Re: ILLEGAL to give Internet or email advice on health.............

January 6, 2004

I think it's chilling, Dot.

The sale of things is obviously a key part of determing actions by

the govt, since they derive from the powers to regulate inter-state

commerce. But, add to that the medical community influence, like it

or not, it is very potent and currently very annoyed..and it

warrants a good review of legalities to be sure everything's within

the law, such as that law is.

bG

> I thought this was interesting.

>

> Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2004 13:33:24 +0000

> Subject: ILLEGAL to give Internet or email advice on

health.............

>

> Forwarded from another list:

>

http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/chris/2003/11/25/death_of_the_newslet

ter_and_m

> y_fmscfids_website.htm

>

> From: Dominie Bush

> Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2003 2:08 AM

> Subject: Death of the newsletter and my FMS/CFIDS website??

>

> Dear Newsletter Readers,

>

> 1. I was contacted today by a leading attorney whose job it is to

warn

> those who give advice related to health conditions on the

internet. This is

> now illegal, unless you are a medical doctor. My website at

> http://www.fms-help.com is not in compliance with FTC regulations.

>

> 2. Beginning Jan. 1, 2004, the FTC will begin a " sting operation "

where

> someone will email or call to ask for help with a health problem.

Should

> the kind-hearted soul reply with some advice, they can be fined

> $250,000--yep, that's a quarter of a million dollars(!) if they

are not a

> medical doctor. I asked the attorney if the FTC would sue

companies or

> individuals and was told that the FTC isn't putting up with it

anymore and

> that individuals will be sued.

>

> 3. Because of this, I can no longer trust that people who write to

me are

> actually FMS/CFIDS sufferers. I will still be accepting email at

dom@fms-

> help.com but may not reply.

>

> 4. The attorney was most sympathetic with the use of nutritional

> supplements, because of a family member with serious health

problems that

> drugs couldn't help. The person suffered serious side effects and

is now

> using ONLY nutritional supplements and doing much better. The

attorney even

> enthusiastically endorsed a popular nutritional supplement in the

course of

> our conversation.

>

> 5. The attorney said that Sen. Durbin of Illinois is

trying to get

> rid of dietary supplements and described him as " the meanest man

on the

> planet. " My husband looked up Sen. Durbin's website and found an

email

> address to write to him: dick@d... My husband also found a

> good letter on the net at http://joeclarke.net/vitamins.htm (It's

called,

> " Hey Government, Don't Take Away My Vitamins. " ) There are many

more letters

> out there too, I've found.

>

> 6. Well, I have been in tears and grieving the loss of the website

and

> newsletter most of the day. I need to do something VERY QUICKLY

about my

> website, but I have no idea what! Please PRAY for me to know what

to do!

> Many of you have been with me for years and we have had the most

wonderful

> relationship of support and caring. I will always treasure that!!!

>

> 7. What happened to my freedom of speech?....Or is that only

reserved for

> pornographers now?! How can I get information out to people with

FMS/CFIDS,

> if I can't say anything because I am not a doctor?!!?? I am

stumped!

>

> 8. My monthly newsletter is really YOUR newsletter, because much

of the

> information comes from you and I pass it on via the newsletter to

others

> who suffer with FMS/CFIDS. This is now against FTC regulations and

they

> will be enforced and I could be sued.

>

> 9. The information on my website at http://www.fms-help.com has

helped many

> people around the world and even prevented suicides. For the past

7 years,

> I have had calls and emails from thousands of people who

desperately needed

> information and help in dealing with their fibromyalgia and

chronic fatigue

> syndrome. Their doctors have failed them and no one really

understands what

> it's like unless you have these conditions yourself. When you

consider that

> Dr. Kervorkian has " helped " 4 women with FMS/CFIDS to end their

lives, you

> realize the desperation and hopelessness in the hearts of many

with chronic

> " invisible " illness.

>

> 10. My FMS/CFIDS website has been on the net since 1996, but it

appears to

> now be coming to an end. At the very LEAST, I will have to

severely curtail

> the information I offer on my site in the next few weeks to avoid

being

> fined. If there's anything you want on my site at http://www.fms-

help.com,

> you may want to print it out now before it is taken down.

>

> 11. The attorney said that NO health condition can be mentioned

along with

> a nutritional supplement or advice of some kind. For example, when

I say in

> my tips site that magnesium helps the muscle stiffness of

fibromyalgia,

> that is a NO NO! All words have to be in " secret code " almost.

Here are

> some examples:

>

> You can't say A.D.H.D. - You CAN say " trouble concentrating "

> You can't say pain - You CAN say " discomfort "

> You can't say insomnia - You CAN say " difficulty sleeping "

> You can't say menopause - You CAN say " change of life "

> You can't say fibromyalgia - Now I'm really stuck! Maybe I should

> say-- " severe discomfort in my body, count sheep all night, feel

like an old

> lady, can't stand up for more than 15 minutes, think negative

thoughts,

> have to lie down to rest frequently, can't stop my mind from

thinking, have

> to go the bathroom a lot, etc. "

>

> 12. See " Stop Senator Durbin's Ban of Health Foods " . There are

many more

> sites on the net about Senate Bill 722. Simply type in these words

at

> http://www.google.com -- Sen. Durbin's ban on nutritional

supplements

> bill--and you will get a lot of websites about this. I have

already written

> a letter to Sen. Durbin and ask you to do the same if this crisis

in

> American health is of importance to you.

>

> 13. I may be pulling my site down at http://www.fms-help.com soon

so I can

> work on it to try to make it compliant. That will be a mammoth job

and I'm

> not sure that I have the time or skills to do it. I am also

concerned that

> if and when I relaunch it, it will say next to nothing, like many

other

> sites that have been targeted by the FTC. They have been watered

down to

> where there's almost no point in reading them.

>

> 14. I am especially saddened because helping fibromyalgia patients

has been

> my life's work for the past 7 years and I believe was a calling

from God. I

> was glad that my 14 years of suffering hadn't been in vain--that

what I

> learned from dealing with FMS/CFIDS since 1982 could actually help

other

> people to not have to go through all the torments of this illness

that I

> did. But this can no longer be.....and I don't know what to do

with all the

> love and caring I feel in my heart toward those who are still

suffering? I

> am in tears! How can I help if I can't say what helps??!! It is so

confusing!

>

> 15. I will be giving much thought and prayer about what to do

next. Thank

> you for all your contributions in the past years to the

newsletter. We sure

> have been a caring and supportive group of people and I have

learned as

> much from you as you have learned from me. The attorney told me

that the

> newsletter had great information in it, but is illegal. ly, I

don't

> know how to write a newsletter that uses only the " approved "

language and

> never mentions advice or a nutritional product in relation to a

disease

> condition. What about all those companies on the radio and TV who

are

> marketing their brand of calcium for people's " osteoporosis " ?? I

presume

> they will also be targeted?

>

> 16. I feel that I am being muzzled. I hate it. I am hurting and

confused.

> Thank you for your prayers for me to know what to do. If my website

> disappears for awhile and you don't get any more newsletters, it's

because

> I am either working on trying to make it compliant and still saying

> something of value, or I have given up on it. I had the December

2003

> newsletter almost ready to go and it's a great one! Was just

putting some

> finishing touches on it, but will not be able to send it now,

since the

> whole concept of the fibromyalgia newsletter violates the FTC

regulations

> (of giving people advice for a disease condition when you are not

a doctor).

>

> I am open to any thoughts or suggestions you may have. I may not

write

> back, but will be reading everything you write!

>

> Faithfully yours,

>

> Dominie Bush

>

> Posted at November 25, 2003 12:00 AM

>

January 7, 2004

Hi Sheri,

Just a thought, this applies to the USA only, right? What if you hosted

your website from another country - these rules do not apply in Australia

for example, could you do something like that?

Regards

Fern

January 7, 2004

We don't even know if it is true

Hvae sent out to a lawyer

And NVIC sent me some info that says it isn't true

But its an attachment I can't send to the list and haven't had time to find

it online

sheri

At 01:28 AM 01/07/2004 -0800, you wrote:

>Hi Sheri,

>

>Just a thought, this applies to the USA only, right? What if you hosted

>your website from another country - these rules do not apply in Australia

>for example, could you do something like that?

>

>Regards

>Fern

>

January 7, 2004

>

> If You think " BIG " brother hasn't arrived , then wait for the

knock on

> your door.. Allan d .

Hello:

I hope perpetuating this off topic post doesn't bother anyone, but

this last bridge from Willie 's newest song " Whatever happened

to peace on earth " expresses the situation quite well:

" And the bewildered herd is still believing

Everything we've been told from our birth

Hell they won't lie to me

Not on my own damn TV

But how much is a liar's word worth

And whatever happened to peace on earth "

And the following is a copy of the last e-zine I sent to my closest

associates and friends. The two articles demonstrates how the

pharmaceuticle companies use their sickness industry, the FDA, and

other health-war Mercenaries in goverment to steal our choices while

mildly slapping the hand of one who either somehow was exposed or

failed to make their pay off. (that is just my opinion, so please

doubt it, afterall I'm not a licened anything.) The e-zine:

There are two articles here and they both are by people who live in

the political arena and know where the bones are buried. As far as

our personal freedom of health choices are concerned, these may be

the most telling forcasts of what is around the next corner.

First:

The Good, Bad, and Ugly In the 2003 Congressional Session

By Lee Bechtel

National NHF Advocate

December 5, 2003

First, attribution is given to the really old Clint Eastwood movie –

The Good, Bad, and Ugly. In the first session of the 108th Congress,

for Americans who passionately care about dietary supplements it was

a very eventful year – good and bad. For those who care about the

freedom and/or their physician's access to effective medical

treatments approved in other countries but not FDA approved, the

year was less eventful. On the other hand, for Americans who were

hoping to legally re-import cheaper FDA approved prescription drugs

from Canada and twenty-five other countries, it was a really

unattractive year in terms of Congressional action and politicians

keeping commitments. This is the ugly aspect. On the issues of

dietary supplements, the Access to Medical Treatment legislation,

and drug re-importation, the 2004 Congressional session holds

promise and the potential for using the ephedrine issue as a Trojan

horse to repeal provisions the 1994 DSHEA law. This also falls into

the potential ugly category, but moving forward.

Dietary Supplements

S.722, the legislation introduced by Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) was

not offered as an amendment to the FDA spending bill for FY 2004. It

can be brought back in 2004, either in the normal legislative

process or any other manner the Senator can use. Support for an FDA

ban on dietary supplements containing ephedrine ingredients gained

momentum on November 6th. In the Senate, Senators Durbin (D-IL) and

McCain (R-AZ) introduced Senate Resolution 260, expressing the sense

of the Senate that the Food and Drug Administration should remove

dietary supplements containing ephedrine alkaloids from the market.

On the same day, Representatives (D-CA), Greenwood

(R-PA), Chairman of the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee,

Energy and Commerce Committee, and Congressman Henry Waxman (D-CA)

introduced an identical resolution, H.R. 435. Congressional

Resolutions are not binding federal law. They are Congressional

statements on what public policy should be. These resolutions are

intended to support a pending FDA ban on the sale of dietary

supplements with ephedrine containing ingredients. During

Congressional hearings in July 2003, FDA Commissioner Mark McClellan

testified that a ban was " on the table " as an option for the FDA.

As the session came to a close, the assault on dietary supplements

continued with the introduction of H.R. 3377. Sponsored by

(D-CA), joined by Henry Waxman (D-CA), and Dingell (D-MI,

the Ranking Democrat on the Energy and Commerce Committee), the

bill, among other things, would: (1) Narrow DSHEA coverage to only

those supplements that consist of vitamin and/or mineral

ingredients, unless dietary supplement makers meet additional FDA

requirements; (2) Establish the requirement that all manufacturers

and processors of the affected dietary supplements (ones not

containing only vitamins and/or mineral ingredients) provide to the

FDA an update every six months with a list of all of their products,

the labeling for each product, a listing of all " major

ingredients... including active ingredients, " of these products, and

establish the requirement that all manufacturers and distributors,

unless specifically waived by FDA, report serious adverse events to

FDA within 15 days; and, (3) Give new authority for the FDA to order

a manufacturer to conduct post-market surveillance, and require a

manufacturer to demonstrate the safety of a supplement if the FDA

has " reasonable grounds for believing " that a supplement presents an

unreasonable risk of injury or hazard to public health.

This " Son of Durbin " legislation does not create, as does S.722, an

FDA pre-approval process for ALL dietary supplements. The exemption

granted to supplements containing only vitamin and/or mineral

ingredients means that these types of supplements would only be

allowed under a newly revised DSHEA law. The House bill has post-

market surveillance and adverse event reporting, as does S.722. For

supplements identified by the FDA as being a potential public health

risk and requiring a safety review, S.722 calls this a " clinical

evaluation " whereas H.R. 3377 calls it a " demonstration period " .

H.R. 3377 does sets a limit on how long the FDA can recall and

withhold a supplement (six months), whereas S.722 does not set a

time limit on removing a product from the market. In short, there

are now two active bills that propose to repeal substantive

provisions of the DSHEA law and regulations, and would, if enacted,

regulate the vast majority of dietary supplements like prescription

drugs. There are several other bills that have been introduced, but

none of these have the same level of potential impact on consumers'

and practioners' access to and future payment for dietary

supplements. More detailed information and how you can participate

is available at www.thenhf.com.

Access To Medical Treatment – S. 1410 & H.R. 2085

Congressman Dan Burton (R-IN), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Human

Rights and Wellness, Government Reform Committee, and a sponsor of

H.R. 2085, has sent a letter to Congressman Bilirakis (R-

FL), the Chairman of the Health Subcommittee of the Energy and

Commerce Committee, requesting a Subcommittee mark-up hearing for

this legislation in 2004. While Representative Bilirakis is not a

supporter of AMTA, five Republicans - Charlie Norwood (R-Georgia),

Joe Barton (R-Texas), Burr (R-North Carolina), Cliff Stearns

(R-Florida), and (R-California), and four Democrats -

Ralph Hall (D-Texas), Pallone (D-New Jersey), Eshoo, (D-

California), and Gene Green (D-Texas) have previously been sponsors

of AMTA legislation. Grassroots action is needed to help build

Subcommittee and full Energy and Commerce Committee member support

for the Burton request. More detailed information and how you can

participate is available at www.thenhf.com.

Drug Re-Importation

The Medicare reform legislation passed Congress, and President Bush

will sign it into law. The drug industry is pleased with the final

outcome. The final Medicare compromise included the Senate position

on re-importation – allowing importation only if the HHS Secretary

certifies that the practice is safe, and authorizing a study to

assess safety issues. Neither of these is likely in happen in the

near future. In short, a continuation of current FDA policy, with a

study to delay any real progress, was the final outcome. The outcome

is not surprising since the Pharmaceutical Research and

Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) spent $8.5 million lobbying

Congress in the first half of 2003 working against re-importation

legislation.

The final outcome was in stark contrast to what Senators and

Representatives were saying leading up to the final vote on the

Medicare reform legislation. For example, at the beginning of

October, a bipartisan group of Senators introduced a bill designed

to pressure Medicare conferees to include substantive changes in re-

importation policy in the final Medicare bill. In September, a group

of 142 Democrats sent a letter to the House conferees saying that

they would vote against a final Medicare bill if it did not include

the more extensive House re-importation legislation, which would

have allowed re-importation from Canada and twenty-five other

countries. A majority of U.S. residents want Congress to legalize

the importation of prescription drugs from Canada and Europe and

would be willing to pay higher taxes for a Medicare prescription

drug benefit, according to a Washington Post/ABC News poll. Of those

polled, 69% said that importing prescription drugs from Canada,

Europe and other industrialized countries should be legal, while

only 29% said that it should not be legal.

To be fair, supporters of the final re-importation provision take

the position that the new Medicare law will immediately give senior

citizens a discount card to buy their prescription drugs. So, elder

Americans will get as much as a 25% discount on their overpriced US

version of a drug with their Medicare drug card, as opposed, on

average, to a 50% discount compared to the Canadian price of the

same FDA approved drug re-imported from Canada. This is good, but

what about the rest of Americans not eligible for Medicare.

Looking Ahead On These Issues

When Congress returns for the 2004 legislative session, the good

news is that it is an election year. The bad news is that it is an

election year. The ugly news is that, to paraphrase Forrest Gump,

there is amble Congressional precedent for enactment of federal laws

meant to protect stupid people from doing stupid things. To put it

into more politically correct language, with regard to dietary

supplements, how do you regulate common sense? Regarding dietary

supplements, the ephedrine issue is being used as the Trojan horse

to repeal the hard fought gain made in 1994 for responsible

consumers and medical providers.

The unattractive prospect is that the FDA could release its banning

regulation on dietary supplements containing ephedrine ingredients,

backed by the immediate passage of the House and Senate Resolutions.

But, the public policy atmosphere could get worse with the serious

consideration of either S.722 or H.R. 3377. The Waxman/Dingell bill

is more dangerous, from a political/legislative viewpoint than is

S.722. Why? It proposes to change the original intent of the 1994

DSHEA law. The argument made by supports of H.R. 3377 would be that

supplements containing vitamin and/or mineral ingredients should be

covered by DSHEA. Therefore ALL other dietary supplements, now and

in the future, should be subject to the prescription drug-like FDA

approval, post-market surveillance, and adverse event reporting

requirements. Unlike S.722, which is uniform in its application to

ALL supplements, H.R. 3377 portends to not regulate " real

supplements " , and only to regulate those that were not originally

intended to be covered by DSHEA. This line of argument is an easier

political and public policy sell than is an outright repeal of

DSHEA.

Regarding the AMTA legislation, continued grassroots lobbying is

needed to raise Congressional member awareness. The failure of the

re-importation issue presents an opportunity. This is related to

a " gray " area of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) that does

not discriminate between what are " unapproved drugs " . This policy

aspect has been researched with many folks. In short, current law

and regulations make no differentiation between an approved FDA

prescription drug exported to specified twenty-five countries and

then re-imported, and a drug or treatment approved in one of these

countries but not FDA approved. If brought into the US, both

are " unapproved drugs " . The AMTA legislation would, if enacted,

allow both types to be freely imported for use, but only under the

direct supervision of a licensed medical provider. This provider

provision answers the major concern of re-importation – consumer

safety. In addition, the AMTA legislation would mandate reporting of

positive or negative medical outcomes.

Regarding re-importation, some Democrats who opposed the Medicare

bill have begun formulating a strategy to change the legislation's

provisions in 2004. Some Senate Democrats will likely seek to add

language to the drug reimportation provision to address the direct

consumer access issue and the HHS Secretary certification issue.

Please visit the National Health Federation Webpage to keep abreast

of federal legislation and how you can help prevent more

governmental regulation and preserve individual health care choices.

Second:

This article, on the CODEX, reflects what many of us have been

saying for years and it is all about more pharmaceutical industry

profit at the expense of the our health.

REARRANGING THE DECK CHAIRS ON THE TITANIC

by Tips

January 2004, Whole Foods Magazine

Some observant person once noted " Amateurs built the Ark,

professionals built the Titanic. " Well, after attending the recent

Codex Alimentarius committee meeting in Bonn, Germany last November,

I could see that the professionals were at it again. The beautiful

Indian summer weather in Bonn must have lifted their spirits because

the professionals spent an energetic week busily greasing the skids

to launch their Titanic into the water.

Of course, as you recall, Codex Alimentarius is an international

body guided by the World Health Organization and the Food and

Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and charged with

establishing international trade standards for foods. The food

standards that it establishes are backed by the power of the World

Trade Organization (WTO), which settles trade disputes between

nations by ruling upon complaints and then levying punitive fines

upon the offending country. The WTO's rulings have caused

countries, including the United States, to change its domestic laws

in order to comply with WTO rulings. Within Codex Alimentarius

there are various committees that deal with specific food issues.

My focus has been on the Codex Committee on Nutrition and Foods for

Special Dietary Uses, which, among other things, has spent several

decades inching forward in its efforts to finalize its Guidelines

for Vitamin and Mineral Supplements. Once completed, however, this

document will be the basis by which food-supplement standards will

be measured everywhere. And like the Titanic, it is a disaster

waiting to happen.

For the fourth year in a row, I was there as a delegate. Thanks

once again to the National Health Federation (NHF)(www.thenhf.com),

the nonprofit consumer health-freedom organization for whom I

obtained Codex observer status beginning with the 2002 meeting, my

travel and hotel expenses were covered. I was also very ably

assisted on the delegation by Tamara Thérèsa Mosegaard of MayDay and

from the United Kingdom. Together, we did our

best to stem the anti-freedom tide; but, unfortunately, the NHF was

the only consistently pro-health freedom voice at the Codex meeting.

As the country host for the Committee meeting, Germany provided both

the location and the chairman. It also provided the most

attendees. The chairman again this year was the irrepressible Dr.

Rolf Grossklaus, who (presumably under some pressure from his

superiors, the " High Command " ) ran the meeting more efficiently this

year than in the previous years of my attendance. It is important

to remember that, with almost fifty countries and more than thirty

nongovernmental organizations represented, there is no voting at

these meetings. Dr. Grossklaus sits at the head table and

arbitrates the discussions using a procedure sweetly

called " consensus. " When he decides that the subject has been

adequately discussed, he then announces what the consensus is and

moves on to the next agenda item. Sometimes, rarely actually, there

are murmurs of disapproval if Dr. Grossklaus' decision does not

track reality; but most often there are no expressions of

disagreement. Either way, consensus is " reached " and the discussion

on the next topic starts.

" What The EU Wants, the EU Gets "

Not surprisingly, in finding consensus, this German chairman

consistently and unerringly rules in favor of the representative for

the European Union (EU). Time after time, I noticed that the

Chairman adopted as the consensus decision the very position taken

by the EU representative. When Malaysia wanted to change the title

of the Guidelines by deleting the word " food, " the EU objected. Dr.

Grossklaus agreed with the EU. When South Africa tried to amend the

Preamble to the Guidelines to include a statement that vitamins and

minerals aid in the prevention of chronic diseases, the EU objected

that food and prevention could not go together. Dr. Grossklaus

agreed with the EU. When the EU announced that it wanted to make

sure that all food supplements (not just vitamins and minerals)

would be covered by the Codex restrictions, Dr. Grossklaus agreed

to the EU's proposed wording. When the EU decided that the

definition of vitamin and mineral food supplements should be

modified by tacking on the words " designed to be taken as small unit

quantities, " Dr. Grossklaus agreed. When the United States, with

much support from others, wanted to add wording that vitamins and

minerals could be from both natural and synthetic sources, the EU

objected and asked that the language be placed in brackets,

indicating the language was not approved but must run the gauntlet

of approval again next year. Dr. Grossklaus put the language in

brackets. When the EU and the United States argued on the same side

against retaining the RDA upper limits on vitamins, Dr. Grossklaus

found consensus with the EU and United States position. Yet, when

the EU objected to the United States' and many other delegates'

(including the NHF's) position that the Committee should delete the

restrictive wording that " When the maximum levels are set, due

account should be taken to the reference intake values of vitamins

and minerals for the population, " Dr. Grossklaus agreed with the EU

and retained the sentence. When various delegations (South Africa,

IADSA, and the NHF) objected to language that would require vitamin

and mineral supplements to be " named " as " food supplements " and

suggested instead alternative wording that would distinguish the

need to label the product as a " food supplement " from the actual

product name, the EU disagreed. Dr. Grossklaus sided with the EU.

When the EU and the United States were again at odds over whether

or not the amount of vitamins and minerals contained in a product

should be disclosed by the inane and useless European bulk-product

system of stating so-much weight of a product yields so-many

milligrams or micrograms of vitamins and minerals (leaving the

hapless consumer to do the math to figure out how much is in each

capsule or tablet) or be disclosed by the more direct American way

of stating the milligram and microgram quantity of the vitamins and

minerals per capsule or tablet, Dr. Grossklaus once again decided in

favor of the EU, although he did permit the American suggested

wording to remain in the sentence in the brackets that indicate it

must be reviewed again next year.

By this point, I was so disgusted with the Chairman's pattern of

rubber-stamping as " consensus " the EU representative's opinion,

that, when called upon to speak, I told the Chairman that he was

just fashioning the Guideline to whatever the EU wanted. " What the

EU wants, the EU gets, " I told him and the others, adding that there

was no consensus at all in favor of the EU position. I was not

surprised, though, to find that no other delegation verbally

supported me on this. And Dr. Grossklaus, looking down on the group

from his judge's chair, brushed aside my remarks with an

unimpressive " I reject your comment as untrue. " And the charade

continued with subsequent EU wording suggestions of course getting

Dr. Grossklaus' fair nod.

At one time, unknowingly contradicting what he would later tell me

in rejecting my complaint of favoritism, Dr. Grossklaus justified

his favoring of the EU by stating that the EU represented 15

countries, as if that faint logic made any sort of difference. Why

was Dr. Grossklaus counting countries that joined together into a

federal union? What about the fifty states of the United States?

What about China with a far greater population than the EU? Or

India ? Perhaps, expanding upon Dr. Grossklaus' logic, he should

weight his decisions instead in favor of the Chinese or Indian

positions since they are the most populous countries of all. But,

no, Dr. Grossklaus is a citizen of Germany, a member state of the

EU. We know where his sympathies lie, as well as where his

instructions must come from.

South Africa Shines

True to her word given at the end of the 2002 Committee meeting,

South African delegate Antoinette Booyzen introduced at this most

recent meeting certain Preamble and other language in an attempt to

avoid the restrictive tone of the Guidelines sought by many other

delegates. Her proposed amendment to the Preamble of the Guidelines

would have had Codex endorsing people to " select a healthy diet and

supplement this diet with those nutrients for which the intake from

the diet is insufficient to meet the requirements necessary for the

prevention of chronic diseases and/or for the promotion of health

beyond the demands of preventing micronutrient deficiencies. "

Knowing that this wording would be proposed, I had asked

Yetley, the head of the U.S. delegation, to support South Africa's

proposed wording; but she declined, saying that it was a losing

cause. So, when the matter came up for discussion, only the NHF and

the Council for Responsible Nutrition supported South Africa's

proposal. On this occasion as on many others, I repeatedly slugged

it out verbally with the EU representative, who claimed to speak for

the EU consumer. It was a lonely fight.

Not deterred by the EU, Mrs. Booyzen was more verbal at this year's

meeting than the previous one and did not shy away from

controversy. Unfortunately, the tag team of the Chairman and the EU

representative effectively throttled any progress away from controls

and restrictions and the mainstream view that vitamins and minerals

are only there to prevent deficiencies.

The Chains Are Loosened

Press releases from supplement-industry organizations have trumpeted

the " victory " of the recent session's deletion of Upper Limits on

vitamins and minerals based on the insanely low Recommended Daily

Allowances (RDAs). In a limited sense the claim of victory is true –

Upper Limits based upon RDAs would have been horribly restrictive.

But in rushing towards looser restrictions based on the false

security of " scientific risk assessment, " they are only

substituting looser handcuffs for tight ones. Proponents of

the " scientific risk assessment " method of establishing safe Upper

Limits for vitamins and minerals think that the (expensive) studies

that will be done, and that have been done, will show that the

limits should be set high, even very high. I sincerely hope that

they are right.

Unfortunately, recent events are more supportive of the fears of

those of my jaded health-freedom colleagues who note that the EU

Scientific Committee on Food has used " scientific risk assessment "

to establish ridiculously low upper intake levels for niacin (10

mg.) and for Vitamin B6 (25 mg.). This supports what I have argued

for years: Science is not some objective standard these days (if it

ever were), it is a tool that can be shaped to support whatever

argument or position its users want. If researchers want to argue

that Vitamin C is dangerous above a certain level, then they will

find or create " scientific " studies that support their position.

They have done this in the past, they are doing it now with the EU

Scientific Committee on Food, and they are doing it through numerous

false studies that are published almost monthly in the common press

to frighten consumers away from dietary supplements. So-called

scientific risk assessment is a trap.

So, yes, the severe Upper Limits that would have plagued us had the

RDAs become the standard are gone; but there are still Upper Limits

being set on natural substances that actually do not even require

upper limits at all. All of this time, energy, and money is being

wasted to set standards that are unnecessary as they are currently

being framed. After all, do we set Upper Limits on water, fiber, or

food? So while we can all breathe a sigh of relief that we have

avoided the electric chair, we should not sing too loudly as we are

led into the prison cell that will become our home for the rest of

our lives.

The Future

In their eagerness to help us, the professionals are determined to

ruin our health and our lives. They are constructing this grand

edifice of health standards to protect us from what they see as

fraudulent and potentially dangerous health supplements. With their

pharmaceutical mindset, it is not difficult to perceive how these

proponents of control might view vitamins and minerals as dangerous –

either to health or to their pocketbooks. Others ascribe an even

more sinister motive to these professionals, seeing them as the

tools and agents of the pharmaceutical industry that want to hijack

the dietary-supplement industry and thereby keep it from ever really

competing with the medicines of death that they sell.

Regardless, while we are riding on this voyage of regulatory

discovery, it is increasingly apparent that we are all at best

simply rearranging the deck chairs on this Titanic. Unless this

Behemoth changes course radically, and soon, many lives will be

lost. Education, political action, lawsuits, and coordinated

efforts by health-freedom lovers are all important. Each of us must

do whatever we can to stop the onward rush of this ship to disaster.

-------------------

Namaste,

Ted

Everything that exists is a unique manifestation of energy. Every

physical and mental disorder manifests somewhere in the body as an

imbalance (stress). All energy can be affected by other energies.

Our mission is researching energies and applying those that are

beneficial as we eliminate those which are not. Jan and Ted

Thedford: 940-381-1037 - Stimulating The Mind To Balance The Body -

www.BlueFeatherEnergetics.com - Another Unique and Effective Use Of

Frequencies - www.PoundsLighter.com.

January 7, 2004

The National Health Federation is a good group, I have been a member

for over 30 years. Join!

> >

> > If You think " BIG " brother hasn't arrived , then wait for the

> knock on

> > your door.. Allan d .

>

> Hello:

> I hope perpetuating this off topic post doesn't bother anyone, but

> this last bridge from Willie 's newest song " Whatever

happened

> to peace on earth " expresses the situation quite well:

>

> " And the bewildered herd is still believing

> Everything we've been told from our birth

> Hell they won't lie to me

> Not on my own damn TV

> But how much is a liar's word worth

> And whatever happened to peace on earth "

>

> And the following is a copy of the last e-zine I sent to my

closest

> associates and friends. The two articles demonstrates how the

> pharmaceuticle companies use their sickness industry, the FDA, and

> other health-war Mercenaries in goverment to steal our choices

while

> mildly slapping the hand of one who either somehow was exposed or

> failed to make their pay off. (that is just my opinion, so please

> doubt it, afterall I'm not a licened anything.) The e-zine:

>

> There are two articles here and they both are by people who live

in

> the political arena and know where the bones are buried. As far as

> our personal freedom of health choices are concerned, these may be

> the most telling forcasts of what is around the next corner.

>

> First:

>

> The Good, Bad, and Ugly In the 2003 Congressional Session

> By Lee Bechtel

> National NHF Advocate

> December 5, 2003

>

> First, attribution is given to the really old Clint Eastwood

movie –

> The Good, Bad, and Ugly. In the first session of the 108th

Congress,

> for Americans who passionately care about dietary supplements it

was

> a very eventful year – good and bad. For those who care about the

> freedom and/or their physician's access to effective medical

> treatments approved in other countries but not FDA approved, the

> year was less eventful. On the other hand, for Americans who were

> hoping to legally re-import cheaper FDA approved prescription

drugs

> from Canada and twenty-five other countries, it was a really

> unattractive year in terms of Congressional action and politicians

> keeping commitments. This is the ugly aspect. On the issues of

> dietary supplements, the Access to Medical Treatment legislation,

> and drug re-importation, the 2004 Congressional session holds

> promise and the potential for using the ephedrine issue as a

Trojan

> horse to repeal provisions the 1994 DSHEA law. This also falls

into

> the potential ugly category, but moving forward.

>

> Dietary Supplements

>

> S.722, the legislation introduced by Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL)

was

> not offered as an amendment to the FDA spending bill for FY 2004.

It

> can be brought back in 2004, either in the normal legislative

> process or any other manner the Senator can use. Support for an

FDA

> ban on dietary supplements containing ephedrine ingredients gained

> momentum on November 6th. In the Senate, Senators Durbin (D-IL)

and

> McCain (R-AZ) introduced Senate Resolution 260, expressing the

sense

> of the Senate that the Food and Drug Administration should remove

> dietary supplements containing ephedrine alkaloids from the

market.

> On the same day, Representatives (D-CA),

Greenwood

> (R-PA), Chairman of the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee,

> Energy and Commerce Committee, and Congressman Henry Waxman (D-CA)

> introduced an identical resolution, H.R. 435. Congressional

> Resolutions are not binding federal law. They are Congressional

> statements on what public policy should be. These resolutions are

> intended to support a pending FDA ban on the sale of dietary

> supplements with ephedrine containing ingredients. During

> Congressional hearings in July 2003, FDA Commissioner Mark

McClellan

> testified that a ban was " on the table " as an option for the FDA.

>

> As the session came to a close, the assault on dietary supplements

> continued with the introduction of H.R. 3377. Sponsored by

> (D-CA), joined by Henry Waxman (D-CA), and Dingell (D-

MI,

> the Ranking Democrat on the Energy and Commerce Committee), the

> bill, among other things, would: (1) Narrow DSHEA coverage to only

> those supplements that consist of vitamin and/or mineral

> ingredients, unless dietary supplement makers meet additional FDA

> requirements; (2) Establish the requirement that all manufacturers

> and processors of the affected dietary supplements (ones not

> containing only vitamins and/or mineral ingredients) provide to

the

> FDA an update every six months with a list of all of their

products,

> the labeling for each product, a listing of all " major

> ingredients... including active ingredients, " of these products,

and

> establish the requirement that all manufacturers and distributors,

> unless specifically waived by FDA, report serious adverse events

to

> FDA within 15 days; and, (3) Give new authority for the FDA to

order

> a manufacturer to conduct post-market surveillance, and require a

> manufacturer to demonstrate the safety of a supplement if the FDA

> has " reasonable grounds for believing " that a supplement presents

an

> unreasonable risk of injury or hazard to public health.

>

> This " Son of Durbin " legislation does not create, as does S.722,

an

> FDA pre-approval process for ALL dietary supplements. The

exemption

> granted to supplements containing only vitamin and/or mineral

> ingredients means that these types of supplements would only be

> allowed under a newly revised DSHEA law. The House bill has post-

> market surveillance and adverse event reporting, as does S.722.

For

> supplements identified by the FDA as being a potential public

health

> risk and requiring a safety review, S.722 calls this a " clinical

> evaluation " whereas H.R. 3377 calls it a " demonstration period " .

> H.R. 3377 does sets a limit on how long the FDA can recall and

> withhold a supplement (six months), whereas S.722 does not set a

> time limit on removing a product from the market. In short, there

> are now two active bills that propose to repeal substantive

> provisions of the DSHEA law and regulations, and would, if

enacted,

> regulate the vast majority of dietary supplements like

prescription

> drugs. There are several other bills that have been introduced,

but

> none of these have the same level of potential impact on

consumers'

> and practioners' access to and future payment for dietary

> supplements. More detailed information and how you can participate

> is available at www.thenhf.com.

>

> Access To Medical Treatment – S. 1410 & H.R. 2085

>

> Congressman Dan Burton (R-IN), Chairman of the Subcommittee on

Human

> Rights and Wellness, Government Reform Committee, and a sponsor of

> H.R. 2085, has sent a letter to Congressman Bilirakis (R-

> FL), the Chairman of the Health Subcommittee of the Energy and

> Commerce Committee, requesting a Subcommittee mark-up hearing for

> this legislation in 2004. While Representative Bilirakis is not a

> supporter of AMTA, five Republicans - Charlie Norwood (R-Georgia),

> Joe Barton (R-Texas), Burr (R-North Carolina), Cliff

Stearns

> (R-Florida), and (R-California), and four

Democrats -

> Ralph Hall (D-Texas), Pallone (D-New Jersey), Eshoo,

(D-

> California), and Gene Green (D-Texas) have previously been

Sign In

Re: ILLEGAL to give Internet or email advice on health.............

Recommended Posts

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Join the conversation

Activity