Nuremberg-Tribunal.org

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

In the forthcoming international tribunal against the pharmaceutical business with disease, the lobbyists of these special interests will get special attention.

For decades now, the drug industry has financed and maintained an army of its lobbyists in the international media and politics. Their task is to secure the interests of the pharmaceutical investment business with disease by spreading false and misleading information about the causes and nature of diseases, as well as the alleged value of highly questionable drugs in fighting them.

As such, those media owners, executives of media outlets and politicians who knowingly spread false and misleading information will, obviously, be held responsible for the harm they cause.

In April 2009, Dr. Rath was contacted by Ben Hammersley, the Associate Editor of a newly founded magazine, WIRED, in the UK. Owned by Condé Nast Publications, a publishing company whose other brands include The New Yorker, the circumstances of the launch of this magazine are under investigation.

Hammersley’s fax contained questions for Dr. Rath, which, already, even at first glance, reflected the disingenuous nature of the planned article and the global PR war of the drug industry against natural health.

Rather than answering Hammersley’s loaded questions, however, Dr. Rath asked his attorneys, Eversheds LLP, to warn Hammersley of the severe legal consequences of publishing an article distorting the scientific facts about the deadly nature of ARV drugs.

This letter, from Eversheds, was sent to Hammersley on 5 May 2009.

Citing the overwhelming and devastating scientific facts about the fraudulent ARV drug business that emerged during court proceedings in a case against the UK’s Guardian newspaper in 2007, the letter informed Hammersley that these facts are now forming the basis for potential class action litigation – against drug companies, media and other ARV promoting entities – by patients and institutions alike. The letter added that the Dr. Rath Foundation and its scientific experts will support such litigation with the goal of establishing the scientific facts and ending the fraudulent ARV drug business with the AIDS epidemic.

Nevertheless, after several weeks of extended consideration, Hammersley – having apparently decided to overrule the concerns raised in the warning letter – went ahead and published the planned article, despite being fully aware of the scientifically unsustainable nature of its contents and the potential legal consequences for WIRED magazine.

In the context of the preparations for an international tribunal, therefore, the letter sent by Eversheds represents an important piece of evidence and already has to be considered a historic document.

In early 2011, a UK supporter of the Dr. Rath Health Foundation, Pat Jopling, wrote to her MEP, Fiona Hall, informing her about the work of Dr. Rath and asking her to support calls for natural health therapies to be provided on Britain’s National Health Service (NHS).

In her written response, Fiona Hall groundlessly attacked the research of Dr. Rath – which she described as “worrying and indeed dangerous” – and attempted to portray “conventional medicine” as being “safe”. However, in view of her apparent support for and from the so-called European Cancer Patient Coalition – a group that has received significant amounts of funding from multinational pharmaceutical companies – and her public statements in favour of antiretroviral drugs for the treatment of AIDS, we suspect that many people will share our concerns regarding her clear lack of objectivity in these matters.

Not only is Fiona Hall’s misplaced defence of “conventional medicine” completely at odds with the facts about the pharmaceutical industry and the dangerous side effects of its drugs for high cholesterol, cancer, AIDS and other diseases, her claim that Dr. Rath’s scientific findings “have not been supported by independent medical research” is utterly and demonstrably false.

Contrary to the claims of Fiona Hall, there is an abundance of independent medical research, published in peer-reviewed journals, that supports Dr. Rath’s scientific findings in natural health. To read this research for yourself, click here and here.

Especially relevant to Fiona Hall’s claims is the fact that in a study published in the prestigious Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America in September 2005, scientists at the National Institutes of Health confirmed that vitamin C selectively kills cancer cells. Subsequently, in 2006, the Journal of the Canadian Medical Association followed up on this research when it published details of two cancer patients who had been cured using intravenous vitamin C and nutritional supplements. A third cancer patient who had followed a similar treatment regimen lived for seven years from diagnosis, the majority of which time she remained cancer-free despite being a long-standing cigarette smoker. For further independent studies confirming the benefits of micronutrient supplements in cancer, click here and here.

Regarding HIV/AIDS, it is particularly notable that independent studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals have confirmed that the clinical benefits of micronutrient supplements have been demonstrated in HIV/AIDS. Adding still further support for natural approaches, Dr. Luc Montagnier – Recipient of the 2008 Nobel Prize in Medicine for the discovery of HIV – has spoken out publicly in favour of nutrition and micronutrients in the fight against HIV/AIDS.

In the context of the preparations for an international tribunal, therefore, Fiona Hall’s letter may constitute an important piece of evidence.

Goran Bjelakovic and Christian Gluud are the authors of several articles and reviews attacking the use of vitamins and antioxidant supplements. In April 2008, for example, they had a widely publicised review published by the so-called Cochrane Collaboration which claimed that studies using beta-carotene, vitamin A and vitamin E showed “significantly increased mortality” and that trials of vitamin C “found no significant effect.”

In October 2011, in support of these and other such unwarranted assaults on the credibility of natural therapies, the Editor of the Archives of Internal Medicine journal, Rita F. Redberg, published an "Invited Commentary” authored by Bjelakovic and Gluud that attacked vitamin and mineral supplement use. Making clear where her allegiances lie, in her "Editor's Note" in the same issue, she even brazenly claimed that “increased mortality is associated with most of the commonly used vitamins and mineral” supplements.  

Notably, therefore, it turns out that Bjelakovic and Gluud have a long history of attempting to discredit natural health approaches. In a Cochrane review published in October 2004, they contrived to show there was no convincing evidence that antioxidant supplements have a beneficial effect on the occurrence of gastrointestinal cancers or on overall mortality and that beta-carotene, vitamin A, vitamin C, and/or vitamin E increase overall mortality. Moreover, they openly opined that “antioxidant supplements should be regulated as drugs.” Similarly, that very same month, Bjelakovic, Gluud and two of the other members of their team had a study published in the Lancet in which they claimed they “could not find evidence that antioxidant supplements can prevent gastrointestinal cancers” and that “on the contrary, they seem to increase overall mortality.”

The timing of these two October 2004 publications was highly significant, as they were brought to the attention of the worldwide media only weeks before a crucial meeting of the Codex Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses (CCNFSDU), whose agenda on which occasion included consideration of a proposed restrictive global guideline on vitamin and mineral supplements. Sponsored by the World Health Organization and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, the main functions of Codex committees revolve around drawing up standards and guidelines for the global food and food supplement industries. Codex texts carry binding authority under the World Trade Organization (WTO), which uses them as the benchmarks when adjudicating on international trade disputes involving food products. Because of this, WTO member countries almost invariably base their domestic food laws upon Codex’s standards and guidelines, not only as a means of promoting international trade but also to avoid having expensive trade dispute cases brought against them at the WTO.

The proposed Codex vitamin and mineral supplement guidelines had been subject to vehement worldwide protests for many years, and, as a result, their adoption had essentially been stalled since the mid-1990s. Nevertheless, perhaps due in no small part to the efforts of Bjelakovic, Gluud and their team, the CCNFSDU’s 2004 meeting resulted in the guidelines being advanced for final adoption at Step 8 and subsequently adopted as a new global standard at a meeting of the Codex Alimentarius Commission in 2005.

In this respect, a particularly dubious editorial authored by Bjelakovic and Gluud and published in the May 16, 2007 issue of the Journal of the National Cancer Institute is also worthy of mention. Discussing a much-criticized study which alleged that taking multivitamins may be associated with an increased risk for advanced or fatal prostate cancers, it claimed, absurdly, that the study added to "the growing evidence that questions the beneficial value of antioxidant vitamin pills in generally well-nourished populations and underscore the possibility that antioxidant supplements could have unintended consequences for our health."

In the context of the preparations for an international tribunal, therefore, the ongoing attempts by Bjelakovic, Gluud and Redberg to discredit research regarding the health benefits of micronutrients may constitute important evidence.

Michael Pommer co-wrote a newspaper article in October 2011 with Gerhard Bartel, which attacked the use of vitamins. Published in Austria in the Kronen Zeitung newspaper, the article made no mention whatsoever of the fact that numerous Nobel prizes have been awarded for vitamin research. Instead, Pommer and Bartel deliberately attempted to infer that vitamins could be dangerous.

Christoph Diechand is the Editor-in-Chief of the Kronen Zeitung newspaper. By publishing Pommer and Bartel's article, he was complicit in their attack on vitamins.

We gave the forthcoming tribunal against the pharmaceutical investment business the name “Nuremberg II” for good reason. The historic Nuremberg Tribunal against the criminals behind WWII included not only the military puppets, but also the key supporters from the fields of medicine, industry and the media. Many of these supporters were sentenced to extended prison terms – some of them even to the death penalty. These historic facts are documented on the Profit Over Life website.