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.