“In the 1950’s, Congressman Charles Tobey enlisted Benedict Fitzgerald, an investigator for the Interstate Commerce Commission, to investigate allegations of conspiracy* and monopolistic practices on the part of orthodox medicine. This came about as the result of the son of Senator Tobey who developed cancer and was given less than two years to live by orthodox medicine. However, Tobey Jr., discovered options in the alternative field, received alternative treatment and fully recovered from his cancerous condition! That is when he learned of alleged conspiratorial practices on the part of orthodox medicine. He passed the word to his father, Senator Charles Tobey, who initiated an investigation. The final report clearly indicated there was indeed a conspiracy to monopolize the medical and drug industry and to eliminate alternative options.
The “Fitzgerald Report” was submitted into the Congressional Record Appendix August 3, 1953.
*We are conditioned to think that conspiracies are only conjectures and the domain of the lunatic fringe – when a conspiracy is nothing but another name for cartels, monopolies, cabals, combines etc.. This is simply another bait and switch tactic to confuse us from seeing the truth. CG
One issue modern, orthodox medicine still fails to accept or take seriously, is “cause” and “maintenance”. That is to deal not just with surgery of sick tissue; but to deal with the cause of the problem, to try to prevent it in the first place; and, further, to try to prevent it from recurring!”
Extracted from: **”Royal R. Rife” by Gerald F. Foye ISBN 0-9659613-3-8
THE UNDERSIGNED, as Special Counsel to the Senate Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee, was directed to supervise a study of the following:
1. All those individuals, organizations, foundations, hospitals and clinics, throughout the United States, which have an effect upon interstate commerce and which have been conducting researches, investigations, experiments and demonstrations relating to the cause, prevention, and methods of diagnosis and treatment of the disease cancer, to determine the interstate ramifications of their operations, their financial structures, including their fund-raising methods, and the amounts expended for clinical research as distinguished from administrative expenditures, and to ascertain the extent of the therapeutic value claimed by each in the use of its particular therapy.
2. The facts involving the discovery of, the imports from a foreign country of, the researches upon, and the interstate experiments, demonstrations, and use of the various drugs, preparations, and remedies for the treatment of the disease cancer, such drugs to include the so-called wonder drug Krebiozen, Glyoxylide, Mucorhicin and others.
3. The facts involving the interstate conspiracy, if any, engaged in by any individuals, organizations, corporations, associations, and combines of any kind whatsoever, to hinder, suppress, or restrict the free flow or transmission of Krebiozen, Glyoxylide, and Mucorhicin, and other drugs, preparations and remedies, and information, researches, investigations, experiments and demonstrations relating to the cause, prevention and methods of diagnosis and treatment of the disease cancer.
4. The facts involving the operations of voluntary cooperative prepaid medical plans and the organizations sponsoring said plans which are engaged in interstate commerce and which include in their programs medical treatment for the disease cancer, to determine the extent of their interstate insurance operations, the identity of their originators and sponsors, and the resistance, if any, that each insurer has experienced from any individuals, organizations, corporations, associations, or combines, in their attempts to offer protection to those who are afflicted with the disease cancer.
5. The facts involving the inequality of opportunity, if any, that exists with regard to race, creed or color, in connection with the admission of students, researchers, and patients to institutions throughout the United States engaged in cancer therapy
Pursuant to the above, the undersigned commenced a collection and study of material covering the operations of foundations, hospitals, clinics, and government sponsored organizations specializing in cancer problems, including the following:
American Cancer Society
American Medical Association
Anne Fuller Fund, New Haven, Connecticut
Babe Ruth Foundation
Black, Stevenson Cancer Foundation, Hattiesburg, Mississippi
Bondy Fund, New York
Jonathan Bowman Fund, Madison, Wisconsin
Crocker Cancer Research Fund, New York
Damon Runyon Cancer Fund
Phllip L. Drosnes and the Drosnes-Lazenbey Clinic, Pittsburgh, Pa.
Dr. F. M. Eugene, Blass Clinic, Long Valley, New Jersey
The Department of Health, Education and Welfare
a. Food and Drug Administration
b. Federal Trade Commission
Dr. Gregory Clinic, Pasadena, California
Hoxsey Cancer Clinic, 4507 Gaston Avenue, Dallas, Texas
C. P. Huntington Fund, New York
International Cancer Research Foundation, Philadelphia, Pa.
John Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, Md.
Dr. Waldo Jones, Myrtle Beach, South Carolina
Dr. William F. Koch and Rev. Sam Swain Clinic, also known as the Christian Medical Research League, Detroit, Michigan and Brazil, South America
Lakeland Foundation, Chicago, Illinois
Lincoln Foundation, Medford, Mass.
Memorial Hospital, New York
Dr. K. F. Murphy and Dr. Charles Lyman Lofler Clinic, 25 E. Washington Street, Chicago, Illinois
New York Skin and Cancer Hospital, New York
Radium Institute of New York
Henry Rutherford Fund, New York
Charles F. Spang Foundation, Pittsburgh, Pa.
University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois
University of Illinois, Champaign, Illinois
Thereafter, the undersigned travelled to Illinois to investigate the so-called Krebiozen controversy, and on July 2, 1953, wrote a report on his findings which is attached hereto and marked “Exhibit A.” Included in this report was the evaluation:
“The controversy is involved and requires further research and development. There is reason to believe that the AMA has been hasty, capricious, arbitrary, and outright dishonest, and of course if the doctrine of ‘respondeat superior’ is to be observed, the alleged machinations of Dr. J. J. Moore (for the past ten years the treasurer of the AMA) could involve the AMA and others in an interstate conspiracy of alarming proportions.
“The principal witnesses who tell of Dr. Moore’s rascality are Alberto Barreira, Argentine cabinet member, and his secretary, Anna D. Schmidt.”
Thereafter, the undersigned visited other areas, interrogating medical men, and on July 14, 1953, wrote a further report. Included in this was the evaluation:
“Being vitally interested and having tried to listen and observe closely, it is my profound conviction that this substance Krebiozen is one of the most promising materials yet isolated for the management of cancer. It is biologically active. I have gone over the records of 530 cases, most of them conducted at a distance from Chicago, by unbiased cancer experts and clinics. In reaching my conclusions I have of course discounted my own lay observations and relied mostly on the opinions of qualified cancer research workers and ordinary experienced physicians.
“I have concluded that in the value of present cancer research, this substance and the theory behind it deserves the most full and complete and scientific study. Its value in the management of the cancer patient has been demonstrated in a sufficient number and percentage of cases to demand further work.
“Behind and over all this is the weirdest conglomeration of corrupt motives, intrigue, selfishness, jealousy, obstruction and conspiracy that I have ever seen.
“Dr. Andrew C. Ivy, who has been conducting research upon this drug, is absolutely honest intellectually, scientifically, and in every other way. Moreover, he appears to be one of the most competent and unbiased cancer experts that I have ever come in contact with, having served on the board of the American Cancer Society and the American Medical Association and in that capacity having been called upon to evaluate various types of cancer therapy. Dr. George G. Stoddard, President of the University of Illinois, in assisting in the cessation of Dr. Ivy’s research on cancer at the University of Illinois, and in recommending the abolishment of the latter’s post as Vice President of that institution, has in my opinion shown attributes of intolerance for scientific research in general.”
It is a matter of common knowledge that the entire subject matter is highly controversial and thus further and additional research and development would entail more time. A controversy among renowned Surgeons, Pathologists, Cancerologists and Radiologists should not deter or silence this Committee from carrying out the mandate contemplated and expressly directed by the late Chairman of your Committee, Senator Charles W. Tobey, by virtue of the resolution passed by the Senate.
Now, passing on to another institution, I have very carefully studied the court records of three cases tried in the Federal and State Courts of Dallas, Texas. A running fight has been going on between officials, especially Dr. Morris Fishbein of the American Medical Association through the Journal of that organization, and the Hoxsey Cancer Clinic. Dr. Fishbein contended that the medicines employed by the Hoxsey Cancer Clinic had no therapeutic value; that it was run by a quack and a charlatan. (This clinic is manned by a staff of over 30 employees, including nurses and physicians). Reprints and circulation of several million copies of articles so prepared resulted in litigation. The Government thereafter intervened and sought an injunction to prevent the transmission in interstate commerce of certain medicines. It is interesting to note that in the Trial Court, before Judge Atwell, who had an opportunity to hear the witnesses in two different trials, it was held that the so-called Hoxsey. method of treating cancer was in some respects superior to that of x-ray, radium and surgery and did have therapeutic value. The Circuit Court of Appeals of the 5th Circuit decided otherwise. This decision was handed down during the trial of a libel suit in the District Court of Dallas, Texas, by Hoxsey against Morris Fishbein, who admitted that he had never practiced medicine one day in his life and had never had a private patient, which resulted in a verdict for Hoxsey and against Morris Fishbein. The defense admitted that Hoxsey could cure external cancer but contended that his medicines for internal cancer had no therapeutic value. The jury, after listening to leading Pathologists, Radiologists, Physicians, Surgeons and scores of witnesses, a great number of whom had never been treated by any Physician or Surgeon except the treatment received at the Hoxsey Cancer Clinic, concluded that Dr. Fishbein was wrong; that his published statements were false, and that the Hoxsey method of treating cancer did have therapeutic value.
In this litigation the Government of the United States, as well as Dr. Fishbein, brought to the Court the leading medical scientists, including Pathologists and others skilled in the treatment of cancer. They came from all parts of the country. It is significant to note that a great number of these doctors admitted that x-ray therapy could cause cancer. This view is supported by medical publications, including the magazine entitled “CANCER” published by the American Cancer Society. May issue of 1948.
I am herewith including the names and addresses of some of the witnesses who testified in the State and Federal Court. It has been determined by pathology, in a great many instances by laboratories wholly disconnected from the Hoxsey Cancer Clinic, that they were suffering from different types of cancer, both internal and external, and following treatment they testified they were cured.
Name Address Type
J. A. Johnson Ranger, Tex. Squamous Cell No. 2
Mrs. R. J. Hickman 1225 E. Allen St. Ft. Worth, Tex Melanocarcinoma
Robt. Thane Avoca, Tex. Myxoliposarcoma
Mrs. H. H. Johnson Denton, Texas. Adenocarcinoma
Mrs. Elmer Smith Wellington, Tex. Malignant melanoma
Mildred Rager 2101 Stovall St., Dallas Texas Melanoma
A. G. Burgess 2416 Wyman St., Dallas Texas Basal Cell Carcinoma
Ira Poston 5322 Victor St., Dallas Texas Basal Cell Carcinoma
W. E. Harmon Grapevine, Tex. Prickle Cell Carcinoma
Mrs. J. A. Robb Weatherford, Tex Basal Cell Carcinoma
Mrs. Lessie Hester Lubbock, Tex Adenocarcinoma of Uterus
Mrs. Lora Barnett Peniel, Texas Adenocarcinoma of Uterus
Mrs. E. E. Hockett Farmersville, Texas, RFD Prickle Cell Carcinoma
T. E. Truman Waco, Texas Epidermoid Carcinoma
Fritz Trojan Waco, Texas Squamous Cell type
Mr. C. W. Malone Brownwood, Tex. Basal Cell type
Val Seurer Hinton, Okla. Malignant Carcinoma
Jo Parelll Sportotorium, Dallas, Texas Malignant Carcinoma
Mrs. R. M. Hoffman c-o J. B. Baird Co.. Shreveport, La. Spindle Cell Carcinoma
Tom Coates Merkel, Texas Basal Cell Carcinoma
J. L. Renfro Merkel, Texas Malignant Carcinoma
Mrs. J. D. Douglas Ft. Worth. Tex. Duct-cell Carcinoma
Mrs. R. S. Turner Carcinoma Grade 3 Squamous Cell
Mrs. C. E. Mallory Squamous Cell Carcinoma
Mrs.Herman Thomas 5222 Merrimac St., Dallas, Texas Melanocarcinoma
Clifton H. Smith 5637 Hiram St., Ft. Worth, Tex Malignant Carcinoma
Rev.Horace W. Irwin West Warwick, Rhode Island Malignant Carcinoma
I have had access to literature by leading scientists in the field of medicine. The attention of the Committee is invited to the hearings held during the 79th Congress, in July 1946; Senate Bill 1875 being under consideration, wherewith it appears, as follows:
“Dr. George Miley was born in Chicago, 1907, graduated from Chicago Latin School, 1923, graduated with B.A. from Yale University in 1927, from Northwestern Medical School, 1932, interned at Chicago Memorial Hospital in 1932 and 1933, University of Vienna Postgraduate Medical School, 1933, 1934, following which he visited the hospitals in India, China and Japan. He is a fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. He holds a national board certificate and since 1945 he has been medical director of the Gotham Hospital, New York.
“Report of Dr. Miley of a survey made by Dr. Stanley Reimann (in charge of Tumor Research and Pathology, Gotham Hospital) before Senator Pepper’s Committee on Senate Bill 1875, a bill to authorize expenditure of one hundred million dollars in cancer research.
“Dr. Reimann’s report on cancer cases in Pennsylvania over a long period of time showed that those who received no treatment lived a longer period than those that received surgery, radium or x-ray. The exceptions were those patients who had received electro-surgery. The survey also showed that following the use of radium and x-ray much more harm than good was done to the average cancer patient.“
“Dr. William Seaman Bainbridge, A.M., Sc.D., M.D., CM., F.I.C.S. (Hon.) was the recipient of six honorary degrees from various institutions, the most recent being the degree of Doctor Honoris Cause from the University of San Marcos, Peru. He has been surgeon at the New York Skin and Cancer Hospital, Surgical Director of New York City Children’s Hospital and of Manhattan State Hospital, Ward’s Island, and consulting surgeon and gynecologist to various hospitals in the New York metropolitan and suburban areas.
“While there are some who still believe in the efficacy of radiation as a cure, my skepticism with regard to its value is being increasingly substantiated. But even with the best technic of today, its curative effect in real cancer is questionable. In 1939 the great British physiologist, Sir Leonard Hill, wrote: ‘Large doses (of gamma and hard x-ray) produced destruction of normal tissues such as marrow and lymphoid tissue, leukocytes and epithelial linings, and death ensues … The nation would, I think, be little the worse off if all the radium in the country now buried for security from bombing in deep holes, remains therein.’
“A neoplasm should never be incised for diagnostic purposes, for one cannot tell at what split moment the cancer cells may be disseminated and the patient doomed. Aspirating the neoplasm to draw out the cells by suction. This, too, is a very questionable procedure, for what of the cancer cells that may be present below the puncture point and around the needle which have been set free? It must be realized that while cancer cannot be transplanted from man to man, it can be transplanted in the same host.*” (See index)
* Although now we know that can in fact be transplanted from man to man. See:
“There is a report from another source in which Doctor Feinblatt, for six years Pathologist of the Memorial Hospital, New York, reported that the Memorial Hospital had originally given x-ray and radium treatment before and after radical operations for breast malignancy. These patients did not long survive, so x-ray and radium were given after surgery only. These patients lived a brief time only and after omitting all radiation, patients lived the longest of all.” (See index)
Doctors Warned To Be Wary In Use Of X-Rays In Disease Treatment, by Howard W. Blakeslee, Associated Press Science Editor.
“New York, July 6, 1948 X-rays and gamma rays can cause bone cancer is warning issued in ‘Cancer,’ a new medical journal started by the American Cancer Society. The bone cancer warning, covering more than twenty pages, is by Doctors William G Cahan. Helen Q. Woodward, Norman L. Higgin-botham. Fred W. Steward and Bradlev I. Coley, all of New York City.
“One of the most dangerous things about this kind of bone cancer, the report states, is the very long delay between the use of the rays and the appearance of the cancers. The delay time in the eleven cases ranged from six to twenty-two years.”
“Doctor Herman Joseph Muller, Nobel Prize Winner, a world renowned scientist, has stated the Medical Profession is permanently damaging the American life stream through the unwise use of x-rays. There is no dosage of x-ray so low as to be without risk of producing harmful mutations.” (See index)
The attention of the Committee is invited to the request made by Senator Elmer Thomas following an investigation made by the Senator of the Hoxsey Cancer Clinic under date of February 25th, 1947, and addressed to the Surgeon General, Public Health Department, Washington, D.C., wherein he sought to enlist the support of the Federal Government to make an investigation and report. No such investigation was made. In fact, every effort was made to avoid and evade the investigation by the Surgeon General’s office. The record will reveal that this clinic did furnish 62 complete case histories, including pathology, names of hospitals, physicians, etc., in 1945. Again in June, 1950, 77 case histories, which included the names of the patients, pathological reports in many instances, and in the absence thereof, the names of the Pathologists, hospitals and physicians who had treated these patients before being treated at the Hoxsey Cancer Clinic. The Council of National Cancer Institute, without investigation, in October 1950, refused to order an investigation. The record in the Federal Court discloses that this agency of the Federal Government took sides and sought in every way to hinder, suppress and restrict this institution in their treatment of cancer. (See testimony Dr. Gilcin Meadors, Pages 1125-1139 Transcript of Records, Case No. 13645, U.S.C.A.)
Among the numerous foundations and clinics which profess to possess a remedy for the treatment of cancer is the Lincoln Foundation of Medford, Massachusetts, which has been the particular target of the AMA. I have not had an opportunity to sufficiently explore the particular type of therapy employed by this institution. However, I understand it involves a unique theory of inhalant therapy and the transmission of bacteria-phage. In passing it is important to note that this technique was the subject of particular interest to the late Chairman who was a trustee of the Lincoln Foundation following a successful treatment of his son Charles W. Tobey, Jr. This remedy has been tried by hundreds of patients and it is alleged that these treatments have been proven beneficial.
Another institution which claims to have made some progress in the treatment of cancer is the Drosnes-Lazenbey Cancer Clinic of Pittsburgh, Pa. The reports would indicate that this institution is likewise entitled to a hearing before this Committee. The heavy toll of life being taken by cancer requires a searching investigation. The methods employed, as I understand it, is a substance known as Mucorhicin, which is reported to be of therapeutic value.
Under the fourth assignment concerning voluntary cooperative prepaid medical plans and any resistance encountered from organizations, associations or combines, it is a matter of public record in the Federal and State Court that medical associations have put up a road block whenever or wherever this is attempted.
The Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, through its Sub-Committee on Health, submitted the results of a study of health insurance plans in the United States, in a report issued in May 1951, 82nd Congress. This was accomplished under the direction of Dr. Dean H. Clark, now the Director of the Massachusetts General Hospital. This appears to be the first objective and impartial study of the scope, benefits and effectiveness of voluntary health insurance plans. It shows that one-half of the population at that time had some form of protection against the cost of hospital care, but three million had what can be called comprehensive protection against the cost of hospital and medical care. Specifically with reference to cancer, it would appear that an opportunity would be afforded members of this sort of a health program to periodic checkups to determine whether they had cancer. This subject was discussed at length between Kenneth Meiklejohn, Staff Director of the Sub-Committee on Health, and Senator Tobey two years ago. Correspondence between the two is available. The reports, of course, are available to the members of this Committee.
From a strictly legal as well as ethical approach, if one individual has the right to select his own physician or hospital, why cannot 10,000 individuals and their families determine that they intend to invest directly, or indirectly, in the construction and maintenance of a hospital, employ a staff of competent physicians, surgeons, technicians, laboratory experts, nurses, interns, et cetera, to look after their health problems? This is not so-called socialized medicine. It is purely voluntary. Here, as elsewhere stated in this report, the jurisdiction of the Committee may be limited. It may properly belong to the States and their legislators and courts to determine this problem. However, the general welfare clause of the Constitution may be the answer. If the Committee should determine that it has jurisdiction, I am of the opinion that competent legal evidence can be presented which will aid and assist the Committee in its final judgment.
With reference to the fifth assignment, you are advised that time did not permit me to ascertain the number of students or the increase thereof in the various medical schools throughout the country. It has been suggested that a studied effort has been made by certain groups to keep the number of students enrolling in medical schools at a low figure. I do not assert this to be the fact and I doubt if the Committee would have jurisdiction to go into that question. This would properly belong to the States. If this is a fact, then the various State legislatures of the country should, of course, take necessary steps, consistent with the public welfare, to see that every opportunity is given to any boy or girl who possesses the necessary qualifications to be permitted to enter medical schools. If, on the other hand, this Committee believes that it has jurisdiction under the General Welfare Clause of the Constitution to go forward, then certainly it would be a proper and timely matter of inquiry. In any event, you do have jurisdiction and should complete the investigation in so far as cancer is concerned by those engaged in the research field.
A careful study of the subject matter embraced in the direction of the late Chairman will disclose the tremendous importance of the investigation undertaken and the consideration of the results by the members of this Committee.
We have long since passed the age of witch hunting. We are, notwithstanding, living in an era of hysteria. Investigation seems to be the order of the day. Crude thinking results in hysterical action. Perhaps the converse is true. The beginning of hysteria is the end of sound thinking. Proceeding, therefore, to the end result sought by all, we recognize the value of our goal in striving for a sound, vigorous and healthful Nation at minimum costs. Money, however, lavishly spent to stamp out a dreadful scourge is sound public economy.
I have approached this problem with an open mind. Recognizing the importance of men skilled in the science of medicine, who are best informed, if not qualified, on the question of cancer, its causes and treatment, I directed my attention to the propaganda by the American Medical Association and the American Cancer Society to the effect: namely, “that radium, x-ray therapy and surgery are the only recognized treatments for cancer.”
Is there any dispute among recognized medical scientists in America and elsewhere in the world on the use of radium and x-ray therapy in the treatment of cancer. The answer is definitely “Yes” there is a division of opinion on the use of radium and x-ray. Both agencies are destructive, not constructive. In the alleged destruction of the abnormal, outlaw or cancer cells both x-ray therapy and radium destroy normal tissue and normal cells. Recognized medical authorities in America and elsewhere state positively that x-ray therapy can cause cancer in and of itself. Documented cases are available.
This is true for Chemotherapy as well… CG
Chemotherapy is incapable of extending in any appreciable way the lives of patients afflicted with the most common cancers-and even the palliative effect of these toxic drugs, which supposedly improve the quality of life, “rests on scientifically shaky ground.” That was the conclusion of West German cancer biostatistician Ulrich Abel, Ph.D., in the most comprehensive study ever undertaken on cancer chemotherapy. In his 1990 book Dr. Abel wrote, “There is no evidence for the vast majority of cancers that treatment with these drugs exerts any positive influence on survival or quality of life in patients with advanced disease.” The advanced cancers to which Dr. Abel is referring are those malignancies responsible for over 80 percent of the cancer deaths in the Western industrial countries. “Among others, they include nearly all malignant tumors of trachea, bronchus, lung, stomach, colon, rectum, esophagus, breast, bladder, pancreas, ovary, cervix and corpus uteri, head and neck, and liver.. . . Tumors are called advanced if they are recurrent, disseminated, or not radically resectable.”
The increased number of cancer patients in America of all ages and the apparent failure to presently cope with this dreaded disease indicates the necessity of a sustained effort of private and Federal agencies to continue research in the field of cancer; its causes and treatment.
If radium, x-ray or surgery or either of them is the complete answer, then the greatest hoax of the age is being perpetrated upon the people by the continued appeal for funds for further research. If neither x-ray, radium or- surgery is the complete answer to this dreaded disease, and I submit that it is not, then what is the plain duty of society? Should we stand still? Should we sit idly by and count the number of physicians, surgeons and cancerologists who are not only divided but who, because of fear or favor, are forced to line up with the so-called accepted view of the American Medical Association, or should this Committee make a full scale investigation of the organized effort to hinder, suppress and restrict the free flow of drugs which allegedly have proven successful in cases where clinical records, case history, pathological reports and x-ray photographic proof, together with the alleged cured patients, are available.
Accordingly, we should determine whether existing agencies, both public and private, are engaged and have pursued a policy of harassment, ridicule, slander and libelous attacks on others sincerely engaged in stamping out this curse of mankind. Have medical associations, through their officers, agents, servants and employees engaged in this practice? My investigation to date should convince this Committee that a conspiracy does exist to stop the free flow and use of drugs in interstate commerce which allegedly has solid therapeutic value. Public and private funds have been thrown around like confetti at a country fair to close up and destroy clinics, hospitals and scientific research laboratories which do not conform to the viewpoint of medical associations.
How long will the American people take this? To illustrate the stranglehold of the American Medical Association on legislation which in turn affects every household in America, let us look at a small 25 cent tube of penicillin ointment. Is it dangerous to have around the house for a cut or small bruise on your body? Rat poison can be bought without a doctor’s prescription. The sale of arsenic must have a doctor’s prescription. The sale of arsenic and rat poisons is small but not penicillin. Accordingly we must have a doctor’s prescription in America to buy a 25 cent tube of ointment. In Canada, however, the Medical Association has not yet discovered THE GREAT DANGER of a small tube of penicillin ointment and, accordingly the people are able to buy it without paying a doctor for a prescription. To say that it is dangerous, is silly. To assert, rather, that it is but another manifestation of power and privilege of a few at the expense of the many would be more consistent with truth and wholly accurate.
What is the duty of this Committee and the members thereof? Your first duty, of course, is to do right. Properly considered, that is your only duty. In doing right, however, you owe a duty to the American people. In upholding the law and enacting legislation for the people of America, we look first to the instrument of our creation as a representative form of Government. Those powers not specifically conferred upon the Federal Government and denied to the States, are reserved either to the States or to the people. Thus the founding fathers very wisely created an area of freedom in which free men shall function. It is in this area set aside by the fathers of our Republic that people have the right to own property, transact business, build up a system of free enterprise without hindrance, harassment or abuse of either the Government, State or Federal, or of other citizens, however powerful, so long as the people so engaged do not trespass upon the rights of others. This is the basic concept of liberty functioning in America. It may be said to be a reservoir of freedom. In this area we have mingled our money and blood with the races of mankind. We have demonstrated our ability to live together peacefully and happily, although we represent most of the races, most of the colors and most of the creeds. This was an innovation and a new experiment to the peoples of the old world. Out of and from this area has sprung the noblest dreams and saintliest purposes of mankind, purposes so strong and vital that it has become the envy and admiration of a waiting world. People look longingly to the shores of America and desire to make this their asylum of escape and hope for the future. It is more than a dream. It is a reality. While we have not solved all the problems of mankind, we have at least provided a sanctuary and the instruments of government, if properly guarded against the abuse of selfish men and organizations who would bend it to suit their purposes, which could live for centuries to come. In this connection this Committee should investigate the advertising agency which controls all advertising in the Journal of the American Medical Association as well as the various State Journals. Why is the stamp of approval, by the so-called nutrition expert and their Council on Foods, placed on certain foodstuffs, denied to others, and others condemned, without a reasonable investigation? Is there any relationship between approval by these experts and the operation of the advertising agency in the offices of the American Medical Association?
May I, with propriety, call your attention to the tragedy which has invaded the United States Senate. Four great Americans, all of them, Senator McMahon, Senator Wherry, Senator Vandenberg and Senator Bob Taft were all stricken down with this dreaded disease. We are under a compelling moral obligation to the memory of these great public servants and to the untold millions of cancer sufferers throughout the world to carry on this investigation. We cannot do otherwise.
Benedict F. FitzGerald