Scoop has an Ethical Paywall
Work smarter with a Pro licence Learn More
Top Scoops

Book Reviews | Gordon Campbell | Scoop News | Wellington Scoop | Community Scoop | Search


The Crimes Of Medicine?

By Tadhg Stopford

We are told that NZ needs more medicines for cancer and other diseases by Patient Voice Aotearoa, and they aren’t wrong.

But they also miss the point.

MedSafe (the regulator) seems captured. By whom, I do not know. But their actions suggest cause for deep concern.

Why would it commit a deliberate fraud to deny kiwis (and aussies!) access to safe, affordable, generic, and beneficial products that are proven by time and peer reviewed evidence to kill and retard cancer “in dose dependent fashion”?

These products have numerous other benefits. Pain, arthritis, anxiety, and more. They’re exactly the kind of product many citizens, and Patient Voice Aotearoa, want.

In summary: the Australasian food regulator (FSANZ) could see NO REASON to deny the public cannabinoid rich Hemp foods in 2016, due to their safety and public benefit.

Furthermore: MedSafes own internal advice said they were legal. ESRs Chemistry team said they were legal, and ESRs General Manager even made an affidavit to the High Court on the subject.

But. Amazingly. The Aus/NZ ministers of health wanted them kept from the public, and MedSafe seems to have concocted a lie to achieve that.

There may be an innocent explanation. Maybe MedSafe did not commit a fraud. If not, they could prove it. All they need to do is release the legal advice they used to deny us foods for health.

But MedSafe refuses to release the advice, citing ‘a lack of public interest’.

Advertisement - scroll to continue reading

Are you getting our free newsletter?

Subscribe to Scoop’s 'The Catch Up' our free weekly newsletter sent to your inbox every Monday with stories from across our network.

This seems odd.

Not least because the secret legal advice

A. Is based on a perverse interpretation of an international treaty no other country adheres to.

B. Was vital to overrule ESRs Chemistry team.

C. Is at odds with the OECD, AND the European Court of Justice.

Furthermore, it seems MedSafe had to concoct this legal advice to deny the public access to products the food regulator had concluded were

1. Safe

2. Beneficial (incl. anti cancer properties, and more)

3. Beyond its power to prohibit (due to their safety and benefit).

It may or may not be relevant that

1. cancer is a key driver of pharmaceutical revenues, and

2. A patient cured is a customer lost, and

3. 90%+ of MedSafes revenues come from levies on medical/pharmaceutical products.

These factors suggest that prohibiting foods that benefit the public was as ‘commercially sensible’ as it appears unethical.

Read the evidence for yourself at, then join us.

Help us to prove there is ‘public interest’ in knowing if our Ministry of Health is on the publics side, or if it needs to be radically reformed.

© Scoop Media

Advertisement - scroll to continue reading
Top Scoops Headlines


Join Our Free Newsletter

Subscribe to Scoop’s 'The Catch Up' our free weekly newsletter sent to your inbox every Monday with stories from across our network.