by Hans Ruesch
People think the FDA is protecting
them—it isn't. What the FDA is doing and what people think it's
doing are as different as night and day.
Herbert L. Ley, Jr., M.D.,
former Commissioner of the FDA
The hearings have revealed police state tactics... possibly
perjured testimony to gain a conviction... intimidation and
gross disregard for Constitutional Rights.
Senator Edward Long,
U.S. Senate hearings on the FDA
The cancer conspiracy is led by the
The initials stand for the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA), the National Cancer Institute (NCI), the
American Medical Association (AMA), and the American Cancer Society
The cancer conspiracy also includes the large pharmaceutical
companies and key research centers such as the Memorial
Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York City and selected
university research labs.
The key personnel move in and out of
official positions within these organizations, sit on common boards
or investigation committees, and have both formal and informal
networks. When a researcher or alternative medicine advocate is
identified as a threat to the power or even the official views put
out by the ruling hierarchy, the maverick is placed on various
published and unpublished blacklists, Funding is stopped, legal
harassment often begins, public denunciation as a quack frequently follows, and
if the outsider persists in offering or advocating a non-sanctioned
treatment, then rougher, clandestine methods can be employed.
It would take thousands of pages to describe various individuals who
have fought the cancer conspiracy and how their threat to the ruling
powers was neutralized. These pages can only summarize some of the
more famous cases and facts which reveal how the cancer conspiracy
functions, but those who wish to know more can pursue the details on
their own, using the names and references offered here as a starting
point. The people and procedures described in these pages are by no
means inclusive, only the most notable or most promising.
The FDA (Food and Drug Administration) is the government police
force which approves experimental studies for those it favors and
hinders approval for those it dislikes. It conducts semi-legal
break-ins (constitutional procedures are often ignored), confiscates
records so that critical documentation is often lost or at least
unavailable for months or years, and at times has interfered with
constitutional protections through conspiratorial relationships with
private organizations who share the same suppressive goals.
New medical breakthroughs that threaten
the sanctioned and financially lucrative treatments are ignored or
"studied" for years. The FDA thus frequently subverts its legislated
purpose which is to promote and protect the public health. Having
lived in Washington, D.C., I know that the FDA is regarded by many
astute civil servants as the federal agency with the lowest morale.
A dark cloud of oppressive inertia, corruption and bureaucratic
sloth pervades its corridors.
Dr. J. Richard Crout, test director at the FDA Bureau of Drugs
beginning in 1971, described the agency in Congressional testimony
on April 19, 1976 as follows:
There was open drunkenness by
several employees which went on for months... crippled by what
some people called the worst personnel in government. Here was
intimidation internally by people.... People, I'm talking about
division directors and their staff, would engage in a kind of
behavior that invited insubordination—people tittering in
corners, throwing spitballs, I am describing physicians, people
who would... slouch down in a chair, not respond to questions,
moan and groan with sweeping gestures, a kind of behavior I have
not seen in any other institution as a grown man.... Prior to
1974, not one scientific officer in our place knew his work
assignments, nor did any manager know the work assignment of the
people under him.
In 1967, the FDA stopped the use of an
experimental cancer vaccine which was producing significant results.
It was developed by H. James Rand, inventor of the heart
defibrillator. J. Ernest Ayre, an internationally recognized cancer
specialist (co-developer of the PAP test) and Dr. Norbert Czajkowski
of Detroit, Michigan assisted Rand.
Treating only terminal cancer patients,
the Rand vaccine produced objective improvement in 35 percent of 600
patients while another 30 percent demonstrated subjective
"One 65-year-old woman with spreading tumor" was
"completely cured in four months."
Another woman with extensive
breast cancer was cured in six months. The FDA stopped the vaccine's
use in a federal court hearing where neither the cancer patients nor
their doctors were allowed to testify. U.S. Senator Stephen Young of
Ohio protested—to no avail. Senator Young could get nowhere with FDA
Commissioner James L. Goddard.
Senator Young recalled:
I could not move them. They would
not even agree to a modification of the ruling (banning the Rand
vaccine), which would at least allow the 100 (cancer) patients
at Richmond Heights (Ohio) to complete their injections. The
Justice Department was prepared to go along, but the FDA
Commissioner, Dr. James Goddard, was adamant, even belligerent.
It's wrong of the government to snatch away this hope when there
is no evidence against its use offered in court. It's damnably
It is known that when FDA Commissioner
Goddard's own wife had serious health problems and orthodox medicine
could not help her, Goddard contacted alternative health
practitioners who quietly healed his wife. But for the suffering
victims of cancer who needed the Rand vaccine or some other
nontraditional treatment, Goddard lowered the boom, using the
federal courts to enforce his dictum.
Such are the ways of the FDA.
Goddard's greatest disservice to the American people was his
DMSO (dimethyl sulfoxide), a simple molecule which often brought
miraculous pain relief and offered numerous possibilities for
medical advancement in other areas, including cancer.
science writer suggested that Goddard crushed DMSO research in order
to gain increased police powers from Congress.
The FDA has never admitted its errors
regarding DMSO although the positive studies from qualified
scientists number over a thousand while the FDA's criticisms have
been shown to be almost completely based on lies or unsubstantiated
rumors. Yet by the late 1980s, twenty years later, the FDA continues
to imprison DMSO advocates.
The malignity of Goddard's arbitrary and
conscienceless acts in 1966-1968 against reputable scientists,
dedicated doctors and the public good is one of the darkest chapters
of FDA history.
No one is sure of the real reasons why it happened and why it
continues to be covered up twenty years later. It has been suggested
that one or more drag companies sabotaged DMSO because it threatened
so many of their profitable products.
One drag company executive reportedly
told the leading DMSO researcher:
I don't care if it is the major drug
of our century—and we all know it is— it isn't worth it to us.
Who had the power to keep such a
miraculous drug off the shelves? Surely not just an FDA Commissioner
flexing his muscle. Was it a combination of drag companies whose
individual profits were threatened by the miracle drag's
[It is] not our [FDA] policy to
jeopardize the financial interests of the pharmaceutical
—from testimony before Congress
of Dr. Charles C. Edwards, at the time commissioner of the FDA
It has also been surmised that FDA
Commissioner Goddard used DMSO in 1966 in an attempt to become the
medical dictator of America. In the years that followed, FDA
officials simply refused to expose the agency's "dirty laundry."
Hence the on-going suppression of what many recognize as "the major
drag of the century."
In any case, Goddard instilled fear into
honest researchers and physicians as no previous FDA Commissioner
had done. He rained careers. He introduced an intensified police
force mentality into the FDA with his emphasis on hiring ex T-men
and G-men. He consciously blacklisted scientists as punishment for
opposing him. And members of his agency, either with his
encouragement or his acquiescence, openly began ignoring the
Constitution for the sake of promotions and power.
Pat McGrady, Sr.'s book,
The Persecuted Drug - The Story of DMSO,
detailed what Goddard's FDA did.
system, the photocopying of private papers, bugging, punitive
investigations, slander and libel, character assassination, forgery,
lying and blackmail."
One scientist declared to McGrady:
For the first time in my life I know
fear. I'm afraid for my family and myself. I'm afraid for
doctors and scientists. And I'm more afraid for our country. I
can't believe these things are happening in the United States.
Another noted researcher maligned by
Goddard's FDA observed:
The academic community and industry
are so completely intimidated that one cannot look for any
leadership to counteract some of the punitive actions of the
FDA.... I am very pessimistic concerning the future status of
medical research unless a mood arises to combat overzealous
Dr. Walter Modell of Cornell University
Medical College finally warned in a published article ("FDA
Censorship" in Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics):
When the non-expert in-group of the
FDA threatens to become the dictator of American medicine we
believe it will lead medicine from its respected eminence to its
A few years after the DMSO suppression,
one of Goddard's top aides, Billy Goodrich, left the FDA with his
pension and became president of a food association regulated by the
FDA. A personal friend who had been president of the food
association took over Billy Goodrich's position at the FDA. They
simply switched jobs! Congressmen screamed in protest. It was such
a blatant demonstration of the "musical shuffle" (which Congress had
previously observed but ignored) that they had to make some noise
this time in order to avert public wrath. Still after all the sound
and fury, nothing happened.
Goddard himself became Chairman of the Board of Ormont Drug and
Chemical Company a few years after leaving the FDA.
A study conducted by the U.S. Congress in 1969 revealed that 37 of
49 top officials of the FDA who left the agency moved into high
corporate positions with the large companies they had regulated. A
General Accounting Office (GAO) study of the FDA in 1975 revealed
that 150 FDA officials owned stock in the companies they were
supposed to regulate. The record of "conflict of interest" (or
worse) within the FDA is deep and extensive.
In 1976, Dr. J. Richard Crout of the FDA admitted that "endless
questions" was a favored technique within the agency to discourage
any researcher who sought approval for an unorthodox cancer
therapy. Bureaucratic obstruction is a weapon as deadly as a gun
when the lives of innocent millions are at stake. It is a delusion
to consider such institutionalized, orchestrated conduct,
consciously chosen either because of orders from above or personal
inclination, as anything other than white collar murder. In fact, it
closely resembles the role carried out by the bureaucrats who pushed
the paper in Nazi Germany. The policy-makers may not fully perceive
the effect of their actions, but the horror has gone on for too many
decades to allow a plea of ignorance to be totally convincing.
In 1972, Dean Burk, Ph.D., of the National Cancer Institute (head of
their cytochemistry section and a veteran of thirty-two years at the
agency) declared in a letter to a member of Congress that high
official of the FDA, AMA, ACS and the U.S. Department of Health,
Education and Welfare (now Health and Human Services or HHS) were
deliberately falsifying information, literally lying, committing
unconstitutional acts and in other ways thwarting potential cancer
cures to which they were opposed.
Dr. Burk's famous May 30, 1972 letter to Congressman Louis Frey, Jr.
dealt with the issue of why the FDA had revoked an Investigative
New Drug (IND) application. The IND application,
according to Dr. Burk, was superior to many routinely approved. But
it involved testing laetrile, a controversial, non-patentable
product opposed by the California Medical Association (CMA). FDA
approved the original application, then rescinded the license,
apparently because of pressure from the surgeon general, a member of
the CMA and a laetrile foe.
Dr. Burk was not an advocate of laetrile. He was, however, in favor
of fair testing. He was totally opposed to what he bluntly called
"misleading and indeed fraudulent" FDA reports. In his
correspondence with Congress, he openly referred to "FDA
Corruption indeed. It takes several forms. Refusing to allow
investigation of a non-toxic compound which might help cancer
patients is one. Failing to assert itself when a drug tested on
human beings was deter-mined to cause cancer is another. Here are
the facts of such a case:
In August 1969 it was learned that a drug called Cinanserin,
produced by E. R. Squibb and Sons, Princeton, New Jersey, caused
tumors in the livers of rats. Human testing of the drug was thus
stopped. But Squibb's executives did not want to do follow-ups on
the humans who had taken Cinanserim.
For three years, the FDA tried to persuade Squibb to do follow-up
studies. (Compare this approach with what the FDA does to
alternative cancer treatments which actually work—raids,
confiscation of documents, jail, etc. With the large drug companies,
FDA tries persuasion!)
Finally, in 1972, the FDA and the National Academy of Sciences set
up a committee to examine procedures on follow-ups when a drug was
found to be dangerous. Who was appointed to head the committee? The
vice-president of Squibb whom the FDA had tried for three years to
persuade to do follow-ups on those people who had been given the
The FDA has a long history of ignoring dangerous drugs and chemical
additives marketed by the big drug companies while using
bureaucratic delays, legal harassment, unconstitutional procedures,
and even falsified evidence to stop unorthodox cancer treatments. In
1964, the FDA initiated a multimillion dollar prosecution of Andrew
Ivy, vice-president and professor of physiology at the University of
Illinois. Ivy was former chair-man of the National Cancer
Institute's National Advisory Council on Cancer. He was an
internationally recognized scholar and a prolific author of
His sin was that he supported a cancer-curing serum called Krebiozen.
Over 20,000 cancer patients had supposedly benefited from Krebiozen.
One United States Senate Committee lawyer personally assessed 530
cases and concluded that Krebiozen was effective.
Krebiozen has never been tested objectively. The FDA used illegal
methods to stop it, methods which have been part of a conscious goal
of the FDA to dictate what medicine a citizen is permitted to use
and what he may not use. Combined with the questionable behavior of
FDA officials, the stock links to the large drug companies, and the
testimony of FDA employees that conscious cover-ups were common, the
intention of the FDA to dictate individual medicine has to be
recognized as one of the most dangerous threats to freedom that has
Peter Temin, a professor at MIT, carefully studied FDA history and
policy for his 1980 book,
Taking Your Medicine: Drug Regulation in
the United States.
His conclusion, based on a very careful, close
look at FDA is frightening:
The most important facet of FDA
regulation is the agency's expression of its conviction that
individuals—both doctors and consumers—cannot make reasonable
choices among drugs. The agency tried with increasing success to
deny drug prescribers and users the option of taking "innocuous"
drugs, that is, to force them to use drugs the FDA regards as
appropriate for their condition.
Despite evidence which extends for
decades, revealing criminal behavior in the one agency that holds
the power to permit tests of alternative cures for cancer, Congress
has done nothing. One night in Washington, D.C., I found out why. I
was introduced to the aide of one of the most powerful U.S.
Representatives in Congress. His boss had been in Washington for
many years. Yet, despite the Congressman's powerful committee
position and ranking status in the majority party, he was unable to
do anything with the health officials at FDA or NCI.
After a number of drinks, this
Congressman's aide told me that FDA and NCI were protected fiefdoms.
They wrote their own legislation, permitting only minor changes by
Congress. They ignored Congressional complaints.
extensively tied to the big drug companies.
"They know no one controls them. No
one is able to take a sword and tell them where to go," the aide
said. He leaned across the table and whispered, "Only national
security procedures are as tightly controlled, without outside
examination. Only national security. Does that tell you
It told me that the monster was real and
dangerous if some of the most powerful men in the U.S. Congress,
with their massive egos and independent political bases, were afraid
G. E. Griffin, author of
World Without Cancer, made explicit
the fundamental, systematic wrong which has emerged out of the
various cross-currents that make up the FDA—underpaid civil servants
playing it safe; drug companies and their Washington lawyers putting
unending pressure on the bureaucrats; academic medicos controlling
the approval process and restricting the individual doctor's choice;
revolving door employment between FDA and universities/drug
companies, and behind-the-scenes political deals.
According to Griffin, the FDA did two
they "protected" the big drug
companies and were subsequently rewarded
they attacked—using the
government's police powers—those who threatened the big drug
companies, be it a young company with a new product such as
DMSO, or natural health store products such as food,
vitamins, minerals or other self-healing (non-drug,
Griffin wrote the following about the
First, it is providing a means
whereby key individuals on its payroll are able to obtain both
power and wealth through granting special favors to certain
politically influential groups that are subject to its
regulation. This activity is similar to the "protection racket"
of organized crime: for a price, one can induce FDA
administrators to provide "protection" from the FDA itself.
Secondly, as a result of this
political favoritism, the FDA has become a primary factor in
that formula whereby cartel-oriented companies in the food and
drug industry are able to use the police powers of government to
harass or destroy their free-market competitors.
And thirdly, the FDA occasionally
does some genuine public good with whatever energies it has left
over after serving the vested political and commercial interest
of its first two activities.
There is only one solution. No reform
will work. No changing of personnel will have any long term effect.
No new laws dealing with regulations. Only one solution.
It was provided by a southern doctor now living in New York City who
has observed the monster in action for many years. Raymond Keith
Brown, M.D., outlined the solution in his book,
Cancer, AIDS and the
Medical Establishment. He described how the power which FDA has to
approve drugs and technology has to be eliminated and replaced with
the solitary role of testing for effectiveness and safety, the
results being the basis for FDA labeling. The individual physician
and individual patient would regain the responsibility to use or not
use a given-drug or technology.
Dr. Brown recommended that,
The FDA should follow a simple
rating system for effectiveness and safety. Effectiveness would
fall into one of three categories:
Safety could also be categorized in
the same manner and the appropriate designation then affixed to
all products or containers. Judgment of the effectiveness of any
medical product or device should not be vested in any
governmental agency or institutions, but should be returned to
the province of the individual physician. Freedom of choice for
medical materials, therapy and methods must be put on the same
footing as civil liberties and as vigorously protected.
One of the better scholars in this
field—Robert G. Houston—says simply:
There should be curbs on the FDA—on
its powers to intrude into the private practice of medicine ...
the FDA should not be dictating to doctors what they can and
Richard Ericson, a dedicated husband of
a cancer victim, eloquently concurred (Cancer Treatment: Why So Many
A physician should be able to
prescribe any type of cancer treatment that he considers best
for the patient, with the patient's consent and knowledge,
without stringent governmental regulations that are now in
force. Congress should consider such problems when new
guidelines are enacted.
Only when FDA concentrates on the
blatant health menaces such as overtly misleading health product
claims or drugs shown to cause death and injury; only when FDA
ceases to be the bully boy for the big drug companies and other
vested interests; and only when FDA again allows physicians,
nonconventional healers and their patients their choice of
therapeutic treatments ... will it regain its legitimate government
In its present form, it is like a malignant beast, harming
society rather than serving it.
AMERICAN CLINICAL LABORATORY CITES
Excerpts (August 1992)
According to reports in the Townsend
Letter for Doctors (#108, July 1992, p. 559) including the
reprint of an editorial from the Seattle Post-Intelligencer
(P-I), U.S. Food and Drug Agency (FDA) agents wearing flak
jackets and accompanied by a contingent of King County
(Washington) police with guns drawn broke into the Tahoma Clinic
(Kent, The Washington) at 9 A.M. on May 6th without knocking on
the door or accepting an offer to have it unlocked. Commanded to
"freeze!" and put their hands in the air, the employees of the
clinic were escorted from the building and refused re-admittance
for 14 hours while an uncounted number of boxes of clinic
records and equipment was taken to an unknown location.
The clinic is owned by Jonathan V. Wright, M.D. (Harvard
University; University of Michigan Medical School), who has
practiced medicine in Washington since 1970 and treated tens of
thousands of patients, including 1,200 currently under his care.
The warrant issued authorized the search and seizure of injectable materials, including vitamins; a vice; literature;
and patient records. Also raided at the same time was the For
Your Health pharmacy operated by Raymond Suen. As of mid-July,
no charges had been filed against anyone.
Suen, together with Kent Littleton, Chief Chemist, Meridian
Valley Clinical Laboratory (Kent, Washington), had collaborated
with Wright to submit a well-documented article, "Testing for
vitamin K: An osteoporosis risk factor." (Am. Clin. Lab. 8,
16 ). Wright et al. traced the connection between
K and bone formation in promoting the gamma carboxylation of
glutamic acid in osteocalcin that binds calcium ions leading to
bone calcification. (In its identical but much better known
function in blood clotting, vitamin K promotes the binding of
calcium toprothrombin in its transformation to thrombin.)
While considerable vitamin K is
presumably synthesized by normal intestinal flora, many
clinicians are aware that normal micro-flora are much less
frequent today than in the preantibiotic days.
Care must be
taken in sample preparation and in the frequently used HPLC
analysis of vitamin K in serum, but Wright finds that
appropriate dietary changes and supplementation almost always
result in substantial improvement in serum levels in just a few
Back to Contents
Back to The Defeat of Cancer - La Derrota del
Back to The FDA - Industry "Weapons" for Earth's
Back to Big-Pharma Industry - The Healthcare