W.H.O. says it's okay for drug companies to conduct medical experiments on Ebola patients

Tuesday, August 12, 2014
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
Tags: Ebola victims, medical experiments, ethics

---

(NaturalNews) A panel of World Health Organization "ethicists" has declared it is ethically acceptable for drug companies to run medical experiments on Ebola victims. "The WHO panel unanimously concluded that it is ethical to offer medications to fight the Ebola virus, even if their effectiveness or adverse effects are unknown," reports CNN. (1)

This is a fascinating decision because it immediately reveals the huge contradiction found in western medicine. According to proponents of vaccines and medications, such treatments are "evidence-based medicine" because they've all been clinically proven to be safe and effective, we're told. But now, when people are dying of Ebola, suddenly all that gets thrown out the window. Who needs proven safety and effectiveness when there's "faith" in an experimental serum or vaccine?

Faith alone, it seems, is now the standard for evidence-based medicine according to the World Health Organization.

Shouldn't we use these treatments if they can save lives?

As CNN reports, Dr. Marie-Paule Kieny, WHO's assistant director-general, asked "If these treatments can save lives ... should we not use them to save lives?"

And there's the faith, as glaring as a bald head on a sunny day at the beach. Dr. Kieny has already assumed the treatments "save lives" even when there is zero scientific evidence to support that conclusion. Will the scientific community now publicly condemn Dr. Kieny for making a "statement of faith with no scientific basis" in regards to experimental Ebola treatments? Or is this faith acceptable because it happens to align with the financial interests of the pharmaceutical sector and the unproven faith-based beliefs of its proponents?

Why are parents in the United States thrown in jail for praying for their sick children while the World Health Organization is invoking essentially the same thing -- faith -- as an ethical justification for using Ebola victims as human guinea pigs? It's a valid ethical question.

Saving lives is not exclusive to pharmaceutical medicine

Dr. Kieny's question, by the way, is very important to remember. She asks, "should we not use them to save lives?" It's a valid question, and if we are to be intellectually consistent with the world, the answer must encompass much more than just Big Pharma's experimental drugs and vaccines.

Because aren't there cancer patients dying from cancer while not being allowed to take experimental drugs? The western medical system strongly condemns alternative cancer clinics, too, stating their treatments aren't "scientifically proven." Why are Ebola victims now suddenly granted the ethical clearance to accept unproven, untested treatments when cancer patients, AIDS patients and a long list of other patients are denied the treatments of their choice?

If an Ebola victim can voluntarily decide to put their life at risk with an experimental, unproven drug, why shouldn't a cancer patient be allowed the same freedom of choice regarding treatment with wheat grass juicing or intravenous vitamin C treatments at a complementary medicine cancer clinic in the USA? Doctors who promote such treatments for cancer are repeatedly arrested and thrown in jail in the United States. How can those doctors be condemned for offering well-documented cancer recovery therapies in the USA while Big Pharma's doctors are celebrated in West Africa for treating patients with experimental chemicals that have unknown side effects which may include death?

Cancer kills far more people than Ebola: so why are alternative cancer therapies not "ethical?"

The World Health Organization says Ebola is a special case because they're "trying to save lives." Oh really? And alternative cancer doctors aren't?

The W.H.O. says "The large number of people affected by the 2014 west Africa outbreak, and the high case-fatality rate, have prompted calls to use investigational medical interventions to try to save the lives of patients and to curb the epidemic."

But the Ebola outbreak has only killed a little over 1,000 people, while cancer takes hundreds of thousands of lives annually in the USA alone. Furthermore, the W.H.O. language choice of "investigational medical interventions" is just doublespeak for "medical experiments."

All patients should be free to choose the treatments they wish

So if the new ethical standard for medicine is going to be that victims of fatal diseases should now have the ethical right to choose an unproven, untested treatment, then clearly that freedom of choice should extend far beyond western (pharmaceutical) medicine. Because an unproven experimental pharmaceutical serum has no more scientific basis for treatment than, say, a voodoo doll and a bag of magic wands.

I actually agree with the ethics of allowing victims of serious diseases to consciously consent to experimental treatments, by the way. But unlike people steeped in the pharma brainwashing of the western medical system, my philosophy is consistent across the board: If experimental western medicine is allowed, then experimental medicines of all kinds should also be allowed. After all, 80% of the world's population uses systems of medicine other than western medicine. Are all those people to be called "unethical" because their "investigatory medical interventions" happen to use herbs instead of patented pharmaceuticals?

Today I want to thank the World Health Organization for proving Natural News right yet again: Western medicine isn't "evidence-based medicine" after all. And the idea that all medicines should be proven safe and effective is now being openly abandoned by the largest health authority on the planet.

This sets a precedent that should be aggressively cited by proponents of alternative and complementary medicine to support the ethical justification of treatments offered by complementary and alternative medicine. After all, as Dr. Kieny says herself: "If these treatments can save lives ... should we not use them to save lives?"

Of course we should. ALL of them.

Sources for this article include:
(1) http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/12/health/ebola-o...