The Douglass Report November 2006

November 2006 PDF

Dear friend,

Sometimes it's hard for me to distinguish the medical from the political. Maybe it's a corpus callosum thing--or maybe it's because when I was a practicing physician, I had my fair share of run-ins with the government. I can't even begin to tell you how many times their henchmen tried to dictate to me what life-saving treatments I could or couldn't use. Did you know that once I even had to testify before a Senate subcommittee? I won them over with my incredible wit and charm, but as my wife Melissa will tell you--not everyone is as suave and debonair as I am.

Anyway, I'm sure the State of Florida breathed a collective sigh of relief when I retired and handed in my stethoscope, knowing they'd "protected" their citizens from my special hair-brained brand of medicine. But I find it more than a little ironic that my sphere of influence has expanded from treating 5,000 people yearly in the Sunshine state to now influencing more than 300,000 people a year worldwide by putting my ideas on paper. Three cheers for the First Amendment!

I can't get too excited, though. The target may be off my back, but believe me--the lust for the kill is every bit as strong. Case in point: Some of you may be familiar with my colleague, Dr. Jonathan Wright. He's just one of many holistic doctors in Washington State getting slapped with fines, investigations--and sometimes even losing their practices--for using treatments that, though unconventional, are completely safe and legal.

It's time for a strategy, and I've got just the thing: We live in a society that demands equal rights, and I say it's high time holistic doctors get in on the goods. If they need any tips, they could take their cue on campaigning for equal rights from once and future president Hillary Clinton...

Blowing the whistle on the whistle-blowing women's rights activists...

Back in the 90s, during the reign of The Clinton Dynasty, Hillary stuck her nose in all things "feminine" (except, of course, her role as wife and mother). One of her complaints was that women weren't getting equal representation in clinical trials. She said that there was an "appalling degree to which women were routinely excluded from major clinical trials of most illnesses." Marcia Angell, editor of the New England Journal of Medicine at the time, backed Hillary up when she said, "There is little doubt that women have been systematically excluded as subjects for study."

Well, ladies (and I use that term guardedly), your ignorance and deceit are oozing out of your pores. You are in hateful pursuit of an entirely false paradigm. You are a discredit to your lovely--and by nature--peaceful, nurturing, and cherishing sex. We men can't live without you--and we don't want to. But we CAN live without your brand of hairy-legged feminism--by that I mean sexism.

These ladies and all the women who stood behind them had no proof that the fairer sex was being neglected in medical research because researchers had never been required to track sex-specific enrollments. But thanks to Hillary and company's loud mouths, Congress passed a law in 1993 that required the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to start keeping track. These women would show those male chauvinist pigs a thing or two.

But the best-laid plans of mice and men (or women) often go awry...and sure enough, when the numbers came in, these women in jackboots were in for a shock none of them expected: As it turns out, NIH-funded studies had been skewed toward women all along. This was the breakdown: 52% female, 45% male, and 3% unknown. And since the NIH started keeping track, male research participation has dropped even further to less than 40%.

Digging a little deeper, the FDA conducted a review titled "Evaluation of Drugs in Women: Regulatory Perspective." After analyzing five separate analysis of sex-specific participation, the FDA researchers concluded that "women have been included in drug development studies at least since the early 1980s in approximate proportion to the prevalence of disease in them."

The whole premise of the argument just doesn't make any sense to me. Even if the women's claim were true, it would still sound a bit ridiculous to say, "We demand to be experimented upon as much as men!" Well, they've gotten what they wanted: Government medicine has expanded, and now these women should be proud to know that they've perpetuated the irresponsible and dangerous experimentation on America's women. I'm sure women all over the country are grateful.

The big issue of breast cancer

If you ask me, the scales have been tipped toward women as far as research is concerned for a long time now. Think about it: In 1985, the National Cancer Institute started to keep track of disease-specific funding. From those records, we know that breast cancer has received more money for research than any other type of cancer--regardless of its prevalence.

In 1997, breast cancer research received five times as much money as prostate cancer research. In 1999, it received triple the amount. And you want to know what's even more ironic? Men have a higher incidence of prostate cancer than women do of breast cancer. In 2000, 115 women out of 100,000 were diagnosed with invasive breast cancer, while 147 men out of 100,000 were diagnosed with prostate cancer. You want fair, equal rights? How about coughing up some of that excess money that you're being dished out left and right and handing it over to the people who really need it.

There's more. Apparently these women's rights activists don't care what they're getting compensated for--just as long as they getting something. Breast cancer isn't even the biggest threat to women's health. Lung cancer is the biggest cancer threat to women, and heart disease is the biggest killer of all. So why all the focus on breast cancer? Because it's a disease that primarily affects women.

This just makes it glaringly obvious to me that these women's rights activists aren't really concerned about the health and safety of women at all. It's all part of the game they're playing as they "struggle" in this "male-dominated world" to become top dog. And they'll use whatever platform necessary to get there.

Sally Satel talks about this women's health hoax in a book called PC, M.D.--How Political Correctness Is Corrupting Medicine (a book that I highly recommend, by the way). Here's a final thought in her words: "There's no women's health crisis today. Women are well represented in the ranks of health care administrators. Female consumers have enormous influence in the medical marketplace. In 1999 at least 3,600 programs across the country called themselves women's health centers. There are few comparable centers for men. To say that mainstream medicine caters to men is ludicrous."