Hello,

Below is part two of Peter Barry Chowka's recent
interview with Daniel Haley, author of the excellent
book "Politics In Healing." Part one of the interview
is available at the website but is mainly backstory,
part 2 has the meat. For an overview of Haley's book
see my nonprofit website.
http://www.cancerinform.freewebsites.com/bookshaley1.htmlofit
wesite.

See my published article, "The Cancer Racket" at the
link below.
http://www.cancerinform.freewebsites.com/cancerart.html

Thank you.
Gavin Phillips


Naturalhealthline

http://naturalhealthline.com/newsletter/1dec01/haley2.htm#jump
(December 1, 2001) Daniel Haley is a former New York
State
legislator - a mainstream reform
Democrat elected in the
early 1970s to three consecutive
terms from an
overwhelmingly conservative Upstate
Republican district.
During the past two decades, in
addition to his career as an
international businessman, Haley has
increasingly focused
his attention on investigating
alternative cancer therapies
and the political machinations that
prevent their being more
widely available.

Haley's efforts have recently culminated in a
481-page book, Politics in Healing
(2000, Potomac Valley Press). The work is an
overview of the politics of medicine
and includes individual chapters about a number of
leading alternative cancer
therapies and the struggles their proponents faced
and, in some rare instances, as
in the case of Stanislaw Burzynski, MD, PhD, managed
to overcome. In addition to
Burzynski's antineoplastons, Haley writes in detail
about Gaston Naessens and
714X, the Hoxsey therapy, DMSO, Joseph Gold and
hydrazine sulfate, and several
other popular therapies. The extensive history he
presents points to a pattern of
suppression of clinical innovation in which the
American citizen - typically unaware
that systematic suppression is even going on - is
the ultimate loser.

Haley's efforts to bring to light the politics of
cancer are in the tradition of other
people, accomplished in fields outside of medicine,
who have been able to place a
clear focus on the failings of medical orthodoxy.
Unlike many other critics, however,
Haley suggests specific strategies for reform,
including recommending that the
government get entirely out of the field of
regulating nontoxic therapies.

The following interview is the second part of my
conversation with Daniel Haley,
recorded on November 11, 2001. The first part can be
read here.
http://naturalhealthline.com/newsletter/15nov01/haley.htm


Peter Chowka: Do you think the situation facing a
person with a serious illness
today, a person who is interested in accessing
primary alternative medical options,
is better or worse than a decade or two ago?

Daniel Haley: Worse! God knows it was bad enough
back then but it's getting
worse. Ten years ago, I was living in Houston and
all of a sudden it hit me, thinking
politically, which I do: There's a campaign going on
against alternative medicine.
You could see it. Somebody was being attacked in
California, somebody was being
attacked in Florida, and somebody was being attacked
in Georgia. It was a
campaign and you could see it. Maybe other people
don't think politically but I do
and I was right. And it's just getting worse and
worse.

In 1990, around the time I got acquainted with
Berkley Bedell, somebody told me
about a secret plan, "Project 2000," where the FDA,
and the AMA, and the
pharmaceutical companies were going to try to
eliminate alternative medicine by
the year 2000. Well, of course they didn't succeed
but it wasn't for a lack of trying.

After Hillary Clinton's national health care bill
was dead and buried - it was dead on
arrival in the Congress and never even voted on – in
November '93 or so there was
an article in the Townsend Letter that showed a
clause from that bill. You
remember, the structure she was proposing for her
plan was modeled after the
British system where a medical board would decide
what the government would
pay for and if they approved something, then the
government would pay. And if you
as a private citizen wanted something not approved
by the board, then you'd pay for
it. In Hillary's plan there would have been a
medical board and what it approved, the
government would pay for. But she added a little
twist: If you as a doctor and I as a
patient were to take or to use something not
approved by the medical board, then
you would be guilty of a felony and face
imprisonment and fines up to $10,000 and,
even more unbelievably audacious, I as the patient
also would be guilty of a felony
for taking such an unapproved treatment. That was
the most unbelievably
nonsensical thing I ever heard in my life.

Chowka: The Clinton plan would have criminalized the
practice of alternative and
innovative medicine in the United States. I read the
1,300-plus page proposal that
Hillary Clinton's health care reform task force came
up with and I wrote about it at
the time. One of the challenges was that many people
in alternative medicine and
on the left were brainwashed by the Clintons into
thinking that we need
state-sponsored medicine to cover the uninsured and
that the Clintons' plan
represented some kind of progress - not realizing
that handing that kind of power
over to the government is at best a Faustian
bargain.

Haley: Frankly, I was one of the people who wanted
to see national health
insurance. Teddy Roosevelt was for it, Harry Truman
was for it. The devil is in the
details. If you don't look at the details, you may
end up with something pretty bad. I
thought at the time [1993] about how many times I
had voted for legislation with
really no idea of what was in it.

So, they almost slipped through Project 2000 - in
1993!

Chowka: In your book, you
suggest that people should still
do things like try to influence the
government or their
representatives - you
recommend that people write to
their members of Congress
about these issues, right?

Haley: Sure.

Chowka: Why do you still have
confidence that the system can
be changed in that way? I look at
things like the Office of
Alternative Medicine (which is
now the National Center for
Complementary and Alternative
Medicine) and the White House
Commission for
Complementary and Alternative
Medicine Policy (WHCCAMP).
And I increasingly wonder if
they're truly doing good things or
are they in reality more like a
Trojan Horse. For example, the
WHCCAMP is drafting its final
report and there are indications
that it will advocate tougher
regulation or enforcement of alternative medicine,
with enhanced roles for agencies
like the Federal Trade Commission.

Haley: I went by chance to Dr. Jim Gordon's [WHCCAMP
Chairman] conference in
Washington a couple of weeks ago [Comprehensive
Cancer Care 2001], and
somebody asked me what I thought about it. What
amazed me is that the questions
they are talking about asking - these are things
we've known the answers to for
twenty years! Why are they still studying them? I
thought it was completely unreal.

Chowka: It seems to me that, whatever the
government's intentions at the outset,
turning to a bureaucracy for reform in areas like
alternative medicine has proven to
be largely problematic.

Haley: You are absolutely right, for one thing
because of all the money flying around
Washington. Huge campaign contributions from the
pharmaceutical companies.
And that distorts everything. When I first met
[former Iowa Rep.] Berkley Bedell, he
was talking about this "OAM" [Office of Alternative
Medicine] and I kind of agreed with
him that you had to try it. But this was after I had
already seen my beloved creation in
Albany, the New York State ERDA [Energy Research and
Development Authority],
completely torpedoed by the bureaucrats. So I kind
of knew what was going to
happen with the OAM and I wasn't a bit surprised
when it did. But I still think you
have to try. OK, it didn't work, but you tried.

So now, Berkley has set up his own privately funded
foundation [the National
Foundation for Alternative Medicine]
(http://www.nfam.org). He needs help in
getting funding for it because he can't do the whole
thing himself. It has the
capability of being the authoritative institution
that can pontificate with credibility and
authority that "this [particular therapy] works."
Partially this revolves around the
integrity of Berkley Bedell himself. Everybody
consents to that man's sincerity and
honesty. That could be extremely, extremely
important. As for the governmental
institutions, forget 'em. They're a waste of time.

Chowka: I agree with you that it's important to try.
Over the years I've worked with a
variety of things at the federal level, including
the US Congress, the Office of
Technology Assessment, the Office of Alternative
Medicine, and the White House
CAM Commission. When the calls came, I always
responded, with a spirit of taking
people at their word that they were sincerely
interested in truth and clarity. Inevitably,
I have been disappointed at how things have turned
out.

Haley: I pose the question, for example during radio
interviews, "At what point are
people going to be so upset that they're really
going to do something?" In other
words, "Is it pitchfork time?" When I say that,
people's eyes light up. At some point,
there has to be a very, very tough citizens'
movement to just get in and start
elbowing people aside and saying to the bureaucrats,
"Look, Americans are
dropping dead, get out of the way!"

You and I have been talking for awhile tonight and
during that time, every 3-4
minutes, somebody has died from the effects of
FDA-approved drugs used as
directed. That's in addition to the fact that every
minute since we've been talking, an
American has died of cancer. One a minute, 1,500 a
day, 500,000 a year. The daily
rate is equal to three fully-loaded 747s crashing
every day and everybody aboard
dying - every day, every week, every month, all year
long. A lot of people might say,
Well, there's hope, if we give them a couple billion
dollars a year more they'll find a
cure. Actually, the only research they need to do at
the NCI [National Cancer
Institute] is to go into their files and look for
the things that they've buried for the
entire 20th century. They're there; they know them.
They know exactly where they are.

At the same time, let's look at the things that are
completely avoidable, like the
FDA-approved drugs. Rezulin is the most recent
example. Every other year there's a
scandal like Rezulin. The number I'm using is
200,000 deaths a year. There's a
Harvard study that came up with that number. JAMA
estimated 106,000 deaths per
year in hospitals. CDC says it's 140,000 in
hospitals and at home. Harvard came
out a year or two later and said it's 200,000 deaths
a year from this cause. I figure
that, I'm a Harvard man so I'll go with the Harvard
numbers. (Laughs.) So 200,000 a
year is 40 percent of the 500,000 figure that's
granted for cancer deaths. 1,500
deaths per day from cancer multiplied by 40 percent
is 600 people a day as the
average number of deaths from approved drugs. Six
hundred multiplied by nine
days is 5,400 deaths. On September 11th we lost
5,000 people in a dreadful,
dreadful attack on our country, and we're doing what
we should be doing and going
after the terrorists - I hope we find them. But
every nine days the same number of
people die from the other attack on the country, by
drugs and therapies approved by
people the pharmaceutical industry has bought and
paid for in the FDA. That is an
attack on our country that goes on, not just one day
a year, but every day of the year -
every week, every month, all year long.

Over ten years, the death toll is two million
people. That's a holocaust. A holocaust
that's been handed to us by the FDA and the drug
companies.

If we can get people to wake up to that, then we
will muster our forces and demand
change. I just think that - and I didn't used to
think this way, I used to be a standard
East coast Establishment liberal - but then I saw
the extent that people are dying
and I realized that our current system won't work. I
think competition is the answer.
Competition in a free market. Get the government the
hell out of the way. Where are
you, Ronald Reagan, now that we need you? (Laughs.)
So come on back and get
the government off our backs in this field.

So that's the message I'm going to be preaching to
the extent I possibly can. The
free market.

Chowka: I wish you the best in your efforts. You
have a message that, in my opinion,
is very important for our time. And thank you for
your time.

Haley: You're welcome.




=====
Exposing the Cancer Indu$try
http://www.cancerinform.freewebsites.com

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Check out Yahoo! Shopping and Yahoo! Auctions for all of
your unique holiday gifts! Buy at http://shopping.yahoo.com
or bid at http://auctions.yahoo.com