decade’s-long dispute between a highly respected physician/scientist and the State of California ended with the elderly doctor, Bruce Halstead, on criminal probation and stripped of his license to practice medicine.

In light of this and other recent actions taken by state governmental authorities in cooperation with such U. S. institutions as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the FTC (Federal Trade Commission), the government appears to be engaged in a concerted war against a domain of the healing arts known as alternative medicine. This war, ostensibly for the protection of American citizens from unscrupulous “quacks,” has apparently moved into a new phase. The FDA’s pursuit of medical “public enemies” is no longer restricted primarily to non-MD practitioners not trained at established medical schools–those the general public largely considers the unorthodox fringe of the medical world. These federal agencies are now engaging the force of the government’s legal machinery in the prosecution of physicians practicing “conventional medicine”–those who have dared to recognize and even incorporate into their practices the efficacy of holistic natural remedies.

Dr. Halstead is a graduate of Loma Linda University, a medical school which, to those in the field of the human physiological sciences, ranks as one of the more prestigious schools of medicine and scientific research in the world.

The 77-year-old physician is currently on probation under the State of California, Los Angeles County, for his activities involving the prescribing of alternative medication, specifically for his cancer patients. Dr. Halstead has been suspended from any form of medical practice. “In fact,” he told The WINDS, “I can’t even talk to a patient about nutrition.”

When his home and clinic in San Bernardino County were raided by the Los Angeles District Attorney, “I challenged their legal jurisdiction,” Halstead informed The WINDS, “since I had never lived or worked in Los Angeles County, but that did not matter. I was a legal novice and had not yet learned that jurisdiction and venue were merely legal fantasies which have no meaning in actual fact for the alternative health physician.” (Nor, apparently, does the constitutional doctrine of habeas corpus).

Dr. Halstead was charged with twenty-eight counts of conspiracy, grand theft and violations of the Health and Safety Code, along with twenty felony and misdemeanor counts.

“The prosecutor wanted me to go to prison for eight years,” he told The WINDS, “but the court ultimately reduced the sentence to 32 months. I was offered, on at least ten different occasions, the ‘opportunity’ of plea bargaining for a crime which I did not commit,” Halstead explained. “My reply was ‘not until hell freezes over.’”

The assault upon alternative medicine “is not just against me,” he said. “They’re after everybody and everything” connected with the field.


Dr. Halstead, acclaimed as a genius even among his peers, has authored hundreds of books and research publications. Among them are benchmark works such as Poisonous and Venomous Marine Animals of the World which the U.S. Navy considers of such importance as to fund a project to put the entire three-volume tome on CD-ROM.

The WINDS obtained a copy of Dr. Halstead’s Curriculum Vitae, the academician’s equivalent of a resume´. The following qualifications belong to a man whom the government deems dangerous to his patients, incompetent to practice medicine and academically inadequate to determine what is harmful or beneficial to human physiology:

  • Eleven years teaching on the medical faculty of Loma Linda University.

  • Specializes in global preventive medicine, tropical diseases and biotoxicology.

  • Assistant Director on the School of Tropical and Preventive Medicine, Loma Linda University, Loma Linda, California.

  • Assisted in developing a global preventive military medical program at the U.S. Naval Medical School, Bethesda, Maryland.

  • Lectured on biotoxicology at the School of Aerospace Medicine, U.S. Air Force, San Antonio, Texas.

  • Conducted Arctic expeditions for the U.S. Army, Navy, Air Force and National Institutes of Health, studying poisonous and venomous marine animals, and potential drugs from the sea.

  • Contributor to Dorland’s Medical Dictionary and the Encyclopedia Britannica, 15th Ed.

  • Engaged in marine scientific research with the Jacques Cousteau Society, traveling extensively with the Cousteaus for eighteen years.


Dr. Halstead has also invested a lot of time in researching the effects of oriental herbal therapy on immune-deficiency illnesses.

Who would the government have its citizens turn to if the physician/scientist depicted above is unqualified to prescribe a course of therapy to his patients?-

to those who seem to be condemning much more patients to death than life with their appalling track record of accomplishment. One might wonder how any law enforcement agency, charged with the medical oversight and welfare of its citizens, could be so zealous as to prosecute someone like Dr. Halstead and classify him with the “snake oil” purveyors they occasionally encounter, given the aforementioned credentials that have been ascribed to him.

In Grand Terrace, California, Dr. Halstead established the World Life Research Institute in 1959. Years later, he was in trouble with the Food and Drug Administration because of his work with this group because he tried to apply his vast knowledge and experience to the treatment of cancer.


The FDA’s desire to consign Dr. Halstead to the medical “scrap heap” may have been influenced by something else he disclosed to The WINDS. Halstead states, “We have been watching the illegal regulatory activities of the FDA and the cancer establishment and are in constant contact with a network of organizations and attorneys dealing with their illegal health activities in this country which are steadily increasing our national health costs.”

Isn’t it intriguing how money continues entering the picture? In agreement, Halstead declares that “Cancer is the sacred cow of the medical industry.” There are more people who make money treating cancer than there are cancer patients who pass away.

Dr. Halstead exclaimed, “I was shocked to find upon my Rip Van Winkle return to clinical medicine that dangerous toxic drugs, all FDA approved, had proliferated to a frightening extent-over 1.54 billion prescriptions written in the U.S. per year. This was the culmination of a 25-year effort into medical/biological research.

Halstead says, “I discovered that several of these medicines cause cancer and weaken your immune system. Additionally, brand-new, amazing medical technologies were emerging, each with startling diagnostic capabilities and consumer pricing. However, when I evaluated this new medication and medical technology, I did not discover a corresponding improvement in the morbidity or mortality rates for chronic degenerative illnesses like cancer and cardiovascular disease. Although prices had gone up, the overall health index had not. In terms of health care, we had slipped to roughly the 23rd spot globally.

This information, provided by a distinguished doctor and scientist, begs the question of whether it might be a plausible explanation for why the New York doctors’ strike several years ago led to a decrease in the city’s overall death rate. Halstead writes, “At this moment, I have the overwhelming belief that American health care is headed toward disaster, both fiscally and psychologically. This nation has a harmful therapeutic mentality that says it is preferable to pass away in a conventional way than to live in an unconventional way.


Dr. Halstead relates the following incident he presented in his court trial in relation to his suggestion that the government would prefer to let someone die than to support the use of “unorthodox” treatment: “During my final oral argument I recounted the incident when defendant Alfred Dix and his wife had their home raided by the Los Angeles District Attorney. The herbal beverage had been consumed and sold by Mr. Dix. [Here, the doctor is referring to a particular combination of Japanese herbs (ADS) used to make a tea that, according to Halstead, has been shown in numerous clinical trials to be extremely effective in the treatment of cancer.

According to the diagnosis, Mrs. Dix had terminal abdomen cancer. She had undergone surgery, nine different kinds of chemotherapy, and more than 90 different radiation treatments, all of which had been unsuccessful. Her medical professionals estimated that she had 30 to 45 days to live. She was bedridden, had given up, and was getting ready to pass away. She and her husband had even gotten in touch with a mortician to plan a funeral. The herbal compound known as ADS was then introduced to Mr. Dix. Mrs. Dix started feeling better, resumed housework, shopping, travel, and entertaining after taking ADS for about ten days. One day in the Pasadena hotel lobby, I happened to run into Mr. and Mrs. Dix. She made it clear that she was in great shape as she walked while being mentally sharp, joyful, and laughing. Thanks to ADS, there are no pains or aches. The D.A. seized all of her ADS during the raid on the Dix residence. With tears streaming down his face, her husband begged the D.A. to release enough ADS for his wife to use. The D.A. wouldn’t give her any of the tea.

“I saw Mrs. Dix again the following day in court. She appeared dejected and anguished, pale, weak, and unable to walk. She passed away a few days later, a broken woman who had suffered because of the “land of the free and the home of the brave. What has become of our country’s founding principles of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?” Why has the prosecution refused to let Mrs. Dix keep a cup of safe adaptogenic tea that she bought for her own cancer? What happened to her rights under the law?

I was unable to come up with even one instance of a tyrannical nation where this scenario might have occurred.

One might speculate that Dr. Bruce Halstead’s case and allegations are somewhat of an outlier in terms of government meddling with Americans’ health.


#2 Case in Point Stanislaw Burzynski, MD, PhD, immigrated to the “land of the free and the home of the brave” in 1970 after fleeing the oppressive Communist regime in his native Poland. He quickly established himself as a researcher at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston.

According to radio commentator and columnist Paul Weyrich, “he authored and co-authored sixteen papers over the course of the following several years, mostly on cancer research. He joined the AMA and the American Association for Cancer Research as a member in good standing. During this time, he created a non-toxic, experimental therapy that produced a protein sequence made in a lab that reprogrammed and reversed the activity of cancer cells.

In his article titled “Time to Review the FDA,” Weyrich continued, “Dr. Burzynski has treated 2500 patients over the past 18 years. None of them got sick as a result of the treatment. What’s more, the majority of these patients are in complete remission, and every single patient demonstrated anti-tumor activity. That ought to be sufficient to place Dr. Burzynski alongside other illustrious medical innovators like Jonas Salk. However, Dr. Burzynski has unluckily experienced the oppressive state’s hand for the second time in his life. The good doctor has been fighting the Food and Drug Administration for the past twelve years, believing he came to America to escape communist repressions.

Dr. Burzynski is one of those researchers who has messed with the so-called “sacred cow” of cancer research and, sadly, appears to have found a cure for the condition.

Another reasonable concern is raised by the administration of this country’s perplexingly erratic use of “human rights.” The WINDS has been debating the destiny of two eminent doctors and researchers who are well-known both in the scientific and medical communities. Their “crimes” involved giving away treatments for ailments that, for the most part, are still a mystery to conventional medicine to fellow humans who also happened to be sufferers and for which there is a wealth of empirical and verifiable scientific proof of efficacy. Why did federal authorities view these men’s activities as criminal? Standard “government thinking” holds that this is largely due to the fact that the medical community does not or will not acknowledge the efficacy of the majority of natural therapies. They undercut the huge profits made by the big, multinational pharmaceutical companies by not being sufficiently profit-intensive. In the forest, urban areas, or even one’s own backyard, many highly potent pharmaceuticals can be found growing as “weeds” where there isn’t yet a rule against harvesting and utilizing them.

A website has been built in Burzynski’s honor by a group of supporters, and its contents appear to be a meticulously compiled timeline of the interactions between the doctor and the Food and Drug Administration. The chronology contains cited comments made by FDA officials that give a terrifying perspective on the assistance given by that influential organization to major pharmaceutical corporations and the federal government’s attitude of relegating the individual to a position of relative insignificance.

According to a comment from Richard Crout, a former director of the FDA Bureau of Drugs, any institution seeking permission from the Administration to conduct clinical trials should be subject to “tough regulations…Sometimes we feel it is proper to inhibit research.”

Dr. Crout is also quoted as saying, “I never have and never will approve a medicine to an individual, but only to a giant pharmaceutical business with infinite resources,” in response to those who contest that wealth and power are the industry’s driving forces.


On occasion, a spark of understanding for the tenth amendment to the constitution of this country might be seen amid the federal juggernaut. One such ray of hope can be found in a quote from FDA official William Nychis, who told Herbert Koch, MD, of the Harris County Medical Society that “a physician who manufactures and uses a drug within his own practice of medicine…is not subject to [FDA regulations] since the practice of medicine is properly regulated by state or local authorities.”

Evidently, Nychis’ statement did not enlighten the FDA. The FDA allegedly stated that if the federal judge does not comply with its demands, the “…government would then be obliged to pursue other less efficient remedies, such as actions for seizure and condemnation of the drugs or criminal prosecution of individuals” in response to a U.S. District Court Judge’s tacit approval of Dr. Burzynski’s use of his anti-cancer drug within Texas state boundaries.

This was done when FDA Commissioner David Kessler was harshly questioned by Congressman Joe Barton’s Investigations Subcommittee regarding the FDA’s abuse of grand juries and how he can justify four grand juries without an indictment. Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski, MD, PhD, was the subject of four grand jury investigations, during which one U.S. Assistant Attorney was disciplined for prosecutorial misconduct.

However, the government’s fifth attempt to have Burzynski indicted by a Grand Jury was successful because he “allowed his out-of-state patients to return home with a supply of antineoplastons [the medicine in question].” The accusations are predicated on “the interstate sale of a novel medicine.”

The FDA targets the throat

Former FDA Chief Counsel Peter Barton Hutt makes an astonishing assertion in a Reason Magazine article: “If you beat the FDA in court,” Hutt claims, “you have an angry FDA that is eager to slice your throat.” The FDA has an elephant mind when it loses a lawsuit. Simply said, it’s something you need to know about the FDA. It is quite impossible to get the agency to change its mind after it has made a decision collectively. In a genuine sense, these are vendettas; these are FDA crusades.

According to the Houston Chronicle, Dr. Burzynski was cleared on May 27 of the one remaining count after having previously faced 75 federal counts related to the interstate transportation of his experimental cancer therapy medicine.

The 14-year attempt by federal authorities to build a criminal case against the doctor of Polish descent came to an end with the verdict, which went without any convictions.

After almost three hours of jury deliberation, The Chronicle said, “Patients and their families who packed the courtroom in a show of support wept and shouted when the verdict was read.”

Burzynski was also overjoyed.

“The 14-year conflict has come to a conclusion. The battle against cancer is finally coming to an end, he declared.

He projected that the decision will expedite the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s approval of his class of investigational medications, known as antineoplastons.

Under an FDA program for investigational novel medications, Burzynski currently sees 300 patients from all across the US, the majority of whom have brain cancer and non-lymphoma. Hodgkin’s

One of the jury members, a Houston lawyer, is reported to have said, “I considered the government’s behavior disgusting.” “It was felt to be by many. Big Brother was the problem here. (ibid.)

A few instances submitted to The WINDS by the publisher of The Echo, a Washington State-based watchdog website that keeps track of such abuses, are among the expanding number of those who find the “government’s behavior objectionable.

A Washington state statute that forbids any medical regulatory body from suspending or revoking a doctor’s license because they practice and prescribe complementary or alternative medicine was co-drafted by Glen Warner, MD. Dr. Warner’s medical license was withdrawn by the state medical board for his engagement in alternative medicine shortly after the aforementioned statute took effect, serving as another another example of how the government disregards laws restricting its own power.

Kent, Washington, doctor Jonathan Wright Over $100,000 worth of vitamins were seized by federal investigators. He was searched for injectable B-12 use. After reviewing the case, the Justice Department decided to dismiss it.


Why are federal authorities intervening more frequently in situations where it is obvious that the safety and welfare of the public are not at risk and where conventional medicine has proven ineffective in treating the ailments at hand? One could ask a series of rhetorical questions with absurdly obvious solutions.

Does the way the government handles the aforementioned situations have anything to do with money? Does the fact that a disproportionate number of FDA officials accept executive positions with major pharmaceutical companies after retiring, as reported by congressional inquiries, contribute in any way to the environment that encourages such incredibly lucrative business endeavors as cancer research to continue indefinitely? Remember what Dr. Bruce Halstead said: “Cancer is the holy grail of medicine. There are more people who make money treating cancer than there are cancer patients who pass away.

If 500,000 people per year succumb to the disease, as national death statistics suggest, the “cancer economy” of this country is staggering in terms of both the number of people employed and the amount of capital spent on research and pharmaceuticals. Could there be an even more nefarious goal preventing the government from funding potentially game-changing, life-saving research?

The reason is obvious: “The upper class, who enjoyed by law the labor of the workers, was concerned in ensuring that the workers were well fed, healthy, and strong,” according to the text that best captures the attitude that has guided the New World Order since its birth. We are interested in doing the exact opposite—killing off and weakening the nations. Our strength lies in the worker’s ongoing physical and mental weakness. That makes him a slave to our will, and he lacks the will or the strength to fight against us in the authorities of his own society. For an excited patient [one who is under stress] loses all ability to make decisions and easily yields to suggestion, even the suggestion to kill oneself would seem to be preferable to rejecting the dubious legitimacy of those claiming to speak for him when he is being forced to obey mindless administrative regulations.

The aforementioned scenario of a government refusing to grant a person control over their own body, if described without the context, would most likely be taken for an anti-abortion or “pro-life” argument. After all, the phrase “pro-choice” only refers to the destruction of children while they are still inside their mother’s body. The notion that the abstraction might apply to someone trying to save their own life or the life of a loved one is incompatible with “the land of the free and the home of the bravecollective “‘s consciousness.


1 Comment



Leave a Reply