The FDA (Food and Drug Administration) does not have the US public's best interest at heart


FDA: Approving the Drugs that Kill, Rejecting Herbs like Stevia

"The thing that bugs me is that the people think the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) is protecting them. It isn’t. What the FDA is doing and what the public thinks it’s doing are as different as night and day," Dr. Herbert Ley, former Commissioner of the FDA.

"The FDA serves as the pharmaceutical industry's watchdog, which can be called upon to attack and destroy a potential competitor under the guise of protecting the public," Dr. James P. Carter, M.D., author of RACKETEERING IN MEDICINE, the SUPPRESSION OF ALTERNATIVES."

"The FDA should be banned all together. It is an example of an organization that has failed in its regulatory process......The FDA is accountable to the people yet they have failed in their sole objective of being the custodian of our health. We are the ones who have voted for their existence and they have failed to protect us...... As a reminder, their drugs kill over 100,000 people every year. This would be akin to the entire population of Buffalo, New York being wiped out every year. If a car company like Chevrolet were responsible for this death toll there would be blood in the streets.

Several years ago, I went to my ophthalmologist for a check-up, and we somehow got into the subject of highly effective drugs that had been pulled off the market. My doctor sited Vioxx, noting that because "a couple of people had died; the millions who were benefited by it were not going to get any relief." I didn't respond to him. Mainly because I knew that the FDA also approved plenty of drugs that did little to help anyone and that had not really been tested. This is a common fact, but why does it happen? Certainly, not every medication with a dangerous side effect can be eliminated. Sometimes, the risk of the medication outweighs the consequence of the disease.
This is especially true if the medication is only needed temporarily.

There is absolutely no cost to the FDA for approving a drug that might be effective and safe for some, but be deadly for others. However, there are huge incentives for approving dangerous medications while rejecting safe ones. Drugs that are approved in many other countries, sometimes hundreds of them - from Germany to China, Great Britain and Canada - can never find approval in the FDA. The purpose of the FDA is to protect the American consumer from bad or ineffective medications. In their mission statement they clearly state this:

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.

However, many times a highly unsafe medication has been approved, while one that has been strictly studied and proven safe and effective in a collection of other modern nations, will be rejected in the US. Conversely, some drugs are proven deadly in many other nations and considered "safe" in America. Why?

The FDA mission was not created to determine if a drug is better than its counterpart currently on the market. It is only supposed to approve its effectiveness and safety - not its ability to compete on pharmacy shelves. However, this is the main malfunction of the FDA currently. It is well known that several FDA advisors have paid affiliations with drug companies and other organizations pushing drug approval on them. This helps gain the approval of safe medications and unsafe ones alike for those seeking a stamp on their drug. It stands to reason, if Merck is paying someone on the FDA board to approve their latest LDL lowering drug, and another company comes along with a much more effective, much safer drug, Merck gets approved. The safer drug gets dropped, becomes subject to inquiry and is stalled in government red tape for years. FDA approval has nothing to do with a drug's safety. It has everything to do with a paid drug representative's ability to get their drug out into the American market - a representative who most likely sits on the advisory board of the Food and Drug Administration. To trust their approval is to trust the lining of executive pockets, not the effect a particular LDL lowering drug might have on your liver after several years of continuous use.

The FDA also clearly states on their website that waivers for those with "conflicts of interest" who sit on advisory boards, are very limited now. Why are they even offered at all? In all other industries, such conflicts of interest would be subject for expulsion. If an advisor is paid less than $50,000.00 by one of the drug companies seeking approval for their drug, there is no need for approval. There is "not conflict of interest" in the eyes of the FDA.

Recently, the FDA approved a stevia-based, chemical version of the plant. Stevia is a natural, non-sugar sweetener and needs no chemical additives or a partial version of itself to be safe and effective. For many years, it has been used in place of sugar. It has been safely used in many other parts of the world for more than 1500 years. In fact, it has been proven in many many studies not simply to be an excellent non-sugar sweetener, but to also be an effective herb used in lowering insulin levels. Its only semi-dangerous side-effect is that if it is used chronically, more than 6 or 7 tablespoons a day, it can cause slightly higher than normal blood pressure levels. But it has clearly been proven as highly effective insulin treatment, as well as a true non-sugar sweetener, for diabetics.

The FDA approved one of its chemical derivatives recently, a substance "like stevia", but not pure stevia at all. Preliminary studies have already proven these chemical versions of Stevia (Truvia and like products) to be dangerous, and there are no clear answers as to what the long term side effects of Truvia, and others like it, will have on the health of the American public. No doubt these impure versions of stevia will begin to pop up in grocery stores all over the US, convincing consumers of its safety, because it has been approved by their Food and Drug Administration.

How can this be? One of the members of the FDA advisory board, who decides what drugs are safe and what drugs get approved, is a paid affiliate of the Coca Cola Company - the maker of one of stevia's chemical counterparts. While stevia still has to be sold with the stamp, "These statements have not been approved by the Food and Drug Administration," next to stevia's loudly proven TRUE claim, "Non-sugar, natural sweetener from the stevia plant." How many insulin-sensitive Americans will reach for the chemical and not the actual plant because the FDA tells them to? How many of them will harm their bodies further by doing it? I am sure we will hear about it on the evening news when it is too late, many years down the road.

The FDA keeps their advisor's pockets lined and America sick. Sicker Americans create more drugs for the FDA to approve, more bonuses for their affiliates each time one of their drugs shows up on a doctor's prescription pad.

Confused about what to do? Read the many side-effects listed on the back of your medicine bottle. Chances are, they are not all there. Do a little research and challenge your physician to offer you something naturally safer. If he cannot find one, seek out a naturopath for advice. Your life very much could depend on it.

Sources: FDA website, Mercola, World Health Organization

Share this with your friends