[ Home ] [ Up ] [ Misinformation About Pan ] [ Drug Reactions ] [ Lost Health Freedom ] [ Alternative Medicine Inquiry ] [ The Pan Crisis, The Codex, & the TGA ] [ Codex in Australia ] [ Modern Medicine & Codex ]

 Modern Medicine & the Urgent Need for Codex & Alternative Medicine

Global Trends in Health Care

When health is too expensive and sickness is too profitable – scientific medicine reaches a state of ‘diminishing returns’

Modern scientific medical tests and treatments are becoming so expensive, in more ways than one, that they are becoming increasingly unaffordable (1,2,3,4,5; see also Medical Rationing). On an individual level medical treatments are increasingly being priced out of the range of the lower socioeconomic groups and public health authorities around the world are moving to reduce total health expenditure by rationing or restricting medical resources (see Medical Rationing). The growth of medical costs is quite simply unsustainable and authorities agree that urgent action is required (1,2,3,4,5; see also Medical Rationing).

The reason for these escalating costs and their impact upon the future sustainability of modern scientific biomedicine have recently been studied in detail in a comprehensive study by Hallam (6). Hallam points out that health expenditure has doubled across OECD countries from 1960-1998 (7). According to Hallam modern health care is in crisis  and the dominance of medicine (7) "is increasingly being contested" due to "the relative and increasing ineffectiveness of health care interventions.”   

Hallam describes modern medicine as being in a state of “diminishing returns” (7):

There is an amazing paradox here. If, as we are often told, medical treatments are becoming more and more effective, how is this explosion of costs possible? If treatments are increasingly effective then of course there should be less and less need for such treatments. While some increase in costs may be expected because of more expensive treatments for trauma cases, on the whole medical costs are increasing because they are ineffective (8; see also Health Trends, Medical Rationing, But What About Efficacy?, Science Today Quackery Tomorrow, Science or Progress?, Darwinian Medicine). In other words, health outcomes are not being improved in proportion to increased health spending.

According to Hallam (7), statistical data pertaining to life expectancy and infant mortality “demonstrates that there is not a clear relationship between increased health expenditure and improved health outcomes.” Hallam asserts (7) "we are reaching the limits of what biomedicine can deliver for improved health.”  In further confirmation of this assessment Hallam points out (7) that new and incurable diseases are emerging and “old infectious diseases, including tuberculosis, cholera, malaria, and diphtheria are making a worldwide comeback.” But Hallem goes even further, pointing out not only the ineffectiveness of modern medicine, but also its harmful or iatrogenic capacity (7). This agrees with other recent research indicating that increasing the number of doctors results in increased mortality (9; see also Codex and the Pan Crisis).

Although chronic ill health is spiralling out of control (see Health Trends, But What About Efficacy?) and more and more expensive but non-curative symptom controlling treatments are required (see Symptom Suppression), now it is increasingly being realized that these expensive treatments may often be more hazardous than beneficial (see Holistic Medicine Sets the Standard for Safety, Science or Progress?, Darwinian Medicine).

Since our health care experts have long been more or less satisfied with this situation, changes are now being driven predominantly by politicians and economists and those responsible for administering health expenditure (see Medical Rationing). The costs, in terms of suffering and chronic ill health it seems, have always been acceptable since this has created extremely lucrative pharmaceutical and para-medical industries. Sooner or later however, someone must pay.

Modern medical science it seems, has created an enormous money guzzling monster which will consume entire countries if left to proceed on its relentless march. While suffering and ill health continues unchecked, politicians, bureaucrats, and economists have nevertheless joined forces to restrict the availability of medical resources to the sick, particularly those in greatest need of expensive treatments (see Medical Rationing).

Causes of the Costly Failure of Medicine

Hallem (7) acknowledges “claims that the successes and prowess of the medical model, relative to other models, are greatly exaggerated.” Hallem (7) points out that declining mortality rates and improvements in public health have generally been due to improvements in nutrition, agriculture and sanitation (although doctors now say, as a result of the “Hygiene Hypothesis”, that we are too clean) rather than medical interventions. Even when it comes to infectious diseases, with the exception of diphtheria, death rates were declining before the development of vaccines and antibiotics (7). More recently, reductions in diseases like lung cancer have been linked to social reforms such as anti-smoking campaigns rather than modern high tech medical treatments (7), a fact which further confirms the importance of sociological and lifestyle factors (7).

The ineffectiveness of modern high tech medical treatments is not surprising given the fact that many treatments are not properly evaluated and have little or no solid physiological or scientific basis (7,10,11), a fact which I have pointed out elsewhere (see Science Today Quackery Tomorrow, Medical Bias, Darwinian Medicine). According to Hallem (7):  

Not only are they unevaluated, but furthermore, many people in the pharmaco-medical industry, and also the media, seem to have made a career out of ways of deceiving the public about the effectiveness of modern medical treatments (see Medical Bias, Health Trends). The deceit industry of course, has survived, flourished, and reached its current degree of complexity, simply because it was considered necessary to ensure the profitability and dominance of modern medicine. The truth was clearly seen to pose a significant and costly threat.

The precise reasons why scientific medicine has been such an expensive failure are well known, and since I have dealt with these reasons elsewhere (see Holistic or Reductionist?, Orthodox Medicine, Darwinian Medicine, Science Today Quackery Tomorrow, Nutrition and Megavitamins ) I will simply list the main points here.

• Symptom or outcome based, not cause based – in other words medicine is concerned primarily with the patient’s awareness of the disease and not the underlying cause.
• Interventionist and not vitalistic – the doctor seeks to actively intervene to ‘fix’ the patient and is unconcerned about supportive treatments which maximize the patient’s own healing and preventative mechanisms.
• Medicine is based upon disease and an admission of failure rather than being based upon health and disease prevention – since scientific medicine is not concerned with optimum health and resistance to disease doctors must wait until a diagnosable disease appears before they can intervene.
• Medicine’s reductionist philosophy provides a tunnel vision distorted piecemeal view of reality which dismisses the whole picture as unimportant.
• Medicine’s preference for toxic drugs and invasive procedures and rejection of  nutrition and natural therapies has created a community dependence upon drugs and an entirely new class of diseases, namely, iatrogenic diseases.
• Modern scientific medicine is based upon the view that limited short term “clinical trials” are more important than real life trials conducted throughout the world for generations.
• High tech scientific medicine encourages gadgetry and technology and an obsession with profits but is very weak when it comes to caring and compassion.

In view of these facts it is hardly surprising that many are very pessimistic regarding the future of health care as it is presently constructed. According to Wulff for instance (12):  

The reader should note the fact that the construction of an artificial restrictive “conventional framework of ideas” is proof in itself of the dangerous intellectual rigidity which has been created by the development of reductionism and the rejection of holism.

Similar pessimism has also been expressed by Saltman (13):  

But one has need to be pessimistic when medicine seems eternally confined within the considerable constraints of reductionist thought (7):

As is so aptly emphasised by Hallem (7,15), medicine's reductionist mechanistic philosophy simply does not embrace all those factors which impact upon human health and therefore, unless there is a considerable broadening of the limitations of medicine and/or the adoption of alternative health paradigms, optimal health outcomes could not be reasonably expected in the future.

How Did the Flawed Medical Paradigm Become Dominant?

Medicine did not become dominant because of the relative ‘safety’ and ‘efficacy’ of its treatments or its alleged scientific basis, but rather because it was more effectively ‘sold’ to the community at large, and politicians in particular (14). Although the advent of reductionism and the development of medicine’s mechanistic view of disease tended to justify quite conveniently claims that medicine had a more scientific basis than any competing paradigm (14), in reality the scientific basis of medicine is merely an illusion (see Science Today Quackery Tomorrow, Medical Bias, Darwinian Medicine, Holistic or Reductionist?, Orthodox Medicine, Integrated Medicine, Nutrition and Megavitamins). As has been noted by Roger Williams (34), "when science becomes orthodoxy, it ceases to be science."

The abandonment of nutrition and the creation of widespread community drug dependence and an epidemic of iatrogenic diseases clearly has more to do with commercial interests than science. The epidemic nature and long history of all forms of medical bias (see Medical Bias), the intent of which is to mislead and deceive, also has little to do with science. What medicine has done is to sell itself, flawed as it is, far more effectively than any competing paradigm. The concepts of modern medicine have been sold so effectively that today it is considered quite normal to ingest several toxic drugs daily, thousands of deaths annually from prescription drugs being considered quite normal, while on the other hand innocuous vitamins and dietary supplements are frequently considered dangerous.  It would be difficult indeed to depart much further from science, reason, and common sense.

While developments in microbiology served to encourage the perception that the entire practice of medicine had a solid scientific basis, the eventual dominance of medicine was achieved primarily by influencing legislators, philanthropic organizations, and educational facilities (14,20,21,), tactics which are still popular today. In the words of Hallem (14):  

Hallem continues (14):  

Hallem concludes (15):

Medicine became dominant not entirely because of the zeal with which the influence of social and political elites was utilised to promote it, but also because of their relentless attempts to outlaw and (14) "marginalise other models of health".  It is this process of outlawing opposing paradigms which is particularly relevant today given current moves to reassert medicine's dominance over increasingly popular alternative medicine (see Alternative Medicine Takeover).

Tactics used to eliminate competing alternative health paradigms include (14,15,16), "subordination", "incorporation", "limitation", "exclusion", and "reformulation." Hallem describes tactics employed by the Australian Medical Association to "marginalise" alternative practitioners (16):

The extent to which medical authorities realised that dominance could never be achieved by efficacy and science is further highlighted by another tactic which was considered necessary, namely, the (7) "medicalisation of life". Closely associated with (7) "disease mongering" or inventing of new diseases (17),  the (7) "central argument" is to make medicine a (7) "major institution of social control" by (7) "making the labels of 'healthy' and 'unhealthy' applicable to more and more aspects of human existence." As a result of this process (7) "everyday problems that people have traditionally dealt with through natural, social, community and personal activities have been 'colonised' by medical professionals."

Hallam lists the following two factors which have contributed significantly to the medicalisation of life (7):

Hallem further cites the case of pregnancy and childbirth which, although normal bodily functions, have been successfully medicalised , even in spite of the fact that initially midwifery had much superior results to doctors in producing healthy births (14). 

Since the dominance of medicine has more to do with propaganda and political support rather than scientific facts, efficacy, and laboratory research, it is clear that the media has played a fundamental role in elevating medicine to its current position of dominance (7,18). Traditionally the media has encouraged an inaccurate and favourably biased view of modern medicine by a deliberate preference to publicise favourable items and suppress or downplay any news which might show medicine in a bad light (7; see also Medical Bias). We can see an excellent recent example of this media disinterest in truth from the recent Pan fiasco where the mainstream media generally replaced truth and scientific evidence with sensationalism and exaggerations (see Pan Crisis, Alternative Medicine Inquiry). It is hardly surprising that journalists have been accused of (19) "retailing science and medicine more than investigating them." The fact that people generally have (9) "an erroneous and exaggerated belief in the efficacy of modern medicine" is testament to the persistent misdeeds of our educators, those in the media, and others who influence public opinion. 

When it comes to the current crisis between alternative medicine and orthodox medicine, it is clear that the battle will not be fought in the laboratory - and it will not be won in the laboratory. The battle will be fought in the court of public opinion, with the assistance of politicians, because medical authorities know from experience they can never obtain the dominance they seek by laboratory research and scientific evidence. They are dependent upon the type of distortions and sensationalism which were employed during the Pan crisis (see Pan Crisis, Alternative Medicine Inquiry).

The Future of Health Care and Genomics

It is clear that the continued dominance of modern scientific medicine  in its current form, due to its lack of efficacy, cost and iatrogenic potential, is not in the best interests of public health. The push for dramatic health care reforms is accelerating as it is realized that (22) “society has overestimated the effectiveness of the biomedical approach, and simultaneously underestimated its limitations.” According to Hallam (7) "systems of health oriented around individualistic, curative interventions and the commercial interests associated with medicalisation appear increasingly inequitable, undesirable, ineffective, and economically unsustainable" and therefore "there is decreasing functional justification for the continued dominance of biomedicine in its current form."

While the accuracy and general thrust of the above assessment is beyond question, any suggestion that modern medicine’s interventions are generally “curative” is  totally inconsistent with the “ineffective” nature of modern medicine.

While the urgent need for fundamental change to modern health care is abundantly clear from a public health perspective or from the point of view of efficacy and safety, the huge commercial and political interests involved in health care are contrary to the public interest and serve to protect and maintain the current technological profit based system of medicine (15). To politicians, economists and pharmaceutical companies of course, the most “effective” health care system is one which generates profit and stimulates the economy. If the increasing financial burden of health care can be transferred from governments and public authorities to patients and private insurance companies then the present profit based system may be seen as ideal by those with vested interests. Patients of course, will simply be told they must pay for all the wonderful new medical technology. From this perspective of course, effective curative therapies would be seen as a threat to the global economy.

As has been noted by Hallam (23):

It is clear that health care reforms are linked more to profits and the global economy than they are to caring, compassion, and public health considerations. Increasingly, minimizing costs and maximizing financial gain are the yardsticks by which efficacy of health care is determined. Bearing these facts in mind, and remembering the state of diminishing returns of modern medicine, successful reforms to our current health care system are likely to be profit driven, but increasingly funded by patients and private insurance companies. Two areas which are seen as holding considerable potential for the continuing commercialisation of medicine are alternative medicine and genetics.

The potential of alternative medicine is clear for three fundamental reasons.

1. A huge market is already established and profits may be guaranteed with a few legislative changes.
2. There is increasing scientific and anecdotal evidence of efficacy.
3. The safety profile of alternative medicines makes possible considerable cost savings from litigation and medical insurance.

When it comes to the marketing of alternative medicines one of the primary impediments for drug companies has been the universal and unrestricted availability of these products in plants, health food shops, and over the counter medicines. However, with the development of Codex and global moves to takeover the alternative medicine industry (see Alternative Medicine Takeover, Codex in Australia, The Codex and the Pan Crisis) this ‘problem’ is well on the way to being solved. Meanwhile, the medical profession is already moving to take the high ground in the alternative medicine debate by dispensing advice on diet and supplements and publicly acknowledging the link between diet, nutrition, and chronic diseases (see Health News and Links). Such topics of course, traditionally the forté of alternative medicine, were regarded as quackery by mainstream medicine only a few years ago (see Nutrition is for the Birds, Science Today, Quackery Tomorrow). There is clearly some concern in medical circles that medicine may soon find its dominance seriously challenged unless it can quickly incorporate these traditional teachings of naturopathy and natural therapies within mainstream medicine.

Other experts believe however, that the rapidly expanding field of human genomics will permit medicine to reassert its dominance (6,15). Unlike the holistic all embracing nature of alternative medicine, which is fundamentally at odds with medicine’s reductionist philosophy (see Holistic or Reductionist?), the essentially reductionist nature of genomics is entirely consistent with the intellectual rigidity and restrictiveness of medical reductionism. For this reason it would undoubtedly be more popular with those who see holistic alternatives as involving an unacceptable and unworkable shift in philosophy. Genomics may permit medicine to reassert its dominance without challenging its restrictive, mechanistic underlying philosophy. But do we simply require more hospitals, more doctors, and more drugs, or is a fundamental change of direction necessary?

Hallam emphasizes the limitations of our current approach to health care (15):

Of course to attempt to “incorporate” the holistic practices of alternative medicine within the reductionist framework of modern medicine will be an exercise in futility. This will lead for instance, to the processing, purifying and standardizing of herbs to produce potent drugs – simply because the “whole” is considered unimportant (see Holistic Medicine: From Alternative to Mainstream?). This is a mistake which has already been made repeatedly with both natural medicines as well as foods. Alternative medicine is safe and effective because it is holistic – a lesson which frequently remains unlearned. Throughout history, the reduction or ‘purification’ of herbs and natural medicines has been associated with toxicity and iatrogenic diseases – all because man ignored the importance of holism or the big picture (see Holistic or Reductionist?).

The most significant factor for alternative medicine in its current struggle for survival however, is the substantial ties which exist between modern medicine, drug companies and regulators, capitalism, globalisation and politics (6,15,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,35,36). These forces tend to ensure that our health care system will continue to be shaped predominantly by financial considerations rather than efficacy and safety (6,15). Although the diminishing returns and increased costs of modern medicine will continue to cause dissatisfaction, it will continue to prevail over the alternatives, even allowing for the fact that medicine will be forced to superficially incorporate some alternatives within mainstream medicine in order to create an appearance that it is becoming more cause based and preventative..

According to Hallam (15):

Modern medicine it seems, will continue to be shaped predominantly by commercial considerations. The fact that the genomic revolution is entirely consistent with medicine's reductionist and commercial basis obviously favours continuing developments in this area. For those who wish to 'sell' medicine and 'health care', genomics no doubt promises a very secure and profitable future, even in spite of the fact that current developments in genomics are (6) "not particularly noteworthy" and merely serve to indicate how much money is spent on genetic research (6). But as the failings of medicine are increasingly accepted attempts to discover the cause and cure for many diseases will be increasingly abandoned as experts in genomics promise a future where humans are redesigned and made to order (37,38,39,40,41). As medicine continues to fail doctors may even be 'forced' to prescribe new drugs (42,43).

At the same time however, for those who are driven by dollars rather than caring and compassion it must be tempting indeed to somehow incorporate the most profitable aspects of alternative medicine within medicine's reductionist framework. If natural medicines can be standardised and concentrated into commercially exploitable and potent new toxic drugs, and if consumers can be convinced that these new drugs are 'natural medicines' which are safer than, and superior to, the original natural products, then enormous profits may be possible. And if scientists can at last unlock what they perceive to be the health promoting 'secrets' of natural foods and enable pharmaceutical companies to isolate and sell these 'magic ingredients' then marketing of such nutrients could also be converted into an extremely lucrative pharmaceutical industry. However, politicians must first give the pharmaceutical industry the legislative power to exploit and monopolise these markets.

Health care is big business. This will not change as long as health care continues to be shaped by vested interests and their political servants. Only when health care is shaped predominantly by those whose only vested interest is health outcomes (ie patients) can we realistically expect to see consistent and progressive improvements in the standard, quality and outcome of modern health care.

1.  http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story.asp?guid=%7BEBEF918A-1D3 See: Kristen Gerencher, Health-care costs demand attention, Study warns system is fragile, spending unsustainable, Market Watch, San Francisco, 17th Feb 2005.
2.  http://mediresource.sympatico.ca/channel_health_news_detail.asp?channel_ See: Dennis Bueckert, Health-care system unsustainable in current form, Seniors' Health News, Canadian Press, 10th March 2004.
3.  http://smh.com.au/articles/2005/04/19/1113854169255.html See: Better technology pushes up health costs, Sydney Morning Herald, 19th April 2005.
4.  http://tvnz.co.nz/view/news_politics_story_skin/453142%3fformat=html See: Health Cost Unsustainable, TVNZ, 14th Oct 2004.
5.  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed& See: Mundinger MO, Thomas E, Smolowitz J, Honig J., Essential health care: affordable for all?, Nurs Econ. 2004 Sep-Oct;22(5):239-44, 227.
6.  http://www4.gu.edu.au:8080/adt-root/public/adt-QGU20040812.114745/ See: Hallam, Adrienne Louise, Globalisation, Human Genomic Research and the Shaping of Health: An Australian Perspective, Australian Digital Theses Program, Griffith University, 2003.
7.  http://www4.gu.edu.au:8080/adt-root/uploads/approved/adt-QGU20040812. See: Hallam, Adrienne Louise, A Biomedical Critique, Chapter 3 in Globalisation, Human Genomic Research and the Shaping of Health: An Australian Perspective, Australian Digital Theses Program, Griffith University, 2003.
8.  http://bmei.org/jbem/volume3/num1/terrell_medical_efficacy_and_medical_ethi See: Hilton P. Terrell, Medical Efficacy and Medical Ethics, Journal of Biblical Ethics in Medicine, Vol 3, No 1, 2003.
9.  http://www.buseco.monash.edu.au/centres/che/pubs/wp137.pdf See: Richardson, J., Peacock, S., Will More Doctors Increase or Decrease Death Rates? An econometric analysis of Australian mortality statistics, Centre for Health Program Evaluation, Working Paper 137, Monash University, Australia, April, 2003.
10.http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/287/21/2765 See: Altman, D.G., Poor-Quality Medical Research, JAMA. 2002;287:2765-2767.
11.http://www.chiroweb.com/archives/12/13/06.html
12.Wulf, H., Andur Pedersen, S., Rosenberg, R., Philosophy of Medicine; An Introduction, Blackwood Scientific Publications, Oxford, 1990. Cited by Hallem (6), p6.
13.Saltman, D., "The 'Disease Model' Challenged", on P. Baume (Ed) The Tasks of Medicine: An Ideology of Care, Maclennan and Petty, Sydney, 1998. Cited by Hallam (7), p67.
14.http://www4.gu.edu.au:8080/adt-root/uploads/approved/adt-QGU20040812 See: Hallam, Adrienne Louise, Biomedicine: The Dominant Model of Health, Chapter 2 in Globalisation, Human Genomic Research and the Shaping of Health: An Australian Perspective, Australian Digital Theses Program, Griffith University, 2003.
15.http://www4.gu.edu.au:8080/adt-root/uploads/approved/adt-QGU20040812 See: Hallam, Adrienne Louise, Conclusion, Chapter 8 in Globalisation, Human Genomic Research and the Shaping of Health: An Australian Perspective, Australian Digital Theses Program, Griffith University, 2003.
16.http://www4.gu.edu.au:8080/adt-root/uploads/approved/adt-QGU20040812 See: Hallam, Adrienne Louise, The Rise of Australian Genomics, Chapter 7 in Globalisation, Human Genomic Research and the Shaping of Health: An Australian Perspective, Australian Digital Theses Program, Griffith University, 2003.
17.http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/326/7379/45 See: Ray Moynihan , The making of a disease: female sexual dysfunction, BMJ 2003;326:45-47 ( 4 January )
18.http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/173_11_041200/moynihan/moynihan.h See: Ray Moynihan and Melissa Sweet, Medicine, the media and monetary interests: the need for transparency and professionalism, MJA 2000; 173: 631-634.
19.Nelkin, D., originally cited by Moynihan, R., in Too Much Medicine?, p207,ABC Books, Sydney, 1998. Cited by Hallam (7), p61.
20.http://www.gifam.org/article-025.htm See: Thomas Smith, Gangsters In Medicine, Global Institute for Alternative Medicine.
21.http://alternativecancer.us/doctors_print.htm
22.http://www4.gu.edu.au:8080/adt-root/uploads/approved/adt-QGU2004081 See: Hallam, Adrienne Louise, Introduction, Chapter 1 in Globalisation, Human Genomic Research and the Shaping of Health: An Australian Perspective, Australian Digital Theses Program, Griffith University, 2003.
23.http://www4.gu.edu.au:8080/adt-root/uploads/approved/adt-QGU2004081 See: Hallam, Adrienne Louise, Globalisation, Public Policy and Health, Chapter 4 in Globalisation, Human Genomic Research and the Shaping of Health: An Australian Perspective, Australian Digital Theses Program, Griffith University, 2003.
24.http://www.aflcio.org/aboutaflcio/magazine/0503_bigfix.cfm See: Mike Hall, What Drug Companies Aren't Telling You, America At Work, May 2003.
25.http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/328/7435/306 See: Ray Moynihan, Drug company targets US state health officials, BMJ  2004; 328:306  (7 February).
26.http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/bmj;328/7449/1153 See: Jeanne Lenzer, Whistleblower removed from job for talking to the press, BMJ  2004; 328:1153  (15 May).
27.http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A16546-2004Oct7.html See: Marc Kaufman, FDA Official Alleges Pressure to Suppress Vioxx Findings, Washington Post, Staff Writer, Friday, October 8, 2004; Page A23
28.http://psychrights.org/Articles/NYTMakingDrugsShapingtheRules.htm See: Melody Petersen, Making Drugs, Shaping the Rules, New York Times, 1st Feb 2004.
29.http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/36/13/5 See:    Jim Rosack,  Residency Program Addresses Drug Company Influence, 
Psychiatric News July 6, 2001, Volume 36 Number 13.
30.http://www.corporatewatch.org.uk/profiles/pharmaceuticals/pharmaceuticals.rt
31.http://www.pnc.com.au/~cafmr/online/research/injure.html See: Robert Ryan, Why Do Pharmaceutical Drugs Injure and Kill?, Campaign Against Fraudulent Medical Research.
32.http://www.abc.net.au/rn/science/ss/stories/s1353671.htm See: Robyn Williams, Book Review: 'Selling Sickness', Saturday 30 April  2005, The Science Show, Radio National, ABC.
33.http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/sepp/2005/05/30/pharmaceutical_medicin See: Sepp Hasslberger, Pharmaceutical Medicine Reform: Whistleblowers Lead Way, May 30, 2005.
34. Williams, R.J., Nutrition Against Disease, Pitman Publishing Corp., New York, USA, 1971.
35.http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/sepp/2005/06/12/fda_suppressed_vital_ See: Sepp Hasslberger, FDA Suppressed Vital Drug Safety Information, 12th June 2005.
36.http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/health_medical/story.jsp?story=646243 See: Roger Dobson, Jeanne Lenzer, US regulator suppresses vital data on prescription drugs in Britain, The Independent Online, 12th June 2005.
37.http://research.arc2.ucla.edu/pmts/sciencer.htm See: R. E. Spier, Genetic Engineering:, Toward a New Human Species?, A Review: See also; Gregory Stock, Redesigning Humans Our Inevitable Genetic Future, Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, 2002; Francis Fukuyama, Our Posthuman Future Consequences of the Biotechnology Revolution, Farrar, Straus and Giroux, New York, 2002.
38.http://research.arc2.ucla.edu/pmts/nytimesrdh.htm See: Gina Maranto, ‘Redesigning Humans’: Taking Charge of Our Own Heredity, New York Times, 25th August 2003; See also: Gregory Stock, Redesigning Humans Our Inevitable Genetic Future, Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, 2002
39.http://www.globalchange.com/medicine.htm
40.http://www.humanitas.org/articles/redesigninghumans.htm See Michael Poore, Redesigning Humans, June 2003; See also: See: Diane B. Paul, Swashbuckling into the Nebulous Future, American Scientist, Sept-Oct 2002; See also: Gregory Stock, Redesigning Humans Our Inevitable Genetic Future, Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, 2002.
42.http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/sepp/2005/06/16/should_pharmaceutical See: Sepp Hasslberger, Should Pharmaceutical Markets Decline?, 16th June 2005.
43.http://business.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,9068-1642607,00.html See: Richard Irving, GPs accused of 'Luddism' over drugs, The Times Online, 6th June 2005.

The author of this web site expressly disclaims all liability to any person arising directly or indirectly from the use of, or for any errors or omissions in, the information in this web site. The adoption and application of the information in this site is at the reader's discretion and is his or her sole responsibility.

This page was last updated on 18/05/09
Copyright © 2000 Graham Williamson
webmaster@holistichealthtopics.com