Sunday, April 9, 2017

Privatizing Tyranny

Privatizing Tyranny
Liberty and the Crony Corporate State

When Governor Jerry Brownshirt of California signed SB277 into law in 2015 he gave California parents an unconstitutional[1] choice between their child receiving the so-called “free public education” promised by the California Constitution, or, their family exercising the universal right to Informed Consent by interposing their conscientious objection to vaccines.

The California governor violated basic norms of civilization. He enlisted not just the government’s schools, but even private and religious schools in his plan to force children to receive dozens of “unavoidably unsafe” and uninsurable vaccines. The state pretends to recognize our traditional right to freedom of choice, but it actively seeks the abrogation of that right.

During the early centuries of the Roman Empire the old forms of the Roman Republic also remained, with annual Consular elections and traditional magistrates. But that state had in fact been turned over to the Imperator who had life and death power over all others. “I am the only free person in Rome.” Caligula

The ancient city had no room for liberty. Fustel de Coulanges, The Ancient City, commented,

"The city had been founded on a religion and constituted a church. Hence its strength; hence, also, its omnipotence and the absolute empire which it exercised over its members. In a society established on such principles, individual liberty could not exist. The citizen was subordinate in everything, and without any reserve, to the city; he belonged to it body and soul. The religion which had produced the state, and the state which supported the religion, sustained each other...”

That ancient order was, it is said, overthrown in recent centuries by the great liberal (in its original sense) revolutions which established the primacy of individual freedom,

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights; that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”[2]

Control over most humans had been maintained for millennia through the use of religious and, later, political ideologies inevitably justifying the dominance of the few over the many, even when the controllers pretend to speak for, and protect,  the "majority".

Through the use of what early freedom theorists such as the American abolitionist Lysandor Spooner saw as the great monopolies created by political power, this strict social control dominated human society for most of its existence. These included the monopolies over conscience embodied by state religions, over the bodies of certain people (e.g., chattel slavery; prisoners, war captives, caste system members, etc.), or the property rights of approximately half of the species (the legal “infirmities” of women, etc.) and over all property through royal claims to “own” the land and economic activities of a territory (feudalism and mercantilism).

But in more modern times the structure of bureaucracy itself has been redesigned to become, not just to serve, the control system. Consider, for, example, how the regulatory structure of the Military Draft was used in the USA during the 1960s and ‘70s to “channel” students into certain fields, such as science, engineering and weapons design, which were considered of benefit to the state.

Now we see the same process at work with the incessant demands for ever more vaccines, and for forcing adults and children to receive all the vaccines that crony corporatist-tainted science can concoct without regard for either scientific validation or personal rights.

However, in 2009, during the Swine Flu Vax Panic, the would-be tyrants, who planned to vaccinate every American “starting with the volunteers” with unsafety tested vaccines (with the supply “stretched” by adding the adjuvant Squalene, at levels shown to cause irreversible infertility in Patents held by the US government) found themselves stymied by a population that refused to cooperate and who, in the millions, told their “representatives” so.  The plan collapsed and even the first responders were able to escape state vax mandates unharmed, though that took a law suit. There was no pandemic.

The incipient tyrants learned an important lesson from the power of our Push Back: overt Federal mandates will be resisted.

That is when we began to see the authorities passing off the mandates to allegedly private actors for enforcement. While we will see, below, how this privatizing of tyranny works to increase censorship and impose unlawful financial controls, the vax mandate gambit remains a primary example of this political process.

The drug companies (the most crony of the crony corporatist interests) start by obtaining a Patent for their vaccine or other drug. A Patent is a monopoly grant of power from government. The regulatory agencies, such as the FDA and FTC, are obligated under US case law to deem the formal Claims in the Patent as legally substantiated – as “true.”

So the FDA does not have to look further than the Patent when approving a vaccine for use. First the FDA accepts the drug company’s self-serving clinical trials which underlie the Patent and then it approves the vaccine. Then the CDC, another agency of the HHS department, “recommends” the use of said vaccine.

The CDC committee that does so is completely corrupted by crony corporate interests. So much so that they had to change the rules to allow the conflicted members to vote nonetheless, or there would never be a quorum.

One example: a so-called “ethicist” and physician from a famous children’s hospital, was allowed to vote to “recommend” a vaccine in which he had a Patent interest; his vote netted him tens of millions of dollars. Meanwhile the US government, deeply involved in approving and disseminating vaccines, through mandates and sponsored propaganda, owns financial interests in over 50 vaccine Patents.[3]

After the CDC “recommendation” is voted the privatization of the mandate starts, with some local governments issuing mandates, but with private hospitals requiring staff to be vaccinated, even staff members who never have patient contact. Similarly schools join in the rush to increase their vaccine levels (as higher vaccination rates translate into more money for the institution) – in one particularly egregious example from 2007, Prince Georges County, Maryland revaccinated hundreds of children literally at gun point to prevent the loss of hundreds of thousands of dollars a month in Federal subsidies. The school system claimed it had lost the vaccination records of nearly a thousand children.

We now see a disturbing trend where private employers join the mandate madness although the businesses have nothing to do with health care.

This trend is building despite the fact that the courts  have clearly held that people retain their right to Informed Consent even where governments are restricting religious and philosophical conscientious objections to vaccination. Several years ago an Administrative Judge in New Jersey held that it was illegal to fire a nurse for refusing vaccines for philosophical reasons while the people were permitted to assert a religious conscientious objection to refuse the injection. [4]

As recently as 2013 the US Supreme Court upheld Informed Consent, stating,

Even a “…diminished expectation of privacy does not diminish the… privacy interest in preventing a government agent from piercing the… skin. And though a blood test conducted in a medical setting by trained personnel is less intrusive than other bodily invasions, this Court has never retreated from its recognition that any compelled intrusion into the human body implicates significant, constitutionally protected privacy interests…” Missouri v McNeely 133 SCt 1553.

As a side note, McNeely teaches us that unless you assert your right to Informed Consent, it will be deemed waived. Assert your conscientious objection to forced vaccination with the Advance Vaccine Directive card, http://tinyurl.com/AVDcard - an advance medical directive that must be respected by ethical health care professionals.

It’s not just vaccines where the tyranny is privatized. One can conceive of the so-called Affordable Care Act (or its potential “single payer” or even market-oriented replacements) as a law enfranchising insurance industry control over health care decisions, abrogating our right to Freedom of Choice in Health Care. Thus, government “death committees” and rationing of health care are privatized with the insurance industry acting as the depopulationist government’s surrogate.

Nor is it just health care where the tyranny is privatized. Consider the private prison system – almost the only “growth” area of American cheap-labor industrial production. But that is an issue for another time. Here, we focus on health, free speech and trade.

Our Freedom of Speech is under a world wide web of attack. While various authoritarian states make no effort to hide direct censorship of speech, the “advanced democracies” are more subtle. Germany, with no absolute constitutional protection for Free Speech, is contemplating empowering Internet Service Providers to refuse service to “hate groups.” At the same time the large international corporate controllers of the Internet, such as Facebook and Google, are already escalating content controls to enforce “political correctness” – if you don’t follow the Party Line, you cannot be heard.

These supposed private actors are actually exercising government authority. They are the privatized agents of control. They exercise this control on several levels. Each of these mega-corporations is, in fact and in law, “a creature of the state.” It is created by registration with government that gives it authorities (such as limited liability to third parties) which it could not exercise as a truly private association.

If the same Rule of Law that applies to truly private actors applied to government and its crony corporations, “content control” efforts would be understood to be exactly what they are: censorship. Real free market competition and technological progress would rapidly make the near-monopoly power of Google and Facebook irrelevant.

Yet another example of privatizing tyranny is Operation Chokepoint, the illegal US government program empowering financial institutions to deny service to otherwise lawful activities (including activities by private persons, nongovernmental organizations and businesses) where the government has not banned the activity but merely disfavors it.[5]

The sale of CBDs, cannabidiols, comes to mind. This neurotransmitter is made by human bodies and has a powerful role in maintaining homeostasis, neurological balance and immune system function [Rima E. Laibow MD calls it “The Holy Grail of Natural Health.”][6]

While the body makes CBDs, the most abundant source of CBDs from food is found in Hemp. CBDs do not get you high (that’s what the THC in Hemp does). Nonetheless, without explicit Congressional authority, the DEA, FDA and FTC are treating CBD as though it were contraband, as though government could have power to ban a normal part of our bodies.

(King Kanute commanding the tide to reverse itself comes to mind here).

Financial institutions licensed and regulated by the government are refusing to provide banking and merchant account services to companies that seek to satisfy consumer demand, although the US Supreme Court has held, Thompson v. Western States Medical Center, 535 U.S. 357, 2002:

"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."

Thus we see how government, ever seeking to extend its control over our lives, uses its crony corporate partners to impose detailed controls that would be politically impossible to impose directly. 

Internet Censorship, forced medical treatment, banning commerce... all privatized tyranny.

Exercise your expressive association communication rights here: http://TinyURL.com/AVDcard.

“Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual.” Thomas Jefferson[7]

Ralph Fucetola JD
President, Institute for Health Research
www.InHeRe.org

Sunday, February 12, 2017

Libertarian Internationalism



Libertarian Internationalism
The Prolegomena to a Libertarian Foreign Policy*
Divesting Governments of Authority
To Micro-Manage Our Lives
Is the Only Path to World Peace
-----------------
This Essay
In Memory of a Peace Warrior,

Maj. Gen. Bert Stubblebine
06 Feb 1930 - 06 Feb 2017 
http://drrimatruthreports.com/general-bert-rest-in-peace/

Video Version
https://youtu.be/hvw2sNWG0gk

We live in a world where the promise of peace and prosperity has become a lie used to empower a globalist elite with its genomicidal agenda, where relations among nations resemble the brutal behavior of thugs - a Hobbesian international order.


As the lack of intellectual viability of statism in its various racial, religious, national, bureaucratic, imperialist and other forms becomes increasingly exposed, the need to articulate an alternative libertarian approach to relations among people of different cultures and "nations" becomes critical. As the nation state and its institutions (including internationals, such as the UN) become increasingly irrelevant in an economically globalized, post-singularity world, a market-oriented internationalism is urgently needed.

The juridical subjects of International Law, "International Actors," include nation states (even micro-states like the Vatican), certain few private associations (like the Red Cross or Sovereign Knights of Malta), and international agencies like the UN and its associated institutions (like certain privileged NGOs and "specialized agencies"). What is not included in this list are actual private persons, such as you and me, and even juridical persons such as private associations and registered corporations.

The humans and human organizations with which we usually interact are missing from international relations.

We individuals don't exist in the currently dominant statist view of international law.



In the eyes of International Actors, we real people and our associations are little more than disregarded entities. This state of affairs is entirely unsatisfactory to libertarians. Libertarians understand, taught by Mises' brilliant philosophical exposition in his master work Human Action, that there is only one set of actual actors in human affairs: individual humans.

To paraphrase Mises: only individuals think, plan and act. 

The belief that collective nouns such as "state" or "corporation" or "class" and the like engage in human action is a superstitious delusion that has led to much human suffering.

Any truly humane international law must, going forward, take this grave error into account.

Consider the long march of human history and how treating individual humans as objects led us to endless millennia of statist imperial warfare, culminating the 20th Century's killing fields and nuclear incinerations. Consider the necessary role of statism in the imposition of what Spooner saw as the Great Monopolies: the horror of slavery, vicious state churches, the legal "incapacities of women" and the King's trade monopolies.

Consider therefore the false "glories" of the State as a human institution. Consider it and condemn this most vile of accretions of a brutal past.
“A state, is called the coldest of all cold monsters. Coldly it also lies; and this lie creeps from its mouth: "I, the state, am the people." It is a lie! ... Destroyers, are they who lay snares for many, and call it the state: they hang a sword and a hundred cravings over them. Where there is still a people, there the state is not understood, but hated as the evil eye, and as sin against laws and customs.” ― Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra
As the vicious old concepts: chattel slavery, religious and racial bigotry, institutionalized inequality of women and various others, have become anathema to civilized people, so called,  the very concept a "sovereign" government, not subject to the same rule of law that applies to private persons, must be rejected.

Then we will see the great sweep of human history as the (not always steady) advance in knowledge and enterprise. We will see the inventors, creators, entrepreneurs, as the proper subjects of human admiration, leaving behind childish fascination with bright war medals, glittering crowns and presidential pomp.

Jefferson understood the essence of libertarian foreign policy: “Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations...entangling alliances with none” .



The natural implementation of that view is the non-interventionist foreign policy of the Founders of the American Republic.  That glorious era of non-interventionism lasted for over a hundred years (with notable lapses regarding Mexico, Mormons, native peoples, and two failed invasions of Canada). TR's reckless charge up San Juan Hill ended the policy of libertarian non-interventionism.

Libertarians always stand against war. Whether Thoreau asking Emerson why his friend was not in the jail cell with him for refusing to pay the Mexico War Tax, or Murray Rothbard telling my Viet Nam bound contemporaries exactly how "the coldest of all cold monsters" used selective servitude to centrally plan the welfare/warfare state.

Whether Warren, Tucker and Spooner decrying the uncivil war to make America safe for bureaucracy or Mencken poking at the hubris of the world war warriors, libertarian-Americans stood against every war since the Rebellion of 1776. And stood with every resistance since the Whiskey Tax Rebellion of 1791.

[1] So the very first principle of a libertarian approach to foreign affairs is Peace -- Anti-War.

Standing for peace, we stand with the victims of war, including those murdered "in our names" and those forced to pay for the carnage, "Trillions and trillions wasted..." Ron Paul



Libertarians understand that the main result of an interventionist foreign policy is death; millions of deaths... and the resulting "blow back" that brings the war back home. Do Americans really think we can escape the results of violating other people? For most of the years since the adoption of the Constitution of 1787 the Republic as been at war.


"War no more; war never again." Pope Paul VI.

Does that mean I oppose people overthrowing tyrannies by force? No. I applaud self-determination. Americans, however, have a special obligation to keep our "coldest of cold monsters" within its assigned borders. That means bringing all the troops home. The Founders understood that a standing army spread across the globe would be an invitation to disaster. We need to stop it. That's the best we could do for peace and freedom.

[2] The second principle must be Individualism. 

There is no "collective action" and no collective guilt. There is only individual Human Action. This must be the bedrock ground of any sane approach to international relations. The universal rights of real humans must be respected in international law and individuals must have standing to act internationally.

Chief among these rights is the Right of Informed Consent in all things pertaining to our bodies:  http://TinyURL.com/InformedConsentProtection. As General Bert taught us, the individual's right to "Informed consent is the defining issue of the 21st Century."

[3] And the third, Free Trade. 

Despite the mercantilist errors being spouted by Trumpists and their (G)OP [reluctant] allies, protectionism is simply taxation -- and we are Taxed Enough Already. Whether penalizing companies for following market forces or imposing new tariffs, it is just tax policy and the incidence of the tax will fall where all taxes fall: on production of real goods and services, paid for by the consumers. Who benefits? The Bureaucracy.

In economic science the issue was settled literally centuries ago.

First, the market price is the just price. Therefore, any government imposition that restricts the market price must be unjust.

Second, as early as the Corn Law Debates in England in the 1830s it has been conceded by all thinking economists that free trade benefits those countries that adopt it, even if other countries continue irrationally to impose protectionist policies. If you read the economic literature and do the math, you will realize that protectionism is a con.

Peace -- Individualism -- Free Trade: lead to a libertarian world. 

As a practical matter, urgent steps in that direction require a wholesale planetary divesting of authority from political systems that is used to micro-manage Human Action. Every regulation abolished, every tax reduced, is a victory for humanity. The direct political program therefore must be "abolish two old regulations for each new one proposed." And the same as to taxes and bureaus.

Just as the market price is the only just price we can know (https://mises.org/library/myth-just-price) humans free to act with their own property (including their bodies) as they choose will make, on the whole, on average, the best choices. Far better than those being made for us by a self-appointed globalist elite that will do anything to maintain power and privilege, shrinking not even from genocidal weaponized pandemics.

The existence of international libertarian organizations, such as Libertarian Parties, Mises Circles and the like is very encouraging. Here is what the libertarian protesters in Brazil are saying:



L. von Mises understood it clearly. He warned us, from his vantage point of the 20th Century, the Century of Genocide, the consequences of statist interventionism:
"Man's freedom to choose and to act is restricted in a threefold way. There are first the physical laws to whose unfeeling absoluteness man must adjust his conduct if he wants to live. There are second the individual's innate constitutional characteristics and dispositions and the operation of environmental factors; we know that they influence both the choice of the ends and that of the means, although our cognizance of the mode of their operation is rather vague. There is finally the regularity of phenomena with regard to the interconnectedness of means and ends, viz., the praxeological law as distinct from the physical and from the physiological law. 
The elucidation and the categorial and formal examination of this third class of laws of the universe is the subject matter of praxeology and its hitherto best-developed branch, economics. The body of economic knowledge is an essential element in the structure of human civilization; it is the foundation upon which modern industrialism and all the moral, intellectual, technological, and therapeutical achievements of the last centuries have been built. It rests with men whether they will make the proper use of the rich treasure with which this knowledge provides them or whether they will leave it unused. But if they fail to take the best advantage of it and disregard its teachings and warnings, they will not annul economics; they will stamp out society and the human race." -- L. von Mises, Human Action
Libertarians need to apply Mises' profound understanding to our advocacy for a peaceful world.

Only then can we achieve human freedom, peace and prosperity.

.-------------------
* My Prolegomena to Any Future Political Philosophy is here:  http://vitaminlawyerhealthfreedom.blogspot.com/2011/10/liberty-in-ancient-city-and-internet.html

Monday, January 16, 2017

President's Vaccine Safety and Science Commission

RFK Jr. Meets the President-Elect at Trump Tower. To Chair Vaccine Safety and Science Commission? 
www.DrRimaTruthReports.com/action/donate/

Must Push Back to Make it Happen!

"We are at a strategic moment when the entire vaccine pseudo-science edifice is poised to collapse." - Maj. Gen. Bert Stubblebine (US Army Ret.), President - Natural Solutions Foundation .

Even with web sites like The Beast bemoaning the presidential appointment,

"Robert F. Kennedy Jr.—Camelot heir, lawyer, environmentalist, and crackpot [sic] anti-vaxxer—met with President-Elect Donald Trump today to talk about vaccines. Kennedy later told reporters that Trump has tapped him to chair a commission on 'vaccine safety and scientific integrity.' ... This meeting alone is likely to embolden discredited conspiracy theorists who have cheered Trump’s election—and it should send shivers down the spines of parents, doctors, and believers in science everywhere...."

Vaccine Choice advocates are encouraged by the President-elect's willingness to look at the issue. As Informed Consent campaigner Rima E. Laibow MD remarked,

"RFK Jr. is a brave and committed voice for freedom of choice in health care. He is the very opposite of the "crackpot" description in The Beast report. When vaccine pushers tell us that "the science is settled" we know that they either do not understand real  science, which can never be "settled" or they are misinforming for their own personal or profit agenda. The Vaccine Safety and Science Commission is an important step toward ending the tragedy of childhood vaccine injuries."

Dr. Laibow continued,

"This appointment does not surprise me, since many thousands of Americans used our web form action item Tell Trump to End Vax Mandates to email the Trump Transition Team asking the new Administration to take a strong stand on the vaccine choice issue. And with the President-elect reaching out to the Vaccine Choice Movement so powerfully, we can hope that the relentless push for ever more mandated vaccines will finally stop, and we can hope to finally see declines in the incidence of autism in the young and dementia in the elderly. "

Rumors circulating after the initial meeting suggest some internal dissension in the Trump Camp with some transition figures urging that Trump not be seen to be "anti-science" on the vaccine issue.  Others suggest that "vaccine science" is so corrupted with crony conflicts of interest that it cannot be trusted. While people may vary on their understanding of the uninsurable risks of vaccination, the idea that government, or employers or schools, ought to coerce* consent for vaccination remains highly contentious. Health Freedom advocates cite the universal right to Informed Consent as forbidding vaccine "mandates."

Members of the public remain invited to message the Trump Transition, thanking them for planning the Vaccine Safety and Science Commission, and supporting RFK Jr's involvement here: http://TinyURL.com/VaccinePolicy


YOUR DONATIONS URGENTLY NEEDED
http://drrimatruthreports.com/action/donate/
.

* We use "coerce" in the sense used in the Nuremberg Code.  “The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved, as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision.”

See: http://drrimatruthreports.com/a-brief-for-informed-consent/

Thursday, January 5, 2017

FTC Wants Disclaimers on Homeopathy Labels; DEA Says No to CBDs

http://tinyurl.com/NaturalTherapyFreedom

The lame duck administration in Washington continues to overreach. Where will it end?

It is the law that "truthful and not misleading" commercial speech is protected by the First Amendment. That includes what are known as "Traditional Use Claims." Back in 2003 I wrote about traditional use claims for natural products. *

This past November the Federal Trade Commission had more to say about traditional use claims, in this case, about such claims for homeopathic products.

NPR.org reports**:
According to Richard Cleland, assistant director of the division of advertising practices at the FTC, we might not be seeing that exact languages on boxes, but the products need to both say that their claims are not based on scientific evidence, and also say what they are based on....
"Other products need to support their claims, so why shouldn't homeopathic products?" counters the FTC's Cleland. "They're not different; they're going to be held to the same standard." Cleland doesn't think the labeling will necessarily dissuade people from purchasing homeopathic remedies, and that's not the FTC's goal. "We believe the consumer should have as much accurate information as they can before making purchasing decisions."... Daniel Fabricant, the executive president of the Natural Products Association, says that "this is a clear example of jurisdictional creep."
The new FTC pronouncement does not represent a true change of policy, which would be contrary to the FTC's mandate from Congress which limits its rule-making authority, rather, it appears to be a change in enforcement emphasis.

With homeopathic products having special legal protections from FDA interference, granted by Congress, it does not surprise that a different agency would engage in "jurisdictional creep"

This regulatory action reminds me of the Drug Enforcement Administraiton's recently expressed opinion that CBDs (cannabidiols) -- a natural part of our bodies -- can be made contraband by DEA edict, after the FDA failed to convince anyone that CBDs were not grandfathered under DSHEA (the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act).

I thought the idea that a DEA edict could make a body part contraband had been repudiated in cases like my 1995 DHEA Cases for Life Extension Foundation. See: http://www.lifespirit.org/dhealegal.html

These regulatory actions are examples of more government overreaching, interfering with consumer choice, despite the lip-service expressed by government spokespersons in favor of consumer choice.

The right to choice is, of course, settled law, held so by the Supreme Court in the 2002 landmark Thompson v Western States case, wherein the Court opined:
"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 [even] bad decisions with the information...."
Our universal right to Informed Consent is closed tied to this general right of consumer choice and is linked to the "preferred position" of First Amendment rights -- what the Supreme Court has called "expressive association rights..." Assert your right to Informed Consent here:  http://tinyurl.com/InformedConsentProtection and demand continued access to natural remedies here:  http://tinyurl.com/NaturalTherapyFreedom
---------------

*  You can find more about Traditional Uses here:  http://www.lifespirit.org/traditionaluses.htm -- I concluded:

The essence of the current American rule on Traditional Uses is, as stated by FTC, “Claims based on historical or traditional use should be substantiated by confirming scientific evidence, or should be presented in such a way that consumers understand that the sole basis for the claim is a history of use of the product for a particular purpose.”  Remember, FDA regulates labels while FTC regulates advertising (however, FDA can consider literature about a product to be an extension of the label). Further, the agencies will look much more closely at products that claim to cure serious disease than products that claim to support normal structure and function.  Disclaimers and Disclosures need to be carefully crafted.  These are the regulatory requirements that must be met to base advertising claims on the Traditional Use of a product. Here is a sample of a Traditional Use Disclaimer, "This information is based on Traditional [Chinese Medicine] which often uses natural herbs and nutrients to support health. The information about these ingredients has not been evaluated or approved by the FDA and is not based on scientific evidence from US sources. This product is intended to support general well being and not intended to treat disease. If conditions persist, please seek advise from your medical doctor."

**
http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/12/02/504004506/time-for-homeopathic-remedies-to-prove-that-they-work