are being used to protect exclusive captive markets for obsolete medical products. This is patent protection with a vengeance, designed to ensure that no new product can ever arise that would displace the patented one.

Several times in the past year, corporate scientists have said on public airwaves that it is not their objective to cure diseases. A full cure would remove former patients from the active-consumer list and undermine the potential for profit. Therefore, corporate science must find products that require patients to keep repeating doses for life. As a scientist interviewed on the Discovery Channel baldly stated, “We’re not trying to cure AIDS; the purpose of research into an AIDS vaccine is to control the disease.” (my italics)

Theoretically, an AIDS vaccine would prevent the virus from spreading. Some doctors and scientists question the vaccine approach due to its risks and short lifespan. Rapid viral evolution demands ongoing expensive research, and costly monitoring and treatment follow-up programs. Once the vaccine fails, a new vaccine will have to be developed and used on both the original sufferer and the new customer – oops! – patient, who has now been infected because of the vaccine failure. Company shareholders may be rubbing their hands with glee, but AIDS patients are not impressed by this agenda. 

Research money is directed only to in-box thinkers who tailor their proposals to fit the corporate priorities. Independent researchers are also subjected to interference when they come up with potentially better ideas. Researching a traditional healing herb known for many centuries, Allen Hoffman gave concentrated aloe to indigent AIDS victims who were suffering from tumours and opportunisitic infections. In exchange, they agreed to his monitoring their immune systems. Hoffman was surprised to find that their lymphocytes doubled every three weeks, raising the T-cell count. After four months on concentrated aloe, AIDS-related tumours began shrinking and disappearing. After eighteen months, half of those AIDS victims became HIV negative. (Haley, Politics in Healing, p. 424-6)

Hoffman’s success attracted negative attention from powerful sources. Synthesized cytokines were patented though only one of twenty-five patients survived treatment. But Official Medicine calls this four percent cure rate a success. Stimulating the body to make its own cytokines, concentrated aloe has a fifty percent cure rate, but is being suppressed. In 1998 Hoffman was charged with consumer fraud, although no customers were harmed and none complained. The U.S. “consumer protection board” prevented him from fighting this unjust charge in a regular court with trial by jury. Since publication, Hoffman has been placed under house arrest (Haley, telecon, Aug. 2001).

D.  Problematic Definitions: “Drug-Like Effect”

Calling the immune-enhancing effects of herbs and nutrients “drug-like benefits” is abuse of language. Drugs by definition are intended to block symptoms, or to kill specific pathogens or types of cancer cells. They don’t enhance immunity, nor are they designed to supply the building-blocks for self-repair, which come from foods. After waging war for decades against orthomolecular principles, allopathy is trying to co-opt them.

Dr. Allison McCutcheon explains that one plant contains hundreds (and in some cases thousands) of phytochemicals that work synergistically to promote self-healing, instead of blocking bodily processes as drugs do. “Saying that a plant has a low amount of an ‘active ingredient’ is ‘drug-like thinking’ irrelevant to herbal research.” She also says that even if a plant contains a toxin that is harmful in isolation, the complex of other compounds in whole-plant extracts mitigates any negative effect. Rare “adverse events” from herbs can be traced to contaminants such as pesticide residues in foreign-grown herbs, or to the fumigating agent used by law on all imported plant material. The reductionist activity of isolating an “active factor” destroys the powerful synergy. Synthesizing and concentrating the “active ingredient” is what makes it a drug and causes the side-effects (“The Green Pharmacy”, CBC Ideas documentary, 11 Oct. 2001). Mr. Eli Lilly himself has been quoted as saying that if a product doesn’t have bad side effects, it’s not a drug. By his definition, then, non-toxic plants are not drugs and should be exempt from drug regulations. 

Yet this fallacious and misleading term, “drug-like benefit”, is the basis of obstructing and suppressing independent research into herbs and natural substances. The corporations and regulators together blocked access to scientific services in order to prevent Hoffman’s research from continuing: laboratories have been ordered not to concentrate aloe. The public does not need protection from plant extracts and basic elements like cesium (which are non-toxic and unpatentable natural substances); we need protection from our official protectors! Only toxic drugs need the more costly system of obtaining proof of safety before approval, and after-market monitoring for side-effects.

A new Health-Guardianship Law must ensure that no special interest group, however powerful, can distort crucial verbal definitions into meaning the opposite of what logic and custom say that they mean. Those who specialize in studying words – separately as well as with all their contextual shadings – should be the final arbiters of their meaning. We must therefore give final authority to a commonly-ignored sector of society: scholars of English Literature and Linguistics. This is not nitpicking. When the very meaning of words becomes a weapon used to destroy independent research, we have to find a way to protect words from being twisted. Redefining the definitions is highly skilled work.

Our soi-disant Health Protection Branch is implementing severe restrictions based on this fallacious “drug-like effect” notion. Effective 1 January 1997, Canada reclassified a large number of traditional herbs as drugs, making health-food stores, importers and growers liable to a charge of drug trafficking! Yet the people who are at risk of criminal charges are left guessing because the actual HPB list is secret. One must then question its legality. Without consultation or published justification, regulators can add a plant to the list at any time. When this same HPB permits marketing of drugs that are known to cause serious complications and deaths, their “concern” about “danger of over-use” and “self-medicating” is hypocrisy, and transparent favouritism toward pharmaceutical businesses.

E.  Inhibiting New Research

Bacteriophage viruses invade a specific bacterial species and reproduce inside the cell. When ready to infect other cells, the phage releases an enzyme to destroy the cell wall and escapes to infect more cells. The phage enzyme is thus Nature’s “magic bullet” against a given bacterial disease. Interviewed on CBC Radio’s Quirks and Quarks (June 16th 2001) a corporate spokesman offered the excuse that “nobody thought of using them while we had antibiotics” (my italics). Over-prescribing of antibiotics has created drug-resistant bacteria that can pass the resistance gene to other microbial species. Therefore, antibiotic effectiveness declines before the patent expires! Only now that the law of diminishing returns has removed the incentive to develop new antibiotics is the corporate world ready triumphantly to unveil this “new” discovery it has been sitting on for so long.

Cynicism rules pharmaceutical medicine. Profit must be extracted regardless of severe side effects and patient deaths. Up to $750,000 worth of drugs can be sold to treat a single cancer patient. With profit levels like these, innovation and reform are unattractive. On the grounds that drug development is expensive, companies try to justify exorbitant pricing. Even when all research money came from taxes and donations and the patent was assigned to a private company for free, the price is still hundreds of times the cost of production. (Ausubel, p 267). Because chemotherapy is already known to have failed to cure cancer, corporations hype gene therapy (already plagued by unpredicted pathologies and unlikely to be a panacea either). But it will only be after patents expire that we will hear about how their wonderful “new” discoveries will mitigate dangerous side effects.

F.  The FDA & International Medical Dictatorship

Ratifying the Codex Alimentarius will abort any attempt to achieve a cost-effective, logical, Made-in-Canada, preventive health-care system. Binding on all governments, Codex rules would remove even escape clauses permitted by the GATT. From analysing its content, the purpose of Codex is evidently to deny access by the public to all vitamins, herbs and orthomolecular products. The Commission members who drafted it belong to powerful pharmaceutical corporations with vested interests in maintaining high cancer rates, the AIDS epidemic, and degenerative diseases. These corrupt “stakeholders” cannot be allowed to dictate policy to elected governments.

The Codex stipulates that no dietary supplements can be sold for therapeutic purposes, even if this is manifestly what they are for. Further, it would set potency levels very low to ensure that they will have no detectable benefit. This is why we are now being told that Vitamin C is “dangerous” in high doses, although the alleged negative effect occurs only in test tubes, not in the body (Dr. S. Sinatra’s Health Report. Vol 7, No. 8). This abuse of scientific authority will permit only 60 mg doses of Vitamin C, the near-useless RDA levels. Corporate-sponsored studies always “prove” that vitamins don’t work or that they are “dangerous”. Independent reviewers counter that a contaminant or chemical coating in the product caused the injuries, or that lab animals were too different physiologically from humans. Supplements and vitamins would be banned under the Codex unless they go through the FDA drug-approval process that is prohibitively costly for non-patentable natural substances. The intent is to eliminate competition by preventing prevention.

But when there is a conflict with a drug, the food or herb is always blamed, although it is the drug that is harmful to health. Drug companies have so much power that national policies are already being “harmonized” to the Codex before it has even been officially adopted. The FDA and our HPB are already pulling some vitamins and supplements off the shelves of health-food stores. Humble plants that volunteer in everyone’s garden could represent significant savings to the healthcare system if people learn to eat them, or make tea out of them. This free use of Nature is a long-standing cultural tradition and a basic human right, entailing no costs to the public purse. Under this Codex, even to have certain plants in your care you will have to pay a fee for each species “for your own protection”. I.e., huge profits will be protected when everyone cannot afford to grow plants even for their own use. A massive bureaucracy needed to police such a system will impose new tax burdens. This is not logical and will do nothing to advance public health.

In its press release  (“FDA and the Global Marketplace: International Harmonization”) the FDA brags that it “forcefully represents” American interests, and “exerts leadership in a number of international standard-setting organizations”. The FDA wants to “eliminate costly duplication of effort” in examining and approving drugs. To translate this to honest wording, the U.S. regulatory agency is saying that the Codex will curtail independent review in or by other countries (such as Canada), or by independent scientists (if any still exist after this Codex gains a final hammerlock on the world’s neck). Yielding to their anti-democratic pressures will sentence our children to yet more illness, and to a stratified system in which only the rich can afford options, while corporate price-fixing sends costs skyrocketing out of control indefinitely. To defend the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Canada must take a stand on the principles advocated in this Guardianship of Health Law proposal, and refuse to sign the Codex and Chapter 11 of the FTAA.

The new Codex will impose draconian restrictions on access to natural products on the entire “Free Trade Area of the Americas”. Formerly, independent doctors and scientists who were forced out of the United States could go elsewhere in the western hemisphere. Several alternative cancer clinics survive in Mexico to which people who can afford it escape to get the life-preserving alternatives denied to them under the American allopathic medical system. Codex “harmonization” will allow the pharmaceutical interests to close down those independent clinics. The “Iron Curtain” that divided the Soviet Union from the “Free West” is going to look positively flimsy compared to the pharmaceutical Titanium Curtain that will descend over the whole of this hemisphere.

Big drug companies grab any opportunity to exercise police-state powers. Monsanto inspectors trespass on private land without permission or warrants to collect samples. Although he never bought their products or signed an annual-royalty agreement, Percy Schmeiser was “convicted” of having Monsanto’s proprietary genes in his fields. A corporate-controlled experiment, which allegedly “proved” that pollen does not spread to neighbouring farms, was instrumental in obtaining the company’s legal victory. However, artificial conditions in a greenhouse lack the wild-card elements of the real world: farm vehicles carry seeds stuck in muddy tire treads, and plants spring up in ditches elsewhere. The corporate push to market open-pollinated genetically-modified plants may be a plan to bankrupt independent farmers who save their own seed, to take over their land, and to use more chemicals on it than the farmers were willing or able to buy.

G. Truly Free Competition Will Lower Costs

In our country and in most of the “Western World”, Free Enterprise is hailed as the engine of progress responsible for our great technological advances. New products arise, then drop by the wayside as newer ones overtake them. Consumers drive innovation by continually seeking more capabilities for less money. However, under allopathic medicine, we have a tightly-controlled, top-down system that stifles new directions in research. Blacklisting is used to make scientists toe the line.

Far from driving the system forward, the health consumer is allowed no choice at all. Products that would cost less are kept off the market by over-regulation. Our “Western” allopathic medicine exhibits the same syndrome of excess cost and over-management we saw in the old Soviet system that the decades-long Cold War opposed at such expense. Deceptive packaging as Free Enterprise makes this pharmaceutical monopoly worse than a communist dictatorship. By the very methods used to gain dominance, drug transnationals are choking themselves into the sickness of high cost, obsolete products, and creative and intellectual stagnation, as well as truly abysmal moral values. 

Big corporations whine that an unregulated market in unpatentable, non-toxic products is “unfair competition” for their allopathic drugs, which are by definition toxic. Even those who profit from the criminal logic of continuing to poison people must eventually read the handwriting on the wall. A company that wants to build its future and protect itself from litigation will abandon toxic approaches, and come up with patentable non-toxic, immune-friendly products in a timely manner. They already have the knowledge to do so.

But there like a worm in an apple sits that pesky definition of “cure” that requires drugs to kill something, whether cancer cells or bacteria. That misbegotten definition is spoiling the whole health barrel. Once we get rid of it, and scientists can focus on how to strengthen immunity, the long-overdue paradigm shift can take place. The corporate world will benefit in the long run by selling products that will not put them at risk of class-action lawsuits. Immune-friendly products sell themselves as satisfied customers rejoice in their good results and recommend them to their friends. Deregulation of non-toxic products will open the health market to fair competition. This will set in motion the normal mechanisms of competitive innovation and downward pressure on prices, while promoting scientific freedom of thought and honesty in research. The most desired end result will be freedom of choice for health professionals and patients.

PART TWO: Toward Scientific Freedom

A.  Dishonesty of Intent in Research

Orthodox medicine uses a double standard, exempting its own research from the rules they apply to alternatives. Cribbing from Carl Sagan’s “Baloney Detector Kit”, Dr. Barry Dworkin writes: “Arguments from authority carry little weight.” Yet a medical doctor’s “expert opinion” is always received as authoritative, and not critiqued. Dworkin also mentions the error of “confounding factors” in experiments. “Make sure that what is being measured does not interfere with another independent measurement”. If by using both gravol and an acupressure bracelet you avoid seasickness, you cannot know which was responsible for this outcome. Therefore, he says, “You have to test them separately under the same conditions to find out.” (Ottawa Citizen, July 13, 2001) Dworkin implies in his article that only alternative-medicine studies are flawed in this way, and that the official medicine he espouses is always rigorously scientific.

Let’s look at that vaunted allopathic scientific rigor. As Dworkin says, a double-blind study isolates one factor. A new therapy is given to a randomly-selected group of test subjects, while the same number in a control group get a dummy version of it. Results are statistically compared, and only then is it revealed which group received the test therapy. However, in a University of Calgary study on EDTA chelation, all the subjects, including those in the control group, were put on a regimen of dietary and lifestyle changes, and given high doses of antioxidant vitamins C and E. (Alive Magazine, June 2001). Not surprisingly, the researchers found equivalent improvement in both groups.

Their interpreting this to mean that EDTA chelation has no merit is open to question, due to the confounding factors. Ironically, that study proved the value of mega-vitamin therapy, another alternative officially called quackery! Chelation is done only if patients have significant levels of lead, mercury, cadmium or other metals. Since hair analysis, a despised alternative-medicine technique, is used to identify metal toxicity, there was probably no pre-selection for this factor in the research subjects. Here’s the kicker. If all the subjects in this experiment did not have high metal contamination in their bodies, this study is invalid anyway. Chelation cannot remove what is not there!

Wanting so badly to discredit an alternative therapy, the American College for the Advancement of Medicine ignored that crucial question and overlooked abuses of the scientific method. Therefore, it is perfectly reasonable to question their honesty of motive in deliberately making this test therapy fail. If not intentional dishonesty, are such misleading studies just scientific incompetence? (And this is the medical authority in whose opinion we are supposed to trust!)

Private funding in educational institutions influences research projects.  In a study sponsored by – surprise, surprise, Monsanto – the University of Guelph said they would give the public a chance to taste-test bT corn and compare it to organic corn. Admitting on air that it was “not really” organic, the Guelph professor said that they could not grow this [so-called] organic corn in certified organic soil because it would not be “the same” as that in which the bT corn was planted. Therefore, he claimed, the study would be “contrary to the scientific method”! (CBC’s Ontario Today, 7 June 2000),

Growing the test and experimental corn on the same soil invalidates this study because it violates the basic definition of “organic”, which demands specialized care of the soil. Not just avoiding pesticides, but also balancing pH and minerals, and respecting the life and activity of microscopic soil organisms all contribute to the superior taste and keeping qualities. Anyone eating food produced in this way discovers a lovely flavour so different from the flat taste of chemically-grown produce. Using protocols dictated by a company infamous for manipulating data (and for large-scale intimidation), the Guelph researchers actually thought they could get away with their no-pesticides oversimplification. This university’s loss of objectivity due to corporate funding is not an isolated case.

B.  Structural Inhibition of Academic Freedom

In an age of government cutbacks, universities are vulnerable at the level of hiring staff. This determines the course of research and in what direction thought is permitted to go. The scandalous contract cancellation by University of Toronto’s CAMH (Centre for Addiction and Mental Health) is an example of structural intellectual repression. As a result, Canada lost the opportunity to benefit from the work of internationally-renowned psychopharmacologist Dr. David Healy, author of The Creation of Psychopharmacology, and (sadly for us) still Director of Psychological Medicine at the University of Wales. An initially-enthusiastic CAMH Human Resources committee invited him to give a lecture just before moving to Toronto to take up his new post. In his talk, however, he discussed violent outbursts committed by a small percentage of patients on anti-depressant drugs.

Suddenly, Dr. Healy was persona non grata. CAMH spokesman Dr. Paul Garfinkel skated around questions, reiterating the hiring committee’s assertion that the Welsh doctor was being irresponsible because he was “questioning ‘standard practices’” (CBC Radio’s ThisMorning, 10 June 2001). In reversing their earlier decision in secrecy, the CAMH committee ignored serious consequences for the public. Akathisia (agitation), leading to acts of violence, is a side-effect of Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitor drugs. Patients commit not just suicides but also murders, including mass murders such as the infamous shootings in high schools. Manufacturers say akathisia affects only six to seven percent of patients, but actual numbers may be higher due to the lack of obligatory reporting of side-effects. After a man killed his family and then himself while taking Paxil, a jury found GlaxoSmith-Kline responsible. In fact the German version of the insert for Paxil warns about the risk of violent outbursts, but the English version of the drug insert has no such warning. (Whitaker, “Health & Healing newsletter, Vol. 11, No. 9)

During the radio interview, Dr. Garfinkel asserted that a funding contract between CAMH and Lilly, which makes SSRI drugs, was not interfering with academic freedom. Our assurance of this, he said, was that the terms of the contract had been reviewed by government regulators. Such a technicality is meaningless in practical terms if all of your staff is carefully pre-selected to fit within a limited range of opinion favourable to drugs manufactured by your sponsor. The freedom of thought supposedly protected by that contract is already, de facto, non-existent. Orthodoxy-as-job-qualification results in a herd mentality while presenting an illusory face of academic freedom to the public. It’s “safe” to hire people who accept being in an intellectual straitjacket. Self-censorship in the group as ensures that everyone stays close to others' views to avoid ostracism. As soon as Dr. Healy made a statement that contradicted received wisdom, the herd closed ranks to force him out. Not much in the way of new breakthroughs ever results from such conformity. People within our health institutions must be free to “think outside the box”.

C. Blacklisting of Scientists and Doctors

For decades an anti-science campaign has been conducted with the collusion of government regulators. When the AMA declares a scientist or doctor to be anathema, other scientists must shun him in order to get research grants. The tentacles of the AMA’s blacklist reach beyond the United States into Europe and Canada. Other fields of science are infected as well; due to the power of the fossil-fuel lobby, few researchers dare to study clean-energy alternative technologies or their careers will go down the sewer. A principle of zero-tolerance for blacklisting in all of the sciences will establish freedom in theoretical and applied science in more areas than medicine. The Guardianship of Health and Freedom to Heal Act must be part of a broader intellectual-civil-rights law.

Every science student is indoctrinated in the same reductionistic frame of reference: chemical molecular structures and interactions as the sole valid focus of medical science. This Scientific Tunnel Vision makes any phenomena occurring outside its limited scope intellectually invisible. Chemical-mechanistic science comfortably fitted the industrial model of the drug business and thus ruled medicine in the Twentieth century.

Sometimes medical policy is based on shallow, cursory reports that merely pick out keywords revealing the proscribed wider frame of reference, failing to grasp underlying scientific principles. “Why bother to study something”, the allopaths shrug, “if we already know it’s quackery”? However, even if a new treatment fits the rigid definition, it will still be banned if a large corporation cannot take over the patent and profit obscenely from it. Meanwhile, people continue to die from the both the side-effects of toxic drugs that are “proven cures” under this rigid chemical definition, and from the diseases that could have been cured many times over by a wide variety of disallowed alternative treatments. Not because they didn’t work, but because they did!

The existence and principles of a wider frame of reference have not been disproved; on the contrary, they are intrinsic to new concepts of quantum physics. Nevertheless, during a medical study, phenomena such as magnetic fields and bio-energetic forces are neither taken into consideration at the planning stage, nor noted as they arise, but eliminated from consideration in advance. Official dogma stands shakily on outdated, narrow principles, ignoring both a broad range of real phenomena and Einstein’s equating of matter with energy. Due to philosophical prejudice, studies that “disprove” alternative approaches are too limited in scope, and are sometimes either outright faked or lamentably fudged. In order to achieve real progress, medicine must now open the door to particle physics.

An inventor of astounding talent, R.R. Rife invented a powerful microscope that enabled him to observe in real time the effects of specific energy frequencies on each species of micro-organism, including the cancer virus. Using his ray machine, he achieved a 100% cancer cure rate in the 1930s. The science could not be validly disputed. Alarmed at the threat to radium investors, the AMA at first tried to take over the patents. When that failed, both the scientist and any evidence of his brilliant discovery had to disappear. Associates were bought out or otherwise silenced. Arson, vandalism, theft (taking key parts and rendering inoperable Rife’s unique microscope), as well as legal prosecutions on trumped-up charges in “kangaroo” courts completed the AMA’s dirty work.

A recent similar case in Canada is that of Gaston Naessens. Like Rife, he invented a dramatic advance in live-observation microscopy. No ordinary light microscopes come close to the 150-angstrom resolution of his “somatoscope”. (Electron microscopes look only at killed viruses.) Under ultraviolet-light staining, he studied the evolution of live somatids. Their changing form to sixteen stages when the body is in an unhealthy, toxic state is known as pleomorphism. The legal and technical case for this new school of science is explained in detail in Christopher Bird’s 1991 book, The Persecution and Trial of Gaston Naessens. Several scientists were impressed by his inventions, but on learning he was blacklisted, backed away in fear for their careers. The case against Naessens is based on simple denial: “We haven’t seen somatids in our microscopes; therefore they don’t exist.” Using a non-sequitur like that as a refutation is just laughable.

Studying these electrically-charged DNA precursors could lead to startling advances in treatment, such as transplants without the danger of tissue rejection, but the Medical Association still refuses to examine this new science. Government interference has closed off access by the public to information about Naessens’ work. CERBE Distribution Inc. in Rock Forest can only stonewall. No one may ask about the somatoscope. Asking where one can go to get one’s blood looked at under high magnification results only in an audible shrug. They don’t know (or aren’t allowed to say) who might have an upgraded microscope with somatid-viewing capability.

The state of affairs is ridiculous. Citizens, lay and scientific, have the right to access this new technology as an exercise in proactive responsibility for their own health. The appearance of aberrant somatid forms in the blood is an early warning, months or years before any symptom appears, and before any sign of disease pathology could be detected by conventional diagnostic systems. Armed with this awareness, people are motivated to follow an improved health regimen. Eating fruit and leafy greens, and aerobic exercise, improve the conditions in which somatids live, and will bring them back down to the healthy three-stage cycle. Such a truly preventive approach would reduce the need (and waiting-list backlogs) for expensive diagnostic methods as well as for treatments. 

D.  Malicious Prosecution

When a small group of powerful officials conspires internationally to eliminate both a scientist and his discoveries, both the Canadian Charter of Rights and the American Constitution are being violated. Yet prosecution of blacklisted doctors and independent scientists has been going on for decades, resulting in many miscarriages of justice, loss to North-American society of some of our best minds, and lost opportunities to save lives with breakthrough treatments that were falsely discredited. In David vs. Goliath battles over patents, Goliath invariably wins. The AMA/FDA giant easily deflects the tiny sling of scientific verifiability with a barrage of dishonest and/or ignorant “expert” witnesses, perjury, media control, and bribery of key legal officials.

One of the “Davids” who was subjected to this disabling legal pressure was William Koch. In the 1930s, this doctor was curing cancer with a single injection of his carbonyl compound, glyoxylide. The scientific triumph of his cures roused intense opposition from the radium investors who controlled hospital policy. When Koch turned down an insulting patent-takeover “offer” that can only have been meant to be refused, corrupt officials set out to destroy his career by abusing the court system and faking official studies. Daniel Haley documents in detail this and nine similar major cases in his well-researched book Politics in Healing (Potomac Valley Press, 2000. Please see www.politicsinhealing.com).  These cases must be re-opened. Canadians have a right to insist that this promising science be re-examined in studies that respect the underlying concepts and protocols. The twin benefits of lowered costs and better treatment outcomes for Canadians could be dramatic.

E.  A Logical New Definition of  “Cure”

The primary dictionary definition states that “cure” means “restores health”. Yet there is a huge gap between the common meaning and the medical definition. To be called a “cure”, a cancer treatment “must kill cancer cells”, period. There is nothing about actually healing the patient, and for good reason! While killing malignant cells, cytotoxic “cancer cures” damage healthy tissues. Patients die in droves. Therefore, to allow this definition to stand is illogical. We can all see that it is not bearing good fruit.

Cancer drugs have been approved with only one percent survival rates. And poisonous drugs do not correct the underlying toxic and anoxic conditions that caused the cancer in the first place. Because it kills cancer cells, radiation is also legally allowed to be called a “proven cure”. Yet ionizing radiation is known to cause cancer at lower levels than are used to burn out tumours. The Ottawa Citizen feature “Flying too Close to the Sun” (July 7 2001), reveals increased rates of cancers due to high-altitude flights. Pilots and flight attendants are considered radiation workers. The article advocates solar-storm warnings for passengers, especially pregnant women. (Unborn babies are the most vulnerable to radiation.) Recurrence, metastases and death are all-too-frequent long-term outcome of standard treatments under this legalistic definition. The vast majority of cancer patients still suffer the final fatal dénouement.

Even though most patients die of cancer, they are still being included in the “cured” statistics if they take long enough to succumb to the disease. Claims of higher cure rates are based on misleading statistics. Some of the apparent longer survival time is due to earlier detection. Although the disease has progressed as usual, the amount of time it was known to be present is included in the calculations. This is how the “five-year rule” allows failure to be called success. This ridiculous sophistry deserves no respect. Logic requires that we look squarely at the actual death rate, not at fudged statistics that try to hide it.

CBC Television’s The National aired an in-depth report on juvenile cancers. Though alive, young survivors are very fragile due to the treatments’ side effects. These include severely weakened hearts that may have to be replaced by transplants, brain damage, and new cancers caused by the radiation! Unfortunately, the CBC did not follow up this report by asking the obvious next questions. What about the future expenses of these treatment survivors? (Taxpayers will have to pay for those transplants.) It’s time to stop believing in standard “cures” that injure the body so seriously and create requirements for yet more expensive and damaging treatments.

To replace that failed system with non-toxic treatments that have better outcomes, we must write a new legal definition of the word “cure” based on its dictionary meaning and common sense. A person “restored to health” does not need transplants and costly after-care. The new definition of “cure” must specify correcting disease-causing conditions (oxygen deprivation, poor nutrition, and toxins, natural and manufactured). To restore robust health, then, we would have to oxygenate tissues, detoxify and nourish the body, and support natural defences. Whether a valid cure involves any patentable chemical is irrelevant to the definition of the word, and to how the law and society must regard the art of healing. We must therefore codify the following principles:

1. To accomplish most or all of the logical treatment goals for cancer and other diseases, the product, technology or therapy must:

a) Avoid harming the immune system and tissues, even if it kills pathogenic agents.

b) Promote, or be compatible with, improved oxygenation of tissues and organs, thus correcting a major underlying cause of disease.

c) Restore normal immune system functioning, as evinced by T-Cell and other readings, as well as by visible clinical improvement in well-being.

d) Neutralize (make biologically inert) toxins and ideally also remove them from the body.

e) Cause a tumour to be de-activated and sloughed off, AND/OR re-program and re-absorb the diseased cells, thus bringing organs and tissues back to a healthy state.

2. The post-treatment stage must show the long-term benefits of a true cure, including:

a) The former patient regains mobility and zest for life, and remains free of residual pain.

c) Hormone balance is restored naturally to within normal levels.

d) The former patient becomes more resilient, not succumbing when faced with other health challenges, such as infection or injury.

e) Following an improved lifestyle and diet appropriate to metabolic type, the patient exercises responsibility for his continuing good health.

F.  Applying the New Definition of “Cure”

1. GLYOXYLIDE:  Glyoxylide does not kill cancer cells directly. However, when a single molecule of this oxygenation catalyst enters a cell, it converts toxins to anti-toxins which move to the next cell and do the same thing, eliminating the cause of disease cell by cell. Over a predictable period of time, the body is restored to a healthy condition. Dr. Koch advocated consuming raw foods to support better oxygenation, and avoiding exposure to smoke and other toxins which can interrupt this health-restoring chain reaction. As the immune system is reactivated, the body re-absorbs cancerous growths, and organs and tissues return to a normal state. (Haley, Politics in Healing, Chapter 3.) Continuing oxygenation keeps the body perfectly healthy. Therefore, glyoxylide is a valid cure for cancer under the proposed definition.

2. MORTAL OSCILLATORY RATE:  Royal Raymond Rife’s “MOR” technology kills the virus believed to cause tumours. The MOR does not kill cancer cells directly; it removes a pathogenic trigger that foments their growth. Specific mortal frequencies also have been identified for every pathogen, viral and bacterial. Healthy tissues are untouched by these frequencies, which are unique to each species of micro-organism. When the invader is destroyed, the immune-system can resume its normal functioning. (Barry Lynes, The Cancer Cure that Worked, Marcus Books, 1987.) Thus Rife’s approach also meets the proposed logical criteria as a valid cure for a broad range of diseases.

3. ULTRAVIOLET BLOOD IRRADIATION (also called photoluminescence, photopheresis, photo-oxidation, hemo-irradiation, or photodynamic therapy). UBI helps patients overcome infectious and degenerative diseases by stimulating normal immune functioning even after this appears to have failed completely. Exposing twenty percent of the patient’s blood to UV light, then re-infusing it back into the bloodstream stimulates the immune cells and enzyme systems in the body to fight bacteria, viruses and fungal invaders.

UBI neutralizes toxins as well as killing the bacteria that produced them. Even in the last stages of septicemia due to E-coli infection, UBI stimulates rapid, complete recovery without the kidney failure and pain due to lingering toxicity. Numerous peer-reviewed articles describe extensive UBI clinical studies. No harmful side effects from this therapy have been recorded in the thousands of cases treated, and its only failures were due to the administration of sulfa drugs beforehand or concurrently. (W.C. Douglass, Into the Light, 1993. Second Opinion Publishing, 1-800-728-2288) In the absence of those drugs which cause severe side effects and would be disallowed under the new definition, UBI meets the proposed logical standard as a curative and preventive therapy for many diseases.

4. OXYGENATION THERAPIES: Several methods of raising tissue oxygen levels exist: ozone therapy, hyperbaric chambers, and hydrogen peroxide. Of these, the latter is the lowest cost option which can be used in remote areas where there is no electricity. With common I.V. equipment and the cheapest available medical chemical, I.V. hydrogen peroxide can improve the chances of recovery from injury or disease. Over 6,000 articles have been published on this subject in various peer-reviewed scientific journals.

Far from being a poison, small amounts of hydrogen peroxide are actually a normal part of the human immune system, which uses it to attack pathogens in the “respiratory burst” phenomenon. Humans are equipped with the catalase enzyme, which swiftly breaks down this molecule into water (H2O), and highly bio-active “singlet” oxygen. Even if bubbles form in the blood, oxygen gas is quickly absorbed without harm. Monitoring and adjusting the speed of delivery to the individual’s catalase level eliminates risk of gas embolism.

Emphysema patients begin to clear their lungs in the first session. Though dead tissues are not restored, remaining lung capacity is maintained, reducing the need for costly palliative care. Intra-arterial H2O2 is indicated for specific diseases. Delivered via the large artery in the leg, it clears coronary arteries of plaque. Douglass points out that this decades-old discovery is still being ignored in favour of expensive, harmful bypass surgery. Along with UBI, intra-arterial oxygenation cures gangrene, making amputation unnecessary, thus avoiding much physical and emotional suffering as well as operative and after-care expenses. (W.C. Douglass, Hydrogen Peroxide, Medical Miracle, 1990.) Therefore, oxidation meets the logical criteria to be called a cure. 

5. EDTA CHELATION: The buildup in the body of toxic metals, such as lead, mercury and aluminum, is a big stress on the immune system and inhibits the functioning of glands and organs. Intravenous delivery of chelating agents chemically binds and removes these metals. As part of the monitoring process, urine is routinely collected from new chelation patients and lab tests confirm which metals are being excreted. This can cause stress on the kidneys, but no other way has been found, as of yet, to get these metals out of the body. Careful monitoring of patients, and supplementation to replace lost beneficial minerals helps minimize risks. Because chelation opens up smaller blood vessels, heart patients experience improvement in their condition. (Source: personal interviews with patients and I.V. nurse.) Since it removes toxic matter in about 85% of patients this treatment modality can be accepted as a valid cure, unless and until another way is found to remove toxic metals without causing stress to the excretory system.

6. 714-X:  Gaston Naessens’ non-toxic compound is based on the abnormal requirement of tumours for nitrogen, and on the attraction of camphor to cancer cells. Injected into lymph nodes, 714-X floods and sates the tumour’s excess demand for nitrogen. This turns off the cancer’s immune-paralyzing secretions, turning on the body’s defences to attack the cancer. Naessens points out that other factors that can weaken the immune system; an impact injury can set back progress, requiring the course of 21 lymphatic injections to be repeated. Used alone, 714-X has about a 75% cure rate, well beyond the single-digit cytotoxic “cure” percentages. Even those patients who ultimately don’t recover by using 714-X enjoy improved quality of life, free of the extreme pain and nausea caused by toxic treatments, and need little or no palliative care. (C. Bird, The Persecution and Trial of Gaston Naessens.) Combining it with oxidative treatments should further improve its cure rate. Therefore, 714-X is acceptable as an immune-enhancing treatment for cancer.

Most of the suppressed and denigrated non-toxic products and therapies were designed to enhance the immune system. A fair and open-minded examination that respects the wider scientific frame of reference will uncover more that meet this new, logical set of standards.

G.  Toward A Bill of Rights for Scientists

We can no longer afford the luxury of allowing one school of scientific thought to dominate medicine to the detriment of public health. New national health legislation to protect researchers and doctors from the despicable witch hunts of the past will include provisions such as the following:

1. Restricting scientific freedom will be an indictable offence. A scientist will be able to have charges laid against employers if there they attempt to force him out of his post, or to cover up a new discovery or invention, entailing jail terms upon conviction.

2. Termination of employment and other abusive tactics to enforce thought-control would be actionable in civil court. The legislation will support an injured party suing a university for loss of salary and punitive damages for wrongful inhibition of Freedom of Thought.

3. “Stacking” a department or debating panel to exclude proponents of alternative theories shall be illegal. Charges may be laid immediately without a preceding civil suit.

4. Denying a grant application due to philosophical bias will be an offence. A professor (or senior student) can lay charges against perpetrators. Evidence of financial corruption on the part of a regulatory or granting agency will convict the perpetrator of abusing Scientific Freedom of Thought, resulting in jail terms and/or other appropriate penalties.

5. A professor or researcher who is denied publication of an article expounding a new theory “because our peer-reviewers haven’t heard of it”, shall be entitled to launch a lawsuit against the journal. If the civil case proves bias, the publishers can be charged.

6. Whistle-blower legislation must fully protect the lives, integrity and incomes of those who expose incidents of intimidation, bribery, perjury, theft of research notes and data, vandalism and other criminal activity, all of which have been part of the campaign to discredit research into non-toxic theories and therapies in the past.

7. All studies used as “proof” for any point of view must be open to scrutiny and rebuttal. There must be no secret studies of which only the conclusions are handed down as if from Mount Olympus. Top-down pontificating “from authority” shall in itself be considered evidence of abuse of scientific freedom that helps lead to a conviction.

8. Emotional attacks, personal slurs, and insults shall not be accepted as valid arguments, and shall be justification to sue for libel and defamation of character. This will help raise the quality of debates to focus on the intellectual issues, not on personalities.

H.  Conflict of Interest Legislation Governing Regulators

1. Nobody who works for or provides consultative services to a government regulatory agency may own patents in products or technologies within the agency’s purview.

2. Neither employees nor consultants to the regulatory agency shall be allowed to own shares in firms that have applied for approval, or that have an application in progress, or that are likely to apply for product approvals in future.

3. Nobody who works for a regulatory agency may take a job with a corporation that has presented, is presenting, or will present products to that agency for approval, for a minimum of ten years following the end of employment with the regulatory agency.

4. The wife, close relative or business associate of anyone who works for a government regulatory agency shall also have to comply with conflict of interest laws. Any significant relationship between a regulatory-agency employee and any patent-holder or investor must be under scrutiny and in the public eye. This will include associates holding memberships in the same private clubs and service organizations.

5. Nobody who is a current or recent (within the past ten years) employee of an applicant firm can be hired by, or serve as a consultant to, a regulatory agency. Hiding a secret link to applicant firms will subject the individual to prosecution and possible jail terms as well as dismissal. Upon conviction of conflict of interest, any decisions in which that person participated shall be automatically reviewed by arms-length legal consultants.

6. All decisions and supporting documents of the regulatory agency shall be open to public scrutiny, and to Charter-based court challenges from citizens’ groups.

7. All meetings between regulatory employees and representatives of applicant firms shall be videotaped, and tapes preserved for a minimum of five years in a tamper-free location. When an allegation of irregularities such as bribery arises, the police shall review these tapes. If the case goes to trial, taped evidence shall be made public whether corporate secrets may be compromised or not. (A threat of revealing proprietary secrets will help prevent corporate misbehaviour.)

8. All decisions must be seen to be fair. If questions of unfairness arise, or if a decision is perceived to be based on prejudice against an alternative concept of science (such as Naessens’ much-maligned somatids), then the case must be reviewed by a parliamentary or Supreme-Court–appointed independent committee.

9. If there is any evidence of Suppression of Scientific Freedom, review-committee proceedings shall be televised, including the videotaped records related to the case.

PART THREE: Freedom of Medical Practice

A.  Enforced Docility to Medical Association Control of Licensing

Doctors are not free. But this is Canada! Don’t we have a Charter of Rights that guarantees freedom of association, and free speech? Theoretically, yes. However, their professional association inhibits doctors from enjoying these rights. Guylaine Lanctôt, M.D., who published the hard-hitting book, The Medical Mafia, has been barred from practising medicine. Apparently doctors are not permitted even to analyse what is wrong with the system, much less to release that information to the public.

The infamous case of Jozef Krop shows how abusive and illogical are the attacks on doctors’ freedom of conscience. The “charges” against him list common-sense, immune-friendly orthomolecular approaches as if they were crimes: vitamins and minerals, dietary modification, prescribing air and water filtration, diagnosing and treating allergies to pesticides and chemical inhalants, and recommending saunas for detoxification. For patients suffering from chemical poisoning, logic dictates that those toxins be removed from their bodies to avoid further damage. The patients in question are those for whom orthodox treatments failed completely, and Dr. Krop was the only doctor who actually helped them. The real crime in this case, for which the Medical Association itself should be prosecuted, is denying these sensible treatment options to patients. One day, failure to offer common-sense approaches like these will be called malpractice.

Although Kwinter’s Bill 2 has recently been passed in Ontario, this little amendment will not be enough. Under the header “Non-traditional practice”, An Act to Amend the Medicine Act of 1991 (The Medicine Amendment Act, 2000), states only:

5.1 A member shall not be found guilty of professional misconduct or of incompetence under section 51 or 52 of the Health Professionals Procedural Code solely on the basis that the member practises a therapy that is non-traditional or that departs from the prevailing medical practice unless there is evidence that proves that the therapy poses a greater risk to a patient’s health than the traditional or prevailing practice. 

The conditional clause about proving health risk is the loophole. Data can be fudged to make a harmless product appear deadly, and a dangerous one seem innocuous. Evidence can be kept secret, and only conclusions announced through a docile mass media.

One of only three doctors in Ottawa who offers intravenous hydrogen peroxide told me privately, “When the Medical Association is dead set against an alternative therapy, they will find a way around [that amendment].”  Official ostracism continues against this doctor’s practice despite many positive patient outcomes. An Ottawa-area female doctor is currently under psychiatric treatment because so many standard practices are against her conscience. Electroshock and “pharmaceutical therapies” are being used to “overcome her resistance”. In other words, they will shock and drug her into submission to orthodoxy “so that she will be able to work” in a medical system she does not believe in. To a suggestion about campaigning for freedom of conscience for doctors, she replied, “The drug companies will never allow it.” Her comment clearly identifies the pharmaceutical industry as the controlling force behind this enforced orthodoxy.

How, in a democratic society, can such cruel coercion be permitted to take place at all? These violations of human rights occur because secret lobbying has rewritten our medical laws without regard for human rights. And, due to the media silence, society at large is unaware of just how much this is costing doctors in personal terms, and costing all of us both in money and in human suffering. For the Kwinter amendment to function as it was intended, we must enshrine in an ironclad, national and constitutionally-valid Health-Guardianship Law linked to the Charter of Rights the Medical Freedom to practise orthomolecular medicine openly and without interference from any regulators, corporate interests, or hostile professional associations. Along with protection of intellectual freedom for researchers, and renewal and support for freedom of the press, only this new law will finally give Canadian citizens truly preventive, cost-effective health care.

B.  Alternate, Independent Professional Associations

Giving homeopaths, naturopaths, osteopaths and chiropractors equal status with MDs by extending full medicare coverage to alternatives would stimulate healthy competition against allopathy that has been missing. Allied professionals offer many immune-friendly therapies, which would then be immediately available to the public, not just to those who can afford them in addition to having to support allopathic medicine through taxes.

Unless by divine intervention a miracle of open-mindedness suddenly occurs among orthodox MDs, there is also need for a different kind of professional association to train, certify, and support doctors who want to practise immune-friendly treatments. A new Royal College of Orthomolecular Medicine (RCOM) will be independent of and equal in status to the existing Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons. A new degree, Doctor of Orthomolecular Medicine, will have its own acronym, OMD or MD-O. To ensure freedom to study and endorse the science behind alternatives, RCOM members must have autonomy from the CMA and from drug-industry-influenced regulations. This College will be free to associate with the International Oxidative Medicine Association (IOMA) and similar bodies which can supply data for RCOM’s new curriculum. An MD who also wants to add the MD-O degree will have to pass qualifying courses in advanced nutrition, alternative immunology and other specialties deemed by this new College to be essential to full understanding of the orthomolecular discipline.

The MD-O label will help citizens find a sympathetic doctor without wasteful “doctor-shopping”. Alleged “abuse of medicare” by patients is actually due to allopathy’s general failure to cure degenerative disease. It is allopathic doctors who abuse the system by over-using expensive diagnostic tests, over-prescribing toxic drugs, and over-use of invasive surgeries and implanting expensive high-tech devices, making “iatrogenic” disease the fourth leading cause of death in the U.S., and similarly costly in Canada.

C. Freedom of Association

Freedom of Association is a basic human right, to which most of the “western” nations pay lip service while turning a blind eye to its absence in the vital health-care sector of the economy. The new Canadian Health Guardianship Law must specifically encourage cross-disciplinary collegial association between doctors and other health professionals, whether they are covered by medicare or not. The resulting wider point of view fosters personal growth, contributes to new understanding of how to heal, and increases options for patients seeking to recover from or prevent illness. An emphasis on preventive care would make first-line joint clinics an ideal setting for such co-operative relationships.

Association between equals for mutual benefit will mean zero tolerance for orthodox medical doctors who try to exert dominance over an alternative professional. Interference with his or her freedom of thought and practice would be illegal as well as grounds for dissolving the partnership. Both professionals must be free to exercise their training, talents and skills, disagree when conscience and thought systems are in conflict, and work toward creative accommodation of differences. Ideally, a patient with intractable health problems should be able to consult different types of doctors in a conference setting, where they can lay out all the options and together work out the ones most likely to be of benefit.

D.  Toward A Bill of Rights for Health Professionals

No economic interest, nor any philosophical prejudice, can be allowed to stand in the way of the mental and moral freedom to heal people by any means. Hallmarks of public, universal medicare must include the following principles.

1. The practice of Medicine according to Individual Conscience is the only legitimate moral basis of Doctors’ Civil and Professional Rights legislation.

2. The doctor has an inalienable moral right to offer disputed non-toxic orthomolecular treatments with the intention of helping his patients to regain health, without fear of prosecution on merely philosophical grounds.

3. The doctor has the Charter Right to form associations with any health professional from another discipline. Any attempt by the CMA or another authority to restrict or disallow freedom of association will result in criminal charges against that organization.

4. Positive outcomes will be the primary support for a treatment’s validity. If patients are satisfied, no special-interest group has any grounds for laying charges against a doctor.

5. The law will support a doctor’s freedom of expression to publish books or newsletters. Removal of the licence to practise medicine for doing so will be a criminal offence. The doctor shall also have the right to sue the association for punitive damages, lost income, and reinstatement of his or her licence.

6. Prosecution of individual doctors for Criminal-Code violations, such as sexual assault, will continue as before. As an additional safeguard for a patient’s personal integrity, it is recommended that a nurse or similarly qualified monitor should be present during gender-specific examinations or procedures.

PART FOUR: Citizen Freedom of Choice

A.  Right to Information

Although the law requires doctors to explain risks as well as benefits, and to list alternatives, drug information is often incomplete, misleading, and even erroneous. Leaving the patient with a false sense of security, a little information is not better than none at all. Drug benefits are usually exaggerated. Approval in the first place is based on transient laboratory results that may be statistically as low as one percent, and although patients in the study did not feel any improvement. Doctors may have taken one course about drugs and perhaps an elective in medical school. Everything else they know comes from advertising. When the doctor does not believe in the validity of alternatives, or because they have been banned and buried, these are usually not explained fairly if at all. (CBC Radio’s IDEAS,“Naked in the Pharmaceutical Marketplace”)

The regulatory system has loopholes large enough for truckloads of drugs to drive through them. There is no mandatory system for reporting injuries or even deaths from drugs, and side effects are usually downplayed. Due to favourable bias in the promotional material, a doctor may not even recognize that his patient’s problems are due to the drug he prescribed. It is estimated that only a minority (ten percent or fewer) of unfavourable drug outcome incidents are reported. The numbers of patients injured by drugs can be in the hundreds or thousands annually in North America.

Promotional material presents drug benefits in terms of relative risk reduction. When he hears a doctor say that a drug will improve his chances of avoiding a heart attack by fifty percent, a patient assumes this means that fifty percent of patients avoid heart attacks. In absolute, not relative, terms, the likelihood that the drug lessens the risk of heart attacks may be only from four percent to two percent. That is a reduction of fifty percent, but in absolute terms, the benefit statistically affects only two percent of patients. Thus, unless the patient’s condition is very serious, the drug may make no practical difference. Cost-benefit analysis must then weigh the risks to the patient from side effects which will be more significant in deciding whether or not to prescribe (or take) this drug. 

Pharmaceutical corporations supply to pharmacists computer programs that generate drug handouts, which may have glaring omissions affecting safety. Patients assume that because a pharmacist gave it out, the handout is complete and reliable. Some handouts suggest uses of the drug for which it is not approved, or omit warning signs. For example, even after Prepulsid was known to cause heart arrhythmia, its information leaflet did not mention possible lethal effects! Europe has a law specifying that such leaflets have to be approved, but Canada still has no such requirement. Since our HPB allows drug companies to participate in writing alert letters, they naturally campaign to soften the effect. These letters are often too cautiously worded, leading doctors to ignore them.

Patients are pushed to accept radioactive tests; and often not told about less dangerous ways to find out the same information. (Alternative methods may not even be available because of being suppressed to ensure marketplace dominance for radiation technology.) E.g.: radioactive iodine uptake testing is not the only way to diagnose hyperthyroidism. When an Ottawa endocrinologist sent patients to the Civic Hospital’s Nuclear Medicine department without mentioning another option, he violated their right to information (a personal experience). Obviously he did not want them to use their freedom to choose the safer blood test. Establishing the legal requirement for complete disclosure will help patients to exercise in the real world the health rights that we don’t currently have in practice, in contradiction to our famous Charter.

B.  Toward A Patient Bill of Rights

Under the rubric of “Right to Knowledge”, here are some basic principles that must be enshrined a Patients’ Bill of Rights:

1. Reporting adverse reactions to drugs and medical procedures must be mandatory. The patient has the right to know how many people have been harmed, and in what manner. 

2. The patient has a right to real-life perspective on benefits and risks in absolute, not relative, terms. Therefore, the doctor must disclose the overall rates of cures, and injuries, that arise from a given product or therapy, not percentages of increased or decreased risk.

3. Information that is given out to both patients and doctors about toxic pharmaceuticals, medical devices to be implanted, and invasive procedures will have to be approved in advance for accuracy and completeness, and updated as the reporting system uncovers dangers or benefits. Drug inserts must be in type large enough to read. Also available should be information on who paid for studies supporting the drug, device, or therapy.

4. Before agreeing to a diagnostic test, the patient must be told ahead of time what is involved, what side effects it might carry, and whether there is another method that could supply the needed information in a less invasive or toxic manner. 

5. The patient has the right to know about all possible consequences of a medical treatment in advance, including its emotional and lifestyle impacts.

6. All citizens have a right to know about cutting-edge alternative research. Interference with the free flow of information cannot be tolerated, whether it originates from corporate, government, professional, or other vested interests.

C.  Right to Choose and to Change Health-Care Practitioners

As long as the patient knows he has the right to seek another doctor, he can exercise the ultimate right of refusal if a doctor pressures him to accept a treatment he does not want. Therefore, the right of seeking a second opinion from a different kind of doctor is essential. Being forced to sign a contract with one doctor, as some cost-cutting planners have suggested, is unworkable on practical grounds and unacceptable under human rights principles. The lone doctor is not divinely omniscient, and can never fill every need. In What Your Doctor Would Love to Tell You, but Can’t, Jesse Hanley, M.D. explains that 98% of the time, the doctor does not know what is wrong. Changing doctors is not “abuse of the medical system”, but may prevent it. Many diagnostic tests can show false positives or false negatives. Without further waste of medical resources looking for what is not there, a doctor from a different background may find the actual cause more quickly.

Medicine is as much art and guesswork as it is science. Logically, then, as patients we have the right to consult both another medical doctor and a practitioner of a different school of thought, in case that other discipline can offer an insight not available under the previous one’s frame of reference. The intuitive gifts of an individual doctor also have a bearing on how she makes a diagnosis. And the emotional dynamic of how she relates to the patient can affect the outcome of treatment, whatever approach is followed. Therefore, both doctor and patient must be free to dissolve their interpersonal relationship if it is not conducive to healing or mutually respectful. 

D.  Habeas Corpus: The Right to Own Your Own Body

One of the foundational rights in English Common Law is habeas corpus (in Latin, “you may have the body”). Established centuries ago, this right ended the era of trial by ordeal, and punishment by dismemberment and mutilation. Therefore it seems appropriate to consider a version of this right as a fundamental heath principle.

For centuries, while the Church condemned suicide, it recognized a moral right to refuse “heroic measures” (i.e. allopathic treatments). This compassionate principle allows a patient too weak to endure more suffering to choose to die with dignity. If death is inevitable and interventions would mean more extreme pain, the theologians recognized that no moral law can force an ailing individual to endure what he is too weak to face. This traditional right must now be extended in law to mean that patients have the basic and inalienable human right to decide how their own bodies are to be treated. A law that forces compliance with mutilative, invasive, or toxic treatments violates medical habeas corpus, and is therefore unconstitutional as well as contrary to the Helsinki Accord.

Some jurisdictions allow police to invade a home, drag a reluctant patient into the hospital and operate on him or her without consent. A terminal cancer patient who would prefer to give up the fight is thus forced to extend a life that is already unendurable under the orthodox treatment system that allows no gentler options. This is gross violation of human rights. Medical habeas corpus must include the right to refuse any treatment that the patient knows is risky or extremely painful, or that he does not believe in. The doctor’s job is merely to provide information about levels of risk in undergoing versus refusing a treatment; it is up to the patient to decide what he can or will tolerate. Any new provincial or national regulation, or any international treaty, that would interfere with or abrogate this fundamental right is illegal and must be struck down.

E.  Full Coverage of Orthomolecular Treatments

A practical expression of the popular tax revolt, Canadians want “more bang for our buck” within the publicly-insured system. Since logic will the determining factor, all of the non-toxic treatments and products that meet the new definition of a cure will be fully covered by medicare. These include herbal formulae such as Essiac; orthomolecular products such as 714-X and glyoxylide; photo-oxidative therapies, and energy medicine, such as Rife frequency technologies and acupuncture.

After comparing surgical spinal care to chiropractic, Ontario’s Manga report suggested making chiropractic the gate-keeper to the medical system for lower-back problems. If a similar open and detailed study, free of illegal financial influence, were to compare the difference in outcomes and cost between allopathic and orthomolecular medicine, the evidence suggests that immune-supportive approaches would be the clear winners in most cases. Logically, then, orthomolecular doctors would be co-gatekeepers to the publicly insured health system alongside chiropractors. Where available, osteopaths, who use similar spinal adjustment techniques as well as having a full medical education, could be an alternative to chiropractors in this gatekeeper role.

It is illogical to expect taxpayers to foot the bill for exorbitantly-priced drugs and radiation which have a very low percentage of treatment-survivors while causing new diseases. These methods cost hundreds of thousands of dollars per patient, most of whom die as much due to the treatment as to the disease. Obviously we will stop funding them! Ideally we would also phase out of existence such obsolete modalities.

There will still be a place for allopathic drug and surgical treatments. Since those approaches are so expensive, patients who fail to carry out their responsibility to co-operate with dietary and lifestyle changes should expect to pay extra fees for these heroic measures. This financial penalty alone would motivate people to develop healthier lifestyle habits and to co-operate with an orthomolecular immune-supportive regimen. And all taxpayers would benefit from enjoying a much cheaper healthcare system, and from a healthier population able to work, take care of themselves, and pay their taxes.

PART FIVE: Corporate Control of Public Information

A.  Pharmaceutical Advertising

Saturation advertising manipulating editorial policy has brainwashed doctors and regulators to stop them from thinking for themselves. Overworked doctors lack the time and resources to investigate alternate approaches. Instead, they trust the politicized and slanted information that is sent to them. In Reversing Diabetes, Dr. Julian Whitaker describes the undue influence of drug-company “throwaways” doctors receive “for free”. A big-name doctor is paid to write a negative report on a drugless therapy. Because of the individual’s prestige, few question his arguments or his conclusions. Readers overlook the fact that such articles are not peer-reviewed. (Whitaker, pp. 124-141.) Multiplying this one example of profit-driven bias across the whole range of drugs, high-tech devices and new surgical techniques (many of which are equally questionable when subjected to careful long-term studies), reveals the scale of this economically-driven distortion. Their pride nettled by evidence that certain drugs cause a higher death rate than placebo, doctors don’t want to believe or admit that their teachers could have been wrong, or even dishonest.

The situation has become worse in recent years, as drug companies are now allowed to advertise prescription drugs directly to the public, bypassing doctors. People then demand the advertised drug, and will dump a reluctant doctor to look for one who immediately reaches for the prescription pad. Canadians see these ads on cable channels and are being influenced by the well-known power of promotional techniques. While side effects are being rhymed off quickly in the audio track, the slick imagery overrides any real grasp of the risks involved. And of course advertisements never mention possible alternatives which should be considered in order to make informed treatment decisions.

B.  Journalism Co-opted

Though for decades abuse of financial and political power has been used to discredit the breakthrough discoveries of independent doctors and scientists, the full extent of this scandal has never been revealed to the general public. When perjury and criminal acts are involved, which ought to be front-page news, we don’t hear about them even after they have been proven in court. In Politics in Healing, retired American politician Daniel Haley uncovers this sinister history from impeccable sources such as court records, published scientific documents, and first-hand witnesses..For the past century, corrupt officials in the AMA and FDA have not only wielded monopolistic control over the drug business and medical profession, but also have pulled all the strings they could to keep the ugly facts out of the public eye.

On October 30, 1937, the AMA Board of Trustees met with the National Association of Science Writers of America. The AMA told these writers they were not competent to understand medicine and would have to write only what AMA spokesmen told them was true. The writers capitulated, and the wire services and news corporations surrendered soon after. Failure to carry out their mandate to expose violations of public trust has made the media accomplices in the criminal offense of Spreading False News. The AMA and medical officials of the same ilk in other countries continue to dictate self-serving policies and to publicise faked studies. Both electronic and print media continue to parrot them uncritically, not investigating financial details and motives, nor exposing wrongdoing.

This secret pact between the Medical Association and the media is the reason that non-toxic products and therapies are predictably and routinely dismissed as quackery. Hostile news reports about alternative medicine often fail to meet basic intellectual standards for validity of argument. Instead, they spout personal slurs, flawed logic, smear words, and unsupported assertions. These propaganda techniques ring warning bells in a trained reader’s mind, signalling that the writer either lacks first-hand knowledge, or has an undisclosed reason dissuading the reader from persuing the subject further. Wearing an authoritative attitude along with his white coat, the “medical expert” appears on TV. Even if he actually knows little to nothing about the technology or product he is condemning as “quackery”, his opinion is received as gospel. Thus wilful ignorance successfully cuts off debate and delivers us all into the hands of the drug industry.

C.  Protecting Freedom of Speech

Jeffrey Robinson, author of PRESCRIPTION GAMES: Money, Ego and Power in the Global Pharmaceutical Industry, described how he was actually threatened by an industry representative if he included certain data in his book (interview on CBC Radio’s All in a Day, June 5, 2001). Fortunately for the public, he decided that to risk defying this threat, suggesting that if they killed him, it would mean more publicity for what they wanted to hide. Not all investigative reporters have exhibited this level of courage, with good reason. Journalists have been subjected to wiretaps and other surveillance, harassment, loss of employment, and some have even died in suspicious “accidents”. Merely having “freedom of the press” in the Charter of Rights has not been enough to liberate the “fifth estate” to do its job. We need laws with “teeth” to ensure that we get a complete, truthful picture. An informed public will be aroused to insist on health rights and economic justice.

Since the mass media has been unable (or unwilling) to do its job in recent decades, futuristic health legislation must reinforce the media’s freedom to carry out its traditional obligation to guard the public good in health issues. Reporting about clean energy versus polluting industries, an issue that impacts public health, has been subject to inhibitions from the fossil fuel lobby. Therefore, laws supporting freedom of the press must be broad enough to apply across the board so that other areas of the economy are liberated as well.

D.  A Bill of Rights for Science Journalists

1.  By law, reporters must be allowed access to all details of medical-scientific studies. Anyone claiming that a disputed study was “unrepeatable” must disclose what changes to protocols were made, and how these changes influenced the allegedly different outcome.

2.  New laws must require the media to give equal time and print space for rebuttal and critique of officially-sponsored medical studies, and of the policies based on them, by independent scientists.

3.  Intimidation of reporters and investigative writers, such as making threats against their lives or property, must result in warrants for arrest of perpetrators, and in prosecutions. Uttering threats is a criminal offence in itself; the attack need not have been carried out.

4.  Murder or injury of a reporter must be treated with the same seriousness as murder of a police officer. Both shall be considered guardians of public freedom.

5.  Any corporation that withdraws or threatens to withdraw its advertising as an attempt to control the content of health-related news has used blackmail to violate freedom of the press. Since in a corporation it is top executives who have ultimate responsibility for the actions of their underlings, CEOs and top executives will be charged under this law, and subjected to fines and jail terms upon conviction.

6.  Because of past abuses, powerful provisions are needed to protect the freedom of mass media operations. Financial deterrents are appropriate for business-related offences. A television or radio station, newspaper, or website owner will have the right to sue the offender for punitive damages, and in order to recover lost advertising revenue.

SUMMARY: The Decision to be Made

Due to its own agenda of financial gain through forcing everyone to focus exclusively on symptom control using toxic drugs, allopathic medicine has painted itself into a corner. Its political plan to maximize income from drugs, surgery and radiation has succeeded too well, with the result that healthcare costs too much, its workers are overburdened, and it often fails to cure disease. Everyone can now see that allopathy has priced itself out of the market, and that we literally cannot afford to believe in the existing medical paradigm anymore. It is now time to make a fundamental choice about the kind of care we want, and the funding issue will fall into its proper secondary place, and be more easily settled.

If we continue to acquiesce to the situation described in this document, Canadians will bow under the pharmaceutical/medical yoke. But the status quo will not just continue; it will get worse. Costs will keep rising; more services will be cut further; user fees will keep the poor from getting treatment; and for-profit “managed care” will be imported from the failed American system. After receiving “unacceptable” care following a serious accident, Dr. Paul Ellwood has called for government intervention against the HMO system he originated. (Ausubel, p. 335) The HMO system is not worth emulating when even its inventor has repudiated it.

Alternatively, we Canadians can choose to create a new kind of medicare system based on Logical Guardianship of Health. We can choose to de-throne from its illegal exclusivity the corrupt allopathic/pharmaceutical cartel. We can choose to clean up the corruption in, and to reform and streamline, the bloated regulatory system. As a corollary to those twin bulwarks of health freedom, we can choose to protect the civil rights of scientists, doctors, allied health professionals, journalists, and last but not least, the human rights of our citizens when we interact with this system.

It’s a no-brainer, folks. Immune-supportive, orthomolecular health care will lower costs by preventing illness. To achieve this, we must neutralize the toxins of illegal thought control and abuse of scientific authority that is causing this cancer of high cost. Canada’s Medicare System will then need the oxygenation of Freedom of Association, and the nutrition of Freedom of Speech to guard its recovered health. Comprehensive economic and social reform legislation will help to make Medicare both affordable and creatively sustainable for the new millennium.




INTO THE LIGHT, by William Campbell Douglass, M.D. (The theory and application of). Second Opinion Publishing, P.O. Box 467939, Atlanta, GA  31146-7939  (1-800-728-2288)

This book describes in detail the scientific basis of Ultraviolet Blood Irradiation. This therapy, which achieves results without introducing any foreign chemicals into the body, has been researched extensively and used successfully over many decades to treat a wide variety of both degenerative and infectious disease. In this age of antibiotic resistance, UBI is highly relevant because of its ability to help the body fight off bacteria such as E-coli, as well as neutralizing the toxins released by them. Those deaths in Walkerton were preventable.

Hydrogen Peroxide: MEDICAL MIRACLE, by William Campbell Douglass, M.D. Second Opinion Publishing, P.O. Box 467939, Atlanta, GA  31146-7939. 

Based on over six thousand published scientific articles, the book explains how this simple and very cheap therapy corrects the underlying cause of many diseases, namely oxygen deprivation. It works because the human species has an enzyme that breaks down hydrogen peroxide into water and singlet oxygen. Not every species has this capability. Most dramatically, an intravenous hydrogen peroxide drip reverses even severe emphysema. This approach can be used in combination with UBI and with other therapies that support the immune system. One chapter explains the protocol for safe use. Oxygen gas embolism can be avoided with proper procedures, and quickly overcome if it does begin to occur.

REVERSING DIABETES, by Julian M. Whitaker, M.D.. Warner Books, 1987.

Diet and exercise programs enable patients to reduce insulin and drug dependence. He also discusses the dangers of commonly-used drugs that are still prescribed despite evidence of heart damage. This doctor has written a similar book on correcting heart disease. 

ENZYME NUTRITION: the Food Enzyme Concept, by Dr. Edward Howell, 1989.  Avery Publishing Group, Wayne, New Jersey.

The role of “live” food is explained. The enzymes are important in achieving and keeping health because they enable the body to absorb nutrients from the food. Enzymes are destroyed by heat and by most forms of food processing including gamma-irradiation.

YOUR LIFE IN YOUR HANDS, by Jane Plant. Virgin, 2000.

British scientist shows how breast and prostate cancer are linked to both dietary sources of IGF-1 and other hormones (notably in dairy foods), and to chemical pollutants. The studies that allegedly implicate the phytoestrogens in soya as causing breast cancer growth ignore the convincing epidemiology of China’s extremely low rates of breast cancer (only 11 cases in 100,000 people) in areas where people eat tofu all the time but never consume dairy foods. Dr. Plant has kept herself free of cancer, after the fifth recurrence and being given only three months to live, by avoiding all dietary IGF-1 and eating soya products.


MANIFESTO FOR A NEW MEDICINE: Your Guide to Healing Partnerships and the Wise Use of Alternative Therapies, by James S. Gordon, M.D., 1996. Addison Wesley Publishing, Inc.

American psychiatrist explores other paradigms of healing including osteopathic spinal manipulation (similar to Chiropractic), Chinese and East Indian Traditional Medicine (acupuncture and herbal), and describes political and economic problems leading to high cost in the American system. He recommends scrapping adversarial malpractice regulations and adopting the Canadian  approach (single-payer insurance) to funding.

NUTRITION AND PHYSICAL DEGENERATION, by Weston A. Price, D.D.S., 1945. (50th Anniversary Edition, extra contents copyright 1989). Keats Publishing Inc., New Canaan, Connecticut.

This landmark study, rich with powerful photographs, examined all races and cultures to discover what made teeth healthy. With optimum nutrition from whole unprocessed foods, Price found that the teeth are self-repairing. Noting that money from corporations tended to skew the findings, Canadian-born Weston Price funded his research from his dental practice. Even without the technology available today that would have identified the enzymes, their role in overall health as well as dentition is documented. Pre-natal nutrition is emphasized. Weston Price explains how vitamin deficiencies before birth lead to typical narrowing of the jaw and crowding of teeth, as well as to other congenital defects, allergies, and susceptibility to illnesses.

PASTEUR EXPOSED (originally released in 1923 under the title BECHAMP OR PASTEUR?), by Ethel Douglas Hume, 1989. BOOKREAL, 8 Millar Street, Denmark, W.A. 6333, Australia.

This important book examines the historical documents including records of the French Academy of Science from the nineteenth century. Pasteur actually stole ideas from Antoine Béchamp, but did not understand them fully. What Pasteur did understand was how to suck up to those in power. Thus although his method did not work, he claimed credit (and was believed) for saving the silkworms industry; documents revealed that Béchamp actually found the solution but was ignored. One ongoing effect of Pasteur’s political skills is the continuing use of pesticides. Béchamp’s research indicated that the soil itself is alive, and that its life processes must be respected. As far as Pasteur was concerned, dead and alive were the same and therefore it did not matter if poisons were used. The work of cutting-edge researchers such as Gaston Naessens is based on Béchamp, not Pasteur.

The Persecution and Trial of Gaston Naessens, by Christopher Bird. H.J. Kramer, Inc., Tiburton, California.

Co-author of The Secret Life of Plants, Bird has written extensively and with understanding on subjects related to Nature and wholesomeness. Being fully bilingual, he attended the trial of Gaston Naessens and understood what was going on. Bird explains the nature of Naessens’ original research, which builds on Antoine Béchamp’s work. The trial is another example of attempts by Official Medicine to suppress independent research that could undermine pharmaceutical profits. Naessens was driven out of France and blacklisted by the AMA for his groundbreaking work. His non-toxic treatment for cancer, a compound of camphor and nitrogen (714-X), restores the normal somatid cycle in the blood, enabling the body to overcome tumours.


POLITICS IN HEALING, by Daniel Haley, 2000. Potomac Valley Press, Washington, D.C..

This vitally important book is a must-read for any Canadian who wants to preserve universal medicare and make it affordable. During his time in elected office, this American legislator learned “to look under rocks to find out what is really going on”.  He outlines a sordid history of corruption in the American regulatory system. In case after case, the FDA, AMA, and NIH conspired to steal patents, inhibit new research, break the law, and abuse power. Blatant conflict of interest is rampant: the regulators themselves own patents and suppress any products that would compete with theirs. Court records, personal witnesses, and published data are included among the sources.

For example, after years of harrassing and persecuting doctors practicing non-toxic therapies, Morris Fishbein, editor of the Journal of the American Medical Association, was discredited in court for lying and falsifying reports. Though based on lies, decades later his policies are still imposed on all doctors. The book also recommends new laws that will get rid of unjustifiable regulatory interference and give both doctors and patients freedom to heal. This book is available in Ottawa from Essentia, tel. 238-4437.

THE CANCER CURE THAT WORKED: Fifty Years of Suppression (aka The Rife Report), by Barry Lynes, 1987. Marcus Books, P.O. Box 327, Queensville, Ont., L0G 1R0.

This details the history of Royal Rife, a brilliant researcher decades ahead of his time. He invented a powerful microscope that enabled him to study live blood and observe changes. He also invented a simple technology for curing disease by means of energy frequencies. After first trying unsuccessfully to take over this breakthrough, Morris Fishbein and the AMA destroyed it – and Mr. Rife.

THE HEALING OF CANCER: The Cures - the Cover-ups, and the Solution Now! by Barry Lynes, 1989. Marcus Books, P.O. Box 327, Queensville, Ont., L0G 1R0.

Donating money “for research to cure cancer” merely reinforces corruption and perpetuates injustices. This book deals specifically with the political problems in the Cancer Society and National Cancer Institute in the United States. Mr. Lynes proposes changes to the system that will open doors to non-toxic, effective therapies.

THE MEDICAL MAFIA: How it get out of it alive and take back our health and wealth, by Guylaine Lanctot, M.D., 1995.  Here’s the Key, Inc., P.O. Box 113, Coaticook, Quebec, J1A 2S9.

This Canadian book reveals the unholy alliance among government regulators and pharmaceutical corporations. It discusses some of the alternatives and ways for citizens to take back their rights.

SLEEP THIEVES: An Eye-Opening Exploration into the Science and Mysteries of Sleep, by Stanley Coren. The Free Press, a division of Simon and Schuster, Inc., 1996.

The astronomical cost of epidemic sleepiness in injuries, errors, weakened immune functioning and major disasters such as Chernobyl are enumerated in devastating detail.

WHEN HEALING BECOMES A CRIME: The Amazing Story of the Hoxsey Cancer Clinics and the Return of Alternative Therapies, by Kernay Ausubel, 2000. Healing Arts Press (div. of Inner Traditions Ltd., One Part Street, Rochester, Vermont 05767.

Both historical and current updates in a long battle for freedom to heal.