GENERATION RX Trailer is Now on YouTube!

The trailer for my upcoming film GENERATION RX is now online at YouTube. Please view it and send me your thoughts! More soon...

Kevin P. Miller

The Destruction of East St. Louis—Another Dark Day for Corporate Medicine

East St. Louis, the poor stepchild that lives due East of the famous Arch, has been told by corporate medicine that they will no longer have a trauma center to reach tens of thousands of residents. Kenneth Hall Regional Hospital survived for 118 years under the care and guidance of Catholic nuns until it’s sale a few short years ago.

Please watch the video titled "Kenneth Hall Hospital in East St. Louis.” This closing is a danger to community hospitals everywhere, particularly inner city hospitals that often serve the poorest of the poor. While the East St. Louis community is fighting to save this hospital, they need your help. The East St. Louis residents and their supporters from the neighboring communities are protesting against the threat of Southern Illinois Health Care Foundation (SIHCF), who aim to close the only full service hospital that serves 31,524 people in East St. Louis, and move it to Sauget, Illinois, a village of 274.

This is injustice and it is unacceptable. Please go to http://savekennethhall.com/ — and make your voice heard.

FDA: DON'T ASK, DON'T TELL ON CLONED MEAT

FDA: Don't Ask, Don't Tell on Cloned Meat | Wired Science from Wired.com: ""

By Brandon Keim January 15, 2008












After four years of deliberation, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration announced today that meat from cloned animals and their offspring is safe to eat.

But despite public unease and lingering scientific uncertainty, the FDA won't require such meat to be labeled or tracked.

Food producers say they're not about to put cloned meat on American dinner plates, as the procedure is too expensive and inefficient, and a third of U.S. adults say they won't eat cloned meat regardless of its approval. Instead, farmers will purchase cloned animals to serve as breeding stock for their entire herds.

People tend to feel less repulsed at eating the offspring, so it's clone descendants that we'll eat -- though we probably won't know for sure. The FDA says clone-derived products don't need to be labeled.
"There's no way for the consumer to know whether they're getting cloned meat or their offspring," said Will Rostov, a senior attorney at the Center for Food Safety, a agricultural advocacy group.

According to Rostov, the FDA should have treated cloned animals as a new animal drug, thus requiring a higher level of scrutiny and testing. "Anything that's changed the structure of the cell is a new animal drug. Cloning changes that structure. We filed a petition, but the FDA said they were using their discretion, that all they needed to do was some sort of risk assessment." The risk assessment, said Rostov, is based largely on conflicted industry data.

Cloning indeed causes genetic alterations: the extraordinary rates of early and horrible deaths among cloned animals testify graphically to that. The FDA counters that a clone capable of reaching breeding maturity is safe, and that genetic alterations caused during cloning aren't passed to their offspring.
But would it really be so hard to require cloned food products to be labeled? The FDA says ethical and economic issues aren't the purview of the new study -- but those words could be easily be turned against them, as the only argument against mandatory labeling is an economic one.

Among the other economic issues unconsidered by the FDA's report is food security. Critics say that cloning farm animals will produce genetic uniformity in US herds, leaving them prone to disease outbreaks or even bioterrorism. In addition to that, said Rostov, "The whole idea, to take the prize bull and say that we have the best genetics -- that freezes the genetics. With traditional breeding, you're trying to improve the genetics. Cloning freezes it at one moment."

Aside from a single throwaway line -- "Further, care needs to be taken not to rely excessively on a few apparently superior sires so as not to reduce the genetic diversity of the resulting herds" -- this concern doesn't arise in the report.

But given how utterly reliant the industry already is on in-vitro fertilization using sperm from a few prize steers, that's understandable. And in light of that, the issue of labeling seems less problematic. Yes, as a matter of principle, people have a right to know where their food comes from. But at this point, meat that doesn't come from small farms with an organic label is almost certain to originate in an industrial farming system defined by pollution, steroids and a dangerous overreliance on antibiotics.
Clones or no clones, we're not in Kansas anymore.

Update: The Center for Food Safety is pushing Congress to pass the 2007 Farm Bill, which contains an amendment that would overrule the FDA and delay the introduction of cloned animals into the food supply. Read their press release here.

FDA Issues Documents on the Safety of Food from Animal Clones [press release]
Animal Cloning: A Risk Assessment [FDA]

'THERE YOU GO AGAIN' - What 'Faux News' Edited Out of the Debate

FOX is at it again. Their website not only announced that Ron Paul came in Third Place behind John McCain (He came in Second Place, ahead of the Arizona Senator), but they deleted the following clip from the Debates.

Luckily, you can see for yourself what candidate Ron Paul said to a flak FOX reporter when he stated that Paul could not be elected.

Ron Paul Interview with Producer Kevin P. Miller (1 of 2)

WHO IS RON PAUL — AND WHY ARE 'CONVENTIONAL' POLITICIANS — NOT TO MENTION THE MEDIA — SO AFRAID OF HIM?

GENERATION RX examines rise in psychiatric drugs among children and teens

GENERATION RX, a new documentary by international award-winning producer Kevin P. Miller, examines the rise in psychiatric diagnoses among children and teens from 1980 to 2007. During that time, there was a mercuric rise in the use of ADHD drugs like Ritalin and unprecedented marketing of health services and mental health drugs directly to consumers. In GENERATION RX. Miller illustrates how this era of kids have been caught in the middle of this unprecedented change in Western culture. He employs the expertise of internationally respected figures from the fields of medicine, ethics, journalism, academia, and more — and asks whether we have allowed children to become the victims of shoddy — and often corrupted science — with profit as the main motivator.

Ethics, or as Miller reveals, the lack of such, is a central theme of the film. As he investigated the culture of medicine, the producer was shocked to learn that a vast majority of psychiatric drugs being prescribed to millions of children worldwide have never been proven safe and/or effective for the very conditions they are purported to treat. In fact, he uncovered a pattern of collusion between drug manufacturers and their regulatory watchdogs at the FDA, who literally hid evidence of suicidal thoughts and violent acts long before these drugs were approved for the marketplace. The result of these covert actions was an astronomical spike in teen deaths and suicides — 2,000 in 2004 alone — and countless numbers of horrid, but predictable side effects.

GENERATION RX is a film about children caught in the vortex of mind-bending drugs at the earliest stages of their growth and development. The goal of GENERATION RX is to provide citizens everywhere with the information they need in order to make informed choices about whether ADHD, antipsychotic and antidepressant medications are the right choice for children — or whether drug companies have merely created another market for their products without regard for safety.

The film is slated for international release in Spring of 2008. Check this site often for updates and other news related to the release of GENERATION RX!

MORE 'NEWS' FROM THE DARK SIDE OF JOURNALISM

A LETTER TO THE GLOBE

Judy Foreman's odd editorial in the Boston Globe, "The Fading Allure of Vitamins, " did not appear in the Op/Ed pages, but rather the Health section of the Globe. She recently revealed to readers that her "love affair with vitamins and supplements is over."

Why should we care?

More importantly, why should we trust the latest studies she quotes so profusely? Why should the world trust what is emanating from the National Cancer Institute (NCI), the FDA, NIH, or any other institute which relies so heavily on funding from Big Pharma and Big Medicine? Time and again, they have proven themselves to be unworthy of such faith.

Ms. Foreman can posture as if she's smarter than the rest of us who take vitamins — all 170 million of us — but it's more likely that she's become part of the dreaded group of 'elite journalists' who foster this inside-the-beltway mentality. In this case, she has been afforded a platform to reach millions with her biased and selective comments about vitamins.

What a shame. Some day, she might actually do her job and really research — on her own — the thousands of studies online which lay the scientific foundation for the safe use of vitamins. Now THERE'S a concept — a journalist who actually does her own research — and does not rely on the handouts of the public relations wings of entrenched medical interests.

Guess what, folks? These studies are old news: disputed, at best, flawed and fraudulent at their core. They came from the same people who told you Vioxx was perfectly safe, despite the warning of Dr. David Graham (pictured above); that Prozac was the next 'miracle cure' with no side effects (a claim they still adhere to, after thousands of suicides and hundreds of thousands of adverse reactions); and from the NCI, a failed taxpayer-financed organization which has spent tens of billions of our tax dollars on phony cures that only enrich the few while people die by the thousands every month.

The other side of the story exists, America, just not in Ms. Foreman's fear-mongering. Go to Medline and look for them. Educate yourselves. . .and protest to the media when they cross the line.

WE BECOME SILENT - Produced by Kevin P. Miller

'We Become Silent: The Last Days of Health Freedom' details the ongoing attempts by multinational pharmaceutical interests and giant food companies — in concert with the WTO, the WHO and others — to limit the public’s access to herbs, vitamins and other therapies. 'We Become Silent’ is narrated by Dame Judi Dench, the noted UK actress who has won multiple Golden Globe awards, an Oscar, and a Tony for her on-stage work, in addition to dozens of other honors throughout her prestigious career. Producer Kevin P. Miller, who produced WE BECOME SILENT, has been a staunch advocate of health freedom for 20 years. His 1994 film, LET TRUTH BE THE BIAS exposed the FDAs raids on holistic doctors nationwide, and now he is bringing his award-winning skills to television. Recently, a non-profit foundation was established to help fund Miller’s news show called HealthCenter, the first-ever TV News program about alternative medicines. HealthCenter will report health news — every single week — to 25 million people weekly via cable and satellite TV — and to millions more through the internet. It is vital that you donate to this cause, so that we will all have the freedom to see the truth about the medicines we love dearly and the legislative/economic barriers to medical freedom of choice. Please support this historic opportunity by sending a tax-deductible donation to: CITIZENS HEALTH FREEDOM NETWORK 3344 Secor Road Toledo, OH. 43606 attention: Claudia David Roscoe

IT'S TIME FOR A CHANGE

TWO YEARS AGO, IN ONE OF THE MOST CRUCIAL ELECTIONS of recent years, my hometown newspaper, the Cleveland Plain Dealer, declined to endorse a candidate in the 2004 Presidential elections. A few days later, news surfaced of a great divide between management and the editorial board; management, you see, was set to endorse President Bush; the majority of the editorial board backed Senator Kerry.

An employee of the Plain Dealer told me privately, “I am proud of my many colleagues who took a stand in the last few days against running an endorsement that would have ignored the vote of the majority on our editorial board. The most courageous were the board members themselves, who stood up even though they could have lost their jobs. Unlike columnists, reporters and the rest of the newspaper, they do not belong to the Newspaper Guild. They could have been fired on the spot, but they chose to speak up. There was no cowardice there.”

I understood and agreed that the Board had acted honorably, but it underscored that Big Media today has become a war between management and their corporate interest versus editorial integrity. Today, sadly, the Plain Dealer has committed another grievous faux pas by endorsing Republican Senator Mike DeWine over Democratic challenger Sherrod Brown. DeWine, is so wedded to the oil and drug companies that he deserves to thrown out of office, and Brown, a thoughtful an articulate advocate for the middle class, is the perfect choice to replace him.

I have no way of knowing as yet whether another management-editorial board battle occurred as the newspaper endorsed DeWine, but this much is clear: the Plain Dealer has proven once again that they are more interested in the views of the Chamber of Commerce than Main Street Ohioans. Their endorsement of DeWine was rife with suggestive language in handing the endorsement to the Senator who votes with President Bush 96% of the time. “DeWine nailed the difference between himself and his opponent,” the editorial stated. “When DeWine votes against his party, he leaves it to move to the center; when Brown does so, he moves to the Democrats' left.” What was more troubling than the ‘liberal’ tag, however, was what the P.D. said next: “Brown voted against President Clinton's trade agreements,” suggesting, of course, that fighting so-called ‘free trade agreements’ was a “leftist, liberal cause.”

In mid 2005, when President Bush was busy twisting arms and threatening Republicans who were contemplating voting against CAFTA, the Central American Free Trade Agreement, many Ohio Congressional representatives buckled and fell in line with the President’s wishes. Rep. Steve LaTourette (R-OH.), who represents an area populated by blue collar workers, first vowed to fight the President and “vote for the people of my district,” only to succumb to the orders of one employer, Kraft-Maid, over the wishes of the very people he represents. Sen. Mike DeWine carried the President’s water as well, telling a state which has lost millions of jobs overseas that CAFTA would help lift Ohio businesses to the promised land of economic prosperity.

The Plain Dealer further perpetuated that folly in an editorial just days before the CAFTA vote, which was decided by a mere two votes in the Congress. Their disappointing and woefully incomplete editorial endorsing CAFTA was yet another low point for the once-proud newspaper.

At the time, I was shocked that the P.D. actually published my letter to the editor on the subject, but they did. I wrote, “How can you write an editorial about CAFTA without even mentioning another supposed free trade deal — called NAFTA? Has that deal benefited American workers and their families? No. Do you think the Mexican people have prospered from NAFTA? No. Only the large multinational corporations — who care little about the lives they ruin or disrupt — have profited from NAFTA. And how do you dare to endorse CAFTA without telling people that millions of people throughout Central America have protested the trade deal (called TLC in Spanish-speaking countries) because they know it will only lead to more ruin — just as happened in Mexico?”

CAFTA was in political trouble, I continued, because people, and even many politicians, were beginning to see that these trade agreements are destructive one-way deals that benefit only the special interests and multinational companies. Rather than extremists protesting against CAFTA, as DeWine, the President, and the Plain Dealer claimed, there was “a growing bipartisan coalition against this awful trade deal, which would effectively create another “European Union” in our hemisphere. After the failure of the WTO and NAFTA, do we REALLY need any more information to recognize the pitfalls of this nonsense?”

So today, in slamming Congressman Sherrod Brown’s opposition to “free trade” as a “liberal” idea, the Plain Dealer has again genuflected before the Chamber of Commerce and big business. They ignored the crucial fact that Brown has led the charge to defend Ohio jobs, while DeWine twiddled and nodded, and accepted millions from the companies who benefited most. As evidenced by the vote in Congress, the opposition to CAFTA was wide and deep: Democrats and Republicans; small manufacturers and labor unions; family farmers and environmentalists; Catholic bishops in Central America and Methodist, Lutheran, Presbyterian and Jewish leaders in the United States.

But support for CAFTA came mostly from the pharmaceutical companies, insurance and bank interests and the oil industry.

Today’s endorsement of the flawed Senator from Ohio may improve the P.D.s prospects with advertisers, but does nothing to address the serious reality that Ohio is dying. With corrupt leadership that has been more concerned with advancing the Republican agenda than employment for its’ citizens, Ohio continues to atrophy.

It’s time for a change. You know it — and so do I. Hopefully, Ohio voters will see through the transparent agenda of “Ohio’s Largest Newspaper,” and send Sherrod Brown to the United States Senate. . .before it's too late for our state.

FRIENDS AND VETERANS

IT WAS DURING PRODUCTION FOR my film THE WAR WITHIN that I first came across the famous poem, “The Young Dead Soldiers” by Archibald MacLeish, but it certainly was not the first time I had pondered the price of war. Even as a very young boy, I tried, unsuccessfully, to extract the meaning of war from my father, who served in the Army overseas during World War II.

He resisted, time and again, looking rather distressed and puzzled by the notion that his youngest son — the second last of seven children — had this persistent curiosity about his time in Italy fighting Hitler and Mussolini’s troops. Being a Southerner by birth, Dad has always been a private man, with little interest in divulging excessive emotion or grandiose stories. Now, at 87, not much has changed, although he has loosened up a bit, and he even surprised me with critical comments about President Bush and Iraq. This, coming from a lifelong Republican.

Today is Memorial Day in America. Thousands of miles away in Belgium, however, young schoolchildren began their day at the Flanders Field cemetary, honoring the fallen American heroes from World War I who helped save their country at a desperate time in Belgian history. Under a clear blue sky, they sang the Star Spangled Banner and placed small American flags next to Belgian ones in memory of those who died to preserve the liberty of this great nation.

It gives me pause to consider that we're nearly 100 years removed from the first ‘Great War,’ yet small children in Belgium still take the time to learn our national anthem and pay homage to our nation’s sacrifice. I have a friend — a Hollywood actor and Vietnam veteran — who rails at many Veterans' organizations for demanding the kind of attention afforded to vets every Memorial Day, but I have a feeling that as he ages, even he must know that his sacrifice is worth such respect. Every veteran who fought with valor — in Belgium or Vietnam — should be thanked for their efforts.

In addition to acknowledging war veterans from every era, though, it may be wise to think back a few short years ago, when Vice President Dick Cheney, a non-veteran who'd been relegated to bunkers deep beneath the White House, came out to attack then Democratic presidential candidate John F, Kerry, an actual honest-to-God war hero, over the Iraq War.

As the Bush effort in Iraq began to sink in the polls, you might recall, the long shadow of Cheney re-emerged. Acting like the wise Nostradamus of warfare. Cheney attacked Kerry for reportedly claiming that the "coalition" of countries in Iraq was "bribed and coerced" into committing troops to the coalition.

"If such dismissive terms are the vernacular of the golden age of diplomacy Senator Kerry promises," Cheney fumed at the time, "we are left to wonder which nations would care to join any future coalition." Which nations, indeed, following the administration who put the word "mess" back into Mesopotamia.

Since it is Memorial Day, we should use this time to remember that it was actually Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld who shattered NATO with his contemptuous characterization of France, Germany and others as "Old Europe," simply because they failed to fall in line with the Bush administrations views on war with Iraq.

Over a period of days, if not hours, he and other Bush-men poisoned allegiances crafted generations ago. . .and Rumsfeld's subsequent coronation of Spain and others as "New Europe" further insulted people across the continent, including Russian President Vladimir Putin. Membership to Club Iraq came with a one-way ticket to Baghdad and a boatload of bank notes, as we have now learned, but the price of war, beyond the tragedy of thousands of lives lost, is becoming too hot for our allies to bear.

Since "such dismissive terms" have often been the vernacular of the Bush administration, it's hard to see how Cheney and his Spiro Agnew-like attacks did anything other than prove the wisdom of most European leaders who opposed this war, based mainly on the fact that they knew it would prove to be a quagmire, as it has.

So, as the United States backpedals and clumsily reaches out to Old Europe in an attempt to garner support for rebuilding Iraq — more of New Europe's leaders pull out of the effort in Iraq, as Polish President Aleksander Kwasniewski, a key U.S. ally did, and as Canada is now debating as well. It cost Tony Blair his popularity and his job, just as Vietnam cost Lyndon Johnson his in 1968.

Just as the vast majority of Europeans communicated from the outset, the Iraqi conflict has hurt the war on terrorism. As a nation, we are now threatened by the very war the president was obsessed with executing.

Real friends are supposed to listen to one another with consideration and respect. When a cacophony of nations — all of whom have displayed loyalty to the United States in the past decades — begged us not to go to war with Iraq, All the President's Men couldn't wait to tell the rumor mill that France had violated the embargo on Iraq and "supplied the Iraqis with chemicals and other materials," that the Germans were wrong about messages they intercepted prior to 9/11, and more scurrilous public relations.

In addition, more than one retired military officer made it plain to the media and others that once the major fighting ceased, we not only would find weapons of mass destruction, but French and Russian complicity with Iraq as well.

They would become items on the long list of outlandish charges disproved over time.

Recall, my fellow citizens, that all that the United Nations asked of the Bush administration was to give the inspectors "a few more months" to do their work. These were the same friends who supported the war on terror — and the war in Afghanistan after Sept. 11th — but the Bush administration decided to bully our nation's most important allies in public forums, deriding them as cowards and disloyal profiteers.

ONE YEAR LATER, Vice President Cheney mocked Kerry for his ideas regarding a "golden age of diplomacy," and revealed the continental divide between America and Europe that exists once again.

But by failing to build broad international support for the war and for the reconstruction effort, the Bush administration now appears as homeless beggars — hat in hand — asking for spare change from the very people they spat on during the Iraq war's early days. Clearly, the people of Old Europe have not changed their position on the war, as 80-85 percent still oppose it.

Whether a shift against the war actually sways the electorate away from the Republicans in 2006 remains to be seen, but surely they must now see that our old friends were right — and our venture into Iraq is this generation’s Vietnam — and has created more terror, not less.

They must know that if they had simply concentrated on securing and enabling a real democracy in Afghanistan, the Bush administration likely would have achieved what it wanted: a "beacon of democracy" in the Arab world , Afghan style; a more unified world fighting terrorism side-by-side, and an easy re-election dynasty for Republicans in Congress.

Instead, Bush and the Republicans, having squandered the genuine, widespread warmth and support that came after Sept. 11th, are on new and dangerous turf — some might call it quicksand — as they approach the November elections.

Talk about instant karma.

On this Memorial Day, while we honor all of the brave men and women who fought and died in foreign wars, perhaps we should ask, “what might have happened if we had only listened to our friends?”

On this Memorial Day, I choose to give thanks to not only our veterans, but to the Belgian people as well. For today, thousands of miles away from the nation's capitol, the next generation of Belgian leaders stood with senior citizens and paid homage the memory of American warriors from a century ago.

That's what friends do.

LIGHTS AND WIRES IN A BOX

I’LL NEVER FORGET a conversation I had with a Scripps Howard TV executive back in the early 90s when I was approached to produce what ultimately became THE PROMISED LAND.

A TV anchorman had recommended my work to Scripps after emceeing a Cleveland Foodbank luncheon and seeing my mini-documentary “Praying for Food” for the very first time. He thought I might be able to help their Holiday campaign, which had failed to raise any substantial money for charities in the previous three years.

So there I was, sitting in the office of this powerful man who cautiously extolled the virtues of my work. I had one small son and was soon to have another on the way.

“How much are you offering?” I asked innocently enough, knowing that my lovely soon-to-be-ex-wife would be grilling me about the financial details as soon as the meeting ended.

“Well, we have $900 in this budget,” he said while pointing to a popular morning TV program on his programming sheet. “It’s the end of the year and that’s all we have.”

“This is NOT what the wife is going to want to hear,” I thought to myself, while wondering how, just-how in the WORLD I could accept this job. Since my wife was at home caring for our first-born — and I had just struck out on my own after years laboring as an employee of an old high school buddy — I was pulling in less that $2,000 a month. And you know you’re hurting when $2,000 a month actually sounds GOOD.

The Scripps TV man saw that I was wavering. Yes, he had me hook, line, and sinker on the subject of producing a film about the homeless. But $900? Good God, Miss Agnes. My wife would KILL me if I came home with this 'offer' after months of lying way-too-low to the earth.

Then the executive sweetened the deal. He promised that if things went well. . .I would be guaranteed as the Producer of the next big documentary project for the TV station. “You have my word on it,” he said. “We really need to turn this charity around.”

“I’ll do it on one other condition,” I said while locking on his eyes. “This is non-negotiable. I want this to air in prime time.”

“Oooh. . .umm. . .that will be difficult,” he stammered. “Hmmm. Let me see what I can do.” After a few days he phoned me to explain the economics of prime time TV — and how much money they would lose if they put my documentary at 9 or 9:30 on a weeknight. “You’re saving a helluva lot of money on me,” I told him.

“True, but no one watches things like this in prime time. There is no way that we can get viewers to watch a socially-relevant program in prime time,” said the now-departed executive.

“Oh yes you can,” I countered. “Just watch. Anyway, those are my terms. Take it or leave it.”

He accepted, and I began five weeks worth of non-stop work for $900. Well, not actually $900…because I paid my friend Henry $250 to shoot a few hours of additional footage — and paid the immensely talented composer Richard C. Aylsworth a grand total of $500 for his outstanding Emmy-nominated musical score. Each of them only agreed because they knew that I was only making $150 for five weeks of work — and they felt sorry for me. They just KNEW I was catching Hell at home. And they were right.

Anyway, that incident started a running battle with commercial television that is still ongoing. THE PROMISED LAND won four regional Emmy’s, an International Film & TV award in the category of International TV Programming, and more importantly, proved my assertion that important programming about vital issues could not only attract and hold viewers — but could motivate them to action as well.

THE PROMISED LAND was the highest-ranking TV program in its’ time slot and raised nearly $500,000 in its’ first showing alone — and $1,000,000 total. As a bonus, I was able to read the thoughts of real viewers who scribbled notes on hotel memo pads and notebook paper and sent them in with their donations, which went to provide transitional housing and job training for the homeless.

When I read the notes, which came in by the hundreds, I cried like a baby. It taught me to believe in my instincts — and to believe in the humanity of humanity. There was a businessman from Chicago writing from the Holiday Inn downtown, an elderly woman on a fixed income who sent a tattered $5 bill with the note “I wish I could do more,” and six poor families from the East side of Cleveland who pooled their monies and contributed $100 for their brothers and sisters because “there but for the Grace of God go I.”

I STILL get chills when I think of that one.

Importantly, it proved — once and for all — that the TV execs were wrong — DEAD wrong — when they said that no one would watch, and that certainly no one would donate, except for the few bleeding hearts. People bombarded the phone lines with a fury never seen before — so much so that Scripps decided to air the program in 20+ other cities.

Years later, in the era of war and record profits for the wealthiest, television has fallen even further from reality — at the same time that they promote "reality TV."

SO ONCE IN A BLUE MOON, when I turn on the television and actually find something illuminating to watch, I recall those early days when I loved the craft so much that I would stake my family’s welfare on my God-given abilities to produce documentaries. And then, I am reminded of the brilliant observation made by American journalist Edward R. Murrow over 45 years ago about the medium of television. He said, "this instrument can teach, it can illuminate, and yes, it can even inspire. But it can only do so to the extent that humans are determined to use it to those ends. Otherwise, it is merely lights and wires in a box."

Too much of what we see — too much of what we support — pales in the light of Murrow’s wisdom. As I seek the dollars necessary to produce two more films and a weekly TV news show, however, I will never forget his words — or the time I created an International award winning documentary for 900 bucks.

Oh yeah, and JUST FOR THE RECORD, I was never hired to produce the documentary I was promised by the former Scripps executive. It would have entailed traveling to the rainforests of South America to film, and creating a documentary about the environment. The exec — who was married —gave the job to a woman who was reportedly his lover of many years.

While Scripps REALLY got their money’s worth out of me, I am the person who profited most — especially in view of today’s sophomoric and sleazy prime-time lineups. When given the chance, I was blessed to help raise $1 million for the homeless — in just one city.

Now that, Murrow might say, was putting those lights and wires in a box to a worthwhile use.

LOOKING FOR TRUTH IN THE SUNSHINE STATE

"The American Medical Association is fast degenerating into a political machine bent on throttling everything which stands in its way for obtaining medical supremacy. They propose to own and control every medical college in this country, all the State, municipal and university hospitals, and licensing boards in the United States."
— DR. DeWITT WILCOX,
President of the Institute of Homeopathy, 1914


Quackery. It’s the one word used by medical purists in dismissing natural medicine and its practitioners. It’s a dark word — a searing indictment. “You’re a fraud,” they say. A charlatan.

A quack.

Over the years thousands of practitioners of so -called alternative medicine have been driven from the practice unfairly and countless others and are on the brink of extinction.

There’s a medical monopoly in the United States…a virulent strain of bias infecting freedom of choice in healthcare. It’s been ongoing for a hundred years…this dirty little secret… and it exists here in every state in the Union. But a new battleground is forming in the Confederacy — and another controversy is brewing in the state of Florida. It’s one that health freedom advocates should be paying close attention to, as it’s another battle over medical freedom of choice — and whether we have the right to choose a Naturopathic practitioner in Florida.

A few weeks ago, two health freedom bills were introduced in the Florida State Senate and Florida House of Representatives. They aim to protect Naturopathy in the state at a time when Naturopaths are literally dying off.

There has not been a new Naturopathic Doctor licensed in the state since 1959. Dr. Michael Dappolonia, an 88-year-old Naturopathic Doctor in Orlando was one of the last to be licensed to practice. “In those days there were over 500 members of the organization back in the early 50s,” he told me a few weeks ago. “And today I’m sorry to say over 500 members at the time we’re down to four — four licensed naturopathic physicians in the state of Florida.”

Even though he is in his latter years as an Octogenarian, Dr. Dappolonia is still a vision of good health — a handsome and articulate man who has watched with horror as the Florida Medical Association and others have depleted his ranks. Until now, legislators in Florida have refused to challenge the medical hegemony enjoyed by conventionally trained doctors and the drug company lobbyists.

The history of the American Medical Association — and its’ statewide chapters — ooze monopoly. To understand why the two bills introduced in the Florida State Senate (SB 2678) and House of Representatives (HB 1261) are so important, a little history is important.

“The AMA in its so called wisdom decided after the Flexner Report in 1910 that it was time to eliminate all competition,” said Dr. Lad Santiago, a Naturopathic Doctor from South Carolina. “By the 1950s, they had almost eliminated all of the reform schools (Homeopathy, Eclectic Medicine, etc), and then they started focusing on naturopathy. Naturopathy presented the greatest threat.”

This claim is borne out by the Cato Institute Report of 1995 entitled, “The Medical Monopoly: Protecting Consumers Or Limiting Competition?” In this groundbreaking report, author Sue Blevins investigated the various methods employed by the AMA over the past century in order to eliminate the real competition from natural remedies. One of the most famous cases highlighted in the report involved the FDA and AMA conspiracy — which was proven in the Courts — to wipe our chiropractic doctors in the United States.

Between 1963 and 1974 the AMA operated a Committee on Quackery with an intent to "expose the charlatanism of chiropractic." The report details how the AMA urged members to lend "their full support to the continuing vigorous attack on medical quackery and to the education program on the cult of chiropractic," writes Blevins.

In 1976, four chiropractors filed an antitrust lawsuit against the AMA and other medical organizations, charging them with criminal conspiracy to destroy chiropractic. . .and in 1987 the AMA was found guilty of illegal conspiracy and in violation of U.S. antitrust laws. Yet sadly, restrictions on chiropractic scope of practice and reimbursement remain in place to this day.

These ruthless tactics are nearly identical to those being utilized by the AMA with Naturopathic medicine and its’ practitioners. Dr. Michael Dappolonia says things virtually changed overnight and many Naturopaths were caught completely unaware. “Kevin, to this day I still to this day don’t know why it happened,” he told me. “It was so quick.”

Dr. Santiago, a student of history knows why the pressure from the AMA became so intense. “Naturopathy was using all sorts of therapeutics for all possible maladies, for all illnesses and infirmities that were imaginable,” he said. “They were truly a competitor in the health care field.”

ALMOST EVERYONE AGREES THAT ACUTE MEDICAL CARE —or allopathic medicine as it’s called— can save your life. Conventional doctors employ the very best weapons in their arsenal to bring you back from a near death experience.

Naturopathic doctors, on the other hand, are trained as the primary care physicians of natural medicine — and are committed to finding the source of disease and emphasize health maintenance rather than suppressing symptoms with drugs.

Is there any rational reason why these two forms of medicine cannot coexist? After all, aren’t these Florida bills are being driven by consumers who want the freedom to choose their own brand of medicine? Why is it so difficult to hear the will of the people, who are tired of double-digit inflation on prescription drugs and the runaway cost of healthcare?

How can a system plunging the world into chaos not change? How can a nation with so much suffering and pain and agony and death…..with so many ruined lives and sad tales…NOT honor a system based on the pledge “First Do No Harm?”

Until now, there have been few real opportunities for the public to weigh in on such a critical issue. Just lobbyists, weaving insider deals—politics and business married at the hip. . .the few controlling the many — the same old song. But, according to Dr. Santiago, there is hope brimming in Florida — and it could impact Naturopaths nationwide. “Anything that is true will always remain true no matter how much you suppress it,” he said recently. “It will resurface. . .and it has re-emerged. The outcry for the therapeutic the options that Naturopathic medicine has to offer is greater today than it ever has been.”

It’s the way life is in this sad state of Democracy — begging legislators to give us what is rightfully ours. But this is your chance to shine, Florida. Please write, call, fax, or email the Florida State legislators and tell them to pass Florida House Bill 1261 and Senate Bill 2678.

It may be the last chance we have for decades to stand for what is right — and to give consumers what is so badly needed:

Freedom to choose the practitioner they wish — without the interference of big government and big business.

YUAN FEN

DON’T TELL MY MOM I SAID THIS, but someone once told me — in the strictest of confidence — that my mother “fell in love every month” until she met and married my Dad. Having waited until I was “mature enough” to get married — only to get divorced a few years later — I guess I can understand how even my Mom could have enjoyed years of fickle feelings before having her heart set ablaze by my Dad. It seems like human nature, especially in the context of relationships in the 21st century.

Of course, once Mom made a decision, that was that. There would be no looking back. Sixty years later, Mom and Dad, both in their 80s, remain true to their vows. . .and very much in love.

Many of our Moms and Dads — members of “the greatest generation” — have enjoyed similar longevity in matrimony. Today, however, with marriages lasting between 6-7 years on average, one must ask if the “Me Generation” is truly unable to keep a commitment. . .about anything.

This uneasy, chronic dissatisfaction is all around us. I was having dinner with a very successful, affluent, female medical doctor a few years ago when the conversation shifted to relationships. “What is it with men, “she rightly asked, “and why is it that you are all unwilling to get married?” She outlined her case against men very firmly, beginning with, “Men don’t want companionship, they want control,” before adding that “men won’t marry a powerful woman with a great career…especially if they make less money than a woman.”

“Is it REALLY that, Doctor,” I recall asking. “Is it that men are afraid of powerful women? Or is it that we live in this ‘Me’ centered universe, devoid of loyalty and unconditional love? Could it be that we live in an age where few have the patience, the tolerance, or capacity to forgive — like children forgive their parents on a weekly basis — and that we are living our lives as if life is always greener on the other side of the mountain?”

She seemed perplexed, but something must have resonated, as six months later she reported back that she had indeed found her man, and was engaged to be married.

Thus, is there anything more beautiful — or maddening — than love? We see it portrayed in movies, television, books and magazines all of the time, of course, but while they do justice to the word in an imaginary, Hollywood-kind-of-a-way, do we really know what the reality of love is?

I wonder.

Yeah, I have cried at the line (“You had me at ‘Hello’,” from the movie Jerry Maguire) EVERY SINGLE TIME I’ve heard it spoken. It touches a raw nerve of unfulfilled love within me, and allows a deep and abiding sadness to surface. Is it ONLY because of ‘Hollywood magic’ that this takes place. . .am I being manipulated by the cold orchestrated efforts of the media machine to go see the next Cameron Crowe movie? Perhaps.

Yet when this sadness occurs, it highlights that those feelings within me, no matter how glorified or artificial they may appear in Hollywood, do indeed exist. Is it because Renee Zellweger’s character is so willing to accept Jerry Maguire, a man full of vanity and failures and flaws, at his lowest ebb?

If we are looking for love at all, THAT is what keeps most of us believing that there is one perfect woman/man out there in the Universe. It is the unconditional, the solid-as-a-rock notion that “I will stand beside you always…even when you are broken…” that keeps me coming back for more.

The Chinese have a concept called “Yuan Fen,” for which no direct translation exists in the English language. It is a visual, contextual combination of destiny, tried-and-true effort and, well, luck. Yuan Fen, like so many things Chinese, is almost a karmic phrase meant to illustrate the importance of fate in our lives. For a relationship to work, one needs both “yuan,” the fateful, pre-destined meeting of a man and a woman that creates the possibility of lasting love — and the “fen,” or the action of sharing and WORKING toward fulfilling that destiny together.

It is a lovely concept, at least to me. Since yuan fen is the antithesis of coincidence, it correctly acknowledges the deeper meaning to events in our daily lives, while also highlighting the need for shared energy and commitment to make “the dream come true.”

The can be no “fen” without “yuan,” because it was fate which brought the two people together. But without hard work and a little luck, there can also be no yuan fen. THIS is the part of the equation which alienates those of us in Western culture. . .because let’s face it, if things get tough in relationships, most of us cut-and-run.

Our lack of commitment — our unwillingness to stand shoulder to shoulder during difficult times — is probably the simplest reflection of life in the material age, and a society built on instant gratification.

IT IS NOW NEARLY 12 YEARS since my first-and-only wife divorced. We definitely did not experience ‘yuan fen,’ but I love and admire her just the same.

Nonetheless, as another Valentine’s Day approaches, I still believe the idea that fate and destiny and hard-work are delivering my yuan fen to me as we speak. It is the “eternal optimist” in me. Some of you may think that my beliefs make me a naïve idiot. Whatever. I still believe that love will complete the circle.

My prayer is that you find your “yuan fen” as well. . .and that you will be willing to work for your blessings, like so many in “the greatest generation” did before us.

Happy Valentine’s Day. . .and peace to you all.

THE PROMISED LAND?

plato told

him:he couldn't
believe it(jesus

told him;he
wouldn't believe
it)lao

tsze
certainly told
him,and general
(yes

mam)
sherman;
and even
(believe it
or

not)you
told him:i told
him;we told him
(he didn't believe it,no

sir)it took
a nipponized bit of
the old sixth

avenue
el;in the top of his head:to tell

him
— e.e. cummings

THEY FOUGHT THE ENEMY through the jungles of Vietnam, ducking gunfire, spending sleepless nights and avoiding death, only to be caught in the tripwires and booby traps set by society here at home. And every day, I see the faces of America’s war heroes — who were proud to serve —proud to fight for a way of life here in the Promised Land — living on the streets of every major city I travel to.

That this fate has been dealt to them is ironic — because these men and women — like so many before them who served in a foreign land — dreamed of the day they would come home to America. Home — home of the plenty, home of the brave — and now, home of the homeless.

“The way I live now is like I lived back in the jungle,” one vet told me. “Thirty years later look at me. . .this is where I live at,” he said while motioning to his plastic-encased barracks. I sat with James for nearly an hour as the wind ripped through his 6X10 shack. James was as articulate a man as I had ever met. As I looked around I saw a few books stacked neatly in the corner; one by Albert Camus, the French author and playwright, and another by James Baldwin.

Can you imagine that, if but for a moment? A homeless man, a soldier who’d dug a new foxhole, reading books by a Nobel prizewinner — and another by a man who was arguably one of the most powerful voices in the debate on race in America?

How could it be, I asked James, that patriots have been relegated to this subterranean existence in a nation which claims to revere its’ warriors? He looked at me and smiled. “Son,” he said with sad eyes and a half-smile, “have you ever killed a man? Do you know what that can do to you in your darkest hours?”

When I produced THE PROMISED LAND in 1991, America had just won the first Gulf War a year earlier. There was talk from President George H.W. Bush that we had finally “kicked the Vietnam syndrome, once and for all.” I thought it apropos to raise the question what it meant to be a soldier in war, and whether these men and women in the streets — drunk with dark images and in need of help — were casualties of a society disconnected from the realities of the horror they encountered in war.

It is a question I have never been able to escape. . .and it is a question we should be asking ourselves today as the killing and dying continues in Iraq.

Cleveland State professor John P. Wilson was the first to call Vietnam vets “Forgotten Warriors,” and to bring attention to the deeply held trauma they felt upon returning from that war. Wilson and his own “band of brothers,’ including former Army Captain Shad Meshad and others, helped define what we now know as PTSD, or Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. It was the modern version of “shellshock,” a term known to just about any WWII veteran.

The question is, will we really “support our troops” when they come home? The answer is anything but certain, considering our recent history.

Back in 2004, for example, while in the midst of the presidential campaign, ABC’s Nightline program read the names and showed the faces of every American killed in action in Iraq. As you may recall, the outrage was palatable. Some ABC affiliates (owned by backers of President Bush) refused to air the Nightline program, instead opting to broadcast a scurrilous, slanted and cowardly “mockumentary” about John Kerry’s service in Vietnam.

I remember thinking how nearly every car in America sported those silly magnetic yellow ribbons proclaiming “We Support Our Troops,” but when push-came-to-shove, these wealthy broadcast entities chose politics instead of honoring the men and women who died in combat. They re-opened the wounds of Vietnam for cold, calculated, and cynical reasons that in no way served to honor the veterans of war — ANY war.

TODAY, with over 130,000 Americans serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, the soldiers we claim to support are living a hellish existence: again, they are ducking gunfire, spending sleepless nights and doing their best to avoid death in another faraway land. The nation is divided again, and the world is a tempest-in-a-teapot.

Will we remember that we owe them a far greater debt than to merely pat them on the back? Will we repay their service —as the Pentagon budget becomes more bloated with weaponry and big corporate payoffs — with counseling and healthcare services and job support? Or will we fail them again — as we have done so many times in the past?

These men and women have sacrificed the best years of their lives in service to our nation. They will be stained by the sights, sounds and smell of war — and trapped by the hyper aberrations of combat.

It is up to us — to our leaders — to choose whether they return with the full support of our people, or whether they become — like so many before them — unknown soldiers left to die without dignity. . .in the Promised Land.

A NATURAL PATH TO HEALTH FREEDOM

IT'S ANOTHER ELECTION YEAR, and some polls show that Democrats are making a comeback following long reign of Republicans in the House of Representatives and the Senate. As such, both parties are scouring the country in search of Independent and so-called “swing voters” to create a majority.

The real question is not which of the "Republicrats" take power, but whether we will force them to act on the issues we hold dear.

Every election cycle, Americans hear incessant talk about health care. The Democrats speak to the uninsured and the underinsured, seniors, and minority populations, while Republicans often appeal to middle-class and more affluent voters. One year ago, Republican leaders in the House claimed that the Medicare reform bill passed in Congress was a major success for consumers. Well, we know that it was a major windfall for the drug companies, but beyond that, Medicare is a deeply flawed and expensive program for senior citizens, who are now at the mercy of the petrochemical profiteers.

Unless the dialogue changes dramatically in the coming months, both parties could miss an opportunity to influence what is undoubtedly the largest untapped “niche” in American politics - the 150 million-plus citizens who use alternative, or “complementary” medicines. Even the World Health Organization - which is primarily aligned with conventional methodologies — acknowledged in its’ treatise on “traditional medicines” that 158 million adults use these medicines in the United States.

What is not revealed in the WHO study is the astonishing breadth of this grassroots movement, which cuts across nearly every religious, cultural, socioeconomic, and, yes, political genre in America. As considerable consumer data accumulates about both the political leanings and buying habits of this massive niche, however, alternative medicine users remain the “bastard child” of politics - with no one political party willing to claim them. Even Rep. Dennis Kucinich, the Democratic populist from Cleveland who strongly supports alternative medicine, refused to raise the issue during the numerous Democratic debates during his presidential campaign in 2004, choosing instead to champion single-payer medical coverage for every American.

Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX), however, has also been a champion of health freedom at every turn — and he recently introduced House Bill 4282, the Health Freedom Protection Act, with Democratic co-sponsor Peter DeFazio (D-OR) and a bevy of bi-partisan supporters.

For the record, I am one of 100+ individuals and companies who joined the Coalition to End FDA & FTC Censorship, a group run by attorney Jonathan Emord. Emord, backed by the powerful and enigmatic leader Dr. Julian Whitaker, Durk Pearson & Sandy Shaw and an assortment of health freedom organizations like the American Association for Health freedom (AAHF), has repeatedly defeated the FDA in court. This time, Emord and his supporters are ratcheting up the pressure in this highstakes challenge. I have written TV ads for for national television as part of this important campaign.

HR 4282 prevents the FDA from “denying those who sell dietary supplements from reprinting or distributing United States Government publications (or accurate quotations from those publications) that explain the effect of nutrients on disease.” It also effectively overrules an FDA policy that prohibits companies that sell dietary supplements from distributing these government publications (or accurate quotations from those publications) that discuss how nutrients (of a kind contained in the dietary supplements sold) cure, mitigate, treat, or prevent disease.

But HR 4282 doesn’t stop there. It aims to allow for certain “qualified health claims” and reverses FDA decisions that have refused to allow health claims for dietary supplements “against the weight of the scientific evidence.” The Bill specifically mentions saw palmetto extract for treating the symptoms of benign prostatic hyperplasia; omega-3 fatty acids for reducing the risk of coronary heart disease (without qualification); omega-3 fatty acids reducing for the risk of sudden death heart attack; glucosamine and chondroitin sulfate for reducing joint stiffness and pain associated with osteoarthritis; and calcium reducing the risk of bone fractures.

So far, this bill has 14 original co-sponsors, but again, if you are interested in securing your health freedom, please call or write your Congressman and pressure your Senator to sponsor a similar bill in the Senate.

The buying power of alternative medicine consumers was made quite clear when one examines a market research study called the National Family Opinion poll, conducted in 2002. The NFO poll was compiled from a database of more than 550,000 U.S. households - and what emerged was a portrait of America’s burgeoning “silent majority.” This survey followed Dr. David Eisenberg’s landmark study, published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1993, which grudgingly confirmed that “well over 100 million Americans” utilized what he called “unorthodox medicines.”

Eisenberg’s study, in addition to the WHO report and the NFO poll, confirmed not only the sheer numbers of Americans using alternative medicines, but perhaps more importantly, that Americans distrust what they are hearing from politicians, drug companies, insurance companies, conventional medicine establishments and the mainstream media about “the true state of health care in America.”

A key aspect of the NFO survey underscored the people’s “distrust of the media when reporting on matters of health.” The NFO survey study revealed that a whopping 41 percent of the general population do not trust major media to “tell the truth” about health and wellness information, and that consumers want unbiased information about alternative medicines.

Thus, just as “NASCAR dads” have become a force on the political landscape, so have alternative medicine consumers. Both are “consumer-driven” movements that defy conventional thinking, and both were propelled to the mainstream by a base of rabid “fans” - with NASCAR now being the most widely viewed sport in the history of America.

So one would think - with all of those voters at stake in what promises to be another close election for control of the Senate — that both parties would be courting this huge bloc of voters. But in fact, of the prominent politicians who could play an important role in Election 2006, only a few have taken a stand on this issue - and they are either Congressmen or governors, NOT Senators. Among the most prominent is Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger of California — long a proponent of health freedom — said again recently that he adamantly opposes unbridled government regulation of dietary supplements.

According to The Associated Press, Schwarzenegger responded to a question about the Food and Drug Administration’s decision to ban the weight-loss aid ephedra one year ago by saying he was opposed philosophically to government regulation of supplements. “I have always campaigned against the FDA getting involved in food supplements,” he was quoted as saying at a recent event. Schwarzenegger also said there should be labeling and “a certain standard” for supplement safety, but said that if the FDA regulated supplements, “most of the costs of food supplements will go up,” and “I have very rarely seen the government do anything that was effective” in the area of regulating supplements.

Another outspoken leader is New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, a Democrat who was mentioned briefly as a potential running mate for John Kerry in 2004. As a member of Congress, Richardson co-sponsored the Dietary Supplement Health Education Act (DSHEA) in 1994, before serving as President Clinton’s Secretary of Energy and as a United Nations ambassador. Richardson noted in a 1994 interview with me that his bill was introduced to help consumers in their “David and Goliath battle” for medical freedom of choice. “What we’re talking about here is millions of American consumers against FDA and big government — big bureaucracy,” he said at the time.

Using the B-vitamin folic acid as an example, Richardson noted how “the FDA had to be dragged kicking and screaming into giving license to folic acid,” which has been proven to prevent certain birth defects in children. “This vitamin, which is known to be safe and effective, was blocked for over a decade by the FDA,” Richardson said, adding that if the FDA had “spread the word sooner,” thousands of birth defects could have been prevented.”

Richardson’s visionary comments from a decade ago were again brought to light as a result of a report on folic acid from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention a few months back. The study noted that by adding folic acid to one’s diet — a practice finally approved by the FDA in 1996 to prevent birth defects — the tragedies of neural tube birth defects were reduced by about 20 percent. In addition, the study also reported that folic acid also appears to have a striking effect against cardiovascular disease, preventing an estimated 48,000 deaths a year from strokes and heart attacks. In all, the researchers estimated that folic acid led to 31,000 fewer deaths from stroke and 17,000 from heart disease each year from 1998 to 2001.

So why wasn’t the information — first reported by maverick alternative medicine Dr. Jonathan Wright in 1981 — more widely disseminated before 1996?

“It is this bias against dietary supplements,” Richardson concluded, that makes consumers cynical about politics and government. “We don’t assume that the American people can make rational decisions,” he explained, countering the widely believed argument that Democrats feel the government “knows what’s best” for the populace and imposes its will on the people. “We over-regulate in our society. The American people - this growing grassroots movement - want the freedom to choose. Of course, we want the highest standards, we want quality, but we should provide the information and let the consumer make the decision.”

Ultimately, the success or failure of Congressman Ron Paul’s Health Freedom Protection Act will be a critical marker to the future of complementary alternative medicine in the United States. As tens of millions of independent voters who care about complementary alternative medicine examine the candidates’ records, there is a glimmer of hope if consumers decide to seize the day and force these sleepy-headed legislators into action.

For Republicans, Democrats and Independents who care about this issue, HR 4282 might be the only hope for expanding our medical freedom of choice on a nationwide basis, but it is too early to tell. The votes have yet to be cast, but once again, it is up to you to take action.

The fate of health freedom may lie with your willingness to take a stand. . .and make your voice heard. Financial contributions made by you will go directly to fund the nationwide TV campaign to pass the HEALTH FREEDOM PROTECTION ACT, and Mr. Emord guarantees that "100% of the contributions will be applied to purchase more media around the country." Donations can be made via credit card to the Coalition Fund by calling 202-466-6937.

I often hear from readers and others that they are frustrated by the lack of "action steps" they can personally take to impact medical freedom of choice. Here is a definitive way that you can help preserve — and expand — the rights we have come to expect as American consumers.

Let's fight back. . .and reclaim our freedoms before they are lost to the biased, uncaring bureaucracies at the FDA and the Federal Trade Commission.

WHITE PUNKS ON DOPE

SOMEWHERE AROUND TEN OR FIFTEEN YEARS AGO, the world went mad—or at least kids must have. During that time, Mom’s and Dads—many of whom were Stoners themselves—got the curious notion that their kids were no longer normal and needed to be drugged.

Perhaps they merely got caught up in the onslaught of hundreds of millions of dollars in drug marketing—and that’s why they gave their children away to Big Pharma. Whatever it was that started the re-drugging of our Kids, though, the drug companies were loving life.

During the 90s, a 700% increase in the use of Ritalin and other gateway drugs began—and as a society, we have rarely looked back. It became the first designer drug for a new generation of children — one that was prescribed as much by teachers as medical doctors themselves. To illustrate the height of the madness, one newspaper reported that a full third of Atlanta schoolchildren were prescribed Ritalin or a similar class of drug for supposed “hyperactivity.’

One-third!

Welcome to Prozac Nation…a place where doctors and parents often avoid the hard questions. Questions like, “why are drugs prescribed to children who had no underlying manifestation of illness?” Or, “Is ADHD real? And if so, what are our medical options?” And, one of my favorites, “as a society, have we lost our sanity?”

The mercuric rise in the use of antidepressants and so-called ADD/ADHD drugs among children and teens is a black mark on the Western allopathic medicine. We have a duty to our kids to explore why it is so. Knowledge on natural remedies abound, but are not widely distributed to the public through Health Canada, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, or their mirror agencies worldwide.

Why is that, when studies—in the hundreds and thousands— highlight how safe and effective many alternatives are? Everything from fish and flax oils to phosphatidyl serine to a bevy other non-toxic and inexpensive dietary supplements, can be extremely helpful in treating certain neurological conditions, depression, so-called “hyperactivity,’ and the like.

We need to further explore the science and even discredit some of the pseudo-science being dispensed by the tricksters—and we need to arm parents and citizens everywhere with the information they need to make an informed choice about an issue of vital importance.

We need to provide answers to one of humanities most daunting questions: when it comes to our kids, to drug or not to drug? That is the question of this Age. I will continue to pursue this with great diligence through my documentaries—and it is my hope that each of you will continue to ask the hard questions as well.

The present and future health of our children depends on our willingness to do so. . .as I will show in an upcoming film about this issue.

AN INSPIRATION—ON ANY DAY

“Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided missiles and misguided men.”
— Martin Luther King, Jr.


TO THOSE OF YOU WHO KNOW ME or my work, it’s common knowledge that I admire Martin Luther King, Jr. immensely. He was front-and-center in my film THE WAR WITHIN, he was the driving force behind my comparative analysis of the Civil Rights movement and the Health Freedom movement in LET TRUTH BE THE BIAS, and most recently, in my documentary WE BECOME SILENT.

The title for the film came as an inspiration in the middle of the night, as happens so often with artists. It was 3:00 a.m., and I was in the midst of 17-20 hour days trying to complete this film about Codex Alimentarius. Suddenly, in my sleep, I heard MLK saying “Our lives begin to end the moment we become silent about things that matter,” and I literally sat straight up in bed. The strongest words I heard were, WE BECOME SILENT, as it correlated directly to the scheming of governments and men who would eliminate our voice—our choice— to choose medical alternatives. Once again, Dr. King played a role in my professional and personal life . . .and I cannot tell you how many HUNDREDS of people have commented to me about the power of the title WE BECOME SILENT.

During a viewing of LET TRUTH BE THE BIAS in 1994, I was standing in the back of an auditorium filled with 500 people as the introduction of the film began to play. There’s a scene in the documentary where hordes of armed policemen—with batons at the ready—join arms and push dozens of African Americans with the strength of a football team pushing a blocking ‘sled.’ Elderly men, women and children are forced to the ground—and some are trampled in the ensuing melee. While this scene was playing out, I heard someone comment rather loudly, “This guy must be a LIBERAL,” as if showing the struggle for basic human rights was a Liberal or Conservative issue.

For the record, I am a registered Independent voter, but the comment made me chortle, albeit sadly.

As a humanistic writer, I have often been compelled to take the path less traveled. As a man who vividly recalls the assassination of Dr. King in 1968, I can say uncategorically that many of the ideals he put forth during his short time on this planet are indelibly branded into my soul.

Those same ideals apply to the health freedom movement as well, and we should all honor Dr. King for blazing a peaceful trail to positive change. We can learn from not only his courage in challenging the powers-that-be, but from his vision of equality.

“Life's most persistent and urgent question,” said Dr. King, “is, 'What are you doing for others?'”

Amen, Reverend Dr. King. Amen. Your words are an inspiration—on any day.

FIRST DO NO HARM

THE FIRST LESSON TAUGHT TO young journalists pertains to the power of accuracy and fairness. I developed a great reverence for these tenets at a very early age, as I began to chart my course as a writer.

The job of a journalist is to amass research through investigation, to interview as many people as humanly possible, and to present a balanced examination of facts and viewpoints. Then, as they say, one simply must “let the chips fall where they may,” and let the reader or viewer decide.

When I began producing films about medical freedom of choice, I made a conscious choice that I would follow the age-old advice, "Primum non nocere," or, "first do no harm." I vowed that I would never consciously release any information of an illegitimate nature in any of my films. Falsehoods and exaggerations have a half-life of their own; they are toxic to those who seek the truth; and they can re-surface in a multitude of ways detrimental to the cause of health freedom, from an ambush-styled interview on 60 Minutes to a live embarrassment on the Larry King Show.

Whether I like it or not, my films represent every single person who strives for health-freedom. If I slip up—if I make a mistake, I fail millions of people who rely on me to help them see complicated issues more clearly. It’s an awesome responsibility, and one I do not take lightly.

During the filming for the documentary, WE BECOME SILENT, I became aware of many Web sites and other sources making wildly inaccurate statements about the threat of Codex Alimentarius Commission, a group that is comprised of unelected bureaucrats who supposedly represent international “food safety and trade” under the auspices of the United Nations. One so-called “health freedom” website spread confusion by proclaiming that Codex was “already law,” when of course, Codex Alimentarius is not a law, but a set of guidelines enforced mainly through "free trade" agreements in association with the World Trade Organization and others. Other inaccuracies, fueled by taxpayer dollars, emanated from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), members of Congress, and others who supposedly “represent” the American people.

The statements from the FDA came as no surprise because as my film points out, institutional hypocrisy and bias are endemic at the agency. The FDA has a history of distorting reality in order to protect their cohorts in the drug industry, and millions of us are aware of these patterns. Thus, the coddling pronouncements that Codex presented "no threat to American consumers" were expected, because the FDA has repeatedly sabotaged anything which threatens the preeminence of pharmaceuticals.

More troubling to me, however, were the many inaccuracies emanating from certain vitamin trade associations and so-called “leaders” of the health freedom movement. These radiated from numerous vitamin trade associations who were vital and vibrant members of the coalition who turned back the FDAs attempts to impose unlawful regulations on dietary supplements in the 1990s. These days, many of these associations are protecting their business interests—NOT consumers. Their sins of omission and distortion still exist on the Internet, and they could damage the movement forever if left unchecked.

These falsehoods, just like truth, reverberate in innumerable ways. Just ONE factual mistake can set the health freedom movement back years with an unfriendly media. Just ONE misstated claim can undercut years of dedicated work by health-freedom fighters. One error—and the inaccuracies built upon it—can divide us. As a movement of people who demand more health freedoms — not less — we cannot afford such blatant misrepresentations in our midst. We must demand the kind of integrity that has been sorely lacking in the debate about health freedom: from the media, from the trade associations, and yes, from within the health freedom movement itself.

We must insist that facts, not fear or self-serving hype, constitute the dialog on health freedom issues. THIS must be the common ground upon which we commit to work together. THIS will determine who is friend or foe, a help or a hindrance.

To those who claim to represent the millions of dietary supplement users worldwide, well, we have a message for you:

If you are going to speak for all of us, First Do No Harm. . .

Is the Media Your Servant?

Secrecy in medicine is both scandalous and potentially deadly. It is as toxic as Vioxx and as reprehensible as giving non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) to an expectant mother without informing her that these painkillers can cause miscarriages.

As the Vioxx and Celebrex scandal surfaced, the media leapt into action with sensational headlines and investigations focused on the role of FDA oversight. In a country that portrays itself as delivering “the finest healthcare in the world,” however, is the FDA solely to blame for these failures?

No, there is another powerhouse institution that must be held accountable: the media.

The infirmity of today’s corporate journalism is reflected by the fact that good reporters — the ones who uncover abuses by government and corporate interests — are no longer welcome in television news. Nowhere has this been more frighteningly apparent than the saga of reporters Jane Akre and Steve Wilson, two pros who revealed that rBGH, the synthetic growth hormone found in milk and other dairy products, was potentially harmful to humans.

After repeatedly refusing an order by Fox corporate attorneys to present a story more favorable to corporate advertisers (and rBGH-patent holder) Monsanto, Akre and Wilson were fired by the network. Though the story should have been a fight about journalistic ethics, NBC, CBS, and ABC would not report the story.

After Akre and Wilson won an early lawsuit against their former employers, a phalanx of Fox corporate attorneys appealed the ruling, sparing no expense in the process. Ultimately, a second judge reversed the award given to these two courageous reporters, and ordered Akre and Wilson to fork over $400,000 to Fox.

Truth be told, the lack of integrity among corporate journalists is the real reason why the rBGH additive exists in the milk supply today. It is also the reason why two-thirds of foods on supermarket shelves are laced with genetically enhanced ingredients without the knowledge of consumers. The media’s lack of attentiveness to public service is also the reason why trans-fats, damned years ago by doctors everywhere, remain in scores of products consumed by millions of children and adults. And yes, the lack of journalistic curiosity is the main reason why we only hear news about nutritional supplements when there is something negative to report.

As consumers, will we succumb to this bullying? Will we expose the corporate interests that dominate our news? Will we demand balanced reporting from the networks — and boycott their programming if they do not deliver on that basic tenet?

Just as we boast about our nation delivering the finest healthcare in the world, we often brag about “the free press” here in the United States. But in the words of Julian Whitaker, M.D., “How can we say we live in a free country when we can’t even tell the truth about nutritional supplements?” — and in the tragic case of Akre and Wilson, who are facing bankruptcy — rBGH?

It is only through the fusion of education and action that the wonders of alternative medicine can be appreciated more widely. But we must speak for it, vote for it, and demand openness. Otherwise, the forces of secrecy will win — and we all lose.

Just ask Jane Akre and Steve Wilson.

The Wisdom of “Common” People

I have learned so much by simply listening to the people I’ve met while producing my films Let Truth Be The Bias and We Become Silent. As journalists, as Producers, we are supposed to be good listeners; we are supposed to be the link to reason, to balance, and to well-researched wisdom.

This kind of wisdom, however, can come only from meeting countless someones scattered across the globe, people who willingly bare their souls for the sake of the greater good. By sharing their health challenges, big and small, and by stepping forward to be counted, the wisdom of common people allows the masses to judge on their own whether they believe natural cures are a viable option.

At a recent public appearance in Philadelphia, I was asked, “Who will lead us in the fight for health freedom?” The question alluded to the threats against health freedom such as Codex Alimentarius and the ongoing threat to DSHEA, the Dietary Supplement Health Education Act. His question resonated throughout the hall, and in the moments that followed his words echoed rather eerily through the auditorium.

The audience leaned forward, waiting for my answer. Here is what I told them.

During the 1990s, a juggernaut of real-people coalitions came together with industry forces, bound by their desire to preserve “medical freedom of choice.” They represented the plurality of America and came from every political, racial, religious and socio-economic stratum. The amazing happened: people actually put aside their differences and forced Congress to honor their wishes. . .a rare occurrence in American political life.

Collectively, they unearthed a new day in America—a time when the wisdom of common people became not only relevant, but also dominant. Millions—no, tens of millions stood up to the forces of power and money and called for change. They besieged Washington with millions of letters, faxes, and phone calls. As a result, DSHEA, the greatest health law written heretofore, passed in an overwhelming fashion.

“You are the people who accomplished that,” I emphatically reminded them. “You made the calls, you passed out the literature, you wrote the letters, YOU created a your own kind of pre-internet blogs, and passed the word across the nation.”

These days, however, this wonderful consortium of individuals and interests has become divided by a myriad of so-called health freedom leaders. We have lazily allowed others to do the thinking for us—and the results have been toxic, to say the least. Certain vitamin, herbal and health food trade associations—among others—have replaced the wisdom of common people with the elitist attitude that “only we know what’s right for consumers,” and dismissed those who sounded the alarm about Codex and other health freedom issues as “alarmists.” They seem to have forgotten that is the loyal buyer, the local or regional health advocates—through thousands of health food stores, co-ops, and doctors’ offices—who made DSHEA happen. In truth, it is we consumers who fund the vitamin and health food industries in the first place, so it’s time we made our voices heard again.

As I told the crowd in Philadelphia, quit waiting for leaders to lead. . .you might not like where they are taking you. It may be a tired adage, but it is true nonetheless: think globally and act locally.

The people who say “Codex is no threat to us here in the USA,” well, let them know that you disagree with them. Email, call, fax, blog, and write letters-to-the-editor. In short, do whatever you can—communicate in the strongest terms possible—and tell them what you think. If you see a story on the local news, call or write to voice your displeasure. You are in charge of our collective health freedom—and the time for allowing others to do the work for you is over.
As health advocate Scott Tips of the National Health Federation often says, “be persistently vocal,” don’t give up—and don’t give in.

Arm yourself with information from trusted sources like Dr. Robert Verkerk’s Alliance for Natural Health (http://www.alliance-natural-health.org/) in the UK, the Dr. Rath Health Foundation (http://www.dr-rath-foundation.org/), and the National Health Federation (http://www.thenhf.com/). These are credible websites for consumers to examine, and I will share more action links in future blogs.

Finally, for those who believe Codex, CAFTA, the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA), and our membership in the WTO don’t impact health freedom, simply go to http://www.welltv.com/ and see my documentary We Become Silent. It was put online free as a service to consumers—and you can spread the word by referring people to the website or by buying this film, which is narrated by the world-class UK actress Dame Judi Dench.
These are such immensely complicated issues that most people need reliable and easy-to-understand information in order to form an intelligent opinion. My film is one resource that delivers that in about 30 minutes time.

Multi-national food and drug companies are edging us closer to the precipice. If we don’t act soon, we will fail to preserve the hard-fought health freedom efforts of the past 20-30 years. . . and we could find ourselves facing a new allopathic version of the Dark Ages for generations to come.

The wisdom of common people is what we need — as we fight for our right to preserve not only our basic access to vitamins and minerals, but to the ancient medicines that preceded them.