A Proposal for Private, Non-Licensed Medical Care

In the years since I was defrocked by the medical establishment for ignoring the 1930’s proscription against cohabiting with a chiropractor (see https://camdoc2001.wordpress.com/legal), I have managed to become at the least, a medical anarchist, and at most, a political anarchist.  An anarchist is not someone who goes around throwing bombs in cartoons.  An anarchist is someone who believes that the best form of government is no government, that all force used by a government is deadly force, that all functions of government can be provided better by private individuals or groups, and that people who are willing to take full responsibility for their own actions should be able to do so.

I have no faith that the medical establishment has any longer the ability to make decisions beneficial to patients.  Individual physicians may still have that ability, but the system of corporations which comprises the medical regulation system does not.  It is too much beholden to the pharmaceutical industry, and Big Pharma is too interested in maintaining its influence in Congress and its position as the most profitable of industries.  Thus, there is a shared revolving door supplying the same pool of personnel to Big Pharma, Medical Regulation, the drug lobby, and legislature, especially at the federal level.

I recently read in HopeGirl’s business plan for the Fix the World Organization http://hopegirl2012.wordpress.com/2013/01/27/fix-the-world-organization-business-plan/ a comparison between corporations and amoral, conscienceless psychopathic sociopaths.  Both are unable to see anything wrong with actions which injure or damage others.  Both are unable to consider any consequence other than the consequences to themselves.  Not only does the pharmaceutical industry in general act exactly like a mass of sociopaths, but the revolving pool of executives, regulators, lobbyists and legislators seem to also share the same characteristics.  We may protest that there are certainly kind, altruistic, caring people in each of these industries, and that may be true.  However, the overall tenor of the actions of medical administration, medical regulation, pharmaceutical companies, lobbying firms, and legislatures is still quite consistent with the actions of a psychopath/sociopath.

As a result of my observation of the system, and my study of law in search of a remedy, I now understand that there will be no remedy within the system.  One can only seek remedy outside of the system.  I know that there are several ways of doing this.  Medical tourism is one.  I notice that even Big Pharma is outsourcing its drug studies to other countries, as the regulations in the US are too stringent and/or costly.  Another way to change jurisdiction might be to operate on some other sovereign territory, such as an Indian reservation, but in my experience, the Indians I spoke with were totally tied into the US government and its diabetes and alcoholism clinics, and thus were not interested in alternative medicine of any sort.  Strange, and sad.

It therefore seems to me to be necessary to either take away the monopoly on the use of medical and healing technology from the medical establishment, or to create another venue where access to this technology is allowed.

Certainly the American Medical Association has fought powerfully against the former in the past; homeopaths, osteopaths,  chiropractors, naturopaths, eclectic physicians and other groups of healers were decimated in the United States following the Rockefeller sponsored  Flexner Report, which consolidated all healthcare power into the AMA.  As I mentioned, I ran afoul of the legacy of that convention by practicing not only with chiropractors (Gasp!), but also with practitioners of Oriental Medicine (Oh, my!).  We know that there would be opposition to any such plan.  Fortunately, in the United States, we still have the US Constitution on our side.

I therefore propose that a means of stepping outside of, not necessarily the territorial borders, but the administrative jurisdiction of the USA, and of the States, is to operate outside of statute law, and inside of private and common law.  I propose a system of private medical/healthcare associations (“clubs”), operating on an intrastate level only, thus tending to avoid federal interference based on the commerce clause of the US Constitution.  These clubs would be open to anyone by private contract only.  Members would be required to be educated in the law, in their rights, and their power.  Members would also be required to be educated in the risks and benefits of a procedure or therapy before they receive it.

Therapies used in these clubs could include any common therapy, as well as those currently unapproved by federal agencies.  The credentialing division of such a club, probably acting in accordance with other similar agencies nationally or world-wide, would investigate safety and effectiveness of treatments, without constraint of pharmaceutical industry influence.  Admittedly, their budget would not be as great as Big Pharma’s budget for investigation, but their standard would be to seek the highest good, for the member, the club, society, and the Earth, and they would not be constrained to only seek for profit, as corporations are today.

Therapies unapproved by PUBLIC agencies would be available to members operating PRIVATELY, based on the Constitutional protection of the right to contract.  The existence of the club would also be an expression of the right of public association also claimed in the founding documents of the United States.  To insure that all participants had informed consent, classes or other educational means would be provided to insure that the contractees or beneficiaries were well aware of known and possible risks and benefits to all planned interventions.

As an example of the operation of a private club in another arena, consider private supper clubs or fraternal organizations which operate in many counties which have laws prohibiting the sale of alcohol.  By being a member of a private club, it is possible to purchase liquor with one’s meal, which otherwise would have been illegal to a member of the public.  Thus we see the difference between a transaction in the private, between two individuals or contracted parties, and in the public.

Non-statutory use of medical technologyPrivate, Unlicensed, Medical Care

My proposal is for the use of private, unlicensed medical care for those who want to use it.  I don’t just propose this because I am an unlicensed medical doctor—I propose it because I think that it can be the solution to many great inequities in world medical care.

Currently, there is a monopoly over who can use medical technology to treat citizens of a given country.  That monopoly is stringently defended, to the point that millennia—long existing caring professions, such as midwifery, now operate in many locales under constant threat of imprisonment for infringing on the rights of the Medical Man to say how natural processes, like childbirth, should occur.

Currently, many forms of medical technology exist which are not allowed to be used in any given jurisdiction.  Consider EDTA chelation therapy, sclerotherapy, Insulin Potentiated Therapy, T3 (triiodothyronine) therapy, German Natural Medicine,  Neural Therapy, Brainwave Biofeedback, Bioidentical Hormone Replacement, human growth hormone, testosterone, contraceptive therapies of various types,  stem cell therapy, chiropractic, osteopathic manipulative medicine, oriental medicine, naturopathic healing, or psychotherapy with LSD, Ibogaine, Ecstacy, DMT, Mescaline, Ayahuasca, etc, as examples.

Other forms of healing are not considered to be medical technologies, and are forbidden for exactly that reason.  Consider shamanic healing, acupuncture, herbalism, nutritional healing, hypnotherapy, prayer therapy, etc.

What is the reason given for denying these health care options to the public?  The main issue seems to be safety, discussed more below.  The paternal STATE has determined that such and such a therapy has not been determined to be SAFE by its own recognized “safety determining board”, so therefore NO ONE should be allowed to use these therapies.  No one. No matter how fully educated and responsible and willing to take a risk, and absolve anyone else from their decision.  No one is allowed.  Does this make sense?

And, the state is ready, willing and able to enforce its statutes with all force.  Deadly force.  Every statute.  You don’t believe it?  Take the most innocent of statutes or ordinances, and consider what would happen if you disobey it, consistently.  Dog licenses, for example.  First, they try to impound your dogs.  Then, they put you in jail.  If you refuse to allow the “public servants” to put you in jail, what happens?  Do they just let you walk?  No, I am sure that you can see the escalation of force can, and will, lead to you being shot.  I am sure that there have been people killed for violation of similar laws.  There was a Polish man tasered to death in an airport for not understanding English.  Every statute is backed by force, and all force is deadly force.

Trusts and Contract Law

In order to understand my proposal, it is useful to be a bit familiar with Trust and Contract Law, as well as other current law forms.  A contract is an agreement between two parties.  It may or may not be recorded in a written document.  A contract requires that each party be required to do something or to have an obligation of some sort.  A Trust is a special form of contract, which usually involves three parties:  A Grantor, Creator or Trustor, who creates the Trust, the Trustee, who operates the Trust, and one or more Beneficiaries, for whom the Trust is created.  The Beneficiaries have no say over what the Trustee does on their behalf, though there are usually ways in which they can make suggestions.

A Trust is nothing more than a relationship between men/human beings.  Like contracts, trusts can be created by law (Statute trusts), by an act of the state, by formal agreements between two or more persons ( individuals or corporations), whether memorialized in writing or not, and by actions.  As an example of the latter, consider that someone comes up to you and says, “I know your children are doing well in school, and I wish to contribute to their education.  Here is $100 to that end.”  He hands you the money, you accept it, and by that action, a Trust is created.  You become the Trustee over that money.  The donor is the Grantor or Creator of the Trust, the $100 is the Corpus of the Trust, and the children are the Beneficiaries.  As Trustee, you are obliged to use the money for the purpose for which it was given to the trust.

Trusts date back at least to the days of the Crusades.  A knight heading off on a crusade has no idea of whether he will return or not.  He does not wish for his family to left destitute in his absence, and he knows that his wife is unlikely to be able to handle the affairs of his estate in his absence.  So, he asks a friend to assume control of his estate, on behalf of his family.  By so doing, a Trust is created.  The Knight is the Creator of the Trust, his estate is the Corpus or Body of the trust, his family are the Beneficiaries, and his friend is the Trustee.  The Trustee has control over the assets, but cannot use them for himself.  The Beneficiaries have what is called “Beneficial Interest” in the assets—they are the only ones who can benefit from the use or sale of the assets, but they have no control over the assets.

Common Law in the United States has its origin in England.  Since at least the 1400s, judges have kept track of the decisions of other judges, and used prior decisions in similar cases as precedents for their current decisions.  It was not necessary to have a statute or legislated law to govern an individual judicial decision; legal precedents were commonly used instead of statutes.

In common law, an injury requires three things to seek a remedy in court:  There must be an act which caused an injury, there must be an injured party, and there must be an intent to cause injury.  Without these elements, there is no legal claim which can be a basis for a remedy.

Consider how different statute law is, where most of the persons imprisoned today injured no one, and had no intent to injure anyone.  The perpetrators of these “victimless crimes” have violated a statute, and by doing so, have supposedly injured the faceless “state” or “people”.  But, how can “the people” be injured, when no individual human being has been injured?

Statute law is Legislation or Acts, which are contracts given force of law by the consent of the governed.  As long as the governed agree to be so governed by the corporation, the statutes are in effect.  But, the laws of one city do not apply to another city, just as the laws of one corporation do not apply to another.  For example, if you work at Wal-Mart, you may be required, by corporate law, to wear a blue vest and a smiley button.  But if you are merely a visitor to the store, you are not required to do so.

Civil Law is the basic law form in Europe and South America.  Civil law is the ultimate extension of Statute Law, since any individual rights enjoyed under Civil Law come not from an inborn inalienable right, but from recognition of the State, through its laws.  Liberty comes not as an innate right, but as a gift of the state, through its laws.  http://www.tuks.nl/wiki/index.php/Main/TheFascinatingHistoryOfCivilLawVersusDivineCommonLaw

The United States as a Corporation, and Citizens as Trusts

US Code defines the United States as a Corporation.  (USC § 3002-Definitions: (15) “United States” means (A) A Federal corporation.)  States are corporations as well, as are most cities and counties.  And the Corporation of the United States has Trust contracts with each Citizen.  In fact, a Citizen can be shown to actually be not a human being, but a Trust, or the Beneficiary of one of over 300 Million individual Trusts created by our over 300 Million birth certificates.  An interesting principle of commercial law is that a corporation cannot deal with anyone but another corporation; thus, the creation of millions of corporations (trusts) for our government corporations to contract with.  The word generally used in law to refer to a corporation or the Trust which has been created for an individual human being is “Person”.  Any time you see that word, remember that it refers not to an individual, living human being, but to a corporation.  But, enough of that for now!

As beneficiary of the US Trust, otherwise known as a “US Person”, you (the citizen) have no say over what the Trustee (the United States) does.  Did you wonder why it has felt like your vote doesn’t matter?  Because it doesn’t!

Well, if we wanted to operate outside the corporate (public) jurisdiction of the United States, how could that be done?  To which the question is posed, do you need to be an employee of Wal-Mart in order to shop there?  Do you have to follow all of the Wal-mart employee rules every time you conduct business in their store?  Do you have to wear the blue vest in order to buy Chinese food/clothing/toys/electronics at the Big Box?  Of course not.  Neither do you have to operate within State or US Statute Law, if you choose to operate from some other jurisdiction.  Like, for example, Common Law, or Private Trust Law.  (Big breath!)

Our Status As Beneficiaries

Why does the State seem to think that it has power to govern such intimate areas of our lives, at the risk of our own lives?  Here is the secret.  A “Citizen” is a Trust. It is not you, it is the corporation, the Trust, created between your mother (the Trustor or Creator of the Trust) and the State, as the Trustee.  We are the Beneficiaries of these Trusts, incompetent wards of the state.  All of us.  Unless we disentangle ourselves from our status as Beneficiaries.

This is not the place to go into further detail on this subject, but please understand that what I am saying here is supported by decisions of the US Supreme Court, as well as lower courts.  When we were born, being incompetent, your mother filled out an Application, and a Trust was created.  We became wards of the state.  The State, as Trustee, had full responsibility for our welfare, and our parents were charged with being the agents of the state.  If our parents tried to do something that the state did not want, such as not vaccinating us, or not schooling us, or using non-approved healing treatments for us, the full power of the state came down on our parents to force them to do what the state wants.

After we reach majority, we have the opportunity to make our own decisions, and to terminate our position as incompetent beneficiaries of the state.  But, does anyone do that?  No, because we are not informed that it is our right to do that.  Speaking of rights, until we are free, we have no rights.  We have only privileges, granted by the state, upon application.   (See below, under License.)   And we remain without rights, until we cease to be incompetent wards of the State.

And why is the State so quick to suppress little infractions of its statutes, or corporate laws?  Because, it seeks after the good of the whole herd of its sheeple, and not for the good of the individual.  A certain person may be well qualified to be a plumber and fix your toilet, but the state does not allow him to operate an unlicensed plumbing business because it might be detrimental to the public as a whole.  The state does not allow the use of mind expanding drugs, because that might cause people to wake up to their circumstances, and thus interfere with its control of the sheeple.  Statutes are not made for responsible people who take full responsibility for their actions.  The common law, which requires an injured party for the courts to act, would be sufficient for them.  Statutes are for people who do NOT take responsibility for their actions, and who need have their actions totally controlled, for the benefit of the rest of the sheeple.

 Safety and Choice

As long as people continue to operate as sheeple, instead of Sovereigns, letting the State assume all responsibility for only allowing safe choices for them to choose from, we must have a State to provide those safe choices.  Only by waking people up to who they are, and to their own personal power, and giving them an opportunity to be fully responsible for their own choices and actions can the State allow the People the opportunity for unlimited responsibility.  And only those with unlimited responsibility can make unlimited choices.

Why does the US Food and Drug Administration exist?  To insure that all of the choices which the public has, as far as drugs, food, and cosmetics, supposedly, are safe.  It does not exist to deny the choice by a private individual willing to take full responsibility for his choice, whatever the risks might be.  So, we must have a method of giving an informed choice to a fully responsible person.  That is the reason for my proposal.

You have probably seen the Underwriters Laboratories tags on extension cords and other electrical equipment.  This tag certifies that the item meets certain basic safety standards.  Is it possible to purchase items which do not meet the UL standards?  Certainly, if you are willing to take that responsibility.  Why, then, is it not legal to purchase medical care which does not meet the UL or FDA standards, if that is what you really want to have?

Why do medical licensing boards exist?  To insure that all of the choices that the public has, as far as medical providers and medical care, is safe.    They do not exist to deny the choice of a non-licensed healer or healthcare provider to a private individual willing to take fully informed responsibility for his choice.  It might be wise to provide the opportunity for such a choice to a fully responsible person.


A License is a privilege, granted by the State, to do something that is otherwise illegal to do.  Like, own a dog, or a bicycle, invest other people’s money, fix a toilet, or use healthcare technology.  Upon Application, a Person can receive a License to do something (like own a dog, drive a car, or practice medicine), which as a beneficiary of the state, he could not legally do without the license.

Rights vs Privileges

The inalienable rights recognized by the Declaration of Independence, and acknowledged by the Bill of Rights of the US Constitution, only apply to those who are willing to claim them.  Unfortunately, as much as Citizen beneficiaries protest violation of these rights, Citizens do not have them.  Citizen beneficiaries have privileges, granted by the state, upon application.  For example, the US Supreme Court says that citizens are guaranteed the right to travel freely.  http://www.apfn.org/apfn/travel.htm

“The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579.

Thus, traveling in your automobile is a right, and this right is recognized by the Supreme Court.  But, as long as you remain a ward of the state, you do not have any rights, and it is obligatory to apply for a license to drive a car, a privilege, as rights do not apply to those who do not claim those rights.

 Necessity of State Medical Technology Approval

Many would assume out of hand that it is absolutely necessary to have a state-run licensure or credentialing system to oversee all practitioners and technologies, and that there is no way that a private system would work.  To them, I would point out that a State licensure board only insures a minimum competency level.  For example, a doctor can get a license to practice medicine after one year of internship.  But most hospitals would not allow that doctor to practice in their hospital until the physician has completed an additional two to six years of training, and none of them would allow that doctor to practice surgery in their hospital until he has also been certified by a private specialty board.  To have medical privileges granted, it is necessary to be approved by a PRIVATE medical approval system, the hospital credentialing committee.  Thus, we see that the current private credentialing committee is more stringent than the state system, and it is very likely that all hospital credentialing boards could operate just fine without any state system at all.

Extend that just a bit, and you will see that it is very likely possible for all of the functions of a state licensing system to be replaced by a private system.  In the case of a private, non-public health care club or association operating outside of statute law, it is very likely that a private credentialing organization could decide on the suitability of any physician, as well as could a state or hospital board.

Furthermore, medical technologies, such as stem cell therapy, could also be similarly evaluated by private evaluation boards.  The results of these evaluations would then be provided to the physicians involved, and also to the patients.  Informed decisions about the technologies could then be made between the physician and the patient.  What a concept!!!

Commercial Law and Intrastate Commerce

The Constitution of the United States forbids states from passing any “Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts.” (Article I Section 10) This means that the agreements between individuals (contracts) supercede those of the State, or of the Union (federal government), at least if the parties to the contract choose to be governed by their private agreement, rather than by statutes.  Just as many contracts specify that disputes shall be adjudicated by a private adjudicator, instead of state or federal court, a private contract (including a trust) can specify what jurisdiction governs that contract.

The US Constitution in Article I, Section. 8 says:

The Congress shall have Power …To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.

The regulatory power of the Federal Government is, therefore, limited to commerce which occurs “among the several States”.  In other words, interstate commerce.  Commerce occurring solely within the bounds of one state, intrastate commerce, is therefore exempt from federal oversight, at least by the constitution.  Thus, Dr. Stan Bruzynski, who recently won a 17 year battle against the FDA for his cancer treatment, was initially attacked by the FDA for mailing his treatments to the patients.  As long as the patients saw him in his clinic, there was no interstate commerce, and no federal involvement.  But, when patients living in other states needed refills of their treatments asked to have them mailed out of state, that gave the feds jurisdiction, they felt.

The federal government has, however, chosen to interpret this clause to include any commerce which involved anything which at one point in its existence crossed state lines.  Dr. Bruzynski’s formulas were manufactured within the state of Texas, and therefore the feds did not have jurisdiction until they were mailed out of state.  The congress and the courts do not seem to have much interest in reining in the federal regulators in this matter.

It may be important, therefore, to obtain supplies of as many basic materials as possible, and to prepare, for example, stem cell culture media, within the bounds of the state where they are to be used.  At the very least, the health club should be isolated from interstate purchases by using the services of some other supplier within the state for anything which must be sourced from without the state.

Medications and medical supplies

I see the weakest part of this plan as being the procurement of medications and other controlled materials normally provided only within licensed medical and pharmaceutical channels.  It is unlikely that a State would allow its licensed pharmacists to honor the prescriptions of physicians operating outside of the regulatory system.  Yet, the US constitution prohibits any State from making a law “impairing the Obligations of Contracts”.  So, could a State legally constrain a physician or pharmacist from operating within a private association, under private contract?

That said, there is nothing which would prevent a physician from having a clinic within the regulatory system for some of his practice, and another clinic without the regulatory system, for specialized, non-approved care. A physician working without state law does not mean that he cannot work within state law, any more than him putting a bandage on his daughter’s finger precludes him from performing an appendectomy the next day.

He might be able to provide a prescription from his licensed office.  This physician also might be able to provide medical supplies from his licensed office to his unlicensed office, just as he could provide medications from his licensed office to an unlicensed patient.

Some of the required medications or materials might be able to be compounded within the club by a compounding pharmacist, using industrial but pharmaceutical grade materials available through industrial channels.


Several years ago, I was the medical director of a health care clinic which acted as the company health center for three private companies.  If they had a health issue, the employees came to us first, before possible referral to outside specialists.  If the employees accepted our recommendations for alternative health treatments, we provided those treatments.  If they rejected our suggestions, we referred them into the system of standard western medicine.

By first offering alternatives, much money was saved by avoiding surgeries,  and by healing disorders which, with standard medical treatment, could have become chronic and very costly.  As a result, the health care costs for those companies were about 1/15th of the average for that area.

Initially, the proposed healthcare clubs will act on a for profit, patient pay basis, and most of the services offered will likely be those services unavailable outside of the clubs, though some consumers will choose to use the clubs as their primary sources of health care.  Of course, it is likely that neither public nor private insurance providers will pay for medical services provided in the private.  But when insurance plans begin to see the tremendous cost savings of using alternative healing options, it may be that company insurance plans will begin to pay for these options.

There is a great demand for health care alternatives, and a limited ability to deliver them.  Of course, that is why the healthcare system considers alternatives such a threat, and will likely do what it can to continue to suppress their availability.  But as economics of scale bring down the price of treatments, such as stem cell therapies, more and more people will want to use them.

As an example, the cost of producing stem cells from a donated placenta and umbilical cord might be $1000.  Several sets of these donated cells might be required to treat a patient, at a cost of $5000. This price could easily drop in half by processing increased volumes.  First, the cost of extracting the cells would drop, by efficiencies of volume.  Then, by using unapproved expansion (culturing) of the stem cells, the cells from one cord or placenta could be used to treat 50 or more people, thus bringing the price from $5000 down to $50 or so.

We are in contact with groups who have great, almost unimaginable, amounts of wealth.  Some information about these groups can be found at http://hopegirl2012.wordpress.com/2012/08/  These groups are very much in favor of our plans to remove control of medical technology from the medical/pharmaceutical establishment.  It is very likely that funding for these clubs will quickly be provided, once we create the plan.  Until that time, we can proceed with the intentions to create these clubs as for profit ventures.

Private Health Clubs and ObamaCare

I do not pretend to have any more knowledge of ObamaCare regulations than did the hundreds of congressmen who signed it, unread.  It is obvious to me that requiring a private citizen to contract with an insurance company to cover health care is not supported by the US Constitution, and therefore is unlawful, not to mention illegal.  But, that doesn’t seem to have stopped the US Corporation very often, recently.

It does seem to me that if the federal government is requiring private citizens to contract with private parties regarding their health care, that such a contract might legally be with such a private club as we have been discussing, and that it not necessarily be with one of the approved ones which does not provide the services which the citizen desires!


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s