Thursday, November 22, 2012

What You Need to Know About Your Legal Rights as a Vaccine Refuser

Message Your Representatives Here:

Natural Solutions Foundation
"Be a Vaccine Refuser with Me" -- Legal Considerations

Maj. Gen. Bert Stubblebine (US ARmy, Ret), President of the Natural Solutions Foundation, and Rima E. Laibow, MD, Medical Director have invited us all to become Vaccine Refusers with them. I am Counsel and Trustee of the Foundation and am proud to say, I've become a Vaccine Refuser with them.

This article discusses my understanding of the legal considerations of that position, as Counsel to the Foundation. In my case, I base my refusal on my sincerely-held religious beliefs, but others may have had a prior adverse reaction or other medical condition, such as Genome Disruption Syndrome, which provides a medical contraindication to further vaccinations.

  People are concerned about the consequences of being a Vaccine Refuser. It is my considered professional opinion as an attorney that, under the US Constitution, you have an inalienable right to control your own body and what is done with your body. You are a free person, not a slave.

 Let's start with the case often cited as the “lead case” in vaccination law, Jacobson v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905). This case is often erroneously cited as authority for mandatory vaccinations.

 The case is rather more nuanced and announces compelling authority for Federal Court intervention in vaccination matters. While giving due deference to the State authorities, the Supreme Court reserved for the Federal Courts the right to intervene in matters where health and life may be at stake: “…if it be apparent or can be shown with reasonable certainty that he is not at the time a fit subject of vaccination or that vaccination, by reason of his then condition, would seriously impair his health or probably cause his death.” 

While Jacobson did not prevail in the Supreme Court, it is to be noted that he never alleged harm or peril of harm; he only alleged that the mandating of the emergency influenza vaccination was ultra vires the state’s authority and the $5.00 fine imposed was unconstitutional. Jacobson was never actually forced to be vaccinated and history shows us that the $5.00 fine was later vacated. Furthermore, the case was decided before the comprehensive Federal pre-emption of drug approval that is now embodied in the laws empowering the FDA.

It is the failure of the Federal authorities to abide by existing legal requirements that drugs be "safe and effective" and that new vaccines be safer than older vaccines that gave rise to litigation in which the Foundation was involved during the 2009 Swine Flu Vaccine Panic. That litigation, in state and federal courts, led to the collapse of the 2009 vaccine mandates. The argument for Federal court action in the face of a potential for the vaccines to “seriously impair” health for those who are mandated to receive the vaccines, is far stronger now than it might have been a hundred years ago, before the meta-studies and other experience that shows the potential harm that wide-spread vaccination must cause.

See Dr. Rima E. Laibow, MD's blog entry on the Flu Vax: and her entry on the "Smoking Gun - They always knew vaccines were dangerous" -

Congress adopted the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (42 U.S.C. § 300aa-10 et seq.) precisely because vaccines do cause harm and are uninsurable. The legal maxim, “No harm without a remedy” applies here and the Supreme Court in Jacobson instructs that it is not to be understood to be holding “that the judiciary would not be competent to interfere and protect the health and life of the individual concerned.” Approval of any drug (including a vaccine) by Federal Authority is now a necessary prerequisite for that drug to be lawfully available to the public in commerce. Such approval is a necessary prerequisite for any state mandate for the forced use of any such drug, since Jacobson holds that the courts should intervene if there is "reasonable certainty" that a person is "unfit" for inoculation since the procedure would "seriously impair... health..." Without the statutorily required showing of safety, we cannot have any reasonable certainty, thus no mandate can issue.

  Individuals and families have a number of lawful alternatives to vaccines. There has been a nearly universal adoption of religious exemption laws. Medical excuses are also universally available.

 Additionally, during a pandemic, individuals and families have a clear right under American legal practice and under international law to self-shield. Voluntary, at-home self-shielding and (if necessary) self-quarantine are viable, practical and easily available alternatives to mandated vaccination, isolation or incarceration in relocation centers during a declared “pandemic emergency.” Since the process is entirely voluntary, it preserves the rights and freedoms of the people and families choosing to self-shield.

The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) states that Quarantine is usually defined as “to separate and restrict the movement of well persons who may have been exposed to a communicable disease to see if they become ill.” (the proper term regarding persons who have already become ill is “Isolation.”) The Red Cross tells us, “…both quarantine and isolation may be compelled on a mandatory basis through legal authority as well as conducted on a voluntary basis.” Self-shielding is taking voluntary steps to shield oneself and family from exposure to potential pathogens (or toxins or untested and uninsurable vaccines) while self-quarantine is when someone who has been exposed takes voluntary steps to separate from others (such people who exhibit symptoms are said to be in “isolation’).

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights asserts, “No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home … Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference…”

The National Strategy for Pandemic Influenza concludes “limitations on gatherings, or quarantine authority may be an appropriate public health intervention.” And the Red Cross also states, “Modern quarantine includes a range of disease control strategies that may be used individually or in combination, including: Short-term, voluntary home curfew…” And finally, the Department of Defense, in its planning, states, “Quarantine… applies to the separation and restriction of movement of well persons presumed to have been exposed to a contagion. Quarantine may be enacted at a home or other residential facility. It may also be voluntary or mandatory.”

Quarantine therefore has a significant legal foundation, and the law recognizes the existence of voluntary self-quarantine or self-shielding at home. The primary issue then is, “How does one prepare for at home self-shielding?”

In 2009 (during the Swine Flu Vaccine Panic) Natural Solutions Foundation published checklists and similar information to allow families to plan for self-shielding. You can see that information here: -- the citations used in this article may be found there.

General Bert Stubblebine, Foundation President sees a potential for a new 2012/13 influenza vaccine panic leading to an engineered pandemic:

Every family, every individual, has a right to refuse medical treatments that violate conscience. This is clear from the Helsinki Declaration.

Self-shielding in one’s home, a location recognized in common law as inviolate except with proper judicial authority, is a right that should be respected by governments as they deal with the results of their ill-conceived public health policies. Self-shielding can be as simple as taking steps to reduce your exposure to pathogens, supporting your immune system through good nutrition and using supplementation such as nano-silver, avoiding public places, especially crowded locations, and similar common sense steps. These steps offer you significant protection from the dangers of a natural or weaponized pandemic, while an uninsurable “Pig in a Poke” vaccine may only offer you the opportunity to come to harm. We believe “Do No Harm” is the first rule of good health. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights asserts,
“No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home … Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference…”
If you exercise your personal sovereignty over your own body and stand your ground, proudly, as a Vaccine Refuser, you now know you can do so with justice on your side.

Help educate state and national legislators about your right to be a Vaccine Refuser:

Ralph Fucetola JD
Trustee and Counsel Natural Solutions Foundation

Thursday, November 15, 2012

Dr. Ron Paul - Champion of Health Freedom

A true Champion of Health Freedom is retiring from Congress. He was the sponsor of countless bills in Congress seeking to protect our health freedom, involving topics as diverse as the types of claims that can be made for dietary supplements to promoting the interstate commerce in raw milk, outlawing forced drugging, and other liberty and health care issues. We will miss his uncompromising commitment to our freedoms.

Dr. Ron Paul and Ralph Fucetola, JD
In every generation since the "Progressive" elitists and their crony corporatist minions triumphed in American society, a century or so ago, patriots like Dr. Ron Paul have stood against the "tide" and spoken their truth to power. 

Like a true patriot of old, Dr. Paul stepped aside from his medical practice twice to do his public duty and represent his community in Congress. Along the way he became the "Leader of the Opposition" calling the Federal Establishment to account for its lack of vision, its endless wars, and its looming failures. And he helped thousands of women deliver healthy babies, also along the way. 

He was not the first. At the start of the last century, Congressman Lindbergh stood against the establishment of the Federal Reserve, warning us of the potential for economic catastrophe -- and being proven right in both the "Great" Depression and the "Great" Recession. In a later generation, H L Mencken revealed the pretensions of the elitists. Then Senator Taft stood against the "bipartisan" Cold War interventionist foreign policy. He was followed by Senator Goldwater who rightfully warned us about the welfare/warfare state and its potential to devour our liberties. None of these patriots became president.

They did something more: they became the conscience of the Republic -- the "Leader of the Opposition," standing against the prevailing "two" tax-eater party duopoly. Exactly as has Dr. Paul. 

Dr. Paul's Farewell Speech

No one has stood more strongly for our Constitution and liberties; no one has stood more strongly against empire and war. He continues to warn us of the pending hyperinflation and death of the Federal Reserve fiat "dollar" divorced by the honest gold and silver money demanded by the Constitution. He reminds us, "all empires end badly."

For these reasons I expect we will continue to hear from the good doctor, who still has a prescription for what ails America. It is a natural prescription for old-fashioned freedom. And some good Amish raw milk wouldn't hurt either. 

We can expect to hear from Dr. Paul through the Campaign for Liberty,

Of course, his support for health freedom will long be cherished by health freedom advocates and will continued to be championed on the Health Freedom USA web site,

Here is my 2011 interview with Dr. Paul regarding Push Back and Health Freedom:

Monday, November 12, 2012

Health Care, the Fiscal Cliff and Your Survival

What can you do to protect yourself from the Fiscal Cliff and the resulting hyperinflation? We have established the Fund for Natural Solutions, an SEC-filed Reg. D private equity fund to help you bring your values and assets together. No offer may be made except through the Private Placement Memorandum, available upon request through . 
Even if the health care system moves toward a "single payer" socialized system, the the assurance of equally decrepit health care for all, it highly querstionable whether the Federal Establishment can ever afford to maintain anything like the level of health care Americans have come to expect as an entitlement.

No doubt "rationing" of standard health care will become the norm. No doubt older folks will not live as long as they might...

So can the Federal Establishment ever meet the obligations it has taken on without lots of baby boomers dying before their time?

It really comes down to the effect of the Federal Debt which has now topped $16,000,000,000.00 -- sixteen trillion fiat dollars.

And what does that figure really represent?

In reality, we value (Federal Reserve fiat) dollars in terms of gold, rather than gold in terms of fiat dollars.

For example, a barrel of oil costs about as much in gold now as it did decades ago. In fiat dollars, that price has gone from $.25 per gallon when I started driving to, during Sandy here in NJ, about $6, if you could get it. The debt is the driving force behind the Fiscal Cliff and the looming collapse of standard health care. How can that debt be managed? A few years ago Switzerland converted 1,500 of its 4,500 tons of gold to fiat dollars and paid off its entire sovereign debt! The Smart Swiss are (sovereign) debt free! What would it take for the USA to do the same?.

So the question would be, at what nominal fiat dollar price will the US govt's gold "clear the market" for Federal Debt? If you divide the $16T debt by the 8,000 tons of gold, you get a bit over $50,000 to the ounce of gold.

Can that happen?

The Founders saw the Continental Dollar go from one paper dollar equaling one silver dollar to about 1,000 to one. In the past century we've gone from 20 Federal dollars buying an ounce of gold to over 1,700 needed to buy an ounce of gold.

Will the price of gold in terms of fiat dollars escalate further? Certainly. And, if hyperinflation is engineered in a desperate attempt to keep the banking bubble going, $50,000 to the ounce may seem cheap.

The Zimbabwe hyperinflation didn't end a couple years ago until the central bank ran out of harder currencies to the point where it couldn't buy the paper and ink to print its paper.

The people who will be running the Fed and the Treasury, and their laughable "overseers" in Congress, have no economic understanding that would lead them to any other endgame.

Hyperinflation... here it comes!

What can you do to protect yourself from the Fiscal Cliff and the resulting hyperinflation? My co-trustees at Natural Solutions Foundation, its President, Maj. Gen. Bert Stubblebine (US Army ret.) and Rima E. Laibow, MD have joined with me to establish the Fund for Natural Solutions, an SEC-filed Reg. D private equity fund, to allow you to bring your values and assets together. No offer may be made except through the Private Placement Memorandum, available upon request through .

November 18, 2012 Webinar

Monday, September 24, 2012

FDA Seeking to Ban More Vitamins

My Response to a Question about FDA Banning More Forms of Vitamin B6.

Yes, K, this is ridiculous, and violates the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994, DSHEA, which has three grandfathering clauses in it, and which was crafted by Health Freedom's friends in Congress to protect our existing dietary supplements from FDA attack. One of the three clauses addresses the question of when a dietary ingredient, also used for medical purposes, is grandfathered. If a dietary ingredient is approved as part of a drug, to be grandfathered, it need only to have been sold to supplement the diet prior to the start of the approval process, so the power the FDA has taken to itself, to ban the interstate commerce in any food, including dietary supplement, ever studied for medical use, is contrary to that law.

However, Teddy Kennedy, in his dying gift to Big Pharma, included a provision in the 2007 FDA enabling act giving the agency the power to ban interstate commerce for any food ever studied for medical use. Why does Congress think it has authority to grant such power to FDA? Where in the Constitution does it give Congress power over our food supply? Congress is allowed to "regulate" interstate commerce, but correctly understood, that power was only to make commerce among the states "regular" - to prevent state barriers to commerce, not to ban food! Misapplying the Interstate Commerce clause is at the root of many of the problems facing those who seek to preserve our right to access food. This is also the legal "justification" for the FDA's collapsing ban on interstate commerce in raw milk.

Natural Solutions Foundation fought hard to keep another clause in that 2007 law that exempted DSHEA products from the ban authority. We were told by some not to bother, since DSHEA was not even mentioned in the new law; we knew better, knowing just how lawless Federal agencies will behave when given a chance. We succeeded in keeping the clause in the law, generating over 150,000 emails to Congress over one memorable weekend, but now FDA has created such a high barrier to "proving" the ingredient is grandfathered, that the agency has gotten away with first banning the highly bioavailable form of B6, pyradoximine and now they are after P5P, another useful form of the vitamin.

Outrageous indeed... and totally Congress' fault for adopting that bad, unconstitutional bill in 2007!

Here is where you can send a message to your congress-critters complaining about the bills, regulations and executive orders that are shredding the Constitution:

Tell Congress here:

What are we going to do? We are going to push back as hard and for as long as it takes to preserve our right to access wholesome nutrition. That is the reality we are going to create!

------ Original Message ------
Received: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 12:25:41 PM EDT
From: K
Subject: Fw: New Vit B6 ban by FDA

 This is getting ridiculous!  What are we going to do? K

 A thought is matter, you create your own reality.
 I Can, I AM, I Have, I Will, I Love, I Choose, I Create, I Enjoy...

 ----- Forwarded Message -----
 From: RA
 To: K
 Sent: Monday, September 24, 2012 9:08 AM
 Subject: Vit B6 ban by FDA

 FDA Looking to Ban B6 Supplements, Give Boost to Big Pharma Elizabeth Renter
 NaturalSociety - September 22, 2012 
 Vitamin B6, naturally present in a variety of foods, is necessary for proper nerve function, protein synthesis, regulating blood sugar, and producing antibodies and hemoglobin. In other words, it’s pretty important stuff. But, while many people get their B6 through supplements, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration is looking to make things a lot more difficult — by slowly taking all forms of B6 supplements off the market so Big Pharma can make millions off of prescriptions instead... [FDA already] removed Pyridoxamine (a natural form of B6) supplements from the market at the request of BioStratum, a pharmaceutical company. Why? Because BioStratum thinks it might be nice to use Pyrdoxamine in a prescription drug. They haven’t developed the drug, we don’t know what it is, and who knows when it will come to fruition, but the FDA honored a request from the big corporation to protect the company’s interest. 
 Now, the FDA is poised to pull another B6 product: P5P. You see, the human body must convert B6 to P5P to make it usable  within the body. Fortunately, some supplement companies have created P5P and it is currently available as a natural supplement. But, another  pharmaceutical giant has petitioned the FDA to “protect its interests”. Medicure Pharma would like all P5P removed from the supplement market so they can begin to work on a drug containing the crucial form of B6.  In their petition, they state:
  Pharmaceutical companies developing new drugs must be protected from companies that may seek to market the ingredients in those drugs as dietary supplements. The marketing of such products has the potential to undermine the incentive for the development of new drugs because many people may choose to purchase the supplements rather than the drugs.”
So, that basically sums it up. In order to protect the money-grabbing interests of this company, at whatever risk to the health of the general public, the federal government should step in and take the supplements out.
I must agree with the author of the above note. The agency is acting as a surrogate for the crony corporatists and failing to uphold the primary obligation of any government: to protect the People from the Powerful. Government will only do so if the People demand redress loudly. That is where PUSH BACK comes in. We have shown repeatedly that when millions petition for redress, politicians have no choice but to listen.

Here is where we can push back hard: -- do it every day!

Tuesday, September 18, 2012

On the (G)OP, Libertarians and the Tea Party

Ever since the Republican Party, herein after, the (G)OP, since it is hardly a "Grand" Old Party, but is, I fervently hope, the Old (as in has-been) Party, changed its Rules to exclude patriot, Tea Party, libertarian voices and preserve control over that tax-eater party in the hands of the neocon establishment, there have been increasingly strident voices posting on some Tea Party forums condemning Ron Paul and the libertarians especially for our advocacy of truly limited government, by opposing govt  interventionism at home and abroad  (what Professor Murray Rothbard used to remind us was a unified "Welfare/Warfare State" policy of violent imposition of govt controls on both Americans and foreigners).

What follows is my reply to a posting accusing libertarians of "deception" because of our opposition to the establishment's imperial foreign policy, with its endless wars of aggression and destruction of liberty.
So if, in your opinion, Ron Paul and the Libertarians are not part of the patriot movement, but the (G)OP Establishment is, what is the point of the Tea Party? Why bother? 
On the contrary, it is the libertarian contingent in the Tea Party that holds the "conscience of the patriots" to the Tea Party's Core Values. Without our insistence on those values, what is the Tea Party? A cheering section for the (G)OP? 
How well has the patriot movement done relying on the (G)OP? 
We can start with the War to Protect the DC Bureaucracy in 1860-65, with the (G)OP's usurpation of the limited Constitutional Republic by imposing the clearly unconstitutional fiat "legal tender" system (not to mention burning down whole cities, etc). 
We rightly complain about the Kenyan currently occupying the White House and his (intentional) failure to understand the Constitution, but forget about the history of the (G)OP and its consistent usurpation of our Constitution. Without the legal tender law, for example, there would be NO economic crisis brought about by deficit spending. The Founders understood what the (G)OP consistently rejects. 
But it was never the (G)OP establishment that stood in opposition to criminals at the Federal Reserve. It's not the crony corporatists. It is the libertarians, armed by what Mises called the "rich inheritance" of Free Market Theory, who have stood against the progressive onslaught for a hundred years now. 
It was libertarian "Leaders of the Opposition" like: Congressman Lindbergh; author HL Mencken,  Senators Taft and Goldwater -- and recently the doctors Paul -- who opposed every progressive innovation. It was the (G)OP that provided the critical votes to impose all of those Democrat schemes. It was libertarians like Ron Paul who got us back our basic human right to own gold and silver. 
It was libertarians who were the most consistent voices in the Taxpayers Movement that led directly to the Tea Party. The neocons and the RINOS were conspicuously absent. For Example, in NJ it was RINO future Gov Keene who was the deciding vote in imposing an income tax here in the mid-70s. 
Pardon my annoyance, but I am done with the (G)OP and its history of always supporting big govt, while mouthing otherwise.  That's why I recently sent in a change of registration, from (G)OP to Libertarian. 
IMHO, the Tea Party made a fatal mistake when it was hijacked by the (G)OP establishment. 
Now all that's left of the patriot movement are the libertarians, the militia, and those consistent conservatives who won't believe the (G)OP's lies anymore. 
With the changes in the (G)OP rules, it may be impossible to "take back" that party as a voice for patriots. It may not even be worth trying. 
Frankly, it is "conservatives" like Boehner with his debt ceiling increases, and "conservatives" like Ryan with his balance-the-budget-in-30-years "plan" and the Crony-Corporatist-in-Chief, Mitt himself (who supports the Fed and the Bailouts but now pretends maybe not) who are betraying our country nearly as much as the Kenyan. 
So, hey, spend your time complaining about libertarians, nonetheless, our time is about to come; or we will live in an even less free America. 
Gov Gary Johnson, Libertarian, for President. There is no logical alternative, unless you want to sanction your own oppression, and that of your fellow Americans.  
I wonder what Patrick Henry might say about that...

Saturday, September 15, 2012

First Amendment Under Attack from Vax Pushers

State Bills with Official Speech Requirements Violate the First Amendment -- New Vax Religious/Philosophical Exemption Attacks in Several States.

Easily send messages to your State Representatives and Governor here:

This is of enormous concern to us all, whether we have children or not.

If parents do not have the right to make health decisions for their minor children, how long will it be before you no longer have the right to make these same decisons for yourself?

We all know there are serious risks from vaccination. That is why it is an uninsurable risk, imposed on people by law. A certain percent of children who are vaccinated will be harmed, even killed.

 As such, questions of privacy, personal liberty, and religious belief are deeply involved.

Right now, in several States of these United States, very similar bills are being introduced by the vaccine drug pushers and their political friends. These bills are like the bill just passed in California, but not yet signed by Gov. Brown, who is hearing from many opposed parents.

 These new laws impose Official State-Sponsored Speech, the very anathema of the First Amendment with its absolute injunction, "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech...". 

How they do that is described later in this article. The battle being waged on the bodies of little children is an essential health freedom battle. We simply cannot afford to lose the right of each individual to assert religious or philosophical exception to vaccination.

To many people the administration of these toxins violates their fundamental religious beliefs in the sanctity of the body. Concerned parents and all who value liberty must call for an end to all mandated vaccination and the propaganda of vaccination benefit lies, as well as all other forms of forced medical treatment.

The unnecessary scourge of autism spectrum disorders will not cease until the evil of vaccination is ended.

This must happen now!

In particular, with reference to the State of California, we note with alarm the introduction in the State Legislature during February 2012 of AB 2109, "An act to amend Section 120365 of the Health and Safety Code, relating to communicable disease." which has now passed the legislature -- that bill is subject to final approval by Gov. Brown.

The bill interferes with religious liberty and philosophical opposition to mandated vaccines by requiring parents to obtain a propaganda letter from licensed physicians or registered nurses as agents of state-mandated medicine that they had been told of the alleged “benefits” of vaccination and the alleged “risks” of not being vaccinated (but the law does not mention the foreseeable harms which we know will be caused by uninsurable vaccination).

We call for an end to all such schemes aimed at perpetuating the official lies denying the evident risks of vaccination. We demand that the uninsurable vaccine industry, legislatively exempted from tort responsibility for the foreseeable harms vaccines inevitably cause, be finally held fully accountable.

 It is a clear violation of the First Amendment rights (speech, redress and association) of the parents and the licensees.  

Mandated vaccines are now coupled with mandated speech to create official science which is the antithesis of real science.

Like the horror stories that came from state-sponsored "medicine" and "psychiatry" in Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, the lies of official vaccines "science" condemn, if not millions, certainly at least thousands, to untimely maiming and even death.

Expert Vaccination Exemption Attorney Alan J. Philips JD explains why California's AB 2109 is unconstitutional here: -
"California’s statutory construction rules applied to § 120365 make clear that § 120365 encompasses personal religious beliefs as a basis for the exercise of the exemption. Federal courts have held that First Amendment protection for religious objections to immunizations requires only that the applicant hold a sincere belief that is religious in nature. Thus, AB 2109’s additional requirements involving healthcare providers, as they pertain to those persons exercising the exemption due to personal religious beliefs opposed to immunizations, violates the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution."
Easily send messages to your State Representatives and Governor here: This Action Item is aimed at the all US State Legislatures and Governors.
California residents should also CALL THEIR GOVERNOR TODAY! If you are not a California Resident, you can make your voice heard by sending an email message here: -- California Residents, please use the form below to help educate decision makers!

Please do so every day... they need to be reminded... until the bill is defeated or repealed!

New Jersey Residents: S.1759 similarly burdens religious expressive association. Please use the Action Item to contact your state legislators! Washington State and other states following suit. We need a tsunami of emails to PUSH BACK against this well-funded and well-planned state-by-state assault on parental choice and free speech.
Easily send messages to your State Representatives and Governor here

We all understand the power of PUSH BACK. If enough of us educate enough legislators about this matter, the carefully constructed plan to restrict religious and philosophical objections to the foreseeable and uninsurable risks of vaccination will fail!

Yours in health and freedom,  
Counsel Ralph
Ralph Fucetola JD
Natural Solutions Foundation Counsel

PS -- Vaccine Truth Crusader, Gary Krasner has this to say about these bills:
One thing the activists in CA complained about was that failure of a physician to make himself available and willing to write a statement for a parent would be an undue hardship.
A court might find flaws in the law persuasive. So try exposing the flaw in the reasoning behind subsection 2. > > The proponents probably cited as their rationale (more like "pretext") that their concern was that parents inclined to forgo vaccination are not receiving "competent" background information on vaccination, and that they should, before making this "drastic" decision.
FLAW 1:  What is competent information? Proponents would reply, anything citied by an MD. But there is no uniform consensus among MDs. Most support vaccination. A small number do not. Many limit the amount of doses in their own children, from concern about toxic load.
If there is no uniform consensus, then there's no ONE competent view on the matter. If proponents claim there is ONE competent view, then the statute as written would have some parents receiving incompetent or less than competent information.
FLAW 2:  If the DoH decides to draft the language for standard vaccine info that physicians should furnish parents, then physicians are placed in a conflict of interest by Subsection 2.
The amendment wants them to dispense standardized information issued by public health agencies. But that information is broadly determined for the population as a whole. The mandate of the DoH is also to maximize vaccine compliance rates. So their "standard" information may also be biased, to boot.
But pediatricians and all clinicians defined in sub 2 have a professional oath to serve the best interests of their patients. Their clinical judgment for particular patients might require that they depart from the standard vaccination information issued by DoH.

Thursday, August 30, 2012

Hope for Genetically Disabled?

And the Orphan Drug Act
Hope for the Genetically Disabled?

      WHO and FAO, the World Health Organization and the Food and Agriculture Organization, two primary UN organs, told the world in 2002 what holistic doctors and scientists have been saying for decades: wholesome food prevents what the agencies call the “preventable, non-communicable diseases of mal and under-nutrition:…” These include heart disease, diabetes, cancer, obesity; all the chronic diseases of modern life. 1

     Ground-breaking Journalist Jeffrey M. Smith, in a widely-shared Internet article, explains that advanced health care practitioners are achieving astounding results in cases of chronic disease by helping people change their eating habits to reject all GMO “phude” (Genetically Modified Organisms). He wrote,
   “Are genetically modified (GM) foods making you sick – I mean really sick? Up until recently, all that we could say was thank goodness you’re not a lab rat; GM feed messes them up big time. GMOs (genetically modified organisms) appear to trigger the immune systems of both mice and rats as if they were under attack. In addition, the gastrointestinal system is adversely affected, animals age more quickly, and vital organs are damaged. When fed GM foods, lab animals can also become infertile, have smaller or sterile offspring, increased infant mortality, and even hair growing in their mouths. Have I got your attention?” 2
   Among those holistic scientists is respected psychiatrist and environmental physician Rima E. Laibow, MD, Medical Director of the Natural Solutions Foundation. Dr. Rima has defined the overall symptom complex that GMOs and other genomic disruption technologies cause: Genome Disruption Syndrome. She has written:
“Genomic Disruption through the introduction of novel genetic material (principally through GMO – Genetically Modified Organisms – intake) results in a wide variety of acute, chronic and multigenerational dysfunctions, ranging from the trivial to the lethal. For this reason I call the downstream health consequences of genetic disruption the “Genomic Disruption Syndrome.” (GDS). 
“Common expressions of GDS, which are widely scientifically validated, include cancer, cardio-vascular disease, metabolic syndrome, diabetes, obesity, infertility, sterility, fetal malformation, birth defects, autism and other neurological disorders, lethal allergies, immune system dysfunction, premature aging, and a host of other serious conditions. 
“The human and economic consequences of GDS are almost impossible to calculate. GDS, however, can be managed, and in many cases, reversed through dietary management which provides strict avoidance of Genomic Toxins and Incitents including genetically damaged ‘foods’ (GMO), excess nuclear exposure, toxic pharmaceuticals (including vaccines) and similar agents which damage DNA. 
“The distinctive nutritional requirements, based on recognized scientific principles, needed to treat GDS, include strict adherence to a diet free of any genomic toxins to allow detoxification and repair. In addition, high levels of specific anti-oxidants, minerals and biochemical cofactors can be used in a targeted fashion to manage, repair and remediate both the cause and the expressions of GDS. Wholesome food is now a “medial food” necessary for your health!”
   Natural Solutions Foundation President, Maj. Gen. Bert Stubblebine (US Army ret) identified the four technologies that he calls the "Genomicidal Technologies" which Dr. Rima has shown to be at the root of GDS. These are GMO fake food, with their "novel" alien proteins, prescription drugs (and especially vaccines) with the horrendous toxic load, nuclear power and the environmental toxins to which we are all exposed.

  Knowledge is power and understanding GDS is very powerful knowledge, in deed.

   How can you benefit from this powerful new understanding pioneered by doctors like Dr. Rima and those she is teaching? By sourcing as much of the food you and your family eat from low-radiation, organic and biodynamic sources. Under the language of the 2005 Orphan Drug Act, food that is prepared for use as a Medical Food to manage a syndrome is now a valid therapy under Federal Law.

   It’s not just GMO “food” that can trigger GDS. Since March 11, 2011, the Day Everything Changed, when the Fukushima reactors in Japan were destroyed, setting in motion the most serious technological threat ever faced by humanity, that means, primarily, sourcing food from the “deep South” – South America and Africa.

   As Natural Solutions Foundation develops these sources, they will become available at . Dr. Rima has identified the medical syndrome and the dietary management of that syndrome. As noted above, Congress, in 2005, created the regulatory category that permits the development of the Dr. Rima Protocol – the strict adherence to toxin-free food. In truth, this is the only logical solution to what is the greatest threat to people like us and families like ours. Read more here: What Congress told us, in the Orphan Drug Act, is that a Medical Food is:
"a food which is formulated to be consumed or administered enterally under the supervision of a physician and which is intended for the specific dietary management of a disease or condition for which distinctive nutritional requirements, based on recognized scientific principles, are established by medical evaluation....” Section 5(b) of the Orphan Drug Act (21 U.S.C. 360ee (b) (3))
Responding to Congress’ instruction, the FDA published a short FAQs,
"Medical foods are distinguished from the broader category of foods for special dietary use and from foods that make health claims by the requirement that medical foods a. be intended to meet distinctive nutritional requirements of a disease or condition, b. used under medical supervision and c. intended for the specific dietary management of a disease or condition."
The FDA FAQs further inform us,
"The term "medical foods" does not pertain to all foods fed to sick patients. Medical foods are foods that are specially formulated and processed … for the patient who is seriously ill or who requires the product as a major treatment modality." 3
And the agency concludes:
"In general, to be considered a medical food, a product must, at a minimum, meet the following criteria: a. the product must be a food for oral or tube feeding; b. the product must be labeled for the dietary management of a specific medical disorder, disease, or condition for which there are distinctive nutritional requirements; and c. the product must be intended to be used under medical supervision..."
   One of the problems with sourcing truly wholesome food from the deep South is that fresh food which enters the United States must be irradiated or fumigated. If the food is certified organic, it is exempt from irradiation, but not fumigation. Thus, while, for example, much of our winter fruit and vegetables come from Chile, the honest organic producers there will not ship to the USA. As a Medical Food, however, such food would be exempt from fumigation, in order to maintain its integrity. The legal method for importation may be through the FDA “compassionate use” rule, RPM Ch. 9-71, Coverage of Personal Importation, which allows Americans to import up to a three month’s supply of health remedies not available in the USA, for personal use. I can deduce from the FDA materials several points of note:
(1) the agency has not yet prepared comprehensive regulations regarding Medical Foods;
(2) products protected under the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 (DSHEA) can be considered Medical Foods, 
(3) fresh foods that are specially prepared and packaged to manage GDS can be considered Medical Foods, and 
(4) it is appropriate for health care providers to recommend such wholesome food for the dietary management of various nutritional and metabolic syndromes that are being identified by advanced health care practitioners, which can be subsumed under the overall Genomic Disruption Syndrome identified by Dr. Rima.
Jeffrey Smith concludes:
“Fortunately, as people learn about the health dangers of GMOs, feel better from non-GMO diets, and tell others, the non-GMO movement grows. There are now millions who seek healthier non-GMO foods. Since GMOs offer no consumer benefits…”
We can advance this understanding by educating decision makers, including our legislators, about the dangers of GMOs.

Knowledge is power and the powerful must be made aware of the risks to which their policies are exposing us all.

Easily and quickly send them messages through Natural Solutions Foundation’s Educate Decision Makers system:

And watch for the definitive White Paper on GDS, currently in preparation by the Trustees of Natural Solutions Foundation, which will help guide those who seek remediation for the disabilities that arise from GDs, and those physicians and other healers who seek to provide those remedies.


Monday, July 30, 2012

BAD APPLES: GMOs and the Precautionary Principle!

BAD APPLES: GMOs and the Precautionary Principle!

Push Back Here:
“A small company is trying to bring to market a genetically engineered apple that does not turn brown when sliced or bruised… The Arctic Apple, as it is being called, could become one of the first genetically engineered versions of a fruit that people directly bite into…” 1
Congress About to Mandate GMOs?
The countries that follow the Civil Law tradition of the Napoleonic Code apply the Precautionary Principle to new products entering the marketplace. The marketer bears the burden of showing the safety of the product. In the Common Law countries, like the United States, the same concept, that the purveyor takes responsibility, is called “Strict Liability in Tort.” You are responsible for the safety of the products you introduce into commerce.

That laudable principle, however, fails to be followed in several key areas — notably, for our purposes here, regarding Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs).

First, what is a GMO? It is not a plant or animal that is the result of selective breeding or hybridizing closely linked species. Rather than these methods, used for millenniums, GMO technology is all about the introduction of “alien” DNA into species, to “give” them traits they did not develop in nature. Such “chimera” or transgenetic entities are really new species, sometimes combining animal and plant DNA. Often producing novel proteins for which the human body has no evolutionary experience.

We do not know what “unintended” consequences may develop. There are however, disturbing reports coming from many sources (just GOOGLE “GMO risks”) warning about infertility among animals fed GMO feed and failures of mono-culture GMO crops when stressed (consider the looming failure of the GMO corn crop in the USA this year).

See the previous posting:
GMO Corn Crops Failing in the USA: Famine to Follow?
We find ourselves particularly concerned with the “Farm Bill” pending before Congress. We prefer to call it the “Factory Food Promotion Bill” since it just continues the “bipartisan” policy of heavily subsidizing factory “phude” production while building in new burdens on local, sustainable, organic production. In addition, it includes provisions that would mandate even greater GMO penetration of the market, without labeling.
“Three sections (10011, 10013, and 10014) tucked into the middle of the bulky bill work together to eliminate any real review of GE crops. This “Monsanto Rider” got its name from the corporation with a choke-hold on most of the country’s staple crops”

To our minds, if a company is putting something on the market that it claims is “food” it has an obligation to tell us in what way it is “food.” If it is a transgenetic chimera, a novel species with unknown risk, the public ought to know. Now the “bipartisan” policy enforced by FDA does not required GMO labeling and acutally forbids “GMO-Free” designations. However, we feel confident, if FDA ever takes any company to court because it truthfully labeled its food as “GMO-Free” the FDA would lose.

What can you do about the risks of GMO fake “phude?”

There are several steps:
1. Help us educate decision makers about GMOs!
Easily email your legislators here: Insist that “natural” food purveyors such as Whole Foods and Trader Joe’s take responsibility and indicate which products are GMO-Free. Your dollars count!
3. Source as much of your food as you can from Deep South (South America and Africa) sources that are Organic, GMO-Free and Low-Radiation certified.
4. Grow your own heritage seed, real food in your own garden (indoors if you are in a radiation risk area).
We are not helpless in the face of the crony corporatist factory “phude” system. Together, our Dollars and our Push Back can make a difference!

Act right now!
General Bert Stubblebine (US ARmy ret; President of the Natural Solutions Foundation) has identified four technologies that he calls the “Genomicidal technologies that are weaponizing the world against human survival.”
These are [1] the uninsurable risks of nuclear power;
[2] industrial toxins in the environment;
[3] drug toxins, especially those in the uninsurable risk of vaccines; and, of course,
[4] GMO fake “phude.” He has further identified the resulting harms as furthering the Global Elitist’ Depopulation Agenda.
This is what Natural Solutions Foundation medical Director Rima E. Laibow, MD has identified as the “Globalist Genocidal Agenda” See Dr. Rima on that topic at the School of Enlightenment:

Right now (July 2012) Dr. Rima and Gen. Bert are in the Deep South Republic of Chile sourcing low-radiation, wholesome, non-GMO food sources. Dr. Rima’s Video Blogs reporting on their fact-finding tour can be seen here:

Wednesday, July 18, 2012

Tea Party Support for Gary Johnson is Smart Politics

Just posted this message to the Tea Party:

I admit I've been a supporter of Ron Paul ever since the days of the National Committee to Relegalize Gold in the mid 1970's. The restoration of our right to own gold bullion was one of Dr. Paul's first victories for Liberty.  I even changed my voter registration from Libertarian to Republican in '08 at his suggestion.
I left the GOP in '69 although I was one of the Young Republicans being groomed for office in NJ, and focused on issues, like the Taxpayers Freedom Movement of the 70's and 80s and the Health Freedom Movement thereafter. In my mind the GOP was hopelessly tied to the very Federal power that was destroying the Constitutional Republic.

The behavior of the GOP in recent years has done nothing to convince me otherwise. In fact, after the Tea Party gave the GOP control of the House in '10 nearly the first thing the majority did was betray us by abrogating that body's control over the purse strings, by raising the Fed Debt Limit yet again, triggering the downgrade of US credit rating.

The one hope I had for the GOP was Dr. Paul's candidacy. While his efforts have broadened and deepened the organizational structure of the Movement to Restore the Constitutional Republic, the GOP establishment has proven willing to go to almost any lengths silence him and to find "Anybody but Paul" -- even some Tea Partiers  seem more anti-Paul than pro-Liberty, gleefully taunting the Liberty Movement while urging the Tea Party to become nothing more than an adjuvant to the GOP.

The Tea Party is not itself a political party. It is also not a branch of the GOP. Our interest in achieving the restoration of the Constitutional Republic is not the same as the GOP establishment's interest in governing.

We need to be politically sophisticated enough to "play" the GOP to achieve our Core Values: the Constitution, Fiscal Responsibility and Free Markets.

IMHO, in this election cycle, the best way to do that is to support Gov. Gary Johnson, the Libertarian Candidate, for President.  He also now perceives the GOP as a barrier to achieving Liberty and has taken on the task of representing our views to the nation.

In this election cycle, Obama is the International Social Fascist and Romney is the typical crony corporatist who is quite comfortable doing business with any of the various flavors of social fascism.
"Social Fascism" is the alliance of crony corporatists and "community organizers" in support of the globalist elite depopulation agenda.

[Note, IMHO, if Ron Paul gets to the podium in Tampa it would give him a useful pulpit from which to continue the campaign for liberty. That would be very good for the Tea Party.]

I urge the Tea Party to consider if candidate Gary Johnson polls high enough in the national polls he gets into the presidential debates.

It would be really interesting to watch Romney and Obama blah blah blahing while "Governor NO!" explicates the patriot agenda of restoring the Constitutional Republic.

The best Tea Party strategy would be to loudly support Gov. Johnson so that he polls above the required percentage and gets in the debate.

Johnson in the debates would force Romney to move to the "right" and would expose the current White House occupant for the Marxist he most certainly appears to be.

I realize that some of Johnson's libertarian positions might not resonate with all Tea Partiers, but, frankly, when faced with a choice among the community organizer, the crony corporatist or the libertarian, the social conservatives among us need to grit their teeth and get political.

So I say, publicly support Gary Johnson, even if, on election day you still feel compelled to vote for Romney as the (slightly) lesser of the two evils! 

We still need a strong voice for Liberty in the campaign! Johnson is the only Liberty candidate who will be on all 50 State ballots.

What does the Tea Party say?

Johnson's web site:

Saturday, June 30, 2012

Musing on the Tyrannical Obama Health Tax

One important reform as we restore the Constitutional Republic is to return to the "original" Original Intent, before the first Chief Justice Marshall began his quarter century crusade to empower the Federal Government.

It was his opinion that "the power to tax is the power to destroy" and therefore Federal power was unlimited.

That was never the understanding of the Common Law which is that the police power is limited to public harms only, and that taxes can only be imposed for public benefits.

The States created the Federal Government and could only grant to it powers they had.

Unless Congress has the specific  power to legislate in Article 1, Section 8, it does not have the power to tax. So it could impose the Obama Tax in DC, but not in the States.

Once again, as in centuries' past, a Chief Justice opts to support the power of the Federal elite over the plain words of the Constitution.

In my humble opinion, Supreme Court decisions that clearly usurp the Constitution, such as the infamous "Legal Tender Cases" after the Civil War which gave us unconstitutional fiat "dollars" (instead of Constitutional Gold and Silver Dollars) and this most recent Health Tax case are no precedent and can, and must, be abandoned as soon as possible... even if, as in the case of the Federal Reserve, it is taking a century to undo the mistake of a past Supreme Court.

In matters of health, however, we do not have a century.

With unprecedented childhood autism, diabetes and asthma, all the result of the Federal Government's horrendous mismanagement of health care, the managing of which is no where entrusted to them by the Constitution, our survival as a Nation may depend on how quickly this error is rectified.

The words of the Constitution are:

"The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises..."

That is followed by a series of 17 specific "To..." paragraphs of the powers to which the power to tax apply.

There is no "general" Federal sovereignty. Just the powers granted by the States and since the States cannot, within the Common Law, tax without limit, neither can the Federal Government.

Any other position is an invitation to tyranny. And a condemnation of our children to Federal Government -induced ill-health.

Wednesday, May 23, 2012

Health & Food Freedom: Congress at the Crossroads

Congress at the Crossroads

Contact Your Representatives
[Easily send messages to your
Reps and other decision makers.]

   Under increasing lobbying pressure from the drug industry and the Federal bureaucracy, Congress is considering bills to increase FDA and USDA power over foods yet again. In a series of laws over the past five years, starting with what I call the "FDA Enabling Act" in 2007 (Teddy Kennedy's dying gift to the bureaucracy) the power of the central government over local food production and distribution has dramatically increased. By 2010 the Federal agencies were empowered to enter into "contracts" with state food inspectors, effectively nationalizing local food inspection, just as the local police forces have been nationalized with Federal money and control.

   These increases in Federal power are part of a general program emanating from the Administration to "seize the commanding heights" of the economy leading to what General Stubblebine has defined as "total government control" through various bills, regulations, treaties and executive orders. See:

  At the same time these centralizing bills are working their way through Congress, patriot members are offering counter proposals to protect our Health and Food Freedom. The battle is joined; the Congress is at the Crossroads... as is our Health and Food Freedom!

UPDATE: 5.24.12
FDA Bill S.3187 Passed and Sent to the House.
The Action Moves to the House of Representatives.

Support Sen. Paul's amendment, No. 2143
To S.3187 (the FDA bill)

His Amendment would disarm the FDA, put an end to raids on natural food stores and Amish farmers, and stop FDA censorship of truthful claims of dietary supplements. 
"Mr. President, today [May 24, 2012] I'm offering an amendment to the FDA. I'm troubled by images of armed agents raiding Amish farms and preventing them selling milk directly from the cow. I think we have bigger problems in our country than sending armed FDA agents into peaceful farmers' land and telling them they can't sell milk directly from the cow.My amendment has three parts. First, it attempts to stop the FDA's overzealous regulations of vitamins, food and supplements by codifying the first amendment prohibition on prior restraint... READ MORE:

Senators Hatch and Harkin Tell the FDA:
"Don't Mess with Our Supplements!"
"The Good, the Bad, the Ugly..."
Senator Durbin's
Unnecessary Amendment 2127
(Dietary Supplement Registration provision)
May be added to the FDA bill, S.3187
Oppose that over-regulation too!

"Senators Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) urged FDA to withdraw its New Dietary Ingredient (NDI) Draft Guidance in a letter to FDA Commissioner Hamburg... Senators Hatch and Harkin, the principal authors of the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act  of 1994 (DSHEA), asked Dr. Hamburg to issue a new draft that, 'will provide needed clarification on what constitutes an NDI, but does not undermine the balance Congress struck in DSHEA to provide consumers with access to safe, affordable dietary supplement products.' ... The Senators said the draft guidance undermines DSHEA in a number of ways.." 
   We now find Senator Durbin, this week, is seeking to saddle dietary supplement companies with a new registration requirement that is uneeded, since the 1994 DSHEA law already requires companies to notify the FDA about their claims. The Homeland Security laws already require manufacturers to register. 

   The information the Senator wants collected by the Govt under this new Amendment is already collected! 

   The Durbin Amendment 2127 to S.3187 is over-regulation and will simply tend to drive small companies out of business, thereby reducing consumer choice and increasing cost!

Contact Your Representatives:

Now addresses the FDA bill to be considered in the House Representatives.

What can we do about this?
We can educate our representatives
About these latest Congressional and
FDA assaults on our access to high potency, advanced nutrition!

Please let your representatives know how you feel. After you enter your zip code on the Action Item page, you can change or add to the suggested email that will come up on the next page. Then it's just a couple mouse-clicks and your representatives will get the message!

H. R. 3380
To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
Concerning safe dietary ingredients in dietary supplements.
[Changes the "grandfathering date" from 1994 to 2007, protecting additional nutrients.]

[Introduced by Dr. Ron Paul]

H. R. 2044

To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act concerning claims about the effects of foods and dietary supplements on health-related conditions and disease, and for other purposes.
... In General- The Federal Government may not take any action to prevent use of a claim describing any nutrient in a food or dietary supplement (as such terms are defined in section 201 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321)) as mitigating, treating, or preventing any disease, disease symptom, or health-related condition, unless a Federal court in a final order following a trial on the merits finds clear and convincing evidence based on qualified expert opinion and published peer-reviewed scientific research that--
      (1) the claim is false and misleading in a material respect; and
      (2) there is no less speech restrictive alternative to claim suppression, such as use of disclaimers or qualifications, that can render the claim non-misleading...

H. R. 2045

To amend the Federal Trade Commission Act concerning the burden of proof in false advertising cases involving dietary supplements and dietary ingredients.
...EXEMPTIONS FROM REGULATION AS ADVERTISING- No content of any publication shall be considered advertising regulated under this Act unless the content is intended by the seller of a product to promote the sale of that product and the content includes--
        `(A) the name of the product offered for sale;
        `(B) an express offer to sell the named product; and
        `(C) a purchase price for the product.
      No content excerpted in whole or part from a peer-reviewed scientific publication shall be considered advertising regulated under this Act.
      `(3) NO IMPLIED CLAIMS- In any investigation commenced by the Commission and in any adjudicative proceeding in which the Commission is a party, the Commission shall not attribute to an advertiser accused of false advertisement any advertising statement not actually made by that advertiser.
      `(4) NOTICE, OPPORTUNITY TO CURE, AND BURDEN OF PROOF FOR INVESTIGATION- Before the Commission authorizes an investigation of false advertisement by an advertiser of a dietary supplement or a dietary ingredient, the Commission shall send the advertiser a written `Notice of Suspected Violation and Opportunity to Cure' informing the advertiser ...
... (5) BURDEN OF PROOF FOR FALSE ADVERTISEMENT CASES- In every proceeding before a court or the Commission in which an advertiser of a dietary supplement or a dietary ingredient is charged with false advertising, the burden of proof shall be on the Commission to establish by clear and convincing evidence that the advertisement is false, that the advertisement actually caused consumers to be misled into believing to be true that which is false, and that but for the false advertising content the consumer would not have made the purchase at the price paid. If a claimed health benefit of a dietary supplement or dietary ingredient is alleged to be false advertising, the Commission must additionally establish based on expert scientific opinion and published peer-reviewed scientific evidence that the claim is false. No order adverse to the advertiser shall be entered except upon the Commission satisfying this burden of proof.'...

H. R. 2908
To protect the First Amendment rights of individuals to share their experiences and perceptions of the effects of foods and dietary supplements.
...Dissemination of Testimonials- Notwithstanding the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 301 et seq.), the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 41 et seq.), and any other provision of law--
      (1) no Federal official or employee may restrict dissemination of a testimonial containing a consumer's actual perception of the mitigative, preventive, or curative properties of any food or dietary supplement based on the consumer's experience with that food or dietary supplement; and
      (2) if a person disseminating a testimonial reasonably believes that the dissemination is covered by paragraph (1), such dissemination shall not constitute a violation of any Federal law...

Action Item

Saturday, May 19, 2012

The 2nd Amendment Guarantees the 1st Amendment

Just a reminder:



Thursday, May 10, 2012

Vaccine Lies and the First Amendment

The propaganda of  the vaccination industry is based on false commercial speech. 

Among the unscientific statements made by the vaccine pushers are claims about "herd immunity" -- the disproven claim that somehow "all" people are protected from infectious diseases when "enough" of the population has received the touted vaccine. If vaccines work, then those who receive them are "protected;" those who reject them are not "protected." No herd involved at all. The uninsurable risks of vaccination do not provide any "herd immunity." The most recent studies show what vaccines provide is a foreseeable risk of immune system damage or worse adverse reactions, including, as a foreseeable result, autism spectrum disorders. See, for example:  Infant Monkeys Given Standard Doses of Vaccines Develop Autism Symptoms -

Based on false notions, various vaccine-profiteers (drug lobbyists and their allies, including physicians in state legislatures) have introduced bills to abolish traditional religious and philosophical vaccine exemptions. The first of those state legislative efforts to reach a vote, in Vermont, went down to a decisive defeat last week. See:
"Advocates for vaccine choice rights delivered a humiliating defeat to the vaccine industry in Vermont this week with the defeat of S 199, a bill that would have eliminated the right of Vermont parents to refuse mandatory vaccines to attend school for “philosophical” reasons.  A coalition of citizens and health rights organizations stopped the very well funded effort by the vaccine industry in the first full-scale attempt to repeal a state’s philosophical exemption law. And this victory is bound to resonate in the statehouses were similar efforts are under way." 

However, the victory is not as decisive as is needed to secure our right to religious and philosophical exemptions to vaccination. There is a worm in the works... 
"A bill still called S199 emerged from the legislature, but it left the philosophical exemption intact. Parents will now have to submit letters on any annual basis and must sign a statement that inaccurately states that they acknowledge not vaccinating puts others at risk..."
This provision of the new law violates the First Amendment. Under our Constitution, no government may require particular speech, especially false speech!

Said the Supreme court in Thompson v Western States,  535 U.S. 357, 2002 -
"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."
An assault on truth similar to that attempted in Vermont is occurring in California where the legislature is poised to require a Doctor's Letter with each claim of exemption wherein the physician will make the legislatively required false statements regarding alleged risks to the child not being vaccinated, and other children (again, the false "herd immunity" claim) but, the physician will not be permitted to explain to the parents the uninsurable, foreseeable harm that vaccination will cause to an unknown number of children... perhaps even yours...

Please go to the Health Freedom Declaration, read about these issues, and use the included Petition Form to easily send a message to your state and federal representatives that you reject official vaccine ideology and insist that your Freedom of Speech not be perverted to the profit of the vaccine drug pushers!

Wednesday, March 21, 2012

Supreme Court Allows Redress Against Agency Intimidation

A Note to Health & Food Freedom & Justice advocates:

Today witnessed another Supreme Court unanimous victory for the individual's right to petition for redress when Federal agencies merely threaten enforcement action. The application of this case to various matters regarding health & food freedom & justice issues is very significant.

Standing to sue has been the key issue in cases such as the CoMeD mercury cases, the Ear Candlers Case and the "stop the shot" vax mandates cases.

Here is what the high Court said earlier today:

"The Sacketts, petitioners here, received a compliance order from the EPA, which stated that their residential lot contained navigable waters and that their construction project violated the Act. The Sacketts sought declarative and injunctive relief in the Federal District Court, contending that the compliance order was “arbitrary[and] capricious” under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5U. S. C. §706(2)(A), and that it deprived them of due process in violation of the Fifth Amendment. The District Court dismissed the claims for want of subject-matter jurisdiction. The Ninth Circuit affirmed, concluding that the Clean Water Act precluded pre-enforcement judicial review of compliance orders and that such preclusion did not violate due process.

"Held: The Sacketts may bring a civil action under the APA to challenge the issuance of the EPA’s order. Pp. 4–10. ...

"The APA creates a “presumption favoring judicial review of administrative action.” Block v. Community Nutrition Institute, 467 U. S. 340, 349.

In this case, the circumstances are similar to what happened to the Ear Candlers, who all received "cease and desist" orders from FDA declaring that ear candles were "unapproved medical devices..." that had "no medical use" and could therefore never be approved. The District Court denied the Ear Candlers relief because the FDA only threatened enforcement but did not actually enforce (this, despite the FDA's own web site claiming it was enforcing and had forced companies to stop selling).

Here is what happened to the Sacketts:

"The Sacketts, who do not believe that their property is subject to the Act, asked the EPA for a hearing, but thatrequest was denied. They then brought this action in the United States District Court for the District of Idaho, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. Their complaint contended that the EPA’s issuance of the compliance order was “arbitrary [and] capricious” under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U. S. C. §706(2)(A), and that it deprived them of “life, liberty, or property, without due process of law,” in violation of the Fifth Amendment.

"The District Court dismissed the claims for want of subject matter jurisdiction, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed, 622 F. 3d 1139(2010). It concluded that the Act “preclude[s] pre-enforcement judicial review of compliance orders,” id., at 1144, and that such preclusion does not violate the Fifth Amendment’s due process guarantee, id., at 1147. ...

"We conclude that the compliance order in this case is final agency action for which there is no adequate remedy other than APA review, and that the Clean Water Act does not preclude that review. We therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion."

In recent years the FDA has responded to strong citizen "push back" by backing off some of its most extreme assertions of power. For example, when Natural Solutions Foundation led over a half million people to object to the FDA 'CAM' Guidance in 2007, that draconian regulation was never finalized. When we pushed hard against the Swine Flu Vax, the mandates collapsed. When we pushed against the recent New Dietary Ingredient Guidance, the comment period was extended. When the Raw Milk Freedom Riders publicly disobeyed the FDA interstate raw milk prohibition, the FDA backed off its claimed power to stop such shipments when for personal use, at least.

BUT, but, but... while backing off, the agency continues to act as though it had adopted these onerous rules. The Ear Candler Case shows that they are enforcing their illegal 'CAM' category (never adopted by Congress) anyway. The banning of a certain form of B-6 shows how they intend to enforce the NDI regulation.

Through intimidation and innuendo...

But now, with the Sackett case, it is clear the potential victims of agency-less-than-final-enforcement can have their day in court; they have standing to sue, to seek redress of grievances, when threatened by the consequences of enforcement even when the agency plays sly and tries to intimidate instead of directly enforce.

Ralph Fucetola JD
Natural Solutions Foundation