Archive for January, 2008

« Older Entries

The Revolt of the Health Conscious Nations: Codex GM Working Group – Days 2 & 3

Thursday, January 31st, 2008

To read Dr. Rima’s blog on Day One of the Ghana Codex Working Group on the Labeling of Foods Obtained from Genetic Modification/Genetic Engineering, go to: http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/index.php?p=512

Day Two, January 29, 2008 passed much the same way as Day One. There was a mixture of excruciating (to me) trivia intermingled with decisions that could have life and death impact on the lives of people all over the world.

As a US Citizen, I was not proud of the side that my government, through the person of the FDA’s Barbara Schneeman, consistently took. But I was proud and thrilled by the position that Norway, Japan, Russia, the EU and others consistently took in response when they defended and inserted mention of the rights of consumers to have the information they wanted against the constant pressure of the US and its allies to prevent consumer access to truthful information. (By the way, although I took verbatim notes of the 3 days, my computer will not go on line at this hotel so I do not have access to those notes right now. When I can get that computer back on line, I will post them in their entirety for you to read if you like. Some of you will find the nitty gritty of a Codex meeting fascinating, some will find it laughable. I find it both.)

See Day 1 for details of the new unilateral “background” document the US sought to use to control the event. The Working Group’s thrust was powerful to find a way to make this Background Paper an official Codex document and while other options for forward movement toward consensus would come to the floor, there was no other option presented which had so much traction or forward momentum. The other options kept flopping, as it were, off the table and gasping for air on the floor. Fish out of water.

On the afternoon of the second day, during the lunch break, the EU and other interested countries came up with some proposals to give the background paper a proper “chapeau” (French for “hat”) or heading. The US helped to craft a proposal for a chapeau which quickly became two chapeaux. The wording and concepts proposed by the US seemed benign enough: ‘Foods are safe when they come to market and labeling is not a substitute for safety.’ ‘This document was for the use of countries as they developed their own framework for the labeling of GM foods’ and other balsamic-sounding phrases. But if an official Codex document says that foods on the market (like GM “foods”) are safe by the time they get there, then a nation keeping GM foods out because of safety concerns might be creating a barrier to trade in the eyes of the WTO, mightn’t it?

If the document was for use by Codex member countries, might the use of anything not in that document constitute a barrier to trade since this document was the one that they were supposed to be guided by in such regulations? And so on. It all sounded wonderfully friendly but, looked at from the point of view of Codex/WTO trade sanction strategy which could be used to force an end to the mandatory labeling which the US opposes so strongly, it was a very dangerous document, indeed.

Yes, the day ended with the purveyors of half truths and distortions quite satisfied.

Day 3: January 30, 2008 Africa to the Rescue!

By the time the third day dawned, things were different. Norway continued to insist that the background document preamble (the “chapeau”) HAD to include the fact that preferences of consumers was a reason for regulatory requirements for labeling (the labels exist to inform consumers… duh). The US continued to reject any mention of the consumer’s needs and preferences and said that they were not relevant (Hmm, if not for the consumer, why have any label… the US position is quite batty).

Norway, in the spirit of conciliation, suggested changing “consumers” to “countries” in the statement that said that their preferences were different in different places. The US objected. But so did Nigeria, one of the authors of the Background Paper. “No”, said the Codex Contact Point of Nigeria, a fine lady who really cares about what she is doing at Codex. “No!” , Mrs. Eschiet repeated. “The issue here is not countries. The mandate of Codex is first to protect the health of consumers and it is consumers, not countries, who should be protected here. Let us change the word back to ‘consumers’ ” she said. There was nothing the US could do at that point except to state that they did not support this wording. But the US had an even bigger surprise in store. It was just about time to get out those “queasy stomach” prescriptions that Big Pharma likes to sell by the ton.

Member nations started presenting other Codex texts that the US sponsored “background” paper had left out… fancy that, people who didn’t want to inform the consumers not informing their Codex colleagues! And then the delegates began to suggest that they be included!

They began to introduce principles from CCGP, the Codex Committee on General Principles and from other Codex documents which supported the right of countries to make their own decisions, and of consumers to make theirs through adequate information.

The US delegation appeared to become quite unhappy. Sitting where I was I could see the vigorous head-shakes and the vigorous consultations between members of the Delegation including the people from the Department of Commerce, the biotech and grocery manufacturer’s people and others on the delegation whose identify I did not learn. This is not the usual demeanor of the US delegation, to say the least.

Things got more difficult for the no-right-to-know contingent as the session progressed. It was so encouraging to see people from around the world defending the consumer’s right to know.

The Natural Solutions Foundation has long maintained that concerted effort on the part of the developing nations and those who also do not see multinational corporate interests as their own can change the direction of Codex radically. We have also maintained that if this happened, Codex might become the greatest force for health and well being on the planet that the world has ever seen. If what we saw during this meeting, particularly at the end of it, is any indication of the beginning of a trend, we are right!

At the same time, we believe that, left unchanged as a playground for the greed (and worse) of the corporate interests which the US serves in all of its dealings within Codex, the impact of that organization can be disastrous to the lives and well-being of literally billions of people.

Well, what happened today, on the last day of the deliberations of this Working Group, was a confirmation that the first outcome is, in fact, a real possibility. We have been working with developing countries reminding them that, as a group, they are incredibly powerful. Acting in concert, they can control what happens at Codex and act in their own best interest, not be dragged along to act in the best interest of the developed world and the multinational corporations. That is part of the message we have been delivering at Codex meetings in our conferences with the delegates of the developing countries and on the ground, in their home countries. That is, in fact, one of the biggest reasons that we travel to these places and meet with their decision makers. The other, of course, is to promote their use of the Codex Two Step Process so that they can protect their health and avoid crippling World Trade Organization trade sanctions at the same time.

You see, many of the African states, who understand how dangerous GM foods are and fear their impact on their people and on their land, had met and had come up with absolutely brilliant modifications to the “chapeaux” (background document heading) that the US proposed. By taking out many of the future WTO mine fields (that the no-right-to-know gang had included in the initial draft of the document) while quoting from the Codex texts to get the wording precisely correct, they created a preamble to the document that protected their choices for labeling but cut the cheese from the carefully crafted mouse trap. They left out the provision about safety, leaving open the very real possibility that a food could have been brought to market which turns out not to be safe. Other countries supported them strongly. The US said that if this modification were to be adopted by the Working Group they would not be able to support the document and reiterated this several times.

When the group showed no signs of backing down, Dr. Schneeman had what would be classified, in my professional and personal opinion, as a “hissy fit”. She became (literally) red in the face and complained strongly to the chair persons that all the hard work of the past year was wasted in the face of this modification and that she was personally upset. And, indeed, she sounded personally upset. In fact, we overheard one member of the US delegation saying as he walked out for a break that the US was “getting slammed”. Dr. Schneeman certainly appeared to be aware that she, her paper, the US position and, by my estimate, its future WTO strategy, were, indeed, getting slammed.

That is not the same thing as the American people getting slammed; in fact, if the Right to Know countries succeed, Americans will be closer to having “truthful and not misleading” food labels regarding such matters as GM status, irradiation and the like. Codes, it seems, can be a double edged sword.

As they provided support for the African position, other countries as well noted relevant Codex texts which the US/Canadian/Nigerian background document did not mention, allude to or acknowledge. Principles for safety and labeling, for Risk Assessment of GM foods and for other strategies to protect the consumer’s health were brought forward to give countries latitude to protect its people and not be assaulted legally via trade sanctions. Africa became stronger and stronger and the US lost, it seemed to me, more and more ground.

At the end, the document’s chapeaux and the document itself were left for further consideration at CCFL this coming April in Ottawa. So the battle continues.

With your continuing financial help (urgently needed, by the way – make your generous tax deductible recurring donation at the link below) we can, indeed, continue to support the emergence of these alliances which can give strength to the push back against the multinational agendas. It happened here. It can happen everywhere in Codex. We need your continued support to be able to attend the Codex food labeling committee in Ottawa, where the battle will continue.

Donate here: http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/index.php?page_id=189

We had the opportunity to speak at significant intensity and length to African delegates and tell them about our International Decade of Nutrition to help them feed themselves and to help them use the Codex Two Step process to make sure that their laws and food supply support health, not profit for the corporations which will exploit them… to death. We passed out our materials, the Codex Book and “Nutricide: the DVD” – the indispensable story of what Codex is, and how it came to be. The updated version contains the special video made specifically to explain the Codex Two Step to Codex delegates. You can find them on our web site, www.healthfreedomusa.org

And some wonderful news, thanks to your support!

The Natural Solutions Foundation was told that it can expect two more official letters of invitation from two more African governments to bring not only the International Decade of Nutrition, our technology and our assistance in producing clean and abundant food to these countries, but to bring our Codex information and strategy as well. We were invited by the host country, Ghana, to the Codex Committee for Africa, CCAfrica, in 2009, a year from now.

As you may recall, we will be in Ghana for a few days and then traveling to another West African country, followed by a middle eastern one and then an East African one for exactly these purposes. We are recording it all for the Codex documentary. You can easily understand that we do not want to advertise our travel plans right now since we do not want the considerable weight of the US’ 5000 lb ‘trade gorilla” to sit on these countries before they have developed their strategy for dealing with that consequence. But there is something that I will share with you. As of today, right here, right now, we do not have enough money to complete the trip. I cannot believe, however, that you will let us down. We need your generous support and we need it now.

Donate here: http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/index.php?page_id=189

• We need it to build health freedom in the US and the rest of the world.
• We need it to reclaim food for you and your brothers and sisters around the world.
• We need it to change Codex into the most potent health force the world has ever seen.

You can be sure, by the way, that as that happens, the multinationals will try to kill it.

So think carefully about how much your health freedom is worth to you. $1 per week? $10 per week? $100 per month? How about a matching grant? All of your donations to the Natural Solutions Foundation are tax deductible since we are a tax exempt 501 ( c ) (3) organization.

Donate here: http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/index.php?page_id=189

Oh, yes, one other thing: if you donate $100 or more to help fund our Codex/Health Freedom Video, we’ll give you a really nice “Thank you!” in the final version of this made for TV full length documentary! There is a special link on the donation page for that. Our wonderful videographers Mary Beth and Jim are getting some excellent footage and we’ll be able to show you what it is like to be where your heath and freedom are at stake.

Thanks.
Yours in health and freedom,
Dr. Rima
Rima E. Laibow, MD

Posted in Activism, CODEX Consequences, GMOs, International Decade of Nutrition, Medical Hazards | No Comments »

Good News from Codex – Day 1, GM Working Group

Thursday, January 31st, 2008

Good News From Codex
Day One: Attending the Codex Working Group on Labeling GM Foods, Accra, Ghana
January 28, 2007

The Revolt of the Health Conscious Nations…

General Stubblebine and I have been traveling for days, now, and we finally arrived in Accra to attend the Working Group on labeling of foods obtained through Genetic Modification (GM) or Genetic Engineering (GE).

First, a definition: what is GE? I have no idea. As far as I can tell, it is another term for Genetic Modification (inserting a gene into the DNA of something to make that something into something else so you can patent it and then, if you are in the US, getting the FDA [if it is food] and USDA [if it is food that now produces drugs or vaccines] to collude with you in order to pretend that it is the same as the thing that it used to be before you changed it so that you could patent it in the first place.

Of course, if it were really the same thing as it was before you messed with its genome, you would not be able to patent it and make vast profits from selling it to people who do not realize –YET – that it is bad for them and the environment). While you are at the GM/GE process, you will insert some bacterial genes, too, that are resistant to some antibiotic or other so that you can check whether your insertions have worked (spreading antibiotic resistant genes around, of course) and will probably use some other types of handy-dandy DNA, like viral stuff, for example, while you are at it. Don’t worry about the fact that bacteria pick up and share DNA, like the stuff you introduced into the food in the first place, or the antibiotic resistant gene you inserted for your laboratory convenience.

Those shared DNA bits can, of course, make ordinary, beneficial bacteria (“pro-biotics”) drug resistant and their anaerobic cousins, the pathogens or disease causing ones, drug resistant, too. After all, unless you get an infection and want to have it treated with antibiotics (say, for example, Multi Drug Resistant Tuberculosis or MSRA (methycillin resistant Staph Aureus) which was apparently created in a Big Pharma lab in Europe and dumped down the sink into the sewers of the world by the same careful, caring type of lab workers who have brought you GM/GE foods.

And then, not only do the new genes do what you want, maybe, they also do things that no biological thing has ever done before and create (“code for”) substances in your body that no living creature has ever created before. These Franken Molecules (from Franken Foods) are the Biotech industry’s great, and to me, illegal experiment: you have not given them your signed informed consent for the great program of “Let’s see what happens when we adulterate 80% + of the American Diet with these Franken Genes and not tell anybody that they are eating them because we have convinced the FDA to declare Franken Foods administratively identical to natural ones without examining the science behind them or conducting their own tests.

We will also convince our dear friends at the FFDDA (that’s the Franken Food and Deadly Drug Administration) that they will NOT ALLOW, that’s right, NOT ALLOW, people who make foods to label food that do contain Franken Molecules. And, showing that those health friendly folks at the FDA have a great sense of humor, they indicate on their website that the issue of liability (that is, payment if you are harmed by this Franken Food, will be determined “by the Courts”. Neat trick, of course, if there is no labeling since without it, there is NO traceability and therefore NO liability. By the way, according to the World Medical Association’s Helsinki Declaration, experimenting on people without fully informed, voluntary consent is a gross violation of basic Human Rights.

While the good people of the US have stood still for this (remember that fluoride in their water made the political prisoners of Stalin’s Russia so complaint that their keepers could do anything they wanted with them without their putting up a fuss), a good deal of the rest of the world has not bought into this “Better living through GM” routine.

The European Union, for example, although it imports huge amounts of GM corn and soy from the US to feed its animals (which get the foreign DNA stuck in their own genes and then transfer them to you when you eat them!) still insists that food containing GM components MUST be labeled so the consumer – that would be you if you are buying or eating food in Paris or Rome or Bratislava – can decide if they want to eat it or not. Norway believes that the right of the consumer to know what they are getting when they buy food is so compelling that the government requires that food be labeled if it has any GM ingredients.

Brazil, Japan, Russia and a host of other countries have mandatory labeling requirements for GM foods which the US opposes with all of its corporate-directed might. It has been opposing the right of countries to self-determine in this way through Codex for the best part of two decades. And in one of the most inspiring displays of national autonomy and decision making that I am aware of in Codex history, a consortium of nations have been opposing the US’s bitter battle to make sure that they can not, may not, must not, inform their consumer’s of the GM components in their food. Why? Because, as the US delegate told the assembled folks last year at the same meeting we are attending this year, the FDA’s own research and independent research both confirm that consumers will reject food if they know it is GM’d or GE’d. In fact, research all over the world shows the same thing. People instinctively know that turning food into “food” is not OK with them and they don’t want to eat it if they can help it.

The FDA wants to “protect” you from making a “bad” decision about what to put into your own body… no matter that its “concern” for us food consumers is just a cover for its real agenda; no matter it is acting contrary to US law. The US Supreme Court held in 2002 in the case of Thompson v Western States Medical Centers, “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.” [535 U.S. 357]

More and more people also know that the foods that the FDA has administratively decided are safe is, in fact, more and more clearly dangerous in a big way. [Link to: Mae Wan Ho article]. Click here (link) to read the latest summary of why you really don’t want to eat this stuff written by a gifted and dedicated independent scientist. By the way, organic food is actually your only defense. Yes, it is more expensive but how much does cancer, auto immune disease or infertility cost?

So two years ago, at the 2005 Codex Committee on Food Labeling (CCFL) in Ottawa, the US tried something new. It proposed to CCFL that they drop the discussion totally and let countries do whatever they wanted. Its bid to compel the rest of the world to adopt its own weird (and potentially deadly) prohibition on consumer right to know about GM foods had failed miserably to attract adherents on a global basis. True, the usual cast of suspects, Argentina, Australia, Mexico, Canada, New Zealand, supported the US in dismissing the rights of consumers to know what they are eating, but more and more countries have passed what they call “mandatory labeling regulations” which say that foods MUST list their GM ingredients. Now, at first blush that might seem like a great thing. The reality is that the mandatory labeling countries realized that without some international agreement, the US could ship them whatever they wanted and they would not be able to keep it out of their countries even if, like the EU and Norway, they have the sophisticated labs necessary to detect the contamination. If they did keep it out, the World Trade Organization (WTO) could well imposed huge trade sanctions against them for creating a “Barrier to Trade”.

Norway, figuratively, leaped to its feet and said, “NO! Let’s keep talking! Let’s hold a working group (semi formal group often used in Codex to work out problems which the full committee cannot seem to solve or accomplish a special task) to find what Codex loves to call “a Way Forward”. Ghana agreed to co chair and so did Argentina.

A year ago next week, the Working Group session was held for 2 days in Oslo. The US was there, and so was the Natural Solutions Foundation. You may recall that the US delegate famously explained why the US forbids the labeling of GM “foods” in order to prevent consumers from knowing the truth about the food since it might lead them to reject it when they should not and therefore, said Dr. Barbara Schneeman, the truth would be “false and misleading”. This year, the meeting is being held in the home country of a co-chair, Ghana. And instead of two days, it was a 3 day meeting since more time was needed. And, of course, the Natural Solutions Foundation was there representing your interests, making contacts with nations who, in turn, need to know that they have support in opposing the US and the multinational corporations in order to protect their people and their land. And, oh by the way, the world food supply is increasingly planetary. As long as “cheap” oil lasts, many of these countries are, or are about to be, food exporters so you will be eating what they produce. If it is laden with pesticides and contaminated by wandering DNA, you’ll be eating it. If it is clean and wholesome, you’ll be eating that, too.

So General Stubblebine and I left Thailand, where we were working on alliances with other like-minded people and NGOs and went to Panama to find the land for the Panama project. We found that land and if you would like to know more, and perhaps get involved, use the link below to read more.

http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/index.php?p=511

Then we got on a plane, had a long enough stop over in New York to have a No Forced Vaccine lunch with a group of vigorous and committed activists and then got on the plane for Ghana.

Want to know more about why forced vaccination is on your horizon and your children’s and what you can do about it? Click the link below to join the No Forced Vaccination Forum –

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/no-forced-vaccination/join

We got to Ghana and got picked up by the GIMPA Executive Hostel folks (that’s where the meeting was being held. That was the good news. The bad news was that internet was only a figment of someone’s imagination. Over the next 3 days, despite paying a lot of money (now refunded) for connection and waiting literally hours for pages to load (which they never did) there was no way for me to reach out and touch anyone (or write to you or pay bills, etc.)

What happened? Well, Day 1 was a day like all other days in Codex. The US tried mightily to control the process to the ends of its multinational friends. Among those friends were the Biotech Industry and the International Grocery Manufacturers Association whose representatives, as near as I could make out, were once again on the US delegation. The US and Canada, along with Nigeria, presented a background paper as “a Way Forward” which contained selected Codex texts to guide countries which wanted to determine their own labeling strategy (voluntary or mandatory). Although I did not have internet access in (or out of ) the meeting room and could therefore not check the cited texts or others, it seemed pretty clear to me that these three countries had rather carefully chosen just those texts which helped them in the chess game by planning several moves ahead. What chess game? The WHO tournament where the stakes are high enough to destroy the fragile economy of a developing (read “poor”) country. You see, it looks to me as if the US were carefully choosing only those sections which could be interpreted against a mandatory labeling country seeking to keep unlabeled US products out of their country in their “Background paper” and carefully defining things in ways which seemed benign on the surface but which were booby trapped from here to Kingdom Come once adopted.

The “Background Paper” was so useful to a variety of nations that they wanted to see it become an official Codex document (score 1 for the US). Once that happens, its contents could then be the basis for forcing countries to admit unlabeled GM foods since there a pot full of essential principles (like the protective – in this case – Precautionary Principle that says that if something is not known to be safe, you cannot use it under Codex, like any mention of how to evaluate GM foods for safety, which is weak enough in Codex but completely absent from this document, etc.)

The US modestly accepted the praise of the other states and agreed that “the Way Forward” could include getting this very lop sided document (as I see it) into the process of making it an official Codex document. It was a bit weird procedurally, I thought, to try to make things that were already part of Codex a separate Codex text, but, then, I am not in the “12-moves-ahead-get-ready-for-the-WTO-dispute-resolution-process” game.

Norway continually reminded the group that the Right of Consumers to Know was paramount and the US opposed that notion in a variety of ways. People raised safety issues and the US said that the safety issue was already settled by the time a food came to market so there was no safety issue to be considered… (!)

That’s all for now.

Rima E. Laibow, MD

PS – We are on the scene for you and your health. To be able to be here, we need your support. Please make your donation to help us bring you reports such as the above –

http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/index.php?page_id=189

————–
Days Two and Three:
http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/index.php?p=513

Posted in The Law & CODEX | No Comments »

Santa Clara, Panama – the Natural Solutions’ “Sacred Light” ARC

Wednesday, January 30th, 2008

Memorandum from Dr. Laibow
January 30, 2008

As many of you know, as we’ve been traveling around the US and the world for health and freedom, we’ve been looking for places where we can demonstrate the benefits of natural solutions. We’re working with people in countries such as Thailand, India and several African countries on advanced natural remedies, increased farm production and similar projects. Along the way, we visited the famed Valley of the Ancients in Ecuador, where many inhabitants live to very old age and have explored the Vulcan Baru temperate forests of the Panama – Costa Rico border area. We’re hoping to find the right place to establish our ARC – our Advanced Renewal Community. This project will demonstrate natural solutions to food (better than organic), energy (off the grid) and health (a advanced wellness center) in an intentional community setting.

I have wonderful news for all of us! We found THE land, not just land, but THE land. Yesterday, I wrote a list of the things that we need the land to be:

High altitude
Cool micro climate
Decent access road
Water on the land which does not dry up
Never had pesticides or other chemicals on the land
Virgin soil with outstanding fertility
Astonishing, heart-lifting vistas
Neighbors who do not use pesticides to eliminate the possibility of drift
Borders on a National Forest to prevent development
Reasonable price
Secluded location

We have seen a number of places but none that met most, let alone all, of our requirements. Until today, that is! The land is verdant and full of wonderful, rich greens… a high altitude (4,000 to over 5,000 feet above rising sea level…) temperate forest with a very pleasant climate.

Here’s what happened last week: Our contractor/local guru Kenneth is back in town and has been helping us a great deal. He found a person with land who said that his cousin had land and showed us what the land would look like by taking us to the other side of the mountain range where his cousin’s land is located and asking if we liked what we saw. We loved it. It was high (at least 4000 feet), verdant and beautiful, so we said that we wanted to go see the actual finca (farm) the next day.

The next day was everything we could have imagined. Julio, the man with the cousin with the finca, met us in at the base of the access road to the finca and we got into a 4 wheel drive vehicle to make the climb. And climb we did! By the time we got to the base of the finca, we were at 4007 feet according to Steven’s altimeter. We changed 4 wheel drive trucks and went on up the first hill of the finca. It is spread over all or part of 5 mountains which are either pastures which have been used to graze cattle but never treated with herbicides (unlike the first piece we saw) or wooded areas of magnificent trees or, on a small protion, an organic coffee plantation. Backing it, at its rear boundary, is a Panamanian National Forest: no worries about development here. On the first flat area, there is a docile herd of bulls which really did not want to give us the right of way but the horn on the truck
convinced them to saunter off.

Moving along, we saw magnificent slopes and heard the gurgle of a river/stream. In the rainy season, it is a river. In the dry season, just beginning it is a considerable stream. It arises just above the land in a waterfall and falls down in more water falls to a steep gorge which it has created when it is in spate during the rainy season. The sound is lovely. It is crystal clear and, after we test it, I will be willing to kneel by its side and drink from if. After we test it. The potential for hydro-power is very real.

So we walked with the mountains and pastures at our left side and the river valley on our right. Across the river valley is another set of hills rising up with either trees or pastures on them. In one of the photos, when you look closely, you can see a horizontal line that might be a road. It is. It is about 2/3 to 3/4 of the way up the hill in front of you. That is the upper limit of the property on that hill but it goes to the top of the hill on the left and the one on the right. Again, the land is brilliant greens and not at all dry!

So we climbed up a short way again and found ourselves in the most magnificent grove of old growth trees on the side of the river. There are some coffee plants there which are organic. We learned today that coffee grown lower than a certain elevation gets fungi and pests and that is why it is fumigated and pesticide. Coffee at this elevation, however, is immune to these hazards and does not need to be sprayed with chemicals. Oh, a correction: there is a small amount of coffee plantation lower down which has been fumigated. We will tear it out. The flat area where the bulls were hanging out (about 7 hectares or 17.5 acres) is a great place for us to begin the organic + farm and farm school. The Panama Organic Growers are wonderful people and we expect to have a great cooperative relationship with them.

The grove could be almost anything and the sites for community and individual houses are varied and beautiful, allowing many different construction possibilities. There is ample sun, wind and, with the cooperation of the neighbors from whom we will buy the land (a very high possibility: more about that later), there is a huge hydraulic head which can power hydroelectric when the dry season reduces the flow of water in the river. There are also two springs that rise on the land and do not go dry, but they are rather scanty right now.

One of the mountains includes property on the other side of the ridge and, in fact, has a wide, flat area on the top. We were promised that the views would be astonishing.

We got back into the 4 wheel drive truck and headed off for a 10 minute ride. (There are two dimensions to time and space in Panama: everything is either 10 minutes or 2 kilometers. This was both. So off we went. However, the presence of a very big tree across the road meant that we had to get out and walk. The road would have been fine for a 4 wheel drive car. For us, it was easy walking but went up and up and up and up and up…. By the time we had been walking for at least 30 minutes, I had no more stamina to continue because I have not been at the top of my form physically with all the traveling we’ve had to do (I am fine, just tired) so I said that I would go back down while the others continued. You see, I knew what was up there. I had seen it in a dream that morning and had total certainty of what was up there. So the others went up and I went down and started to meditate. The result of that was very positive for me in the context of what we were considering: buying this land.

When Bert, leading the others, came down, he showed me the pictures he had taken of the vistas (I will mount them on forum when I can) and I was not surprised to see exactly what I had seen in my dream. That gets your notice. It sure got mine and, I dare say, Bert’s.

In a nut shell, the vistas are breathtaking. You can see Volcan Baru and its mountain range. You can see the Pacific Ocean. They are in different directions. Imagine what it is like. You can see the ranges of mountains as they march to the horizon. You can see the clouds and the blue sky. You can see to the end of the known world. And the air and light are truly magnificent.

The finca is owned by a young man named Carlos. When Kenneth said that Bert was a General and I was a doctor practicing Natural Medicine and that we were “concerned with developments in the US”, Carlos said, “They should be! The US is poisoning the air to poison the people to give the pharmaceutical companies more profit!” So he gets it I didn’t have to rant even a little bit!

He also, along with his mother, who owns the rest of the 300 Hectares from which our 100 hectares will be sold, is a land preservationist, conservationist and organic farmer. Nice neighbors. When he heard what we were doing, he got very interested and said that he would like to help in any way possible.

Incredible find. By the way, the elevation goes from 4007 to 5707 feet. The climate is eternal spring. The name of the area, Santa Clara, can be translated as Sacred Light…

Now for the nitty gritty: They offered the land to another group for $30,000 per hectare because they did not want to sell it to them! The price they are asking of us is $15,000 per Hectare but they may come down a bit more, maybe $12,000 per hectare or perhaps a little lower. The land will thus cost about $1.2 Million (or perhaps a bit less) and the infrastructure (roads, electric cables, internet cables, water pipes, etc.) is estimated very
roughly to cost about 3 to 4 Million (but could be somewhat less) The money we have to raise works this way: Stage 1: 10% of purchase price (approximately $120,000) Stage 2: Remaining 90% to purchase land Infrastructure can either be paid for by funds we raise or by loans from the bank once we own the land. We will be able to raise approximately 40% of the purchase price of the land as a loan. Clearly, it is better to self fund.

The way purchase is done here is as follows: we put up 10% of the agreed upon price (let us say we agree to $1.2 Million US). That means we put up $120,000 as earnest money. We tell them that we need, say 120 days to make our arrangements. During that time, according to the contract, we have the soil tested, the water tested, any borings for footings, etc., that we need, we make sure that the boundaries are as represented, we test the aquafer, we make sure that the title is clear, etc., etc. If everything checks out, then we are responsible to give them the rest of the money and the land is ours. If things do not check out, then we get our money back. If we fail to come up with the rest of the money, we either loose all of our deposit or half of it, depending on the contract. Obviously, we need to be serious about doing his if we put down the earnest money.

I need to hear from anyone who is interested in moving forward with this project. We are looking for an Angel or two and know that our Angel is out there, in cyberspace. There has been some excellent discussion during the week here in Panama of questions that we have not yet covered. Later I will try to post a summary of these discussions on the forum. If we are, in fact, interested in this project in a real way, we need to hammer out any questions we have and find the answers. We also need to commit to either financial capital in multiples of $50K Beneficial Interest Shares or social capital or a combination of both to allow us to buy this land, build its infrastructure and create the community we have talked about.

There is real time pressure on this. Americans and other people are crawling over this area to buy land before the value shoots up like Boquete, 30 minutes south of here (a town that has about 20% of its inhabitants from the US.

This really is, according to my best judgment, and Bert’s, a phenomenal opportunity. I hope you choose to make this your reality, too! If you want to be invited to join our NSF-Panama Yahoo!Group forum, please email me at dr.laibow@gmail.com and put “PANAMA” in the subject line.

Rima Laibow, MD

Posted in The Law & CODEX | No Comments »

Petition to FTC to Stop False Vaccine Advertisements

Tuesday, January 29th, 2008

Filed: April 15, 2008 – FTC Miscellaneous Matter No. P002501

Natural Solutions Foundation

March 6, 2008 (rev 03/28/08)1

The Federal Trade Commission
Attn: Commissioners
600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20580

VACCINATION ADVERTISING & LABELING
CITIZENS’ PETITION
With Request for Emergent Relief

To: Donald S. Clark, Secretary
To the Commissioners of the
Federal Trade Commission of the
United States of America

Introduction

1.0. Overview:

The Natural Solutions Foundation, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as the Foundation) and all those who hereafter join (hereinafter jointly referred to as the Petitioner/s), do hereby PETITION the United States Federal Trade Commission (hereinafter, the FTC and or the Federal Agency) regarding the matter of the Advertising of Vaccinations. The Foundation is a nongovernmental organization (NGO) incorporated in the State of Nevada and recognized as exempt under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. The mission of the Foundation includes educating decision-makers with regard to natural solutions to health care needs.

1.1. This Petition is submitted to request specific action by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC or Agency) within the scope of its mandated duties in order to exhaust administrative remedies. The primary purpose of the Petition is to seek emergent Federal Agency actions with regard to providing the public truthful and not misleading information about Mandated and Voluntary Vaccinations through Vaccination Advertising, Vaccination Information and Vaccination Labeling provided to patients, parents, and guardians.

1.2. The petitioners resolve and state that there is no significant scientific agreement or sufficient reliable and competent scientific evidence from independent, unbiased sources to allow the conclusion that individual or multiple vaccinations, particularly of young children, provide any measurable public health care benefit. This is true whether the vaccinations are mandated or voluntary. Further, there is a large body of evidence which shows that repeated single and multiple vaccinations, especially in young children, can cause and has in fact caused devastating and irreparable harm to tens of thousands of the most vulnerable citizens: our children. Vaccination is an un-insurable medical risk that must never be mandated or offered on a voluntary basis without provisions for the broadest medical, philosophical, and religious exemptions with fully informed voluntary consent.

1.3. Billions of dollars of tax funds have already been paid to families of vaccine-injured children under the auspices of the Federal Government’s National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP); created by the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-660) in part to “establish and maintain an accessible and efficient forum for individuals found to be injured by certain vaccines.” The VICP is a no-fault alternative to the traditional tort system for resolving vaccine injury claims that provides compensation to people found to be injured by certain vaccines. The U. S. Court of Federal Claims decides who will be paid. In fact, vaccine injuries are so common that the VICP, located in the Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) Health Resources and Services Administration, Healthcare Systems Bureau, Division of Vaccine Injury Compensation was established to deal with the devastating consequences of vaccination, of which parents and patients were not and are not informed. See: http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/

1.4. Currently, 18 vaccine types are listed with several vaccines in each type. See: http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/table.htm

1.5. These consequences are so common that the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) catalogs tens of thousands of vaccine- related injuries and deaths. See: http://www.whale.to/vaccines/vaers.html; New England Journal of Medicine, 2007; 357: 1275-9. Furthermore, the CDC, FDA and other agencies estimate that only 1 to 10% of vaccine adverse events actually occurring are reported, so the actual magnitude of the problem is unknown and
substantially likely to be profoundly greater than current documentation of actual events suggests. (e.g., a National Vaccine Information Center survey of NY pediatricians found that only 2.5% report adverse events).

1.6. If the frightening facts reported in VAERS are considered by the Federal Agency, no reasonable regulator can permit the current system to continue. It must be stopped immediately in order to stop the irreparable harm we demonstrate here; and which full public hearings would amply confirm.

1.7. Further examples of potential harm to the public abound and are very evident with many current Vaccination advertising practices.

1.8. For one example, this report cited on the Internet, “Only after filing a lawsuit against the FDA was Judicial Watch able to uncover New FDA Records Detailing an additional 8 deaths among an additional1,824 Adverse Reaction Reports Related to Gardasil, Merck’s Human Papillomavirus (HPV) Vaccine between May 10, 2007 and Sept. 7, 2007. The death reports include 12 and 13 year old girls.” This brings the known total for this one vaccination to 3,461 adverse reactions, including 11 deaths, since the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of the vaccine; see: http://ahrp.blogspot,com/2007/10/8-more-deaths-liked-to-gardasil-hpv.html

1.9. Current Vaccination Advertising and Labeling do not adequately warn the public of the significant un-insurable medical risks, nor do they disclose to the public their exemption rights. No informed consent waivers are provided by physicians after full discussion of the pros and cons of vaccination. Instead, like the students at the University of Maine campus, in December of 2007, who were vaccinated under duress; on pain of being locked out of their dormitories, eating halls, classrooms, libraries and all other University facilities, parents and guardians are not fully informed. No discussion of dangers, potential adverse events and other considerations pertaining to personal choice in the face of an un-insurable risk took place; nor was any discussion about personal exemptions, as established by law, permitted.

1.10. The same was true on November 17, 2007, when 2,300 children were vaccinated at gunpoint, with the presence of police dogs, in Prince George’s County, Maryland. The parents were threatened with jail and fines if they refused vaccination in a state with exemptions which were never discussed with the parents. It is important to note that the States’ Attorney, Mr. GenIvey, told our Foundation representative privately, and repeated during an international radio broadcast, that he had learned these vaccines were so dangerous that he availed himself of the exemption and did not allow his children to receive the vaccines.

1.11. Thus advertising, backed by coercion, was used to force 2,300 schoolchildren to be vaccinated; many against their parents’ will. Many children were re-vaccinated with all vaccines because the Prince George’s County School District admitted that it had lost the children’s’ immunization records. These children were put at an increased risk by this process because the neurological and other related damage following vaccination is directly proportional to the total body burden of toxins introduced by vaccination. This fact is not disclosed to parents. Instead, advertising is used to portray vaccination as safe and effective in preventing diseases; an untruthful and misleading perception. All such advertising should stop until adequate warnings and disclosures can be approved and implemented.

II. Actions Requested

2.0. The Petitioners urge the Federal Trade Commission to take the following actions (hereinafter, the Petition Action Requests):

2.1. Issuance of an immediate Federal Trade Commission Emergency Order, forbidding all advertising of vaccinations by the manufacturer, public health agency or any other entity or person protected from liability under such Federal Laws as Title 42, Chapter 6A, Subchapter XIX, Part 2, Subpart A, Section 300aa-16, Limitations of Actions, until further order of the Commission.

2.2. Issue an immediate Federal Trade Commission Emergency Order halting all Interstate Commerce regarding vaccines and vaccine related goods, until further order of the Commission.

2.3. Furthermore, the Commission should consider requiring that any practitioner who administers vaccines should be required to notify patient and parents or guardians that vaccines are currently the subject of scrutiny because of their lack of proven protection in communicable disease and their dangers to persons receiving them. Patients, parents or guardians wishing to proceed with vaccination should have a waiver form explaining the dangers, uncertainties, un-insurability, and State and or Federal exemption opportunities provided to them. Signing such an explicit waiver is the minimum required for truly informed consent under the terms of the Declaration of Helsinki, 1964, http://www.wma.net/e/policy/b3.htm – which constitutes part of the Law of Nations under the United States Constitution.

2.4. Hold immediate Federal Agency hearings to prepare appropriate Federal Agency rules which will ensure the public that the un-insurable medical risk of vaccination injury will not be mandated over the medical, philosophical and religious exemption rights of Citizens. States should be enjoined from withholding services like schooling from unvaccinated children; admission of unvaccinated students to universities and colleges, and similar coercive activities based on inaccurate and misleading advertising of vaccine efficacy and safety.

2.5. Hold immediate Federal Agency hearings to determine whether regulatory agencies have exercised prudent judgment in the face of abundant scientific, empirical and other information, supported by adverse event reporting; in permitting the production, shipment, sale and injection of vaccines. Scrutiny should focus on all ingredients in vaccines: active, inert, intended, adventitious, unintended, trace and adjunctive; since all ingredients may cause responses in the body which may cause harm to the recipient. Squalene, for example, is an adjuvant used to enhance immune response, and may be safe when ingested; but is the cause of serious auto-immune disorders when injected. Most new generation vaccines contain Squalene.

2.6. Mandate that all future Vaccination Advertising and Labeling contain, at a minimum, the following Warning and Disclosure –

“WARNING: The safety and efficacy of vaccination has not been demonstrated by reliable, independent, unbiased, and competent scientific evidence. DISCLOSURE: You or your children may have a right under law to a medical, philosophical or religious exemption from this vaccination.”

2.7. It is imperative to assure that all recipients or their parents or guardians are fully informed about the dangers they may face if they allow themselves or their charges to be vaccinated. A waiver should be required from patients, parents or guardians indicating that pros and cons of vaccination were fully discussed with and understood by them; and that any exemption rights were also fully discussed and understood. The waiver should state clearly that the recipient, parent or guardian fully understands that manufacturers of vaccines have no liability; and that the risks in vaccination are un-insurable.

2.8. Mandate that a physician, upon appropriate consultation, may provide a valid medical excuse from current and future vaccinations recommended by any Federal Agency for any child who has suffered a reaction of any type to any previous vaccination. The child’s medical history as reported by the parent shall be taken to provide conclusive evidence of such reaction; and no child shall be subject to any vaccination unless the physician shall have certified in writing that it is both safe and necessary that the particular child is vaccinated against that particular disease or diseases and why it is necessary. Physicians who find no justification for vaccination shall not be liable to censure and or harassment by their state medical boards of jurisdiction or other professional organizations including, but not limited to the American Medical Association (AMA), American Association of Pediatric Physicians (AAPP), and State Medical Associations.

2.9. As an executive agency, the Commission must “Take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed” (Article II, Section3, United States Constitution)

2.10. Further, the Commission should consider medical ethics as set forth in the AMA Code of Ethics, The Hippocratic Oath and the Declaration of Helsinki. We urge the Commission to consider the overriding importance of the injunction to “…first do no harm…”

III. Statement in Support of Petition Requested Actions

3.0. When the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) recently recommended that toddlers be subjected to the flu vaccine, the states began the process of mandating the vaccination before the child could be admitted to public school. New Jersey became the first state to mandate the flu vaccination for children, publishing the final rule on January 7, 2008. Such mandates condition the acceptance of a public benefit (“free public education”) upon submission to a questionable medical procedure.

3.1. This is particularly troubling since the flu vaccine continues to contain “trace” amounts of mercury; even the allegedly “mercury free” versions use mercury in the manufacturing process and a “trace” amount remains. There have been no safety studies done on Thimerasol (manufactured by Eli Lilly) since 1929 and that study was done by K.C. Smithburn on patients dying from meningitis. MSDS for Thimerasol states, “Exposure to mercury in utero and in children can cause mild to severe motor coordination impairment.” Eli Lilly MSDS June 13, 1991. None the less, this toxic component is being offered to pregnant women and children, increasingly as a mandated vaccination. Other components of vaccines are also highly troubling for similar reasons.

3.2. Here is one comment regarding how much mercury is enough to cause harm: “Most worryingly, exposure levels were not particularly high, Hair concentrations in the [Japanese] villagers averaged 4 micrograms of mercury per gram of hair. This is just a tenth of the level considered dangerous for adults by the World Health Organization, and not much higher than that found in many countries. In the US and Japan, for instance, the average mercury concentration in hair is around 1 and 2 micrograms per gram respectively.” This tends to show that the CDC’s claimed “trace” levels of mercury remaining in vaccines may very well be dangerous. See: http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2003-06/ns-esmo61103.php

3.3. According to the New York Times on April 5, 2003, “The Food and Drug Administration has begun using the Environmental Protection Agency’s much lower safe level for mercury in the human body, an official of the food and drug agency said this week, ‘Before the change, the F.D.A. guidelines set a safe level that was four times as high as that of ..environmental agency.. standard.’” See: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9507EFDD1538F936A35757\C0A9659C8B63

3.4. Therefore, the question becomes: “Is there a ‘trace’ amount of Mercury in the recently recommended flu vaccination?”

3.5. According to Centers for Disease Control (CDC), “Thimerosal still may be used in the early stages of making certain vaccines. However, it is removed through a purification process.” Leaving a “trace” amount of “less than 0.3 mcg” in the final dose. See: http://www.ageofautism.com/2007/12/emails-from-cdc.html

3.6. The existence of any trace amount is very troubling, especially as the “trace” amounts add up over repeated vaccinations. Recent analysis shows that contrary to earlier reports, there is a measurable relationship between autism and mercury toxicity. See: http://mcs-america.org/January2008pg17.htm – citation: J Child Neurol. 2007 Nov; 22(11); 1308-1311. In this context we note the mushrooming autism rate appears to be in direct correlation with introduction of new vaccines (e.g., MMR), and we further note the conspicuous absence of autism in religious populations that do not vaccinate? This contradicts various authorities’ assertions that vaccines do not cause autism. On November 9, 2007 the Federal government’s lawyers conceded a Court of Federal Claims case involving autism caused by vaccines; there are 4900 other pending autism-vaccine injury cases before the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. See: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-kirby/government-concedes-vacci_b_88323.html

3.7. The Natural Solutions Foundation, however, does not limit its concern to mercury adulterated vaccinations; even if vaccines become truly mercury free, they would still (a) lack proven effectiveness and (b) continue to contain other ingredients, such as Squalene, that assault health immune systems. We continue to object to any mandated or voluntary vaccination that may cause harm to individuals either through its component or synergistic parts; or through the impact of single or multiple vaccines on the immune system, which are and can be immeasurable, extremely worrisome, troubling, debilitating and/or lethal. There are alternatives to dangerous vaccinations that can, in a modern society with proper hygiene, prevent the spreading of infectious disease; many such diseases are self limiting.

3.8. It is a serious affront to basic human rights to force or mislead individuals, especially parents and guardians of minor children, to accept invasive medical treatments without fully informed, voluntary consent. See the discussion below regarding the World Medical Association’s Declaration of Helsinki in this regard.

IV. Legal Authorities in Support of the Petition Requested Actions

A. Fundamental Legal Authorities

A.4.0. This Petition is grounded in fundamental principles of inalienable right, law and equity.

A.4.1. The primary legal basis for submitting this Petition to the Commission is the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States: “Congress shall make no law… abridging… the right of the people… to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

A.4.2. Petitioners also cite the World Medical Association 1964 Declaration of Helsinki; see: http://www.wma.net/e/policy/b3.htm This Declaration has the force of International Law and it clearly forbids experimental medication or medication without fully informed consent.

A.4.3. The Acts establishing the authority of the Federal Agency being herein petitioned are also a legal basis for the Petition. The Commission exists solely to protect the public from harm, within the limits established by the Constitution of the United States of America. Among the principles established by the Laws and Regulations, long the explicit policy of the Federal Trade Commission, is that all commercial advertising must be “truthful and not misleading.”

A.4.4. The statute in the derogation of the common law and Constitutional limitations, establishing exemptions from liability of Vaccine Injuries, 42 USC 300aa-16 (and the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, there under) is further cited as a law that must be strictly construed in favor of patients, guardians, parents and children, and strictly construed against the economic interests of the pharmaceutical industry and other exempt persons.

A.4.5. Basic common law principles prohibiting forced acquiescence under duress and limited or intentionally distorted information, as exemplified by the United States Supreme Court decision in the case of Thompson v Western States Medical Centers – 535 U.S. 357 (2002), as further described below.

A.4.6. Additionally, the Statutes authorizing the Federal Agency contain general provisions that support the actions requested in this petition. Federal Law includes provisions that grant the responsible persons in the Federal Agency broad authority to promulgate rules and regulations “necessary to carry out the Act[s].”

B. Legal Argument-Procedural

B.4.0 The Federal Agency should issue the Petition Request Actions as an Interim Final Rule without first completing Notice and Comment, Risk Assessment, and Cost-Benefit Analysis.

B.4.1. Under ordinary circumstances, the Federal Agency must comply with procedural requirements under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) and the specific Acts authorizing the Federal Trade Commission, including the use of notice-and-comment rulemaking and the completion of a risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis before issuance of a new rule. However, both Acts provide for exceptions to those requirements for circumstances such as those present here, where the continuation of currently permitted Vaccination Advertising and Labeling would constitute and imminent threat to public safety and any delay in policy-making would be contrary to the public interest. On the other hand, stopping all vaccine advertisements until a proper warning and disclosure can be included will not prevent voluntary, fully informed vaccination nor impede public health.

B.4.2. The Federal Trade Commission should avail itself of those statutory exceptions and promulgate the requested policies without first providing the public with notice and an opportunity for comment and before completing a full risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis. The Federal Agency should first adopt the policy as an “interim-final rule,” which would become binding upon publication (or within a time certain; for example, a week after publication) [A specific time frame must be given, otherwise the Agency will find one or more loopholes and one or more ways to circumvent adherence to the ruling.], and subsequently provide for public comment and complete its risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis.

B.4.3. The Requested Actions Satisfy the “Good Cause” Exception to the Administrative Procedure Act’s (APA) Requirement for Notice and Comment.

B.4.4. The Administrative Procedures Act (APA) provides that full notice-and-comment rulemaking is not required when an agency “for good cause finds (and incorporates the finding and a brief statement of the reasons therefore in the rules issued) that notice and public procedure thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” 5 U.S.C. Section 553(b)(B) The good cause exception “is an important safety valve to be used where delay would do real harm.” United States Steel v EPA, 595 F.2d207, 214 (5th Cir. 1979). According to the legislative history of the provision, “’impracticable’ means a situation in which the due and required execution of the agency functions would be unavoidably prevented by its undertaking public rule-making proceedings.” S. Rep. No. 752, 79thCong., 1st Sess., at 16 (1945). As one court has held [For clarity, the specific court must be named here, in addition to the specific case cited below.], determining “impracticality” requires analysis in practical terms of the particular statutory-agency setting and the reasons why agency action could not await notice and comment.” American Transfer & Storage Company v. ICC, 719 F. 2d 1283, 1295 (5th Cir. 1983).

B.4.5. Below are listed three of numerous instances in which courts have upheld an agency’s decision to invoke the “good cause” exception and issue a rule without providing notice and comment where a delay would threaten public safety or the environment. See: Hawaii Helicopter OperatorsAss’n v. FAA, 51 F.3d 212, 24 (9th Cir. 1995) (good cause exception satisfied in view of “the threat to public safety reflected in an increasing number of helicopter accidents”); Northern Arapahoe Tribe v. Hodel, 808 F.2d741, 750-52 (10th Cir. 1987) (good cause exception satisfied in view of urgent need for hunting regulations where herds were threatened with extinction); Northwest Airlines v. Goldschmidt, 645 F2d 1309, 1321 (8th Cir. 1981) (good cause exception satisfied in view of urgent need to allocate landing slots at major airport).

B.4.6. The rationale underlying those decisions is that compliance with time-consuming procedural requirements would “do real harm” by delaying implementation of urgently needed policies to safeguard public health. Clearly, the exigent circumstances necessary to satisfy the Administrative Procedures Act’s (APA’s) good cause exception are present. Autism, neurological damage, death and other consequences of vaccine injury are not generally reversible and the present danger to children is so great that the “good cause” exception is well warranted in this case. Consumers are being defrauded while children and others are being irreversibly damaged. Once a child collapses into autism, for example, there is a virtually irreversible path which the child and family follow, often leading to eventual institutionalization. These are, in most cases, preventable tragedies. The probable harm is immediate and irreparable.

C. Legal Argument—Substantive

C.4.0. The United States Supreme Court has spoken forcefully, enforcing the consumers’ right OR consumers’ rights to truthful information about healthcare issues. See: Thompson v Western States Medical Centers, 535 U.S. 357, where Justice O’Connor wrote, “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. . . Even if the Government did argue that it had an interest in preventing misleading advertisements, this interest could be satisfied by the far less restrictive alternative of requiring . . . a warning that . . . its risks were unknown.”

C.4.1. The basic rule, announced by the case, to determine constitutionality permitted government restrictions on Commercial Speech (speech that makes or is about an offer for a transaction, such as the sale of Dietary Supplements) is a two prong test: the first prong is to ask two questions: (1) is the speech in question about unlawful activity and (2) is the speech misleading. If “no” to both, the speech is entitled to protection unless the Government can carry its burden and prove (1) the governmental interest involved is “substantial”, (2) the regulation must “directly advance “the governmental interest and (3) the regulation of Commercial Speech cannot be “more extensive than is necessary to serve that interest” (quoting Central Hudson v Public Service, 447 US 557, at 566).

C.4.2. The Federal Agency has stated its general rule for the advertising of products that are alleged to have health benefits, to ensure that such advertising is “truthful and not misleading.”

C.4.3. In this context, it is useful to recall the 1996 comments of then FTC Commissioner Starek, at the National Infomercial Marketing Association (comments the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) maintains on its web site). He explained the issue to which the Supreme Court alluded in Thompson – preventing misleading advertisements: “As many of you know, the FTC is charged with protecting consumers from unfair or deceptive acts or practices. In advertising and marketing, the law requires that objective claims be truthful and substantiated. The FTC does not pursue subjective claims or puffery—claims like ‘this is the best hairspray in the world.’ But if there is an objective component to the claim—such as ‘more consumers prefer our hairspray to any other’ or ‘our hairspray lasts longer than the most popular brands’—then you need to be sure that the claim is not deceptive and that you have adequate substantiation before you make the claim. These requirements apply both to explicit or express claims and to implied claims. Also, a statement that is literally true can have a deceptive implication when considered in the context of the whole advertisement, even if that implication is not the only possible interpretation.

“The substantiation requirement exists because every time an advertiser makes an objective claim, the advertiser also implies that there is a reasonable basis for the claim. This reasonable basis is substantiation. What constitutes a reasonable basis for a particular claim can vary, depending upon the nature of the claim, the product, the consequences of a false claim, the benefits of a truthful claim, the cost of developing substantiation for the claim, and the amount of substantiation that experts in the field believe is reasonable. Health and safety claims generally require competent and reliable scientific evidence. And if a marketer makes a representation that a claim has a particular level of support—for example, ‘clinical studies prove…’– the law requires at least that level of substantiation.”

C.4.4. The required level of substantiation for alleged claims about medical products such as vaccines is “significant scientific agreement.” In the case of vaccines, there is no significant scientific agreement by unbiased sources regarding the vaccines and manufacturers’ claims for the safety and efficacy of the product which satisfies the Petitioners’ claim of false advertising; especially where and when the public is misled by not being warned of either the dangers of the product or of any right of members of the public to refuse vaccination on religious, medical or philosophical grounds. The Petitioner urges to the Federal Agency that the advertising of vaccination is clearly a case where “requiring… a warning that… its risks were unknown…” (Thompson v Western States, supra.) is the minimum required by Law to protect the public, and especially the most vulnerable among us, our children.

III. Conclusion

Due to the emergent nature of the Petition and with the lives of innocent children at stake and hanging in the balance, the Petitioners urges the Federal Trade Commission to act immediately: issuing an Emergency Order stopping all Vaccination Advertising until the Federal Agency adopts as its policy the recommendations made herein; and specifically that a sufficient and appropriate Warning and Disclosure, such as suggested herein, be required with all vaccination advertising. As in the matter of Tobacco Advertising, where the Federal Trade Commission took a leading role in protecting the public, advertising in support of voluntary or forced vaccination, impacting millions and maiming or killing tens of thousands, is a most appropriate subject for immediate Federal Agency action.

Natural Solutions Foundation
www.HealthFreedomUSA.org

/s/ Albert N. Stubblebine III

Maj. Gen. Albert N. Stubblebine, III (U.S. Army, Ret.)
President & Trustee

/s/ Rima E. Laibow

Rima E. Laibow, MD
Medical Director & Trustee

/s/ Ralph Fucetola

Ralph Fucetola, JD
Vice President, Trustee and Counsel

Correspondence:
Ralph Fucetola JD, Trustee
58 Plotts Road
Newton, NJ 07860

Prepared by: Rima E. Laibow, MD, Ralph Fucetola, JD and Alan G. Phillips, JD

1. Note: This Petition (in both signed paper copy and data copy on CD) was originally priority mailed to the Commission on March 6, 2008 and again on March 28th. According to USPS Delivery Certification #0305 2710 0001 6184 2200 it was received by the Commission on March 11, 2008 and #0305 2710 0001 6182 7672 was received on April 1, 2008. Upon inquiry, these copies were not found and it was suggested that the Petition be re-mailed by Certified Mail, Return Receipt, as addressed above. The Petition was re-mailed (both signed paper copy and data copy on CD) on April 10, 2008, Certified Number: 7006 2150 0001 6141 2378.

———————————-

I would like to express my appreciation for the efforts of Gen. Stubblebine, Dr. Laibow, Counsel Phillips and our volunteer proof-reader Ruth for making this Petition possible.

We will be creating an Action Item once FTC issues a docket number for the Petition, so you can send your comments to the agency.

And, of course, your generous donations to help offset the costs of filing and pursuing this Citizens Petition are necessary to make it effective. Please Donate here..
http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/index.php?page_id=189

You may also join the No Forced Vaccination Forum.

Thank you,

Ralph Fuctola JD

PS – here is an email I just sent to my Senators and Congressman:

Sent 04/07/08 to Sen. Lautenberg, Sen. Menendex and Rep. Garrett.

I am a trustee of the Natural Solutions Foundation, an NGO (nongovernmental organization). This past month I submitted a Citizens Petition from the foundation to the Federal Trade Commission, urging emergency action to protect the public from false and misleading advertisements.

Twice the petition has been misplaced by the FTC. The USPS tracking numbers for the petition, showing that it had been delivered to FTC on March 11 and on April 1 are: 0305 2710 0001 6184 2200 and 0305 2710 0001 6182 7672.

The petition can be seen at:

Petition to FTC to Stop False Vaccine Advertisements

I find it rather distressing that FTC has mysteriously “lost” a Citizens Petition challenging them to protect our rights twice, despite the fact that there are two confirmed tracking numbers from the USPS showing that it has been delivered to the FTC headquarters.

The FTC failed to accept the document, for which we are waiting for a Document Number, by email, insisting instead on a “hard copy”. They have now lost the hard copy twice.

The United States Constitution protects our right to petition the government for redress. Federal law authorizes FTC to act on Citizens Petitions.

As an NJ citizen and an attorney I am troubled and perplexed and turn to you for assistance.

The petition involves important matters of public concern and should not be ignored. The hundreds of thousands of NSF supporters who are concerned about these issues expect Congress and the federal agencies to act to protect them.

If FTC fails to acknowledge or act on the petition, Congress should hold public hearings on that failure and on the underlying issues of freedom and conscience we raise.

Ralph Fucetola JD
NSF Trustee
—————————————-

April 15, 2008 Update:

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) record room acknowledged today that it had received Natural Solutions Foundation’s Citizens Petition to the FTC regarding truthful and not misleading advertising of vaccinations. The Petition has been given Miscellaneous Matter Number P002501.

It is expected that the Secretary to the Commission will assign the matter to a Commission attorney. The Petition requests an emergency halt to all vaccine advertising until the Commission can hold hearings and approve appropriate disclosures and disclaimers to prevent the public from being confused by false and misleading claims with regard to vaccines.

Members of the public should be given an opportunity to comment on the Petition and provide to the Commission examples of vaccine advertisements that confused them.

The text of the Petition is at:
http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/index.php?p=507

Tags:,
Posted in Citizen's Petition, Declaration of Health Independence, Vaccination | No Comments »

Pediatricians group misleading the public about vaccination risks?

Monday, January 28th, 2008

The following Huffington Post article contains important information about recent scientific journal articles linking mercury to autism, and to the ongoing efforts by certain interested parties to misinform the public. In this case, the American Academy of Pediatrics is misinforming the public regarding the scientific evidence about the link between mercury and autism or asthma. They are doing this to promote their pro-vaccination ideology which is apparently more important to them than truth, or their obligation as physicians to “do no harm.”

In this context, though, we note the opinion of researchers such as Dr. Rebecca Carley (and our co-trustee, Dr. Laibow) who holds that even if all mercury were really removed from vaccinations, the vaccines would still cause serious harm, due to other ingredients such as squalene, and due to the repeated assault on young immune systems that multiple vaccinations cause.

We don’t want to rest our opposition to forced vaccination on the grounds that the vaccines are dangerous. Rather, without regard to risk, we hold that every individual has the fundamental human right to control what medicines are admitted to his or her body. The issue is inalienable right vs coercion. There is no “risk balance” between coerced medication and individual right. As Dr. Laibow says, “Whatever the authority of the state, it stops at my skin.” Period.

Ralph Fucetola JD, Trustee
Standing in for Dr. Laibow, on her way to Africa for a Codex meeting.

Heath and freedom advocates, join our No-Forced-Vaccination Yahoo!Group – http://groups.yahoo.com/group/no-forced-vaccination/join
——————————————-

The Huffington Post

Pediatricians, ABC and Censorship: Facts Are Scarier Than Fiction
By: David Kirby
Posted January 27, 2008 | 04:19 PM (EST)

On Monday, the American Academy of Pediatrics will release the contents of a foreboding letter sent last week to ABC/Disney executives, demanding they cancel the January 31 premiere of a new legal drama series, Eli Stone, because it features a family attorney who successfully argues in court that mercury-containing flu vaccine caused autism in one child.

The letter, signed by AAP President Renee Jenkins, borders on near-hysteria over a fictional television entertainment. It ominously warns that ABC “will bear responsibility for the needless suffering and potential deaths of children from parents’ decisions not to immunize based on the content of the episode.”

Dr. Jenkins calls on ABC to cancel the episode but, anticipating a refusal, urges executives to run a disclaimer that “no scientific link exists between vaccines and autism,” if the offending network “persists” in airing the show.

I share the AAP’s concern that parents should not be driven away from protecting their children from dangerous, even deadly diseases. But parents are far too smart to base such an important decision as immunization on the “content of the episode” of a single drama on broadcast television.

In fact, if I were Dr. Jenkins, I would be far more concerned about real news happening in the real world — events that not only suggest the possibility of some sort of link between mercury, vaccines and autism, but might alarm parents more than any fictional account written for ratings-grabbing mass entertainment.

If I were Dr. Jenkins, instead of fretting over a fake family engaged in a mock trial held in a make-believe court on some LA soundstage, I would be up at night wondering why the Federal Government recently conceded a real vaccine-autism lawsuit in a real court and will soon pay a real (taxpayer-funded) settlement to a real American family and a very real child with autism.

I would want to know why the Department of Justice agreed that mercury-containing vaccines “severely aggravated” the autism symptoms in at least one child, and I would wonder if research into what triggered that severe aggravation might provide at least some clues into the perpetual mysteries of the disorder and its causes.

And, if I were Dr. Jenkins, rather than wringing my hands and trying to censor a TV-show verdict, I would truly worry about what will happen when parents realize that the Federal Government’s concession has been sealed — preventing the public (and future plaintiffs) from viewing what could only be described as “evidence of harm.” I would be nervous that this secretive action in an actual court (itself reminiscent of science fiction) might drive parents away from vaccination far more effectively than any scripted drama.

Furthermore, if I were the top pediatrician in America, I would not be asking television networks to make sweeping statements such as, “No scientific link exists” between autism and mercury or vaccines, when highly respected publications continue to publish new (and very real) data that roundly debunk what has now become, frankly, a tired piece of misinformation.

If I were the AAP, or ABC for that matter, I would feel downright silly stating that “no scientific link exists,” so soon after the Journal of Child Neurology published a study titled, “Blood Levels of Mercury Are Related to Diagnosis of Autism: A Reanalysis of an Important Data Set.” I would also worry about parental reaction to learning that researchers had done due diligence and reanalyzed data from a prior, hugely influential study that (erroneously) found zero connection between mercury levels and autism.

Instead of trying to silence the fictional words of “Eli Stone” co-creators Greg Berlanti and Marc Guggenheim, I would pay closer attention to the real words of Journal authors M. Catherine DeSoto and Robert Hitlan, who found a major flaw in the original study that found no link. In fact, they concluded, “a significant relation does exist between the blood levels of mercury and diagnosis of an autism spectrum disorder,” and that “hair sample analysis results offer some support for the idea that persons with autism may be less efficient… at eliminating mercury from the blood,” something that proponents of the mercury-autism hypothesis have long contended.

And, I would heed this rather wise warning from the authors: “If there is any link between autism and mercury, it is absolutely crucial that the first reports of the question are not falsely stating that no link occurs.”

Another study, freshly out of Harvard, likewise shows a potential link between mercury and the autopsied brains of young people with autism. The American Journal of Biochemistry and Biotechnology reports that a marker for oxidative stress was 68.9% higher in autistic brain issue than controls (a statistically significant result), while mercury levels were 68.2% higher.

And though the mercury results did not quite reach statistical significance (probably due to the small number of autistic brains studied: 9), the authors cautioned that, “However, there was a positive correlation between (oxidative stress and mercury levels),” meaning the two might be associated.

Finally, if part of my AAP job description was to ensure that every American child is vaccinated as early and often as possible, I would be hugely apprehensive, not about a new courtroom drama, but rather about a dramatic new study soon to appear in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology.

In the article, “Delay in DPT vaccination is associated with a reduced risk of childhood asthma,” Anita Kozyrskyj, an asthma researcher at the University of Manitoba, and other scientists combed the medical records of 14,000 children born in Manitoba in 1995 (when many Canadian shots still contained mercury, by the way).

They found that children who received the DPT (diphtheria, pertussis and tetanus) vaccine at two months of age were 2.63 times more likely to develop asthma (at a rate of 13.9%) than children who were not given the shot until after four months of age (5.9%). “We’re thinking that maybe if you delay this allergic response until a bit later, the child’s immune system is more developed and maybe you’re not seeing this effect,” Kozyrskyj told the Winnipeg Free Press, which just broke the story.

No one wants infant children to go unprotected from whooping cough (or pertussis, the “P” in DPT). But what if delaying that vaccine could have prevented more than half of the asthma cases in the United States? With millions of children currently suffering from the disease, at the cost of billions of dollars a year, would waiting another two months improve the risk-benefit ratio for society (save for the companies that market those asthma medications)?

Even more importantly, if too-early vaccination causes asthma in some kids, could the practice cause other disorders? There is absolutely nothing to link this vaccine study to autism, of course. But consider the following:

1) Many asthma cases have been linked to autoimmunity. The same with autism.

2) Childhood asthma has been dramatically increasing for two decades. The same with autism.

3) Most of the children with asthma in the vaccine study were boys. The same with autism.

Any way you look at it, this study is hardly reassuring news to parents who are about to vaccinate their kids (though think how comforting it would be to allow them to delay this shot by two months). Medicine and the media constantly tell us that all vaccines are safe for all children. When parents try to jive that information with studies that imply the opposite, their faith and trust in public health and the immunization program begin to take a nosedive, along with vaccination rates.

It’s not just the broadcast of fiction out of ABC that might drive parents away from immunization. It is the negation of fact out of the AAP as well. And if unvaccinated children get sick, will the esteemed Academy also “bear responsibility,” or just heap it all upon the network?

ABC executives could cave in and cancel the broadcast, but I don’t think they will. And even if America’s pediatricians manage to successfully censor fiction and crush artistic freedom, they will never be able to stifle the facts.

Posted in Medical Hazards, Vaccination | No Comments »

« Older Entries