© Unknown
On May 19th, the American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) called on "Physicians to educate their patients, the medical community, and the public to avoid GM (genetically modified) foods when possible and provide educational materials concerning GM foods and health risks."[1] They called for a moratorium on GM foods, long-term independent studies, and labeling. AAEM's position paper stated, "Several animal studies indicate serious health risks associated with GM food," including infertility, immune problems, accelerated aging, insulin regulation, and changes in major organs and the gastrointestinal system. They conclude, "There is more than a casual association between GM foods and adverse health effects. There is causation," as defined by recognized scientific criteria. "The strength of association and consistency between GM foods and disease is confirmed in several animal studies."
More and more doctors are already prescribing GM-free diets. Dr. Amy Dean, a Michigan internal medicine specialist, and board member of AAEM says, "I strongly recommend patients eat strictly non-genetically modified foods." Ohio allergist Dr. John Boyles says "I used to test for soy allergies all the time, but now that soy is genetically engineered, it is so dangerous that I tell people never to eat it."
Comment: Without a doubt, criminalizing personal medical decisions is abhorrent. That said, it is irresponsible to advocate any sort of armed resistence as a solution. More than likely the author was just using this extreme example to make a point but it is a dangerous point to make none-the-less.
This article is interesting in several ways. It certainly makes some valid points about chemotherapy, and the pharmaceutical industry in general. However, it completely undermines the validity of those observations, by its means of delivery.
Firstly, there is absolutely no solid data provided to back up the author's point of view. This does not mean that no data is available, simply that the author hasn't provided it.
This is somewhat akin to the tactic used in the movie 'Sleepers' where a court case is undermined from within by the prosecution counsel who is actually on the side of the defendants: He successfully turns the case around by 'playing the role' of prosecution attourney, while deliberately undermining the case against the defense by using convincing words (to make it seem as if he represents the prosecution) but consistently failing to provide any concrete evidence.
Also, the author turns to 'hysterical reaction' mode. By advocating violence against his oppressors he again undermines his position. This is ponerisation at work (get the people mad, cloud their judgement, make them easier to manipulate), and is exactly the reaction that the 'powers that be' want - it acts to undermine our freedoms by providing the justification they need to impose ever more restrictive and draconian measures against us.
This may be intentional or not (in which case the author fulfills the role of COINTELPRO 'useful idiot') but either way, the subtle result is the same - it devalues his observations so that they will appear to many to be the 'rantings of a conspiracy loonie', and it strengthens the pathocracy.