Читать книгу Anti-Aging Therapeutics Volume XV - A4M American Academy - Страница 9

Scientifically based and well documented in leading medical journals, anti-aging medicine is among the fastest growing medical specialties throughout the world. As an innovative model for advanced preventive healthcare that cannot be denied, individuals with their own political and financial agendas have disparaged anti-aging medicine in attempts to restore monopolistic control over the field of aging intervention. Critics of the science of anti-aging medicine most commonly hail from academia: as such, these naysayers many times have little or no medical training in aging intervention, and may be non-clinicians.

Perhaps the most inconceivable reality is that at the very highest levels of academia, government, and science, truth and objective scientific method are not at all sacred to the political elites. We in clinical medicine via our training, discipline, and conditioning naively believe and act in the public interest, for the good of our patients’ health, and by professional standards of medical ethics. The (elite) medical establishment operates contrary to this position, reports investigative reporter Tim Bolen (www.bolenreport.com), who for 30 years has amassed data and evidence exposing a calculated effort to deride innovative medical therapeutics. Mr. Bolen observes³ that:

“Without a doubt, a stealthy control group – a cabal, if you will, in status-quo medicine exists. Approved by Big Pharma, parts of academia, and segments of the government, this group exerts its control in many different ways. I have uncovered information showing anonymous, and not-so-anonymous, funding of groups, loosely describing themselves as “Quackbusters or Skeptics” whose only purpose is to attack cutting-edge health care offerings. Those groups, in turn, train, and fund sub-groups. Data suggests that the “Quackbusters or Skeptics” donated over $1 Million US to Wikipedia to purchase control over pages with medical content. More, the Skeptic training camps teach their recruits how to operate together to control that same Wikipedia and Search Engines. Further, these covert groups drive media on issues particularly pertaining to alternative healthcare, in an effort to limit coverage of innovative discoveries and to vilify therapies that are not part of AMA/FDA/Big Pharma establishment medicine healthcare.

There are TWO main "skeptic" organizations - the James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF) and the Center For Inquiry (CFI). Both are well funded from secret sources.

JREF reported, in 2010, a total income of $999,971.00 and a Total Asset claim of $1,736,101.

The Center For Inquiry, Inc (CFI), based in Amherst, New York shows on their Form 990 that they took in $5,242,304 in Total 2009 Income, and they had, that year, Total Assets of $3,017,144. Their Schedule B ANONYMOUS contributions totaled $2,318,652.

More, CFI claimed that they received, in 2009, in addition to their anonymous contributions, a so-called "Management Fee Income" of $2,458,156. What do you suppose they managed? And who paid them to manage it? Maybe they manage Wikipedia health care articles? How about Search Engine Optimization (SEO) bringing skeptic, including Stephen Barrett's (Quackwatch), articles to the first page of Google?

Much more - This cabal minimizes and delays innovative medical advancements by lodging anonymous complaints to state licensing boards against cutting-edge practitioners. Their insidious campaign also controls grant monies and research funding, somewhat silencing the voices of innovative medicine in favor of mainstream views. By leveraging control of the media in direct jeopardy of journalistic integrity, this control group seeks to suppress all in medicine that is not fully controlled by the establishment. To permit this level of manipulation and disinformation is wrong and ethically corrupt. The fate of a valuable avenue of medical innovation for the public interest – anti-aging medicine – stands at-risk.”

A JAMA commentary⁴ purported to address the legality of Human Growth Hormone (HGH, GH) treatment by physicians for growth hormone deficient (GHD) patients. It is the view of A4M that the commentary contained a number of incorrect, misplaced references and studies, and multiple basic scientific errors, in what A4M views as an apparent attempt to damage the anti-aging medical profession and the physicians practicing solid, evidence-based medical healthcare focused on improving and maintaining patients' quality of life. It is A4M's further opinion that the authors selected self-serving studies, in which they failed to qualify the conclusions in an effort to bolster what A4M believes is a disinformation campaign. It is A4M's opinion, for example, that they incorrectly intermingled internet sales of homeopathic pseudo "GH" sprays, amino acids, and sports nutritional over the counter products in order to inflate their incorrect claims suggesting an illegal diversion of HGH by physicians and pharmacies, implying a black market in FDA approved prescription injectable HGH for hormone replacement treatments by anti-aging physicians where none exists.