Sunday, January 21, 2007

The Bioregional State's Bodily Integrity Principle Vs. Codex Alimentarius' WTO Vitamin Police

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

Bodily Integrity Vs. Codex Alimentarius: Twisting Once International Pro-consumer Guidelines into Supply-side Gatekeeping against Consumer and Health Choice


Benjamin Rush on the Despotism of the Vitamin Police

American Founding Father Benjamin Rush wanted medical freedom as a basic human right in the U.S. Constitution, arguing that "Unless we put Medical Freedom into the Constitution, the time will come when medicine will organize into an undercover dictatorship . . .[T]o restrict the art of healing to one class of men, and deny equal privilege to others, will be to constitute the Bastille of Medical Science. All such laws are un-American and despotic and have no place in a Republic....The Constitution of this Republic should make special privilege for Medical Freedom as well as Religious Freedom."

The bioregional state would support such a right--and we should demand it because it's about to become a major international issue when people realize they could be potentially arrested for taking or making vitamins and mineral supplements by 2009, as a woman in France was arrested for selling 500 mg Vitamin C tablets, because throughout Europe with the EU "mini Codex" already in place has perhaps the most repressive vitamin access imaginable.

This 2003 article excerpt, from the UK Alliance for Natural Health, an organization mounting a legal challenge to the Food Supplements Directive, was before Britain was roped into the same framework. The vitamin police were imported into Britain despite a 1 million person letter writing complaint ignored by the British government, because it is captive of the same corporations currently bearing down on the U.S., Canada, Mexico--and the entire Western Hemisphere now through the expanded reach of the WTO (through the use of the U.N.'s) Codex that makes the EU frameworks internationalized by 2009:


"ON 3rd JULY 2003, the European Food Supplements Directive was passed into English Law, which will, over the next few years, effectively ban around 5000 discrete products currently legal to sell in health food shops and pharmacies. This Directive has been devised and pushed forward by the unelected EU bureaucrats in order to "harmonize" the selling of health supplements throughout the EU, and was railroaded through the British Parliament by the Blair Government despite being rejected by the House of Lords. The way that the Government passed it was outrageous: just before the vote by the Standing Committee in the House of Commons, five Labour MPs who were going to vote against it were replaced by more obedient MPs. Even then, this directive was only passed by 8 votes to 6!

"So it seems that the European Parliament and the present UK Government are determined to pass the Food Supplements Directive despite the will of the people and even of MPs themselves. Why? Because it is the will of the EU Parliament which is very strongly influenced by the massive pharmaceutical companies in Europe. They are the only ones that will financially gain from the destruction of the health supplement industry. After all, people who take responsibility for their own health by taking supplements need less drugs because they are healthier.

"It is ironic that the Malnutrition Advisory Group has recently released a report showing that about 2 million people in the UK(!), including 60% of hospital patients, are not getting adequate nutrition and they admit that this is severally affecting their health and ability to heal. Of course, they don't mention supplements because they are still under the false and dangerous impression that this fictitious thing called a "well-balanced diet" exists that can adequately supply all the nutrients that the body needs. Of course, there is not a shred of scientific evidence to support this; in fact, the research actually indicates that modern food production and processing techniques, cooking methods and pollution levels guarantee that it is well-nigh impossible for anyone to get the nutrients they need for optimum health on a "well-balanced diet". (And if you can't get optimum nutrition using ingredients from the supermarket, how on earth are you going to find it in a disgusting NHS hospital slop canteen!) Given this terrible state of modern nutrition, it is astonishing that our governments are trying to move legislation towards a vastly reduced availability of nutritional supplements. What is going on?

"Many of us have been protesting about these proposals for the past five years, writing letters to our MPs and MEPs, signing million signature petitions and even marching on Parliament here in London. Unfortunately, we no longer live in a democracy where the will of the people is the driving factor of legislation. The EU Parliament is not interested in personal freedom, or even personal health… only control and more control. And they have tried to justify this assault on our rights to take supplements on the grounds of our safety, even though health supplements have a safety record second to none — see LaLeva's Safety of Dietary Supplements and Comparative Safety Graph. And given their incredible safety, it is rather odd that the tabloid newspapers have been running sensational headlines over the past few years on the dangers of nutritional supplements. (I wonder who is behind those media campaigns?)

"Already, the supplement market in Germany and Norway are severely controlled, and it is illegal, for example, to buy Vitamin C over 200mg in strength because it is considered by Brussels to be unnecessary, although of course, it is very necessary for the population to continue to buy cigarettes and alcohol as they are very healthy for governments' bank accounts. I have just heard (10/3/04) from a very reliable source that a woman has been arrested in France for selling 500mg tablets of Vitamin C because in that country doses of that strength are now considered medicinal! (There is absolutely no safety issue with Vitamin C and you can freely buy 1000mg tablets here in the UK and US at the moment… I take 3 a day.) Soon, these sorts of controls will be pan-European, and you will only be able to buy from a small and bland list of ineffective, inorganic supplements and in doses that the EU diktat considers appropriate. Many innovative products and companies will simply disappear, and it will become much harder for each of us to take responsibility for our health."


And so the WTO's Codex would 'harmonize' disharmoniously with current U.S., Canadian, and many other countries in the Western Hemisphere's more locally representative laws that benefit the consumer health freedom access to vitamins and minerals--forcing all countries internationally involved in the WTO to remove their pro-consumer and health freedom access legislation, like the EU.

Below are links to two interesting short documentaries about the current invasive, consumer repressive despotism of Codex Alimentarius, supposedly to be institutionalized across multiple nations by 2009. If despotism is defined as:

1. the rule of a despot; the exercise of absolute authority.
2. absolute power or control; tyranny.
3. an absolute or autocratic government.
4. a country ruled by a despot.

--then the Codex Alimentarius is a global despotism in its current form.

Starting innocuously enough in the early 1960s as a pro-consumer U.N. protocol for standards to assure healthy and nutritious foods for developing countries by establishing international baselines for health standards, it has instead by the 1990s been corporatized into international prohibition and sales standards. The touchy point is its ongoing attempt, by 2009 it is said, to outlaw certain health products internationally used as natural alternatives to expensive (and barely serviceable--because it kills approximately 750,000 a year in the United States) hospital medicine. The Codex presumes to outlaw the body's natural building blocks--vitamins and minerals--a far cry from setting 'health standards.'

The current iterations of the Codex are a complete turnaround from its conception purpose, of encouraging health standard baselines, which have been twisted into an enforcement arm granting itself the power internationally to license and ban commodities.

Night of the Living Dead Vitamin Police

The Codex has turned into the "night of the living vitamin police" once more, because these policies were soundly trounced by citizen activism over a decade ago, and here they come to eerie life from the grave through the World Trade Organization, to shore up private monopolies of more expensive health treatments from competition with cheaper and unpatentable vitamins and minerals that are a gift of nature and the very way our bodies work.

One documentary gets into the guilty secret of how this 'consumptive heresthetics' works, mentioning it is very reminiscent of when the FDA simultaneously outlawed 'free' and naturally occurring L-tryptophan amino acid as a supplement (widely used as a nutritional treatment against depression) effectively criminalizing the human body's own neurotransmitters! This was in order to force sales of risky and dangerous Prozac recently introduced as a 'corporate substitute' to tryptophan based neurotransmitter deficiency issues. Obviously, the human body instead of the corporations knew best: later of course Prozac was withdrawn in Europe after multiple tens of thousands of deaths and suicides--though L-tryptophan still is kept from being a supplement in the U.S., and still in the U.S. Prozac is there.

Prozac is made by Eli Lilly, whom George H. W. Bush has been associated with for most of his life on the board of Directors. So while it was banned in Europe due to these suicidal tendencies being expanded, in the U.S. Ely Lilly corruptly saw that it was kept in circulation:

----------
INSET ON PROZAC

Eli Lilly Knew Prozac Causes Suicides, Violence - FDA Closed Both Eyes
Categories
Health
Pharma

Prozac, called fluoxetine by generic name, is a psychiatric drug prescribed to over 50 million people including millions of children. The drug was linked to increased suicides and violence as early as 1988, in a recently emerged document. Apparently the evaluation was known to Prozac's maker Eli Lilly as early as the 'eighties, but was never even given to the FDA.

This is the preoccupying picture that emerged just days ago, as the British Medical Journal passed on documents to the FDA which it had received by an anonymous whistleblower.

Can such a "head in the sand" policy be characterized as merely overzealous business practice, or is it an indication of something much more devastating? Eli Lilly is one of the multinational drug companies that have developed the "Texas Medication Algorithm Project", which is part of George Bush II's sweeping program to test kids at school as well as pregnant mothers for "psychiatric disorders". Prozac is one of the drugs that are to be given to kids who don't meet the evaluating personnel's standards of "normal" behaviour.

Eli Lilly is right where the important decisions are made. In July 2001, Gerald Radke, a former marketing director for Eli Lilly, became Deputy Director of Pennsylvania's Department of Public Welfare’s Office of Mental Health and Substance Abuse. Rathke, who is one of the major proponents of the universal testing and medication program, had previously been "on loan" to head a mental health advocacy group, NAMI or National Alliance for the Mentally Ill, which is funded by ... Eli Lilly and other pharmaceutical manufacturers.

When recently, antidepressant drugs received FDA mandated warning labels, Prozac wasn't on the list and indeed, in Europe the drug has been called "safe for children" for years. Recently, the whole FDA approval procedure for drugs has been questioned as being too industry friendly, and apparently with good reason. After recent revelations of heart attack risk for the users of several "new generation" painkillers - Vioxx, Bextra, Celebrex and others, the FDA's policy of sustaining the profits of pharmaceutical industry, in sharp contrast with its official mission of protecting patients from dangerous pharmaceutical drugs, has been publicly questioned.

Not only the drug approval process seems to be slanted in favor of industry. Even the food supply has been compromised with products such as artificial sweeteners and genetically modified plants, animals and bacteria that are by no means innocuous. While aspartame for instance has brought great profits to the industry, the FDA plain refuses to look at the numerous adverse reaction reports. FDA field agents are reported to block people from even reporting events, because "aspartame could not cause such a reaction".

The same is true for cholesterol lowering statin drugs, where apparently frequent reports of muscle pains, memory loss and other side effects just don't seem to make it into the FDA's system, despite being fairly widespread. The pains associated with statin drug use may even have led to the overuse of painkillers - those recently found to cause an increase of heart attacks.

Meanwhile, the FDA is complaining that it does not have sufficient means to control dangerous food supplements and is promoting stringent legislation on those nutrient rich products.

What has the world come to?


- - -

Journal hands over Prozac papers

(original on BBC news)


Confidential papers on anti-depressant drug Prozac that went missing during a murder case have been handed to the US drug regulator by a UK medical journal.

The documents, belonging to Eli Lilly, the makers of Prozac, included details of clinical trials of the drug, the British Medical Journal said.

The documents reportedly went missing after the relatives of the victims of Joseph Wesbecker started legal action.

Mr Wesbecker, who was on Prozac, shot eight people dead in 1989 in the US.

Another 12 people were injured during the shooting spree at a printing plant in Louisville, Kentucky.

Data

The 47-year-old then shot himself.

In 1994, the relatives brought a civil case against Eli Lilly.

The company subsequently won the case but was later forced to admit that it had made a secret settlement with the plaintiffs during the trial, which meant that the verdict was invalid, the BMJ reported.

Dr Richard Kalpit, the clinical reviewer at the US Food and Drug Administration, the US drugs regulator, who approved the drug, told the BMJ he was not given the data included in the documents.

"These data are very important. If this report was done by Lilly or for Lilly, it was their responsibility to report it to us and to publish it."

Recent research has suggested children who use Prozac are at greater risk of suicide...

...

Britain set for clash with Europe over ban on Prozac for under-18s

Europe's drugs watchdog has banned Prozac and other modern antidepressants for under-18s because of safety fears, putting it on a collision course with Britain's drugs regulator. Antidepressants increase suicidal thoughts and suicide attempts among children and adolescents, and should not be used to treat depression, the scientific panel of the European Medicines Agency (Emea) said. Including Prozac in the ban clashes with the stance taken by Britain's drugs regulator 16 months ago. Prozac is the only antidepressant that doctors can prescribe to children in Britain, following a safety review in 2003.

FDA accused of suppressing drug safety information

Here's a report on the FDA that could only come from outside the United States. I'm reading to you from The Independent, a British newspaper, that says, "Vital data on prescription medication found in millions of British homes has been suppressed by the powerful U.S. drug regulators, even though the information could potentially save lives." An investigation by The Independent states that, under pressure from the pharmaceutical industry, the American Food and Drug Administration routinely conceals information it considers commercially sensitive, leaving medical specialists unable to assess the true risks.


...

Here is a comment on the matter of SSRI antidepressants from a recent communication of the ALLIANCE FOR HUMAN RESEARCH PROTECTION (AHRP)

Dr. Graham notes that the FDA’s proposed new label for SSRI antidepressants cites a "suicidality" rate of one to two percent, but a senior FDA official acknowledged in September that that number was based upon drug trials that "failed to capture most of the reactions of suicidality." But, he points out, the finding in an alternative trial, —Treatment for Adolescents with Depression Study (TADS)--"the actual rate was somewhere around seven or eight percent," which, as he says, is an incredibly substantive difference from the proposed FDA numbers in the warning label.

Indeed, in the TADS experiment, there were 7 suicide attempts—--6 in the Prozac group, one in the placebo group. The rate for adverse events involving deliberate harm (to self or others) in children in the Prozac group was 12%,additionally suicide-related events in the Prozac group reached 8.26%. More than twice the rate in the placebo group: 5.36% and 3.57% respectively. [1]

Evidence of the hazards of Prozac and the other SSRI antidepressants that had been hidden for decades - or deliberately miscoded - is coming to light: the hazards include severe withdrawal symptoms - which is evidence of drug dependency; mania; violence; suicide; and cardiac abnormalities. Additionally, children prescribed an SSRI are at risk of decreased growth and an unusual high incidence of conversion from drug-induced mania to manic-depression (bipolar) - previously a rare diagnosis in children.

All of these hazards continue to be downplayed by the FDA and leading psychopharmacologists who have considerable (mostly undisclosed) financial stakes in the pharmaceutical industry. Most of the “experts” usually cited in the press have tested the drugs in clinical trials but failed to disclose in published reports the negative findings, hazardous - even lethal - adverse events that occurred in the trials. Company officials and psychiatrists from prestigious medical institutions - who are paid consultants or recipients of grants from drug manufacturers - have tainted the scientific literature. They have misled prescribing physicians with reassuring, but unsupportable claims that the drugs were “safe and effective” when the drugs have failed to demonstrate a clinically significant benefit, but posed clinically significant risks of harm:

When questioned by about the TADS findings by Psychiatric News, Dr. Graham Emslie, one of the lead investigators of the trial acknowledged: "Patients receiving fluoxetine alone had the highest risk…of experiencing a harm-related event, compared with those receiving placebo.” [2]


1. Fluoxetine, Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy,and Their Combination for Adolescents With Depression Treatment for Adolescents With Depression Study (TADS) Randomized Controlled Trial, JAMA, August 18, 2004—, Vol 292, 807-820, Table 3.

2. Jim Rosack. Drug/CBT Combo Effective In Treating Depressed Youth, Psychiatric News September 3, 2004, Volume 39 Number 17 © 2004 American Psychiatric Association. Online at: http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/39/17/1

Contact: Vera Hassner Sharav
212-595-8974
veracare@ahrp.org

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

As discussed in earlier entries, letting corruptible large scale national organizations adjudicate risk for multiple local publics is innately a flawed method of crafting risk regulations. And a corrupt FDA (and EPA) really depend entirely upon corporate honesty in testing, of which there is little being manufactured, so the public FDA/EPA actually does little if any independent testing. Their federal budgets are for reviewing corporate spoonfed data tests, which have been shown to be completely fraudulent 'spoof research' sometimes. This centralization of material risk adjudication nationally (or in the Codex internationally) leads to a process divorced from local consumer geographic risk experiences, and instead, full of international corporate risk producing politics attempting to protect themselves.

The Codex is just one example of this. The current process of material risk adjudication is broken because the scale of who adjudicates consumer risk properly is at the local geographic level, instead of the national level, much less the international WTO. In the current frameworks of risk adjudication, systemic health risks are about all that is institutionalized and underwritten by political cronies making fast with public health. The ongoing 'sweet misery' of aspartame poisoning, courtesy of Donald Rumsfeld, is proof enough for this over and over. The L-tryptophan outlawing, simultaneous with the hocking of Prozac without true testing, is another example of high level corruption. The ongoing stalling due to conflicts of interest in the the vaccine connected autism epidemic is another 'sick' example, no pun intended.

Current versions of the Codex are adamantly even more repressive, anti-consumer, and anti-health rights ironically because the consumer already won the battle. The consumers in the United States and elsewhere made their voice known by the 1990s on the issue. They want to have legal protections for right of access to cheap health care alternatives, via vitamin/mineral supplements. Sparked by their attempt to remove these health choices, allopathic medical-drug corporations found a 'health freedom' movement of consumers on their hands--and health freedom is something the United States has never had for 100 or more years due to the consolidation and winnowing of medical practice through the influence of the Rockefeller foundations.

The Codex documentaries show by the early 1990s, this sudden health freedom movement underway in the United States successfully stopped a 'mini' version of "the vitamin police" being created. Legality of having vitamins and mineral supplements was secured via a huge consumer/producer outcry.

However, the documentaries go on to show that the same losing drug corporations--still busy poisoning us with forced limited choices and poorly tested 'rubberstamped' safety labels--are the same ones working on the international level to force their policies from the outside in, now. They are attempting to get around massive public outcry by foisting the same policies that lost through a pro-corporate treaty framework.

Even though the "vitamin police" was rejected on a national level, it is currently attempting to come back from the dead on an international level through the WTO.

Bodily Integrity vs. Codex Alimentarius

Codex Alimentarius's current versions, in terms of the bioregional state, cross the 'bodily integrity' line "that government shall not pass." The fuller quote of bioregional state principles, from Toward a Bioregional State's Ecological Bill of Rights, says in part:

"Attempts of some to pressure government to enforce certain moralities to regulate internal bodily issues are forms of bodily tyranny that break the skin barrier that government shall not pass. The Constitution of Sustainability shall assure bodily integrity through upholding bodily rights, instead of demoting them."

The bioregional state is of course is pro-consumer rights, and pro-local risk adjudication since most risk is experienced geographically particularly in pollution issues. The Codex Alimentarius in its current versions is anti-consumer rights and completely uninterested that multiple local geographies have already made their statement that they wanted access to health alternatives that are innately part of their own bodies (supplements). Thus the Codex's present twisted framework is a profoundly anti-consumer, anti-health care treaty beholden to corporate interests attempting to criminalize cheap and less risky forms of medicinal choices and practices in vitamins and mineral supplements.

Your Increasingly Nutritionally Useless Food

As an earlier entry, "SUPPLY VERSUS DEMAND: Veggies, Soil, Pesticides/Herbicides, and Your Increasingly Nutritionally Useless Food," has shown, industrialized agriculture strategies destroy the health of the soil, and lead to breeding crops for anti-consumer goals. They have caused a huge documentable drop in the vitamin and mineral content of basic foods over the 20th century and into the 21st.

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting
Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

In that earlier entry, amongst other points:

According to data collected by the USDA, non-organic vegetables have fewer vitamins and minerals than they did 50 years ago. On an overall scale of all produce tested, protein has declined by six percent, iron has declined 15 percent, vitamin C has dropped 20 percent, and riboflavin has fallen by 38 percent. An analysis of the nutritional drops was published in the Journal of the American College of Nutrition and suggests the loss is due to the increased cultivation of crops that were bred for high growth and production and not for nutritional value.

So, when you intentionally breed for more quantity, quality and even nutritional content has suffered. Mix this with soil demineralization, the very building blocks of plant growth and quality, then mineral and vitamin supplements are probably required simply because they help people keep up with what has been steadily eroded from their increasingly industrialized food materials. Food has internally changed in quality and content over much of the industrialized agricultural world, despite maintaining an innocuously unchanged look. This is why the organic sector is booming--while major industrial agricultural food corporations want to avoid selling pro-consumer items:

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

Codex frameworks attempting to "pull an FDA" and pressure supply-side forced sales by attempting to stop health freedom choices would be categorically disallowed within the bioregional state. It is the watershed first that has primary jurisdiction exclusively on material risk politics in the bioregional state, instead of the federal and state governments. Local geographical risk adjudication is one of its main principles. This is widely seen already in practice--in different local counties deciding on their own to ban GMOs, or in different states wanting to ban Monsanto's risky cancer causing and life shortening (for cattle) rBGH growth hormone for bilking out more milk production, for instance.

In the bioregional state's Ecological Bill of Rights:

Article 29

Section 1.

The Constitution of Sustainability shall support bodily integrity of all citizens and species. There are bodily rights beyond which all government shall keep from challenging and instead shall maintain them, running the gamut from environmental pollution issues that impinge on bodily integrity, to food issues, to commodity monitoring, to surveillance, and to abortion. The Constitution of Sustainability is based on bodily rights and bodily integrity assured through these rights. Government is limited to a social operation regulating only spaces and activities between individuals for sustainability and for human rights instead of regulating or having any jurisdiction on internal bodily activities or personal decisions about one's own body. Attempts of some to pressure government to enforce certain moralities to regulate internal bodily issues are forms of bodily tyranny that break the skin barrier that government shall not pass. The Constitution of Sustainability shall assure bodily integrity through upholding bodily rights, instead of demoting them.

...

Section 6.

Citizens have the right to unadulterated, healthful, organic foods. Citizens have the right to unadulterated environment, air, water, and earth.


Add to that citizens have the right to unadulterated, healthful vitamins and minerals supplements--because they are innately parts of our own bodily integrity, and to attempt to outlaw them (like the FDA outlawed our very own neurotransmitters, in their tryptophan origins!) is hubris and despotism.


HERE ARE THE LINKS to these two documentaries on Codex Alimentarius:

1.

We Become Silent - The Last Days Of Health Freedom
28 min 37 sec - Apr 6, 2006

International award-winning filmmaker Kevin P. Miller of Well TV announced the release of a new documentary about the threat to medical freedom of choice. 'We Become Silent: The Last Days of Health Freedom' details the ongoing attempts by multinational pharmaceutical interests and giant food companies--in concert with the WTO, the WHO and others--to limit the public’s access to herbs, vitamins and other therapies. 'We Become Silent’ is narrated by Dame Judi Dench, the noted UK actress who has won multiple Golden Globe awards, an Oscar, and a Tony for her on-stage work, in addition to dozens of other honors throughout her prestigious career.



2.

Nutricide - Criminalizing Natural Health, Vitamins, and Herbs
Natural Solutions Foundation - 40 min - Sep 2, 2006 -

The Codex Alimentarius is a threat to the freedom of people to choose natural healing and alternative medicine and nutrition. Ratified by the World Health Organization, and going into Law in the United States in 2009, the threat to health freedom has never been greater. This is the first part of a series of talks by Dr. Rima Laibow, MD, available on DVD from the Natural Solutions Foundation, an non-profit organization dedicated to educating people about how to stop Codex Alimentarius from taking away our right to freely choose nutritional health.



Conclusion: HARMonization

Benjamin Rush was very prescient. What we are facing worldwide in the Codex is an "undercover dictatorship. . .to restrict the art of healing to one class of men, and deny equal privilege to others, [which] will be to constitute the Bastille of Medical Science."

And who are the major players pressing for this--those corporations descended from Nazi Germany's I.G. Farben. (With a caveat that it has some religious tangential information and interpretation, all this is well cited history at this book.)

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

And what do the WHO (World Health Organization, so called) and FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization) expect to come of the implementation of their Codex Alimentarius outlawing of vitamins and mineral supplements, forced irradiation of all crops, reintroduction of a handful of already banned (for health reasons) terrible persistent organic chemical toxins?

WHO and FAO predictions of the implementation of their Codex Alimentarius:
3 billion deaths - 1 billion through starvation

Add that this "one class of men", unelected and seemingly set on killing billions of people ("hey we just report it folks, it's documented") further want to restrict medical practice to one class of health commodities--that they alone sell, while they outlaw all others--and you have it. The suspicious mass death of microbiologists globally over the past several years probably has something to do with this 'sick' 2009 timetable as well.

And it all comes about so far because of the lack of rights formally established for health freedom choice. A proactive solution would be to adopt the abovementioned "Article 29" nationally--or internationally--if you want a standard that is pro-consumer.

A more proactive solution would be a political revolution: to completely destroy the supply-side biased WTO framework, Codex Alimentarius, and all frameworks of "HARMonization"--for something that is an international support for consumer rights and health freedom choices and something like the bioregional state.

Dr. Laibow and her team of Constitutional lawyers have poured over the WTO-UN Codex rules for adoptions as well as the standards themselves, and found its weaknesses. The major weakness she discusses is that most countries assume that "adopting Codex" means adopting the WTO-UN Codex standards. However, even by Codex, this is false. All it means to be 'Codex compliant' is that the country in question at least address in their own way all of the issues mentioned in Codex--instead of requiring forcible adoption of the Codex standards themselves. This means that a pro-consumer (or even pro bioregional economic support) Codex framework can be passed. As Dr. Laibow says, she has some of these pro-consumer Codexes available, just pass them to your legislators:

"What we have done is created the first--of many--alternative [pro-consumer, pro-health freedom] Codex. You can go to our website www.healthfreedomUSA.org, and you will see a little button on the upper right-hand side that says SIGN THE CITIZEN'S PETITION....It is a legal challenge to the United States government on Codex. It's called a "Citizen's Petition" [legally]. It's a legal challenge; we're suing the United States Government, saying 'what you're doing is illegal, folks. Let us tell you how: we want hearings of fact, we want redress, we want correction.' If we get what we want, that's dandy. If we don't get what we want, we have gone through a process called "exhausting administrative remedies." We have made the case ripe for court....So I need you and everybody you know to sign the Citizen's Petition....The revised vitamin and minerals supplement is part of it, part of the lawsuit, saying THIS needs to be U.S. policy. The more voices saying "This is what I want."...the more voices, the more weight. So step #1 is read and sign the Citizen's Petition. Step #2 is disseminate the information, tell everybody you know, put it in your office, get your patients, your friends, your neighbors, your suppliers, to sign the Citizen's Petition....What we've done is turn it into a guideline that MANDATES biochemically, individually determined optimal health. And it's still Codex compliant! So now we need the U.S. to adopt it, and now we need other countries to adopt it."


Do it. You can additionally contact the U.S. Congress directly from there as well, and at this multiplier in the minds of legislators:

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

Otherwise through "HARMonization," as Dr. Laibow has eloquently if frighteningly described the importance of stressing those first four letters of that Orwellian word, the Codex is a planned out death sentence for 3 billion, according to the U.N.'s WHO and FAO expectations. The WHO and FAO are the organizers of the Codex Alimentarius frameworks.

Contact what's left of your legislators and explain the issues, and why it is important to stop it, and why its fine to stop it: because the Bush-Clinton pressured 'fast track' of the WTO is legally "not a treaty" in U.S. Constitutional law. So, WTO frameworks do not require any legal compliance and may be broken with equanimity. (Or, alternative addressing methods are available from her team). Dr. Laibow can tell you more about that, or read an excellent discussion of the invention of 'fast track authority' (sic) and its ongoing ripple effects when used which have led up to the equally illegal North American Union project, 'ratified' by a simple press conference by Bush? That's illegal as well. From that link's introduction:

"The global elite, through the direct operations of President George Bush and his Administration, are creating a North American Union that will combine Canada, Mexico and the U.S. into a superstate called the North American Union (NAU). The NAU is roughly patterned after the European Union (EU). There is no political or economic mandate for creating the NAU, and unofficial polls of a cross-section of Americans indicate that they are overwhelmingly against this end-run around national sovereignty. To answer Lou Dobbs, "No, the political elites have not gone mad", they just want you to think that they have. The reality over appearance is easily cleared up with a proper historical perspective of the last 35 years of political and economic manipulation by the same elite who now bring us the NAU. This paper will explore this history in order to give the reader a complete picture of the NAU, how it is made possible, who are the instigators of it, and where it is headed."


These are figments of reality--assumptions that the U.S. is legally in the WTO (from 1994, supposedly) or the figment that the NAU (by 2007, supposedly) can be 'passed' by a press conference? However, there are powerful interests out there that want to pretend they have gone through the Constitutional hoops and over the Constitutional hurdles to destroy democratic common law societies ("everything is permitted unless banned") and replace them with dictatorial Prussian civil code based societies ("everything is banned unless permitted") like the unelected WTO. (Dr. Laibow brings up the interesting point that the term and concept of a "Codex Alimentarius" is from the Austrian-Hungarian Empire). However, in the U.S. at least, common law and Constitutional hoops have never been leaped through--only bypassed. Hurdles have never been jumped--only skipped. Contact someone today with this information. Your life probably does really depend upon it, come 2009.

=================================

APPENDIX

These additional films are for those who want to know more about the history of the proto-EU, the EEC (European Economic Community) starting in 1972--or did it? The Nazi Third Reich had in addition to a military conquest agenda, an economic conquest. There was an attempt, little discussed in the history books, of the Nazis institutionalizing over their conquered countries something that directly translates into English as the "European Economic Community".

1.

The Real Face of The European Union (EU)
Phillip Day
43 min 9 sec - Nov 10, 2006
campaignfortruth.com

Most see the European Union of today as an inefficient conglomeration of states run by self-serving career politicians anxious to guarantee their survival by safely nesting in the EU's cocoon of endless bureaucracies. Many don't really see a threat at the moment. They believe that an integrated Europe makes sense; that it would prevent any chance of a third European war; that it is the modern, forward-thinking way to go.

NOTHING COULD BE FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH

The European Economic Community (EEC) began as a free-trade agreement in 1972. Today's European Union is well on its way to becoming a federal superstate, complete with one currency, one legal system, one military, one police force - even its own national anthem.

In this shocking new documentary featuring EU insiders and commentators, independent author Phillip Day covers the history and goals of the European Union, as well as the disturbing, irrevocable implications this new government has for every citizen. Whether the viewer is for or against participation, this film asks the troubling questions the mainstream media has refused to confront.




2.

On the soft sell of "...[T]hat it would prevent any chance of a third European world war"?

Wait a minute. What if WWI and WWII were contrived in many ways to force the same consolidation policies, back then? I pass this next video on because it is throughly scholarly, and you can look up what he cites. Despite occasional and rare religious tone which has nothing to do with why I post this (as well as it's nothing really to do with the 'secular' historical information he imparts), you will gain a quick insight into an Anglo-American steered global consolidation movement from the late 1800s, and its personnel involved in all of this to the present day. If the Phillip Day film above is a political introduction to the present era, post WWII and a review of the public political issues of the EEC and EU, this film is the parapolitical version of the above--the people and interests who helped to organize such consolidation--which has included arranging wars for their goals. And this larger story started around WWI instead of WWII.

The Brotherhood of Darkness: Monteith's review of where Carroll Quigley got his inside information about a secret society of the world's financial elite desiring to create a global system under their control
The Granada Forum (filmed in 1997)
1 hr 43 min 11 sec - Jul 23, 2006

Dr. Stanley Monteith
[speaking in 1997, introduced as a "retired orthopedic surgeon, researcher, historian, author, lecturer, and talk show host."] It is impossible to understand the unfolding of world events without the information contained in this video. What was the origin of the Council on Foreign Relations, and what is its relationship to Freemasonry, Theosophy, Socialism and Communism? This video is felt by many researchers to be the best single source of information on the movements working to create a New World Order. No researcher, or seeker for the truth should be without a copy of this highly acclaimed presentation [which discusses the networks involved, who actually wrote about their participation in a conspiracy to dominate the world; and a discussion of where Bill Clinton's mentor, George Washington University's Carroll Quigley, got the inside information about it in his book Tragedy and Hope, concerning this Anglo-American financial and corporate elite plot to take over the world. Monteith claims to have researched Quigley's life and networks for 30 years attempting to answer this question, and discusses the summary of this lifetime of research in this film.]



3.

I would additionally recommend this film, for those interested in health freedom and the ongoing repressive politics against free nutritional therapies in the United States.

G. Edward Griffin - A World Without Cancer - The Story Of Vitamin B17
55 min - Apr 7, 2006

G. Edward Griffin marshals the evidence that cancer is a deficiency disease--like scurvy or pellagra--aggravated by the lack of an essential food compound in modern man's diet. That substance is vitamin B17. In its purified form developed for cancer therapy, it is known as Laetrile. This story is not approved by orthodox medicine. The FDA, the AMA, and The American Cancer Society have labeled it fraud and quackery. Yet the evidence is clear that here, at last, is the final answer to the cancer riddle. Why has orthodox medicine waged war against this non-drug approach? The author contends that the answer is to be found, not in science, but in politics--and is based upon the hidden economic and power agenda of those who dominate the medical establishment.

With billions of dollars spent each year on research, with other billions taken in on the sale of cancer-related drugs, and with fund-raising at an all-time high, there are now more people making a living from cancer than dying from it. If the solution should be found in a simple vitamin, this gigantic industry could be wiped out over night. The result is that the politics of cancer therapy is more complicated than the science.




I would additionally recommend investigative journalist Phillip Day's book on nutritional health research hidden from the public, Health Wars

This is why the bioregional state requires 'commodity reform' as much as more checks and balances against existing corruptions of democratic political institutions. This has a huge backing given that it would express the solid supermajorities supporting such a democratic feedback into developmental politics. Politics is always a politics of developmental directions--some more representative (like the bioregional state) than others.

Bioregional democracy (or the Bioregional State) is a set of electoral reforms and commodity reforms designed to force the political process in a democracy to better represent concerns about the economy, the body, and environmental concerns (e.g. water quality), toward developmental paths that are locally prioritized and tailored to different areas for their own specific interests of sustainability and durability. This movement is variously called bioregional democracy, watershed cooperation, or bioregional representation, or one of various other similar names--all of which denote democratic control of a natural commons and local jurisdictional dominance in any economic developmental path decisions—while not removing more generalized civil rights protections of a larger national state.


=================================

Update, July 2, 2008

Dr. Rima E. Laibow, Trustee of the Natural Solutions Foundation and Public Observer at the Codex Alimentarius (World Food Code) reports Health Freedom developments at the Codex Commission meeting in Geneva, Switzerland on June 30, 2008 - Part One of Report #1:



Dr. Rima E. Laibow, Trustee of the Natural Solutions Foundation and Public Observer at the Codex Alimentarius (World Food Code) reports Health Freedom developments at the Codex Commission meeting in Geneva, Switzerland on June 30, 2008 - Part Two of Report #1:

14 Comments:

Blogger Mark said...

The GW Bush Gang: IG Farben 2001 by Robert Lederman

"What my cabinet shows is that I am not afraid to surround myself with strong and competent people...a good executive is one that understands how to recruit people and how to delegate authority and responsibility."

-GW Bush 1/2/2001 [note date]


As promised GW Bush has recruited competent and experienced advisors.

Despite their seeming diversity however they have a common denominator. The America they reflect is the oil, pharmaceutical, armament, Wall Street and eugenics interests long associated with the Bush family.

Seventy years ago a similar configuration of oil, pharmaceutical, chemical, military supply and eugenics interests were organized by Wall Street into IG Farben/Standard Oil-Hitler's industrial powerhouse.

To grasp the real significance of what GW Bush's cabinet has been brought together to accomplish it is essential to understand the history of IG Farben, its relationship with American corporations and how together they applied modern technology to the task of eugenics or scientific racism.

According to former US Justice Dept. Nazi War Crimes prosecutor John Loftus -who is today the director of the Florida Holocaust Museum- "The Bush family fortune came from the Third Reich," -Sarasota Herald-Tribune 11/11/2000 http://www.newscoast.com/headlinesstory2.cfm?ID=35115

Along with the Rockefellers (Standard Oil, Chase Manhattan Bank), Mellons (Gulf Oil, Alcoa Aluminum), DuPonts (DuPont Chemicals), General Motors and Henry Ford, banks and shipping companies operated by the Bush family were crucial players in setting up the industrial power behind the Third Reich.

These companies poured hundreds of millions of dollars into IG Farben and provided it with technology for tactically-essential synthetic materials-***while withholding the same materials and patents from the US government.***

The Rockefeller family, long aligned with the Bushes, owned Standard Oil.

Through a stock transfer they became half owners of Germany's IG Farben with Farben likewise owning almost half of Standard Oil.

According to the Encyclopedia Brittanica, IG Farben built and operated more than 40 concentration camps in Nazi-occupied Europe, including Auschwitz.

At their slave labor/factory/death camps chemicals, weapons, drugs, synthetic fuels and other materials vital to the Nazi war effort were manufactured.

In addition, eugenicists like Dr. Josef Mengele used the human subjects in the camps for experiments the data from which are today the basis for many drugs marketed by the pharmaceutical industry-not too surprising in light of the fact that more Americans die from prescription drugs than from any other single cause.

At the end of WWII the allies split up IG Farben into companies that are now the top pharmaceutical concerns on earth among them Bayer, Hoescht, BASF, the Agfa-Gevaert Group and Cassella AG.

Many of Wall Streets favorite pharmaceutical/chemical companies behind the proliferation of genetically-altered foods, transgenic animals, human cloning, dangerous psychiatric drugs, deadly vaccines and pesticides-such as Aventis-are subsidiaries of these same companies.

War provides the necessary medium in which this witches brew of oil, eugenics, pharmaceuticals, munitions and Wall Street investing can reach maximum growth.

Likewise, war is also the essential frame of reference for the newly formed GW Bush administration.

The high-profile minorities who are working as Bush advisors have been hand-picked, funded and carefully cultivated by right wing think tanks and conservative foundations with a white supremacist philosophy in order to provide cover for their anti-poor, anti-minority eugenics agenda.

For those who scoff at the validity of comparing the Bush administration to the Nazis and IG Farben please note the following. I'm not suggesting that GW Bush is a literal Nazi nor am I implying that everyone who is an oil or pharmaceutical company executive automatically deserves to be linked to IG Farben. That the Bush wealth and prominence in American politics is derived from Prescott Bush and George Herbert Walker's support of Hitler is a historical fact.

If the connection ended in 1945 with the destruction of Nazi Germany that might have been the end of it-it didn't end there however.

Not only has the eugenics agenda continued but many of the top Nazis who were advancing it during WWII were brought to the US after the war and installed in academia, the media, government research institutions and the CIA-by the same American officials who worked with the Bush family to build up Nazi Germany in the first place.

Their ideas formed the basis for much of the agenda promoted by this nation's most influential right-wing think tanks-the same think tanks that are the sponsors of GW Bush and virtually every one of his appointees.

Why is it significant that many of Bush's staff and cabinet appointees are former pharmaceutical company executives as was GW's father, former President George Bush? These corporations are voraciously patenting the earth's life forms-its plants, bacteria, viruses, animals and even human genetic lineages.

Reproduction of plants, animals and humans may eventually be totally controlled by these corporations, genetically-altered, recombined into chimeric life forms and exploited for profit.

The Human Genome Project, as it admits on the very first page of its website - http://vector.cshl.org/eugenics.html - , is derived from the eugenics movement in the US and Nazi Germany during the first half of the 20th century.

The Eugenics Records Office at Cold Springs Harbor NY-where American eugenics started-was built by the Harriman family-the Bushes' Wall Street business partners in funding Hitler.

This is the new frontier of colonialism in the 21st century-the total domination and exploitation of the earth and everything on it-the New World Order both former President Bush and Adolf Hitler so frequently called for.

While my writings focus on the Republican aspect of this agenda there is no question that many Democrats are participants and that none of these things could be accomplished without the full "bipartisan support" we hear about each and every day.

Some of the men and women who do the thinking for GW Bush:

- Vice President, Dick Cheney, arguably the real President-elect, was one of papa Bush's top advisors. His company, Haliburton, is one of the nation's largest recipients of government contracts, supplying military equipment, oil services and infrastructure. Cheney epitomizes corporate-welfare and like most of Bush's appointees is a multi-millionaire who will receive huge financial benefits from the administrations' policies and any wars it manages to get the US into.

- Secretary of Labor Linda Chavez (NOTE: she was forced a couple days ago to withdraw her nomination) -who is outspokenly anti-union-was a research fellow at the CIA's Manhattan Institute during 1993 and 1994 and has received almost $200,000 in grants from the John M. Olin Foundation, a notorious right-wing fund derived from a family business in munitions and chemicals with roots in white supremacy. Despite her Hispanic surname she is an outspoken advocate for the English First Movement. Chavez is president of the Center for Equal Opportunity, based in Washington, D.C. an organization dedicated to eliminating affirmative action. On their website Chavez quotes Charles Murray, author of The Bell Curve, a classic of modern racial eugenics which has become the "bible" for the anti-welfare anti-affirmative action movement.

- Secretary of Health and Human Services, Wisconsin Gov. Tommy G. Thompson, is known for his controversial welfare reforms-based in large part on two books by Charles Murray, Losing Ground and The Bell Curve. Murray was a consultant for the Wisconsin welfare reform program. Thompson's protege, Jason Turner, was later brought to NYC where he has run Mayor Giuliani's characteristically brutal welfare elimination program. Turner became notorious for quoting the motto on the gates over Auschwitz- "Arbeit Macht Frei-work shall make you free". He is frequently a guest with Charles Murray in panel discussions at the CIA's Manhattan Institute and other Bush-connected think tanks. Murray wrote the Bell Curve while a fellow at the Manhattan Institute where his pseudo-scientific research on the genetic inferiority of African Americans was primarily financed by the Pioneer Fund. Since 1937 the Pioneer Fund has promoted eugenics and the ideology of white racial superiority.

- Secretary of Energy, Spencer Abraham, who served as Vice President Dan Quale's chief of staff, spent years trying to abolish the very agency he will now head. His legislative positions include being against higher fuel efficiency standards for cars, being against government regulations for industry and support for opening up national parklands to oil drilling. He is a recipient of oil company contributions totaling more than $221,000 according to the NY Times. The American Petroleum Institute has said it looks forward to working with Abraham. Abraham helped found the conservative law group the Federalist Society which specializes in eliminating social programs, affirmative action, welfare and bilingual education. The society is funded by the John M. Olin Foundation, the Sarah Scaife Foundation, the Bradley Foundation, and the Lilly Endowment-America's leading far right think tanks. Among its most prominent members are Supreme Court Justices Scalia and Thomas whose questionable election ruling gave Bush his illegitimate Presidency. Spokespersons for the Federalist Society include Bell Curve author Charles Murray, Manhattan Institute fellow Abigail Thernstrom, and Dinesh d'Souza of the American Enterprise Institute.

- Secretary of Education, Rod Paige, the latest African American Bush appointee, is a conservative public schools administrator in Texas and decades-long crony of the Bush family who supports vouchers, tying teacher pay directly to test scores and school privatization-all of which will negatively impact African American students by destroying public education.

- Secretary of Defense, Donald H. Rumsfeld was Secretary of Defense under President Ford. Rumsfeld like Powell, Cheney, Rice and numerous other Bush administration officials is a salesman for the Star Wars Missile Defense Shield. He served four terms in the US Congress where he voted against Medicare, anti-poverty programs like Headstart, food stamps and various healthcare proposals. Rumsfeld, who formerly headed Searle Pharmaceuticals, is part of the drug company axis within the Bush administration. Former President Bush was director of Eli Lilly, OMB head Mitchell E. Daniels was also senior executive of Eli Lilly and AG John Ashcroft is known as a lobbyist for pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Gail R. Wilensky-one of numerous John M. Olin grant recipients attached to Bush-is the principal author of GW's Medicare plan. Wilensky serves on the boards of eight health care companies in which she owns more than $12 million in stock.

- Secretary of State, Colin Powell is a lifelong operative of the CIA/military-industrial complex. While working for the Pentagon he earned his present stature by helping cover up the Mai Lai massacre, the contra/arms-cocaine deal and Gulf War Syndrome. Powell's reputation as a hero derives from presiding over a war in which US troops were used as guinea pigs for drug companies' experimental vaccines so that they could "safely" fight George Bush's friend Sadamn Hussein-who had been supplied with chemical and biological weapons by the Bush administration. Unlike most of GW's appointees of color, Powell proudly admits he owes his career to affirmative action yet willingly joins an administration that considers ending affirmative action a top priority.

- Secretary of the Treasury, Paul H. O'Neill is the chairman of Alcoa Aluminum, one of the world's worst polluters and a leading corporate supporter of Nazi Germany and eugenics. O'Neill owns 1.6 million shares of Alcoa, worth more than $50 million. During WWII Alcoa negotiated a deal with the Nazis and IG Farben to supply Germany's war machine rather than the US military with aluminum. "If America loses this war," said then Secretary of the Interior Harold Ickes on June 26, 1941, "it can thank the Aluminum Corporation of America [ALCOA]." Alcoa produces hundreds of millions of tons of fluoride. This highly toxic waste byproduct of aluminum has been linked in thousands of medical studies to cancer and other degenerative diseases. In the 1950's Alcoa arranged to have it added to our nation's drinking water rather than disposed of as toxic waste. During WWII in IG Farben's slave labor camps Nazis scientists discovered that by adding fluoride to the drinking water they could make prisoners more submissive to authority. [USSR did it in Siberia prison camps, as well: so the origins of flouridated water is a prison camp.] O'Neill is a fellow at the RAND Corporation and American Enterprise Institute, two more extreme right-wing think tanks.

- Attorney General John Ashcroft (NOTE: His nomination is strongly opposed - see the Confirmation Hearings process at http://dailynews.yahoo.com/fc/US/Bush_Administration/ ) is a self-styled moral crusader as strongly anti-abortion as he is enthusiastic about the death penalty. Last year, Ashcroft received an honorary degree from Bob Jones University. He is closely aligned with the Christian Coalition, Pat Robertson and Southern heritage groups which admire the Confederacy and defend the institution of slavery as practiced in the South. He is known among lobbyists as an advocate for drug companies and the automotive industry and for preventing consumers from suing HMO's. The furor over Ashcroft's anti-abortion views is being played out exactly as planned by Team Bush. Not only will the Bush administration never make abortions illegal, if anything the eugenics agenda that underlies the Bush family history guarantees that abortion, sterilization and other technologies intended to limit population-including war, chemical exposure, pesticide use in urban areas, genetically-altered foods and vaccines-will proceed at an unprecedented level. The Bush gang are delighted to see Democrats, women's rights advocates and the left focusing on Ashcroft while virtually ignoring the other Bush appointees.

- Secretary of Commerce Donald L. Evans is an insider in the Texas "oil mafia" and is GW's closest friend and confidant. He's also friend, confidant and contributor to one of America's biggest recipients of government contacts, Halliburton's Dick Cheney.

- Office of Management and Budget Director Mitchell E. Daniels Jr., was senior executive of the Eli Lilly drug company and was previously the president of the arch-conservative Hudson Institute. Daniels, who advocates strict enforcement of laws against casual drug users, was busted for drugs in 1970.

Bush and Eugenics links http://www.padrak.com/alt/BUSHBOOK_INDEX.html
http://www.geocities.com/alanjpakula/triplecrown.html
http://www.shorejournal.com/elkhorn/
http://www.bartcop.com/nazigop.htm

Past articles by Robert Lederman about West Nile Virus, Bush, Giuliani, Manhattan Institute and Eugenics can be found at: http://Baltech.org/lederman/spray/

2/03/2007 4:28 PM  
Blogger Mark said...

Someone reposted here, the following:

The FDA under Bush and his New World Order administration wants to take vitamins and herbal remedies off the counter and require a prescription from a doctor to get them. No more educating yourself about how woeful our Recommended Daily Allowance of vitamins and minerals really is and doing what is necessary to stay healthy. If the FDA gets its way, you will have to see an establishment doctor, trained in establishment medicine, to get big pharma drugs.

Thanks to Rense.com for publishing the stories on the attack against medical choice, nutrition, and holistic care in America.

http://www.newswithviews.com/DeWeese/tom81.htm
http://www.newswithviews.com/Richards/byron23.htm

What many people don't realize is that at the beginning of the 20th Century, the American Medical Association (AMA) and Food and Drug Administration, became heavily subsidized by private, "charitable foundations" like the Rockefeller Foundation and Carnegie Foundation (two names long associated with the vision of New World Order coming to America). It just so happens that the Rockefellers, for example, were founding capitalists for a drug company called Merck. The result was to create the big drug monopolies (actually drug cartels, with many interlocking directors in the board rooms). So it should be no wonder that becoming a Medical Doctor in America meant hours of studying new, synthetic drugs made by these companies, but coursework on nutrition was severely limited.

A great summary with lots of testimony and links about how the medical and drug industry is corrupted to make us sick and keep the profits rolling in can be found at

http://www.shirleys-wellness-cafe.com/ama.htm

It's no longer enough to torture the dumbed down masses through remedies that often make them less healthy and require more and prolonged treatment. They want to go after those of us who are smart enough to live healthy and prevent ourselves from becoming sick through nutrition and our bodies' natural defenses.

[Direct links for those two above links, with the introduction to both:]

1.

FDA WANTS TO ELIMINATE NATURAL HEALTH CARE
http://www.newswithviews.com/DeWeese/tom81.htm

By Tom DeWeese
April 25, 2007
NewsWithViews.com

The Federal Drug Administration (FDA) has launched another sneak-attack, trying to regulate your health freedom into oblivion. Through FDA’s unholy partnerships with Big Pharma and the Codex Alimentarius Commission (an offshoot of the UN), we are very close to losing alternative health care in America. This is a crisis, and needs your immediate action.

In 1994 Congress passed the Dietary Supplement Heath and Education Act (DSHEA), voting unanimously to protect your health care choices, in response to 2.5 million ordinary citizens demanding dietary supplements stay on the over-the-counter market.

The FDA is trying to end-run the DSHEA, and regulate you out from under Congress’ severe limitations on the authority the FDA has over items currently classified as "food" (and therefore presumed to be safe) including dietary supplements and herbs. DSHEA currently provides the FDA with plenty of legal authority to remove any herb or supplement from the market anytime the agency can show REAL evidence of REAL harm to the public.

The Codex Alimentarius Commission is working to "harmonize" food and supplement rules, pulling our American health care system down to the level of Third World nations. Under Codex rules, even basic vitamins and minerals will require a doctor’s prescription. ...


2.

US HEALTH FREEDOM ON VERGE OF COLLAPSE

By Byron J. Richards, CCN

April 25, 2007

NewsWithViews.com

A new attack against health freedom, drug safety, and dietary supplements was launched last week by Senator Edward Kennedy (D-MA) with major support from Michael Enzi (R-WY). It is called the Food and Drug Administration Revitalization Act (S1082). This legislation was planned over the past few years working hand-in-glove with the FDA’s dysfunctional management and legal team – meaning this legislation was written for the profits of Big Pharma and Big Biotech AT THE EXPENSE OF SAFETY AND HUMAN HEALTH.

S1082 is a Trojan Horse bill that pretends to address safety issues. Unbelievably, the bill turns the FDA into a drug development company that will expose Americans to new and dangerous biological drugs that have little testing to prove safety or effectiveness. And to top it off, the bill gives broad new regulatory powers to the FDA that can be used to frivolously attack dietary supplements and forward the FDA management’s anti-American globalization agenda.

On April 18, 2007, S1082 was approved by the HELP committee (which Kennedy and Enzi control) and now moves to the floor of the Senate. In a slick move, Kennedy has attached his long-planned FDA/Big Pharma “reform” measures to the renewal of PDUFA (Prescription Drug User Fee Act). Current PDUFA law expires later this year and must be reviewed by Congress. PDUFA allows Big Pharma to pay the FDA fees to speed the approval of its drugs. The new Kennedy bill will increase these FDA bribes to 380 million dollars in 2008, well over 50% of the FDA budget for new drug approvals. This is like paying the mob for protection. Kennedy, by replacing the existing PDUFA law with this new bill (S1082), is ensuring that his twisted legislation is the one that will be put before the Senate for a vote.

The FDA Drug Company, an Agency with New Regulatory Power

It is hard for anyone to comprehend that the agency that is supposed to be in charge of drug safety is about to become a drug company. It is astonishing that the FDA will now manage a full scale business activity that uses a “non profit” foundation as a shield to avoid international patent problems, protect proprietary rights of its commercial drug-development enterprise, and massively expands FDA regulatory powers to quickly remove anything from the market that is competition to its own products and licensing agreements. ...

http://www.newswithviews.com/Richards/byron23.htm

4/26/2007 9:34 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You are full of sh*t.

You can buy 500mg Vitamin C pills in France through the Internet or any good pharmacy.

I don't know about 1000mg pills, but what's the point of banning when taking two freaking 500mg pills does the same?

And just in case you don't believe me, click on this freaking link...

That's the first link I found doing a google search for "Vitamine C" in French.

Let me rephrase this: you are not just full of sh*t. You are just f*cking dumb AND full of sh*t. I bet this comment will be remover from your stupid blog, you moron.

6/06/2007 9:16 PM  
Blogger Mark said...

What a rude person you are, and a hit and run anonymous is a coward in real life--afraid of it being traced to you? Your whole motive is suspect.

First, I don't know why you are so hostile on a small point, much less vulgar, when it wasn't my point, it was a link to someone else's post which I left open as their claim. It seems you just want to attack people and there's nothing about that that I can do.

Though I think it was Aristotle who specifically addressed your kinds of argument--picking a small point and then pretending it completely serves to delegitimate everything else by silence.

Since I was drawing on that from someone else, do note that it was from an article several years ago.

Third, thanks for the link. Without knowing more about the whole dynamics of the past several years, which may have changed, I would hope that there would only be regulations on safety of production instead of upward bound limitations on sales. Besides, that's an internet sales page, which may be outside the capacities of them to regulate presently. (Same as U.S. people buying Canadian drugs over the internet, for instance. Your point is rather moot in other words.)

HOWEVER, as you ignore, the main point is 2009: the Codex Alimentarius is indeed going to work out, if passed, to ban various natural health supplements with upward bound limits like the ones mentioned above.

The other main point is that the U.N. is planning through Codex, through 'benign neglect' to kill several billion people.

Another point was that high corruption passed it in the UK.

Antother point was the high corruption in the European Union itself (in that video), that is pressing such things.

Another point was the high corruption in the U.S. FDA--already in the previous attempt in the early 1990s to do the same thing. However, democratic outcry stopped the corporate banning of 'health competition.' So the WTO takes the U.N.'s Codex Aliementarius and moves toward inverting its intentions from health standards to upward bound limitations, and foisting it as a treaty 'around drmocracy' to enforce it from the outside.

Whether France puts a cap at 500 mg or 1000 mg is not the point of the article.

Perhaps a more informed wider general knowledge may help you. Watch Rima's video. Or the others.

Another point is that she mentions that most assume that Codex means accepting the pre-determined standards, which is not the case. It merely means addressing the standards in a country's own way--which is very possible and far more democratic.

Pettiness is for others. This is highly important to everyone.

6/07/2007 12:32 AM  
Blogger Mark said...

Let's not be petty about something that affects us all. There are upward bound limitations in France and other European countries currently, derived from EU legislation.

An updated news post about the points of upward bound limitations being spread via the European Union to demote health choice.

Mon 4 Jun 2007

Health food shops facing vitamin threat
JOHN MCKEE

MILLIONS of us buy vitamin tablets every week. But the number of shops from which we buy them is about to be dramatically reduced as a consequence of new European laws.

Research by the Scottish Health Food Retailers Association (SHFRA) predicts the industry will reach "extinction level" with around 35 shops about to close at a cost of 150 jobs.

European legislation in the form of the Food Supplements Directive (FSD) is the primary malefactor as EU regulators start to set maximum doses for vitamins and minerals across Europe.

Our survey was conducted in response to an assessment of the effects of these laws by the Food Standards Agency (FSA). It is clear that half of all independent health food shops, from Dumfries to Lerwick, face closure by 2009 and it is quite likely that the chains such as Holland & Barrett could reduce their presence.

It would be impossible for many to stay in business as consumers switch to unregulated overseas internet sources to obtain the supplements they need.

By doing this, shoppers would lose the consumer protection they enjoy when using British shops.

And this is just one part of one piece of legislation - there are rafts of equally damaging proposals in the pipeline on health claims, herbs, and sports nutrition, each with the potential to severely restrict consumer choice and bring the industry to its knees.

The European Commission has powers under the FSD to dictate what doses of vitamins and minerals consumers will be allowed to take. A major problem is that key groups and industry across the EU are divided on the issue. In the UK, the SHFRA survey confirms that the market would be severely curtailed and millions of consumers would be denied products of their choice and the health of many put at risk as many higher-dose specialist supplements are removed from sale.

Many legislators believe this would be a price worth paying for removing barriers to trade in lower dose potencies across Europe - and a liberalisation of the market in some countries that have restrictive regimes.

The British negotiating team, led by the FSA, has done its best to secure an outcome that allows maximum consumer choice by lobbying for a two-tier system that is legally unobtainable, so it is hardly surprising that it has failed to make progress.

The main problem is that most other EU countries seem quite happy to accept the proposed "one size fits all" approach of very low dose levels.

What we have achieved in terms of government support has been led by the Prime Minister. He cited this directive as an example of disproportionate Euro-law.

We may need an amendment to the directive to allow the UK compromise. This will require the continuing full support of the UK government.

It is not clear what the future prime minister, Gordon Brown, feels about this issue. Is he prepared to sell Scottish consumers and businesses down the river, or will he fight with us?

We have joined with the lobby group, Consumers for Health Choice, and organised a petition, available in independent health food shops, and an on-line petition to the Commissioner for Health and Consumer Protection, Markos Kyprianou, at

www.consumersforhealthchoice.com/petition

The message is clear: consumers want their higher dose specialist nutrients and retailers need to sell them to stay in business. Maximum doses should be based on sound science and not restricted to the low levels favoured by France and Germany.

If a product is safe, properly manufactured and legally labelled, everyone should be allowed to use it.

• John McKee is a health food retailer and a committee member of the Scottish Health Food Retailers Association

http://business.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=869462007

Particularly given the heinous low nutrition in those in poor health in British hospitals cited in the original post, vitamins should be more widely encouraged instead of demoted and cracked down with artificial upward bound limitations.

Instead the Blairites passed the whole thing with a lot of legislative corruption, as noted above--and against 1 million people in complaint.

6/07/2007 12:50 AM  
Blogger Mark said...

Euro Globalists: Anyone Who Resists EU Is a Terrorist
Huge move to bolster EU power scheduled this week

Steve Watson
Prison Planet
Monday, June 18, 2007


Moves to scrap national sovereignty and amplify the power of the EU many many times over are currently in full swing while those who so much as question the centralization have been branded 'terrorists'.

As reported in the Sunday Express yesterday, the Italian President Giorgio Napolitano told a news conference in Siena that "those who are anti EU are terrorists".

He attacked eurosceptics who warn that the promised new EU treaty will go too far in eroding the powers of member states, saying: "It is psychological terrorism to suggest the spectre of a European superstate."

The German President, Horst Kohler was also present with Napolitano and nodded in agreement at the Italian head of state's comments.

President Kohler also described the tactics of eurosceptics as "populistic, demagogic campaigning".

The words of the two men were seen by many in Germany and Italy as a thinly veiled attempt to link euroscepticism with the demagoguery and populism of the fascist regimes of Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini.

In reality the move towards a centralized superstate in Europe that supercedes nationally elected officials on virtually all aspects of governance mirrors almost exactly Hitler's vision for Europe in the 1930s.

So now you are a fascist if you try to resist fascism.

http://prisonplanet.com/articles/june2007/180607terrorists.htm

7/05/2007 3:51 AM  
Blogger Mark said...

Former Soviet Dissident Warns For EU Dictatorship

From the desk of Paul Belien on Mon, 2006-02-27 22:13
bukovsky-1.jpg
Bukovsky and Belien

Vladimir Bukovksy, the 63-year old former Soviet dissident, fears that the European Union is on its way to becoming another Soviet Union. In a speech he delivered in Brussels last week Mr Bukovsky called the EU a “monster” that must be destroyed, the sooner the better, before it develops into a fullfledged totalitarian state.

Mr Bukovsky paid a visit to the European Parliament on Thursday at the invitation of Fidesz, the Hungarian Civic Forum. Fidesz, a member of the European Christian Democrat group, had invited the former Soviet dissident over from England, where he lives, on the occasion of this year’s 50th anniversary of the 1956 Hungarian Uprising. After his morning meeting with the Hungarians, Mr Bukovsky gave an afternoon speech in a Polish restaurant in the Trier straat, opposite the European Parliament, where he spoke at the invitation of the United Kingdom Independence Party, of which he is a patron.
An interview with Vladimir Bukovsky about the impending EUSSR
In his speech Mr Bukovsky referred to confidential documents from secret Soviet files which he was allowed to read in 1992. These documents confirm the existence of a “conspiracy” to turn the European Union into a socialist organization. I attended the meeting and taped the speech. A transcript, as well as the audio fragment (approx. 15 minutes) can be found below. I also had a brief interview with Mr Bukovsky (4 minutes), a transcript and audio fragment of which can also be found below. The interview about the European Union had to be cut short because Mr Bukovsky had other engagements, but it brought back some memories to me, as I had interviewed Vladimir Bukovsky twenty years ago, in 1986, when the Soviet Union, the first monster that he so valiantly fought, was still alive and thriving.

Mr Bukovsky was one of the heroes of the 20th century. As a young man he exposed the use of psychiatric imprisonment against political prisoners in the former USSR (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, 1917-1991) and spent a total of twelve years (1964-1976), from his 22nd to his 34th year, in Soviet jails, labour camps and psychiatric institutions. In 1976 the Soviets expelled him to the West. In 1992 he was invited by the Russian government to serve as an expert testifying at the trial conducted to determine whether the Soviet Communist Party had been a criminal institution. To prepare for his testimony Mr Bukovsky was granted access to a large number of documents from Soviet secret archives. He is one of the few people ever to have seen these documents because they are still classified. Using a small handheld scanner and a laptop computer, however, he managed to copy many documents (some with high security clearance), including KGB reports to the Soviet government.

An interview with Vladimir Bukovsky
Listen to it here

Paul Belien: You were a very famous Soviet dissident and now you are drawing a parallel between the European Union and the Soviet Union. Can you explain this?
bukovsky-2.jpg
Vladimir Bukovsky: I am referrring to structures, to certain ideologies being instilled, to the plans, the direction, the inevitable expansion, the obliteration of nations, which was the purpose of the Soviet Union. Most people do not understand this. They do not know it, but we do because we were raised in the Soviet Union where we had to study the Soviet ideology in school and at university. The ultimate purpose of the Soviet Union was to create a new historic entity, the Soviet people, all around the globe. The same is true in the EU today. They are trying to create a new people. They call this people “Europeans”, whatever that means.

According to Communist doctrine as well as to many forms of Socialist thinking, the state, the national state, is supposed to wither away. In Russia, however, the opposite happened. Instead of withering away the Soviet state became a very powerful state, but the nationalities were obliterated. But when the time of the Soviet collapse came these suppressed feelings of national identity came bouncing back and they nearly destroyed the country. It was so frightening.

PB: Do you think the same thing can happen when the European Union collapses?

VB: Absolutely, you can press a spring only that much, and the human psyche is very resilient you know. You can press it, you can press it, but don’t forget it is still accumulating a power to rebound. It is like a spring and it always goes to overshoot.

PB: But all these countries that joined the European Union did so voluntarily.

VB: No, they did not. Look at Denmark which voted against the Maastricht treaty twice. Look at Ireland [which voted against the Nice treaty]. Look at many other countries, they are under enormous pressure. It is almost blackmail. Switzerland was forced to vote five times in a referendum. All five times they have rejected it, but who knows what will happen the sixth time, the seventh time. It is always the same thing. It is a trick for idiots. The people have to vote in referendums until the people vote the way that is wanted. Then they have to stop voting. Why stop? Let us continue voting. The European Union is what Americans would call a shotgun marriage.

PB: What do you think young people should do about the European Union? What should they insist on, to democratize the institution or just abolish it?

VB: I think that the European Union, like the Soviet Union, cannot be democratized. Gorbachev tried to democratize it and it blew up. This kind of structures cannot be democratized.

PB: But we have a European Parliament which is chosen by the people.

VB: The European Parliament is elected on the basis of proportional representation, which is not true representation. And what does it vote on? The percentage of fat in yoghurt, that kind of thing. It is ridiculous. It is given the task of the Supreme Soviet. The average MP can speak for six minutes per year in the Chamber. That is not a real parliament.

Transcript of Mr Bukovsky’s Brussels speech
Listen to it here

In 1992 I had unprecedented access to Politburo and Central Committee secret documents which have been classified, and still are even now, for 30 years. These documents show very clearly that the whole idea of turning the European common market into a federal state was agreed between the left-wing parties of Europe and Moscow as a joint project which [Soviet leader Mikhail] Gorbachev in 1988-89 called our “common European home.”

The idea was very simple. It first came up in 1985-86, when the Italian Communists visited Gorbachev, followed by the German Social-Democrats. They all complained that the changes in the world, particularly after [British Prime Minister Margaret] Thatcher introduced privatisation and economic liberalisation, were threatening to wipe out the achievement (as they called it) of generations of Socialists and Social-Democrats – threatening to reverse it completely. Therefore the only way to withstand this onslaught of wild capitalism (as they called it) was to try to introduce the same socialist goals in all countries at once. Prior to that, the left-wing parties and the Soviet Union had opposed European integration very much because they perceived it as a means to block their socialist goals. From 1985 onwards they completely changed their view. The Soviets came to a conclusion and to an agreement with the left-wing parties that if they worked together they could hijack the whole European project and turn it upside down. Instead of an open market they would turn it into a federal state.

According to the [secret Soviet] documents, 1985-86 is the turning point. I have published most of these documents. You might even find them on the internet. But the conversations they had are really eye opening. For the first time you understand that there is a conspiracy – quite understandable for them, as they were trying to save their political hides. In the East the Soviets needed a change of relations with Europe because they were entering a protracted and very deep structural crisis; in the West the left-wing parties were afraid of being wiped out and losing their influence and prestige. So it was a conspiracy, quite openly made by them, agreed upon, and worked out.

In January of 1989, for example, a delegation of the Trilateral Commission came to see Gorbachev. It included [former Japanese Prime Minister Yasuhiro] Nakasone, [former French President Valéry] Giscard d’Estaing, [American banker David] Rockefeller and [former US Secretary of State Henry] Kissinger. They had a very nice conversation where they tried to explain to Gorbachev that Soviet Russia had to integrate into the financial institutions of the world, such as Gatt, the IMF and the World Bank.

In the middle of it Giscard d’Estaing suddenly takes the floor and says: “Mr President, I cannot tell you exactly when it will happen – probably within 15 years – but Europe is going to be a federal state and you have to prepare yourself for that. You have to work out with us, and the European leaders, how you would react to that, how would you allow the other Easteuropean countries to interact with it or how to become a part of it, you have to be prepared.”

This was January 1989, at a time when the [1992] Maastricht treaty had not even been drafted. How the hell did Giscard d’Estaing know what was going to happen in 15 years time? And surprise, surprise, how did he become the author of the European constitution [in 2002-03]? A very good question. It does smell of conspiracy, doesn’t it?

Luckily for us the Soviet part of this conspiracy collapsed earlier and it did not reach the point where Moscow could influence the course of events. But the original idea was to have what they called a convergency, whereby the Soviet Union would mellow somewhat and become more social-democratic, while Western Europe would become social-democratic and socialist. Then there will be convergency. The structures have to fit each other. This is why the structures of the European Union were initially built with the purpose of fitting into the Soviet structure. This is why they are so similar in functioning and in structure.

It is no accident that the European Parliament, for example, reminds me of the Supreme Soviet. It looks like the Supreme Soviet because it was designed like it. Similary, when you look at the European Commission it looks like the Politburo. I mean it does so exactly, except for the fact that the Commission now has 25 members and the Politburo usually had 13 or 15 members. Apart from that they are exactly the same, unaccountable to anyone, not directly elected by anyone at all. When you look into all this bizarre activity of the European Union with its 80,000 pages of regulations it looks like Gosplan. We used to have an organisation which was planning everything in the economy, to the last nut and bolt, five years in advance. Exactly the same thing is happening in the EU. When you look at the type of EU corruption, it is exactly the Soviet type of corruption, going from top to bottom rather than going from bottom to top.

If you go through all the structures and features of this emerging European monster you will notice that it more and more resembles the Soviet Union. Of course, it is a milder version of the Soviet Union. Please, do not misunderstand me. I am not saying that it has a Gulag. It has no KGB – not yet – but I am very carefully watching such structures as Europol for example. That really worries me a lot because this organisation will probably have powers bigger than those of the KGB. They will have diplomatic immunity. Can you imagine a KGB with diplomatic immunity? They will have to police us on 32 kinds of crimes – two of which are particularly worrying, one is called racism, another is called xenophobia. No criminal court on earth defines anything like this as a crime [this is not entirely true, as Belgium already does so – pb]. So it is a new crime, and we have already been warned. Someone from the British government told us that those who object to uncontrolled immigration from the Third World will be regarded as racist and those who oppose further European integration will be regarded as xenophobes. I think Patricia Hewitt said this publicly.

Hence, we have now been warned. Meanwhile they are introducing more and more ideology. The Soviet Union used to be a state run by ideology. Today’s ideology of the European Union is social-democratic, statist, and a big part of it is also political correctness. I watch very carefully how political correctness spreads and becomes an oppressive ideology, not to mention the fact that they forbid smoking almost everywhere now. Look at this persecution of people like the Swedish pastor who was persecuted for several months because he said that the Bible does not approve homosexuality. France passed the same law of hate speech concerning gays. Britain is passing hate speech laws concerning race relations and now religious speech, and so on and so forth. What you observe, taken into perspective, is a systematic introduction of ideology which could later be enforced with oppressive measures. Apparently that is the whole purpose of Europol. Otherwise why do we need it? To me Europol looks very suspicious. I watch very carefully who is persecuted for what and what is happening, because that is one field in which I am an expert. I know how Gulags spring up.

It looks like we are living in a period of rapid, systematic and very consistent dismantlement of democracy. Look at this Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill. It makes ministers into legislators who can introduce new laws without bothering to tell Parliament or anyone. My immediate reaction is why do we need it? Britain survived two world wars, the war with Napoleon, the Spanish Armada, not to mention the Cold War, when we were told at any moment we might have a nuclear world war, without any need for introducing this kind legislation, without the need for suspending our civil liberaties and introducing emergency powers. Why do we need it right now? This can make a dictatorship out of your country in no time.

Today’s situation is really grim. Major political parties have been completely taken in by the new EU project. None of them really opposes it. They have become very corrupt. Who is going to defend our freedoms? It looks like we are heading towards some kind of collapse, some kind of crisis. The most likely outcome is that there will be an economic collapse in Europe, which in due time is bound to happen with this growth of expenses and taxes. The inability to create a competitive environment, the overregulation of the economy, the bureaucratisation, it is going to lead to economic collapse. Particularly the introduction of the euro was a crazy idea. Currency is not supposed to be political.

I have no doubt about it. There will be a collapse of the European Union pretty much like the Soviet Union collapsed. But do not forget that when these things collapse they leave such devastation that it takes a generation to recover. Just think what will happen if it comes to an economic crisis. The recrimination between nations will be huge. It might come to blows. Look to the huge number of immigrants from Third World countries now living in Europe. This was promoted by the European Union. What will happen with them if there is an economic collapse? We will probably have, like in the Soviet Union at the end, so much ethnic strife that the mind boggles. In no other country were there such ethnic tensions as in the Soviet Union, except probably in Yugoslavia. So that is exactly what will happen here, too. We have to be prepared for that. This huge edifice of bureaucracy is going to collapse on our heads.

This is why, and I am very frank about it, the sooner we finish with the EU the better. The sooner it collapses the less damage it will have done to us and to other countries. But we have to be quick because the Eurocrats are moving very fast. It will be difficult to defeat them. Today it is still simple. If one million people march on Brussels today these guys will run away to the Bahamas. If tomorrow half of the British population refuses to pay its taxes, nothing will happen and no-one will go to jail. Today you can still do that. But I do not know what the situation will be tomorrow with a fully fledged Europol staffed by former Stasi or Securitate officers. Anything may happen.

We are losing time. We have to defeat them. We have to sit and think, work out a strategy in the shortest possible way to achieve maximum effect. Otherwise it will be too late. So what should I say? My conclusion is not optimistic. So far, despite the fact that we do have some anti-EU forces in almost every country, it is not enough. We are losing and we are wasting time.



More on this topic, see:

Czech President Warns Against Europeanism, 27 August 2005
Attachment Size
bukovsky-interview.mp3 1.76 MB
bukovsky-speech.mp3 7.11 MB


here:
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/865

7/05/2007 4:30 AM  
Blogger ericswan said...

Excellent report Mark. I have one reservation however. A recent medical study on the use of supplements and calcium in particular, found in 2008, that certain types of calcium contribute to disease.

I have always preferred my sources for vitamins and minerals from natural sources. I grow my own and I supplement the soil to ensure a pickup of the rare earths. Boron is a disappearing ingredient in soil due to commercial fertilizers. My preference is composting and soil building.

http://www.soilandhealth.org/index.html

1/26/2008 11:52 PM  
Blogger Mark said...

EU Constitution author says referendums can be ignored

By Bruno Waterfield in Brussels
Last updated: 7:24 PM BST 26/06/2008

Future referendums will be ignored whether they are held in Ireland or elsewhere, Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, the architect of the European Union Constitution said.

The former President of France drafted the old Constitution that was rejected by French and Dutch voters three years ago before being resurrected as the Lisbon EU Treaty, itself shunned by the Irish two weeks ago.

Mr Giscard d'Estaing told the Irish Times that Ireland's referendum rejection would not kill the Treaty, despite a legal requirement of unanimity from all the EU's 27 member states.

"We are evolving towards majority voting because if we stay with unanimity, we will do nothing," he said.

"It is impossible to function by unanimity with 27 members. This time it's Ireland; the next time it will be somebody else."

"Ireland is one per cent of the EU".

Mr Giscard d'Estaing also admitted that, unlike his original Constitutional Treaty, the Lisbon EU Treaty had been carefully crafted to confuse the public.

"What was done in the [Lisbon] Treaty, and deliberately, was to mix everything up. If you look for the passages on institutions, they're in different places, on different pages," he said.

"Someone who wanted to understand how the thing worked could with the Constitutional Treaty, but not with this one."

France and Germany are putting pressure on Ireland to hold a second referendum which would allow the Lisbon Treaty to come into force before European elections on June 4 2009.

Mr Giscard d'Estaing believes "there is no alternative" to a second Irish vote, a view shared by Nicolas Sarkozy, the French President.

Mr Sarkozy, who takes over the EU's rotating presidency next week, will use a Brussels summit on October 15 to force Ireland to find a way out of Europe's Treaty difficulties.

"Everyone agrees it has to be sorted out by the time of European elections," he said at the weekend.

Václav Klaus, the Czech President has continued to insist that the Lisbon Treaty "cannot come into force" after the Irish vote.

"The EU cannot ignore its own rules. The Lisbon Treaty has been roundly and democratically rejected by Ireland, and it therefore cannot come into force," he told El Pais newspaper.

"Any attempt to ignore this fact and make recourse to pressure and political manipulation to move the treaty forward would have disastrous consequences."

Mark François, Conservative spokesman on Europe, also insisted that it was time that European politicians started to respect the Irish No vote.

"The Irish people gave an emphatic No to the Treaty of Lisbon on a record turnout and it would be good for politicians of all countries to respect this democratic decision," he said.

"The point is particularly clear to us here in Britain as the Irish were fortunate to be given a referendum which we were denied by our Government."

An opinion poll for the newspaper Libération has shown 44 per cent of the French want Ireland to vote again and 26 per cent want the ratification process to continue without Ireland.

But a quarter of those polled want to abandon the Treaty and 52 per cent think the Irish No vote is going to dominate Mr Sarkozy's EU presidency.

Story from Telegraph News:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/2200026/EU-Constitution-author-says-referendums-can-be-ignored.html

7/01/2008 2:29 AM  
Blogger Derek Wall said...

http://another-green-world.blogspot.com/2008/11/big-pharm-and-imf-to-privatise-nhs.html

may be relevent!

12/01/2008 4:47 AM  
Blogger Mark said...

March 22, 2009
Brussels ‘recreating Soviet bloc in Europe’

The outspoken Czech leader has warned of a ‘democratic deficit’

picture: August 1968, Bratislava, Czechoslovakia --- A young man waves Slovak and Czechoslovakian flags, as he watches Soviet tanks move slowly along a Bratislava street

When Soviet tanks rolled into Czech streets
Bojan Pancevski

THE leader of the Czech Republic, which holds the rotating European Union presidency, has warned that a “Europe of states” is in danger of turning into a “state of Europe”, legislating on almost every aspect of people’s lives but lacking in democracy and transparency.

In an interview with The Sunday Times, President Vaclav Klaus drew parallels between Brussels and the failed communist dictatorships of eastern Europe.

“My criticism is based on the sensitivity towards attempts to restrain freedom and democracy, and it does relate to the fact that for most of my life I lived in a political, social and economic system which was not free and was not democratic,” he said.

Klaus also predicted that Gordon Brown’s attempts to produce a European solution to the global economic crisis in time for next month’s G20 summit in London could make the problems worse.
Related Links

Klaus, 67, an economist by training and a successful finance minister after the fall of communism, said he believed Brown’s plans for more regulatory supervision of the financial system would resolve nothing. Instead, Europe should let business and markets go free.

“The crisis cannot be solved by restraining human initiative and putting further burdens on businesses,” he said. “I propose the exact opposite: deregulation, liberalisation, removing barriers and unnecessary obstructive legislation at the European level.”

A longstanding Eurosceptic and admirer of Margaret Thatcher, Klaus remains scornful of attempts to impose the Lisbon treaty on an unwilling electorate. He said the treaty contained measures to give unelected officials in Brussels “even more power”.

Irish voters who threw out the treaty in a referendum last year “knew what they were doing”, Klaus added, and he was not certain that the second vote which has been called will have a different outcome: “But the pressure will be enormous and not very democratic.”

He talked of a “democratic deficit” in the EU when he addressed the European parliament last month. In his interview, conducted by e-mail, he explained: “I see the democratic deficit in a growing distance between the citizens of the EU member states and the EU political elite, as well as in the shift of decision making from the member states’ capitals to Brussels.”

About 75% of legislation was made in the EU by unelected officials, he said. The Lisbon treaty would give the EU its own legal personality and would abolish important rights of veto: “This certainly is not a solution to the democratic deficit. It makes the democratic deficit even greater.”

Klaus refused to say whether he would agree to sign the treaty, which has yet to be passed by the Czech Senate, if and when it arrives on his desk.

“I don’t wish to foresee . . . what happens after that; let’s wait for the Senate’s decision,” he said. The Czech government’s presidency has smashed any hopes of a cosy EU consensus. Klaus was booed by many MEPs after his speech and a humorous sculpture installed in Brussels portrayed Bulgaria as a lavatory, Romania as a Dracula theme park and France as a country permanently on strike. They were not amused.

Klaus, who helped to lead his country from communism to freedom, warned that the new constitution would stifle debate and democracy. “Not so long ago, in our part of Europe we lived in a political system that permitted no alternatives and therefore also no parliamentary opposition,” he said.

“It was through this experience that we learnt the bitter lesson that with no opposition and tolerance to differing points of view, there is no freedom.”

Klaus revels in speaking his mind on controversial subjects, always prepared to confront politically correct orthodoxies. He is a leading critic of the green movement and also of measures to fight global warming. Freedom and prosperity, he said, were much more endangered than the climate.

He firmly refuses to fly the blue and gold European flag over his official residence in Prague, pointing out that “the European Union is not a state and legally it does not have a flag”.

In a pointed reference to his country’s Soviet-dominated past, he said: “We have lived through the times when it was compulsory on some days to fly another state flag next to ours. I am very glad that these times are over.”

Tight grip

The Lisbon treaty [passed illegally, it was rejected by Ireland, so it's defunct]:

- Creates EU president post with 30-month term

- Allows new “foreign minister” to take charge of common EU foreign policy

- Increases power of European Court of Justice

- Gives more authority to unelected Brussels bureaucrats

- Limits veto powers of member states

* Have your say

June 4th elections will reveal what most of us really think about the EU.

jack, london, uk

I hope that Europe goes back to those values that their great philosophers expanded on.

Paul, Florida, USA

This man gives us all a glimmer of hope. I’ve long felt that the machinations in Brussels are undemocratic social experiments carried out by those bent on a victory of theory over democracy.

Simon J, Berlin, Germany

Gordon take note. A politician who speaks what everybody in Britain knows. Give us our promised referendum!

Stuart, Gravesend, England

I fully agree. I love his point on the EU flag. Everybody seems to forget that the EU is not a state. And this beautiful piece of music abused by being made a so-called anthem of the wannabe state, it's a disgrace.

Ewa, Warsaw, Poland

---
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article5950412.ece

3/23/2009 4:21 AM  
Anonymous Natural Cures said...

Take control of your health, first identify the problem with professional lab tests online, then start feeling better with high quality natural health remedies and nutritional supplements.

6/03/2009 3:00 AM  
Blogger Mark said...

[Two strategies of what the state is for on display: state dominates all relationships and authorizes legal behavior (everything is illegal until authorized); or, the alternative, everything is legal until legislated against (everything is authorized until illegal): only the latter form is a form of freedom and a check and balance against governmental tyranny and corruption. One branch of Canada is attempting to circumvent due process and in the process openly contradicting the Canadian law of the land as previous stated (see below).

Canada is on a corrupt tyrannous path as a handful of anonymous people--without legislation--is attempting to ban all natural remedies sold in pharmacies, i.e., those without capacity of being a profit margin for extortion-based drug companies.

For sustainability, only one kind of state is required: everything legal unless banned on a case by case basis, and through due process of law. In this 'directive,' the Canadian government has taken the route of 'everything is illegal unless authorized by the state.']

Sunday, February 7, 2010

Stop selling unlicensed natural health remedies: pharmacy regulators

Tom Blackwell, National Post

Makers of natural-health products say they are bracing for widespread layoffs and millions of dollars in losses after Canada's pharmacy regulators issued a surprise directive recently urging druggists to stop selling unlicensed natural remedies.

The order affects thousands of herbal treatments, multi-vitamins and other products, most of them waiting for approval from Health Canada under a backlogged, five-year-old program to regulate natural-health goods.

The National Association of Pharmacy Regulatory Authorities (NAPRA) says pharmacists cannot be assured the products are safe until they are granted a government licence, and should not sell them in those circumstances.

"Pharmacists are obliged to hold the health and safety of the public or patient as their first and foremost consideration," said the association's recently issued position statement.

Representatives of the natural health industry, however, have reacted angrily to the directive issued last month, predicting it will have little impact on patient safety, while triggering an economic "crisis" for their members.

[continued]

2/09/2010 2:01 AM  
Blogger Mark said...

"We are talking about job loss, we are talking about a lot of income loss, we are talking about product stuck in warehouses that cannot be sold," Jean-Yves Dionne, a spokesman for the Canadian Health Food Association, said in an interview.

A statement issued by the association calls the directive self-serving and contrary to federal government policy.

"It has taken a sledge hammer to a finishing nail," the group said. "It will create confusion for consumers. It is the wrong thing to do."

NAPRA is comprised of representatives of the provincial colleges of pharmacy that regulate the profession.

It is now up to the individual provinces to implement the statement.

The Ontario and Quebec colleges have already done so,
with Ontario pressing pharmacists to not buy or order any more of the affected products, and its neighbour pushing for druggists to also remove unlicensed product already on their shelves, Mr. Dionne said.

Pharmacies, as surprised by the directive as anyone, are caught in the middle, said Jeff Poston of the Canadian Pharmacists Association.

"One of the questions that everybody is asking in the pharmacy world is, ‘Why now?' As far as people can determine, nothing has significantly changed."

A spokesman for NAPRA was not available for comment.

The controversy revolves around Health Canada's natural-health products regime, launched in 2004 to vet treatments that had been virtually unregulated before, in a new system some critics said was still too lax. As it ploughed through tens of thousands of applications for licences, the department said manufacturers could continue selling their products, so long as they had at least applied for approval.

The department has issued about 18,000 natural-health licences, while at least 10,000 products are still waiting for certification, industry representatives said. The whole process was supposed to be done by this January.

The natural-food association argues that it makes no sense for the pharmacy regulators to try to block sales of products awaiting licences, when Health Canada itself has said they can be sold pending an approval decision.

The industry is worth an estimated $1.5-billion to $2-billion a year, but many producers are small operations with sales of $1-million to $2-million annually and could be decimated by the directive, Mr. Dionne said. He cited a call he got last week from a manufacturer in Nova Scotia who sells two products -- a homeopathic remedy for diabetes-related pain and a vitamin-based pill -- that are waiting for approval and could be forced off the shelves.

"They are really panicking out there," he said.

Some manufacturers could sell their products in health-food stores instead, but others rely exclusively on pharmacies, said Mr. Dionne.

Gerry Harrington of Consumer Health Products Canada, another industry group that represents natural-health producers, said his members strongly support the regulations. NAPRA may be targeting others, though, who are trying to evade any government oversight, he said.

"There is a sub-set of companies out there who have no intention of complying with the regulations, who have taken advantage of the interim approach to essentially ignore the regulations," Mr. Harrington said. "Some companies have chosen ... to lobby politically for an essentially unregulated or minimally regulated industry."

Meanwhile, Mr. Poston said pharmacists are pressing for the regulators to lessen the disruption by phasing in the policy.

National Post

tblackwell@nationalpost.com

---
http://www.nationalpost.com/story-printer.html?id=2534645

2/09/2010 2:01 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home