Monday, November 26, 2007

Tiburon Statement:

08/19/09 Update: Citizens Petition to Stop the Shot, with Action Item:

Your Right to Self-Shield instead of taking the jab; with preparedness links:

Follow this issue on
Hashtags: #selfshield #pandemic #noforcedvax #vaccine #healthfreedom

Join the No Forced Vaccination Forum:

Original Posting:

A group of Health and Freedom advocates met over Thanksgiving Weekend in emergency strategic session, at Tiburon, California and by electronic means; see my blog of November 24, 2007.

It was clear to those present that the most pressing public issue at this moment is the use of the police power to restrict and control people's health choices. This was tragically demonstrated on November 17 at the Prince George's County Courthouse when 1600 parents were threatened with jail and fines if they failed to vaccinate, or in some cases, re-vaccinate, their children when either the school had lost their records or the parents did not (or chose not to) have them vaccinated. The sad spectacle of children inoculated at the point of a gun was observed by our legislative consultant who also reported on this miscarriage of the rule of law. The spectacle of police with weapons and dogs prepares us, perhaps, for further such outrages on an even greater scale, in the event of an alleged biological weapon or supposed pandemic incident.

We reviewed the Declaration of Helsinki forbidding involuntary medical experimentation and treatment - and considered the recently adopted laws mandating psychiatric testing and drugging of children and laws mandating mass vaccination, we issued the following statement:

Tiburon Statement
Convening for Health Freedom of Choice
Protecting our Children from Forced Vaccination

Health and Freedom leaders and advocates, meeting in an emergency strategic session at Tiburon, California and electronically, declare -

We collectively call upon Congress and State Legislatures to take immediate steps to restore and guarantee freedom of choice in vaccination and health care and to protect our children and us against forced treatments.

The moral imperative embodied in the World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki forbids involuntary medical treatment or experimentation in the absence of fully informed, voluntary consent.

We have a right to legal protection against mandatory inoculations of our children, such as those which occurred on November 17, 2007 in Prince George’s County Court House, enforced by police.

Taxpayers have paid nearly $2 billion to compensate families for the death or disability of their children due to vaccination.

We, the undersigned, call upon the Congress of the United States and legislators of each State to adopt the strongest possible legal protections to ensure health care freedom of choice, including the universal right to vaccination exemptions.

Issued Thanksgiving Weekend, November 25, 2007

Signed (with affiliations for identification purposes only),

Major General Albert N. Stubblebine III (US Army Ret. - )

James Turner, Esq. (Foundation for Health Choice – )

Rima E. Laibow, MD (Natural Solutions Foundation – )

Ralph Fucetola JD (Institute for Health Research –

Mary Beth Brangan (Ecological Options Network –

Stephanie Sutton (Phisciences – )

Dr. Patrick Flanagan (Phisciences – )

Sali Randel (Holistic News Network – )

We invite other health and freedom conscious people to add their names to the Statement; please email your name, organization, link to with "TIBURON" in the subject line.

Saturday, November 24, 2007

Tiburon Health & Freedom Strategy Session

I'm blogging from a meeting of health and freedom activists at a beautiful center overlooking San Francisco Bay. The question of the day is, how to help hundreds of thousands of health freedom activists self-organize with sufficient resources to make a difference in public policy.

We're working toward the idea of a Global Declaration of Health and Freedom.

Talking about those creative activists we each know who ought to be open to the importance of defending health freedom, "auditing" what resources the various groups represented bring 'to the table.'

Natural Solutions Foundation - - Medical Director Rima E. Laibow, MD pointed out that NSF is becoming the "netroots" (that's the Internet Grassroots...) of the movement, with an Alexa ranking in the top 30,000 US web sites.

Our understanding of "health freedom" is being expanded, starting with the rubric, "No health without freedom... little freedom without health." Freedom is indivisible. To be free in one's health choices requires that one be free in the political and economic sense. The fundamental issue is Food, states one participant.

Now the discussion moves to defining who (what people and institutions) are central to the attacks on health and freedom. One opinion, the economic forces that are degrading food and heath are corporate interests that benefit in the short run from the degradation of the food supply. Some of those degradations are: eroding organic standards; failing to label GM (genetically modified) and irradiated foods; allowing higher levels of toxins in foods. This process is propelled, offers one activist, by Codex Alimentarius (the World Food Code) that is itself the product of a process that started in the old Austrio-Hungarian Empire where the restrictive Napoleonic Code was applied to the food trade in the empire. After WWII certain rehabilitated Nazi-linked pharmaceutical executives pursued the creation of Codex. Says this participant, the goal is to reduce world population by degrading the nutritional component of food, producing large, diseased populations that will "need" pharmaceutical intervention. She sees a move to "neo-feudalism" and a "post consumer" economy.

Another astute observer, president of a health consumers group, suggests that Big Pharma (linked to Big Oil and Big Agra) without any overt genocidal intent, just driven by perceived economic benefit, leads to the current restrictive regulatory environment.

Despite these repressive forces, "Everything is breaking apart... that's why we can have an impact..." What is needed, said one former military officer, is a strategic vision.

This is point in history where "modern" is breaking down. Some people are moving to a pre-industrial, neo-feudal lifestyle of low impact while others are moving toward a trans-industrial society depending on advanced technologies of transcend current limitations.

Another opines that such philosophizing fails to bring the issues to the level of clarity that most people will be able to understand. She describes explaining the Codex problem to a group of well-healed SantaFeians recently, and how none of them had heard of the World Food Code before, but did see the risk when it was presented to them.

States another, we are at a turning point and the information we have is like "shock therapy" -- the problems are so dense, our challenge is to find the "most brilliant" attack strategy (another says, "defense...")

The question arises: how to break though public apathy. We talked about "hot button issues" and the lessons of the direct mail industry. Fear and anger results in a 3 to 5% public response. This bypasses nine tenths of the populace. What does "love and hope" do instead? The example is the response that certain positive-thinking mega churches are having. Another example is the sustainability movement.

Forced drugging, including involuntary vaccination, is clearly a "hot button" issue.

We are, one says, looking for the fulcrum. Basic human need is for both autonomy and and connectedness. All the issues that concern us are on this autonomy /connectedness range.

Empowering people to be healthy and free is the fulcrum to leverage the system.

Even a more fundamental concern, says another, is aggregating the interests of the individual does not necessarily result in the common interest. The one on one relationship, as for example, the doctor / patient relationship, is not the model for social change.

Some consensus on the need to find the next issue to which the public can relate, with focus on the point where maximum change can occur. Find the weakness and exploit it.

Another view of fundamentals, one how to precipitate results (using chemistry as the example) - (1) increase the active ingredient, (2) decrease the solvent or (3) cool it.* How to we apply this analogy to the health and freedom movement.

Active ingredient - trustworthy information
Decrease solvent - people who don't know (the field in which the ingredient resides)
Cool it - solidify the information in the proper size mass; allow time to precipitate.

This precipitates action.

* An example of "cooling it" was how the Organic Foods law was adopted. At the strategic moment, the groups pulled back (did not push for a vote in the relevant committee) and as a result it wasn't stopped in committee, but got to the House floor without approval; it was then approved by a majority. Another version, "go in the side door..."

Campaign for publicity to drive people to the growing web sites. Branding as the Health and Freedom Netroots. Media advocacy campaign. Example: Campaign for Better Health -

During a break we just looked at a satirical piece about the flu vaccine and its toxic components:

which sums, with great humor, the issues we've been discussing.

The consensus is that Opt-Out for all forced drugging, including vaccination. The events last week in Maryland (see blog below) shows the importance of freedom for health. This is the issue that can educate many people. We need to offer them meaningful options to Opt-Out for Health Freedom.

Lunch break... Later we'll be video taping questions for the presidential candidates, to submit through YouTube.

Sunday, November 18, 2007

Forced vaccination... more health fascism

Good job Charlie!

Natural Solutions Foundation's Washington representative, Charlie Frohman, was at the scene of the mass forced vaccination of children in Maryland yesterday. He movingly describes the violation of basic human rights, and of the Declaration of Helsinki on Medical Experimentation*, by the local judge,

"...what I heard about what happened inside the CourtRoom scared me. We nonParents were prohibited from entry, and we heard the lines of moms with their kids to get shots was like a “cattle call,” with waiver offerings only barely mentioned or on display."

And "...when the Alex Jones noon Radio show interviewed Prince George’s State Attorney Glenn Ivey. Mr. Ivey claimed that parents were not being forced to immunize their kids; rather, to attend school they needed to make a choice between immunization or election of a waiver for either religious or medical contraindication reasons. He also said he did not immunize his own kids! I got a chance to interview the Prosecutor, and he reaffirmed that all that was needed was a choice that parents needed to make."

Get that: the Prosecutor knew his rights... but apparently neither he nor the Court made those rights clear to the parents.

And so it goes... with the choice becoming clearer, day by day: Health Freedom or Health Fascism!

To take action:

One mother emailed me: "My concern is what Maryland is doing to those parents that do not want their children vaccinated. I have a step-grandson who almost died after having his shots. When his mother had our grandson, she refused to give him shots. He is 21 and has been very healthy. My daughter has two boys, 8 & 9. She refused to have them vaccinated. When chicken pox came to their school, the children who had been vaccinated got the chicken pox and my two grandsons, who had not been vaccinated, did not contact the chicken pox. The Amish do not vaccinate. Autism is not heard of in their colonies. So many parents with autistic children say, "They were fine until they got their shots." All those shots do is break down the immune system. What is happening to our country in the so called "health" regime that we can't take care of our own bodies???"

And another comment, this one from an ethical physician:

"...the purpose of vaccines is not to inoculate everyone, but inoculate enough in a given population to inhibit the spread of a highly contagious infectious disease. I suppose of 2/3 of individuals in a population which contacts each other frequently would receive a vaccine, the purpose of the practice would be achieved. Vaccines are not to protect each individual: unless they want it. It is a "public health" effort which is designed to inhibit the rapid movement of an infectious disease through a community. If we wanted to do that really well, we wouldn't allow foreigners who come from locals with endemic diseases like TB, rheumatic fever, AIDS, etcetera, ad nauseum into our country. To mandate inoculations is simply wrong by principle. Naturally, if some county officials, county commissioners no doubt, voted to do that when they were advised by some physician who was a paid member of the bureaucracy him or herself, indicates another episode of the disease of our country: bureaucrats have too much power..." - Lance Christiansen, D.O.

* Yes, Charlie, vaccination is experimental medicine... never fully tested in the combinations forced on young children. See the Declaration of Helsinki:

Saturday, November 17, 2007

Victory for health freedom in the EU

As the saying goes, "Foods are not drugs..."

Says the European Court of Justice -

"Regarding the concept of a medicinal product by function, the Court stated that garlic capsules do not contain any substance other than natural garlic and have no additional effects, either positive or negative, compared to those derived from the consumption of garlic in its natural state. In contrast, a medicinal product must have the function of preventing or treating disease. Beneficial effects for health in general are not sufficient."

This rational and just decision, recognizing, as it does, that foods can have health benefits without that fact categorizing the food as a "medicine," is a major step toward more open and freer healthcare in Europe.

Congratulations to the Court of Justice!

Tuesday, November 13, 2007

Notes Skyped from Codex by Dr. Laibow

The Codex Committee on Nutritional Foods, etc. is meeting in Germany. Dr. Rima Laibow and Gen. Stubblebine are attending on behalf of Natural Solutions Foundation. While she was "in the balcony" (see my blog entry of 11/11/07: "Codex: Empty room, empty minds..."] we were chatting on Skype. Here is the flavor of being at a Codex meeting... my comments in brackets.

IADSA [International Alliance of Dietary/Food Supplement Associations - ] is speaking about the Health Claims provision in the CCNFSDU [a Codex committee]. They want human study requirements to be removed. They want to give more weight to epidemiological studies and the substantiation of health claims should be carried out on a case by case basis with equal weight for all types of evidence. They do not think that human studies should have more weight than observational studies or than epidemiological studies.

There is a coffee break now: Dr. Grossklaus [committee chair] is saying that there is a hierarchy of evidence: the most valid scientific data, considering the totality of evidence, but essential factors are not just the quality of the animals or in vitro test but you cannot weaken the hierarchy and say that human tests are not the most important. "That is something that we cannot say!"

Dr. Rima comments: This position violates basic principles of the Declaration of Helsinki on human experimentation. At the same time, the Codex process is trying to turn nutrients into drugs by using the same sort of "Risk Analysis" pseudo science for health claims even though drugs are not part of the human experience since the beginning of evolution and foods and food components are. They want to apply drug system tests to foods but allow "novel nutrients" produced by [genetically modified] GM plants into the food supply and only do assessments of their safety (i.e., dangers) "WHEN APPROPRIATE!" [NSF believes is is always "appropriate" - necessary - to substantiate the safety of new chemical species when offered for sale to the public.]

Here is the introduction Australia just gave to the Proposed Draft Establishment and Application of Risk Analysis [RA] to nutrients:

AUSTRALIA: We have been involved in a series of papers as early as 1998 and it is with much pleasure that we have been able to bring the procedures to this point where we are starting the next step procedure. We note that the working principle for RA to be conducted in Codex was adopted in 2003 and is part of the working manual. In 2006 WHO consultation for developing upper levels of intake was a critical piece of information. We have been able to develop a series of RA principles that draw on those documents. We note that Codex itself has specifically mentioned RA in the 2008-2013 strategic plan so the time is right.

The principles will be considered at step 3 this year, step 5 next year and finalized at step 8 in 2009. This is a document for Codex, not governments*. It will eventually be published in the procedural manual. The document does follow the working principles but also sets out that it is dealing with nutritional risk analysis and it differentiates that from traditional food safety RA, introduces the term "and related substances." [Euphomism for "genetically modified?] We note that there are strong links with the biotech document and the principles that we are developing, its reliance on the principles of bio-availability and its strong use of “nutritional benefits” [this means GM prodcts can make health claims... but natural nutrients... NOT! See: Dr. Laibow's blog on this subject, ].

We are looking at nutrients as substances of primary interest. We have picked up the idea of RA being either qualitative or quantitative. Opportunities to apply a fully quantitative systm of RA are fairly rare and perhaps the opportunity here is to use more qualiftative RA approach. We have introduced the term risk/risk analysis (ex, Hg and fish where there are risks in both options).

Definitions have been adapted from those published in the Codex procedural manual and additional definitions have been inserted from WHO and FAO documents or expert consultations. The principles of RA have risk assessment, risk management and risk communication systems. There has been additional attention given to risk management and risk communication. We have developed principles for nutritional risk assessment, hazard identification.

There was an attempt to look at processes that are in process in other places to see if we could proceed to risk characterization at the international level.

There is a special session re: risk assessor because our committee is not in the position of other committees with long standing sources of advice. WHO and FAO are the primary sources of information but other sources can also play that role. The principles, having been developed ahead of any experience, should be reviewed at suitable internals taking into account other experiences in the Codex context.

[So there we have it, Risk Analysis, which puts all nutrients at risk, thereby greatly impacting Health Freedom, is based on principles "developed ahead of any experience..." Right, and that's what they call "scientific!" So it goes... If you want to stay completely up to date with Codex and the like, please go to and sign up for the eAlert list!]

Ralph Fucetola JD

Note: * - this admission, that Codex standards bind Codex, not governments, is tactic admission that our NSF Codex 2 Two legal approach to protecting countries from Codex restrictions is valid. See:

Sunday, November 11, 2007

Codex: empty room; empty minds...

My friends and Natural Solutions Foundation co-trustees, Gen. Bert Stubblebine and Dr. Rima Laibow have been in Germany for the past few days, attending another Codex meeting... this one, with potential (and as it turns out, actual) harm to our health freedoms. Please check my blog entry of November 9, 2007 for some of the preliminaries.

Dr. Laibow has been blogging on the NSF web site, about the odd happenings at this Codex meeting. One particular incident seems to me to be very telling indeed.

After decades of "open meetings" where public observers, including NGO (nongovernment organization) observers like NSF, had open access to the meeting hall and delegates, recently NSF has found the delegates increasingly isolated from the public.

Here is what Rima has to say about this... and remember the photo above as you read her note:

"At the last Codex meeting, for which we had pre-registered, we found ourselves confronted by armed guards who did everything they could to keep General Stubblebine and me away from the Delegates at the meeting using intimidation, threat and other weird ways of behaving when you consider that these are meetings open to everyone. So we did NOT pre-register for this meeting in order to see what would happen if we used this strategy. Well, what happened was really interesting. First of all, there are no armed guards in evidence, which is quite a nice touch, to be sure.

Second, when we came up to the registration table When we walked in this morning (NOT having pre-registered) to see if we would be sequestered from the Delegates if we arrived without pre-registering for the meeting. What happened was that Mr. Georg Mueller, the head of the CCNFSDU German Secretariat, saw that we were setting up our computers in the meeting room and insisted (politely, but insisting, none the less) that we not sit in the room on the main floor where the meeting was being held because it was too full and was, indeed, fully booked. Take a look at a picture of the “full room” DURING THE MEETING:"

Now isn't that just plain silly... if it weren't so so sad.

So what did Codex accomplish? I understand Dr. Rima is about to send out another eAlert on bizarre happenings at the meeting. So, go to and join the eAlert list to find out!

More at:

Blog Day 2 -

Blg Day 1 -

But you'll need to join the eAlert list to get the next installment...

Friday, November 9, 2007

On their way to a Codex meeting... and What is Codex?

On their way to Codex...

If you are on the Natural Solutions Foundation eAlert list you received an alert early this morning (I think I sent it out about 2 AM…) about my foundation co-trustees, Dr. Laibow and Gen. Stubblebine, on their way to the Codex meeting in Germany. More about that meeting below. If you want to stay current on health freedom issues, you really need to sign up to the eAlert list - please go to: and sign up today! Better, tell
everyone on your elist to do the same. This list of several hundred thousand purveyors and consumers of natural products and remedies is having a powerful impact in Washington and internationally. Imagine the impact if the list were One Million Health Freedom Warriors… ready to click their mousse for your right to sell and use high potency products. At the end of this posting, I've posted a brief discussion of exactly what is Codex.

Codex about to meet on health claims

"By: Alex McNally - Nov. 9, 2007 - Codex members are due to sit down and vote on a series of far reaching rules governing nutrient compounds in foods - and crucially discuss whether health claims should be based only on clinical studies. Although Codex is not a regulatory body, its decisions are used as a benchmark of discussion should trade disputes arise in the future, and while Codex does not have the same force of law as an EU directive or national legislation, it is used as a reference point for countries that are looking at revising or creating legislation.

"In Europe, the EU has already unveiled its own health claims regulation - which says claims about foods should be supported by science - and has caused uncertainty for the industry since coming into force in July. The Codex meeting… will vote upon whether scientific evidence should be based solely on clinical studies. This suggestion has come under fire from trade groups who say this would be 'unfeasible'..."

Here's what Dr. Rima asked me to tell the NSF eAlert list:

"We're on the road again; just finished three health freedom rallies in the West where we taped more footage for the new DVDs. We're on our way to New York where we'll be taping with Gary Null... and then we're off to another Codex meeting in Europe, representing your interests there.

In this Health Freedom eAlert: [1] What is Codex? - [2] New DVD - [3] Presidential Score Card - [4] Health Freedom Movement Coming Together - [5] Magnetizing Health...

Some of our email correspondents have asked us to give them a brief overview of Codex, suitable to copy and paste and send to your contacts... and one of the things we do that others may not do, is we listen to you and do our best to respond to your emails..."


The modern history of Codex began under the prompting of certain mostly German businessmen (some more or less straight from Allied internment camps) who became active in international post-war pharmaceutical consolidation and regulation. In the early '60s the WHO and FAO jointly established Codex Alimentarius as a UN agency. The Codex Alimentarius Commission and its various committees and working groups oversee a series of Standards defining various items in the food trade and Guidelines relating to the processes of the trade.

The Codex Statute puts food safety on an equal par with promoting world food trade. Codex, unfortunately has become the playground of various large commercial interests and the governments with which they cooperate, thereby allowing the degradation of organic standards, increased allowed levels of toxicity, un-labeled irradiation and use of genetically modified ingredients. But even worse, the Codex VMG - Vitamin and Mineral Guideline - treats natural dietary ingredients more akin to drugs or industrial chemicals than the foods substances that they are, subjecting nutrients and natural remedies to an impossible standard for making simple nourishing health benefit claims.

Natural Solutions Foundation has identified the Problem: Codex and its web of influences. We have generated the Reaction: hundreds of thousands of voting consumers contacting the FDA or Congress through our web site, demanding their rights. And we offer the Solution: the Natural Solutions Program, including our Codex 2 Step - how countries can opt out. There is more information about this at

To make the Decade of Nutrition that we proclaimed last year effective what we need most is the financial support to continue to get to DC to educate Congress and Codex meetings. Are you aware Rima and Bert encouraged a bit of a revolt at a Codex meeting about a year ago? A group of developing countries stopped the US/EU dominated group from adding fluoride as a permitted ingredient in healthy baby formula. We also need to raise funds every month. These funds are needed to keep our Democracy-in-Action account current since we rely on their excellent system to run our Action Campaigns and coordinate support. Trips to Codex meetings and Washington cost money and though we are frugal with your money, we are not rich enough to pay for these necessary expenses ourselves. To make this effort happen we need as many people as possible to sign up for regular monthly support payments. This auto-support system allows us to plan based on resources and will allow us to achieve better economies of planning. We've proven our ability to impact international and national policy. So now we have to ask, "How much can you help us?"


Monday, November 5, 2007

FDA wants comments on new food labeling...


Dietary Supplement/Food Labeling Electronic Newsletter

On November 2, 2007, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) in the Federal Register, DocketNo. 2006N-0168, titled Food Labeling: Revision of Reference Values and Mandatory Nutrients.

The ANPRM requests comment on what new reference values the agency should use to calculate the percent daily value (DV) in the Nutrition Facts and Supplement Facts labels and what factors the agency should consider in establishing such new reference values.

In addition, FDA requests comments on whether it should require that certain nutrients be added or removed from the Nutrition Facts and Supplemental Facts labels. On November 8, 1990, the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act (NLEA) of 1990was signed into law amending the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the Act). In response to the NLEA, FDA, in 1993, issued several rules to modify how nutrition information is presented on food labels. When the agency issued those rules to modify the nutrition label information, it considered the diet and health information that was current at that time.

New information has since become available on nutrient values that the agency believes may impact what nutrients it should consider requiring to be listed on the food label and what nutrient values it should use as a basis for the DVs on the food label.

Interested persons can submit written or electronic comments by January31, 2008 as per the instructions provided in Docket No. 2006N-0168.


Well, gosh, I do have a few suggestions for revised food labeling... like honest labeling that lets people know if nutritional value is being negated by dishonest labeling about such issues as real organic ingredients, lack of genetically modified ingredients, and no irradiation -- all of which impact nourishment value!

Saturday, November 3, 2007

Dr. Ron Paul Answers Questions about Health Freedom

Natural Solutions Foundation's members have sent over 80,000 messages to all current candidates for President of the United States. Here is the first response.


November 3, 2004

Here are the questions we asked of each Presidential candidate on our Health Freedom Scorecard. To date, only Dr. Ron Paul (R-TX) has provided his answers to those questions.

We urge all candidates for the office of President of the United States take the time and effort necessary to consider, and answer,

HFUSA: The FDA current Good Manufacturing Practices (cGMP) Final Rule Do you support the FDA cGMP Final Rule for dietary supplements, issued on June 22, 2007, requiring the batch testing of all food dietary supplements although- Supplements have an enviable safety record- The FDA’s own economic analysis of the impact of the cGMP shows that it will drive a significant number of small and medium size manufacturers out of business?

Dr. Paul: I oppose all federal regulations that burden dietary supplement manufacturers. There is no need for the federal government to impose “Good Manufacturing Practices” on the dietary supplement industry. In addition, the federal government lacks constitutional authority to create standards for the supplement industry.

HFUSA: The FDA draft Guidance on Health Claim substantiation A. Are your aware of the FDA draft guidance on Health Claim substantiation, issued this summer, which mandates an unreasonably high “Significant Scientific Agreement” standard instead of the FTC “competent and reliable scientific evidence”, as proposed in HR 2117, The Health Freedom Protection Act?

Dr. Paul: I oppose the CAM Regulation draft guidelines and submitted comments to the FDA in opposition to the CAM regulations.

HFUSA: Do you support HR2117 {Health Freedom Protection Act]?

Dr. Paul: I introduced HR 2117, and oppose all FDA actions that in any way infringe on the First Amendment rights of consumers to learn about the health benefits of dietary supplements.

HFUSA: Protection of Dietary Supplements Do you support continuing strong protection for Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA) products?

Dr. Paul: I support DSHEA.

HFUSA: Bio-Identical Hormones Do you support the right of men and women to use supplemental Bio-identical Hormones such as DHEA and progesterone to support normal function during change of life and premature aging in preference to less effective, dangerous and more expensive prescription drugs if they prefer bio-identical hormones?

Dr. Paul: The federal government has no constitutional authority to stop Americans from using bio-identical hormones.

HFUSA: Compounding Pharmacies Do you support the right of Compounding Pharmacists and licensed physicians to continue to provide compounded medications, on a doctor’s prescription, for special needs and choices of individuals, communicating their availability to the public, as permitted by the landmark Supreme Court case of Thompson vs. Western States Medical Centers?

Dr. Paul: The federal government has no constitutional authority to restrict the operations of compounding pharmacies.

HFUSA: A. Trilateral Cooperation Charter/North American Union/Security and Prosperity Partnership A. Do you support the “North American Union” and its companion “Security and Prosperity Partnership” which were created without Congressional debate and approval?

Dr. Paul: A. I am the leading Congressional opponent of the North American Union and the Security and Prosperity Partnership.

HFUSA: B. Do you support FDA’s policy of “harmonization” of regulations with those of Mexico and Canada through the North American Union and the already-operating Trilateral Cooperation Charter which fuses the national health departments of all three countries into a single entity without Congressional oversight or authorization of any entity?

Dr. Paul: B. I oppose all efforts to harmonize American law with the law of other countries and I have taken the lead in working to mobilize congressional opposition to the Trilateral Cooperation Charter.

HFUSA: C. Do you support such executive agreements without Congressional debate and approval?

Dr. Paul: C. No; I do not support allowing the President to erode our freedom and threaten our sovereignty by executive agreement.

HFUSA: D. If elected, do you pledge to use the power of the Executive Branch of Government to overturn or reverse the North American Union, Security and Prosperity Partnership and the Trilateral Cooperation Charter?

Dr. Paul: D. As President, I will withdraw the United States from the North American Union, the Security and Prosperity Partnership, and the Trilateral Cooperation Charter.

HFUSA: HARMonization of FDA regulations with international and foreign agencies and entities A. Do you support FDA?s policy of ?harmonization? of regulations with those of the European Union, under executive agreement?

Dr. Paul: A. I oppose harmonization. Centralization of power and control breeds oppression.

HFUSA:B. Do you support FDA?\'s policy of 'HARMonization'.? of regulations with the standards and guidelines of the Codex Alimentarius when those texts are created through the US efforts on behalf of industrialized food supply constituents and degrade and render toxic the US and global food supplies?

Dr. Paul: B. I am the leading Congressional opponent of CODEX.

HFUSA: C. If elected, what steps do you pledge to take to end these HARMonization activities of the FDA, USDA, FTC and EPA?

Dr. Paul: C. I will seek to stop US participation in the Codex process and make it clear to the UN and the WTO that my administration will not change one comma in American law to make the bureaucrats at Codex happy.

HFUSA: Anti-HARMonization Statute Do you support strict enforcement of the Anti-Harmonization Statute, 19 USC 3512, which prohibits such harmonization with respect to the US food supply and those foods known as Dietary Supplements?

Dr. Paul: I was instrumental in drafting the anti-harmonization statute, so, yes; I supported strict enforcement of it.

HFUSA: FDA HARMonization with international standards A. Are you aware and do you support the FDA’s announced policy of “harmonization” with International Standards, even where those standards are not finalized: “In a notice published in the Federal Register of October 11, 1995 (60 FR 53078), FDA articulated its policy regarding the development and use of standards with respect to the harmonization of various national and international regulatory requirements and guidelines? - ?

Dr. Paul: A. As stated before, I am strongly opposed to harmonization.

HFUSA:B If elected, what steps do you pledge to take to reign in such HARMonization and return the US to regulatory sovereignty?

Dr. Paul: B. please see my previous answers.

HFUSA: World Trade Organization and similar international bodies A. Do you support harmonizing America’s legal structure and freedoms to international restrictions through participation in bodies such as the World Trade Organization?

Dr. Paul: A. No; I oppose harmonizing American laws with those of foreign countries to satisfy the WTO or any other international regime.

HFUSA: B. Do you support withdrawing from the World Trade Organization?.

Dr. Paul: B. Yes; as a Congressman, I took advantage of the clause in the WTO enabling legislation that allows any member of Congress to introduce legislation withdrawing the United States from the WTO. In fact, by twice introducing WTO withdrawal legislation, I twice forced Congress to vote on withdrawing the United States from the WTO.

HFUSA: C. Do you support withdrawing from the United Nations?

Dr. Paul: C. Yes; I have introduced legislation to withdraw from the UN (HR 1146).

HFUSA: Divesting the FDA of food regulatory authority A. Since nutrient and natural health products are regulated as Food in accordance with US law, do you support a division of the FDA into two separate agencies, one focusing on Foods (including dietary supplements and all natural or non-pharmaceutical health products) and the other finally focusing on protecting the safety of the public with regard to dangerous drugs and invasive medical devices?

Dr. Paul: A. No; I favor reducing the power of the FDA, not “rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic” by dividing the FDA bureaucracy.

HFUSA: B. Do you support the FDA’s approval of genetically modified foods in the absence of any safety testing, requiring only a patent before the genetically modified food can be admixed with the food supply?

Dr. Paul: B. Consumers should have the right to choose whether or not to use genetically modified food without having the FDA deny them that choice.

HFUSA: C. Do you support the FDA’s position that since the FDA has declared genetically modified foods equivalent to natural ones in the absence of any testing to demonstrate that to be the case and its stated understanding that the public would reject genetically modified foods if they knew what they were buying and eating, that it would be false and misleading if genetically modified foods were identified as such so their labeling is prohibited?

Dr. Paul: C. Consumers have every right to demand that genetically-modified food be labeled as such.

HFUSA: Compulsory medical treatment A. Do you support the use of the State’s powers to compel compulsory mental health or other screening, forced drugging or other medical treatment under any circumstances?

Dr. Paul: A. No; I oppose compulsory medical treatment.

HFUSA: B. Do you support removing children from parental custody when parents refuse to use medication for alleged “mental health problems” in their children?

Dr. Paul: B. The federal government has no authority to remove children from their parents’ custody because those parents have refused to medicate their children according to federal edicts.

HFUSA: C. Do you support removing children from parental custody when parents refuse to use medication for the allopathic (pharmaceutical) treatment of life threatening diseases such as cancer?

Dr. Paul: C. The federal government has no constitutional authority to remove a child from a parent’s custody because of that parent’s refusal to seek state-ordered medical treatments for their child.

HFUSA: D. Do you support the forced use of pharmaceutical or other medical treatment in adults under any circumstances?

Dr. Paul: D. I have a difficult time imaging a scenario where I would support forcing medical treatment on someone against their will, especially in my capacity as a federal elected official.

HFUSA: E. Do you support the right of parents or adult persons to chose natural medical treatments over pharmaceutical ones if they desire?

Dr. Paul: E. Of course; I support the right of adults to choose natural medical treatments. I have consistently cosponsored legislation in Congress to protect this right.

HFUSA: Mandatory screening A. Do you support mandatory mental health or other health screening?

Dr. Paul: A. I am the leading Congressional opponent of Mandatory Mental Health Screening.

HFUSA: B. Do you support the use of Federal funds for such screening?

Dr. Paul: B. I have introduced the Parental Consent Act (HR 2387), which forbids federal funds for mandatory mental health screening of children without parental consent. I oppose any use of funds for mandatory mental health screening.

HFUSA: C. Do you support the use of Federal funds to pay for forced drugging of children or adults?

Dr. Paul: C. Yes, I oppose the use of federal funds to pay for forced medicating of children (or adults).

HFUSA: Natural Health Options Do you support the use of Federal funds for natural medical and health therapy services and treatments on a par with pharmaceutical and other allopathic treatments, at the discretion of the patient?

Dr. Paul: As long as the federal government is financing health care, it should allow the beneficiaries to choose to use their federal funds for alternative treatments.

HFUSA: Vaccination A. Do you oppose mandatory vaccination under all circumstances?

Dr. Paul: A. It is difficult for me to imagine a scenario where I could support forced vaccinations, especially in my capacity as a federal elected official.

HFUSA: B. Do you support continuing the pharmaceutical industry’s exemption from legal responsibility for injuries caused by vaccinations?

Dr. Paul: B. No, I do not believe the pharmaceutical industry should be protected from paying compensation to those harmed by their vaccines.

HFUSA: C. Do you support continuing the pharmaceutical industry’s exemption from legal responsibility for injuries caused by drugs approved for any indication?

Dr. Paul: C. No, the pharmaceutical industry should not be protected from being held accountable to those injured by their products.

HFUSA: . Reproductive Autonomy A. Do you support a woman’s right to control her reproductive life without interference from the Federal government?

Dr. Paul: A. As a physician, I oppose abortion. I believe this should be dealt with by state and local governments; it is not a federal issue.

HFUSA: B. If elected, what will you pledge to do to protect the reproductive autonomy of women?

Dr. Paul: [No Answer provided]

HFUSA: Freedom Plank How soon can the American public expect a formal Health Freedom Plank in your campaign platform?

Dr. Paul: There is further information on my position on health freedom on my website at .

Thursday, November 1, 2007

Organic is better…

This just in from the Times of London -
01 November 2007

“The biggest study into organic food has found that it is more nutritious than ordinary produce and may help to lengthen people's lives. The evidence from the £12m four-year project will end years of debate and is likely to overturn government advice that eating organic food is no more than a lifestyle choice.... The study found that organic fruit and vegetables contained as much as 40% more antioxidants, which scientists believe can cut the risk of cancer and heart disease, Britain’s biggest killers. They also had higher levels of beneficial minerals such as iron and zinc...”