Friday 21 October 2011

Australia: Suppression of alternative medicine practitioners by the Corporate State

Fascism raises its head

This case, which goes back to March is an instance of democratic rights of people being suppressed by the Corporate state - this time in Australia.

These cases, which go under the radar usually, attracting little attention serve the purpose of scaring people from seeking alternatives to allopathic medicine which has the power of  powertful corporations, the corporate state and the media behind it; 

It is very similar to cases where the power of the state has been used against people who choose to build their own lifeboats or grow their own food.

When the corporations, state and media combine to suppress dissent we know what to call it - fascism.

Court finds allergy treatment claims misleading

“The Federal Court has found three companies and two individuals made false claims and misled consumers about their ability to test for and treat allergies....

"Recently the ACCC has taken action against a number of traders in the health and wellbeing industry," ACCC chairman Graeme Samuel said today.

"These proceedings reinforce the ACCC's commitment to stamp out unsubstantiated claims by traders which put the health of consumers at risk."

Each respondent claimed they could diagnose, treat and/or cure allergies using "Nambudripad's Allergy Elimination Technique" (NAET) or similar techniques. These techniques involve identifying allergens by testing the resistance of the customer's arm muscle to pressure applied while holding a vial of the suspected allergen. The purported treatment then involves the application of pressure or needles to points on the customer's body, while the customer is exposed to the potential allergen.

Its proponents believe this process clears energy blockages which have been caused by the allergen, thereby desensitising the customer to the allergen.
The court declared the companies and individuals engaged in false, misleading and deceptive conduct by representing one or more of the following:
that they could test for and identify an allergen or a substance to which a person is allergic, when they could not 
that they could cure or eliminate all or virtually all allergies, or allergic reactions, when they could not
that they could successfully treat a person's allergies or allergic reactions, when they could not
that after receiving treatment it would then be safe or low risk for a person to have contact with the substance or allergen to which they had previously suffered adverse reaction, when none of their treatments could achieve this result. ”

No doubt they refused to take into account the testimony of the many hundreds or thousands of people who went to these practitioners for treatment, often as a final resort - and had their symptoms relieved.
For the full statement from the ACCC GO HERE

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.