If you want to better understand why I believe most drugs are toxic "band-aids" that can potentially harm, rather than heal you over the short- and long-term, the FDA's quirky policies about labeling new drugs ought to open your eyes.
For example, a pediatrician who has read recent medical journals might have seen articles advocating the use of the antifungal drug Diflucan, a Pfizer product, for the treatment of ringworm, a childhood skin infection. However, reading the extensive medical information enclosed in the drug's package, the same doctor wouldn't know that federal drug regulators had rejected Diflucan for ringworm use, due to lack of effectiveness and the potential risk for liver damage.
The Diflucan problem stems from a gap in the FDA's labeling rules. For a drug's government-approved uses, the label gives doctors important data from clinical tests involving those treatments while spelling out the drug's risks and providing directions for administering it to patients.
But labels are often allowed to remain "silent" about a test when the FDA turns down a company's application for approval of a new use or a new patient group, as in the case of Diflucan.
The labeling issue is another facet of an expanding debate over the incomplete disclosure and publication of the results of clinical drug trials. And it is one of growing importance to a number of physicians and patients.
This far too cosy relationship between the FDA and major drug companies has much to do with why I'm so focused on my vision to expose the existing medical paradigm's techniques, habits, and messages that have put your health and that of the American public in grave danger. By doing so, and by exposing the dishonorable motives--usually greed--that form the basis of the current establishment's methods, I working to eliminate some of the most treacherous barriers on your journey to optimal health.
The Ledger.com July 21, 2004