Minutus

And, not unrelated:

http://jonbarron.org/dietary-supplement ... yZOp1y2NlI

Hi Shannon,
With reference to RDI's:
Do you think the OTC recommended daily intake might have something to do with Codex Alimentarius, as well as the FDA and pharmaceutical companies?
Examples:
Niacin
"........several studies have shown niacin can boost levels of good HDL cholesterol and lower triglycerides as well or better than some prescription drugs"............don't treat yourself with OTC niacin supplements. Instead consult your health care professional who can *****PRESCRIBE FDA approved doses*******..........."

Similar:
Red yeast rice
FDA has ruled that it is illegal to sell red yeast rice that contains more than trace amounts of monacolin K.
Apparently *****naturally fermented***** red yeast rice contains an ingredient that is considered the *****chemical equivalent****** of the patented cholesterol-lowering drug Lovastatin. (Think the law suit is still pending????)
Atb,
Leilanae

It is clear the Codex is setting regulations that designed to destroy availability of natural supplements
and herbs to the public. All their statements are geared to the pharmaceutical industry which is
a controlling force in Codex. The FDA passed guidelines a few years ago that closely mirrored what
was coming out of the Codex committees.
As for Codex, I will never forget the comment made by this doctor who was head of the nutrition committee
(not sure if that was the exact name of the committee). He bluntly stated that food had nothing to do with
nutrition, said with an authoritative voice and dead seriousness. I viewed this charade as the committees
essential work of devising the international propaganda that was being developed against the public’s
access to supplements. We know the Codex supports GE, chemical farming and high drug use of farm
animals, as stated in their documents. Thank goodness for the ANH and a few countries that have resisted
and fought back on this push for the destruction of the world’s health.
t
From: leilanae@verizon.net
Sent: Monday, March 17, 2014 1:07 AM
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Minutus] trusting the FDA

Hi Shannon,
With reference to RDI's:
Do you think the OTC recommended daily intake might have something to do with Codex Alimentarius, as well as the FDA and pharmaceutical companies?
Examples:
Niacin
"........several studies have shown niacin can boost levels of good HDL cholesterol and lower triglycerides as well or better than some prescription drugs"............don't treat yourself with OTC niacin supplements. Instead consult your health care professional who can *****PRESCRIBE FDA approved doses*******..........."

Similar:
Red yeast rice
FDA has ruled that it is illegal to sell red yeast rice that contains more than trace amounts of monacolin K.
Apparently *****naturally fermented***** red yeast rice contains an ingredient that is considered the *****chemical equivalent****** of the patented cholesterol-lowering drug Lovastatin. (Think the law suit is still pending????)
Atb,
Leilanae

WE, you and I and Shannon, Saroush, Marilyn Kefirlady, and the flower remedy people, the Weston A. Price Foundation, GreenMedInfo, http://www.earthclinic.com/ , http://www.cancertutor.com , and hundreds of other people and websites, are the shadow-FDA.

Roger

These kinds of stories [ http://tinyurl.com/kkzxpts ] don't get a lot of press exposure because media people don't like cognitive dissonance any more than anyone else. So the press is sort of a filter biased in favor of the status quo. And this does not address the issue of pharmaceutical advertisement and greed issues like that.

Medical doctors are a craven lot. They are taught to kiss the asses of their professors and the FDA and authority figures in their own profession, and then they expect nurses and other staff around them and their patients to kiss their asses. They are elitists with a vengeance. And many patients (most of the human race) like someone to take control and take care of them. People don't like to change, they just want a pill.

Roger

Despite the FDA efforts to be completely irrelevant and even destructive, there are ways of squeezing meaning out of what they say.

(1) Any logically positive statement about anything is logically true, if you read it in its most limited sense: "XYZ will reduce the risk of ABC." That does not mean that XYX will improve your health or help you to live longer, it just means that XYX will reduce the risk of ABC. The fact that XYZ might kill you or cause other symptoms is not addressed.

(2) Any logically negative statement about anything is meaningless. "There is no evidence that XYZ will cause side effect ABC (or any side effects)." Their logically negative statements carry the same weight as if they hadn't said the logically negative statement at all.

A shorter version of this is: They confirm symptom removal.

I invite any suggestions or corrections.

Sincerely,
Roger Bird

Well, the RDIs are a completely joke. What else is there to say… Sort of like saying that "the size for shoes, is 9." ??

People need to remember that the Codex position is
to take any supplement and test for reaction. At the level
of immediate reaction, of any sort, use 1/10 of that level
as the legal level for availability. Anything else must be
made by prescription. Of course this would entail a chemically
synthesized imitation of a natural substance.
Another thing which most people don’t realize or pay attention to is
the fact that the FDA puts out minimum daily requirements for health.
This has become read as the maximum requirements with people,
especially doctors, fearing going higher. Sometimes these levels are
read as sufficient for health as opposed to the minimum needed to
keep you alive or symptom free. The Vit D level of 400 iu/daily was
based on preventing rickets only as they didn’t know way back then
that Vit D was needed for over 2000 body functions.
BTW Shannon, the article you sent out is very interesting and is a good tool to
use for education people.
tanya
From: Shannon Nelson
Sent: Monday, March 17, 2014 6:04 AM
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Minutus] trusting the FDA

Well, the RDIs are a completely joke. What else is there to say… Sort of like saying that "the size for shoes, is 9." ??

I have my own correction: "Any logically positive statement about anything is logically true" should have read "Any logically positive statement about anything is usually if not always true".

Roger
________________________________

From: rogerbird2@hotmail.com
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2014 20:37:57 -0600
Subject: RE: [Minutus] trusting the FDA
Despite the FDA efforts to be completely irrelevant and even destructive, there are ways of squeezing meaning out of what they say.

(1) Any logically positive statement about anything is logically true, if you read it in its most limited sense: "XYZ will reduce the risk of ABC." That does not mean that XYX will improve your health or help you to live longer, it just means that XYX will reduce the risk of ABC. The fact that XYZ might kill you or cause other symptoms is not addressed.

(2) Any logically negative statement about anything is meaningless. "There is no evidence that XYZ will cause side effect ABC (or any side effects)." Their logically negative statements carry the same weight as if they hadn't said the logically negative statement at all.

A shorter version of this is: They confirm symptom removal.

I invite any suggestions or corrections.

Sincerely,
Roger Bird