by Jim Marrs
While Franks is known as director of the trust that owned a large drug company, most people do not know the extent of the Rockefellers’ influence over modern medicine and drugs.
According to Eustace Mullins, the drug industry is controlled by a Rockefeller “Medical Monopoly,” largely through directors on pharmaceutical boards representing Rockefeller entities. “The American College of Surgeons maintained a monopolistic control of hospitals through the powerful Hospital Survey Committee, with members Winthrop Aldrich and David McAlpine Pyle representing the Rockefeller control.”
Winthrop Aldrich, whose sister was married to John D. Rockefeller Jr., served as president and board chairman of Chase National Bank from 1930 to 1953. He also served on the Committee on the Cost of Medical Care (CCMC), which was started by Dr. Alexander Lambert, the personal physician to Teddy Roosevelt and a president of the AMA beginning in 1910. According to Dr. Charles C. Smith, a physician who researched the activities of the committee and published a report in 1984: “He [Dr. Lambert] obviously was to be the needed ‘figurehead.’…The full time staff was headed by Harry H. Moore of Washington, who in 1927 published ‘American Medicine and the People’s Health’ while a member of Public Health Service. His main tenets were the need for a system [original emphasis] to distribute medical care and an insurance plan to pay for it.”
So early in the twentieth century, administrators and economists were deciding the future of America’s health care. Moore was aided by C. Rufus Rorem, who received a PhD in economics at the University of Chicago, which was founded and funded by Rockefeller. Rorem, according to Smith, was more concerned about hospital prepayment than in health care. Following his work for the CCMC, Rorem went on to become executive director of the Blue Cross Plan Commission between 1936 and 1946.
“I think the most important principle spawned by this Committee was not at all what was planned,” wrote Dr. Charles C. Smith Jr., who authored a medical history study paper on the committee. A minority on the committee fruitlessly recommended that government competition in the medical practice be discontinued. They also argued in opposition to corporate medicine being financed through intermediary agencies, such as health maintenance organizations (HMOs). Allegedly, these types of organizations exploit the medical professions and fail to provide high-quality health care.
“The tenor of the [CCMC] report was such that one can read into it the seeds of everything that led to the health care system we have today…. So at last we find ourselves, as always, in a health care crisis,” Dr. Smith wrote in 1984. This health-care crisis continues today.
“Rockefeller’s General Education Board has spent more than $100 million to gain control of the nation’s medical schools and turn our physicians to physicians of the allopathic school, dedicated to surgery and the heavy use of drugs,” wrote author Mullins, who spent more than thirty years researching the Rockefeller medical monopoly.
Recalling how John D. Rockefeller Sr.’s father, William “Big Bill” Rockefeller, once tried to sell unrefined petroleum as a cancer cure, Mullins wrote, “This carnival medicine show barker would hardly have envisioned that his descendents would control the greatest and most profitable Medical Monopoly in recorded history.”
Mullins reported that the German chemical company I. G. Farben and its subsidiaries in the United States through the Rockefeller interests (such as the cartel between Rockefeller’s U.S.-based Standard Oil Co. and I. G. Farben as revealed in a 1941 investigation by the government) were responsible for trying to build a monopoly by suppressing discoveries of its own drugs. From 1908 to 1936, I. G. Farben withheld its discovery of sulfanilamide, an early sulfa drug, until the firm had signed working agreements with the important drug firms of Switzerland, Sandoz and Ciba-Geigy. After years of a working relationship, these two firms were finally joined in 1996 to form one of the largest corporate mergers in history—Novartis.
During the first half of the twentieth century, the Nazi drug cartel, I. G. Farben, along with the drug companies controlled through Rockefeller interests, dominated the development, production, and distribution of numerous drugs, including substances that are downright dangerous.
ASPARTAME
AMERICANS AREN’T JUST BEING affected by chemicals in pharmaceutically produced drugs. One of the many controversial chemicals now being used by millions of Americans is aspartame, an additive sugar substitute found in most diet soft drinks and more than five thousand foods, drugs, medicines, and most sugar substitutes such as NutraSweet, Equal, Metamucil, and Canderel.
When heated to more than 86 degrees Fahrenheit, aspartame releases free methanol, which breaks down into formic acid and formaldehyde in the body. Keep in mind the human body temperature is 98.6 degrees and that formaldehyde is a deadly neurotoxin. The remaining formaldehyde from free methanol then breaks down into formic acid—the venom of ant stings.
In 1987, Dr. Louis J. Elsas, a professor of pediatrics and director of the Division of Medical Genetics at Emory University, testified before the U.S. Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources about phenylalanine, one of the two amino acids in aspartame. He said, “In the developing fetus such a rise in maternal blood phenylalanine could be magnified four to six fold by the concentrative efforts of the placental and fetal blood brain barrier and this concentration kills such cells in tissue culture. The effect of such an increased fetal brain concentrations in vivo would probably be much more subtle and expressed as mental retardation, microcephaly, or potential certain birth defects.” When Dr. Elsas told the senators about phenylalanine in 1987, infant autism rates were 1 in 1,500. Today they are 1 in 150 and rising. It would appear that certain drugs are wrecking our newborn children.
Dr. Madelon Price, a professor of neurobiology at Washington University, said, “Aspartic acid (aspartate) has been known to be a neurotoxin for 30 years [now 40 years]. Rodents that have ingested too much aspartame as infants are stunted as adults, obese and have sexual and reproductive dysfunctions.”
Until the Reagan administration, the Food and Drug Administration had refused to approve the use of aspartame. The FDA’s own toxicologist, Dr. Adrian Gross, told Congress that aspartame can contribute to or even cause seizures, brain tumors, and brain cancer, and violated the Delaney clause, which forbids putting anything in food that is known to cause cancer. “And if the FDA violates its own laws, who is left to protect the public?” he asked.
Dr. H. J. Roberts with the Palm Beach Institute for Medical Research devoted an entire chapter of his book Aspartame Disease: An Ignored Epidemic to aspartame interaction with drugs such as Coumadin, Dilantin, antidepressants, and other psychotropic agents as well as Inderal, Aldomet, hormones, and insulin. Roberts said aspartame interacts with all cardiac medication, and even noted drug reactions after a person stopped using aspartame products. “The issue of sudden death related to aspartame and its breakdown products has been raised a number of times, particularly among previously well individuals using such products…including pilots and drivers, and athletes….” He added, “The need for clinicians and corporate-neutral investigators to evaluate the contributory role of aspartame in cardiopulmonary disorders and sudden death, and drug interactions with aspartame, is underscored by the frequency of persons dying unexpectedly being categorized as ‘death due to causes yet to be determined.’”
Dr. Betty Martini, a twenty-two-year veteran in the medical field and founder of Mission Possible International, has worked with doctors around the world to remove aspartame from food, drinks, and medicine. She recounted how pharmaceutical interests subordinated public welfare:
Donald Rumsfeld was CEO of Searle, that conglomerate that manufactured aspartame. For 16 years the FDA refused to approve it, not only because it’s not safe but because they wanted the company indicted for fraud. Both U.S. prosecutors [for the FDA] hired on with the defense team and the statute of limitations expired. They were Sam Skinner and William Conlon. Skinner went on to become Secretary of Transportation squelching the crie
s of the pilots who were now having seizures on this seizure-triggering drug, aspartame, and then Chief of Staff under President Bush’s father. Some of these people reach high places. Even Supreme Justice Clarence Thomas is a former Monsanto attorney. (Monsanto bought Searle in 1985, and sold it a few years ago.)
Yet even with friends in high places, the FDA still refused to allow NutraSweet on the market. Termed a deadly neurotoxic drug masquerading as an additive by opponents, aspartame interacts with antidepressants and also interacts with vaccines and other toxins and unsafe sweeteners like Splenda. “Both being excitotoxins, the aspartic acid in aspartame and MSG, the glutamate people were found using aspartame as the placebo for MSG studies, even before it was approved. The FDA has known this for a quarter of a century and done nothing even though it’s against the law. Searle went on to build a NutraSweet factory and had $9 million worth of inventory,” said Martini. Donald Rumsfeld was on President Reagan’s transition team and the day after Reagan took office, Dr. Arthur Hull Hayes, the man who would approve aspartame, was appointed as FDA commissioner.
Former Searle salesperson Patty Wood Allott supported the idea that Rumsfeld was behind the approval of aspartame by stating that in 1981 Rumsfeld told company employees “he would call in all his markers and that no matter what, he would see to it that aspartame be approved [that] year.” FDA commissioner Hayes had previously served in the U.S. Army Chemical Weapons Division and initially had approved aspartame only as a powdered additive. But in 1983, just before he left his position for a public relations job with Burson-Marsteller, the chief public relations firm for both Monsanto and Searle, Hayes approved aspartame for all carbonated beverages. Since that time he never spoke publicly about aspartame (Hayes died in February 2010).
Rumsfeld is merely one example of the cozy relationship between government and Big Pharm. A former CEO of Searle and a member of the Trilateral Commission—a globalist group designed to foster economic cooperation between the United States, Japan, and Europe—Rumsfeld is also a major stockholder in Gilead Sciences, a California biotech firm that owns the rights to Tamiflu. When the population was being threatened with the bird flu in 2005, CNN reported Rumsfeld’s Gilead holdings at somewhere between $5 million to $25 million.
The incestuous relationship between Big Pharm corporate business and the government makes a mockery of American free enterprise. While it is free to decide which drugs to promote and distribute, it is also free to price them as high as the traffic will bear. Yet Big Pharm is dependent on government in the form of patent protection and FDA approval to protect its drug monopoly.
In a move bewildering to those who are not aware of the globalist agenda and its control, Congress expressly prohibited Medicare from negotiating lower drug prices through its bulk purchasing power. The excesses of the globalists’ pharmaceutical corporations have prompted many Americans to seek price relief by traveling to Canada or Mexico to purchase drugs.
Dr. Angell said the pharmaceutical industry has moved very far from its original high purpose of discovering and producing useful new drugs and it now primarily a marketing machine to sell drugs of dubious benefit. Big Pharm “uses its wealth and power to co-opt every institution that might stand in its way, including the US Congress, the FDA, academic medical centers, and the medical profession itself [as] most of its marketing efforts are focused on influencing doctors, since they must write the prescriptions,” she said.
Don’t look for any real relief from either Democrats or Republicans. While campaigning in 2008 both then senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton pledged to fight the huge pharmaceutical and insurance industries. These promises echoed similar promises made by Mrs. Clinton during her husband’s administration. Yet campaign contributions data showed that both Obama and Clinton were the largest recipients of Big Pharm donations in 2008 campaign funding. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Obama received $1,425,501 from the health service sector and health maintenance organizations (HMOs), while Clinton came in second with $575,746 in contributions. Trailing both Obama and Clinton were $427,228 for John McCain and $186,700 for Mitt Romney.
Only an awakened American public can rein in the power of the globalist pharmaceutical monopoly, concluded Angell. “Drug companies have the largest lobby in Washington, and they give copiously to political campaigns. Legislators are now so beholden to the pharmaceutical industry that it will be exceedingly difficult to break its lock on them…. But the one thing legislators need more than campaign contributions is votes. That is why citizens should know what is really going on. Contrary to the industry’s public relations, they don’t get what they pay for. The fact is that this industry is taking us for a ride, and there will be no real reform without an aroused and determined public to make it happen.”
DRUGGING THE KIDS
IN YEARS PAST, IF a child was acting up or caught staring out the window, he or she received a rap on the knuckles with a ruler and was told to stay with the rest of the class. Today, the child is sent to the school nurse, who often tells the parents the student has been diagnosed with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and advises them to see a psychiatrist, who usually recommends the administration of Prozac (94 percent sodium fluoride), Ritalin, or Zoloft—psychotropic drugs that have been shown to produce psychosis in lab rats.
At least one state has put a stop to this practice. In 2001, the Connecticut House of Representatives voted 141–0 on a law prohibiting school personnel from recommending to parents that their children take Ritalin or other mood-altering drugs. One of the bill’s primary sponsors, Republican state representative Lenny Winkler, quoted studies showing the number of children taking Ritalin nationally jumped from 500,000 in 1987 to more than 6 million by 2001. The bill also prohibited the state Department of Children and Families from taking children away from parents who declined to put their children on mood-altering drugs.
If the fact that unaware parents are being urged to drug their children is bad enough, consider that the effectiveness of the medication they’re being asked to use has come under scrutiny. A 1999 study at the Human Development Center at the University of Wisconsin in Eau Claire found that thirteen “ADHD” children on medication performed progressively worse over four years on standardized tests than a group of thirteen normal children with similar IQs and other characteristics. Another study by Dr. Gretchen LeFever, an assistant professor of pediatrics and psychiatry at Eastern Virginia Medical School, revealed that while children in her community used the drug Ritalin two to three times more than the national rate, their academic performance in relation to their peers showed no improvement. Her persistence in questioning the rising incidence of drug use in schoolchildren was muted in 2005 when she was fired.
Alan Larson, a former secretary of the Oregon Federation of Independent Schools, criticized the expanding diagnosis of attention-deficit disorder (ADD), stating, “[T]he labeling of children with ADD is not because of a problem the kids have; it is because of a problem teachers who cannot tolerate active children have.” Other questionable diagnoses include syndromes concerning children who are victims of obesity, junk food, lack of exercise, and inattentive parents. Clearly, some children have serious mental disorders, but these are relatively few compared with the number of currently medicated children.
There is also the possibility that some of the diagnoses that doctors give to children are for nonexistent diseases. In his 1991 book Toxic Psychiatry, psychiatrist Peter Breggin wrote: “Hyperactivity is the most frequent justification for drugging children. The difficult-to-control male child is certainly not a new phenomenon, but attempts to give him a medical diagnosis are the product of modern psychology and psychiatry. At first psychiatrists called hyperactivity a brain disease. When no brain disease could be found, they changed it to ‘minimal brain disease’ (MBD). When no minimal brain disease could be found the profession transformed the concept into ‘minimal brain dysfunction.’ When no minimal brain dysfunction could be demonstrate
d, the label became attention deficit disorder. Now it’s just assumed to be a real disease, regardless of the failure to prove it so. Biochemical imbalance is the code word, but there’s no more evidence for that than there is for actual brain disease.”
Textbooks of psychological disorders blossomed in size after programs such as Project Paperclip brought German psychiatrists into the military and intelligence fields after World War II. In its 1952 Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders (DSM), the American Psychiatric Association defined only 106 mental disorders. By the publication of DSM-IV in 1994, the number had grown to 374. Meanwhile, the number of child psychologists in U.S. schools grew from a mere 500 in 1940 to more than 22,000 by 1990. In 2006, the number of school psychologists, including clinical and consultation, had grown to 152,000, with an anticipated 176,000 by 2016.
The unscientific and political nature of psychiatry was noted in a resignation letter to the APA from Dr. Loren R. Mosher, former chief of the Center for Studies of Schizophrenia at the National Institute of Mental Health: “…why must the APA pretend to know more than it does? DSM IV is the fabrication upon which psychiatry seeks acceptance by medicine in general. Insiders know it is more a political than scientific document…. It is the way to get paid.”