Suppressed Inventions and Other Discoveries (2 page)

In our world of research and scientific advancement, it seems only logical to think that if an invention can further the cause of progress, it will eventually find its way into the mainstream of society. After all, the wonders of our post-industrial age are numerous and diverse, ranging from television to antibiotics. If a suppression syndrome has infiltrated our society, how could these modern-day marvels have come into existence?

On the surface, this would appear to be a valid argument. However, the point weakens under scrutiny. For example, television was suppressed for many years by companies with huge investments in the film industry, who believed that movies would become obsolete. Thanks to their pressure development was slowed, and more than thirty years passed after its discovery before television actually made it to the commerical mainstream— even though it was backed by large corporations like RCA.

Antibiotics were released for use on World War II battlefields only because the United States government made a deal with the pharmaceuti

Introduction 3

cal companies, granting them patent rights for something they had never even developed. This came after several years of negotiations, at the cost of thousands of lives.

For every once-revolutionary idea that is now commonplace in our daily lives, many more have been suppressed or witheld by those vested interests with a focus on profit or power. Pure self-interest results in strong opposition from multinational corporations, orthodox science, and even our own governments when innovation threatens the status quo. Wealthy and powerful individuals are not inclined to forfeit their fortunes or their authority, even though the human population as a whole would benefit greatly from new technologies.

The suppression of innovation and discovery is an overwhelming and frightening problem. I have put this book together in order to directly address this critical issue, which I believe deserves our utmost attention. These collected articles, some of which may surprise or even shock you, are highly varied, but each and every one is vital to our understanding of the nature of suppression—where it begins, who it affects, and how it is perpetuated. Because the suppression syndrome is so far-reaching, I have grouped the material into four sections, each detailing the struggle of specific ascendancies to maintain their funds and their jurisdiction.

Section I focuses on the suppression of alternative medicine. Powerful pharmaceutical companies and their agents, the orthodox medical societies, are not ready to lose millions of dollars by admitting that there are nontoxic, inexpensive treatments that are effective in the fight against diseases such as cancer and AIDS. Therefore, patients suffering from these and other degenerative illnesses are denied access to possible cures. Many remain unaware that these therapies even exist until there is little, if any, hope for recovery.

The efforts of organized science to suppress the independent researcher are detailed in Section II. Establishment science has yet to examine itself according to the stringent guidelines of its own Scientific Method, the doctrine by which all research and discovery is measured. It seems that if scientists assessed their work objectively, they would find that there is no monopoly on truth, a realization which could undermine their elevated status. What a sad commentary on a branch of knowledge whose constituents should humbly admit that they do not know all the answers—or even all the questions. How can any "radical" ideas find acceptance in a system whose aim is self-perpetuation, rather than the betterment of humanity?

In Section III you will discover that the public at large remains shockingly ignorant as to the extent of our government's involvement with UFOs and extraterrestrials. What if our highest powers are in fact subservient to higher powers? It is clear that the censorship of sensitive information regarding extraterrestrial life has been carefully orchestrated so as not to upset the power of our dominant social, religious, and political institutions.

Finally, Section IV will introduce you to some of the alternate energy resources that could potentially eliminate our dependence on fossil fuels, and curtail research into the deadly menace of nuclear power. We are not driving around in cars fueled by water, or tapping into the free energy in our atmosphere to light our homes, not because these things are impossible, but because power and petroleum monopolies would crumble if our world ran on the abundant, clean, and safe energy that some inventors were harnessing decades ago. It is therefore "in the best interest" of these monopolies to maintain a system that is destroying our environment and threatening our very lives.

The true nature of suppression is the willingness on the part of everyone with a stake in the system to uphold the power of that system. To ask if there is more out there than meets the eye is to question our very reality, and to ultimately upset the status quo. We don't really know our real power—the power of one ethical and courageous act, of speaking the truth. Suppressed Inventions and Other Discoveries is my attempt to empower concerned individuals, and to enlighten those who are unaware that there is need for concern.

Section I

The Suppression
of Alternative
Medical Therapies

Ralph Moss is, perhaps, the best medical journalist in the United States today. His book The Cancer Industry uncovered the corruption of the second most profitable business in the twentieth century—cancer. His latest book, Questioning Chemotherapy, is also a gem. Moss is very persuasive, although it may not take a genius to realize that if powerful drug magnates are sitting on the board of directors of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York City, and other major cancer hospitals and research centers, it will be difficult, if not impossible, to get any favorable results for non-pharmaceutical therapies.

In an interview with Gary Null (WBAI radio in New York City), Moss elaborated on this idea:

What my research has shown is that many of the top directors (what they call "overseers") drug companies. Bristol-Myers Squibb and Director of the

official of Memorial Association, is a top who is the Chairman

Chairman of Memorial at Memorial For instance, Sloan-Kettering are also

Richard Furlow, who is Pharmaceutical Sloan-Kettering.

of Bristol-Myers Kettering. The Paul Marx, is a of Memorial Sloan-Kettering] are Life Technologies, Merck, and so forth.

And so what happens, in effect, is that you have a . . . closed circle of people who are, on the one hand, directors of the world's largest cancer center; on the other hand, they are either officers or directors of the very companies that are producing the drugs which are used and advocated by these centers. . . . There are many,
industry influences the direction of cancer
many ways that the drug research, and of AIDS top directors at the President of

Manufacturers' Richard Gelb,

Squibb, President Director of the Board of Bristol-Myers Squibb, is a Vice Sloan-Kettering. James D. Robinson, a Director is another Vice President of Memorial Sloanof Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, of Pfizer [pharmaceuticals]. And others [officials Directors of Bio-Technology General,

research. You have to look at it from an economic point of view . . .

5

Moss points out that nutritional therapies—impossible to patent—and therapies like ozone and vitamin C and many others, have been either suppressed or ignored by the cancer establishment, by people looking at the issue, as he says, "from an economic point of view." The only treatments chosen are the ones that, strangely enough, turn out to be toxic—because these are the only ones that can be patented.

And patenting new drugs is extremely expensive. So if you were the head of a pharmaceutical company spending millions of dollars on a new drug that could earn hundreds of millions of dollars in profits, would you want people relying on herbs and vitamins to treat their illnesses? Would you want a regulatory agency like the FDA to be an advocate for safe, nontoxic treatments, rather than chemical therapies?

Interesting alternatives like Hoxsey's herbal treatments, and Royal Raymond Rife's frequency machine, that reputedly scored a 100-percent cure rate on terminal cancer patients, are not available options for patients searching for cures less harmful than the disease itself. And you might be surprised to learn that people living with HIV may not have to inundate their systems with drug cocktails, but could instead benefit from the restorative powers of oxygen in its purest form. Yet because giant, farreaching drug companies stand to lose so much, most patients are not made aware of the many alternative treatments that have been developed. To this day workable, testable alternatives to corporate medicine are not recognized by a system that is geared to maximize the profits of a pharmaceutical/medical establishment.

Censorship extends to information regarding the very nature of deadly viruses and crippling degenerative diseases. Mercury from dental fillings, for example, is actually toxic, and is thought to be the cause of some neurological disorders. And although we are confronted daily by the media with news about HIV, or even if we know someone who is living with AIDS, we probably don't know as much as we think about its origin. It's clear that what we don't know can hurt us. This is what happens when profits are prioritized over our health and our very lives.

This section contains descriptions of several revolutionary therapies for diseases that were formerly accepted as "untreatable" or "fatal." While the treatments described in this book have been shown to be effective for many people, they may not represent the best treatment for all cancers, immunodeficiency diseases, or other degenerative illnesses. Choosing a therapy for any life-threatening disease is a serious matter. You should read widely and discuss your options with a health professional in order to make an informed decision about which therapy or therapies you will use.

Does Medicine
Have a Bad Attitude?

James P. Carter

"... And besides, looking through those spectacles gives me a headache."
Professor Cesare Cremonini in 1610,
explaining why he would not look through Galileo's telescope at the moons of Jupiter.

ARROGANT IGNORANCE

The sort of excuse above has delayed medical discoveries for decades, even half-centuries. Canadian nutritionist Dr. David Rowland describes this repression of medical innovation as a bad attitude which he termed "arrogant ignorance." This negative attitude toward many great discoveries represents a tremendous ego threat. Today such negativity is compounded with the industrialization of medicine, which has brought on that "greed is good (for me)" philosophy expressed in the recent movie Wall Street. Segments of the medical profession take what they want when they can get it.

Arrogant ignorance has followed science and medicine throughout history. Beginning with the learned colleagues of Galileo who refused to even look through the glass of his new invention, the telescope, because they believed they already knew all about the laws of physics, that notinvented-here attitude is alive and well at the dawn of the twenty-first century. Is it only a coincidence that "not invented here" shares initials with our government's National Institutes of Health?

Past suppressions—at least those safely back in past centuries—are readily admitted by contemporary medicine. French explorer Jacques Cartier, for example, in 1535 learned from the American Indians that pine-needle tea prevented and cured scurvy, a vitamin C deficiency disease. Upon his return to France, Cartier excitedly shared his discovery with French doctors, who turned a cold shoulder—such a primitive therapy was witchcraft. If we pass this off as Eurocentrism, we miss the similarities to present-day rejections of alternative healing methods that are getting the cold shoulder. The case of Dr. Charles Peres, M.D., of Ft. Meyers, Florida, provides an excellent example.

Dr. Peres was diagnosed with a stage D2 prostate cancer spread throughout his body. In lay terms, you can't have a gloomier prognosis. After he adopted a natural regimen based on a low-fat vegetarian macrobiotic diet, his cancer went into complete remission. Naturally overjoyed, upon his return to functional living he noticed that many of his medical colleagues actually appeared angry that he had survived. Would they rather he die than heal himself with this unorthodox treatment? This very same disdain has been noted by cancer patients who have sought out alternative cancer doctors and have gone into permanent remission, only to be told by their first doctor that they never had cancer to begin with (despite the complete diagnostic work-up that he had witnessed). Negative reactions range from obvious anger to feigned indifference. It must also be told that there are doctors who secretly recommend alternative treatments but warn their patients to never tell the wrong party lest the doctor get in trouble.

In 1747, James Lind, a surgeon's mate in the British Navy, conducted dietary experiments on board ship. He concluded that citrus fruits prevented and cured the killer disease scurvy which ravaged sailors. Captain Cook was one of the first ship commanders to supplement his sailors with rations of lime. The captain sailed throughout the world for over three years without a single death from scurvy—unprecedented for that time.

But it took forty-eight years before the British Admiralty made it official policy to distribute one ounce of lime juice daily for each sailor. This simple nutritional supplement of vitamin C was a factor in Britain's ascent to being the world's greatest sea power. It was as though they doubled their forces. Britain sailed farther than any other navy into uncharted territory, easily defeating weakened enemies who had lost many sailors to scurvy.