On the docks now we have accomplice No. 5: Government's regulatory watchdogs.
5 results of investigation with some solid substantiation indicting these agencies:
1. How can they analyze the data they haven't even got?
Public policies are formulated solely based upon a mindless review of published literature .
Perfectly valid research work, that is inconclusive or disproves a profitable mode of treatment, never makes it to any high-impact publication, says Alex Sutton, the Professor of Medical Statistics at the University of Leicester .
2. Their approval process for new modes of treatment are gravely flawed :
- Before a new drug is introduced, it's manufacturer sponsors clinical trials to prove that the drug is safe and effective.
The results of all such trials are submitted and even if most of the trials were negative & just 1 or 2 of them came out somewhat positive, that is enough to sanction the drug .
- Many members of the standing committees of experts that advise the government agencies on drug approvals also have financial ties with the allopathic colossus .
- That explains why they fail to catch all the
- missing safety data,
- incomplete follow-ups,
- unmeasured biases,
- potential role of chance,
- competing interests,
- faulty documentation &
- selective reporting of results in allopathic clinical trials .
- The LA Times revealed that in 1 year, nearly 20 million Americans took at least one of the harmful drugs which the FDA was later forced to withdraw .
- Most medical devices recently recalled by the Food and Drug Administration, because of very serious risks, were initially approved through an expedited process or were exempt from regulatory review .
- Overruling the objection of their own safety scientists, these governmental watchdogs have been releasing drugs for public consumption .
- The federal government's General Accounting Office "found that of the 198 drugs approved by the FDA between 1976 & 1985… 102 (or 51.5%) had serious post-approval risks… the serious post-approval risks (included)
- heart failure,
- myocardial infarction,
- respiratory depression and arrest,
- kidney and liver failure,
- severe blood disorders,
- birth defects,
- fetal toxicity,
- Serious adverse drug reactions still commonly emerge after a new allopathic intervention has been permitted to be marketed .
- The regulators approval process for any new intervention does not consider  -
- It's therapeutic effectiveness
- How it measures up against currently available options
- Other non-allopathic alternatives
- Cost effectiveness
- An allopathic field trial may produce negative results… but a similar trial from a foreign country, with lax regulations or cheaper-to-bribe officials, can be used to push the drug through .
3. They play hide & seek when public outrage heightens against allopathic fraud:
- Governmental regulators show no inclination to act until a loudening public outcry forces them to.
- Even then, they drag their feet with the hope that the temperatures may cool down, so that they can get away without having to ban the brutal drug or treatment .
- Worse come to worst, they may take some token action against a scapegoat, while leaving the rest of abusive system intact, along with the senior executives of the allopathic company.
4. Key regulations are conspicuously missing:
- There are no rigorous standards and transparency in patient care research comparing the benefits and harms of different medical tests, treatments and procedures .
- Complicit government oversight officials fail to enforce standards; preferring to redefine them instead: Who is eligible to be used as a human subject? Can children's consent? Validity of symptoms defining a sickness? 
- The Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) in USA once concluded: “There are no mechanisms in place to limit dissemination of technologies regardless of their clinical value.”
Shortly thereafter, the OTA was disbanded.
5. They set up biased advisory panels, which are hand in glove with the allopathic giants :
- National Bioethics Advisory Commission (NBAC) does not focus on financial arrangements of research investigators. Their staff are also “on the take” from allopathic businesses they are supposed to monitor .
- Academics appointed to the public policy advisory boards have personal undeclared financial arrangements with the allopathic behemoths .
- Several times in the past, such panels set up by government watchdogs have recommended drugs that kill  while brazenly withholding study data .
The allopathic heavyweights also figure in the list of top donors to all major political parties . Who pays the price of voting these recipients of big money to power?
Dr. John Braithwaite shares:
If allopathic drugs were tested properly using true scientific methods, most of them would not be allowed onto the market, not just because of their harmfulness but more importantly due to their sheer ineffectiveness .
Completing this circle of crime is, accomplice No. 6 : mass media – medical reporters, journalists & rest of the '4th estate'.
They face 5 counts of felony; forsaking public interest for self-interest:
- 45% of News paper articles do not report who paid for the studies. Only 3% of media editors have a written policy stating that company funding should be reported in articles about medical research .
- 76% refer to medications with their brand names, instead of generic names, thus advertising meds under the garb of news.
Only 2% of newspaper editors have a written policy stating that medications should be referred to predominantly by their generic names .
- Often the news release is sent without the full research paper, so news reports may be based on the spin created by a journal or an institution . Science reporters need not be scientists themselves.
- If the 4th estate exposes the allopathic fraudsters, they will lose billions of dollars of advertising income  overnight.
Hence they carefully protect these allopathic goliaths & help them perpetuate the false value of their frivolous fixes .
- In my own small efforts to share with some journalists about what's going on underneath the surface in certain cases, I hit a wall of adamant unwillingness to even consider such possibilities – forget about comprehending or investigating further.
“There is a crisis of credibility in medicine and science… Less and less information seems purely disinterested. You have to check everything out.”- Dr. Joseph Sonnabend, Ex-virologist,
Medical Research Council; Aids physician (retired) .
33% of adults with health problems reported mistakes in their care in 2007, and rates of visits to physicians or emergency departments for adverse drug effects increased by 33% between 2001 and 2004 .
As per a Journal of American Medical Association report:
"Over a million patients are injured in US hospitals each year, and approximately 280,000 die annually as a result of these injuries. This figure is more than that for all road accidents combined." 
It's not difficult to understand why only 1 in 20 of serious side-effects are reported to either hospital administrators or the FDA .
A survey of nurses found that they also fail to report allopathic botchups for fear of retaliation.
The tragedy doesn't end there, Dr. Beaty and Dr. Petersdorf wrote in the Annals of Internal Medicine:
"…it should be pointed out that iatrogenic (doctor induced) problems are cumulative, and in an effort to extricate himself from complications of diagnosis and therapy, the physician may compound the problem by having to employ maneuvers that are in themselves risky." 
Ultimately, for each disease there is a corresponding set of grim microvita which somehow sneaked into your body-psyche, even if you are gobbling-down all the 'proven' diets, latest nutritional products, etc.
While we can't stop the ceaseless sparring between the assorted chummy & scummy microvita within, we can support the ones that promote health while countering the ones that don't.
With that call, Your Honor, I rest my case.
Your judgment. Your life.
1. Death by Medicine By Gary Null, PhD; Carolyn Dean MD, ND; Martin Feldman, MD; Debora Rasio, MD; and Dorothy Smith, PhD.
3. JAMA and Archives Journals (2008, October 2). News Media Often Do Not Report Potential Sources Of Bias In Medical Research. Retrieved June 6, 2011, from ScienceDaily.
4. Science’s Gatekeepers, a Credibility Gap. Dr. Lawrence Altman
6. Children's Hospital Boston (2010, August 3). Drug trials funded by industry are more likely to publish favorable results, researchers find. Retrieved June 6, 2011, from ScienceDaily.
7. Flaws in popular research method exposed. University of Leicester (2011, February 10). Retrieved June 6, 2011, from ScienceDaily.
9. Dr. Marcia Angell, former Editor in Chief of The New England Journal of Medicine : Drug Co & Doctors: A Story of Corruption
11. American Sociological Association (2010, August 17). Pharmaceuticals: A market for producing ‘lemons’ and serious harm, analysis finds. Retrieved June 6, 2011, from ScienceDaily.
12. Public Library of Science (2010, April 27). No standards in comparative effectiveness research. Retrieved June 6, 2011, from ScienceDaily.
14. Angell, M. Is Academic medicine for sale? NEJM, 2000, 342: 1516-1518.
15. Willman, D. “How a New Policy Led to Seven Deadly Drugs", Los Angeles Times, Dec 20, 2000
16. “Reaction” American Medical News. January 15, 1996. Page 11
17. Corporate Crime in the Pharmaceutical Industry. by Dr John Braithwaite
18. The Allopathic Drug Racket
3. Prominent universities – Sacred temples of education?