FDA, Guilty Of Racketeering/Murder?

distressed-flag6There are so many articles on the web where the FDA has silenced the scientists responsible for testing drugs that big Pharma intends to force-feed the public.  If a scientist’s opinion doesn’t match that of the FDA’s desired result, the scientist is removed from the project.  Lawsuits against the drug companies with the FDA standing shoulder to shoulder with them defending the drug companies claims are building.  Between these pharmacological disasters and the FDA’s attempted suppression of alternative health information and practices, one has to wonder if they are guilty of racketeering.

Wikipedia defines racketeering as:

A racket is an illegal business, usually run as part of organized crime. Engaging in a racket is called racketeering.

Several forms of racket exist. The best-known is the protection racket, in which criminals demand money from businesses in exchange for the service of “protection” against crimes that the racketeers themselves instigate if unpaid. A second well known example is the numbers racket, a form of illegal lottery.

Traditionally, the word racket to describe a business is based on the example of the “protection racket” and indicates that the speaker believes that the business is making money by selling a solution to a problem that it created (or that it intentionally allows to continue to exist), specifically so that continuous purchases of the solution are always needed. Example: in a protection racket, a representative from the racket informs a storeowner that a fee of X dollars will be required every month for protection money, though the “protection” that is provided comes in the form of the racket itself not causing damage to the store or its employees.

You can find a more detailed explanation of racketeering HERE:

The FDA has consistently been accused of silencing scientists who work for it.  The FDA has been OKing drugs that are killing people and they knew it before they released the drugs to the market.  Maybe they should be charged with intent to commit murder instead.  Think this is inflammatory?  It is all true.

Numerous cures for cancer have been coming to light for ages.  Yet the FDA suppresses all this information.  The FDA claims that these claims cannot be substantiated, yet time and again there is science to back up the claims.  The FDA gets away with it by, “permit” health claims for supplements – IF the claim meets the standard of “significant scientific agreement.” The problem comes in when it is realized that the FDA refuses to define *significant scientific agreement.*  At this time I won’t even start on GM foods!

Just as an example we’ll look at alternative health information.  This comes from the link above…

The following special supplement is from Dr Julian Whitaker’s March 1999 issue of his HEALTH & HEALING monthly newsletter. For those of you who may not be aware Dr Whitaker was the Founder and is the current President of the American Preventive Medical Association (APMA).

“… The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has suppressed virtually all scientific information on supplement labels that would explain how to use them to prevent and treat disease. You deserve to have this information right on the product you want to purchase. AND NOW THE COURTS AGREE!

In a titanic struggle with the FDA that started eight years ago, Attorney Jonathan Emord prevailed, driving a wooden stake through the agency’s black heart. On January 15, 1999, The Circuit Court of Appeals in Washington, DC, ruled that the FDA’s SUPPRESSION of health claims for nutritional supplements was UNLAWFUL and UNCONSTITUTIONAL. And it’s about time!

But there are so many more reasons why the FDA is guilty of these charges.  Let’s look at aspartame as one example.

Aspartame Warning

“Pro” aspartame people point to industry sponsored short term tests, ignoring independent tests. They point to “reliable” health sites, organizations, foundations etc. that are sponsored, funded & fed “facts” by companies that profit from aspartame. And of course, the FDA approved it so “it must be safe”, neglecting to mention that the FDA denied aspartame approval for over 8 years until the newly appointed FDA commissioner Arthur Hull Hayes overruled the final scientific review panel, approved aspartame, and then went to work for G.D. Searle’s (initial owner of aspartame) public relations firm at $1,000 a day. Hayes has refused all interviews to discuss his actions. The FDA also urged Congress to prosecute G.D. Searle for “specific false statements or concealed facts” stemming from Searle’s testing of aspartame. However, the 2 government lawyers assigned to the case decided against prosecuting G.D. Searle and then joined G.D. Searle’s law firm! Even the National Soft Drink Assn. filed a strong protest letter (available below) in 1983 against the approval of aspartame for use in beverages, saying “aspartame is inherently, markedly and uniquely unstable in aqueous media.” Also, the FDA still allows hydrogenated oils to be used, does that make them safe?

The FDA is starting to look like an industry that can be bought and paid for without regard to the science/scientists who work for it.  These reports are hugely damning yet the media rarely gives them the attention they are due.  Why is that?


Dr Graham’s devastating critique centres on the way the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) failed to act decisively on evidence that Vioxx, a blockbuster drug for arthritis which was taken by 20 million Americans, increased patients’ risk of heart disease. According to Dr Graham, Vioxx caused heart attacks or death in up to 140,000 patients during the five years it was on the market.

When Vioxx’s maker, the US pharmaceuticals giant Merck, eventually made its own decision to pull the drug last September, its shares plunged and patients launched an avalanche of class action lawsuits which will start to come to court in May.

And then there is the Supreme Court ruling against Wyerth and the FDA.

Supreme Court rules against Wyeth in liability case

Wed Mar 4, 2009 2:39pm EST

A Vermont jury awarded $7 million in legal damages to a guitarist, Diana Levine. Part of her arm had to be amputated after she was improperly injected with the anti-nausea drug Phenergan made by Wyeth as part of treatment for a migraine.

The question we must decide is whether the FDA’s approvals provide Wyeth with a complete defense to Levine’s tort claims. We conclude that they do not,” Justice John Paul Stevens concluded in the court’s majority opinion.

The FDA stood with Wyeth during the trials.  The FDA insisted that its preemptive labeling took precedence over State law liability claims.
The ruling caps a fierce battle over the limits of preemption that came to a head in the final years of the Bush administration, after an FDA lawyer issued new labeling regulations in 2006 stating explicitly that the agency’s approval of a drug label preempted “conflicting or contrary state law.” Defense lawyers seized on the change in defending state tort claims over labeling in pharmaceutical cases, winning dismissal of about half the cases in which they claimed preemption, according to a tally kept by the Drug and Device Law blog, which, you won’t be surprised to hear, has some mournful analysis of Wednesday’s ruling. (For more background on the preemption debate, check out this terrific American Lawyer story by Tamara Loomis.)

Issues with the FDA go back to the 1970s.  One story after another will provide ample evidence that the FDA is corrupt and being paid off by big pharma.  It seems that any drugs big pharma wishes to put on the market are OK by the FDA who doesn’t even bother to read the scientific analysis of its own scientists.

FDA Told Its Analyst to Censor Data on Antidepressants

By Shankar Vedantam

Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, September 24, 2004; Page A08

A Food and Drug Administration medical officer was told by top agency officials to delete material on the risks of antidepressant drugs from records he was submitting to Congress and then to conceal the deletions, according to documents released yesterday at a hearing on Capitol Hill.

According to an article in SEEDMAGAZINE:

The FDA is a Cauldron of Discontent

July 26, 2006

Similarly, the Bush administration has been hiding discontent within the agency. In 2003, Janet Rehnquist, former inspector general for the Department of Health and Human Services and daughter of the late Chief Justice, released a report on the FDA’s drug review process containing glowing remarks of the agency’s success in streamlining drug approval as well as the happiness of its employees.

But when a Freedom of Information Act request revealed the full survey a year later, the truth came out: Two-thirds of the respondents thought the agency did not adequately monitor prescription drugs once they were on the market, 58% thought there was not enough time to review drugs and 18% said they were pressured to approve drugs they did not feel were safe. Most telling was the half of respondents who felt scientific dissent was not respected by the agency. (Rehnquist resigned in March of 2003 in the face of a stack of professional misconduct allegations.)

Accusations that the FDA is corrupt abound.  This article was just released a few weeks ago.

FDA Scientists Accuse Agency of Corruption, Intimidation

Thursday, March 12th, 2009

A group of nine FDA scientists has sent letters to top politicians, accusing agency managers of intimidating and coercing scientists into changing or suppressing scientific data. In October, the scientists sent a letter to the House Energy and Commerce Committee. In early January, they sent another to then-president-elect Barack Obama.

The medical device review process, in particular, has been “corrupted and distorted by current FDA managers, thereby placing the American people at risk,” the letter to Obama reads.

For example, the FDA continues to approve the use of certain mammography computer-aided detection devices for breast cancer screening, over repeated objections from agency doctors and scientists that there is no clinical evidence that the devices work as advertised.

How long does the list have to be before action is taken to abolish this corrupt agency?  How many Americans have to die before the corruption stops?  And who will investigate this agency with any credibility?  Certainly we can’t trust those in Congress.  They have proven to be every bit as corrupt as this agency is.

And what of those promising new discoveries which the FDA refuses to acknowledge because it would hurt their main clients big pharma?  Why, if the FDA is to promote:

FDA’s Mission Statement

The FDA is responsible for protecting the public health by assuring the safety, efficacy, and security of human and veterinary drugs, biological products, medical devices, our nation’s food supply, cosmetics, and products that emit radiation. The FDA is also responsible for advancing the public health by helping to speed innovations that make medicines and foods more effective, safer, and more affordable; and helping the public get the accurate, science-based information they need to use medicines and foods to improve their health.

Why doesn’t the FDA actually do the job the agency was intended for? Money of course, which is a main component of racketeering.   Consider the following:


by Thomas M. Sipos, L.A. Bureau Chief.  [January 14, 2003]

In The Burzynski Breakthrough, Elias charts the clinical trial results of Burzynski’s antineoplaston treatment against dozens of types of cancer.  “All these figures derive from progress reports sent to the FDA, which are required of anyone who conducts clinical trials,” says Elias. “But there is no other cancer treatment for which the manufacturer has ever made precise performance figures available.”

Overall, Burzynski’s drug draws significant responses in about 65% of all cancers on which it has been used.  This includes complete remissions, partial remissions (i.e., more than 50% reduction of tumor within six months of start of treatment), and stable disease (less than 50% tumor reduction, but no progression — which can be a very significant result if you have a fast-growing brain tumor that’s not responding to anything else).

Because big pharma is not in the business of curing people,  (If you are well you certainly won’t need big pharma’s drugs).  Cures don’t keep you needing the medicines of big pharma.  Their paychecks stop when you stop using their drugs.  Big pharma is only going to go after the symptoms of a disease/disorder, not the root cause.  And any drug or medical procedure which can cure will be denied by the FDA or made out as quackery.  FDA is a racket geared towards big pharma and big biotec and not, as the agency claims, working for the America people to insure their good health.  The evidence is overwhelming and damning.

Instead of Congress acting to fix this agency, they simply ignore the problems and allow the agency to go on with business as usual practices.  Killing people isn’t a problem for either big pharma or the FDA.  Is it any wonder that over 58% of the population no longer bothers going to see a doctor but seeks out alternative means for securing their health?

Another example of this is the hoorah over folic acid.  We all know it is absolutely essential for pregnant women, however, the health benefits to the entire population have been downplayed.

The FDA versus Folic Acid

Categories  Chris Gupta

Folate prevents colon cancer:
Annals of Internal Medicine, 1998; 129:517-524

Folate prevents cardiovascular disease:
JAMA, 1993, Dec 8: 2693-2698 & 2726-2727

Folate protects against dna damage:
Proc of the Nat Academy of Sciences, 1997 94(7):3290-5

Folate protects against dna damage:
Baillieres Clinical Hematology, 1995, 8(3):461-78

Folate protects against birth defects:
Folates and the Fetus. Lancet, Feb 26, 1977, p 462

Folate metabolism in pregnancy:
Am J Obstetrics and Gynecology, 1967 99:638-648

Folate deficiency & oral contraceptives:
JAMA, 1970 214:105-108, 1970

Folate deficiency in mental patients:
British J Psychiatry 113:241-251, 1967

The FDA versus Folic Acid
Does agency suppression constitute a scientific endorsement?
January 1999

In fact, it took the FDA more than 30 years to even acknowledge that folic acid prevents neural tube birth defects. Tens of thousands of deformed babies have been born because the FDA prohibited claims that pregnant women should take folic acid. When former Commissioner David Kessler was confronted with overwhelming evidence that women of child-bearing age should supplement with folic acid, he responded in an NBC interview, “The quandary we’re in at the Food and Drug Administration is how to make folic acid available to women of child-bearing age, but not put it in excessive amounts in the food supply for other populations such as teenage boys or elderly people.”

A newly released study shows just how fatally flawed the FDA’s position is. Data from the famous Nurses’ Health Study conducted at the Harvard Medical School show that long-term supplementation with folic acid reduces the risk of colon cancer in women by an astounding 75%. The fact that there are 90,000 women participating in the study makes this finding especially significant. The authors explain that folic acid obtained from supplements had a stronger protective effect against colon cancer than folic acid consumed in the diet. This study also helps to confirm the work of Dr. Bruce Ames, the famous molecular biologist who has authored numerous articles showing that folic acid is extremely effective in preventing the initial dna mutations that can lead to cancer later in life.

Did you get that?  Tens of thousands of deformed babies have been born because the FDA prohibited claims that pregnant women should take folic acid. We can lay this at the feet of the FDA also.  For over 30 years the FDA turned a blind eye refusing to look at the science.  There was the Statin Scams.  There were the heparine deaths, salmonella deaths from peppers and peanuts, and the list goes on with the FDA maintaining that it does its best for Americans.  Ya, right!  There is simply too much evidence that the opposite is true, they are a racket fronting big pharma and not at all interested in American citizens or their health.

The FDA has also gone after t he internet to block information concerning drugs and herbal remedies.  Where does it end?  How many have to die?  Is this just another conspiracy theory or is there enough fact here to go after the FDA?  All I know is there will have to be an independent review outside of Congress and the FDA for any changes to happen.  Big Pharma pays off Congress too.  No help coming from that direction.

Do your own search on FDA Suppression.  Don’t take my word for anything.  In fact, don’t take anyone’s word for anything until you do the research for yourself…


~ by justmytruth on April 13, 2009.

6 Responses to “FDA, Guilty Of Racketeering/Murder?”

  1. I noticed a letter was sent to Obama be fore he took office. Does anyone think he will do anything at all? He sets at the same feeding troff as all the other money colectors in our government.

  2. Not if it is good for We the People. Obama is great at making people think one thing while he does another. There is none so blind as those who do not see!

  3. thanks

  4. You are welcome!

  5. I am so impressed by the amount of information you have put together on the topic of FDA and their manipulative tactics to keep people in the dark and serve specialized interests.

  6. Thank you Sandy. I have more to come on that subject actually. I hope you will stop by and read that also. Thanks for visiting…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: