Disturbing history of FDA raids on healers and natural medicine clinics

[Dogs on Holiday UK]

In view of the recent concerns regarding natural health, I'm forwarding the following NewsTarget newsletter.
BUT,I also received another email, which I feel is only fair to forward on.
Christine

[Shannon Nelson]

Christine, Thanks for posting this "rebuttal"--it's full of fascinating
stuff that I would LOVE to see talked about! I'm putting up just a
little excerpt to see if others can add to what they've said:
___

excerpts from http://www.nocodexgenocide.com/page/page/3312735.htm

CONTROLLED OPPOSITION GROUPS

"Citizens for Health" and "Natural Solutions Foundation" are controlled
opposition groups on the Codex issue. We believe the true purpose of
these groups is to assist the pharma dominated vitamin trade
associations by recommending grass roots actions which appear plausible
on the surface to the poorly informed, but which upon close inspection
fail to hold up to careful scrutiny.

and otherwise) is only a small part of what's threatened. Later they
make the point that FDA is not the only (or possibly even the main)
front on which the battle needs to be fought, but I'm not sure it's as
counterproductive as he is claiming...?

*everything* that has to do with health, except (so far) for "energy"
methods that do not use any machines or "products"; and presumably
those people are still forbidden to make any claims about being able to
"diagnose or treat disease". They are claiming oversight over drugs,
foods, cosmetics, herbs, vitamins, other supplements, homeopathic
remedies (specifically mentioned), and any machines purporting to
diagnose or treat disease. One section notes that if someone sells
e.g. vegetable juice for "health maintenance", that's okay so long as
they've followed the appropriate laws for foods being sold; but if they
sell it as part of a disease management regimen, then it will be
evaluated as a "drug". Which I guess goes along the lines of echinacea
currently being prescription-only in... what country was it? They did
not address the matter of "advice"... Can I still advise a client to
do a juice fast to help their whatever, so long as I don't sell them
the juice? It's the same "grey area" that non-licensed homeopaths in
the US are living in at present; workable for now, but not very secure.
--------

We believe these groups are attempting to intentionally divert grass
roots attention from the strategy of IAHF and allied organizations. In
a nutshell, their mission is to:

A) Con people into believing that we can change Codex AT Codex (despite
the fact that we have zero political influence over the unelected
bureaucrats from the FDA and its international equivalents that serve
as delegates at these highly rigged meetings.) and
Scarbrough"--why? What is his connection with the FDA... But it seems
like a very good question, just how much influence public opinion
*does* have in what venues, esp. in this reign of Mr. "Even if no one
but my wife and my dog agrees with me, we are not leaving Ir**. "
(apologies if that's a slightly inaccurate quote.) But we *have*
staved off numerous supplement-regulation bills and whatnot thus far...
-----------
[...]
C) Con people into believing that they're "fighting back" by signing a
petition to US Codex Manager Ed Scarbrough (an unelected bureaucrat at
the USDA who has never attempted to rein in FDA officials who've served
as US Delegates at CODEX (even when their actions have gone directly
against US law.)

Even when Scarbrough and the US Codex Delegates have obviously IGNORED
this petition at recent Codex meetings, Citizens for Health and the
Natural Solutions Foundation would still have us believe that signing
it and sending it in to Scarbrough are a viable means of "fighting
back."
D) Con people into believing that there is "no connection" between
sovereignty destroying trade agreements such as NAFTA, CAFTA, FTAA and
Codex in an obvious effort to keep people from exercising the political
leverage that we DO have with CONGRESS (but which we DON'T have with
unelected Codex bureaucrats from the world's FDA's.) Citizens for
Health and now also the "Natural Solutions Foundation" have a long
history of doing spin against true grass roots anti Codex campaigns.

why aren't we getting similar petitions from his group? I would LOVE
to be signing anti-CAFTA petitions, but I am not seeing any!!!
Actually I would love to see a real *educational* offering about the
issues of these "free trade agreements"--it's obviously something that
could do good things *and* bad things, depending on how it's handled
and who's handling it, but this isn't looking good.
[...]

Article 3 States: “To harmonize sanitary and phytosanitary measures on
as wide a basis as possible, members shall base their food safety
measures on international standards, guidelines, or recommendations.”
The WTO has adopted the Codex Guidelines as their worldwide standards.
http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/sps ... _e.htmThis can evolve
to ever-increasing entanglements due to legal and economic pressure.
The U.S. government may or many not wish to harmonize, but it can now
be FORCED to. This contradicts the Natural Solutions Foundation,
Citizens for Health, the FDA, USTR and all of the Pharma Dominated
Vitamin Trade Associations]

to products for international trade; what about for products that will
not be exported--apparently, tho, it's intended to apply to *all*
supplements (and etc.), not just intended for export.

most interesting so far, so if you've read this far, read a little bit
farther!
______________

Question # 2: Is a nation permitted by international and other law to
adopt laws regulating dietary supplements, including vitamin and
mineral supplements, such as the Model International Dietary Supplement
Act based on the Natural Solutions Foundation endorsed Guidelines for
the Use of Food Supplement Trade in the Effort to End World Hunger and
Promote the WHO/FAO Global Strategy on Diet, Physical Exercise and
Health?

Answer #2: Yes.

**** [ IAHF Note: Additional misleading information which presumes that
their “Answer #1 is accurate. As we’ve seen above, it is not. Here is
additional evidence: At http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/dscodex.htmlFDA
says "WTO and its dispute settlement panels do not have the power to
change US law. If a WTO decision in response to a dispute settlement
panel is averse to the US, only Congress and the Administration can
decide whether to implement the panel recommendation, and if so, how to
implement it."

(*** Okay, here's the part I'm especially intrigued by:***) This is
only technically true. The reality is that the WTO has ruled against
the USA in 42 out of 48 cases, including EVERY case impacting our
environmental and public health laws (Testimony of Lori Wallach, JD,
Director of the Global Trade Watch division of Public Citizen before
the House Ways & Means Committee May 17,05
http://www.citizen.org/documents/Wallac ... 7.2005.pdf

The US so far has complied in EVERY CASE including tax law.
http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2002/tst012102.htm

anything at all about. Does anyone know what the 48 cases under
dispute were about?
____________

Recently a WTO tribunal outlawed Utah's ban on gambling,
http://www.citizen.org/pressroom/releas ... 166opening the door to
millions of dollars in penalties against all states with anti gambling
restrictions.

over "the right to make lifestyle choices." Now where might that be
leading us...
_________________

Given that as of April 3, 2006 the US has not met the WTO's deadline
for compliance in this matter, the US is now subject to trade
sanctions: http://www.citizen.org/hot_issues/issue.cfm?ID=1346

Our undeniable reality is in 42 out of 48 cases the WTO has ruled
against the USA in dispute panels, (including EVERY case involving
environmental or public health laws).

laws, not tighter--anyone know? Would that be what's behind GW's
current disembowling of US environmental law, or is it just that "great
minds think alike"?
________________

Given the total non transparency of these panels and the fact that they
don't follow US rules of evidence, given that the WTO has never given a
private citizen standing to appear before a Dispute panel to provide
testimony, given that the WTO has even made unfair, unethical rulings
against STATE laws, on what BELIEVABLE, FACTUAL BASIS do the Natural
Solutions Foundation & Citizens for Health continue to maintain that a
nation adopting the "International Dietary Supplement Act" model
legislation would be exempt from the imposition of WTO trade sanctions?

laws is only useful if we assume that those US laws will have primacy;
and that protecting the primacy of those laws would be at least equally
urgent. So again--what *should* we be doing, and why aren't we hearing
about it???

Shannon

[Tanya Marquette]

shannon,

as i previously wrote, i have a problem with the post you are quoting from.
although there is some real information they provide, i do not agree with
their assessment of the motives of the natural solutions foundation.
in every political movement there is a range of types of positions from
very conservation to ragingly radical. the writer(s) of this article is
trying to come from the radical end of the spectrum. the postion wants
to look at what i call the big umbrella perspective. nsf is looking at
this as a single issue with global consequences but it is not tying it into
a larger effort on the part of the 'ruling elite.'

the article you quote repeatedly notes that the fda is not a rule making
body. this is not true. just like the fcc under michael powell, the fda
can set guidelines/rules. but these rules can be dealt with by going to
congress as was done with the consolidation of media ownership under
powell.

the effort has to be multifaceted and there is room for all types of
actions in the effort to create change. while i do agree that congress
needs to be beseiged by public demand for rejection of the international
trade agreements (nafta, cafta, bafta crafta, etc), the hearings of the fda
need to be responded to just as much as the bills in congress that would
support the fda actions.

tanya
natural medicine clinics

[Shannon Nelson]

Hi Tanya,

Your assessment sounds very reasonable to me.
But I'm especially curious about what the IAHF (what does that stand
for?) thinks that we *should* be doing? We see numerous of these "save
the supplements" petitions, but I have seen absolutely nothing relating
to CAFTA, WTO, etc.--and I surely would like to!!
Best wishes,
Shannon

[Tanya Marquette]

international advocates for health freedom = IAHF
and no you dont/wont see much about cafta and the codex.
you wont even see mention of the codex in the mainstream press.
and you wont event see much of it in the left/progressive press
because it is under the radar and everyone is caught up with iraq
and related scandals. however, it was written about minimally.
i received the petition to the EU about 3-4 yrs ago over the internet
that is how i became aware of the codex effort. then later i received
something that sent me to the nsf page and i got on their mailing list.
if you do a web search for codex and cafta you will find a number of links.
the libertarians seem to be the ones most on top of it.
here is one article that i found very quickly:












Action Alert: CAFTA & Codex

July 13, 2005
Will the Central America Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) finally force you to get
a doctor's prescription just to buy vitamin C, or E, or other dietary supplements you
currently pick up "over the counter" in America? Powerful special interests are
banking on it.

Since 1995, Big Medicine has spent billions of dollars trying to get Washington to
regulate your dietary supplements just as European governments do. So far, that
effort has failed in America. But you may lose the battle for health freedom if CAFTA
entangles the U.S. in Europe's infamous Codex Alimentarius (Codex).

And if you think CAFTA -- the bogus "free trade" agreement -- really has nothing to
do with limiting the manufacture and distribution of dietary supplements, then why
does it specifically mention Codex?

CAFTA, chapter 6, article 6.3.6(d) states: "The Committee [Committee on Sanitary
and Phytosanitary Matters] shall provide a forum for consulting on issues, positions,
and agendas for meetings of the WTO SPS Committee, the various Codex
committees (including the Codex Alimentarius Commission), the International Plant
Protection Convention, the International Office of Epizootics, and other international
and regional fora and food safety and human, animal, and plant health."

On top of this, CAFTA is being shoved down Congress' throat under unconstitutional
"fast track" trade-negotiation authority. That way, Congress isn't allowed to change
even one word it. That means Congress must either accept the Codex language, or
reject all of CAFTA. The special interests love it -- they are betting Congress doesn't
have the courage to dump CAFTA.

You see, CAFTA, like NAFTA, isn't really about free trade. It's about managed trade
where government gets to pick the winners and losers. In this case, major
pharmaceuticals win, and you, the consumer, lose. The pharmaceutical companies
want government to "manage" the dietary supplement industry under Codex in order
to drive out competitors so only they can manufacture and distribute vitamin C and
other dietary supplements. If that happens, as it already has in Europe, the
supplements you now take will be available only by prescription and at a much higher
cost -- if they are available at all.

We will fight CAFTA, NAFTA, WTO and the like because they subjugate our national
sovereignty to the "rulings" of global institutions and the whims of the unelected
bureaucrats-for-life who run them. As this web of global governance grows, our
freedom to choose shrinks -- and health freedom is just one example.

You can't afford to stay out of this fight.

Read "Your dietary supplements: Under attack again" by Henry Lamb, and
"Controversial EU vitamin ban to go ahead" by Sam Knight.

View the powerful documentary "We Become Silent" narrated by British actress,
Dame Judi Dench. This film features Congressman Ron Paul.

Then, call your U.S. representative. Urge him or her to vote against -- to dump --
CAFTA. The U.S. House will likely vote on CAFTA next week.

This vote will be very close. They are keeping score on Capitol Hill and your effort
counts.

"Your dietary supplements: Under attack again"
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/artic ... E_ID=44713

"Controversial EU vitamin ban to go ahead"
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0, ... 86,00.html

"We Become Silent"
http://www.welltv.com/

Congressional Directory
http://capwiz.com/liberty/dbq/officials/

The U.S. House is likely to vote on CAFTA next week. Please, take action today --
and spread the word.

Kent Snyder
The Liberty Committee