Codex and Health Control

Codex is arguably a very clear part of iatrogenesis in medicine, for if the orthodoxy of medicine chooses to destroy, suppress, defame or otherwise interfere with the function of healing modalities that actually work, it should be counted within the scope of harm that is done.

Let's clarify the meaning of two crucial terms. "Alternative medicine" is an appropriate label for the medicine and health care which does not fit into the current pharmaceutically centred and/or reductionistic paradigms of orthodox medicine. Alternative medicine is a term entirely different to that of "complementary medicine". The "complementary medicine" label is one which suits the current medical establishment, and it is heavily ideologically laden. That ideology is the implicit assumption that somehow alternative medicines are to be seen as secondary and subservient to the almighty power and "insight" of orthodox medicine. Yes, alternative medicines can frequently be used in a complementary manner with orthodox therapies. However, there are often very fundamental differences in the way that the different systems perceive both the operation of the body and the ideal processes to be adopted towards the restoration of health. If the alternative treatment is labelled as "complementary", then the orthodox paradigm is implicitly and automatically in a far better position to win out in any conflicts of opinion that may arise. To allow this skewed representation of a hierarchy of treatment modalities to dominate health care is hardly giving the "alternative" --or real 'health care' itself--a chance.

For reasons detailed throughout this website, the ideology of "complementary medicine" is a massively flawed one, and hence the label "complementary" to describe alternative medicines should be altogether discarded.

One of the most important concerns in healthcare today is the economic and political battle for control of the realm of human health. Alternative therapies and supplements are under siege from big pharmaceutical businesses who want to entirely limit and control the public access to these products. Through their vast influence upon the legislative processes of countries and international organisations, and their absurdly overrepresentative and conflicting presence in all avenues of government that are concerned with health and food administration, big pharmaceutical interests (in league with influential players in the medical orthodoxy) are attempting to become the police of your body, making the decisions for you as to what is appropriate to consume, what health professionals are acceptable, and what is to be rendered illegitimate. They have already proved themselves to be profound failures at the provision of an adequate health care system, and now they are attempting to hold alternative medicines and supplements accountable to a set of rigidly applied rules that they themselves are demonstratedly failures at themselves.

The assessment processes adopted to evaluate therapies in this 'kangaroo court' are often dubious. Of equal concern, they are attempting to use the biased methodologies of their own flawed paradigms in the assessment of the efficacy or safety of treatments. There are a number of problems with this. A non-exhaustive list of initially obvious ones are:

(1) the same social conditions (mainly interests) that are favourable to positive scientific outcomes for research on orthodox therapies are equally aggressive against positive outcomes for alternative therapies;
(2) these alternative treatments often have justifications and modes of operation which lie wholly outside of the allopathic, reductionist 'orthodox' understanding and conception of health and disease processes;
(3) Innate biases in medical "scientific" research and peer-review processes, along with professional and "medical-industrial complex" vested interests, all tend to skew the trials, investigations, and decision making authorities/inquiries/boards towards outcomes that serve the most powerful (usually professional and corporate) interests;
(4) cultural and mass media systems with their own conflicts and vested interests, modulate the information which gets through to the public, allowing misrepresentations of the motives of power-wielding vested interest medical groups.

It is of the utmost importance that alternative supplement manufacturers, alternative practioners, independent journalists and researchers act immediately to quash this movement once and for all. Already, Codex Alimentarius has seen consumers in Europe unable to procure, for example, more than 200mg of Vitamin C without the permission of their orthodox priest-doctor. Similarly, Australia has seen the demise of a large supplements manufacturer in dubious circumstances (see below for the section on Pan Pharmaceuticals). The future for world wide health care looks very dark indeed, if we do not stop this econocentric agitprop of power and greed from altogether removing the significant health freedoms that we now enjoy. -Consumercide