Government Lobbies are Running and Ruining Medicine

by | Nov 5, 2012


A green chalkboard with the message 'I LOVE YOU' written in white chalk.Does AARP really speak for the elderly? Or the AMA for doctors?
In Washington, AARP (the American Association of Retired Persons) and the AMA (American Medical Association) claim to represent the interests of retirees and doctors. But do these groups actually represent anything other than their own special interests and their own pockets?

Consider AARP. It gets only about 20% of its revenue from its members. Over 50% comes from its medical insurance business where it has the largest share of “Medigap†policies, the policies that fill in the holes in traditional Medicare. When the administration sought AARP’s support for the Affordable Care Act, it promised to exempt Medigap policies from the requirement that insurers could not turn away people with preexisting conditions. Not only that, it also promised to exempt Medigap policies from rate review. (Ordinarily, health insurance companies must tell consumers when they want to increase insurance rates for individual or small group policies by an average of 10% or more.) In the end, Medigap was exempted from most of the law.
If that weren’t enough, the Affordable Care Act targets Medicare Advantage plans run by other private insurers. If these do not survive, and we expect they won’t, seniors currently in these plans will fall back into traditional Medicare and need—you guessed it—Medigap coverage, the field that AARP dominates.
Given these deals, South Carolina senator Jim DeMint may not be exaggerating when he calls the relationship between AARP and the White House “a protection racket.†He also alleges that AARP has engaged in a secret lobbying campaign to prevent Medigap reforms which would have saved 80% of of seniors enrolled an average of $415 a year.
What about the AMA, then? Is it doing what it says it is doing in Washington—protecting the best interests of doctors? Perhaps not, if the dwindling number of doctors who are currently members is any indication.
The word in Washington is that the administration assured AMA support for its legislation by 1) promising not to implement doctor reimbursement cuts in Medicare that had previously been written into law, and 2) threatening to pull the medical coding contracts with the US Department of Health and Human Services that constitute the largest share of the AMA’s income, estimated by one source to be $50–80 million.
Have you noticed your doctor filling out a yellow code sheet indicating what services he or she has provided? That is a coding system run by the AMA and paid for by the government—and it is a monopoly. Have others tried to offer a competitive coding system? Yes, and a much better coding system at that. It is called the ABC system, which we reported on two years ago, but Health and Human Services has essentially blocked it from becoming competition for the AMA. No wonder Dr. Richard A. Armstrong says, “The AMA is a corporation in the business of selling and protecting its [coding system] income stream, not its doctor members.†(Read more about the ABC coding system in this article.)
There are a lot of things wrong with American medicine today, especially its disregard for real prevention in the form of diet, supplements, and exercise in favor of toxic drugs and surgery. But much of the problem, in the final analysis, goes back to a crony capitalist system dominated by special interests and their allies in government.
With the election over, it’s a good time to remember that crony capitalism permeates both parties, and we have a lot of work to do to keep medicine a “helping†profession with high ethics, not a place for special interests to get rich.

Ivermectin + Mebendazole taken together produce remarkably Positive Clinical Cancer Benefits in 84.4% of Patients.

The largest real-world human analysis to date evaluating ivermectin and mebendazole in cancer patients has just been published—and the results represent one of the most compelling clinical signals ever documented for repurposed anti-parasitic therapies in oncology.

This groundbreaking analysis was made possible through a unique collaboration between The Wellness Company, the McCullough Foundation, and the Chairman of the President’s Cancer Panel (Dr. Harvey Risch)—uniting real-world clinical data, frontline medical experience, and high-level epidemiologic expertise to deliver urgently needed insights in oncology.

This was a real-world prospective clinical program evaluation of 197 cancer patients, with 122 completing a follow-up survey at about six months (61.9% response rate).

Cancer patients were prescribed compounded ivermectin–mebendazole, with each capsule containing 25 mg ivermectin and 250 mg mebendazole—most commonly taken at 1–2 capsules per day.

The cohort represented a clinically relevant population, including a wide variety cancer types, with 37.1% of patients reporting actively progressing disease at baseline and many having already undergone chemotherapy, radiation, and surgery.

At six months, 84.4% of cancer patients reported clinical benefit (Clinical Benefit Ratio: 84.4% [95% CI: 77.0–89.8%]):

✅ 32.8% reported NO evidence of cancer (95% CI: 25.1–41.5%)
✅ 15.6% reported tumor regression (95% CI: 10.2–23.0%)
✅ 36.1% reported stable disease (95% CI: 28.1–44.9%)

Treatment adherence was high, with 86.9% completing the full protocol and 66.4% remaining on therapy at six months.

The regimen was well tolerated, with 25.4% reporting side effects, primarily mild and gastrointestinal, and over 93% continuing treatment despite these events.

Patients were treated in real-world conditions alongside concurrent therapies, including chemotherapy (27.9%), radiation (21.3%), surgery (19.7%), supplements (49.2%), and dietary modification (37.7%), supporting use as an adjunctive approach.

Together, these findings represent a large, internally consistent real-world clinical signal that supports URGENT further investigation of ivermectin and mebendazole as low-toxicity, adjunctive cancer therapies.

Given the strength of the signal observed here, advancing this line of investigation is no longer optional—it is necessary.

This is NOT the end. We will continue advancing this work with larger datasets to further define and validate the role of anti-parasitics in cancer outcomes.

The manuscript is now available as a preprint on the Zenodo research repository, operated by the European Organization for Nuclear Research, while undergoing peer review at leading oncology journals: “Real-World Clinical Outcomes of Ivermectin and Mebendazole in Cancer Patients: Results from a Prospective Observational Cohort.”

Bar chart showing distribution of common cancer types with breast cancer most prevalent.
Infographic on disease status and median duration since diagnosis.

Receive Our Newsletter

1 + 7 =

jQuery( document ).ready(function( $ ) { // $( "div" ).hide(); });