The FDA's Fake Blood Monopoly or the Freedom Infusion of Ron Paul

Click Here. Headline: Study says FDA allowed risky tests of blood substitutes "Experimental blood substitutes raised the risk of heart attack and death, yet U.S. regulators allowed human testing to continue despite warning signs..." Why must blood substitutes be risky?

They are because they are the synthetic creations of arrogant men who believe that they are superior to the Creator. Oh, I know that they will not come right out and say it, but what else would you call synthetic blood and the "Dr. Frankenstein's" who synthesize it, if not an abomination?

"A safe replacement for blood would be a breakthrough for medicine and a big money-maker for companies that produce it."

The breakthrough is not for you and me, but for the pharmaceutical patent-holder. I would not begrudge someone a patent, except when that patent will be used in a government-mandated monopoly show of force. Just try to offer a safe alternative to Red Cross blood. Besides another abomination, I would call synthetic blood unnecessary, considering that nature provides many substances that can act as a temporary bridge until those in desperate need can restore their sanguineous supply to normal again. Naturally.

"In 2006, after a lawsuit by Public Citizen protesting a closed-door hearing, the FDA halted a test by the Navy, which planned to use a blood substitute on civilian trauma victims."

It's bad enough that our government is in bed with synthetic manufacturers -- but its willingness to experiment upon an uninformed populace is unconscionable. It brings to mind a question I often ponder: Why do Democrats trust government so much? You can be sure that the Navy would target Democratic voters for experimental I.V. administration at least as quickly as it would Republicans. Government has no guilt or remorse, only force.

What about Elizabeth Dole's favorite organization? Is the Red Cross running out of your blood? Or are people finally unwilling to donate for cookies and cream that which is then sold to patients (including the donors themselves) for big profits? Of course, synthetic blood, after patenting and receiving FDA approval, would be a virtual platinum mine. Imagine if you invented "Fake Blood" and it was granted monopoly status by the federal government. How much money could you make for you and your shareholders?

"Researchers found a 30 percent higher risk of death overall for patients who received transfusions using the blood substitutes..."

I suppose that the FDA could always argue that the upside is that "at least the risk did not go up by 100%". I am humble enough to admit that man can never duplicate the majesty and complexity, much less the simultaneous simplicity of biological reality. Our folly is that we attempt to better nature through mental constructs lacking the inspiration that the mind cannot fully comprehend. How are we doing on that pretend blood thing?

"The risk of heart attack was nearly tripled in the groups receiving blood substitutes."

Sounds promising. In addition to being an unnecessary abomination, the granting of monopoly status is UN-constitutional (even if it were for natural blood substitutes). But that never seems to stop the Medical Industrial Complex and its desire to take over what's left of the free world. Maybe the FDA could turn this over to Pinky and the Brain. Do you really think that a monopoly on blood would lead to innovation? Quite the opposite, it stifles innovation.

On the other hand, what would freedom and free markets bring us? For one, knowledge of the fact that an isotonic solution of unpolluted seawater is a safe and effective substitute for blood transfusions. Does anyone even remember the work of Quinton? How about the fact that during WWII, soldiers lives in the South Pacific were saved by infusions of pure coconut water? Does anybody consider the fact that chlorophyll may convert to hemoglobin in the human body? Have you tried a food grown supplement for building the blood lately?

Granted, awareness of these natural methods for saving lives would eat into the profits of The Red Cross and perhaps even challenge its reason for being. Although they could adapt to embrace these natural solutions for the genuine benefit of everyone. What is their mission statement?

"The American Red Cross, a humanitarian organization led by volunteers and guided by its Congressional Charter and the Fundamental Principles of the International Red Cross Movement, will provide relief to victims of disasters and help people prevent, prepare for, and respond to emergencies."

Is there anything in the above declaration that says "...except in cases where doing so would diminish the profits from the blood trade monopoly"? So why is there not a massive investigation into safe, natural options being used worldwide that would eliminate the need for banking potentially contaminated blood, much less the elevated risk of death that accompanies the synthetic variety?

Once again, we come back to the question of LIBERTY. Do you believe that you have a right to know and act upon information even if it goes against the desires of the FDA and the industry which it protects (to your death)? In America, a doctor can lose his license and be imprisoned simply for utilizing what Creation has given us for healing, especially if it involves eliminating the need for blood transfusions. We don't need no stinking blood transfusion -- we need a freedom infusion.

Far be it from me to remind you that that which we really need will not come from electing establishment candidates like Barack, Hillary or John-boy. Those three should come with a special collective disclaimer:

"Voting for these candidates will in no way restore constitutionally limited government to this nation. Enter voting booth at your own risk, because FEMA is not going to save you."

Where is the Truth in Labeling Law when you need it? The lifeblood of this nation depends upon its people knowing where sustenance lies. It's a lie that government can sustain you. What gets in the way if you are dangerously low on blood and do not want foreign blood or pharmaceutical blood pumped into you?

I wonder if Hillary, Barack or John-boy know the answer to that question? They're not going to like it. The answer is government. Score another point for the one candidate who respects the right of medical freedom, even if the FDA never will.

In blood, the universal donor is "O." In freedom, the universal donor is Ron Paul. Care for an all natural infusion of individual liberty?

Good Insurance is a Dangerous Thing or Why I Learned to Stop Worrying and Embrace Freedom

US Loses Too Many Lives over Lack of Health Insurance "...estimates that between 18,000 and 22,000 adults aged 25-64 die each year in the U.S. because they lack insurance." I would argue that good medical insurance is a dangerous thing because it insures that you will be sent for invasive and often unnecessary medical interventions, some of which may leave you worse than the problem with which you started.

The Families USA report, named “Dying for Coverage,” says people without health insurance are more likely to delay seeking care because of the high bills, which means disease such as cancer are diagnosed at a later, more deadly stage.

Yes, but that belies the fact that people with no medical intervention often live the same length of time or longer than those receiving the big three from oncology. Additionally, the quality of life in those receiving no treatment scores much higher than those brutalized by BIG PHARMA.

Allopathic medicine sells its services through fear. The insurance industry sells its products through fear. These are not necessarily noble professions beyond reproach. Fear itself is a primary cause of disease which feeds the very industry that profits off of the very problems it creates for trusting patients.

Yes, cancer can be scary, but there is something even more frightening. Allopathic cancer TREATMENT.

I am all for your freedom to choose which medical (or non-medical) route you wish to go should you be duly diagnosed, but why must a monopoly exist, when medical freedom is much superior? Do we like being slaves to government sanctioned treatment protocols?

I would posit that one of the greatest mistakes made by the Western world's population has been to turn over the care of their bodies to elitists in league with the one entity that can destroy life, liberty and property "legally." That would be government, just in case you were not paying attention. By the way, rapt biological attention is much less expensive than paying with your life. On average 784,000 Americans do pay with their lives every year because of their misplaced trust in Big Government and Big PHARMA.

Government and allopathic medicine do not mix unless you desire pharmaceutical slavery as a way of life. Don't cry to Hillary. Her ears are plugged with the cotton pulled from prescription pill bottles along with Obama's. Do I pick on the Democratic presidential candidates unfairly? Ask them why they are key sponsors of S.1375 - The MOTHERS ACT (S. 1375: Mom’s Opportunity to Access Health, Education, Research, and Support for Postpartum Depression Act), a bill that would corral all moms-to-be in an SSRI round-up rodeo.

If anything, I am being too kind.

Where is John McCain? He's been absent on the issue. I suspect he is already on many of the meds that would be forced on post-partum moms if the horrific S.1375 should ever become law.

First they came for your daughters with dangerous HPV shots. Then they came for moms-to-be and new moms with Prozac and Paxil and there were apparently no men left to defend them, for they were stationed all over planet earth chasing McCain's demons.

If we wait 100 years, will there be anybody left? We are not losing lives due to a lack of health insurance. Lives are lost when we look at every disease as a deficiency of FDA approved pharmaceutical drugs -- or a lack of insurance to be able to afford them. What we've really lost is our minds.

Maybe that's why Ms. Rodham-Clinton wants "free" Zoloft zones funded with your tax dollars. Let's start with her donors first, shall we?