The TRUTH is Our Defense…
Confused About the Natural Solutions Foundation?
That’s Exactly What 'the Other Side' Wants!
There is only one defense for libel or slander: the truth. Since the recent Internet attacks against us contain no truth, they are, by definition, both libel and slander. Why are they happening? It is really quite simple: Your ill health is big business (the biggest) and the other side has all the money it needs to buy disinformation and disinformation agents. So there are 'agents provcateur,' people who stir up division and trouble on demand, out there trying to attack the Natural Solutions Foundation. We are the largest and far and away the most successful health freedom organization in the world.
And then there are what Lenin called “useful idiots”, people who unwittingly do the work of the tyrannizers. Sadly, health freedom has both in abundance.
Note: A negative can not be proven (I am NOT this, I have NOT done that), but such accusations are made about us not because they are true, but because they can be made to SOUND true! Made to appear plausible through the Big Lie techniques of disinformation.
We get attacked all the time, notably when we are RIGHT on target. This go around is no exception. If you haven’t encountered the latest attacks, good. Ignore this. If you have encountered them, ignore the attacks. Here’s why:
Fact : Gen. Stubblebine and Dr. Laibow are not now and have never been associated with the CIA, Big Pharma, the US Government except as a tax payer and a citizen, the New World Order or any of its faces, or any other force trying to control you or me. We act as we see fit and say what we believe to be true based on the best of our information and knowledge. Period. We are so effective in our opposition to the Powers That Be that a serious attempt may have been made on my life a year ago, we have been met with guns at the Codex meeting to keep us under guard and away from the other attendees and delegates. We have been threatened by representatives of the industries and agencies whose agendas we oppose. We have been attacked directly by the Chairman of Codex from the Podium during a Codex meeting and Dr. Barbara Schneeman, the US Codex Representative at a recent Codex meeting told members of the pro-health delegate coalition we inspired to stay away from us since we “got things wrong” and that they, the developing world, should come to HER, instead, for answers to their questions and concerns. We would say that we are pretty clearly UNcontrolled opposition, and pretty good at it, too!
Fact : Foundation President, General Stubblebine retired in 1984. Before that, his operational commander was the Deputy Director of the CIA and he had many clearances. He continued to work as a Defense Contractor until 1992 or so and retired from that business. He allowed ALL his security clearances to lapse and has no more access to classified, sensitive or other restricted data than you do. Dr. Laibow has had no clearances of any kind and she has neither applied for any nor been given any.
Fact : We do not individually or as an organization care if Kevin Miller makes one or a thousand films of any length. We were compelled to sue him for failure to perform his contractual obligations because the mother who mortgaged her house in order to pay for the film which the Foundation commissioned opposing the Vitamin and Mineral Guideline, slated for ratification on July 4, 2005 requested a refund. Miller did not produce the film in a timely fashion, releasing it on June 29, 2005, far too late to accomplish its public relations goal and did not make the film for which he had been contracted. We requested the donor’s money back. After a legal proceeding, Miller agreed to a settlement in which he paid back the money under terms which the settlement prevents either Miller or our side from disclosing. Miller defaulted on those payments but the family chose not to pursue him at this time since they felt it was throwing good money after bad.
Fact : The Natural Solutions Foundation accepts NO corporate sponsorship. One hundred percent of its funding comes either from the money that General Stubblebine and Dr. Laibow put into it (their life savings and the proceeds from the sale of their lovely home in Westchester, NY in 2007) or what private donors donate. They work for free, take no salary, compensation, or other benefit from the Foundation and, instead, pay for any expense shortfall with our dwindling resources. Council Ralph Fucetola, JD devotes at least half time every month on the same basis. Our other staff are similarly all volunteer. Where is the profit? Where is the misuse of funds? Every penny goes into the work of the Foundation. We provide the overhead, the office, the ink, the internet, the paper, the time and the skill to run it. There are no salaries to drain the impact of your donations. None.
Fact : General Stubblebine is NOT the illusory violent, abusive, alcoholic, “CIA Agent” father of a multiply hospitalized paranoid schizophrenic “activist” whose charges hit the Internet and then reverberate to his glee and our undeserved discredit, despite the bizarre letters we, and others have received to that effect. Nor has General Stubblebine ever stared a goat (or anything else) to death, nor has he tried to do so. He did, while on active duty, learn about the purported human capacity to do so and brought the idea that it might be possible to Fort Bragg, home of the Special Forces, with which he had no connection, and never heard what happened to the technology thereafter.
Fact : General Stubblebine never had any connection, part in, knowledge about, or dealings with the Mind Control program. He believed, until he met me in 1991, that the program had been stopped following the demand of Congress that MK Ultra and other Mind Control programs cease immediately. Anyone making these assertions has no idea how compartmentalization and clearances work: the need to know determines what you know. He was in Strategic Intelligence and had no need to know, so he was never “read into” any Mind Control Program.
Dr. Laibow knew that the programs had continued because as a psychiatrist and social activist she had been introduced to a number of people who claimed the same events had happened to each of them. In fact, long before she met General Stubblebine, a Congressional Staffer friend brought data and people to her to evaluate whether these people had, in fact, been subjected to Mind Control techniques and asked her if she thought the subject was worth another round of Congressional Hearings. She was able, through this documentation, to convince a highly skeptical General Stubblebine in 1991 that this program had continued after Congress ordered it disbanded.
Fact : Dr. Laibow has never administered, supervised or been associated with electroshock in any form. She turned down a fine position with a major University hospital because she would have been forced to either administer or supervise ECT and was unwilling to do that for any reason. She has spent her entire career in psychiatry and medicine using non-drug treatments rather than drug ones. For example, when she was asked to take over an in patient psychiatric ward for children and adolescents in Connecticut, she took every child and teenager in the ward off drugs. The administration of the hospital and the insurance companies protested vigorously, but the children got better and the horrific behaviors and side effects (read, “brain damage” caused by the drugs) diminished significantly. Her entire medical practice has been devoted to drug-free solutions to psychiatric and medical problems.
Fact : It makes no difference whether General Stubblebine and she were lovers before his divorce! (DUH!) The assertions of an angry spouse during divorce proceeding in 1994 are neither accurate nor relevant. They would say our detractors are scraping all the way through the bottom of the barrel and into the dirt below if this is what they need to use to damage the Foundation. Shame!
Fact : We are not using high pressure tactics to separate people from their money, IRAs or 401s. The government of the United States is about to do just that and we have a legitimate and helpful humanitarian project in Panama which can accept these funds. The Valley of the Moon Eco Demonstration Community project, part of our International Decade of Nutrition, is a sustainable farm, farm school, natural medical center, etc., offers people many reasons to become a part of it. Those who are interested can learn more and decide whether or not it is for them. Others can ignore it. www.NaturalSolutionsFoundation.org
Fact : Foundation Council and Trustee Ralph Fucetola, J.D., was asked years ago by one of the attackers to advise her in the medical board hearings which ultimately cost her medical license in the same state in which Dr. Laibow is licensed. Ralph did not know this person when she lost custody of her child, despite assertions to the contrary. Nor did he “abandon” her during the hearings. Once she was advised that to regain her license she would have to seek psychiatric help she did not, to our knowledge, retain Ralph or another attorney to assist her and remains de-licensed to this day.
The truth is that these detractors, whatever their mental status and their motivation, would add much, much more to the battle for health freedom by actually accomplishing something rather than attacking those who are accomplishing it! If they can behave like adults, they are welcome to join us. We have NEVER attacked anyone and will not. We will, however, take whatever steps we need to in order to protect health freedom and our well-deserved reputations, as we did when we sued Miller to get back the donor’s money. These false statements and innuendos must cease and desist.
Had enough of this? Good. Let’s move on. You can join with us by going to www.HealthFreedomUSA.org and joining our free Health Freedom Action eAlert mailing list.
If you really want more details about these detractors, just click here:
http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/index.php?p=1694
Our accomplishments, just for the record:
http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/index.php?page_id=195
And finally, About Us:
http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/index.php?page_id=193
Showing posts with label Natural Solutions Foundation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Natural Solutions Foundation. Show all posts
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
Sunday, December 9, 2007
Health Freedom You Tube Channel
Natural Solutions Foundation has set up a YouTube Channel and posted an important Codex and Compulsory Vaccination update there.
Click here for the Channel: http://www.youtube.com/NaturalSolutions
Here for the update, Health Freedom News Reports
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4IM2P0JgpM
Click here for the Channel: http://www.youtube.com/NaturalSolutions
Here for the update, Health Freedom News Reports
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4IM2P0JgpM
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? - http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~lrd/fr970707.html ?
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 http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/health-freedom/ .
-------------
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? - http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~lrd/fr970707.html ?
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 http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/health-freedom/ .
Monday, June 25, 2007
The Codex Two Step
A growing coalition of health-friendly developing countries wants to protect their traditional foods and remedies from HARMonization with international Codex Alimentarius (World Food Code) standards and guidelines.
When Codex was formed over 4 decades ago by the WHO and the FAO its statute committed it to work for a safe world food supply, and to promote the world food trade. Over the decades it has become rather too compliant with "the Bigs'" interests. Who are the Bigs? Big governments, like the US and the EU, and big industry - Big Pharma, Big Agra, Big Chema, Big Oil... you know who.
The coalition of the Bigs consistently denigrates organic standards, allows toxins in the food supply and wants to hide the GMO issue ("Genetically Modified Organisms"). The US Codex delegation not only wants to protect GM producers from having to reveal this on their labels, but wants to forbid non-GMO products from making that truthful claim, since FDA studies show Americans prefer non-GMO products when they have the choice... a "bad" choice according to FDA.
This US position is directly opposite US law. Not surprisingly.
Here is what the US Supreme Court had to say about "protecting" us from making "bad" decisions:
"If the First Amendment means anything, it means that regulating speech must be a last - not first - resort. *** We have previously rejected the notion that the Government has an interest in preventing the dissemination of truthful commercial information in order to prevent members of the public from making bad decisions with the information."
Justice O'Connor in Thompson v Western States
Well, back to Codex.
If a country does not like the Codex guidelines on food and health claims, and does not adopt it (the Codex statute says the guidelines are "advisory" only) it has a risk that it might not prevail in a WTO (World Trade Organization) dispute involving same. That is because WTO says Codex guidelines and standards are "presumptive" evidence. So how do countries protect themselves from over harmonization?
They engage in the Natural Solutions Foundation Codex Two Step.
Step 1: adopt a food and health guidance that varies from the one Codex adopted, allowing greater protection for the food supply and greater leeway for health claims.
Step 2: adopt a national food and health statute that implements same.
Once it does this, the WTO "presumption" does not hold, since each party to the dispute has different laws. WTO has rejected, three times, requests that the Codex "presumption" become a firm rule of determination.
So, if a country has opted out of the "advisory" guidelines, the parties are judged on the science behind their laws and the better science wins. And even if the science is just equal, the non-health-friendly country cannot prevail if it brings a dispute to WTO.
Thus the NSF legal strategy allows countries to be Codex and WTO compliant without giving up their traditional foods and remedies.
With the help of Jim Turner, attorney for Citizens for Health, we prepared a model food and health guidance and a model food and health law for countries to use. These are available in the NSF "codex Book" which can be obtained from NSF at its web site, www.globalhealthfreedom.org
I also taped a brief explanation of the Codex Two Step for use with delegates to the Codex Commission meeting in Rome next week (Dr. Laibow and Gen. Stubblebine will be there). You can see the video at:
www.lifespirit.org/Codex2Step.mwv
When Codex was formed over 4 decades ago by the WHO and the FAO its statute committed it to work for a safe world food supply, and to promote the world food trade. Over the decades it has become rather too compliant with "the Bigs'" interests. Who are the Bigs? Big governments, like the US and the EU, and big industry - Big Pharma, Big Agra, Big Chema, Big Oil... you know who.
The coalition of the Bigs consistently denigrates organic standards, allows toxins in the food supply and wants to hide the GMO issue ("Genetically Modified Organisms"). The US Codex delegation not only wants to protect GM producers from having to reveal this on their labels, but wants to forbid non-GMO products from making that truthful claim, since FDA studies show Americans prefer non-GMO products when they have the choice... a "bad" choice according to FDA.
This US position is directly opposite US law. Not surprisingly.
Here is what the US Supreme Court had to say about "protecting" us from making "bad" decisions:
"If the First Amendment means anything, it means that regulating speech must be a last - not first - resort. *** We have previously rejected the notion that the Government has an interest in preventing the dissemination of truthful commercial information in order to prevent members of the public from making bad decisions with the information."
Justice O'Connor in Thompson v Western States
Well, back to Codex.
If a country does not like the Codex guidelines on food and health claims, and does not adopt it (the Codex statute says the guidelines are "advisory" only) it has a risk that it might not prevail in a WTO (World Trade Organization) dispute involving same. That is because WTO says Codex guidelines and standards are "presumptive" evidence. So how do countries protect themselves from over harmonization?
They engage in the Natural Solutions Foundation Codex Two Step.
Step 1: adopt a food and health guidance that varies from the one Codex adopted, allowing greater protection for the food supply and greater leeway for health claims.
Step 2: adopt a national food and health statute that implements same.
Once it does this, the WTO "presumption" does not hold, since each party to the dispute has different laws. WTO has rejected, three times, requests that the Codex "presumption" become a firm rule of determination.
So, if a country has opted out of the "advisory" guidelines, the parties are judged on the science behind their laws and the better science wins. And even if the science is just equal, the non-health-friendly country cannot prevail if it brings a dispute to WTO.
Thus the NSF legal strategy allows countries to be Codex and WTO compliant without giving up their traditional foods and remedies.
With the help of Jim Turner, attorney for Citizens for Health, we prepared a model food and health guidance and a model food and health law for countries to use. These are available in the NSF "codex Book" which can be obtained from NSF at its web site, www.globalhealthfreedom.org
I also taped a brief explanation of the Codex Two Step for use with delegates to the Codex Commission meeting in Rome next week (Dr. Laibow and Gen. Stubblebine will be there). You can see the video at:
www.lifespirit.org/Codex2Step.mwv
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
