THE BIG PHARMA RACKET

[Guest guest]

http://www.truthcampaign.ukf.net/articles/liftingtheveil/manipulation9.html

 

 

 

part 9

THE PHARMACEUTICAL RACKET

In the early half of this century the petrochemical giants organised a coup on

the medical research establishments, hospitals and universities. The

Rockefellers did this by sponsoring research and donating monetary gifts to US

universities and medical schools where research was drug based and further

extended this policy to foreign medical establishments via their International

Education Board. Those who were not drug based were refused funding and were

soon dissolved in favour of the more lucrative pharmaceutical-based projects.

 

In 1939 the 'Drug Trust' alliance was formed by the Rockefeller Empire and I.G.

Farben. After the war, I.G. Farben was dismantled but later emerged in the many

guises of the companies with whom they had signed cartel agreements. These

companies include: Imperial Chemical Industries (ICI), Borden, Carnation,

General Mills, M.W. Kellogg Co., Nestle, Pet Milk, Squibb and Sons, Bristol

Meyers, Whitehall laboratories, Procter and Gamble, Roche, Hoechst and Beyer and

Co. (two extant pharmaceutical companies who initially employed convicted war

criminals Friedrich Jaehne and Fritz ter Meer as board chairmen). The

Rockefeller Empire – in tandem with the Chase Manhattan Bank now owns over half

of the USA's pharmaceutical interests and is the largest drug manufacturing

combine in the world. Since the war the drug industry has steadily netted an

ever increasing profit from sales of drugs to become the second largest

manufacturing industry in the world next to the arms industry (also owned by the

self same Elite agencies).

 

Today, health care is a multi-billion pound industry world-wide with ever

increasing expenditure by taxpayers into the system which funnels the majority

of this staggering profit into the hands of the drug manufacturers who are, as

we have seen, headed by the major Elite manipulators of this century. These

companies now control the vast majority of health care and set the standards for

the practice of medicine in all developed countries. Doctors are no longer free

to choose the most reliable and safe forms of therapy available but are at the

mercy of their financial reliance on sponsoring (frequently bribing) drug

companies. Once out of drug-company sponsored medical school, doctors embark on

a career of increasing workloads and have ever increasing amounts of new

pharmaceutical products to use and understand. The sheer volume of literature

which a GP will receive from drug sales reps has resulted in the present

situation whereby GPs are poorly educated about the chemicals which they are

giving to their patients and are essentially gleaning most of their

post-graduate training from the salesmen of private business. The moral

implications of this are staggering.

 

The number of available drug preparations is now well in excess of 200,000. In

1980, the World Health organisation advised that a mere 240 drugs are necessary

in order to provide good health care in the Third World (which should be more

than adequate for First World needs considering we are a significantly healthier

proportion of the population) whilst in 1981 the United Nations Industrial

Development Organisation stated that a mere 26 of these are considered

'indispensables'. Most of the many drugs which are now available are known as

'me-too' drugs, i.e. recombinations and exact reproductions of drugs already

available but which are irresistible to other companies who wish to share in

their market. For example, the standard analgesics Paracetamol and Aspirin come

in a multitude of forms under a variety of different brand names and yet these

products can vary in price to a factor of ten or more times for the exact same

formula depending on brand type chosen. Often the consumer erroneously presumes

that increased price is equivalent to increased quality in this case and are

entirely unaware that the drugs they are buying and those which they are

rejecting are identical. Doctors are also often guilty of prescribing drugs by

trade name and thus netting greater profits for the favoured company whilst

cheaper versions are available to the unwary consumer/patient. Usually, before

handing in a prescription it pays to consult the attending pharmacist if there

is an equivalent and cheaper drug available. This can save some chronic drug

users hundreds of pounds per year.

 

Pharmaceutical companies rely upon ill health in the population to survive and

reap their profits. No drug company has a vested interest in curing disease.

They do, however, have a massive vested interest in maintaining ill-health,

creating disease and manufacturing chemicals which will promote this under the

guise of 'therapy' for the symptoms – rarely ever the cause – of disease. Dr

John Braithwaite, now a Trade Practices Commissioner, in his expose, Corporate

Crime in the Pharmaceutical Industry, states:

 

'International bribery and corruption, fraud in the testing of drugs,

criminal negligence in the unsafe manufacturing of drugs – the pharmaceutical

industry has a worse record of law-breaking than any other industry.'

 

In the US in 1978 1.5 million people were hospitalised because of medication

side-effects alone. In 1991 in the US, 72,000 people were killed due to

iatrogenic – that is doctor-induced – causes whilst 24,073 died of victims of

firearms shootings, which makes doctors nearly three times more lethal than

guns! This has serious implications for other countries including Britain

because the US are the foremost pioneers in the health care field and what

occurs in health care in the US is usually implemented in Britain a decade

later.

 

The drugs industry has managed to sell to the majority of the world the idea

that disease is largely an inevitable part of life, especially during the later

years. Through its front-line representatives – the medical system – it has

effectively reduced the range of choices of health care to which the public has

access. Through funding and educational control it has seen to it that natural

forms of treatment are largely ignored and grossly under-researched. Those

organisations which do reveal the true causes of disease and promote effective

forms of disease prevention, such as nutritional medicine, healing and

naturopathy are regularly attacked in the mass media and publicly labelled as

quacks by pharmaceutically-sponsored de-bunking organisations such as the

Campaign Against Health Fraud, now called Healthwatch.

 

They have also sold to us the idea that natural remedies and cures which have

been successfully employed for centuries are 'alternatives' and to be treated

with great scepticism and caution. Frequently, we are told of how one or two

people have been injured or killed through the misapplication of a herbal remedy

by dubious alternative practitioners but are not told at the same time of the

thousands who are damaged by the conventional drugs which are handed out like

sweets by our doctors.

 

During their initiation into the Western medical tradition most of our young

doctors are repeatedly informed by their superiors that therapies which are

alternative to classic western medicine are fraudulent and quackish. They are

told that there is no scientific evidence to support any of the claims of

psychic healing, crystal therapy, colour therapy and the like and the whole area

is dismissed with a superior grin and a wave of the hand. A mountain of study is

then hurled at the junior doctors, on top of an already inhumane workload of

practical hours, to be spent absorbing the biased views of their forebears. A

junior doctor has not even enough time to explore the realms of stress-free

relaxation never mind alternative thought and therapies. Much the same methods

are used by certain religious organisations to indoctrinate the minds of their

followers into a single belief system. The key tactics, to which most doctors

will relate, are: maintenance of sleep deprivation so as to minimise resistance

to teachings, isolation from the outside world until one is literally eating,

breathing and sleeping the set doctrine of the cult, and maintenance of a fear

of failure to conform through almost unachievably high level goal setting; often

via frequent examinations.

 

I believe that western medicine is as much a dogmatic cult as popular

Christianity or the Moonies. It breeds its young on dogma to the exclusion of

free will and reasoned thought in order to perpetuate itself. It is controlled

by instilling into its members the fear of failure and it thrives by exploiting

the initial motivation of its members, which is love and a desire to help and

heal others.

 

At the apex of the pyramid of medicine lie the controllers; not doctors, but the

multinational pharmaceutical companies who exist, not for the benefit of others,

but for the desire for money and power. And behind them lies the sinister

organisation of global secret societies headed by the Illuminati.

 

It is through this subtle mind control that the System maintains itself. Veiled

in secrecy and fuelled by fear, the monster machine controls every aspect of our

lives. The medical system is an integral part, but nevertheless only one aspect,

of the overall design which seeks power and neither cares how this power is

achieved, nor how many individuals are destroyed in the process.

 

As an example of the fraud perpetuated by the pharmaceutical companies, the next

section will take a close look at the AIDS scandal, which illuminates how these

companies have infiltrated every area of the healthcare system are willing to

endanger people, allowing them to be killed, for profit via the industry's tool

of corruption and front organisation, our own medical system:

What is AIDS?

AIDS is defined as any one of twenty five unrelated diseases plus a positive

test for the presence of antibodies to the Human Immuno-deficiency Virus (HIV).

It is said to be transferred through intimate sexual contact via the transfer of

bodily fluids such as semen and blood. It is also said to be passed on through

intravenous means by needle-sharing drug users and infected blood transfusions.

 

Nearly five hundred scientists world-wide, including eminent doctors such as

leading University of California Professor of Molecular Biology, Peter Duesberg,

and Australian biophysicist Eleni Papadopoulous-Eleopoulos, Dr Charles Thomas

(former Harvard Professor of Biochemistry), Dr Kary Mullis (1993 Nobel

Prize-winner for Chemistry), Dr Hank Loman (Professor of Biophysical Chemistry,

Free University of Amsterdam), and Dr Steven Lomas (Professor of Preventative

Medicine, State University of New York) are now convinced that AIDS is not

caused by HIV.

 

In simple terms, the facts just do not add up. For example, there are many

people with AIDS but without HIV and vast numbers of people who are HIV positive

are not developing AIDS. The tests for the presence of retrovirus HIV – the

Western Blot Test and the ELISA Test – which show up HIV positive status, are so

inaccurate that false positive tests can occur due to many diseases such as

malnutrition, multiple infections, multiple sclerosis, tuberculosis, leprosy,

having once had the 'flu' or measles and the bodies natural response to anal

semen.

 

Once diagnosed as HIV positive, patients are given regular blood tests to

monitor their immunological responses, particularly for a drop in T-cell count.

T-cells are released in the immune response to disease to attack invading

antigens. A significant T-cell drop, in many clinics, is the indicator that

active drug therapy should be commenced. However, using T-cell counts as an

indicator of disease is entirely useless as the average T-cell count for a

healthy person can range from 200 to 2000 over the course of a normal day.

Professor Ian Weller, who co-ordinated the British arm of the Concorde AZT trial

testing the drug on healthy HIV-positive volunteers, commented:

 

'The thing we have to remember about CD4 (T-cell) counts is they are very

variable. They can vary in an individual over the time of day... lower in the

morning and higher in the evening. They can be affected by things that you do

such as walking to the clinic, as opposed to riding a bike... the amount of

sunshine can affect them. Smoking as well.'

 

This whole area of inaccurate testing in the area of AIDS and AIDS Related

Conditions (ARC) has accounted for many people being incorrectly diagnosed as

HIV positive, such as in Africa where there is a supposed epidemic; there is

also a massive amount of otherwise unrelated disease there too and it is this

factor which is causing the false positives.

 

Once diagnosed, patients are then initiated onto courses of highly toxic drugs

such as AZT, DDI and Septrin, many of the side effects of which are the self

same symptoms as those of AIDS.

 

None of these AIDS defining diseases are new. What is new, however, is the HIV

test. All research into this syndrome has been based upon the findings of Robert

Gallo, the co-founder and patent holder of the test, which have since been found

to be fraudulent. Gallo's partner and co-founder of the HIV theory, Luc

Montagnier, declared in 1989:

 

'HIV is not capable of causing the destruction to the immune system which is

seen in people with AIDS'.

 

One medical doctor who has practised and lectured on medicine world-wide for

over thirty five years, Dr. Robert E. Wilner has even publicly demonstrated that

HIV does not cause disease by injecting himself with the blood of an HIV

positive patient on Spain's most popular television show; yet this never made it

to the press outside of Spain! In his book 'Deadly Deception: The Proof That Sex

And HIV Absolutely Do Not Cause AIDS', Dr. Wilner cites AZT as one of the major

causes of AIDS, he also insists that 'HIV is simply a harmless piece of tissue,

not unlike numerous other retroviruses that exist in our body' and that 'AIDS is

not transmitted sexually nor is it contagious by any method!'

 

Dr Duesberg, recognised as one of, if not the foremost retrovirus expert in the

world, points out:

 

'AZT is A Random Killer Of Infected And Non-Infected Cells. AZT cannot

discriminate among them. It kills T-cells, B-cells, red cells, it kills all

cells. AZT is a chain terminator of DNA synthesis of all cells – no exceptions.

It wipes out everything. In the long run it can only lead to death of the

organism – and the cemetery. AZT is a certain killer! Who will be responsible

for the death of patients (some 200,000 now being treated with AZT and countless

thousands who have already died from it in the past decade) that results from

AZT therapy – pharmacological homicide?'

 

And furthermore, that:

 

'HIV does not cause AIDS... The point that everyone is missing is that all

of those original papers, Gallo wrote on HIV have been found fraudulent... The

HIV hypothesis was based on those papers.'

 

It is my opinion that these scientists are correct and that HIV is not the cause

of AIDS. AIDS is not a single viral disease but a collection of, in part,

unrelated diseases which are caused by disharmonious energies in the fields of

the holistic body, brought about by all sorts of reasons. Undoubtedly one of the

major causes of death by AIDS-related diseases is the inability of the body to

fight off the manifested disease because the body has been weakened by the very

drugs given to suppress the disease. Tests have shown that the only effective

treatments for AIDS are those which involve the cessation of conventional drugs

in favour of unconventional natural therapies such as Essiac, Oxygen/Ozone

Therapy and CanCell. However, these natural therapies share a common theme in

that they have all been suppressed or withdrawn by governmental agencies and

those with vested interests in the pharmaceutical industry.

 

(To further support the fact that HIV is not transferred sexually, Cathy O'Brien

in her book Trance Formation Of America, points out that, despite being

prostituted to men in areas supposedly rife with AIDS, none of her political

abusers ever wore protection during sex with her.)

Wellcome to Hell (compiled from Dirty Medicine by Martin J Walker – see

reference below)

 

 

Wellcome (Wellcome Burroughs in the US) began as a pharmaceutical company set up

in 1880 by Henry Wellcome and Silas Burroughs. Its links to the Rockefeller

Empire were apparent in Henry Wellcome's appointing of John and Allen Dulles of

the Sullivan and Cromwell law firm as those responsible for any legal matters

relating to the company and his own will. With Henry Wellcome's death in 1936,

the Wellcome Trust was set up in conjunction with the company (now the Wellcome

Foundation) and this has now become one of the largest funders of medical

research in Europe. The Rockefeller connection was also strengthened in the late

50's when Wellcome took over the running of aspects of the Rockefeller funded

London University College Hospital Medical School and their joint interests in

tropical illness research via the London School of Hygiene and Tropical

Medicine.

 

Over the following decades, Wellcome pursued several aspects of pharmaceutical

healthcare with interests in general over-the-counter remedies, anti-virals,

animal healthcare, genetic engineering and biotechnology. It strengthened its

connections within the government, the media, medical academia and the various

committees, societies and associations that were continuously being set up to

review, regulate and control all aspects of scientific medical research and

education. It did this by making donations to many of these organisations, such

as the British Association for the Advancement of Science, the Parliamentary

Science and Technology Foundation, the Parliamentary Office of Science and

Technology, and the British Medical Association's Foundation for AIDS (to which

it gave £144,000 between 1988 and 1992), and by placing its own trustees,

researchers and 'experts' in prominent positions within them. For example: Sir

Alastair Pilkington one time vice president of the Foundation for Science and

Technology was a research scientist for Wellcome; Professor C. Gordon Smith,

Dean of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine was a Wellcome

trustee; Lord Swann, Director of the BBC in the 1980's was a Wellcome trustee;

Sir Alfred Shepperd, a member of the Advisory Council on Science and

Technology(ACST) was Chairman of Burroughs Wellcome and the Wellcome Foundation

until 1985; Professor Roy Anderson, Head of Pure and Applied Biology at London

Imperial College of Science, Technology and medicine and a member of ACST was

also a Wellcome trustee.

 

In the 1980's however, the company went through some major rationalisations. In

1986 the decision was made to sell shares in the Welcome drug company which had

previously been owned in its entirety by the Wellcome Trust. In the following

six years it also sold off several areas of business including Cooper Animal

Healthcare – a joint venture with ICI producing organo-phosphate sheep dip – and

its interests in vaccine production. Production of general cough and cold

remedies was also reduced to a mere 14% of sales while it began concentrating

its funds in the more profitable areas of genetics, biotechnology and

anti-virals.

 

AZT, marketed by Wellcome as Retrovir, had been developed in the 60s as a drug

to treat cancer but it had proved to be highly toxic as well as ineffective as

it appeared unable to distinguish between cancerous and healthy cells. However,

tests in vitro appeared to show some anti-viral properties which was why, after

being shelved in the 60s, AZT was re-tested for use in the treatment of AIDS in

the 1980s.

 

Human clinical drug trials, following extensive (though useless) animal testing,

usually take place in two parts. Phase I tests for toxicity; Phase II

concentrates on the long-term side-effects and efficacy, all of which can take

several years. In the case of AZT the Phase II trials in America were halted

after 4 months when only 1 of the AZT users as opposed to 19 of the control

group had died and the drug was granted a license despite the fact that the

patients in the trial were given regular blood transfusions to alleviate the

possible side-effects (this should, under usual circumstances, have negated the

results of the trial). This licensing of AZT so quickly was unprecedented and

made Wellcome's profits double to £1132 million in the space of 4 years! As if

this wasn't enough, subsequent licenses for other AIDS drugs were issued subject

to the condition that they would have to be tested against AZT and then only

prescribed in conjunction with it.

 

Incredibly, AZT was licensed in the UK without any clinical trials four weeks

before it was licensed in the US. This, perhaps, may have been due to the fact

that, of the 25 members of the Medicines Commission who are parliamentary

advisers on medicine, 5 had interests in Wellcome; one prominent member being

Professor Trevor M. Jones, Director of Research and Development at Wellcome. And

of the 21 members of the Committee on the Safety of Medicines who grant the

licenses, two had interests in the Welcome Foundation.

 

Within a short space of time, AZT was licensed in 35 countries around the world

and Wellcome were promoting it with media advertising, press releases and

all-expenses-paid conferences to which they regularly invited the world's top

scientists and physicians, all the while denying any suggestions that it caused

harmful side-effects.

 

Wellcome's influence on the media and the government continued with its donation

of £10,000 to the All Party Parliamentary Group on AIDS (APOGA) as, with the

Medical Research Council, Wellcome began the trials of AZT on asymptomatic HIV

positive patients – the Concorde trials – in October 1988. From that point

onwards most of the doctors presenting information and writing for APGOA were

also involved in these trials. Not content with promoting their own research in

the area of AIDS they also began to attack any alternative treatments or anyone

who challenged the HIV=AIDS hypothesis.

 

Wellcome had also cornered the British market in AIDS testing kits. With the

help of Dr. Robin Weiss and Angus Dalgleish from the Institute of Cancer

Research, a second generation kit was marketed based on the research by Campaign

Against Health Fraud (now Healthwatch) member, Professor Vincent Marks, head of

the Biochemistry Department of Surrey University – a department which has

received over half a million pounds from Wellcome since 1985. In order to ensure

that anyone found to be HIV positive was immediately directed towards 'help'

from AZT-promoting doctors, GP's were given very limited access to the testing

kits. They had no choice but to send their patients to Wellcome-infiltrated

teaching hospitals and STD clinics in London while the promotion and sale of

home testing kits was banned in the UK (in 1992), thereby ensuring Wellcome's

complete monopoly in all aspects of AIDS treatment and diagnosis.

 

Education about HIV and AIDS could also not be overlooked and Wellcome donated

substantial funds to pay for a £150,000 package for GPs, produced by the British

Medical Association.

 

The Concorde trials themselves, instead of being independent, were almost

totally under Wellcome's influence. The initial reason for the trials was to

prove that AZT would be effective in preventing the development of ARC and AIDS

in otherwise healthy HIV+ patients. Going against all established regulations

for the independence of such trials, which in the past had the drug companies

supplying the drug and paying the hospitals to do the trials, the Concorde trial

was set up jointly between Wellcome, the Medical Research Council (MRC) and the

Department of Health. The MRC paid for the treatment and the Department of

Health granted the use of six London hospitals, NHS staff and facilities. Anyone

with an HIV positive test was encouraged to join the trial without discussion of

any alternative treatments whilst being promised up to 3 years of free

healthcare despite the fact that the AZT drug was to be administered at 1000mg

per day – twice the dose recommended by the US Food and Drug Administration –

and the recent reports of serious side-effects such as muscle wasting, anaemia

and impotence. Wellcome's crowning glory in this deal, though, was to also

insist that the contract gave them complete control over the writing of any

reports about the trial. The only report which had to be agreed between all

parties was the one for general publication, if indeed any published report was

even deemed necessary.

 

Just to make absolutely sure of obtaining the desired outcome, Wellcome had the

help of several 'friends' in the MRC who had just as many, if not more,

commitments to industry and business matters than they did to the medical

establishment or the government. Lord Jellicoe, Chairman of the MRC's AIDS

committee, was a director of the Rockefeller company Morgan Crucible as well as

the sugar company Tate and Lyle and was later chairman of Booker Tate

confectionery; Sir Donald Acheson worked for the Department of Health but left

in 1991 to work in the Rockefeller funded School of Hygiene and Tropical

Medicine; Sir Austin Bide was Chief Executive of Glaxo (now in partnership with

Wellcome) and had been a director of J. Lyons & Co confectionery in the 70's.

Sir David Crouch, MP for Canterbury until 1987, was director of Pfizer Ltd., a

pharmaceutical company which was the only manufacturer of a synthesised

ingredient of AZT at that time and also ran several public relations companies

one of which, Kingsway Rowland, handled Wellcome's AZT account; Dr J. W. G.

Smith, director of the Public Health Laboratory Service since 1985 used to be a

Senior Lecturer at the School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine before going to

work for Wellcome as head of Bacteriology in 1969; Professor D. A. Warrell was a

director of the Wellcome Tropical Research Unit and has also done malaria

research funded by Wellcome and the Rockefeller Foundation; Professor C. N.

Hales is a specialist in diabetes whose research is often funded by

pharmaceutical companies including Wellcome.

 

With the above as the only 8 members of the MRC Committee on AIDS and their

Chairman Lord Jellicoe, it is not surprising that a drug once deemed to be too

toxic, which has never been properly tested and whose side-effects, according to

the British National Formulary, bear s striking resemblance to the symptoms of

AIDS itself, has been allowed to become the AIDS drug of the 90's and has kept

the profits rolling in for Wellcome to the tune of an estimated £400 million a

year.

 

Walker, Martin J.; Dirty Medicine: Science, big business and the assault on

natural health care, (Slingshot Publications, London, 1994).

'I will give no deadly medicine to any one if asked.'

(from the Hippocratic Oath)

 

Walter's position as a staff nurse at Newcastle General Hospital's Infectious

Disease Unit (ward 25), which is affiliated with the London School of Tropical

Medicine, has given me an insight into the world of AIDS treatment which is

rarely seen and it only serves to corroborate the research of the aforementioned

enlightened scientists, whose numbers are ever increasing. The world of AIDS

care and treatment at the NGH has some very sinister elements and I have no

reason to suspect that it is isolated to this regional unit alone. Here is an

outline of some of the information which Walter has provided:

 

* According to the code of conduct provided by the United Kingdom Central

Council for nursing and midwifery, the nurse's role is to be the patient's

advocate and is, therefore, entrusted to provide care in the best interest of

the patient and to decline from doing anything which is detrimental to their

well being. One of the major areas covered by this is in the administration of

drugs; the nurse is responsible for ensuring the correct dosage of drug is given

and is responsible also for being aware of the effects and possible side effects

of the medication.

 

However, in the NGH unit, nurses are expected to give all drugs prescribed

by the doctor whether or not any information on the effects of the drug are

available. Frequently the prescribing doctor is unaware of the true nature of

the drugs and thus unable to inform the nursing staff of the effects and side

effects of the drugs they are using. Many and varied substances appear and

disappear periodically from the drugs cupboard, often named only as a series of

numbers or letters. When challenged as to the reason why they have prescribed

such unknown entities, the doctors usually reply that their consultant has

ordered it to be given. The consultant is usually unavailable for comment.

 

 

* The side effects of the drugs have been seen to be potentially harmful.

For example, one commonly used drug, Foscarnet, which is given directly into the

heart or eyes of a patient, when dropped on a nurse's tights dissolved them on

contact. Common side effects of this drug include epilepsy, blindness and

dementia. Many patients have entered the unit with minor symptoms such as weight

loss and have, in a short space of time, become blind and epileptic through

using it. Walter has frequently said to me, 'I'm poisoning people for a living',

but if he refused to give the drugs as prescribed he would lose his job and

someone would be found who would administer them. The same is true of the junior

doctors who are afraid of the vengeance from above if they were to challenge the

status quo. No challenge has yet been made, even after I presented the unit with

detailed papers outlining the research which has negated the 'HIV equals AIDS'

myth.

 

 

* Once diagnosed as HIV positive, many patients are then informed that the

only chance they have for extended survival is to use the drugs provided.

Obviously the majority of patients, many of whom show very few symptoms, are too

afraid not to co-operate with the regime. They then suffer terribly and die a

lingering and undignified death.

 

As a response to many challenges Walter has made to the medical staff to

justify their drugs regime, he has been branded cynical and defeatist; as not

wishing to give the patients a chance for survival. In reply to this he has

asked on many occasions for the doctors to give him even just one example of

anyone whom they have cured of AIDS or significantly improved the quality of

life. Not one of them has been able to give such an example.

 

Even if we were extending people lives, in doing so we also inflict upon

them such diseases as makes for little or no quality of life. What is the point

of an extra year of life if that year is spent as a living vegetable? If we do

have a prognosis of death, then surely it is better to live that remaining life

to the full with our eventual demise being as gentle and as dignified as

possible.

 

 

* On one occasion, the unit exceeded its drugs budget and feared a crisis in

care. At this point Wellcome stepped in and offered its services for free on the

condition that they would supply the drugs as long as all research notes were

given directly to them in return. It appears that the only figures who were

aware of anything like the full picture were the consultants in charge and the

research nurse appointed by the company, none of whom were willing to reveal

anything of the results of these apparently blind drugs trials.

 

In effect, this means that the patients on this unit are being treated by

the pharmaceutical scientists as human guinea pigs, in order to test the various

drugs supplied. How are we to know that these drugs are genuinely safe for the

purpose of therapy? Might they simply be poisons or ineffectual chemicals thrown

onto the research pot in a vain attempt to happen across some element of cure?

Are they even actively seeking a cure, knowing what we do of their motivation?

 

Some of the drugs which have been identified and are in regular use have

long since been discontinued in other areas of medicine because they are

ineffective and/or dangerous. For example, A.Z.T. was once considered too toxic

to be given to terminally ill cancer patients!

 

Interestingly, the official patient leaflet, 'HIV and AZT, the choices',

as supplied to AIDS departments by Wellcome, gives merely three examples of side

effects of the drug, i.e. anaemia, which they say effects up to 40% of users;

headaches in 1-10% of users; and sickness in 25% of users which: 'almost always

disappear after a few weeks of treatment'. The leaflet also states:

 

Most people do not suffer side effects when they take AZT early. If

they do occur, there are ways of coping with them. They may be reversed, if

necessary by stopping treatment.

 

If you thought that you may be facing death through an incurable disease

would you stop taking the drug that has been hyped as giving an extension of

lifespan, I wonder?

 

Septrin is a combination of two antibiotics and has been shown to be far

less effective and far more liable to dramatic side effects than either of the

components when used individually (interestingly, it is also nearly three times

more expensive than the more effective and less harmful constituent ingredient

Trimethorprim).

 

Even Thalidomide is now being used on Ward 25 for its anti-emetic

properties.

 

 

* Many patients diagnosed as terminally ill have drawn up living wills in

which they often request a cessation of active treatment in the end stages of

disease. These are frequently ignored by the doctors who continue to pump toxins

into dying patients and claim to be simply following orders from above. The

point of which escapes myself and Walter and quite often the doctors themselves.

 

 

* When a patient dies, relatives are officially informed that their loved

ones are deemed as dangerous waste and must, therefore, be sealed and cremated

for hygiene reasons. No mention is made of autopsy or further experimentation

and yet Walter has witnessed conversations amongst doctors regarding autopsy

findings on such people who were supposed to have gone to cremation unmolested.

Is this further pharmaceutical research?

 

 

* One evening, in the absence of an available doctor from the unit, Walter

had to call upon a consultant from another area to advise upon a matter. Whilst

this covering doctor was attending to the issue Walter made known his concerns

about the dangerous amounts of drugs a patient was prescribed. This consultant

agreed with Walter that it was excessive and dangerous and complied with his

request to discontinue the majority of the drugs. He also admitted to Walter

that there was definitely something extraordinary and far reaching going on in

this area which was beyond his jurisdiction. Furthermore, if he had his way, the

majority of the drugs given on the unit would never have been prescribed in the

first place. However, 'see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil' seemed to be

the order of the day and that was the end of the matter.

 

All of this information is deeply disturbing. As more and more evidence mounts

against the HIV theory, it seems that the only way to survive AIDS is to steer

clear of the medical profession and its terrible drugs. If it is true of this

one syndrome then how true is it of other areas of disease? Just how manipulated

are we by these companies? And how much wheeling and dealing is going on behind

the scenes between consultants and pharmaceutical companies which directly

effects our well-being?

 

AIDS is a huge money spinner providing millions of pounds of profit per day in

drugs sales and its offshoot market of condom sales (Wellcome also has links

with the London Rubber Company). It has instilled a fear in the heart of our

society of free sexual expression and has given rise to much bigotry from the

poorly educated who see AIDS as a judgement from God or a punishment for active

homosexuality. It has created a huge charity industry, netting millions of

pounds from the world population to fund further research to rid the world of

this affliction. And how much misery and negativity has it generated? Further

research means more experiments on both animals and humans. And the figures for

economic growth just rise and rise.

Truth – A Cure For All Disease

 

As another example of the medical conspiracy; would it shock you to find out

that there are, in use today, several medically proven cures for cancer? One

such cure is Essiac and has been in use since at least 1922; it has no known

adverse side effects. It is made from four common herbs and elevates the immune

system. In 1937 it came within three votes of being legalised as a cancer

treatment in Canada and was passed on to the British Cancer Campaign by its

founder, Rene Caisse, via the Prince of Wales. And yet today, it is still only

available through selected, virtually underground, outlets world-wide. I have

many dozens of case studies which testify to the efficacy of this treatment (see

Appendix IV).

 

Furthermore, in the 1930s a man named Royal Raymond Rife developed a very high

powered microscope, almost seven times more powerful than those in use at the

time, which could detect organisms which cause diseases such as infections and

cancers. He did this by illuminating these organisms at their own specific

frequency of light and could, therefore, examine them and their effects whilst

they remained alive as opposed to killing them first using dye stains or high

powered electron microscopy as was the norm. He then discovered that, by

altering the frequency of their environment microbes could mutate and change

their size and shape to resemble viruses and bacteria alike, thereby enabling

the same microbe to cause many diverse diseases. For example, the same germs

which cause pus – streptococci – could also become the germs which cause

pneumonia – pneumococci – in response to an alteration in their environment.

Rife also discovered that by bombarding these organisms with higher frequencies

of light, he could destroy them. He demonstrated that it was possible to create

and destroy cancers at will and succeeded in curing otherwise terminal patients

of this disease, as well as others such as polio and typhus, in almost 100% of

cases.

 

Today, it is conventionally accepted that single specific germs are responsible

for single specific forms of infection. This theory was advanced by the French

scientist Pasteur but was disputed by his rival Bechamp who was in favour of the

mutation theory known as pleomorphism. We are rarely informed in text books

that, according to his co-worker, Dr Duclaux, Pasteur himself changed his mind

and revoked his 'germ theory' in favour of one closer to that of pleomorphism.

However, over 100 years later, Pasteur's original germ theory is still the

standard working model for the understanding of the action of microbes in the

body.

 

Many types of bacteria exist in a symbiotic relationship with our bodies all of

the time and only become symptomatic once the physical body begins to

deteriorate due to an unhealthy lifestyle. Bacteria are then free to scavenge

the 'soil' produced in the disease process, i.e. when the tissues degenerate to

a similar frequency as the microbes, releasing dead organic matter similar to

viruses upon which these microbes feed (remember Wilner's definition of the HIV

retrovirus?). They then excrete this dead matter as waste products via the

bloodstream, faeces or other exudates such as mucous. The extent to which the

bacteria can multiply is limited to the amount of soil upon which they have to

feed and could not be capable of invading the body to the extent to which

science would have us believe unless there was already an adequate food supply.

Furthermore, as has been demonstrated in Rife's vibratory work, it is possible

for these microbes to mutate into other forms and even to cancer-causing agents

according to their environmental conditions, defined by the degree of

concentration of waste products and the vibratory rate. The subsequent systemic

and metabolic reaction to these toxic excreted waste products, such as sore

throat and high temperature (the body's natural way of eradicating the

bacteria), are generally the symptoms of diseases which are given priority in

day to day general medical practice, whereupon drugs are usually given to

suppress them. In giving antibiotics we often succeed in killing the very

microbes which are removing the diseased body's dead matter during the natural

healing process. In doing so we also open up our bodies to other forms of

disease such as fungal infections which are usually kept at bay by the natural

presence of bacteria.

 

Another effective cure for AIDS and cancer has been successfully employed in

clinical practise all over the world for at least fifty years and is a cure for

virtually all germ diseases. This is Oxygen/Ozone therapy. The principle behind

it is simplicity itself and is the reason why the pharmaceutical companies and

drug agencies are so afraid of it that they have conspired to suppress it also.

It is conventionally accepted that the majority of germs are anaerobic, which

means that they survive without oxygen. Therefore, if one floods the bloodstream

with oxygen, these organisms cannot survive. Oxygen is one of the fundamental

and most necessary elements to human survival. It exists as air, water and most

of our food sources such as carbohydrates. The human race has evolved in levels

of oxygen far higher than exist in today's polluted and tree-depleted world and

we are all running on less than is desirable for optimum health; especially the

city-dwellers. Foods and food supplements which release high levels of oxygen

such as in the form of Hydrogen Peroxide are beneficial to our well-being.

Indeed, Hydrogen Peroxide itself, when taken in dilute form or applied directly

to wounds is one of the most effective antiseptics and healing compounds there

is.

 

I believe disease is the result of disharmonious energy fields which can be

caused by both physical and non-physical disharmony. Thus, dis-ease can be

eradicated by oxygen therapy because it boosts the immune system by raising our

vibratory rate, thereby making our bodies healthy. It is a simple fact that

disease cannot exist in a healthy body.

 

According to the testimonies of international MD's assembled at the May 1983

Sixth World Ozone (a concentrated form of Oxygen Therapy) Conference in

Washington, D.C.:

 

Ozone eliminates... viruses and bacteria from blood, human and stored...

Medical ozone is successfully used on AIDS, Herpes, Hepatitis, Mononucleosis,

Cirrhosis of the liver, Gangrene, Cardiovascular Disease, Arteriosclerosis, High

Cholesterol, Cancerous Tumours, Lymphomas, Leukaemia... Highly effective on

Rheumatoid and other Arthritis, Allergies of all types... Improves Multiple

Sclerosis, ameliorate Alzheimer's Disease, Senility and Parkinson's... Effective

on Proctitis, Colitis, Prostate, Candidiasis, Trichomoniasis, Cystitis;

Externally, ozone is effective in treating Acne, burns, leg ulcers, open sores

and wounds, Eczema and fungus.

 

In 1976, the US FDA hindered the progress of this form of therapy by stating:

Ozone is a toxic gas with no known medical uses.

 

And yet, one doctor using ozone in his work with colonic cancer patients, Dr

Hans Neiper, from Hanover, despite refusing to divulge the names of his cancer

patients, stated in 1987:

 

'President Reagan is a very nice man.' And, 'You wouldn't believe how many

FDA officials or relatives or acquaintances of FDA officials come to see me in

Hanover. You wouldn't believe this, or directors of the American Medical

Association (AMA), or American Cancer Association, or the residents of orthodox

cancer institutes. That's the fact.'

 

Oxygen/Ozone therapy researcher and ambassador, Ed McCabe states:

 

Let's compare medical ozone therapy with prescription drugs. In 1978 the FDA

reported 1.5 million were hospitalised in the USA due to the side-effects of

medication. On the other hand, medical ozone has been legally used in clinics

world-wide on a daily basis since the forties, and in Germany 644 ozone

therapists were surveyed, and they reported 384,775 patients had received

5,579,238 ozone treatments. The side-effect rate was only 0.0007% during 5.5

million dosages! Yet, each year approximately 140,000 people in the US die from

prescription drug usage.

 

To this day researchers maintain that the exact causes of and cures for cancer

are unknown whilst many others who claim that they do know are frequently the

victims of a conspiracy of suppression by governmental agencies and corporate

business interests.

 

It is vital that we understand the true nature of disease if we are to be

effective in its eradication. It is imperative that we use the total sum of our

knowledge to combat disease and work together as a multi-disciplinarian society,

not in isolated, self-interested units. We must open our eyes to the realities

and seek the best of conventional and unconventional medicine. We must

concentrate on why we are ill and not simply seek to eradicate symptoms of

disorders which we often see as inevitable. Disease is not our natural state, it

is not inevitable. It is an outward physical display of disharmony whose cause

is far more significant than its symptoms. The responsibility for health lies

with all of us, not only with doctors or governments.

 

How many millions flock to the doctor and expect some treatment for a symptom,

caring not for the cause but seeking only the relief of discomfort? And who is

to blame them? They are victims of the pharmaceutical conspiracy too. According

to these scientists, and medical practitioners who find employment within the

System, there is little evidence to give credence to any form of medicine other

than their own. Or so they and we are told.

 

They seem deaf to the testimonies of the healers and the healed who stand before

them as living proof of the power of mind over matter, homeopathy and herbalism

etc. It is healthy to be sceptical but there is a danger of sceptic thought

becoming septic thought if it fails to reason with an open mind and allow for

progress. Any doctor who fails to open their mind to the information such as is

presented in this book is missing the opportunity to fulfil their true role as

healers of the sick. There is without doubt a conspiracy of wilful ignorance

amongst the cult of western medicine, as even scientifically verified proof of

the healing power of channelled energy has been ignored by the majority of

practitioners.

 

One smoke-screen which is constantly employed by the major drug companies is the

regular promise that they are 'currently working on a new form of treatment

which could soon revolutionise the treatment of…'. Such stories are picked up by

the press and t.v science programmes with great fervour. They are nearly always

described in terms of 'miracle cure' and point out that adequate funding is

necessary for the fulfilment of the prophecy in another 2 or 3 years time.

However, when 2 or 3 years time finally arrives we have all conveniently

forgotten about the promised miracle drug whilst anxiously awaiting the

fulfilment of yet further promises of drugs which are 'hoped' will one day prove

to be the end of yet another terrible disease.

 

And this is the industry which denigrates the field of natural health for taking

advantage of the sick and for so cruelly promising fake cures and providing

false hope! The obvious lesson here is that to disguise your own sins you must

accuse your enemies of them and to always do it before your enemy has a chance

to formulate their defence. Mud usually sticks to the one it first lands upon.

This a political trick which has been used to devastating effect by the key

manipulators of this century in all areas and has been used to shift public

opinion in favour of some of the greatest atrocities ever committed.

 

The Elite via chemo-pharmaceutical companies and food and water production

services penetrate all areas of health care and use it to promote and execute

their policies of population control, mind control and 'divide and rule', whilst

making vast sums of money into the bargain.

Vivisection – far more than an animal rights issue!

 

This section is intended to be read in order that the sinister implications of

animal experiments upon the whole of mankind are thoroughly understood. I am

aware, from personal experience of street campaigning for animal rights issues,

that many people who care passionately about animals find it simply too

distressing to see or read any form of evidence to this effect. Consequently, I

have chosen not to give practical details about individual animal experiments in

the coming discourse

 

Instead I will focus upon the scientific fraud perpetrated by vivisectors and

how their warped ethos that vivisection is a valuable scientific tool has

corrupted the progress of medicine and upset the delicate balance of the minds

of millions world-wide. I seek to show how vivisection is an integral part of

the manipulation of society (the vivisectors themselves being amongst the most

completely manipulated of all) by the very same consciousness and indeed the

very same people I have already discussed.

 

Nothing is worse than vivisection! No other single factor causes more pain,

distress and death to humans and animals.

 

Nor is there any less scientific or ethical method of research currently being

employed in industry or educational establishments anywhere in the world.

 

Unless you have read the books and seen the video footage which I and thousands

of other anti-vivisection campaigners have been required to endure, nothing in

your imagination can paint for you anything like the true picture of the hell of

animal experiments. In fact, if you can conjure up the most heinous spectacle of

abuse within your mind, be assured that this is precisely what is being done

today, but probably much worse, around the world in schools, universities and

research labs owned by private companies – and then some. It is being done with

our money, and in order to provide huge mega-wealthy pharmaceutical companies

with staggering profit and as an excuse to provide jobs for vivisectors. It is

also perpetuated to ensure that mankind never becomes learned about the true

nature, cause and cure of disease.

 

Two thousand animals per minute die as a result of gruesome experiments; that is

250 million per year; approximately 3.5 million per year in Great Britain alone.

Over 75% of these experiments are done without anaesthetics, and when they are,

they are often inadequately applied. Most experiments are done with public

money. 0.2% of the animals used are for the testing of cosmetics. In Britain

there are merely 19 Home Office inspectors to cover 20,000 licensed vivisectors.

 

The practise of animal experimentation has been the mainstay of medical and

biological research since the early 1800s even though it has brought about not

one major breakthrough in medical science. And yet, every medical student, in

order to pass his or her exam and advance in their chosen career must quote the

results of animal experiments.

 

How can respect for life, compassion and empathy be taught to and nurtured in

our doctors through a practise which necessitates the ignorance of pain,

suffering, anxiety terror and death, as is the case with the training process of

US doctors who regularly dissect live animals as part of their training? The

answer is simple: It can't.

 

The animal experimenters are the cornerstone of the highly corrupt and

manipulative pharmaceutical industry. These are a pseudo-scientific fraternity

who earn vast amounts of money for their employers by performing unbelievably

barbaric experiments which can be used to (falsely) substantiate claims that

their drugs are safe for human use. Dr. James D. Gallagher, Director of Research

of Lederle Laboratories in the Journal of the American Medical Association,

March 14, 1964 stated:

 

'Animal studies are done for legal reasons and not for scientific reasons.

The predictive value for such studies for man is meaningless – which means our

research may be meaningless.'

 

There is no British or European law which states that new drugs, chemicals or

cosmetics must be tested on animals. However, animal testing ensures that

vivisectors get the results they want in order to sell their dangerous chemicals

to an unwary public. In numerous legal trials of drug companies who have caused

fatalities and injuries, the most effective defence which has been used time and

again is that: 'All of the usual and required testing had been done to establish

the safety of the drug in question'. A standpoint which most legal authorities

are not qualified to dispute. Indeed, the 'experts' upon whom they call for

advice in such matters are invariably members of other drug companies or drug

sponsored agencies and therefore the animal testing fraternity.

 

Animal experiments have been cited in many court battles over drugs damages

claims and have been used both to defend the idea that such disasters were

unforeseen because adequate testing had been employed, but have also been

successfully used, as in the Thalidomide case in December 1970, to admonish the

drug company (in this case Chemie Grunenthal) who testified that animal tests

could never be conclusive for humans.

 

The very idea that a test or operation done on an animal will show results which

are directly translatable to humans is plainly ridiculous. As has been stated by

some of the greatest and most influential physicians in medical history: the

anatomy, physiology and psychology of animals is entirely different to our own

in many ways, and this difference is further exaggerated in the case of animals

bred for and/or housed in laboratories. This can be plainly illustrated in many

ways; here are just a few:

 

* The LD 50 (Lethal Dose 50%) test, which is the standard toxicity technique

used to establish how much of a chemical toxin is required to kill half of a

number of animals. These animals are specifically bred to be exactly identical

in every way, i.e. genetically and physically they are the same size and weight.

And yet, an equivalent dose of a toxin, in equal quantity and strength will

succeed in killing merely half of the batch whilst leaving half to suffer

varying degrees of disablement. These results are then haphazardly translated to

give the figure for safe and fatal levels for humans. There are 12 different

methods which determine statistically the safety of chemicals for humans from

animal experiments. These may disagree by up to a factor of four.

* It is accepted that animal tests are successful in identifying

cancer-causing agents in only 37% of cases. This means, in effect, that the

results of the tests are more times wrong than right and are significantly

statistically worse than tossing a coin.

* As stated by Hans Ruesch in The Naked Empress or the Great Medical Fraud:

 

'Two grams of scopolamine kill a human being, but dogs and cats can

stand hundred times higher dosages. A single Aminata phalloides mushroom can

wipe out a whole human family, but is health food for the rabbit, one of the

favourite laboratory animals. A porcupine can eat one lump without discomfort as

much opium as a human addict smokes in two weeks, and wash it down with as much

prussic acid to poison a regiment of soldiers. The sheep can swallow enormous

quantities of arsenic, once the murderer's favourite poison. Morphine, which

calms and anaesthetises man, causes maniacal excitement in cats and mice. On the

other hand our sweet almond can kill foxes, our common parsley is poisonous to

parrots, and our revered penicillin strikes another favourite laboratory animal

dead – the guinea pig.'

 

It is fortunate for many that penicillin was never tested on guinea pigs at the

outset where it would have immediately been discarded as dangerous. And if you

want to prove that vitamin C is useless, withhold it from the diet of dogs –

which produce vitamin C in the gut. Moreover, the whole discipline of surgery

and post surgical recovery was hindered for hundreds of years after the Greek

Galen (Second Century AD) showed through animal experimentation that the

principle laid down by Hippocrates (Fifth century BC) was incorrect – that

hygiene and a good diet (as well as establishing the simple fact that nature

heals) was essential to good health and medicine. Galen maintained this

standpoint, which seems bizarre by today's standards, because animals did not

readily succumb to infections following childbirth and surgical procedures.

Galen's animal experiments caused a rejection of Hippocratic values and a

reduction in surgical asepsis. This destructive attitude was supported by the

Catholic Church and was only substantially reversed in the 1800s following the

discovery of the germ and how cleanliness and sterilisation could prevent

bacterial infection.

 

The following is a list of drugs which were passed as safe for human consumption

on the back of animal tests and the damage which they subsequently caused:

 

* Eraldin (for heart disease) – Corneal damage including blindness.

* Paracetamol (painkiller) – 1,500 people had to be hospitalised in Great

Britain in 1971.

* Orabilex – caused kidney damages with fatal outcome.

* MEL/29 (anti-hypertensive) – caused cataracts.

* Methaqualone (hypnotic) – caused severe psychic disturbances leading to at

least 366 deaths, mainly through murder or suicide.

* Thalidomide (tranquilliser) – caused 10,000 malformed children.

* Isoproterenol (asthma) – caused 3,500 deaths in the sixties.

* Stilboestrol (prostate cancer) – caused cancer in young women.

* Trilergan (anti-allergic) – caused viral hepatitis.

* Flamamil (rheumatism) – caused loss of consciousness.

* Phenformin (diabetes) – caused 1,000 deaths annually until withdrawn.

* Atromid S (cholesterol) – caused deaths from cancer, liver, gallbladder

and intestinal disease.

* Valium (tranquilliser) – addictive in moderate doses.

* Preludin & Maxiton (diet pills) – caused serious damage to the heart and

the nervous system.

* Nembutal (insomnia) – caused insomnia.

* Pronap & Plaxin (tranquilliser) – killed many babies.

* Phenacetin (painkiller) – caused severe damages to kidneys and red blood

corpuscles.

* Amydopyrine (painkiller) – caused blood disease.

* Marzine (nausea) – damaged children.

* Reserpine (anti-hypertensive) – increased risks of cancer of the brain,

pancreas, uterus, ovaries, skin and women's breasts.

* Methotrexate (leukaemia) – caused intestinal haemorrhage, severe anaemia

and rumours.

* Urethane (leukaemia) – caused cancer of liver, lungs and bone marrow.

* Mitotane (leukaemia) – caused kidney damage.

* Cyclophosphamide (cancer) – caused liver and lung damage.

* Isoniazid (tuberculosis) – caused liver destruction.

* Kanamycin (tuberculosis) – caused deafness and kidney destruction.

* Chloromycetin (typhoid) – caused leukaemia, cardiovascular collapse and

death.

* Phenolphthalein (laxative) – caused kidney damage, delirium and death.

* Clioquinol (diarrhoea) – caused blindness, paralysis and death.

* DES (prevent miscarriage) – caused birth defects and cancer.

* Debendox (nausea) – caused birth defects.

* Accutane (acne) – caused deafness and kidney destruction.

 

(Taken from Vivisection: Science or Sham by Dr. Roy Kupsinel, and Naked Empress

by Hans Ruesch)

 

Vivisectors often claim credit for many advances in medicine which have been

brought about by non-vivisection methods. Frequently, they will quote animal

experiments which show the same results without also disclosing the pioneering

previous non-animal discovery. One example of this is the case of vaccinations.

Whilst it is certainly true that many diseases which have decimated mankind for

centuries, such as polio, smallpox, whooping cough, tuberculosis, diphtheria and

tetanus have seen a dramatic decline over the last century or so, it is not

because of the introduction of vaccinations. Figures show that such diseases

were long in decline before the introduction of vaccinations and that the rate

of fall was severely impeded once they were introduced. Advances in hygiene,

sanitation, nutrition and wealth status are the obvious reasons for the

improvement of the world's health overall. Vaccinations are responsible for

causing many of the diseases they are supposed to cure as well as compromising

the immune systems of the vulnerable, especially babies who are statistically

more likely to suffer Sudden Infant Death Syndrome within weeks of having their

initial standard vaccinations.

 

The vivisectionists are master manipulators. They invest huge amounts of money

in massive PR organisations such as the Research Defence Society in the UK.

Furthermore, they have infiltrated many areas of the Anti-Vivisection (AV)

movement and have created much confusion in the minds of the public as to the

truth behind this barbaric trade in misery. An example of this was highlighted

in possibly the greatest expose of vivisection industry ever written, The

Slaughter of the Innocent by Hans Ruesch:

 

An interesting case was the Animal Protection league of Basel. Its

president, Dr Rudolph Schenkel, professor of ethology, criticised the revival of

antivivisectionist feeling in Switzerland. Thereafter, the establishment press

could write that 'even the animal defenders disapprove of the

antivivisectionists' views.' A closer look at Schenkel revealed that:

 

1. His league had received a donation of 200,000 Swiss francs (about

$100,000) from Hoffman-La Roche, 'for its animal shelter' – with no questions

asked.

2. His own wife was experimenting on animals in the endocrinology

department of Ceiba-Geigy.

 

When my CIVIS organisation brought about these facts, Schenkel dropped all

pretence of being an animal protectionist: at the next convention of Swiss

animal protection groups (SPCAs), he argued that 'since laboratory animals are a

product of human enterprise, we can do with them as we please.' (My highlight

added.)

 

(This infiltration tactic is not solely within the realms of the AV movement but

is widespread throughout the animal rights movement. This is exemplified at

present by the large scale enrolment of blood-sports practitioners [fox and stag

hunters etc.] with the RSPCA whereby they are steadily creating a significant

policy influencing force by taking advantage of the apathy of many members who

do not turn out to vote upon Society matters. The RSPCA also has financial

investments in companies that support vivisection.)

 

The smoke-screen perpetuated by vivisectors that it is preferable to test drugs

on animals than on humans, and the emotive stance that 'it's your child or an

animal', is probably the most effective way that they ensure public support for

their industry. What they always fail to say is that all drugs are tested on

humans immediately after the animal trials and often without the patient's

knowledge or consent. Those that are informed of the trial are usually reassured

to know that 'animal studies have shown the drug to be safe'.

 

AV supporters are simply people who have come to realise the truth about this

situation and have committed themselves to being a part of the process of change

and reformation to abolish this massive and system of cruel fraud, both for the

sake of the animals and humans. However, they are usually portrayed in the media

as extremists; an inevitable side-effect of a necessary evil. Ordinary people

who are deemed responsible enough to bear and raise children, minister to the

sick, save lives, handle the nation's wealth, run for political seats etc., once

they have made an AV stance, are immediately demoted to, at best 'irrational'

and 'oversensitive', or, at worst, 'people-hating terrorists' with no right to

express an opinion about such matters. Once branded as such they are given about

as much regard as are the animals in the laboratory cages and are made largely

impotent on the political scene because MPs do not consider it a wise career

move or vote winner to consort with anyone considered to be extremist.

 

In the case of vivisection, the public is all too willing to accept that it is a

necessary part of modern progress and not really cruel at all. One reason for

this is because the alternative, i.e. the truth, is almost too great a burden to

accept. Such a stance is often taken in defence of one's own sanity as a mental

survival technique in order that one does not go mad with the anger, sorrow,

frustration and terrible empathy which the idea of vivisection evokes in us.

Therefore, the vivisectors have yet another advantage over the masses in the

battle to keep them convinced of the verity of their cause, whilst the AV

organisations have to face a perpetual uphill struggle against the tide of

wealth, mind control, tradition and human apathy which is forever on the side of

the manipulators.

 

As George Bernard Shaw once stated, 'Whoever doesn't hesitate to vivisect will

hardly hesitate to lie about it'.

 

By creating a 'healthcare' (more accurately termed 'ill-healthcare') system

which relies upon the misleading results of animal experiments, the manipulators

of this century have ensured that, within the system, the true causes and cures

for disease will never be revealed. This in turn creates a self-perpetuating

industry for the multinationals who, by creating disease via their drugs, can be

assured of massive funding in order to discover a) the reason for the drug

error, which is guaranteed to involve further animal studies, and b) further

drugs to treat the results of the initial drug error. In the, by now, all too

familiar pattern: the manipulators perpetuate the problem of a state of global

ill health and therefore the need for the solution which is offered in the form

of more and more pharmaceutical involvement.

 

For the sake of your selves, your children and the animals: WAKE UP PEOPLE! Take

back your power over your own health and stop supporting these barbaric and sick

individuals. Only you can do this. The time to do this is now.

 

part 8 Top of page part 10