This website prepares for a forthcoming international tribunal about the consequences of the pharmaceutical “business with disease” on the health and lives of millions of people.

The following list is an initial list of individuals and entities that have made public statements discrediting potentially life-saving information about micronutrients – despite abundant facts being available to the contrary.

We wish to make clear that none of the people or organizations mentioned on this page are either Nazis or supporters of Nazi-philosophies, nor does their citation on this webpage intend to make such an implication. However, by uncritically discrediting the advances of natural health they – knowingly or unknowingly – serve the very same investment groups that had brought the Nazis to power 8 decades ago – namely, the pharmaceutical and chemical investment business.   

For further documentation on these historical facts, we refer you to more than 50,000 pages from the official records of the 1947/8 Nuremberg Tribunal against IG Farben, the largest chemical/pharmaceutical Cartel at that time (www.profit-over-life.org). This chemical/pharmaceutical Cartel was not only the single largest financier of the Nazis’ rise to power, the US Prosecution in Nuremberg named this corporate Cartel an ‘accomplice’ in the Nazis’ attempt at world conquest, i.e. WWII. An account of the ‘coalition’ between the pharmaceutical/chemical cartel and the Nazis was published in the critically acclaimed documentary book ‘Hell’s Cartel’ in 2010.

Occasionally, we have been approached by certain reporters who wished to have their personal names taken off our webpage. We have complied with that request, because we interpret it as an effort of these individuals to pass on the responsibility to the newspaper and/or its owners or executives.

Photo of Ben Hammersley

Professor Edzard Ernst

November 2017 -- Professor Edzard Ernst, a retired German physician and academic, has become a prominent advocate of plans that could potentially outlaw the entire profession of naturopathic doctors in Germany. Promoting the nonsensical idea that naturopathic medicine somehow poses a risk to public health, Ernst has attacked its practitioners as supposedly having been educated in “nonsense”.

Peddling the long-disproven claim that taking supplementary vitamins just creates expensive urine, Ernst essentially asserts that in developed countries the vast majority of the population can easily obtain sufficient amounts of micronutrients in their daily diets. Arguing that Americans are wasting billions of dollars on nutritional supplements, he seems to hold the draconian view that natural health products “should have no place in pharmacies”.

Ernst claims to have been critical about the practice of naturopathic medicine in Germany for more than 20 years – and even seems proud to admit this. He also claims to have conducted ‘scientific trials’ in the field of alternative medicine. These seemingly include studies in autogenic training (a relaxation technique); acupuncture for stroke rehabilitation (which his study describes as “not superior to sham treatment”); magnetic bracelets for osteoarthritis; aromatherapy massage for cancer; artichoke extract for preventing alcohol-induced hangovers (which he found to not be effective); and reflexology for menopause. Notably, however, he essentially seems to have avoided conducting trials in the field of science-based nutritional and Cellular Medicine.

The Swiss newspaper Neue Zürcher Zeitung published an article in October 2011 which attacked the use of vitamins. Claiming that the evidence for the effectiveness of Cellular Medicine is based only on experiments using cell cultures and mice, the article alleged the lack of a scientific basis for the use of vitamin supplements and advised cancer patients to forgo them. Markus Spillmann is the Editor-in-Chief of the Neue Zürcher Zeitung newspaper who is ultimately responsible for all articles published in this newspaper.

Photo of Ben Hammersley

Ben Hammersley, Associate Editor of WIRED magazine, UK

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.

Photo of Samuel Newhouse

Samuel I. Newhouse Jr., Chairman of Condé Nast Publications, the publishers of WIRED magazine.

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.

Fiona Hall MEP. (Image credit: Wikipedia)

Fiona Hall MEP. (Image credit: Wikipedia)

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.

Fiona Hall MEP. (Image credit: Wikipedia)

Goran Bjelakovic

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.

Fiona Hall MEP. (Image credit: Wikipedia)

Christian Gluud

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.

Fiona Hall MEP. (Image credit: Wikipedia)

Rita F. Redberg

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.

Christoph Diechand

Christoph Diechand

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.

Deborah Sutter wrote a newspaper article in October 2011 in which she quoted “experts” claiming that the use of vitamins in the treatment of cancer is “quackery.” Published in Switzerland on the 20 Minuten newspaper website, Sutter’s article made no mention of the fact that scientists at the US National Institutes of Health have confirmed that vitamin C selectively kills cancer cells. Similarly, neither did it make any mention of the fact that the peer-reviewed Journal of the Canadian Medical Association has published clinical details of two cancer patients who have been cured using intravenous vitamin C and nutritional supplements, or that a third 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.

Ernst Mauritz wrote a newspaper article in October 2011 which attacked the use of vitamins. Published in Austria in the Kurier newspaper, the article claimed it is naïve to say that vitamins can be effective as a cancer treatment. To back up this assertion, Mauritz cited chosen spokespersons for the multi-billion dollar pharmaceutical-driven approach to medicine who predictably alleged the lack of a scientific basis for the use of vitamin supplements.

From left to right: Prof. Christoph Zielinski (Medical University Wien), Doris Kiefhaber (Österreichische Krebshilfe), Prof. Michael Miksche (Medical University Wien and Österreichische Krebshilfe Wien) and Dr. Helmut Brandstätter (Editor-in-Chief Kurier newspaper).

Dr. Helmut Brandstätter is the Editor-in-Chief of the Kurier newspaper. By publishing Mauritz's article, he was complicit in this attack on vitamins.

C. Bräuer wrote a magazine article in October 2011 which attacked the use of vitamins. Published in Austria in Weekend magazine, it alleged that vitamins are ineffective in cancer treatment. In addition, Bräuer also claimed that Dr. Rath’s main motive is to make money through selling vitamins. In reality, of course, neither of these allegations are true. All the profits that Dr. Rath’s companies make go to a non-profit foundation and the effectiveness of micronutrients in treating cancer are publicly documented here and here.

David B. Agus, co-founder of two biotechnology companies

David B. Agus, M.D., is an oncologist and author of the book “The End of Illness”. The co-founder of the biotechnology companies Applied Proteomics and Navigenics, in an interview he gave to the German newspaper “Die Welt” in March 2013 he denied the existence of studies on the health benefits of vitamins. Instead, he advocates the use of dangerous pharmaceutical drugs like acetylsalicylic acid and statins. In 2009, Mr Agus received a $5 million gift from the Ellison Medical Foundation to support his drug-based research at the University of Southern California.

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.