G. Edward Griffin quotes
[back] G. Edward Griffin
 

"Consider the AMA.  Almost half of its income every year is derived not from membership dues, but from the average doctor who knows nothing about what the AMA is doing and is unable to have any voice in it.  Half of the income comes from cartel drug firms, in the form of advertising in the "Journal of the American Medical Association".  Ten million dollars a year is funneled into the AMA from drug firms.  Plus, ten million dollars of AMA money is invested in stock ownership in these big drug companies.  That is what you might call a conflict of interest.
    Now, another thing to consider:  in 1972, the AMA Council on Drugs completed a study on currently used drugs.  It was a long awaited analysis and when it came it hit like a bomb because it didn't say what everyone expected it to say.  The committee said that many drugs currently in use at that time were irrational and should be removed from the market.  Heresy!  That couldn't be permitted.  And to make matters worse, the Chairman and the Vice Chairman of the AMA Council on Drugs testified before a Senate sub-committee and said that "the income that the AMA derived from the drug companies has made the AMA a captive arm and beholden to the pharmaceutical industry."
    Now, if the first was heresy that was double heresy.  Something had to be done and it was.  The AMA abolished the committee of the Council on Drugs right then and there.  The excuse given was an economy move.  Now those were just two little items that may give you a sampling of whether or not the AMA is under undo influence of the drug industry. LECTURE BY MR. G. EDWARD GRIFFIN

Early in 1974, the California medical board brought formal charges against Stewart  M. Jones, M.D., for using laetrile in the treatment of cancer patients.  It was learned later, however, that Dr. Julius Levine, one of the members of that board, himself had been using Laetrile in the treatment of his own cancer.  When Dr. Jones’ case came up for review, the political pressures were so great that Dr. Levine felt compelled to resign from his post rather than come out openly in support of Dr. Jones and his patients. [Chapter 1] THE WATERGATE SYNDROME

With billions of dollars spent each year in research, with additional billions taken in from the cancer-related sale of drugs, and with vote-hungry politicians promising ever-increasing government programs, we find that, today, there are more people making a living from cancer than dying from it.  If the riddle were to be solved be a simple vitamin, this gigantic commercial and political industry could be wiped out overnight.  The result is that the science of cancer therapy is not nearly as complicated as the politics of cancer therapy.[Chapter 1] THE WATERGATE SYNDROME

This Watergate syndrome is not new.  Several years ago, an FDA agent who had testified in court against a Kansas City businessman admitted under cross-examination that he had lied under oath twenty-eight times.  When asked if he regretted what he had done, he replied: “No.  I don’t have any regrets.  I wouldn’t hesitate to tell a lie if it would help the American consumer.” [Chapter 1] THE WATERGATE SYNDROME

 During the course of Dr. Ivy’s trial, a letter was read into the court record written by a doctor from Indianapolis.  The doctor stated in his letter that he was treating a patient who had multiple tumors, and that a biopsy of the tissue had shown these tumors to be cancerous.  The doctor said that he had obtained Krebiozen from Dr.Ivy’s laboratories  and had administered it, but that it had done absolutely no good.  When called to the witness stand, however, the doctor’s answers were vague and evasive.  Under the pressure of cross-examination, he finally broke down and admitted that he never had treated such a patient, never had ordered the biopsy in question, and never had used Krebiozen even once.  The whole story had been a lie.  Why did he give false testimony?  His reply was that one of the FDA agents had written the letter and asked  him to sign it.  He did so because he wanted to help the agency put  an end to quackery.
    In September of 1963, the FDA released a report to the effect that Krebiozen was, for all practical purposes, the  same as creatine, a common substance that was found in every hamburger.  To prove this point, they produced a photographic overlay supposedly showing the spectograms of Krebiozen and creatine superimposed over each other.  These were published in Life magazine and other segments of the mass communications media as “unimpeachable proof” that Krebiozen was useless.
    When Senator Paul Douglas saw the spectrograms, he was suspicious.  So he asked Dr. Scott Anderson, one of the nation’s foremost authorities on spectograms, to make his own study. Using standard techniques of analysis, Dr. Anderson identified twenty-nine differences between the two substances.  There were sixteen chemical and color differences.  The version released to the press by the FDA had been carefully moved off center until there was a maximum appearance of similarity, but when restored to the true axis, the two were as different as night and day. [Chapter 1] THE WATERGATE SYNDROME