BAD APPLES: GMOs and the Precautionary Principle!

BAD APPLES: GMOs and the Precautionary Principle!

FRANKEN-APPLES COMING TO A STORE NEAR YOU?
Push Back Here: http://tinyurl.com/No2GMO

“A small company is trying to bring to market a genetically engineered apple that does not turn brown when sliced or bruised… The Arctic Apple, as it is being called, could become one of the first genetically engineered versions of a fruit that people directly bite into…” 1

Congress About to Mandate GMOs?
  

The countries that follow the Civil Law tradition of the Napoleonic Code apply the Precautionary Principle to new products entering the marketplace. The marketer bears the burden of showing the safety of the product. In the Common Law countries, like the United States, the same concept, that the purveyor takes responsibility, is called “Strict Liability in Tort.” You are responsible for the safety of the products you introduce into commerce.

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

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

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

See the previous posting:
GMO Corn Crops Failing in the USA: Famine to Follow? http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/?p=12413  

We find ourselves particularly concerned with the “Farm Bill” pending before Congress. We prefer to call it the “Factory Food Promotion Bill” since it just continues the “bipartisan” policy of heavily subsidizing factory “phude” production while building in new burdens on local, sustainable, organic production. In addition, it includes provisions that would mandate even greater GMO penetration of the market, without labeling.

“Three sections (10011, 10013, and 10014) tucked into the middle of the bulky bill work together to eliminate any real review of GE crops. This “Monsanto Rider” got its name from the corporation with a choke-hold on most of the country’s staple crops”

See: http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/07/16/519351/agribusiness-sneaks-deregulation-of-genetically-modified-foods-into-farm-bill/?mobile=nc

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

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

There are several steps:

1. Help us educate decision makers about GMOs!
Easily email your legislators here: http://tinyurl.com/No2GMO2. Insist that “natural” food purveyors such as Whole Foods and Trader Joe’s take responsibility and indicate which products are GMO-Free. Your dollars count!
3. Source as much of your food as you can from Deep South (South America and Africa) sources that are Organic, GMO-Free and Low-Radiation certified. See:www.FriendlyFoodCoOp.org
4. Grow your own heritage seed, real food in your own garden (indoors if you are in a radiation risk area).

We are not helpless in the face of the crony corporatist factory “phude” system. Together, our Dollars and our Push Back can make a difference!

Act right now! http://tinyurl.com/No2GMO
 

General Bert Stubblebine (US ARmy ret; President of the Natural Solutions Foundation) has identified four technologies that he calls the “Genomicidal technologies that are weaponizing the world against human survival.”

These are [1] the uninsurable risks of nuclear power;
[2] industrial toxins in the environment;
[3] drug toxins, especially those in the uninsurable risk of vaccines; and, of course,
[4] GMO fake “phude.” He has further identified the resulting harms as furthering the Global Elitist’ Depopulation Agenda.

This is what Natural Solutions Foundation medical Director Rima E. Laibow, MD has identified as the “Globalist Genocidal Agenda” See Dr. Rima on that topic at the School of Enlightenment:

Right now (July 2012) Dr. Rima and Gen. Bert are in the Deep South Republic of Chile sourcing low-radiation, wholesome, non-GMO food sources. Dr. Rima’s Video Blogs reporting on their fact-finding tour can be seen here: http://drrimavblog.weebly.com/
----
1. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/13/business/growers-fret-over-a-new-apple-that-wont-turn-brown.html?_r=1. 

Tea Party Support for Gary Johnson is Smart Politics

Just posted this message to the Tea Party:

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

What does the Tea Party say?

Johnson's web site: http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/

Musing on the Tyrannical Obama Health Tax

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The words of the Constitution are:

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

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

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

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

Health & Food Freedom: Congress at the Crossroads

Congress at the Crossroads
http://tinyurl.com/SaveOurSupplements
Contact Your Representatives
[Easily send messages to your
Reps and other decision makers.]

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

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

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

UPDATE: 5.24.12
BOTH DURBIN and RAND AMENDMENTS
DEFEATED
FDA Bill S.3187 Passed and Sent to the House.
The Action Moves to the House of Representatives.

Support Sen. Paul's amendment, No. 2143
To S.3187 (the FDA bill)
His Amendment would disarm the FDA, put an end to raids on natural food stores and Amish farmers, and stop FDA censorship of truthful claims of dietary supplements. 

"Mr. President, today [May 24, 2012] I'm offering an amendment to the FDA. I'm troubled by images of armed agents raiding Amish farms and preventing them selling milk directly from the cow. I think we have bigger problems in our country than sending armed FDA agents into peaceful farmers' land and telling them they can't sell milk directly from the cow.My amendment has three parts. First, it attempts to stop the FDA's overzealous regulations of vitamins, food and supplements by codifying the first amendment prohibition on prior restraint... READ MORE: http://paul.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=529

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

"Senators Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) urged FDA to withdraw its New Dietary Ingredient (NDI) Draft Guidance in a letter to FDA Commissioner Hamburg... Senators Hatch and Harkin, the principal authors of the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act  of 1994 (DSHEA), asked Dr. Hamburg to issue a new draft that, 'will provide needed clarification on what constitutes an NDI, but does not undermine the balance Congress struck in DSHEA to provide consumers with access to safe, affordable dietary supplement products.' ... The Senators said the draft guidance undermines DSHEA in a number of ways.."  http://www.naturalproductsinsider.com/news/2012/01/senators-hatch-harkin-call-for-ndi-guidance-redo.aspx     We now find Senator Durbin, this week, is seeking to saddle dietary supplement companies with a new registration requirement that is uneeded, since the 1994 DSHEA law already requires companies to notify the FDA about their claims. The Homeland Security laws already require manufacturers to register.     The information the Senator wants collected by the Govt under this new Amendment is already collected!     The Durbin Amendment 2127 to S.3187 is over-regulation and will simply tend to drive small companies out of business, thereby reducing consumer choice and increasing cost!

Contact Your Representatives: http://tinyurl.com/SaveOurSupplments Now addresses the FDA bill to be considered in the House Representatives.

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

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

HEALTH FREEDOM BILLS PENDING IN THE 112th CONGRESS H. R. 3380 To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act Concerning safe dietary ingredients in dietary supplements. [Changes the "grandfathering date" from 1994 to 2007, protecting additional nutrients.] [Introduced by Dr. Ron Paul] H. R. 2044 To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act concerning claims about the effects of foods and dietary supplements on health-related conditions and disease, and for other purposes. ... In General- The Federal Government may not take any action to prevent use of a claim describing any nutrient in a food or dietary supplement (as such terms are defined in section 201 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321)) as mitigating, treating, or preventing any disease, disease symptom, or health-related condition, unless a Federal court in a final order following a trial on the merits finds clear and convincing evidence based on qualified expert opinion and published peer-reviewed scientific research that-- (1) the claim is false and misleading in a material respect; and (2) there is no less speech restrictive alternative to claim suppression, such as use of disclaimers or qualifications, that can render the claim non-misleading... H. R. 2045 To amend the Federal Trade Commission Act concerning the burden of proof in false advertising cases involving dietary supplements and dietary ingredients. ...EXEMPTIONS FROM REGULATION AS ADVERTISING- No content of any publication shall be considered advertising regulated under this Act unless the content is intended by the seller of a product to promote the sale of that product and the content includes-- `(A) the name of the product offered for sale; `(B) an express offer to sell the named product; and `(C) a purchase price for the product. No content excerpted in whole or part from a peer-reviewed scientific publication shall be considered advertising regulated under this Act. `(3) NO IMPLIED CLAIMS- In any investigation commenced by the Commission and in any adjudicative proceeding in which the Commission is a party, the Commission shall not attribute to an advertiser accused of false advertisement any advertising statement not actually made by that advertiser. `(4) NOTICE, OPPORTUNITY TO CURE, AND BURDEN OF PROOF FOR INVESTIGATION- Before the Commission authorizes an investigation of false advertisement by an advertiser of a dietary supplement or a dietary ingredient, the Commission shall send the advertiser a written `Notice of Suspected Violation and Opportunity to Cure' informing the advertiser ... ... (5) BURDEN OF PROOF FOR FALSE ADVERTISEMENT CASES- In every proceeding before a court or the Commission in which an advertiser of a dietary supplement or a dietary ingredient is charged with false advertising, the burden of proof shall be on the Commission to establish by clear and convincing evidence that the advertisement is false, that the advertisement actually caused consumers to be misled into believing to be true that which is false, and that but for the false advertising content the consumer would not have made the purchase at the price paid. If a claimed health benefit of a dietary supplement or dietary ingredient is alleged to be false advertising, the Commission must additionally establish based on expert scientific opinion and published peer-reviewed scientific evidence that the claim is false. No order adverse to the advertiser shall be entered except upon the Commission satisfying this burden of proof.'... H. R. 2908 To protect the First Amendment rights of individuals to share their experiences and perceptions of the effects of foods and dietary supplements. ...Dissemination of Testimonials- Notwithstanding the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 301 et seq.), the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 41 et seq.), and any other provision of law-- (1) no Federal official or employee may restrict dissemination of a testimonial containing a consumer's actual perception of the mitigative, preventive, or curative properties of any food or dietary supplement based on the consumer's experience with that food or dietary supplement; and (2) if a person disseminating a testimonial reasonably believes that the dissemination is covered by paragraph (1), such dissemination shall not constitute a violation of any Federal law...

Action Item
http://tinyurl.com/SaveOurSupplements

The 2nd Amendment Guarantees the 1st Amendment

Just a reminder:

THE FIRST AMENDMENT IS GUARANTEED BY THE SECOND AMENDMENT!

 www.LP.org

 

Vaccine Lies and the First Amendment

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

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

Based on false notions, various vaccine-profiteers (drug lobbyists and their allies, including physicians in state legislatures) have introduced bills to abolish traditional religious and philosophical vaccine exemptions. The first of those state legislative efforts to reach a vote, in Vermont, went down to a decisive defeat last week. See: http://capwiz.com/a-champ/issues/alert/?alertid=61280071

"Advocates for vaccine choice rights delivered a humiliating defeat to the vaccine industry in Vermont this week with the defeat of S 199, a bill that would have eliminated the right of Vermont parents to refuse mandatory vaccines to attend school for “philosophical” reasons.  A coalition of citizens and health rights organizations stopped the very well funded effort by the vaccine industry in the first full-scale attempt to repeal a state’s philosophical exemption law. And this victory is bound to resonate in the statehouses were similar efforts are under way." 

However, the victory is not as decisive as is needed to secure our right to religious and philosophical exemptions to vaccination. There is a worm in the works... 

"A bill still called S199 emerged from the legislature, but it left the philosophical exemption intact. Parents will now have to submit letters on any annual basis and must sign a statement that inaccurately states that they acknowledge not vaccinating puts others at risk..."

This provision of the new law violates the First Amendment. Under our Constitution, no government may require particular speech, especially false speech!

Said the Supreme court in Thompson v Western States,  535 U.S. 357, 2002 -

"If the First Amendment means anything, it means that regulating speech must be a last - not first - resort... We have previously rejected the notion that the Government has an interest in preventing the dissemination of truthful commercial information in order to prevent members of the public from making bad decisions with the information."

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


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

The Health Freedom Declaration
http://tinyurl.com/HealthFreedomDeclaration

General Bert and Dr. Rima in Los Angeles

New Vax Religious Exemption Attacks in Several States

State Bills with Official Speech Requirements Violate the First Amendment

New Vax Religious Exemption Attacks in Several States

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 decisions 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 AB 2109 is unconstitutional here: http://www.vaccinerights.com/pdf/3-10-12_CA_AB_2109_Memorandum.pdf -

"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."

 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: http://gov.ca.gov/m_contact.php -- 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. ACT NOW! YOUR RELIGIOUS LIBERTY IS AT RISK!
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

---

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.

Supreme Court Allows Redress Against Agency Intimidation

A Note to Health & Food Freedom & Justice advocates:

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

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

Here is what the high Court said earlier today:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-1062.pdf

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

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

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

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

Here is what happened to the Sacketts:

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

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

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

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

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

Through intimidation and innuendo...

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

Ralph Fucetola JD
Natural Solutions Foundation
www.FreeWorldNetwork.org

Fracking, Physicians and the Status Quo

I am re-posting this article which links fracking and health freedom. I find it particularly outrageous that physicians should be required by law to maintain proprietary secrecy when human health and life might be at risk. Once more, the health keepers are being conscripted to maintain a status quo that seeks to hide foreseeable harm. Another factor to note is that some in the natural gas industry assert that fracking is never needed and that there is a huge amount of natural gas available that can be brought to market without these extreme and dangerous means.

The answer: www.HealthKeepersOath.org

----------------------------------------
The Pennsylvania gas law fails to protect public health

Our legislators punted when it was time to protect us...
Say Pitt experts Bernard Goldstein and Jill Kriesky

Sunday, March 11, 2012

Gov. Tom Corbett recently signed a bill that goes beyond just ignoring concerns about the potential human health effects of Marcellus Shale drilling, it retains some of the worst aspects of industry secrecy about proprietary hydrofracking chemicals while making unethical demands on physicians.

Imagine a physician caring for a child whose illness might have been caused by long-term exposure to a proprietary fracking chemical while playing near a drill site. Assume that after signing a legally binding nondisclosure agreement, the physician is given the identity of the chemical and comes to believe it caused the illness. What can the physician tell the families of other neighborhood children who play in the same field?

Under the newly enacted law, copied almost verbatim from a controversial Colorado law, a physician may receive information about a proprietary chemical used in the fracking process, but the physician must agree to not reveal this information to the public.

The law also allows the company to keep secret from physicians information about agents that come up from the ground during drilling, such as natural gas constituents -- which themselves can be toxic -- and naturally occurring toxic agents such as arsenic, barium, brine components and radioactive compounds dissolved in flowback water. Nor can public health authorities begin with knowledge of a secret chemical and ask whether there is an increase in an illness that the chemical is known to cause.

Drillers should have an affirmative duty to know what dangerous chemicals they are introducing into the environment. Instead, the bill is laced with excuses: "the vendor didn't tell us" or "it was unintentional" or "it must be due to a chemical reaction." But chemicals inherently react with each other -- that is their nature. By making ignorance an excuse, the law absolves drillers from doing their homework.

This legislation was under consideration when drilling in the commonwealth began in earnest, and it was intensely studied by the governor's Marcellus Shale Advisory Commission -- a commission charged with protecting the environment and citizens' health and welfare. Moreover, citizens testified at public hearings time and time again that they are concerned about possible health impacts on themselves and their families, neighbors and friends.

Yet the governor's 32-member commission included no health professionals, and the seven state agencies involved did not include the state Department of Health.

Not surprisingly, the commission's few health-related recommendations failed to make their way into the final legislation. Neither did the governor's recommendation to provide Marcellus Shale impact funding for the Department of Health; 19 other state agencies, subagencies and commissions received funding, including the Pennsylvania Boat and Fish Commission. It appears that our state politicians are concerned about the impact of shale gas drilling on boats and fish, but not on humans.

Rather than providing health personnel with direction on how to prepare for potential exposures to toxic chemicals in the air, water or soil, or to accidents similar to those that already have occurred, the law sets up an obstacle course that health care providers must navigate to secure information about proprietary chemicals -- information needed to diagnose and treat patients. This obstacle course also presents an ethical dilemma for a doctor who treats a child exposed by playing too close to a Marcellus Shale drilling site. It is a breach of a physician's responsibilities not to report a public health threat, as well as a contradiction of established public health practice and law.

This law would have looked different had public health officials been consulted. Legislators and industry lobbyists seeking streamlined and stable regulations to aid their companies' planning and pursuit of profits should recognize that it's in everyone's best interests to research and prepare for the public health risks that come with drilling. The statistically significant disease clusters that will inevitably arise in communities with Marcellus Shale drilling, whether caused by the drilling or not, will generate fear, media attention, declines in property values and lawsuits.

Industry is liable for any adverse effects caused by the millions of gallons of chemical-laden water that flows back to the surface after each frack. Perhaps individual companies are hoping that their particular mixtures will not cause noticeable harm or that they will make their money before tort liabilities catch up with them. But hydrofracking will likely go on in Pennsylvania for decades, and depending on toxic tort suits to protect the public presupposes that we must wait until people get sick.

The usual engineer's response to just about every technology problem that has resulted in environmental or human health problems is to say that had they only known there was a potential problem, they could have designed the technology to avoid the problem. For this discussion to take place in the case of the unconventional development of Marcellus Shale gas, we need health professionals at the table to prevent adverse health effects, and we need to put them there now.

Dr. Bernard Goldstein is emeritus professor in the University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public Health's Department of Environmental and Occupational Health

( www.publichealth.pitt.edu ).

Jill Kriesky is senior project coordinator at the school's Center for Health Environments and Communities.

First published on March 11, 2012 at 12:00 am

Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/12071/1215612-109.stm?cmpid=newspanel#ixzz1ovpX6weE

Health Freedom Bills Pending in the 112th Congress

Dr. Ron Paul and several other members of Congress have introduced several health freedom bills into the 112th Congress. I summarize them here, quoting from Thomas.gov.

The relevant Action Item, where citizens can express their views about these bills, and help educate decision makers, is here: http://tinyurl.com/SaveOurSupplements

All of Health Freedom USA's
Current Action items are here:

http://tinyurl.com/PushBackHere

Updates DSHEA "Grandfather" Clause
H. R. 3380
To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
concerning safe dietary ingredients in dietary supplements.

The Congress finds as follows:

(1) Improving the health status of United States citizens ranks at the top of the national priorities of the Federal Government. The importance of nutrition and the benefits of dietary supplements to health promotion and disease prevention are well known and have been documented in scientific studies.

(2) Since enactment of the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 (DSHEA), dietary supplements have had an exemplary public health safety record. Based on national surveys, in 1994, 50 percent of the 260,000,000 Americans regularly consumed dietary supplements. In 2006, 232,000,000 adults over the age of 18 alone consumed dietary supplements, 53 percent of the United States adult population.

(3) There were 4,000 dietary supplements in the marketplace in 1994, and in 2006 an estimated 29,000 dietary supplements were being consumed daily by Americans. Since the enactment of DSHEA, there has been 17 years of additional historical use-safety experience conducted by millions of Americans. Over 17 years, approximately 25,000 new supplements with new dietary ingredients have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) under DSHEA and have and are being safely consumed by Americans.

(4) Since January 2007, FDA regulations governing dietary supplement manufacturer good manufacturing practices, dietary supplement adverse event reporting, and private sector voluntary testing and auditing for supplement quality and purity have improved postmarketing consumer safety. Before DSHEA, these mechanisms did not exist.

(5) There are DSHEA `grandfathered' supplements, dietary ingredients, and classified products which were on the market before October 15, 1994, and `generally recognized as safe' for human consumption. FDA regulatory policy, industry practices, and consumer marketplace paradigms have drastically changed over 17 years, but this policy has not.

(6) The definition of a new dietary ingredient in section 413 of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 350b) does not recognize the current safe market in supplements, nor how intensively supplements have been regulated over the 17 years since enactment of DSHEA to protect public health and safety, and should be updated to reflect this reality...

Section 413(d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 350b(d)) is amended by striking `October 15, 1994' each place it appears and inserting `January 1, 2007'.

---

Requires Court Approval of FDA
Actions Against DSHEA Products
H. R. 2044
To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act concerning claims about the effects of foods and dietary supplements on health-related conditions and disease, and for other purposes.
... In General- The Federal Government may not take any action to prevent use of a claim describing any nutrient in a food or dietary supplement (as such terms are defined in section 201 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321)) as mitigating, treating, or preventing any disease, disease symptom, or health-related condition, unless a Federal court in a final order following a trial on the merits finds clear and convincing evidence based on qualified expert opinion and published peer-reviewed scientific research that--

(1) the claim is false and misleading in a material respect; and

(2) there is no less speech restrictive alternative to claim suppression, such as use of disclaimers or qualifications, that can render the claim non-misleading...

---

Shifts FTC Burden of Proof
H. R. 2045
To amend the Federal Trade Commission Act concerning the burden of proof in false advertising cases involving dietary supplements and dietary ingredients.
...EXEMPTIONS FROM REGULATION AS ADVERTISING- No content of any publication shall be considered advertising regulated under this Act unless the content is intended by the seller of a product to promote the sale of that product and the content includes--

`(A) the name of the product offered for sale;

`(B) an express offer to sell the named product; and

`(C) a purchase price for the product.

No content excerpted in whole or part from a peer-reviewed scientific publication shall be considered advertising regulated under this Act.

`(3) NO IMPLIED CLAIMS- In any investigation commenced by the Commission and in any adjudicative proceeding in which the Commission is a party, the Commission shall not attribute to an advertiser accused of false advertisement any advertising statement not actually made by that advertiser.

`(4) NOTICE, OPPORTUNITY TO CURE, AND BURDEN OF PROOF FOR INVESTIGATION- Before the Commission authorizes an investigation of false advertisement by an advertiser of a dietary supplement or a dietary ingredient, the Commission shall send the advertiser a written `Notice of Suspected Violation and Opportunity to Cure' informing the advertiser ...

... (5) BURDEN OF PROOF FOR FALSE ADVERTISEMENT CASES- In every proceeding before a court or the Commission in which an advertiser of a dietary supplement or a dietary ingredient is charged with false advertising, the burden of proof shall be on the Commission to establish by clear and convincing evidence that the advertisement is false, that the advertisement actually caused consumers to be misled into believing to be true that which is false, and that but for the false advertising content the consumer would not have made the purchase at the price paid. If a claimed health benefit of a dietary supplement or dietary ingredient is alleged to be false advertising, the Commission must additionally establish based on expert scientific opinion and published peer-reviewed scientific evidence that the claim is false. No order adverse to the advertiser shall be entered except upon the Commission satisfying this burden of proof.'...

---

Reasonable Belief About Foods Protected
H. R. 2908

To protect the First Amendment rights of individuals to share their experiences and perceptions of the effects of foods and dietary supplements.
...Dissemination of Testimonials- Notwithstanding the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 301 et seq.), the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 41 et seq.), and any other provision of law--

(1) no Federal official or employee may restrict dissemination of a testimonial containing a consumer's actual perception of the mitigative, preventive, or curative properties of any food or dietary supplement based on the consumer's experience with that food or dietary supplement; and

(2) if a person disseminating a testimonial reasonably believes that the dissemination is covered by paragraph (1), such dissemination shall not constitute a violation of any Federal law...

It is time to tell Congress that it must pay attention to our Health Freedom Rights! The FDA ignores Senators Harkin and Hatch, indicating that it is not interested in their views about dietary supplements and will continue its anti-nutrient policies.* We suggest it is time for the entire Congress to ACT! Please tell your congress-critters that is what you demand! http://tinyurl.com/SaveOurSupplements

-----------------
* as reported: http://www.nutraingredients-usa.com/Regulation/FDA-silent-on-calls-from-Sen-Hatch-and-Harkin-to-withdraw-NDI-draft-guidance