Natural Solutions Radio header image

Vote for freedom of choice in health care

By Jack Phillips

October 17, 2006 

There are two ongoing initiatives aimed at eliminating competition to the medical establishment. One, functioning through the influence of the World Trade Organization, aims to limit our access to dietary supplements. The other, functioning through state medical boards, has as its objective the inactivation of physicians and other medical practitioners who provide therapies not covered by the Standards of Care. If these initiatives are successful, there will be little hope of stemming the continuing carnage which has made iatrogenic disease a leading cause of death.

The Journal of the American Medical Association reported 98,000 deaths per year from FDA-approved drugs in 1998, and things haven’t improved much since. These numbers are like world-war casualty rates. Nor will we be able to stem the continuing escalation of medical expenses, which is creating problems for families, businesses and government.

The United Nations World Health Organization is attempting to make the Codex Alimentarious effective in every country. It has been initiated in both Germany and Australia, according to reports. This severely limits access to dietary supplements like vitamins and minerals. For example, if the Codex is fully activated, it will be necessary for us to obtain a physician’s prescription to purchase more than RDA amounts of vitamin C. Beyond the extra cost involved, this represents a serious health threat since this substance is an important liver metabolite. We would be making it internally in large quantities if we hadn’t lost the capability about 20 million years ago. We have an unrecognized genetic disease, anascorbemia, which results in a remarkably effective internal system for responding to stress, toxins and disease vectors being without its necessary ammunition, ascorbic acid — vitamin C.

According to Jonathon Wright, M.D., the Washington State Quality Assurance Commission (WSQAC) is spearheading an attack on approximately 33 percent of physicians practicing alternative medicine in that state. In one case, a Dr. Geoff Ames was charged with moral turpitude (Representative Foley’s problem) because he offered electro-acupuncture and dietary changes to correct a patient’s food allergies. The WSQAC claimed this was ineffectual and potentially harmful. They suspended his license for five years. He fought the charges unsuccessfully and had to mortgage his home to pay for his legal expenses. Note that the Nambudripad allergy treatments, which use acupuncture, are said to cure food allergies. I know they removed my allergic reaction to oak pollen in one day.

B.C. Rothstein, D.O., was similarly delicenced in Maryland for practicing “substandard medicine.” There was no evidence that he had harmed anyone or acted irresponsibly. His policy of spending up to 90 minutes with his patients and treating a wide range of diseases may have influenced the board’s decision. Most physicians can’t afford to spend this much time with patients, and a great many are specialists unable to treat many different diseases. Perhaps substandard medicine was the board’s way of saying unfair competition.

Dr. Wright is also being harassed by the board because he has a Web site and has discussed chelation therapy (a less expensive alternative to vascular surgery) and other alternative treatments on it. They apparently are concerned about discussions of natural therapies being easily accessible to the public.

The American College for the Advancement of Medicine listed three physicians providing chelation therapy in this area 10 years ago. They were all induced to stop. I was told that, in one case, the physician had his license taken away for a while and then, after it was returned, advised not to provide this particular therapy in the future. Another physician refused to provide any information about why he retired.

People are denied treatments they want and sometimes forced to accept treatments that they don’t want. Dr. Wright noted that Abraham Cherrix of Virginia Beach, Va. was a cancer patient so debilitated by chemotherapy that he chose to find an alternative in Mexico when the chemo failed to cure his disease. The Virginia Social Services charged his parents with neglect and obtained a court order requiring him to take chemotherapy against his will. Fortunately, a higher court blessed a compromise which permitted him to use the alternative therapy, if he took radiation therapy as well.

Katie Wemicke, a 12-year-old in Texas, had a more unpleasant experience. She and her parents didn’t want chemotherapy for her, but a Texas Court not only removed Katie from her home and forced chemo on her but also removed her two healthy brothers from the supervision of her parents.

According to Dr. Arthur Robinson, a co-founder of the Linus Pauling Research Center who has been involved in orthomolecular research for many years, our laws permit the medical monopoly to control everything from the provision of its product to its evaluation. He considers individual physicians “victims of the System which actively prevents the innovation and freedom needed to provide their patients with the best possible medical care.”

Our medical care system is the most expensive in the world and, except for emergency medicine, far from the best. It has consigned many advances in medical technology to the dust heap of history — for example, Royal Rife’s Ray Machine that was able to kill cancer-causing viruses, and his Universal Microscope that enabled him to be the first person to see a living virus. Many others of great potential value were prevented from providing their benefits to the public, according to Daniel Haley’s “Politics in Healing,” which I urge readers to study. My book, “Suppressed Science,” also contains information about the medical monopoly’s intransigence.

Time for another election is approaching. Your vote is important — especially to incumbents who have the best chance of being elected. Let them know that free access to nutritional supplements and freedom of choice in health care are important to you. It would be nice to have some action before the election instead of promises for action after it. Promises are cheap and too easily forgotten.

Copyright Issues?