Note from Connie: I'm often intrigued by articles from Mike Adams of NewsTarget.com. This provocative piece about the American Medical Association will certainly get you to think! (FYI, I'm not total agreement with everything Mike says. For instance, it's a big stretch, in my opinion, to call the AMA "evil." But it's definitely worth reading this eye-opening article. See first what SUGAR SHOCK! Blog researcher/writer Jennifer Moore thinks about the article.
This fascinating article details the many ways the AMA was compromised by its very cozy relationship with the tobacco industry, including running tobacco ads in the venerated Journal of the American Medical Association as far back as 1933.
Adams also documents how doctors became members of the Tobacco Industry Research Committee, wich wa sponsored by Big Tobacco, ostensibly for the purpose of further researching the link between smoking and cancer. In reality, Adams writes, the TIRC was created to promote the idea that the link wasn't clear, despite significant evidence that it was.
The AMA, finally, did unequivocally state that smoking is dangerous in 1964.
So why is Adams on the warpath against the AMA today?
Note from Connie: I'm often intrigued by articles from Mike Adams of NewsTarget.com. This provocative piece about the American Medical Association will certainly get you to think! (FYI, I'm not total agreement with everything Mike says. For instance, it's a big stretch, in my opinion, to call the AMA "evil." But it's definitely worth reading this eye-opening article. See first what SUGAR SHOCK! Blog researcher/writer Jennifer Moore thinks about the article.
Can we trust the American Medical Association? Mike Adams of NewsTarget.com thinks not, and spells out why in a provocative and revealing piece entitled "Doctors, American Medical Association Hawked Cigarettes as Healthy For Consumers."
This fascinating article details the many ways the AMA was compromised by its very cozy relationship with the tobacco industry, including running tobacco ads in the venerated Journal of the American Medical Association as far back as 1933.
Adams also documents how doctors became members of the Tobacco Industry Research Committee, wich wa sponsored by Big Tobacco, ostensibly for the purpose of further researching the link between smoking and cancer. In reality, Adams writes, the TIRC was created to promote the idea that the link wasn't clear, despite significant evidence that it was.
The AMA, finally, did unequivocally state that smoking is dangerous in 1964.
So why is Adams on the warpath against the AMA today?