Fwd: Politics In Healing Daniel Haley Interviewed

[Guest guest]

JoAnn Guest wrote:

 

I especially appreciated this segment of the article...really makes

one stop to think, doesn't it?

 

 

" At the same time, let's look at the things that are

completely avoidable, like the

FDA-approved drugs. Rezulin is the most recent

example. Every other year there's a

scandal like Rezulin. The number I'm using is

200,000 deaths a year. There's a

Harvard study that came up with that number. JAMA

estimated 106,000 deaths per

year in hospitals. CDC says it's 140,000 in

hospitals and at home. Harvard came

out a year or two later and said it's 200,000 deaths

a year from this cause. I figure

that, I'm a Harvard man so I'll go with the Harvard

numbers. (Laughs.) So 200,000 a

year is 40 percent of the 500,000 figure that's

granted for cancer deaths. 1,500

deaths per day from cancer multiplied by 40 percent

is 600 people a day as the

average number of deaths from approved drugs. Six

hundred multiplied by nine

days is 5,400 deaths. On September 11th we lost

5,000 people in a dreadful,

dreadful attack on our country, and we're doing what

we should be doing and going

after the terrorists - I hope we find them. But

every nine days the same number of

people die from the other attack on the country, by

drugs and therapies approved by

people the pharmaceutical industry has bought and

paid for in the FDA. That is an

attack on our country that goes on, not just one day

a year, but every day of the year -

every week, every month, all year long.

 

WOW!----Over ten years, the death toll is two million

people. That's a holocaust. A holocaust

that's been handed to us by the FDA and the drug

companies.

 

 

 

Gavin Phillips <freee88> wrote:

> Hello,

>

> Below is part two of Peter Barry Chowka's recent

> interview with Daniel Haley, author of the excellent

> book " Politics In Healing. " Part one of the interview

> is available at the website but is mainly backstory,

> part 2 has the meat. For an overview of Haley's book

> see my nonprofit website.

> http://www.cancerinform.freewebsites.com/bookshaley1.htmlofit

> wesite.

>

>

>

> See my published article, " The Cancer Racket " at the

> link below.

> http://www.cancerinform.freewebsites.com/cancerart.html

>

> Thank you.

> Gavin Phillips

>

>

> Naturalhealthline

>

> http://naturalhealthline.com/newsletter/1dec01/haley2.htm#jump

> (December 1, 2001) Daniel Haley is a former New York

> State

> legislator - a mainstream reform

> Democrat elected in the

> early 1970s to three consecutive

> terms from an

> overwhelmingly conservative Upstate

> Republican district.

> During the past two decades, in

> addition to his career as an

> international businessman, Haley has

> increasingly focused

> his attention on investigating

> alternative cancer therapies

> and the political machinations that

> prevent their being more

> widely available.

>

> Haley's efforts have recently culminated in a

> 481-page book, Politics in Healing

> (2000, Potomac Valley Press). The work is an

> overview of the politics of medicine

> and includes individual chapters about a number of

> leading alternative cancer

> therapies and the struggles their proponents faced

> and, in some rare instances, as

> in the case of Stanislaw Burzynski, MD, PhD, managed

> to overcome. In addition to

> Burzynski's antineoplastons, Haley writes in detail

> about Gaston Naessens and

> 714X, the Hoxsey therapy, DMSO, Joseph Gold and

> hydrazine sulfate, and several

> other popular therapies. The extensive history he

> presents points to a pattern of

> suppression of clinical innovation in which the

> American citizen - typically unaware

> that systematic suppression is even going on - is

> the ultimate loser.

>

> Haley's efforts to bring to light the politics of

> cancer are in the tradition of other

> people, accomplished in fields outside of medicine,

> who have been able to place a

> clear focus on the failings of medical orthodoxy.

> Unlike many other critics, however,

> Haley suggests specific strategies for reform,

> including recommending that the

> government get entirely out of the field of

> regulating nontoxic therapies.

>

> The following interview is the second part of my

> conversation with Daniel Haley,

> recorded on November 11, 2001. The first part can be

> read here.

> http://naturalhealthline.com/newsletter/15nov01/haley.htm

>

>

> Peter Chowka: Do you think the situation facing a

> person with a serious illness

> today, a person who is interested in accessing

> primary alternative medical options,

> is better or worse than a decade or two ago?

>

> Daniel Haley: Worse! God knows it was bad enough

> back then but it's getting

> worse. Ten years ago, I was living in Houston and

> all of a sudden it hit me, thinking

> politically, which I do: There's a campaign going on

> against alternative medicine.

> You could see it. Somebody was being attacked in

> California, somebody was being

> attacked in Florida, and somebody was being attacked

> in Georgia. It was a

> campaign and you could see it. Maybe other people

> don't think politically but I do

> and I was right. And it's just getting worse and

> worse.

>

> In 1990, around the time I got acquainted with

> Berkley Bedell, somebody told me

> about a secret plan, " Project 2000, " where the FDA,

> and the AMA, and the

> pharmaceutical companies were going to try to

> eliminate alternative medicine by

> the year 2000. Well, of course they didn't succeed

> but it wasn't for a lack of trying.

>

> After Hillary Clinton's national health care bill

> was dead and buried - it was dead on

> arrival in the Congress and never even voted on – in

> November '93 or so there was

> an article in the Townsend Letter that showed a

> clause from that bill. You

> remember, the structure she was proposing for her

> plan was modeled after the

> British system where a medical board would decide

> what the government would

> pay for and if they approved something, then the

> government would pay. And if you

> as a private citizen wanted something not approved

> by the board, then you'd pay for

> it. In Hillary's plan there would have been a

> medical board and what it approved, the

> government would pay for. But she added a little

> twist: If you as a doctor and I as a

> patient were to take or to use something not

> approved by the medical board, then

> you would be guilty of a felony and face

> imprisonment and fines up to $10,000 and,

> even more unbelievably audacious, I as the patient

> also would be guilty of a felony

> for taking such an unapproved treatment. That was

> the most unbelievably

> nonsensical thing I ever heard in my life.

>

> Chowka: The Clinton plan would have criminalized the

> practice of alternative and

> innovative medicine in the United States. I read the

> 1,300-plus page proposal that

> Hillary Clinton's health care reform task force came

> up with and I wrote about it at

> the time. One of the challenges was that many people

> in alternative medicine and

> on the left were brainwashed by the Clintons into

> thinking that we need

> state-sponsored medicine to cover the uninsured and

> that the Clintons' plan

> represented some kind of progress - not realizing

> that handing that kind of power

> over to the government is at best a Faustian

> bargain.

>

> Haley: Frankly, I was one of the people who wanted

> to see national health

> insurance. Teddy Roosevelt was for it, Harry Truman

> was for it. The devil is in the

> details. If you don't look at the details, you may

> end up with something pretty bad. I

> thought at the time [1993] about how many times I

> had voted for legislation with

> really no idea of what was in it.

>

> So, they almost slipped through Project 2000 - in

> 1993!

>

> Chowka: In your book, you

> suggest that people should still

> do things like try to influence the

> government or their

> representatives - you

> recommend that people write to

> their members of Congress

> about these issues, right?

>

> Haley: Sure.

>

> Chowka: Why do you still have

> confidence that the system can

> be changed in that way? I look at

> things like the Office of

> Alternative Medicine (which is

> now the National Center for

> Complementary and Alternative

> Medicine) and the White House

> Commission for

> Complementary and Alternative

> Medicine Policy (WHCCAMP).

> And I increasingly wonder if

> they're truly doing good things or

> are they in reality more like a

> Trojan Horse. For example, the

> WHCCAMP is drafting its final

> report and there are indications

> that it will advocate tougher

> regulation or enforcement of alternative medicine,

> with enhanced roles for agencies

> like the Federal Trade Commission.

>

> Haley: I went by chance to Dr. Jim Gordon's [WHCCAMP

> Chairman] conference in

> Washington a couple of weeks ago [Comprehensive

> Cancer Care 2001], and

> somebody asked me what I thought about it. What

> amazed me is that the questions

> they are talking about asking - these are things

> we've known the answers to for

> twenty years! Why are they still studying them? I

> thought it was completely unreal.

>

> Chowka: It seems to me that, whatever the

> government's intentions at the outset,

> turning to a bureaucracy for reform in areas like

> alternative medicine has proven to

> be largely problematic.

>

> Haley: You are absolutely right, for one thing

> because of all the money flying around

> Washington. Huge campaign contributions from the

--- End forwarded message ---