The FDA, on its web site, admits that at least 100,000 people a year die from taking the prescription drugs that only the FDA is authorized to approve for consumer consumption. Those are only the events that are reported as drug-related rather than natural causes. Over two million people suffer an adverse drug reaction (ADR) to FDA-approved prescriptions. Patients in nursing homes experience 350,000 ADRs a year. This is corporate criminality but since the government is the culprit, no one is arrested, prosecuted, sued, censured, or fired which strongly suggests that it may well be organized methodical murder. This is corporate criminality at its best and the corporate media, longtime collaborators, covers it up. It’s the deliberate whoops, we-are-sorry methodology, minus any real apologies or remuneration, as heavily-invested FDA officials hope that the trusting masses will not notice.
Former FDA Deputy Commissioner John A. Norris (1985-1988) described medical fraud, or “quackery,” as a person who performs any medical procedure, suggestions or consultation conducted by anyone who is not a licensed medical doctor. The implication is, according to the allopathic mentality, is that anyone who seeks help or information from someone other than an AMA-approved doctor or uses non-medical therapies is a gullible “victim of health fraud.” In a 2002 article from the AMA Journal, the writer referred to a review of the FDA’s drug approval history from 1978 to 1999, during which over ten percent of the approved drugs were later found to have “potentially lethal side effects.” The FDA then withdrew those drugs from the market. In their study, researchers discovered that twenty percent of the most recent FDA-approved drugs were unsafe. They concluded that one in five FDA-approved drugs is lethal.
The problem is that there are serious “conflicts of interest within the FDA.” Drug approval should be by an unbiased advisory committee which reviews the results of the clinical trials of the drug and then casts a vote on its approval. Yet, fifty-five percent of the 159 advisory committee meetings occurring from January 1, 1998 to June 30, 2000 disclosed that approximately half of the decision-makers had a “financial conflict of interest.” Further, there was at least one participant with a “conflict of interest” in ninety-two percent of the meetings. Many of the committee members who were supposed to protect the public interest and review drugs for approval held stock in the manufacturer’s company. Rather than exhibiting consumer concern, some committee members thought of their own investments and future employment opportunities following their service at the FDA.
See the 6-part video series: Certain Adverse Events