Over the past week or so, the media has been filled with articles and opinions all supporting forced vaccinations. Mere coincidence, of course!
Natural Solutions Foundation just filed a formal Petition with the FTC (Federal Trade Commission) demanding an end to all vaccine advertisements that are not "truthful and not misleading" (FTC advertising standard).
You can read the Petition at:
http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/index.php?p=507
You'll see there that it was mailed to FTC on March 6, 2008 and, according to the USPS it was delivered on March 11th. Follow-up with FTC indicates the Agency could not find the mailing. Therefore we got the name of a specific person (the Secretary to the Commission) and have remailed the Petition. You can check it's progress through the Post Office by this tracking number: 0305 2710 0001 6182 7672. It was received by USPS on March 28th.
[Update Note: the Petition was delivered, according to the USPS on April 1, 2008.]
The Petition requests emergent action by the FTC to immediately stop all vaccine advertisements until a proper safety warning and exemption rights disclosure can be mandated.
So the media finds itself parroting the same line: vaccines are safe; parents shouldn't be trusted to make choices; go back to sleep...
One skillful example of the technique: Inoculated Against Facts - New York Times, Paul Offit
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/31/opinion/31offit.html
Note the implied attack: only the media-anointed can have the "true facts" - a typical Big Lie technique! Here are the comments I submitted to the NYT... wonder if they'll post same?
------------------
Leaving aside the bizarre comment of one physician on this forum that vaccination should not be a "personal matter" (has he ever heard of the World Medical Association's Declaration of Helsinki and voluntary, informed consent?), I am very concerned that the risk experts in our society have rejected the common views of pro-vaccine physicians and the pharmaceutical industry expressed by some commentors here.
Who are those experts? The insurance industry. You know you can buy insurance, as some price, for any risky activity. Do you want to sky-dive? Pay an extra premium and you can... BUT there are two areas of our economy where the insurance industry has refused to write insurance; areas that are un-insurable risks. These are, nuclear power and, yes, vaccination. You cannot insure yourself or your kids against vaccine induced injuries. Neither can the pharmaceutical industry.
That's why Congress, ever supine to the economic interests of the pharmaceutical cartel, created the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. Add a tax to the cost of the vaccines to compensate the collateral damage, so to speak, and Big Pharma gets the profits... and huge they are.
Wake up folks, this is not about "herd effect" or about "science" -- this is about money. And if a few tens of thousands of kids end up autistic, or dead, well, that's just triage. Hey?
Check out: www.ageofautism.com (where you can see that "trace" but dangerous amounts of mercury toxicity remain in vaccines) and www.healthfreedomusa.org (where you can help stop this assault on children). You may also want to join http://groups.yahoo.com/group/no-forced-vaccination/
Ralph Fucetola JD
— ralph.fucetola, NJ
Monday, March 31, 2008
Sunday, March 16, 2008
The "Soft Fascism" of Fake Health Freedom
Dr. Ron Paul's comment that our Constitutional Republic was being replaced by a type of "Soft Fascism" came home to me this weekend. Kathy and I are attending the annual Sound Health Conference, being held in SE Ohio. See: www.vocalprofiling.com. Dr. Laibow (speaking over the Internet) and I had an opportunity to discuss health freedom with several people from Ohio as well as other attendees.
What I heard from the Ohioans shocked me. I had been following some of the details of the struggle for health freedom here, but had not had an update in months.
To start with, Ohio law is not favorable to freedom of choice in health care. This state, since 1983, has had a very restrictive dietitian's law that prevents non-registered individuals from speaking freely to other individuals about nutrition. While this old law is contrary to Constitution principals, such as that announced in Thompson v Western States - 535 U.S. 357, 2002 (I've written about this important US Supreme Court health freedom decision in earlier blogs) it has set the tone for CAM health care enactments in Ohio.
What has happened? When nutritionists and other CAM practitioners sought protection from the dietitians' monopoly, a health freedom bill was introduced... and then, some months later, it was discovered that the bill was apparently amended to include a "registration" provision that required anyone who wanted to exercise their health freedom professionally to first register with the state. Failure to register carries a $10,000 fine, but nothing in the law specifies who is required to register before speaking. Of course this would be an unconstitutional enactment. The state cannot condition freedom of speech on government registration, and, as the Supreme Court reminded us in Thompson,
"We have previously rejected the notion that the Government has an interest in preventing the dissemination of truthful commercial information in order to prevent members of the public from making bad decisions with the information."
So, you ask, who would be sly enough to turn a health freedom bill into a law designed to restrict health freedom? How did the health freedom movement react? True health freedom advocates reacted strongly and were accused of "refusing" to "compromise and cooperate." Certain people who pretend to support health freedom, but appear to be funded from dubious sources, made the accusation to state legislators.
PLEASE PAY ATTENTION TO THIS: refusing to surrender one's freedom is NOT a failure to "compromise and cooperate;" only someone who is a crypto-fascist a heart could think so. Despite the self-serving beliefs of politicians, the state does not have unlimited authority to interfere with our private and personal decisions, such as what health care to accept or reject.
That is the essence of freedom. When any so-called health freedom group suggests programs that decrease freedom and increase the power of politicians and their appointees, those people are fake health freedom fronts for the monopolists and control freaks. What they want is a decrease in health and freedom.
In the case of State v Biggs (46 SE Reporter 401, 1903) the North Carolina Supreme Court dealt with a person who was advising people as to diet, and administering massage, baths and physical culture. In the Biggs case, the defendant "advertised himself as a 'nonmedical physician'...[and] held himself out to the public to cure disease by 'a system of drugless healing'..." p.401. That Court held that there could be no "state system of healing" p.402 and while "Those who wish to be treated by practitioners of medicine and surgery had the guaranty that such practitioners had been duly examined...those who had faith in treatment by methods not included in the 'practice of medicine and surgery' as usually understood, had reserved to them the right to practice their faith and be treated, if they chose, by those who openly and avowedly did not use either surgery or drugs in the treatment of diseases..." p.402. Biggs was acquitted.
While a CAM practitioner registration law might protect registered persons from competition, that is not a legitimate function of law. And while it may "protect" people from making what some bureaucrats may think are "bad" decisions with truthful information, that is not a legitimate function of law either.
The North Carolina Supreme Court concluded, a century ago in Biggs, supra., at p.405: "Medicine is an experimental, not an exact science. All the law can do is to regulate and safeguard the use of powerful and dangerous remedies, like the knife and drugs, but it cannot forbid dispensing with them. When the Master, who was himself called the Good Physician, was told that other than his followers were casting out devils and curing diseases, he said, 'Forbid them not.'"
----------------------------
Update: 2008 Sound Health Conference Report:
http://www.lifespirit.org/SHRI-2008-Conference.htm
What I heard from the Ohioans shocked me. I had been following some of the details of the struggle for health freedom here, but had not had an update in months.
To start with, Ohio law is not favorable to freedom of choice in health care. This state, since 1983, has had a very restrictive dietitian's law that prevents non-registered individuals from speaking freely to other individuals about nutrition. While this old law is contrary to Constitution principals, such as that announced in Thompson v Western States - 535 U.S. 357, 2002 (I've written about this important US Supreme Court health freedom decision in earlier blogs) it has set the tone for CAM health care enactments in Ohio.
What has happened? When nutritionists and other CAM practitioners sought protection from the dietitians' monopoly, a health freedom bill was introduced... and then, some months later, it was discovered that the bill was apparently amended to include a "registration" provision that required anyone who wanted to exercise their health freedom professionally to first register with the state. Failure to register carries a $10,000 fine, but nothing in the law specifies who is required to register before speaking. Of course this would be an unconstitutional enactment. The state cannot condition freedom of speech on government registration, and, as the Supreme Court reminded us in Thompson,
"We have previously rejected the notion that the Government has an interest in preventing the dissemination of truthful commercial information in order to prevent members of the public from making bad decisions with the information."
So, you ask, who would be sly enough to turn a health freedom bill into a law designed to restrict health freedom? How did the health freedom movement react? True health freedom advocates reacted strongly and were accused of "refusing" to "compromise and cooperate." Certain people who pretend to support health freedom, but appear to be funded from dubious sources, made the accusation to state legislators.
PLEASE PAY ATTENTION TO THIS: refusing to surrender one's freedom is NOT a failure to "compromise and cooperate;" only someone who is a crypto-fascist a heart could think so. Despite the self-serving beliefs of politicians, the state does not have unlimited authority to interfere with our private and personal decisions, such as what health care to accept or reject.
That is the essence of freedom. When any so-called health freedom group suggests programs that decrease freedom and increase the power of politicians and their appointees, those people are fake health freedom fronts for the monopolists and control freaks. What they want is a decrease in health and freedom.
In the case of State v Biggs (46 SE Reporter 401, 1903) the North Carolina Supreme Court dealt with a person who was advising people as to diet, and administering massage, baths and physical culture. In the Biggs case, the defendant "advertised himself as a 'nonmedical physician'...[and] held himself out to the public to cure disease by 'a system of drugless healing'..." p.401. That Court held that there could be no "state system of healing" p.402 and while "Those who wish to be treated by practitioners of medicine and surgery had the guaranty that such practitioners had been duly examined...those who had faith in treatment by methods not included in the 'practice of medicine and surgery' as usually understood, had reserved to them the right to practice their faith and be treated, if they chose, by those who openly and avowedly did not use either surgery or drugs in the treatment of diseases..." p.402. Biggs was acquitted.
While a CAM practitioner registration law might protect registered persons from competition, that is not a legitimate function of law. And while it may "protect" people from making what some bureaucrats may think are "bad" decisions with truthful information, that is not a legitimate function of law either.
The North Carolina Supreme Court concluded, a century ago in Biggs, supra., at p.405: "Medicine is an experimental, not an exact science. All the law can do is to regulate and safeguard the use of powerful and dangerous remedies, like the knife and drugs, but it cannot forbid dispensing with them. When the Master, who was himself called the Good Physician, was told that other than his followers were casting out devils and curing diseases, he said, 'Forbid them not.'"
----------------------------
Update: 2008 Sound Health Conference Report:
http://www.lifespirit.org/SHRI-2008-Conference.htm
Saturday, March 15, 2008
FTC Vaccination Advertising Petition Delivered
This is to confirm that the Natural Solutions Foundation Petition to FTC was delivered, according to the usps.com web site:
"Label/Receipt Number: 0305 2710 0001 6184 2200
Status: Delivered
Your item was delivered at 11:23 AM on March 11, 2008 in WASHINGTON, DC 20580."
Within a few days we should be able to obtain a docket number and set up an Action Item to garner public support for public hearings on the failure of the uninsurable risks of vaccination to be adequately revealed to the public in the pharmaceutical industry's vaccination advertisements which, in my opinion, do not meet the FTC standard of "truthful and not misleading."
The Petition seeks FTC intervention and requests that all vaccination advertising stop until public hearings and proper warnings to the public.
You can see the Petition at: http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/index.php?p=507
PLEASE get everyone you can to sign up to the eAlert newsletter system at www.healthfreedomusa.org so they can be ready to take "Mouse Warrior" action and support this important Petition!
"Label/Receipt Number: 0305 2710 0001 6184 2200
Status: Delivered
Your item was delivered at 11:23 AM on March 11, 2008 in WASHINGTON, DC 20580."
Within a few days we should be able to obtain a docket number and set up an Action Item to garner public support for public hearings on the failure of the uninsurable risks of vaccination to be adequately revealed to the public in the pharmaceutical industry's vaccination advertisements which, in my opinion, do not meet the FTC standard of "truthful and not misleading."
The Petition seeks FTC intervention and requests that all vaccination advertising stop until public hearings and proper warnings to the public.
You can see the Petition at: http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/index.php?p=507
PLEASE get everyone you can to sign up to the eAlert newsletter system at www.healthfreedomusa.org so they can be ready to take "Mouse Warrior" action and support this important Petition!
Thursday, March 13, 2008
Kenendy -Waxman "Gang of Four" attack health claims
This report just in from NutraIngredients .com -
http://www.nutraingredients-usa.com/news/ng.asp?n=83968&m=1NIU313&c=jegwylrviswtnqa
Highlights:
Qualified health claims draw more heat
By Shane Starling
"13-Mar-2008 - Four Capitol Hill parliamentarians are calling on the FDA to abandon funding for the qualified health claims system it launched to much industry fanfare in 2003. The four - Senators Richard J. Durbin and Edward M. Kennedy as well as House of Representatives' members Rosa L. DeLauro and Henry A. Waxman - have written a letter to the Food and Drug Administration commissioner, Dr Andrew C. von Eschenbach seeking clarity on a number of issues.
It asks the FDA to make explicit its plans regarding a December 17 appropriations bill in which Congress "urged the FDA not to use funds provided in this bill to review requests for qualified health claims for conventional foods or to issue letters permitting such claims through exercises of enforcement discretion".
They state: "We wish to inquire how the FDA plans to change its policy regarding qualified health claims in response to this statement."
The parliamentarians ask the FDA to:
* Clarify how it planned to deal with any pending or new petitions for health claims
* Publish a statement advising food and supplements companies of Congress's December 17 position regarding qualified health claims
* Reallocate qualified health claims staff to reviewing food labelling violations
* Release results of a survey that investigated consumer reactions to a range of qualified health claims
An FDA spokesperson said there had been no change to the system and all health claim petitions would be dealt with as per normal. "
-------------------------------
My comments:
Qualified Health Claims are not a creation of FDA that can be abandoned at the whim of the Kennedy - Waxman Axis of Control. The highest federal courts have supported consumer access to qualified health claims in the lead Federal Circuit case of Pearson v Shalala, which first forced FDA to allow qualified health claims where there was no "significant scientific agreement" on the benefit, but where there was "reliable and competent scientific evidence..." with appropriate qualifying language.
This basic concept was further supported by the US Supreme Court in Thompson v Western States Medical Centers 535 U.S. 357, where Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote for the majority,
"If the First Amendment means anything, it means that regulating speech must be a last - not first - resort."
"We have previously rejected the notion that the Government has an interest in preventing the dissemination of truthful commercial information in order to prevent members of the public from making bad decisions with the information."
"Even if the Government did argue that it had an interest in preventing misleading advertisements, this interest could be satisfied by the far less restrictive alternative of requiring ... a warning that the [substance] had not undergone FDA testing and that its risks were unknown."
Say "No" to the Gang of Four and their machinations!
http://www.nutraingredients-usa.com/news/ng.asp?n=83968&m=1NIU313&c=jegwylrviswtnqa
Highlights:
Qualified health claims draw more heat
By Shane Starling
"13-Mar-2008 - Four Capitol Hill parliamentarians are calling on the FDA to abandon funding for the qualified health claims system it launched to much industry fanfare in 2003. The four - Senators Richard J. Durbin and Edward M. Kennedy as well as House of Representatives' members Rosa L. DeLauro and Henry A. Waxman - have written a letter to the Food and Drug Administration commissioner, Dr Andrew C. von Eschenbach seeking clarity on a number of issues.
It asks the FDA to make explicit its plans regarding a December 17 appropriations bill in which Congress "urged the FDA not to use funds provided in this bill to review requests for qualified health claims for conventional foods or to issue letters permitting such claims through exercises of enforcement discretion".
They state: "We wish to inquire how the FDA plans to change its policy regarding qualified health claims in response to this statement."
The parliamentarians ask the FDA to:
* Clarify how it planned to deal with any pending or new petitions for health claims
* Publish a statement advising food and supplements companies of Congress's December 17 position regarding qualified health claims
* Reallocate qualified health claims staff to reviewing food labelling violations
* Release results of a survey that investigated consumer reactions to a range of qualified health claims
An FDA spokesperson said there had been no change to the system and all health claim petitions would be dealt with as per normal. "
-------------------------------
My comments:
Qualified Health Claims are not a creation of FDA that can be abandoned at the whim of the Kennedy - Waxman Axis of Control. The highest federal courts have supported consumer access to qualified health claims in the lead Federal Circuit case of Pearson v Shalala, which first forced FDA to allow qualified health claims where there was no "significant scientific agreement" on the benefit, but where there was "reliable and competent scientific evidence..." with appropriate qualifying language.
This basic concept was further supported by the US Supreme Court in Thompson v Western States Medical Centers 535 U.S. 357, where Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote for the majority,
"If the First Amendment means anything, it means that regulating speech must be a last - not first - resort."
"We have previously rejected the notion that the Government has an interest in preventing the dissemination of truthful commercial information in order to prevent members of the public from making bad decisions with the information."
"Even if the Government did argue that it had an interest in preventing misleading advertisements, this interest could be satisfied by the far less restrictive alternative of requiring ... a warning that the [substance] had not undergone FDA testing and that its risks were unknown."
Say "No" to the Gang of Four and their machinations!
Monday, March 10, 2008
Ron Paul, Health Freedom Advocate
Despite the MDM (Mass Deception Media) distortions, Dr. Paul has not "quit" the presidential campaign. The campaign to Restore the Republic and Return to the Constitution is not over. It has just begun.
Dr. Paul will continue on the ballot in the remaining states and Ron Paul Republicans will be at the Convention to contest the platform and educate the party. The goal is to bring Dr. Paul's positions, including his strong positions on health freedom and against all forced drugging, including vaccinations, to the convention.
See Rand Paul's explanation at:
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/42027
Dr. Paul will continue on the ballot in the remaining states and Ron Paul Republicans will be at the Convention to contest the platform and educate the party. The goal is to bring Dr. Paul's positions, including his strong positions on health freedom and against all forced drugging, including vaccinations, to the convention.
See Rand Paul's explanation at:
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/42027
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
Healthcare vs illness industry
This thoughtful piece by Maury Silverman was published last week in American Free Press:
When will the politicians understand what a real healthcare system is?
With the presidential campaign going full speed, "healthcare" is an issue. Some of the leading candidates are arguing over who proposes a plan to insure more people or "universal coverage".
The problem with "healthcare" is that what is being discussed nationally is not about real HEALTHCARE. It is about the medical care delivery system, and how to finance it; how to cope with the vast inflationary cycle in the system; and how to 'insure' the uninsured.
The real dilemma is that the cost of medical care, or sick care insurance is high enough to make the healthiest person sick.
Educating and motivating people to adopt healthy lifestyles, and only participate in non-toxic therapies, can insure better health, than by having some type of insurance plan.
Enhancing citizen choice of the healthcare practitioner is important. The educated consumer has access to digital information online to facilitate treatment decision making in partnership with their medical and healthcare provider.
Preventive medicine is not just early diagnosis of serious pathology, but is inclusion of healthcare modalities such as nutrition that medical schools do not teach, or include in training.
What can we do about this?
The answer clearly is to create a true healthcare system.
The medical care delivery system has not been based on a definition of what health is, what creates it, and what can restore it when it is sick.
Medical care is based on the basic medical sciences of biochemistry and physiology. And too often all that is put at risk with pharmacology. The very strength of medical care is diagnostics in the age of technology.
Look at two Institute of Medicine studies & recommendations from August & September 2006; on ;Preventing Medication Errors; and The Future of Drug Safety.
The FDA amendments passing congress into law last year on post-market surveillance of pharmaceutical drugs, remain to be implemented, and have a positive effect upon the dangers of POLYPHARMACY. People are just on too many drugs.
A True healthcare system would implement, integrate, and bring to the center of public policy what would balance the system with modalities that already work well for the educated consumer.
This includes nutrition, healthier food, such as organics; and bodywork modalities that bring posture into balance, or structural integration, such as osteopathy, chiropractic, and the soft tissue therapies such as message, and myofascial
release, among many others.
A good trend would result by reading & implementing the recommendations of the President's Commission on Complementary & Alternative Medicine from the 1990's. It speaks to integrating healthcare into medical care.
The only true healthcare bill passed in the Clinton Administration was the DSHEA, the Dietary Supplement Health & Education Act. It is now being fully implemented since passage in 1994. DSHEA has stimulated more research, understanding, and usage
of nutrients to build and rebuild health, for the masses.
Another very important matter for reform: is the medical malpractice litigation
system. The fear of lawsuits by medical practioners distorts the system, runs up the costs, of defensive medical practice; and quite simply & truthfully makes honest people dishonest. It is time to stop subsidizing the insurance industry with medical malpractice premiums, that do not predominately go toward helping people heal from medical mistakes, practices that may have been done better, and not grossly negligent.
The 1973 Nixon HEW Commission on Malpractice stated in its summary of alternatives to litigation that: "There is no rule of law or precedent of public policy that precludes the use of arbitration in a medical-legal interface".
It is past time to recreate the malpractice litigation system that does not benefit consumers and patients.
"Standards of Practice" ought be determined by evidence-based medicine & healthcare; not by case law, and fear, distrust, hatred, and conflict of doctors & lawyers.
Maury Silverman
When will the politicians understand what a real healthcare system is?
With the presidential campaign going full speed, "healthcare" is an issue. Some of the leading candidates are arguing over who proposes a plan to insure more people or "universal coverage".
The problem with "healthcare" is that what is being discussed nationally is not about real HEALTHCARE. It is about the medical care delivery system, and how to finance it; how to cope with the vast inflationary cycle in the system; and how to 'insure' the uninsured.
The real dilemma is that the cost of medical care, or sick care insurance is high enough to make the healthiest person sick.
Educating and motivating people to adopt healthy lifestyles, and only participate in non-toxic therapies, can insure better health, than by having some type of insurance plan.
Enhancing citizen choice of the healthcare practitioner is important. The educated consumer has access to digital information online to facilitate treatment decision making in partnership with their medical and healthcare provider.
Preventive medicine is not just early diagnosis of serious pathology, but is inclusion of healthcare modalities such as nutrition that medical schools do not teach, or include in training.
What can we do about this?
The answer clearly is to create a true healthcare system.
The medical care delivery system has not been based on a definition of what health is, what creates it, and what can restore it when it is sick.
Medical care is based on the basic medical sciences of biochemistry and physiology. And too often all that is put at risk with pharmacology. The very strength of medical care is diagnostics in the age of technology.
Look at two Institute of Medicine studies & recommendations from August & September 2006; on ;Preventing Medication Errors; and The Future of Drug Safety.
The FDA amendments passing congress into law last year on post-market surveillance of pharmaceutical drugs, remain to be implemented, and have a positive effect upon the dangers of POLYPHARMACY. People are just on too many drugs.
A True healthcare system would implement, integrate, and bring to the center of public policy what would balance the system with modalities that already work well for the educated consumer.
This includes nutrition, healthier food, such as organics; and bodywork modalities that bring posture into balance, or structural integration, such as osteopathy, chiropractic, and the soft tissue therapies such as message, and myofascial
release, among many others.
A good trend would result by reading & implementing the recommendations of the President's Commission on Complementary & Alternative Medicine from the 1990's. It speaks to integrating healthcare into medical care.
The only true healthcare bill passed in the Clinton Administration was the DSHEA, the Dietary Supplement Health & Education Act. It is now being fully implemented since passage in 1994. DSHEA has stimulated more research, understanding, and usage
of nutrients to build and rebuild health, for the masses.
Another very important matter for reform: is the medical malpractice litigation
system. The fear of lawsuits by medical practioners distorts the system, runs up the costs, of defensive medical practice; and quite simply & truthfully makes honest people dishonest. It is time to stop subsidizing the insurance industry with medical malpractice premiums, that do not predominately go toward helping people heal from medical mistakes, practices that may have been done better, and not grossly negligent.
The 1973 Nixon HEW Commission on Malpractice stated in its summary of alternatives to litigation that: "There is no rule of law or precedent of public policy that precludes the use of arbitration in a medical-legal interface".
It is past time to recreate the malpractice litigation system that does not benefit consumers and patients.
"Standards of Practice" ought be determined by evidence-based medicine & healthcare; not by case law, and fear, distrust, hatred, and conflict of doctors & lawyers.
Maury Silverman
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
