5 Likes
This one? Or didn’t you want it up?
Thanks Sphinx! The video posted by the Beaver wouldn’t play, said it was privately owned. But this one played. Don’t know if it was the same but it was another testament of Biblical proportions to incestuous greed and control of the FDA, AMA, Corporate run health care and the pharmaceutical empires.
I had long ago been made aware that the first obligation of any institution is to protect itself. This penny dropped into my understanding of the business of health care in the late 70s as a result of a lecture I heard by Doris Haire, an advocate for realigning prenatal and obstetric care to meet the needs of the women physicians were supposed to be helping. She recounted a story of a physician who’d spent many years in the Bush in Africa.
He noticed many of the women would not leave their villages to go to the towns for medical treatment when pregnant because they were afraid they would be subjected to a C-section. Not only would this be a long, painful recovery, but they would lose face with their communities. The doctor, trying to find ways to assist these women came up with a rather simple procedure to sever the ligaments between the halves of the pelvic girdle, ligaments which were often tougher, less flexible for a first-time mother but would become easier with subsequent deliveries. It was far less involved and simple to achieve right where they lived, only requiring a couple of stitches, but it allowed the mother’s pelvis to easily expand and, as a result, deliver vaginally. No slicing though the abdominal muscles and the uterus, no long weeks of recovery.
This doctor recorded his many years of using this procedure and sometime in the early 70’s presented his findings to the AMA’s American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology. It was dismissed, ignored and the lucrative business of C-sections marched on.
At that time the rule was, once a C-Section, always a C-section. It was easy to convince a trusting new mother who might not require a c-section to undergo one anyway, wouldn’t she rather be safe than sorry? C-section rates jumped significantly during those years when 9-5 obstetrics became the norm. Doctors and hospitals transformed a healthy life process into a risky event which required scheduling and management. But the insidious thing was it became a one size fits all protocol, whether a mother was at risk or not. Doctors of course got higher fees; hospital stays went from an average of 3 days to 5-7 days and drug companies were selling drugs not designed for laboring women but classified as experimental, NEVER even approved for labor and delivery. Profits all around!
Naturally there was never any discussion of the disastrous effects drugs administered, based on the mother’s weight, during her labor and delivery could have on her baby. To this day the drugs used in labor and delivery are still classified as experimental.
Around this same time, clinical evidence proving these same drugs could result in significant motor function impairment and had lifelong effects for many of those children began to show up. However, many of those papers were handled, or mishandled I should say, by the NIH using the same tactics we see in this video applied by the FDA to discredit Dr. Burzynski.
I’ve had it with the constant hype, the ever present, double speak of “Concern” for Medicine which is a facade for the real heart of this morass which has nothing to do with curing anything. These agencies are the armor of corporate medical and pharmaceutical businesses, their primary responsibility to protect these entities from infringement of trade. Their livelihoods depend on access to and management of our lives, they could care less about the consequences or quality of that life. They tar honest, ethical people, doctors or patients with the label of dissident, troublemaker, crackpot for daring to think outside their rigidly protected boxes, daring to question their authority.
Ok, I’ll get off the soap box now.
4 Likes
Superb!
And the amount of energy and finance that goes into burying and discrediting information and science that hurt their business is ludicrous. 
Thanks for great reply and have a nice day 