By Aaron Dykes
Waking up to the cynical truth about the corrupt, backscratching, revolving door relationships between the FDA (and other agencies) and the Big Pharma and Big Agra industries has been difficult to face, as the problem is so pervasive as to affect the lives of nearly everyone in this country, and beyond throughout the world.
As such, I felt the need to respond to Jon Rappoport’s article, “A Message to Libertarians About the FDA,” because it is an issue I have also thought about quite often.
Is it in the interest of a free society who desires limited government and maximum rights to have a tough watchdog who can protect people? After all, even the average citizen is likely familiar with the deadly mistakes and misdeeds of the food and drug industries….
People don’t want dangerous pharmaceuticals being prescribed to them because proper testing wasn’t done; people don’t want their food contaminated with salmonella or e. Coli; many people don’t want GMOs to be allowed at all, and damn sure want a label on food packages in order to know which foods contain them.
But if these are duties of the Food and Drug Administration, then the federal agency has failed over and over and over again, all while protecting those who’ve done wrong and enabling them to do bigger and better business.
The details are part of a long and ongoing saga; but for starters, the overlapping relationships between the FDA and Big Pharma industry look something like this:
As it turns out, protecting individual liberty should be the first priority…until those rights are respected, the problem can never improve.
Jon Rappoport writes regularly with great points, and is a dependable staple of good commentary on this crazy, screwed up world.
But, here, he cuts right to the chase on an important question: given that the criminals are in charge, that the fox guards the henhouse, and that the powers-that-be are fine with foxes eating chickens, how can we stop it? Regulate it? Protect against it?
In a half-sane society, the big drug companies would have been prosecuted to the sky long ago. Their charters to do business in any state would have been revoked. Their CEOs, executives, and scientists would have been put behind bars for life. Even a limited federal government would have done that.
Here is where I’m in accord with Libertarians: people have right and the freedom to refuse medication, under any circumstances, even where the experts claim death will be the inevitable outcome. And people have the right to ingest any compounds they decide might help them.
The extreme libertarian argument for no government regulation (via the FDA) isn’t going to happen, even if it would be better; neither can the FDA be reformed to do their job (better or at all) in protecting the people from dangerous drugs and treatments from Big Pharma.
Sad, but true. Utterly and unshakably true.
It would be nice if Big Pharma’s power were checked, and problems stopped before they can do harm. It would be oh-so-nice if the FDA truly looked out for the benefit of people, instead of helping the food and drug industries to become more powerful.
But it just isn’t going to happen.
Not only is it not realistic – it may be inherently impossible to accomplish.
More and more government – including an Obamacare universal health system – and more “regulation” (look how well the EPA is doing lately) is only compounding these problems and making the corruption and loss of freedom worse. (And no one is getting healthier in the meantime.)
In case you hadn’t noticed, all national health insurance plans, in whatever countries they’ve been established, are the road to perdition, because they can be manipulated to coerce citizens into accepting designated toxic medical treatments.
The freedom of refusal is the only protection when crime bosses rule both government agencies (like the FDA) and pharmaceutical companies.
Trying to reform Pharma or the government is a losing proposition.
Maintaining the right to refuse is the most important freedom with respect to medical health.
It is the foundation and most important fundamental step.
Any free society of the future, no matter how it chooses to embrace technology and facilitate huge areas and masses of people, must at its core respect the basic freedoms of individuals.
Any free society of the future must begin with the Bill of Rights – and recognize medical freedom as part of those essential rights (under a proper interpretation of the spirit of these rights, medical freedom is included, but unfortunately not explicitly cited).
Medical freedom means the right to choose what you will put into your body, and the right NOT to be forced to take drugs or medicine even if other people believe it will save lives.
Mandatory vaccines for school children, forced chemotherapy treatments for independent teenagers and Amish children – against the will of the child and/or parents – is absolutely wrong, and only heralds the arrival of greater tyranny against all of our health rights.
Dr. Benjamin Rush, an influential but lesser known founding father and medical doctor, saw this issue clearly as well.
Rush, who corresponded with President George Washington and many other founders of the day, wrote letters warning that medical freedom must be protected under the Constitution…or else, tyranny is basically inevitable.
Unless we put medical freedom into the Constitution, the time will come when medicine will organize into an undercover dictatorship to restrict the art of healing to one class of Men and deny equal privileges to others; the Constitution of the Republic should make a Special privilege for medical freedoms as well as religious freedom.
Forcing down the medicine is obviously not the sign of a healthy and free society.
And the medical ‘right to refuse’ is an individual nullification that can deliver a powerful blow to corrupt power by the system.
Aaron Dykes is a co-founder of TruthstreamMedia.com. As a writer, researcher and video producer who has worked on numerous documentaries and investigative reports, he uses history as a guide to decode current events, uncover obscure agendas and contrast them with the dignity afforded individuals as recognized in documents like the Bill of Rights.