Archive for the ‘Activism’ Category

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Meet Baby’s Big Brother, Pharma

Friday, January 18th, 2008

Q. How are Autism and Pharmaceutical Profits alike?
A. They both come from vaccinations.

The CDC stated recently that the immune system of a child could tolerate 1000 vaccines. That’s right, 1000 deadly, profit centers. Here’s one way vaccination is done. If you have other stories to tell about vaccinations being forced on you or your children (or grandchildren, parents, etc.), the Natural Solutions Foundation needs to know. Send an email to dr.laibow@gmail.com with “vaccination” in the subject line. Be sure to include your contact information and whether we have your permission to publish the story.

From World Daily News comes the following harrowing story. Although it happened in 2003, it was another one of the early warning shots across the bow of your liberty and your health.

Now all New Jersey Preschoolers must have flu shots, many of which contain mercury. Hepatitis B Vaccine, administered to infants within hours of birth, when they lack a blood brain barrier, is a potent danger because of the mercury, aluminum and viruses, some of which are known or suspected of causing cancer, which lurk within the syringe. Mandatory vaccination is being forced upon us, one life, one arm, one moment of terror at a time. If that is OK with you, please do nothing at all.

If, on the other hand, you do not accept this new “Reign of Terror”, where our immune systems, not our heads, are being destroyed at the whim of the State, then take action. Click here (http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/568/t/1128/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=21835) to tell your State and Federal legislators that your health decisions are yours, and yours alone to make. Let them know that vaccines are unproven, but well advertised, and present a clear and present danger to the recipient. Let them know that it’s your decision whether you are vaccinated, not theirs. What goes into your skin is your decision, not theirs

Then go to www.HealthFreedomUSA.org and sign up for the free, secure Health Freedom eAlerts (http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/index.php?page_id=187) for up to the minute news and actions you can take to protect and preserve your health and health freedom. Oh, and make sure you ask your entire circle of influence to sign up, too. We are only as powerful as the roar we can raise and that takes voices – lots of voices. It is imperative that we work together to rally those voices or we will all be facing the working ends of many, many syringes.

Yours in health and freedom,
Dr. Rima

Rima E. Laibow, MD
Medical Director
Natural Solutions Foundation
www.HealthFreedomUSA.org
www.GlobalHealthFreedom.org

Yours in health LIFE WITH BIG BROTHER
Shot forced on newborn
over parents’ objections
Orwellian nightmare for ‘persecuted’ couple
as armed guards ensure infant’s vaccination
Posted: June 18, 2003
1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Diana Lynne
© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com

What was supposed to be a joyous occasion – the birth of their first child – turned out to be an Orwellian nightmare for a young Colorado couple whose newborn was vaccinated for hepatitis B over their religious and philosophical objections, while armed guards stood by to prevent them from intervening.

“It makes me feel like the country I live in is no better than communist China or the old Soviet Union or Nazi Germany, and that’s a very sobering and scary outlook,” the father, who does not want to be named, told WorldNetDaily.

The saga of “Baby M,” as the family calls her to protect her privacy, started with an emergency Caesarean section at St. Mary’s Hospital in in Grand Junction, Colo., on April 2. The couple, who has no medical insurance, had attempted to home birth but wound up rushing to the emergency room after the baby’s position went transverse.

“Baby M” was born without complication. But as the new parents were basking in the afterglow of the birth, a neonatal doctor informed them a vaccination was in order for the baby and pressured the couple to sign a consent form.

“He told me the initial screening test [on the mother] had come back positive for hepatitis B. I told him that was impossible,” said the father. “And he said, ‘Well, I didn’t think it was very likely either so I had them run it again and I’ll probably get those test results back soon. If those test results come back positive again, then I’m going to have to vaccinate the baby.'”

According to the couple’s personal physician, the screening test gives a false-positive 40 to 60 percent of the time.

A call for comment from the neonatal physician was not returned.

After the second test also came back positive, the doctor insisted the couple sign the consent form. Citing text he referenced in a medical guide, he informed the parents that the baby must be vaccinated within 12 hours of birth, if the mother has hepatitis B.

Said the father: “We said that we weren’t going to authorize him to do so because we did not believe she had hepatitis B and that we believe vaccinations would not be good for the baby even if she did, based upon our religious convictions and also medical evidence.”

While not eschewing modern medicine, the couple prefers to avoid it when possible and has a strong conviction against vaccinations.

“We believe in God, and that God has created us in his image. In being created in God’s image, we are given his perfect immune system. We are bestowed with His gift, the immune system. We believe it is sacrilegious and a violation of our sacred religious beliefs to violate what God has given us by showing a lack of faith in God. Immunizations are a lack of faith in God and His protection, the immune system,” the father maintains.

Vaccination danger

The couple had also done extensive research into the potential serious dangers of vaccinations.

WorldNetDaily reported last week that various studies indicate there is epidemiological evidence of a link between neurodevelopmental disorders and mercury exposure from childhood vaccines. Many medical experts suspect vaccines may be behind a growing epidemic of autism in American children. According to data provided by the U.S. Department of Education, most states experienced a doubling of the rate of children diagnosed with full-syndrome autism over the past few years.

“U.S. infants are exposed to mercury levels from their childhood-immunization schedule that far exceed the EPA [Environmental Protection Agency] and FDA [Food and Drug Administration]-established maximum permissible levels for the daily oral ingestion of methyl mercury,” wrote Dr. Mark Geier, president of the Genetic Centers of America, in a recently published study in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons.

According to Geier, the EPA limit is 0.1 micrograms of mercury per kilogram body weight per day.

“It doesn’t take a genius to do the calculations when on their day of birth children are given the hepatitis B vaccine, which is 12.5 micrograms of mercury,” Geier told Insight magazine. “The average newborn weighs between six and seven pounds, so they would be allowed 0.3 micrograms of mercury – but in this one shot they are getting 12.5 micrograms. That’s 39 times more than allowed by law.”

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 12,000 infants are infected with hepatitis B every year by their mother during birth. Infants and children who become infected with hepatitis B are at the highest risk of developing life-long infection, which often leads to death from liver disease and liver cancer. Approximately 25 percent of children who become infected with life-long hepatitis are expected to die of a related disease as adults.

The National Network for Immunization Information, or NNii, a resource for parents recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics, or AAP, maintains the vaccine is “safe.”

NNii addresses the risk of mercury in the vaccine in a fact sheet posted on its website. It explains that Thimerosal, a derivative of mercury, has been used in “small amounts” as a preservative in some vaccine and states “there is no evidence that any child has been harmed by exposure to the amounts of Thimerosal in vaccines.”

“In addition, the risk of disease from not immunizing a child is greater than the risk of exposure to low levels of mercury in Thimerosal-containing vaccines,” the fact sheet states, but then adds the U.S. Public Health Service and the AAP recommended reducing or eliminating the use of Thimerosal-containing vaccines “to make safe vaccines even safer.”

NNii states “infants are at high risk for hepatitis B infection if their mothers are infected with the virus” and recommends these infants be given the hepatitis B vaccine “within 12 hours of birth.”

NNii adds that most children who become infected with hepatitis B are born to mothers who are not infected with hepatitis B, and as a result, further recommends all children be vaccinated.

The AAP recommends the first dose of the hepatitis B vaccine be administered to infants born to infected mothers “before they leave the hospital.”

‘Emergency’ hearing

Faced with opposition from the parents over the vaccination of “Baby M,” the doctor called in hospital social service worker Joni Vohs, who reportedly threatened the parents with the loss of custody of their baby if they did not comply with the vaccination schedule.

Next, hospital administrators called in attorneys who persuaded Chief District Court Judge Charles Buss to hold an emergency, after-hours hearing at the hospital on the basis that the baby’s life would be in danger if she was not vaccinated within hours. The family was given 15 minutes’ notice of the hearing and was unable to secure competent legal help in time.

As the father describes it, he went up against a 10-person panel of attorneys, social workers, hospital administrators and the doctor who argued for the immediate vaccination.

The father pleaded for second opinions. He also pleaded for the judge to wait for the results of a more confirmatory test which were scheduled to arrive in 16 hours.

During the four-hour hearing, the father cited the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence and Colorado revised statute, which states there are religious, medical and philosophical exemptions to medical treatment.

Rather than share the 19-year-old’s passion for U.S. constitutional history, the lawyers reportedly mocked him.

“When I was reading, the lawyers were whispering back and forth almost laughing at me,” the father told WorldNetDaily. “In retrospect, reminding them of the Constitution hurt me more than it helped.”

The judge ruled the baby should be vaccinated immediately and also ordered her put into protective custody with the Mesa County Department of Human Services, which the parents were told meant social-service agents had the ability to intervene in the medical treatment of the baby at any time and could take physical custody of the baby if deemed necessary to “protect the child’s best interests.”

A call for comment from Buss was referred to judicial administrator Judy Vanderleest. Vanderleest told WorldNetDaily the judge would not comment on the case. She also said the emergency, after-hours hearing held at the hospital was the first such hearing held that she could remember.

Matt Weber, an attorney who represented St. Mary’s Hospital told WorldNetDaily he was “not authorized to speak on behalf of the hospital on this case.”

With armed guards lining the ICU, the first of three ordered vaccinations was administered to the baby. According to the family’s physician, the baby immediately exhibited the typical side effects of the vaccine.

A day later, the third hepatitis B screening on the mom came back negative.

By the time the second shot was due to be administered, the father had succeeded in persuading county social worker Dan Overmeyer the vaccination posed more risk than good for the baby’s health. Overmeyer opted to not administer any more shots and recommended the release of “Baby M” from protective custody.

Overmeyer was unavailable for comment.

While the baby appears to be doing fairly well, the parents fear the damage is already done, and can only wait and wonder when the adverse effects of the vaccine will appear.

“Most of the doctors that I’ve talked to from around the country that know about vaccinations have said that it takes months and sometimes years for things to show up,” the father told WorldNetDaily. “The scary thing is that there are babies that just die out of the blue supposedly for no reason. … There’s a lot of evidence that these SIDS [Sudden Infant Death Syndrome] victims are actually a result of vaccination.”

The Institute of Medicine, a medical research organization that provides health information to the government, released a report last March that concluded all available evidence shows no link between vaccines and unexplained infant deaths.

Religious persecution?

Having recently graduated from college with an associate’s degree in telecommunications engineering, the father has now launched a campaign to alert expecting parents about his family’s ordeal. He posted their story online with a link to an article outlining the research behind the dangers of vaccinations.

“I want [parents] to know that their rights are no longer being upheld by our government,” he said. “If people don’t speak out and voice their disapproval and talk to their congressman and make a big deal out of things like this then we will find ourselves very soon in a sort of police state where we have no individual freedoms and the government tells us what to do, what not to do and basically raises our children for us.”

The website includes a link for readers to make contributions to a legal defense fund. The family hopes to raise sufficient funds to sue the hospital. They feel both the hospital staff and the judge persecuted them for their religious conviction against vaccinations.

“The doctor and hospital thought we would be easy targets as we were young and penniless. They do not like people who try to avoid the system and they don’t like anyone to question whether or not their practices are truly in the best interests of the patient,” the father said. “Our aim in legal action would be to get a precedent that protects families from this ever happening again.”

Kim Williams, the director of marketing at St. Mary’s Hospital declined to discuss the case, citing the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, which outlines patient-confidentiality rules.

Social worker Joni Vohs adamantly denied the hospital would persecute anyone over their religious beliefs or discriminate against them because of a lack of insurance.

“St. Mary’s is a Catholic hospital. We treat everybody regardless of their ability to pay. It’s a very compassionate and caring place.”

After stressing she was bound by confidentiality rules not to discuss the details, Vohs said the “Baby M” case triggered her recollection of another case in which a 13-year-old girl died a “very slow death” because the family belonged to a church that “believed in prayers over medical treatment” and failed to seek treatment for her until she was almost dead.

“Having worked in child protection for 25 years, to allow a child to suffer or die a horrible death is child abuse,” Vohs told WorldNetDaily.

Colorado legislators passed a law as a result of that case which allows the court to step in and override parents’ religious beliefs in the event of a medical emergency. Vohs said this law was applied to the “Baby M” case.

“The hospital doesn’t do anything on a whim. There’s a lot of steps that need to be taken. There was a legal hearing … and the law was followed,” she said.

She also added that the family’s story posted online “stretches and alters” the truth in the case.

“Baby M’s” father argues there was no emergency and emphasizes that had the staff simply waited the 16 hours for the third, more confirmatory test of the mother’s blood to come back negative, the entire “nightmare” could have been avoided.

Posted in Activism, Legislation to Support, Medical Hazards, Miscellaneous, Privacy, Vaccination | No Comments »

Living in the Time of Plague: Whom Do You Trust?

Thursday, January 17th, 2008

The fundamental question here is, “Do you trust your government?”

We are talking here about the same government, if I am not mistaken, that many believe rigged the past two national elections. The same government which passed the Patriot Act hard on the heels of the supposedly unexpected attacks on 9/11 (oddly, though, although we did not know the attacks were coming, despite the fact that the information was in the system, we did know the names and passport numbers of all 19 hijackers by the next morning – that strikes me as remarkable intelligence work!). The same government which passed laws (although they violate the US Constitution, supposedly the source of all legal jurisdiction in the United States) which allow your personal privacy and right to protection from unlawful search and seizure to be nullified at the whim of who-knows-whom. That same government which is waging a war on natural health and the information you need to make natural health choices. The same government which has issued a series of Signing Statements, Executive Orders, Homeland Security Directives and other administrative tools overturning or nullifying important aspect of the Common Law, US laws and the provisions of the US Constitution which were designed to protect you against the over-reaching of a government focused on its own power rather than your rights. Rights, for example, like habeas corpus and legal representation, the right to confront your accusers, the right to examine the evidence against you, the right to determine your own medical choices and a host of others.

That would be the same government which, through regulatory edicts by the FDA, has absolved all drug and vaccine manufacturers of ANY liability for any harm you suffer from them, approved cloned meat and milk despite overwhelming consumer revulsion, established for itself the power to ban the sale of, for example, cherry juice as an “untested drug” because the Michigan Cherry Growers Association wanted you to know about 6 scientific papers showing health benefits from cherry juice (or ban any other substance or object used for any potential health benefit), approve deadly drugs on the say-so of “advisers” with a personal stake in the outcome of their advice, buries negative findings about those drugs and then keeps them on the market.

That government. The one that has reportedly four times now called for a protection for us from terrorism by unleashing a nuclear holocaust on Iran, one of several countries which trades its oil in Euros, not dollars. Another country which has made that mistake is called “Iraq”.

Now that government would like you to believe that they have your very best interests, and all of your rights in hand when, in the event of a pandemic, BEFORE IT GETS AWAY FROM US, you will be able to voluntarily accept vaccination or decline it. As I read the laws, however, that is true but the consequences of NOT accepting vaccination are not trivial. What you would be facing is unlimited incarceration (“quarantine”) until you do agree to be vaccinated – or forever. Who knows? The Shadow (government which was apparently never elected) knows.

I do not have any information conclusively telling me that what I am about to say next is accurate or true, but it seems like a highly reasonable conclusion. There are reportedly more than 800 detention centers staffed but standing empty in the US right now. If the plan is to use these facilities for the quarantine of people who refuse “voluntary” vaccination, then the astonishing capacity of more than 30 million people that these facilities represent in the aggregate makes sense. Otherwise, we are looking at a pretty large capacity for – what? Al Quaida sleeper cells?

Now the US government, responding to the question posed by the ACLU of whether pandemic plans violate our rights would like us to believe that they do not, that the already approved vaccine for a virus which supposedly does not yet exit – pandemic H5N1 Avian Flu – would be offered to us for our approval or rejection WHEN CHILDREN, COLLEGE STUDENTS, HEALTH PROFESSIONALS, ELDERLY RESIDENTS OF NURSING HOMES AND OTHER VULNERABLE POPULATIONS ARE ALREADY BEING FACED WITH FORCED VACCINATION, SOMETIMES AT THE POINT OF A GUN (as in Prince George’s County, Maryland where parents were threatened with jail time and fines, and their kids, some already fully inoculated, were vaccinated at the point of a gun in a state with a vaccination exemption).

By the way, vaccines are not necessarily as labeled and they are certainly not safe. The parents of the children felled by what many believe is a vaccine induced epidemic of autism can tell you that. So can the infertile women in Sub Saharan Africa and Central and South America who received tetanus or other vaccines which also contained a vaccine which produces female sterility tell you that (this sterility vaccine, by the way, is approved for use in the US but has been used by the World Health Organization since at least 1985). Then there are the so called stealth viruses, like SV-40, a cancer causing agent found in polio and many other vaccines. Of course, aluminum, mercury, MSG and a host of other dangerous additives make the brew more dangerous, too.

Trust the government that approved these “Public Health” measures in full knowledge of these dangers? That’s a little more than I can handle.

So read the following report of the ACLU’s encounter with the Department of Health and Human Services and draw your own conclusions about whether the benign reassurances of the HHS are enough for you. Then go to www.HealthFreedomUSA.org and join the Health Freedom eAlert list and become part of the Health Freedom Team if you are not already there. The ONLY way we can protect ourselves and our loved ones from this menace is by become a thunderous roar of opposition – before it is too late.

And if you are already on the eAlert list, the most powerful steps you can take to make a difference are (1) getting your friends, associates and family to join the eAlert and (2) becoming a regular donor… the truth is, neither health nor freedom are free. We need your commitment to stop what is happening before our eyes…

The government’s authority ends at your skin!

Yours in health and freedom,
Dr. Rima
Rima E. Laibow, MD
Medical Director
Natural Solutions Foundation
www.HealthFreedomUSA.org
www.GlobalHealthFreedom.org

PS – our DC educational agent, Charlie Frohman was at the ACLU press conference at the National Press Club in DC representing us, and questioning ACLU about its commitment to fighting for our rights. The ACLU assured Charlie that they would continue to press for our rights, even in the event of a pandemic “emergency” – see his comments at:

http://www.commoninterest.info/2008/01/16/aclu-to-protect-against-government-in-pandemic/

Do U.S. pandemic plans threaten rights, ACLU asks
Published on Tuesday, January 15, 2008.

AddThis Social Bookmarking Widget

Source: Reuters

U.S. policy in preparing for a potential bird flu pandemic is veering
dangerously toward a heavy-handed law-enforcement approach, the
American Civil Liberties Union said on Monday.

The group, which advocates for individuals’ legal rights based on the
U.S. Constitution, said federal government pandemic plans were
confusing and could emphasize a police and military approach to
outbreaks of disease, instead of a more sensible public health approach.

“Rather than focusing on well-established measures for protecting the
lives and health of Americans, policymakers have recently embraced an
approach that views public health policy through the prism of national
security and law enforcement,” the ACLU report reads.

But the U.S. Health and Human Services Department (HHS) said the group
had misunderstood the government’s approach and said current plans
already incorporate many of the ACLU’s recommendations.

Infectious disease experts agree that a pandemic of some sort of
influenza is inevitable, and most worries focus on H5N1 avian
influenza. Although it mainly attacks birds, the virus has infected
349 people since 2003 and killed 216 of them.

A few mutations could turn it into a highly infectious disease for
people and could kill millions globally.

Most countries are working to develop plans to deal with the potential
consequences. The U.S. plans are available on Web sites such as
http://pandemicflu.gov.

The ACLU said it was worried that the plan called for military and
police involvement in enforcing a quarantine.

The ACLU experts said they were especially disturbed by an October
executive order from President George W. Bush that directed HHS to
establish a task force to plan for potential catastrophes like a
terrorist attack, pandemic influenza or a natural disaster that would
ensure full use of Department of Defense resources.

The Bush order does not specify what the Department of Defense role
would be, but also mentions military medical research facilities that
have played a role in health for decades.

“Pandemic planning today tends to emphasize mandatory vaccination and
forced treatment,” the ACLU’s Tania Simoncelli told a news conference.

“It also means that sick people are being treated as criminals and
enemies of the state rather than individuals in need of care.”

The ACLU said plans should focus on how to help people stay home
without losing pay, and instead of merely advising citizens to
stockpile food, should provide for ways to help them do so.

HHS spokesman Bill Hall said the government plan stressed community
and individual involvement.

“They have mischaracterized our planning efforts. They are confusing a
containment attempt as our overall pandemic response once the virus
has spread beyond our ability to stop it,” Hall said in a telephone
interview.

“Respecting civil liberties has been an important component of our
pandemic planning.”

He said many of the recommendations ACLU makes, such as voluntary
vaccination and treatment, were in the plan.

Source: http://www.blacklistednews.com/view.asp?ID=5288

Posted in Activism, Medical Hazards, Vaccination | No Comments »

GM Files: New Zealand Scientists Urge Prime Minister to Show Sanity in GM Policy

Tuesday, January 15th, 2008

In a remarkable letter written on April 6, 2006 to the Helen Clark, the Prime Minister of New Zealand, the Scientists of the Physicians and Scientists for Responsible Genetics [PSRG] took the bold step of warning the PM and every member of the New Zealand Parliament about the known and unknown dangers of biotech foods. They urged the PM and Parliament to move very cautiously on the approval of any genetically modified foods and cited a wealth or reasons why that caution was necessary.

They also urged that they not rely on US decision making since the US FDA and USDA cannot be relied upon to act responsibly in this issue and detail some of the reasons for that lack of trust questioning, among other things, the competency and accuracy of the US agencies involved with approval of GM foods. They charge, and document both FDA and USDA with very specific deficiencies, including the fact that they ignore their own scientists and approve GM foods as safe when there is no evidence that they are, in fact, safe. US approval, however, is generally taken around the world as strong and often compelling evidence of a food’s safety by the countries around the world which still chose to believe the deadly fiction that the US has the world’s best food supply, safety and security. The EU Food Safety organization takes some heavy hits, too, as it is quoted as saying that it has no idea how to analyze and, whether GM or not.

The report is rather technical in spots so, although it is presented without editing, I have taken the liberty of emphasizing parts of it which I find particularly interesting and relevant. In other words, I have placed all bold face text in that format since it does not appear in bold in the original letter.

Please share this information widely since it directly and compellingly offers information that consumers need to know as they choose their diets for themselves and their families. Please remember that the US FDA prohibits the accurate labeling of genetically modified foods so that consumers will not make the “mistake” of rejecting GM food in the US. It strongly urges the rest of the world to adopt the same potentially deadly standard through Codex and, in fact, the Working Group on Biotech (GM) Foods (Accra, Ghana, January 28-30, 2007) will consider this proposition again (as the same group did in Norway last year). The Natural Solutions Foundation will be there reporting on every development for you.

Support our kind of on-going information for yourself and your circle of influence. Join the Natural Solutions Foundation’s Health Freedom e-Alerts (http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/index.php?page_id=187). Your information is secure with us. I promise.

Oh, yes, there is something else you can do in this critically important process of reclaiming our food: disseminate widely (with proper attribution so people can find the Natural Solutions Foundation when they go looking for more information) and donate. Your tax exempt donations are the life blood of the Natural Solutions Foundation. Help us keep on helping you to maintain your health freedom!

And eat organic. You will note in the MP’s letter that the changes induced by the GM crops could be reversed over time even in adults. That should give you pause and hope. Organic, real organic, not phony Codex-standard organic, is the answer there.

Yours in health and freedom,
Dr. Rima
Rima E. Laibow, MD
Medical Director
Natural Solutions Foundation
www.HealthFreedomUSA.org
www.GlobalHealthFreedom.org

Letter to PM on genetically engineered organisms
Thursday, 6 April 2006, 2:56 pm
Press Release: Physicians and Scientists for Responsible Genetics
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0604/S00056.htm

The Right Hon. Helen Clark
Cc to all MPs
Prime Minister
ERMA
Parliament Buildings
FSANZ
WELLINGTON
Media

A letter addressed to Prime Minister Helen Clark

Dear Helen Clark

PSRG calls your attention to 8 April 2006, designated the day to inform people and to demonstrate public concern about genetically engineered organisms (GEOs).

Of particular concern to us are decisions of FSANZ and other regulatory bodies; the decision not to adopt country of origin labeling; the inadequacy of current GEO label ling requirements; the use of genetic engineering technology to produce pharmaceutical and industrial materials; and potential applications to release GEOs into the New Zealand environment.

(For the purposes of this letter, genetic engineering and genetic modification are synonymous.)

1. The effects on human consumers ingesting genetically engineered organisms

We advise you of the following research that raises serious concerns about the risks of consuming GEOs.

1.1. Eating genetically engineered soybeans affected the liver and pancreas of study mice.

In 2005, Italian researchers1 found that genetically engineered (GE) soybeans affected the liver and pancreas in mice. Previously, the researchers had shown that absorption of GE soy by mice induced modifications in the nuclei of their liver cells. It was later shown that reverting the diet of the mice to conventional food caused the observed differences to disappear. It was also found that several of these changes could be “induced in adult organisms in a very short time.”

1.2. Genetically engineered pea research abandoned because of adverse results

Also in 2005, CSIRO2 scientists abandoned a research project after ten years. They found that the genetically engineered peas they had developed caused lung damage in mice.

1.3. The cauliflower mosaic virus acting as a catalyst to provoke gene expression (2006)

ADVERTISEMENT

Dr Terje Traavik, scientific director of the University of Tromso’s Institute of Genetic Ecology in Norway, has demonstrated 3 that an element of the genetic structures used to engineer a plant – the cauliflower mosaic virus (35S CaMV) promoter – can provoke gene expression in cultured human cells. [In other words, this genetic element could promote cancer] Developers of genetically engineered plants have previously claimed that the promoter normally only performs that way with plants.

1.4. Monsanto’s MON 863 genetically engineered corn

In April 2004, a toxicological study released to Le Monde4 reportedly showed that rats fed with MON 863 presented anomalies, including an increase in the white blood cell count, changes in blood sugar, and a reduction in the red blood cell count. The paper claimed that in considering a decision on its release, despite re-examining the file, regulators did not reportedly take another look at Monsanto’s statistical analysis.

An independent study was commissioned from Gilles-Eric Seralini, of the University of Caen, and Dominique Cellier, of the University of Rouen. Dominique Cellier, a biocomputer specialist, is reported to have said that: “Monsanto’s statistical analysis of the differences observed in the rats was very superficial. They isolate the variables instead of using so-called multi-variable analysis methods, which consist of looking at the observed anomalies in a coherent way. If one uses those methods, one observes coherence between the weight, urinary tract, and haematological anomalies in the animals fed GMOs.”

Commenting on evaluating procedures for GEOs, Jean-Michel Wal of the GEO group of the European Authority on Food Security, is cited as saying: “We don’t know how to study a food overall, whether it’s a GMO or not; there’s no norm.”

2. Regulation and safety testing of GEOs

We wish to raise serious concerns about New Zealand’s reliance on the approval process of US government agencies. The companies that develop and promote genetically engineered food crops generally carry out toxicological studies on the effects of consuming them. These studies are meant to then be double checked by food safety authorities, but the criticism is that the experiments are simply not reproduced [by the FDA], even though industry studies often show adverse biological impacts.

2.1. Inadequate and unsatisfactory regulation

The FDA declared genetically engineered foods are substantially equivalent to conventional foods. It ignored the warnings of its own scientists and put in place food rules that assume no unforeseen effects will occur and, therefore, no safety testing is required, for genetically engineered foods. This premise has been well proven to be wrong.

2.1.a. Early in 2000, German scientists discovered that antibiotic resistant marker (ARM) genes from engineered canola were transferring their resistance to the bacteria found in the guts of bees that had consumed pollen from the plants.

2.1.b. Earlier European Union studies had revealed that ARM genes found in genetically engineered foods could transfer into bacteria in the human gut as well as soil bacteria (http://www.organicconsumers.org/ge/genemarker.cfm ).

2.2. British Medial Association

Concerns were raised as long ago as 1999 when the British Medical Association called for a global moratorium on genetically engineered crops. The BMA were concerned that ARM genes would cause antibiotic resistance to develop in bacteria by horizontal gene transfer. Such resistance would serve to erode the effectiveness of antibiotics for humankind. Crops are still produced using ARM genes.

2.3. Recommended new safety test method

In 2006, agricultural economist, Dr Charles Benbrook – a former adviser to the Carter, Reagan and Clinton administrations – warned of serious concerns over safety in respect of generically engineered foods.5 He claims that these food crops should be re-tested using Australian food safety technology developed by the Australian National University. The failed pea trials were tested using it.

2.4. Instigating safety assessments

As a direct result of the failed pea trails (1.2), Western Australia has instigated an independent, long-term animal feeding trial to collect and assess data on the safety of GE food crops. New Zealand should also take the initiative.

3. Current applications for genetically engineered crops

Recent applications to Food Safety ANZ for the approval of foods derived from genetically engineered alfalfa and corn raise concerns.

a.. Food derived from glyphosate-tolerant Lucerne (Application A575) J101 and J163 for human consumption.

b.. Food derived from Monsanto’s high-lysine corn LY038 (Application A549) genetically engineered to have higher than usual levels of the amino acid, lysine, intended for animal feed.

It is stated that these will be used for animal feed, although some may find its way into human food products. PSRG maintains that the risks that it is intrinsically unwise to allow GE animal feed into the human food chain.

3.1. Transgenes in cows’ milk

In June 2004, a study was released by the Research Centre for Milk and Foodstuffs in Weihenstephan, Bavaria that showed that parts of the gene construct from RoundupReady soybean and from Bt176 maize was found in milk from cows fed these genetically engineered plants. The report says the gene segments may have got into the milk via feed or dust from the feed in the air. No further studies have been made to clarify the exact means by which the DNA fragments got into the milk. (See http://news.bbc.co.uk/.)

3.2. Transgenes in the gut bacteria of human volunteers

A study commissioned by the UK Food Standards Agency (FSA) and carried out at the University of Newcastle, demonstrated that DNA from a genetically engineered food – in this case soybean in the form of a burger and a milkshake – found its way into the gut bacteria of human volunteers. (See the FSA Report on http://www.foodstandards.gov.uk/.)

3.3. The long-term effects of ingesting material from transgenic sources on a daily basis have not been assessed.

4. Adverse effects of genetically engineered crops – MON 8106, 7, 8 Monsanto’s MON 810 corn produces an artificial, truncated version of a Cry toxin derived from the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis. This family of toxins has a pathogenic effect on Lepidopteron insects.

4.1. Genetically engineered plants are not equivalent to bio pesticides

A study spanning several years has monitored the quantity of Cry1Ab toxins in DK-440 BTY (MON 810) corn. Cry toxins are compounds that have gained acceptance in pest control (i.e., in bio pesticides such as DIPEL). However, genetically engineered plants are not equivalent to these bio-pesticides from the aspect of environmental analysis and ecotoxicology.

The principal difference with regard to toxin release is related to the extent and duration of exposure: while bio-pesticide applications release a small quantity of the toxin on a single or several occasions, the GE plant produces the toxin protein on a continuous basis, unnecessarily, during its entire vegetation cycle, as long as the gene section(s) added artificially to the plant and responsible for encoding the protein are active.6

4.2. Cry toxin produced in the entire plant during the whole growth period Székács et al6 have confirmed that the Cry toxin is produced in the plant during the whole period of growth. That is, in a dry plant, under moderate temperature, the toxin remains biologically active for several years. Post-harvest the maize stubble contains a significant quantity of Cry toxin. Cry toxin, over-wintering in the stubble, can be detected in plant residues after a period of one year.

4.3. Comparisons between bio pesticides and Bt plants

Székács et al compared the quantity of Cry-toxin proteins produced by the Bt-plant with the doses registered and permitted for their use in bio pesticides, and determined the toxin quantity in DIPEL. They found that MON 810 Bt-corn produces 1500-3000 times more Cry1Ab toxin than the Cry1Ab toxin dose corresponding to a single treatment with DIPEL.

They also found that only part of the toxin from the Bt-plant is decomposed during the growth period. Further, a significant part of the remaining quantity in the stubble enters the soil, where it may affect soil life (animals and micro-organisms).

4.4. Cry pollen and contamination

A study (Marva’s et al)7 carried out over several years looked at the possible effects of the pollen of DK-440 BTY corn grown in Nagykovácsi, Júlia-major, a valley where no maize was grown during the years concerned.

The distance of the intra-specific hybrid formation was examined on white, tassel-free maize and the results showed that pollen transfer could occur at 800 metres.

This poses risks for organically grown maize where zero tolerance is accepted for GE [Genetically Engineered – editor] -hybrids. Seeds developing from a traditional female blossom pollinated with cry gene- containing pollen (i.e., from MON 810), have a high probability (1/3) of acquiring the capability of producing the Cry1Ab toxin.

4.5. The effects on essential insect species

Around fields planted with Bt-corn hybrids, the Bt-pollen settled on weeds, presenting a danger to the hatching caterpillars of protected varieties of butterflies. This means that in the case of extensive Bt-corn cultivation, butterfly species could recede [that is, be damaged or extermated – editor].

A study by Béla Darvas and Éva Lauber8 found that insects developed resistance to the toxin content in Bt-corn leaves. The conclusion is that this will generate a growth in the number of insect populations on which Bacillus thuringiensis products – used almost exclusively in organic farming – will no longer have a suitable effect.

5. Food crops engineered to produce non-food [chemicals and pharmaceuticals -editor] products – the potential contamination of other engineered, conventional and organically grown crops.

In 2004, the US Department of Agriculture oversaw 67,000 acres of biotech field trials, some of which involved producing non-food products in a food crop. Corn is the most utilized food crop for engineered traits because it is easy to work with and produces a lot of grain. The concern is that food plants genetically engineered for non-food products could contaminate plants engineered as food crops and/or conventional crops, and enter the food supply as did StarLink’s Cry9C protein in 2000.

5.1. Report on the US Department of Agriculture as a regulator9

A recent report found that the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) has failed to properly oversee field trials of genetically engineered crops, including plants engineered to produce chemicals for medical and industrial uses. The report says that the USDA “lacks basic information” on field trial locations and what happens to the crops after harvest. For example, auditors located two harvested pharmaceutical crops in storage, about which the USDA knew nothing nor had it approved.

The two-year safety audit by the United States Office of Inspector General also found that: “Current (USDA) regulations, policies and procedures do not go far enough to ensure the safe introduction of agricultural biotechnology.”

6. Pharmaceutical drugs produced using genetic engineering technology

Some people react differently to proteins that are genetically engineered as against equivalent proteins that are produced naturally. Genetic engineering technology is not as precise or as predictable as chemical drugs because it relies on the intricate workings of complex living cells in the process of manufacture, and even the subtlest of changes in the process can have unpredictable results. Some drugs – e.g. human insulin – are created by engineering the required human gene into bacterial or animal cells.

PSRG [Physicians and Scientists for Responsible Genetics – REL] urges you, Prime Minister, to put safety before industry profit and instigate changes to the NZ system of regulation that will protect New Zealanders.

Signed by the Trustees of Physicians and Scientists for Responsible Genetics

Paul G Butler, BSc, MB, ChB, Dip. Obst. (Auckland), FRNZCGP General Practitioner, Trustee PSRG, AUCKLAND

John R Clearwater, BSc, MSc, PhD

Principal Scientist, Clearwater Research and Consulting, Trustee PSRG, AUCKLAND

Bernard J Conlon, MB, BCh, BAO, DCH, DRCOG, DGM, MRCGP (UK), FRNZCGP General Practitioner, Trustee PSRG, MURUPARA

Elvira Dommisse, BSc(Hons), PhD

Former Research Scientist, Trustee PSRG, CHRISTCHURCH

Michael E Godfrey, MBBS, FACAM, FACNEM

Director, Bay of Plenty Environmental Health Clinic, Trustee PSRG, TAURANGA

Neil Macgregor, BSc, MSc, PhD

Soil Microbiologist, Institute of Natural Resources, Massey University, Trustee PSRG, PALMERSTON NORTH
Peter R Wills, BSc, PhD
Associate Professor, University of Auckland, Trustee PSRG, AUCKLAND
Robert G Anderson, BSc, PhD
Lecturer retired, Trustee PSRG, TAURANGA
Jean Anderson
Businesswoman retired, Trustee PSRG, TAURANGA.
Signed on behalf of PSRG
Jean Anderson
Secretary
www.psrg.org.nz.
for the Trustees of Physicians and Scientists for Responsible Genetics

Posted in Activism, CODEX Consequences, GMOs, Hall of Shame | No Comments »

GM Files: Dolly on Your Dinner Table in Paris, London and Rome

Sunday, January 13th, 2008

You know we have to travel a lot to represent your interests at international meetings, such a Codex Alimenatrius. When I go to Europe I eat with a feeling of moderate confidence that my food, unless imported from the US, will be free of Genetically Modified (GM) ingredients. Moderate confidence, I say, because, as a meat eater I know that although food intended directly for people is, for the most part GM free, animals raised in the EU for human consumption can be fed GM feeds. The foreign DNA, and the artificially introduced antibiotic resistance which is used as a marker for GM techniques in the laboratory, are transmitted to the animal and then to you, the eater.

Vegetarians what are ready to take smug satisfaction from that fact, however, should consider that the EU authorities are adding new species of approved GM crops on a nearly daily basis. That means that the confidence with which you eat food in Europe should decline almost on a daily basis.

Now there is another kick to the consumer’s safety and confidence in Europe. “Probably safe” apparently is safe enough, at least for the EU regulators. Cloned food, now judged to be “probably safe”, is being approved in the US along with cloned meat. It is true, of course, that Dolly the cloned sheep died young and the health of other cloned animals is questionable over time. Dolly not only contracted a “common livestock disease” (What? Her immune system was not strong and effective in protecting her from it even with the superb care she must surely have been receiving?) and her cells showed signs of premature aging! What about your cells when you invite Dolly to dinner – and eat her? The cloned DNA was not actually identical in terms of keeping the animals alive and well over time. Well, to my mind, just as the foreign and unstable DNA in GM foods gets woven into your DNA and may provide one of the worst health disasters in human history, so cloned DNA may add to the debacle. Of course, according to the AP, the EU’s 47 page report, released this week, stated that “there was “only limited data available” on animal cloning” and it did urge consultation with scientists and consumer groups which have in the past objected to allowing such products onto the market.”

In the US, however, where there is just as little data available, the FDA has exercised no such caution. In fact, it has rushed headlong into the approval process for milk and meat and stipulates that because IT, the FDA, says that there is no danger (or at least no danger KNOWN – yet) both meat and milk will be permitted in our markets and our mouths. And when we find that cloned meat and milk are dangerous? Well, think Vioxx.

The headlong rush to make the Biotech industry happy [remember, a Monsanto employee was seated as a member of the US Delegation at last year’s Codex Working Group on Labeling Foods Derived from BioTechnology (that’s GM foods when you take away the fancy language) in Oslo] is a perfect example of why the FDA, controlled solely and totally, as far as anyone observing it can see, by the industries it supposedly regulated, MUST be divested of its food regulatory authority. Not only is the FDA clearly incapable of resisting the pressures – and payments – of Big Pharma, Big Biotech, Big Agribiz and all the other Bigs, it receives a significant portion of its operating budget from drug company “User Fees” and now wants to receive similar “User Fees” from the Food, Chemical and Biotech industries! This is a killer system. The consumer is the victim. As a consumer, an eater (and not a useless one, I would assert!), I find this industry-centric, consumer-contemptuous approach appalling.

Join the Natural Solutions Foundation, www.HealthFreedomUSA.org, www.GlobalHealthFreedom.org, in supporting protective standards for consumers, not the multinational corporations! Sign up today for our Health Freedom eAlerts and become part of the global community speaking for health freedom! Your data is safe with us. You have my promise.

Yours in health and freedom,
Dr. Rima

Rima E. Laibow, MD
Medical Director
Natural Solutions Foundation
www.HealthFreedomUSA.org
www.GlobalHealthFreedom.org

EU Report Says Cloned Food Probably Safe
There were no consumer advocates or independent scientists on that delegation, of course. IN a few weeks General Stubblebine and I will be attending this year’s iteration of that meeting in Ghana. It will be interesting to see who is sitting on the US Delegation this time!
Published: 1/11/08, 6:46 PM EDT

BRUSSELS, Belgium (AP) – Meat and milk from cloned animals is probably safe for humans, the European Union’s food safety agency said in a preliminary report released Friday. The report, by the European Food Safety Authority, seems likely to fuel new debate over whether the EU should allow cloned animals to enter the food chain.

The 47-page draft cautioned, however, that there was “only limited data available” on animal cloning. It urged consultation with scientists and consumer groups, which have in the past objected to allowing such products onto the market.

The EU’s Food Safety Authority, which is based in Italy, was directed by the EU’s executive office in Brussels last year to investigate what risks were involved in making projects for human consumption from cloned animals.

The 27-nation union currently has no laws regulating animal cloning and food. The European Commission is trying to decide whether legislation is needed, said Nina Papadoulaki, spokeswoman for EU Health Commissioner Markos Kyprianou.

“Based on current knowledge, there is no expectation that clones or their progeny would introduce any new food safety risks compared with conventionally bred animals,” the preliminary report said.

Papadoulaki said the commission hoped the report would help EU officials determine whether there is public support for allowing cloned food onto supermarket shelves.

She said the commission would seek further advice from an ethics group specializing in science and new technologies, which includes 15 scientists, philosophers, theologians and lawyers.

That group is scheduled to issue its own report on the “ethical aspects of animal cloning for food supply” on Jan. 16.

Some countries outside the EU are moving to permit cloned animals to enter the food chain.

The United States is expected to allow food from cloned animals onto the market sometime this year. A poll conducted in 2006 found, however, that 64 percent of Americans were uncomfortable with animal cloning.

The issue is also under review in Australia, New Zealand, Japan and Canada.

Scientists across Europe have for years investigated different animal cloning techniques. The most famous example was the cloning of Dolly the sheep in Britain. Dolly was euthanized in 2003 after she contracted a common livestock disease and her cells showed signs of premature aging.

Italian scientists cloned a racehorse in 2005, hoping to pass on genetic lines of champion thoroughbreds.

Copyright 2007 Associated Press. All rights reserved.
This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed

Posted in Activism, GMOs, International Cooperation, Medical Hazards, Miscellaneous | No Comments »

What Has the Natural Solutions Foundation Been Up To? Where are We Headed?

Monday, January 7th, 2008

November 26, 2007

Here is a look a the projects underway right now or being initiated in the near future by the Natural Solutions Foundation.

1. eDeclaration of Planetary Health and Freedom Rights

Giving due reference to the UN Declaration of Rights, The World Health Organization Declaration of Health Rights and the WHO Global strategy for Diet, Physical Activity and Health, the World Medical Association’s Declaration of Helsinki, the Wilmont Declaration and common law principles such as the The Herbalist’s Charter of Henry VIII, this document sets forth basic health and freedom principles for humanity to serve as a guide for national policy, organizational focus and NGO activity.

2. Protection Against Compulsory Vaccination and Drugging

a. A State By State Compulsory Drugging and Vaccination Exemption Handbook (in eBook and hard copy format) will be available to guide people wishing to apply for exemptions for themselves and other people

b. A Personalized Legal and Medical Consultation Program providing necessary information, guidance and documentation will be available for those wishing to have personalized help in securing exemptions to vaccination and drugging at the State levels.

c. a No Forced Drugging Forum will be created to allow people to share information and ideas to prevent forced drugging and vaccination

3. Legislator’s Health and Freedom eHandbook

In conjunction with the internationally significant Codex Two Step Process developed by our Codex Working Group and building on the existing legislative language which the natural Solutions foundation, in conjunction with advisors from other health and freedom organizations, the Natural Solutions Foundation proposes the creation of a Legislative Handbook to guide Federal and State legislators in reforming and “reframing” the legislative landscape to support health and freedom choices for consumers, purveyors and practitioners. Just as the Natural Solutions Foundation Codex Book (“Codex two Step Process”) () provides an example of the application of the legislative and regulatory framework which nations can use to protect their people and food supply from the errors embodies in Codex, so this handbook would provide a framework from which legislators can work. Other handbooks are in the planning stage.

4. New Media Communication Strategies for Effective Penetration of Information and Options

Tapping into the new internet expertise and creativity available to us, we have developed a program to capitalize on the working principles of the internet to shift from old media communications to new media ones at, as Bill Gates would say, “…the speed of thought…” Simply putting the equivalent of a page of printed matter up on the internet is no longer sufficient for effective communication. These new strategies, which the Natural Solutions Foundation is currently implementing (but which we propose for sharing with other members of the health and freedom community) include:

a. Participatory New Media Health Freedom Symposium where creatives and organizations which need their creativity can come together to create a synergistically productive outcome unforeseen by either segment before the meeting.
b. Social Networking to attract and hold the attention of the internet user community world-wide. Through video, “FaceBook” – like virtual communities, YouTube postings and other “New Media” options, the Natural Solutions Foundation is radically changing its place on the internet and becoming a world leader in Health Freedom New Communications with the highest internet traffic ratings of any health freedom site or organization.
c. Documentary film making can be part of either the old media or the new. We have chosen, with the collaboration Ecological Options Network to make it part of the new media through an innovative programmatic multimedia strategy. Instead of commissioning a full length DVD on Health Freedom and the Codex Agenda, we have instead evolved a program of stand-alone segments in a Health Freedom Library dealing with each of the current “hot button’ issues relevant to health freedom. This will allow the health freedom movement and the wellness industry to have information rapidly and accurately become available allowing us to build our circle of influence’s awareness and energy, generate funds, spur debate and educate decision makers on these issues. After completion of the rapidly generated health Freedom Library modules, the final interactive documentary/eresource will be produced as a permanent part of the new media.

5. Development of the Natural Solutions foundation’s virtual web store, www.Organics4U.org.

Because we see the potential so clearly to simultaneously support the Wellness Industry and the health Freedom Advocates and practitioners who depend on its products through the use of the virtual store that we have created, we would like to develop-p an affiliate program allowing all health freedom organizations who are members of the working coalition to participate and help fund their activities while showing their strong support for clean, unadulterated health products and services. A Supporter’s Emporium is currently being developed to allow other goods and services to become available to the growing member base of the health freedom movement.

6. Defending against CODEX: International Health Freedom Advocacy Coalition of Health Friendly Countries and NGOs

The Natural Solutions Foundation has developed an unparalleled network of health friendly developing countries through their on-the-ground advocacy at Codex and in the home countries of the members of this emerging power center. We have developed exceptional access to health decision makers (e.g., Dr. Laibow addressing 43 Health Ministers in Mombasa, Kenya on HIV and Avian Flue prevention strategies and other related issues as well as Codex implications for their people’s health and longevity). These nations actively seek our participation in their decision making process.

For example, a large and important developing nation sought our legal and medical review of its new supplement regulations and we were able to significantly influence the proposed very low upper limits to alter them to much more liberal ones). The Natural Solutions Foundation has been invited by the entire West African bloc to conduct a series of training and policy meetings in Africa prior to codex meetings to assist that bloc in developing their positions and their choreographed responses to Codex items at the forthcoming meetings. In fact, such a meeting was scheduled which included the Presidents and Ministers of health of all 16 west African nations just prior to the last Codex Alimentarius Commission meeting (July, 2007). Funding was promised but failed to materialize so the meeting was never held. The trust and faith which the emerging pro health collation of developing nations’ places in us was exemplified when, because of scientific information provided by the Natural Solutions foundation to our friendly countries, fluoride was prevented from being approved as an additive in infant formula for healthy babies. This decision was taken through our advocacy, over the vigorous objection of the United States, the EU, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, thus demonstrating the power of the model. and

While many issues pertain most strongly to the developing nations, there is an urgent need for leadership domestically as well as internationally on issues like vaccination, especially compulsory vaccination; other forms of compulsory drugging and limitation of factual information about the health benefits of food and traditional, natural and advanced therapies. The Natural Solutions Foundation has played a pivotal role in alerting and activating consumers and decision makers to these issues.

It is important to note that the Natural Solutions foundation’s continuing presence at Codex has allowed the Health Freedom voice to have a clear window on the interrelationship between adverse policies brought forward in Codex and the implementation of those same adverse policies through domestic regulation and legislation.

7. Creative Legislator Education (incorrectly sometimes called “lobbying”) and Litigation programs to preserve, protect, defend and restore Health and Freedom domestically and internationally.

With sufficient financial support from industry and interested donors, we believe that the legal recourses open to us are of significant potential in establishing case law to solidify health Freedom domestically and internationally.

a. The Natural Solutions Foundation has retained an experienced legislative consultant, Charles Frohman. Ideally, this activity, which currently employs the Trustees of the Foundation for 4 days a month in Washington DC . The relationships being developed have allowed us to engage in productive dialogues on a number of issues with Members of Congress.

b. We have supported the co-sponsorship of legislation to prevent parents from being forced to vaccinate or medicate their children (the importance and timeliness of which was tragically demonstrated on November 17 when 1600 parents were threatened with jail and fines if they failed to vaccinate, or in some cases, re-vaccinate, their children when either the school had lost their records or the parents did not wish to have them vaccinated.

c. The Natural Solutions Foundation has taken the lead in calling for hearings on the process of divesting the FDA of its food regulatory responsibility and numerous legislators are now seeking our input for legislative language for bills of interest to them.

8. Health Freedom Score Card

Working on the conviction that Health Freedom must be a topic of vigorous debate in the Presidential election discussion, the trustees of the natural Solutions Foundation were delighted to comply with the request they received from a Presidential Campaign to draft the Candidate’s Health Freedom Plank. Through a Health Freedom Score Card, which asks 19 tough questions of the Candidates regarding their public health freedom policies we have brought the issue into greater prominence through nearly 100,000 emails and faxes to the Presidential Candidates.

9. Citizens petitions

Authorized by the First Amendments, Citizens Petitions are a legal mechanism to challenge government policies. We have initiated a Citizens Petition to force the FAD to abandon its declared harmonization policy with Codex restrictions on nutrient values. About 125,000 Americans have joined the Citizens Petition through signed documents.

Additional Citizens Petitions are in the planning stage.

10. International Decade of Nutrition: Hope for the Word through dynamic empowerment and the dissemination of natural solutions to the ancient twin scourges of mankind: hunger and disease.

Part of the solution to the health freedom threats lies in the Natural Solutions Foundation dynamic and far-reaching “International Decade of Nutrition”. Because we understand that there is enough information already available to solve the world’s hunger problems and to eliminate most of the diseases of under-nutrition and water-born, parasite and other organism-based diseases, the Natural Solutions foundation has inaugurated a program to

a. Reclaim sustainable organic farming and disseminate the necessary advanced and under-utilized, low-tech, high impact technologies to allow farmers to gain the economic advantage to resist Agribiz and stay in their communities and on their farms while growing food without pesticides and other chemicals

b. Apply already existing, but little known technologies to eliminate parasitic and other organism-based diseases without the use of dangerous and expensive pharmaceuticals, pesticides, fungicides and other toxic chemicals through the use of inexpensive, effective and easily managed options

c. Widespread dissemination of information which empowers and reinforces the autonomy of populations currently disenfranchised from access to traditional, natural and advanced therapies.

Conclusion: the time has never been more opportune for strategically significant alliance by serious and successful groups in the health Freedom movement to exploit the opportunities developed by the Natural Solutions Foundation (supported by astute and sophisticated donors who understand the gravity of the threat and the potency of the opportunity which we bring to the planetary community and the domestic one as well).

Posted in Activism, Citizen's Petition, International Cooperation, International Decade of Nutrition, Miscellaneous, Promising Developments, Vaccination | No Comments »

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »