Shocking victory for proponents of alternative medicine

Shocking victory for proponents of alternative medicine

by Jon Rappoport

March 8, 2018

Breaking: In Australia, an effort to label all alternative (traditional, complementary) medicine products as “based on pseudoscience” has failed.

Traditional remedies (much older than mainstream medicines) are defended as appropriate, and can include health claims.

The Crazz Files, a major defender of health freedom in Australia, reports: “In a major win, the Federal Government has ignored the Australian Greens and anti-complementary medicine activists like Doctor Ken Harvey…and passed a reform package that protects traditional medicine.”

“The Therapeutic Goods Amendment (2017 Measures No. 1) Bill, which passed Parliament on February 15, supports positive claims for complementary medicines based on traditional evidence, and abolishes the current complaints system.”

“Greens voters were shocked to learn Greens Leader and General Practitioner, Senator Dr Richard Di Natale was aligned with skeptics, whose platform is: ‘There is no alternative to [modern] Medicine’.”

“One of his [Dr. Di Natale’s] ‘concerns’ was that people were being ‘misled’ by traditional claims about the effectiveness of complementary medicine. He, and the skeptics, wanted labels on complementary and traditional medicines to state: ’this traditional indication is not in accordance with modern medical knowledge and there is no scientific evidence that this product is effective’.”

“The Minister for Rural Health, Senator Bridget McKenzie, told Di Natale: ‘I think it is offensive and disrespectful to those who practice traditional medicine’.”

“’For some, particularly those using Chinese medicine, the history of practising in that traditional medicine paradigm goes back thousands of years. It’s been extensively refined, practised and documented and in many cases incorporated into mainstream medicine. So, a statement required by the Australian Government that the indication is not in accordance with modern medical knowledge and that there is no scientific evidence will be seen as arrogant and insensitive to those practising and using traditional Chinese medicines,’ Senator McKenzie said.”


All right. Now I want to treat readers to a brief analysis of “modern medicine,” the so-called scientific system that is the “only valid system.” It is the system employed in Australia, America, and virtually all countries in the world.

People who watch the news or read mainstream news have the impression that “scientific” medical research is remarkably valid and always progressing.

Doctors and medical bureaucrats line up to confirm and ceaselessly push this view.

But they are concealing a dark truth.

Let’s go to the record. Here are two editors of two of the most prestigious and respected medical journals in the world. During their long careers, they have read and scrutinized more studies than any doctor, researcher, bureaucrat, or so-called medical blogger. And this is what they have written:

ONE: “It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine.” (Dr. Marcia Angell, NY Review of Books, January 15, 2009, “Drug Companies & Doctors: A Story of Corruption)

TWO: “The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness…

“The apparent endemicity of bad research behaviour is alarming. In their quest for telling a compelling story, scientists too often sculpt data to fit their preferred theory of the world. Or they retrofit hypotheses to fit their data. Journal editors deserve their fair share of criticism too. We aid and abet the worst behaviours. Our acquiescence to the impact factor fuels an unhealthy competition to win a place in a select few journals. Our love of ‘significance’ pollutes the literature with many a statistical fairy-tale…Journals are not the only miscreants. Universities are in a perpetual struggle for money and talent…” (Dr. Richard Horton, editor-in-chief, The Lancet, in The Lancet, 11 April, 2015, Vol 385, “Offline: What is medicine’s 5 sigma?”)

There are many ominous implications in these two statements. I will point out one.

Incompetent, error-filled, and fraudulent studies of medical drugs—for example, published reports on clinical trials of those drugs—would lead one to expect chaos in the field of medical treatment. And by chaos, I mean: the drugs cause widespread death and severe injury.

Again, if a person obtains his news from mainstream sources, he will say, “But I see no evidence of such a vast scandal.”

That is a conspiracy of silence. Because this widespread death and grievous harm HAS been reported. Where? In open-source medical literature.

For example: On July 26, 2000, the US medical community received a titanic shock, when one of its most respected public-health experts, Dr. Barbara Starfield, revealed her findings on healthcare in America. Starfield was associated with the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health.

The Starfield study, “Is US health really the best in the world?”, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), came to the following conclusion, among others:

Every year in the US, correctly prescribed, FDA approved medical drugs kill 106,000 people. Thus, every decade, these drugs kill more than a MILLION people.

On the heels of Starfield’s astonishing findings, media reporting was rather perfunctory, and it soon dwindled. No major newspaper or television network mounted an ongoing “Medicalgate” investigation. Neither the US Department of Justice nor federal health agencies undertook prolonged remedial action.

All in all, those parties who could have taken effective steps to correct this ongoing tragedy preferred to ignore it.

On December 6-7, 2009, I interviewed Dr. Starfield by email. Here is an excerpt from that interview.

Q: What has been the level and tenor of the response to your findings, since 2000?

A: The American public appears to have been hoodwinked into believing that more interventions lead to better health, and most people that I meet are completely unaware that the US does not have the ‘best health in the world’.

Q: In the medical research community, have your medically-caused mortality statistics been debated, or have these figures been accepted, albeit with some degree of shame?

A: The findings have been accepted by those who study them. There has been only one detractor, a former medical school dean, who has received a lot of attention for claiming that the US health system is the best there is and we need more of it. He has a vested interest in medical schools and teaching hospitals (they are his constituency).

Q: Have health agencies of the federal government consulted with you on ways to mitigate the [devastating] effects of the US medical system?

A: NO.

Q: Are you aware of any systematic efforts, since your 2000 JAMA study was published, to remedy the main categories of medically caused deaths in the US?

A: No systematic efforts; however, there have been a lot of studies. Most of them indicate higher rates [of death] than I calculated.

Q: Did your 2000 JAMA study sail through peer review, or was there some opposition to publishing it?

A: It was rejected by the first journal that I sent it to, on the grounds that ‘it would not be interesting to readers’!

—end of interview excerpt—

Physicians are trained to pay exclusive homage to peer-reviewed published drug studies. These doctors unfailingly ignore the fact that, if medical drugs are killing a million Americans per decade, the studies on which those drugs are based must be fraudulent. In other words, the medical literature is suspect, unreliable, and impenetrable.


If you know a doctor who enjoys sitting up on his high horse dispensing the final word on modern medicine, you might give him the quotes from Dr. Angell and Dr. Horton, instruct him to read them, and suggest he get in touch with Angell and Horton, in order to discover what has happened to his profession.


The Matrix Revealed

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, The Matrix Revealed, click here.)

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

Has The Australian Government Gone Stark-raving Mad?

By Catherine J. Frompovich

Just when you think things can’t get any worse than they are regarding the suppression of human rights, denial of personal dignities and the right to self-determination regarding one’s health, the Government of Australia has pulled off what it probably thinks is a “hat trick” upon its citizens. It’s denying them their Creator-given and natural rights of securing life, liberty and the pursuit of safety and happiness by mandating no contradictory information can be stated by any member of the medical profession regarding the horrendous history of current vaccines and vaccinations, or they will lose their licenses!

That and other apparent totalitarian aspects and implementations of governance caught the attention of the United Nations Human Rights Council, which issued a report titled “Report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders on his mission to Australia,” a 21-page document that can be read here.

The Conclusions of the Rapporteur’s Report are self-explanatory:

106. The Special Rapporteur concludes the report by putting forward the following recommendations.

107. The Australian Government is recommended to:

(a) Consider adopting a federal human rights act to constitutionally guarantee human rights with a clause of precedence over all other legislation.

(b) Review and revoke laws that unduly restrict the right to free and peaceful assembly.

(c) Review secrecy laws, Crimes Act and the Border Force Act with a view to revising provisions that contravene international human rights norms and standards.

(d) Scrutinize and condemn violations of the rights of defenders and raise awareness of their legitimate role in the protection and promotion of human rights.

(e) Ensure sufficient funding and legal assistance to CSOs and refrain from introducing measures that reduce, obstruct or unduly control the funding for civil society.

(f) Restore adequate operational funding to legal, environmental and indigenous peak bodies and recognize their important role in advocacy and strategic litigation.

(g) Remove the ‘gagging clauses’ from all Federal and State funding partnership and funding agreements.

(h) Ensure prompt and impartial investigations into alleged threats and violence against defenders and trade unionists.

(i) Guarantee meaningful participation of defenders and civil society in government decision-making.

(j) Initiate a prompt and impartial inquiry into the attempts by public officials to intimidate and undermine the Australian Human Rights Commission.

(k) Ensure that future appointment of AHRC commissioners is made through public, transparent, merit-based appointment that are fully compliant with the Paris Principles.

(l) Formulate national action plan on business and human rights, in consultation with civil society.

(m) Ensure that environmental impact assessments are prepared in full transparency and with meaningful participation of affected communities prior to the approval of large-scale projects.

(n) Engage with investors and business enterprises to uphold their human rights responsibilities and sanction those companies associated with violations against defenders, both at home and abroad.

108. The Australian Human Rights Commission and other state-level human rights institutions are recommended to:

(a) Include, within the programme of work, specific activities on the protection and promotion of defenders.

(b) Compile and analyse data on the number of complaints received, cases monitored and recommendations adopted on the safety and security of defenders.

(c) Establish a focal point for defenders with decision-making power.

(d) At state levels, adopt and contribute to the preventive and protective measures for defenders, as well as develop means for their public recognition.

109. Business enterprises and other non-State actors are recommended to:

(a) Adopt and implement international human rights standards, including the Guiding Principles for Business and Human Rights and the Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights;

(b) Fulfil legal and ethical obligations, including rigorous human rights due diligence, and perform human rights impact assessments for large-scale projects, ensuring full participation with affected communities and defenders.

(c) Refrain from verbal attacks or legal intimidation against defenders and CSOs.

(d) Disclose information related to planned and on-going large-scale projects in a timely and accessible manner.

(e) Establish grievance mechanisms necessary to avoid, mitigate and remedy any direct and indirect impact of human rights violations.

(f) Ensure that subcontractors respect the rights of indigenous peoples and affected communities and establish accountability mechanisms for grievances.

As a journalist, it is not my place to tell the people of Australia how to run their country, but it is within my purview to point out the problems involved, especially those that affect Australians’ ability to protect and maintain their health and wellness as being shackled upon them by the current Turnbull Administration regarding vaccines and vaccinations, which are a total medical sham currently being documented around the globe, but suppressed.

Furthermore, I cannot take a position one way or another regarding the above Report, only point to its existence and as a forewarning of what probably can be expected as government over-reach to be copied and implemented in other western culture countries regarding vaccines and vaccinations!

According to Vaccination Update Newsletter, March 6, 2018 edition, published by Judy Wilyman, PhD:

In Australia the Medical Board of Australia (MBA) has removed the autonomy of doctors and nurses to advise their patients on vaccination based on their experiences and knowledge of vaccines. This is being done by linking the promotion of government vaccination programs to their medical registration.

This is contrary to their own Good Practice Guidelines in medicine based on the Geneva Convention. [….]

The MBA is currently investigating doctors, some with 40 years experience of clinical practice in using vaccines, based on allegations that “they are undermining a protective health program”.

Yet the MBA and the Australian Government did not provide evidence for the necessity to use 16 vaccines when they linked financial benefits to this intervention and removed conscientious and religious exemptions at the same time.

Dr. Wilyman’s Doctor of Philosophy degree was granted on the basis of her research titled” A critical analysis of the Australian government’s rationale for its vaccination policy,” which apparently literally has “pissed off” the vaccine/vaccination pushers and their cabal of Big Pharma and vaccine manufacturers—including their money and vested interest groups, lobby groups and rabid human rights deniers.

Has Australia inadvertently returned to its original intent as founded, a penal colony for the British?

New South Wales, a state in southeast Australia, was founded by the British as a penal colony in 1788. Over the next 80 years, more than 160,000 convicts were transported to Australia from England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales, in lieu of being given the death penalty. (Source)

Catherine J Frompovich (website) is a retired natural nutritionist who earned advanced degrees in Nutrition and Holistic Health Sciences, Certification in Orthomolecular Theory and Practice plus Paralegal Studies. Her work has been published in national and airline magazines since the early 1980s. Catherine authored numerous books on health issues along with co-authoring papers and monographs with physicians, nurses, and holistic healthcare professionals. She has been a consumer healthcare researcher 35 years and counting.

Catherine’s latest book, published October 4, 2013, is Vaccination Voodoo, What YOU Don’t Know About Vaccines, available on

Her 2012 book A Cancer Answer, Holistic BREAST Cancer Management, A Guide to Effective & Non-Toxic Treatments, is available on and as a Kindle eBook.

Two of Catherine’s more recent books on are Our Chemical Lives And The Hijacking Of Our DNA, A Probe Into What’s Probably Making Us Sick (2009) and Lord, How Can I Make It Through Grieving My Loss, An Inspirational Guide Through the Grieving Process (2008)