If you’re interested in follow-ing some controversial sub-jects and people look deeper into this page. It explains everything you need to know about Codex Alimentarius. Make up your own MIND.



Codex Alimentarius


Introducing another one of our Heros, Mike Adams, the Health Ranger. Go to his Natural News Site at www.naturalnews.com  often for lots of great information about what’s happening with our Health and Food Freedoms.

Article #1:  
A Natural Solutions FoudationWhite Paper mandating No Harmonization with the Codex World Food Code.

Article #2:  
YouTube Videos  about Codex presented by Dr. Rima Laibow, Medical Director of the Natural Solutions Foundation.

Article #4:
The Vitamin Police, reprinted from the Orange County, CA Register

Article #5:
Nil by Mouth, reprinted from the UK’s Observer Newspaper

Article #7:
YouTube Video by the Bridge Stone Media Group written, produced &
directed by, our heros, Willian Lewis:
“One NationUnder Siege “

Article #8:  Meet our new Hero, Dr. Leonard
Horowitz (go towards bottom of page)

There are 12 great Articles listed on this page. Be sure you check out #12 because it’s the one about S.510 that was passed during the Lame Duck Session in December of 2010. It’s a Nightmare. The push is to NOT FUND IT. Please join the fight!

What in the World is it?

Should I be concerned?

One Nation Under Siege
Our Eroding Liberties

    Prepare to be instantly propelled into a world dominated by hi-tech surveillance and old fashioned spying as you go behind enemy lines drawn in our own backyards.  One Nation Under Siege presents disturbing facts never before disclosed to a majority of the sleeping American public.  Through the research of over a dozen internationally distinguished authors, journalists, physicians, and ex-military - you will begin to understand the massive and ceaseless control projected onto an unsuspecting populace by a government that seems to have questionable motives and  mendacious  answers. With Special Guests: Dr. Stan Monteith, Major General Albert Stubblebine, Dr. Sherri Tenpenny and Jim Marrs., Produced & Directed by William Lewis






   This BBC continuous feed is a very important part of this website as  it’s all about  staying informed regarding the Big Picture.  You’re getting News you will most likely not be seeing in your local or national newspapers nor on your TV Screens as our so- called News is being heavily censored.  Read these articles at your own discretion. Just  because it’s in print doesn’t mean it’s truth.  Reader beware and be wise.



Our original plan was to just give you a small snippet of this Video in which our heroine, Dr. Rima Laibow, Medical Director of the Natural Solutions Foundation, talks about the conditions which trigger a person being forced to take mandatory psychiatric medication.  You won’t believe what the trigger is--not even when you here it.  That segment is in Part 4 of this Video.  Upon viewing the Video,  we realized we had to share the entire thing because it is so important,  timely and so much about the Big Picture. Upon discovering this film, we also discovered the Film Production Company responsible for making it.  That company is called the Bridge Stone Media Group; and it’s making films “that educate people and stimulate healthy debate on a wide range of important topics” covering civil liberties, government crime and cover-up and health and well-being.  I’ll be showing as many of their films as they put on YouTube because we feel this is the voice of freedom.  The filmmaker, William Lewis, is a multi-media artist, writer, director and advocate for freedom.  He’s one of our new Heros right along with Dr. Rima Laibow.  Here’s what Bridge Stone Media has to say about “One Nation Under Siege”:

Vaccines as Biological Weapons? Live Avian Flu Virus Placed in Baxter Vaccine Materials Sent to 18 Countries.  By Mike Adams  Wednesday, March 4, 2009 NaturalNews 

There's a popular medical thriller novel in which a global pandemic is intentionally set off by an evil plot designed to reduce the human population. In the book, a nefarious drug company inserts live avian flu viruses into vaccine materials that are distributed to countries around the world to be injected into patients as 'flu shots.' Those patients then become carriers for these highly-virulent strains of avian flu which go on to infect the world population and cause widespread death.

There's only one problem with this story: It's not fiction. Or, at least, the part about live avian flu viruses being inserted into vaccine materials isn't fiction. It happened.

Deerfield, Illinois-based pharmaceutical company Baxter International Inc. was  caught shipping live avian flu viruses mixed with vaccine material to medical distributors in 18 countries. The 'mistake' (if you can call it that, see below...) was discovered by the National Microbiology Laboratory in Canada. The World Health Organization was alerted and panic spread throughout the vaccine community as health experts asked the obvious question: How could this have happened?

As published on LifeGen.de (Baxter's H5N1 as global flu pandemic threat), serious questions like this are being raised:

"Baxter International Inc. in Austria 'unintentionally contaminated samples with the bird flu virus that were used in laboratories in 3 neighbouring countries, raising concern about the potential spread of the deadly disease'. Austria, Germany, Slowenia and the Czech Republic - these are the countries in which labs were hit with dangerous viruses. Not by bioterrorist commandos, but by Baxter. In other words: One of the major global pharmaceutical players seems to have lost control over a virus which is considered by many virologists to be one of the components leading some day to a new pandemic."

Or put another way, Baxter is acting a whole lot like a biological terrorism organization these days, sending deadly viral samples around the world. If you mail an envelope full of anthrax to your Senator, you get arrested as a terrorist. So why is Baxter, which mailed samples of a far more deadly viral strain to labs around the world getting away with saying, essentially, 'Oops?'

But there's a bigger question in all this: How could this company have accidentally mixed LIVE avian flu viruses (both H5N1 and H3N2, the human form) in this vaccine material?
Was the viral contamination intentional?

The shocking answer is that this couldn't have been an accident. Why? Because Baxter International adheres to something called BSL3 (Biosafety Level 3) - a set of laboratory safety protocols that prevent the cross-contamination of materials.
As explained on Wikipedia (

"Laboratory personnel have specific training in handling pathogenic and potentially lethal agents, and are supervised by competent scientists who are experienced in working with these agents. This is considered a neutral or warm zone. All procedures involving the manipulation of infectious materials are conducted within biological safety cabinets or other physical containment devices, or by personnel wearing appropriate personal protective clothing and equipment. The laboratory has special engineering and design features."  Source: http://www.naturalnews.com/025760.html

Special Alert from Aquaponics USA:  This very same company Baxter International, was chosen to coordinate the development of the Swine Flu vaccine which we were presented with in fall of 2009, according to the Obama Administration? How is this possible? There should be a Congressional Investigation not a reward for this “mistake”?

Nil by mouth

For thousands of Britons battling the debilitating effects of cancer, depression, even eczema, diet is crucial. They view the vitamins and minerals they take as vital in their fight against sickness. So why does the EU want to cut off their supply? Rose Shepherd makes the case for rescuing remedies

  1. 1Rose Shepherd

  2. 2The Observer, Sunday 29 February 2004

  3. 3Article history

In the 21st century we live under siege. There are concerns about pesticides, herbicides, antibiotics, GM, mobile phones, microwaves, amalgam fillings, falling sperm counts, mad cows, MMR - even milk. Farmed salmon is a Trojan horse for carcinogens. Obesity and diabetes are on the march. There is a mass of documentation on all this. So what is the European Commission's big idea? 'Let's clamp down on vitamins and minerals.'

It would be funny if it weren't so tragic. While the EU has been busy drafting legislation, we seem to have been sleepwalking into a situation where chemists and health stores will be purged of hundreds of nutritional supplements.

I'm sorry, maybe you are alert to this already. Maybe you have written to your MEP, marched with the Health Freedom Movement, joined the Alliance for Natural Health or Consumers for Health Choice. Tens of thousands of people have been railing against this infringement of their rights, this insult to their intelligence and, not least, this threat to their health. The psychotherapist, writer and long-time cancer survivor Beata Bishop, author of A Time to Heal speaks for many when she says, 'I feel passionately angry about this.' I myself have been surprised, though, by how many others seem neither to know nor to care about any of what is afoot - and, still more, by the complaisance of some commentators.

What is at issue is couched in soothing terms in three EU directives. First, the Food Supplements Directive (FSD), under the guise of harmonization, creates a restricted list of vitamins and minerals, effectively a 'positive list' of allowable nutrients. EU member states will be mandated to market these 'harmonized' supplements, facilitating trade.

However, from August 2005, nutrients not on the list will be banned. This may be good news for states in which the sales and dosages of supplements have hitherto been severely restricted, but it's bad news for the UK, where our regulators have long regarded food supplements as foods, not medicines. We face losing some 270 nutrient supplements, including 40 trace elements, most forms of the more bioavailable organic minerals, and most food-state vitamins. And it doesn't end with vitamins and minerals. By 2007, if not before, the directive requires the European Commission to put forward proposals for a similar list, to apply to all nutrient supplements.

Nor does it stop at nutrients. The Traditional Herbal Medicinal Products Directive (THMPD), now working its way through the EU machine, promises to provide for a 'simplified pharmaceutical registration' for 'herbal medicines' - but only for substances that have been in safe use for 30 years, 15 of them within the EU, singly or in the same combinations. Thus, medicinal herbs in centuries-long use outside the community cannot benefit from the fast-track license procedure.

The THMPD is a part of the existing Pharmaceuticals Directive, currently being amended to widen the scope of drug classification. According to the amendment, anything that 'restores, corrects or modifies physiological function' in the body will be deemed a drug. The directive will have power to take precedence over both the FSD and THMPD, even though they may all be applicable to the same natural food supplement.

Public safety is cited as the motivating force behind these directives. Their combined effect, however, could be to drive out, degrade or drive underground many of the herbs and nutrients to which some people swear they owe their health. For the 40.9 per cent of us who use supplements to boost nutrition, this is no trivial matter, while to those using herbs and supplements to manage chronic pain or life-threatening disease, it must seem like sabotage. Skeptics dismiss such individuals' experience as 'anecdotal', but when you are your own anecdote, it's hard not to be convinced.

Beata Bishop's book - now, sadly, out of print - is a testament to the value of a nutrient-rich diet, boosted by supplements. As she wrote in 1985: 'I should have died of malignant melanoma... around June 1981. When my secondary cancer was diagnosed in late 1980, I was suffering from diabetes, incipient osteoarthritis, frequent knockout migraines and dental abscesses.' Today, she is free of these and attributes her recovery to Gerson Therapy, the radical regime under which the body is detoxified and activated with ionized minerals and organic fruit and vegetables, whereupon, it is hoped, the natural healing process kicks in. I don't want to be glib or simplistic about cancer. I know it comes in many guises and has multiple causes. Having lost two grandparents, my father and my partner to it, I am in mortal terror of it. Like most people, irrationally, I fear it more than I do the cardiovascular disease that took my other two grandparents and my mother. I should find it hard to refuse the slash-and-burn approaches to it. But when I try to think of it as being, like heart disease, a degenerative process, I see the wisdom of Gerson.

'I have been described as disgustingly healthy,' Beata Bishop tells me, 'but when I was very, very ill, without those supplements I wouldn't have got well. I believe it's totally wrong to interfere in people's attempts to maintain their health. I'm willing to fight at the barricades if it comes to that, because if it ain't broke, don't fix it.'

Or, you might say, if it ain't broke, don't break it. Despite occasional scare stories, the risk of death from food supplements is less than that of being struck by lightning, and significantly less than that of dying of penicillin allergy. Should the EU plans prevail, however, consumers may in future have to resort to the internet, to order products from unregulated sources, with no guarantee of quality or authenticity. It sounds fanciful, but observers are predicting a black market. After next August, if someone sidles up to you and asks if you want to buy some 'E', think mixed tocopherols and tocotrienols, since almost the whole spectrum of naturally occurring vitamin E is off the positive list.

'In my opinion,' says OM columnist Dr John Briffa, 'the proposal to restrict public access to nutritional supplements represents one giant retrograde step for the health of the nation. There is good evidence that the nutritional content of our diet has declined substantially over the past few decades. At the same time, studies exist that show that long-term nutrient supplementation has the potential to prevent a range of conditions, including heart disease, cataracts and certain forms of cancer.'

'We, as a nation, have a huge problem in looking after our people,' says Sue Croft, a director of Consumers for Health Choice, 'and those of us who take the trouble to keep ourselves well should be encouraged. Yet the very tools we need to do so are being taken away from us by Brussels, and our government is standing by and doing nothing.'

'It's disgraceful,' agrees shadow health minister Earl Howe. 'Traditionally, in this country, we've adopted a safety-based approach to licensing products for sale. There's never been any suggestion that our vetting procedures are inadequate in that respect. To have a harmonization measure foisted upon us for no good reason is a very retrograde step indeed, and consumers will suffer.'

And so we will, one way or another. Consider HRT, associated with an increased breast cancer risk. For this and other reasons, women are turning, in preference, to alternative remedies, at the very time when these remedies seem threatened with extinction. 'The mineral boron is very useful,' says Dr Marilyn Glenville, a specialist in women's health and prolific author. 'There are good clinical trials on its effect on bone health. If you get a good multivitamin that's designed around the menopause, boron will be in there.' But boron is off the positive list, guilty until proved innocent, under European Napoleonic law.

Boron could even now be reprieved. The European Food Safety Authority, a faceless organ of the European Commission, will consider dossiers submitted on banned nutrients. With a deadline of 12 July 2005, however, and with compiling costs of anything from £80,000 to £250,000 per substance, the race will be to the swift and to the rich. Some big manufacturers are working on dossiers. But with no guarantee they will be accepted and no possibility of a patent on the nutrients they champion, there can be scant incentive to do so. Hence, a kind of nutritional dumbing down is underway, with manufacturers reformulating products.

So much for boron. How about the herbal supplements black cohosh and dong quai? Both can be effective against hot flushes, but their future looks uncertain under the THMPD and amended Pharmaceuticals Directive.

The THMPD is, in some ways, the most Eurocentric directive. In his 1997 King's Fund lecture on integrated healthcare, the Prince of Wales said: 'No knowledge, experience or wisdom from different traditions should be overlooked in efforts to help the suffering.' This directive could scarcely be less in that spirit. We plunder the world's larder, the world's table, yet set our face against the herbal medical traditions on which two-thirds of the world relies, when they could have much to give us.

Witness Carctol. At the inaugural conference of the British Society of Integrated Medicine last November, Dr Rosy Daniel introduced four cancer patients, all doing well on a dairy-free, vegetarian diet and this Ayurvedic preparation. 'We have a traditional remedy that has been brought from India,' says Daniel, founder of Health Creation, which offers holistic healthcare stuff and support. 'But because three of the eight herbs in Carctol are classed as medicine, they are prohibited from putting out any information about it, as this is construed as advertising.'

The law is spacious enough to allow doctors to prescribe an unlicensed medicine if they believe it may be effective. Patients have to be told that the medicine is unlicensed, and to sign a consent form. What doctors cannot tell patients is what they think the stuff will do, since this would be to make a medicinal claim. Importers Cankut Herbs are similarly constrained. 'It's a bizarre paradox, isn't it,' says Daniel, 'that when something actually does work, and has some medical activities, nobody can talk about it?'

Well, Gillian Gill, at least, can talk. When she was diagnosed with an inoperable ovarian tumor, she was offered radiotherapy but, having made her own risk-benefit assessment, declined. A combination of meditation, Reiki healing and a non-dairy, vegetarian diet effected some improvement. Then, when progress stalled, with some trepidation she went on Carctol. 'It was,' she recalls, 'like a splint to my brain. Suddenly the panics, the awful thoughts and feelings didn't come any more, and there was no looking back. With each six months I had more energy. I feel fitter now than I did before I had cancer. Eighteen months ago my oncologist gave me the best present I could have. She said, "Gillian, I'm seeing something I've never seen before." My tumor had been so big they said they'd never seen anything like it. Now it's about the size of an orange, and it seems to have transformed into a cyst with fluid.'

In the course of her recovery, Gill wrote and published a book, Where's the Meat? Acid-free Vegetarian Dishes. It is available from Health Creation and costs £6. Hospital dieticians still tell cancer patients to combat cachexia, or wasting, with high-calorie cakes, pork pies and burgers. However, pioneers of integrated medicine, such as Dr Julian Kenyon at the Dove Clinic, near Winchester, propose a whole food regime free of meat, dairy products and sugar, designed to push the acid/alkaline balance of the body towards an alkaline environment, in which, they say, tumors cannot thrive.

Derek Ritchie is a Dove Clinic patient. He has mesothelioma, an asbestos-related cancer of the lung lining. It is slow-growing, but the prognosis was depressing: two years at best. Yet six-and-a-half years later, here he is, about to fly to Spain, sustained by a regime that has included high-dose vitamins, herbal remedies and food supplements. He admits he's 'lost a bit of weight and one thing and another', but says, 'Quality of life is not bad. And all I know is, if I hadn't been taking these things from the very beginning, I wouldn't be here.'

Kenyon prescribes the remedies that he favors, always with an eye to quality and emerging research, on an informed consent basis. 'I am aware of impending legislation,' he says, 'and I am making every effort to comply completely with all regulatory issues.' But such remedies will disappear if their manufacturers go to the wall once the shop shelves are stripped.

How can such ostensibly benign and well-intentioned legislation be so onerous? To understand, look first at which products are berthed in the safe harbor of the FSD positive list, and which cast adrift. The positive list overwhelmingly excludes natural, organic substances, which, say campaigners, are the most innovative and most readily absorbed.

But, then, the list has not, as you'd imagine, been drawn up on the basis of scrupulous research into the safety and efficacy of available supplements. The permitted substances are those listed under the Directive on Foods for Particular Nutritional Use (Parnuts) which determines what may be added for nutritional purposes to adult dietetic foods. The list is literally one they made earlier, and is inappropriate to the consideration of food supplementation. Critics point to the fact that it sanctions the use of sodium and potassium hydroxides, powerful caustic agents that no one would want to supplement ('If swallowed,' runs the safety advice for the former, 'drink plenty of water and call for immediate medical help.')

At the same time, highly valuable nutrients are absent. Take selenium, a mineral in which the British diet is known to be deficient. Inorganic selenite and selenate are on the list, but two organic forms, selenomethionine and selenium yeast, are not. This despite the fact that selenomethionine (the primary form, in foods such as Brazil nuts) and selenium yeast are safer and more bioavailable.

'With cancer,' says Ralph Pike, director of the National Association of Health Stores (NAHS), 'selenium is the most important mineral. There is a big company in the process of compiling a dossier on selenium yeast. It's cost them far in excess of £250,000. They've just completed a two-year rat study. People will find it abhorrent that the only way that selenium yeast can stay on the market is by killing untold rats. They've actually told us animal studies are not necessary. This is one of the myths surrounding the directive. Every time you talk to the Commission, they say "absolutely not necessary", but if you're going to show how selenium yeast goes through the body and where it ends up in tissues, you've got to start doing histology, and autopsies, and tissue samples.'

'The science simply does not add up,' says David Hinde, legal director of the Alliance for Natural Health. The Alliance has mounted one of two separate legal challenges to the FSD (alongside the NAHS and the Health Food Manufacturers' Association), which were heard in the high court on 31 January, when Mr Justice Richards was persuaded that both had 'an arguable case' and agreed that both should be referred to the European Court as soon as possible.

'At the heart of the challenge is, first, the contention that the alleged legal basis for the directive under Article 95 is invalid under EU law,' Hinde continues. 'The European Union doesn't have the right to legislate just any old way. It's subject to very strict rules. Then there is the principle of subsidiarity. That means that decisions should always be taken as close to the rock-face as possible, so if a member state is capable of regulating its own food supplements, they shouldn't be regulated by the EU unless there is a very good reason.'

In court, the government was put in the invidious position of defending the directive proposed by the European Commission in Brussels. When asked why there was this prohibition, says Hinde, 'They were reduced to saying, "Well, because of safety." That's a bit like saying we are incapable of regulating our supplements as food in this country, even though we've done so for many years.'

The judge, most helpfully, wants to push things along. It normally takes 18 months to two years to get a decision, but the ANH is hopeful we'll get one before the ban is set to come in on 1 August 2005.

Hinde is not just a professional but a personal advocate of supplementation, having made the engagingly boyish mental leap from internal combustion engine to human organism. 'I was your typical male. I'd whack a Lean Cuisine in the microwave, take some salad, and think I was doing a good job for myself.' He then discovered that if he put clean, high-octane petrol in his car it went better, and he saw the light. 'I started taking supplements, and couldn't believe the increase in energy. I thought, "These things work!" Then I began to look into this whole area, and discovered the fundamental thesis that is missing from our health paradigm is the link between micro-nutrition deficiency and illness. Your body is remarkably resilient. If you're missing key nutrients, it gets by, but eventually things begin to go wrong.'

That was the way Dr Max Gerson's thoughts were running in the 1920s, in a far less toxic world. And it is how Dr Robert Verkerk's thoughts are running now. Previously a research fellow at Imperial College, Dr Robert Verkerk left to set up the ANH. Researching sustainable agriculture, he had seen how impoverished our soil, and hence our food supply, was becoming. 'There are few drugs that can demonstrate the cancer-defying properties of natural substances,' he says. 'Why on earth is the EU wanting to ban them? How many leading cancer research institutes, still besotted by chemical and radiation treatments, have put together the poor nutrition, plus poor lifestyle, plus toxic chemical puzzle?'

'Let food be thy medicine,' said Hippocrates, yet precious few of the doctors who have sworn the Hippocratic oath, or one of its revisionist versions, have embraced this tenet. In his Editor's Choice column in the BMJ of 24 January, Richard Smith wrote: 'Although many patients are convinced of the importance of food in both causing and relieving their problems, many doctors' knowledge of nutrition is rudimentary. Most feel much more comfortable with drugs than foods, and the "food as medicine" philosophy of Hippocrates has been largely neglected.' Smith goes on to make the 'unadventurous prediction' that we will be hearing much more about the science, medicine and politics of food, and concludes, 'Hippocrates would be pleased.' Not with the FSD, he wouldn't.

The idea of setting safe maximum limits on supplements is also highly questionable. In many EU countries, they are limited to three times the recommended daily amount, and this could be imposed across the board. But, with RDAs, you need to think bog standard, not gold standard.

'I call them the Ridiculous Dietary Arbitraries,' says Patrick Holford, founder of the Institute for Optimum Nutrition (ION), and author of The Optimum Nutrition Bible. 'The RDA is not a scientifically robust score for a nutrient. It's the level that prevents overt deficiency, and if you take the case of vitamin C, it started at 30mg, then went to 45mg, then 60mg, while in America it's 85mg. Now, 30mg does prevent scurvy, but scientists on the panels who decide RDAs are gradually thinking that more might be better. We [the ION] work from what is arguably the most scientific position, which is to ask, "What is the optimal intake of a nutrient?" What level of, say, vitamin C confers maximum protection against infections? And we know that it is around 1,000mg.'

The official EU classification of a drug, meanwhile, throws up some priceless anomalies. There are two parts to the definition of a drug. One is the 'presentation' limb, that anything that claims to treat, prevent or cure a disease is a medicine. 'So, if you say, "An apple a day keeps the doctor away," and you're selling the apple,' says Holford, 'you've just contravened the Medicines Act.' The other is the so-called 'function' test: ie, if something 'restores, corrects or modifies physical function' in the body, it can be classified as a drug (that apple, again). Does this mean that, to reverse the logic, if anything remains on the positive list and is not reclassified as a medicine, we can assume it does not restore, correct or modify physical function? If so, who is going to rush out to buy supplements that can claim, at best, to have no effect?

This is not to say that there are no concerns about the use of herbs and supplements, and in particular about how they interact with prescription drugs. Dong quai, feverfew, St John's wort and ginkgo, for instance, are contraindicated with warfarin. But, then, so is cranberry juice.

Warfarin is the sodium salt form of rat poison. Cranberry juice is rich in antioxidants and potent against cystitis. Anyone on warfarin should be advised to avoid it, but it would be a strange inversion of reality to say that cranberry juice is dangerous.

In the matter of St John's wort, if we apply the same risk-benefit criteria as are used in the licensing of medicines, we may well find in favor of an antidepressant herb that has far fewer side effects than its chemical counterparts.

In February 1992, the consumer research body Social Audit reported, on the basis of four studies between 1981 and 1988, that more than 10,000 hospital beds are taken up at any one time by people suffering adverse reactions (ADR) to prescription drugs. While the side effects of drugs is a recognized problem, it is one with which we are prepared to live, much as we are prepared to live with the car, for all the hazards it poses.

While we know that cars kill, however, we are less conscious that drugs are a major cause of mortality in the Western world. In May 1998, The Journal of the American Medical Association reported that 'each year, prescription drugs injure approximately 1.5m people so severely that they require hospitalization, and 100,000 die.' That puts the health concerns over herbs into perspective. Not that we want a free-for-all. There are some horrible products out there, but if you use a legislative purse-seine net to trap the fishiest ones, you inevitably get a huge and unacceptable by-catch.

'Herbs are powerful,' acknowledges actress Jenny Seagrove, a stalwart of Consumers for Health Choice, 'which is why they work when used properly, and why they can cause problems when used incorrectly. However, they're not as powerful as the synthetic versions, which are prescription drugs. I believe there should be some kind of regulation, but not the kind they're suggesting. I think they should have spot checks of every manufacturer's products each year, and people who sell herbs should have to do some kind of training. Products should be labelled with health warnings, then people could make educated choices.'

Not the least depressing aspect of this whole debate is the orgy of vivisection it could unleash. Animal rights campaigners, who point out that ADRs are rife in medicines that have passed animal tests, must be feeling nauseated at this point.

The Alliance for Natural Health at least has the green light to make its case to the European Court. 'The doors are closing,' says Robert Verkerk, 'but our recent court success tells us that the EU may have overstretched its powers. We believe that bringing this case to the European Court of Justice might elicit the paradigm shift needed by our healthcare system, currently splitting at the sides.'

The fight doesn't end there. Today Europe, tomorrow the world. Similarities have been noted between the EU's Food Supplements Directive and the Codex Alimentarius Draft Guidelines for Vitamin and Mineral Supplements. Codex is about harmonization on a global scale. US health freedom campaigners are watching nervously, mindful that the US will have one vote, compared with the expanded EU's 25-strong block vote. If the legal challenges succeed, it will pose a potent obstacle to the plan to impose Codex worldwide. If they fail... Well, ultimately you have to ask yourself, cui bono?

This is what the Americans term a wake-up call. I prefer the English word 'alarm'.

· Alliance for Natural Health 01252 371 275; Consumers for Health Choice 020 7222 4182; Health Creation helpline 0845 009 3366


    Reprinted from a newspaper in the UK called The Observer and also originally written in 2005 (February).  We’re bringing the last paragraph to the front as it predicts exactly what is happening in the US in terms of the Codex Alimentarius World Food Code push (bold italics are ours).

“The fight doesn't end there. Today Europe, tomorrow the world. Similarities have been noted between the EU's Food Supplements Directive and the Codex Alimentarius Draft Guidelines for Vitamin and Mineral Supplements. Codex is about harmonization on a global scale. US health freedom campaigners are watching nervously, mindful that the US will have one vote, compared with the expanded EU's 25-strong block vote. If the legal challenges succeed, it will pose a potent obstacle to the plan to impose Codex worldwide. If they fail... Well, ultimately you have to ask yourself, cui bono?

This is what the Americans term a wake-up call. I prefer the English word 'alarm'. Be alarmed. Be very alarmed.”

Sunday, August 14, 2005

The Vitamin Police

Tell me, again, just why the United Nations is so concerned about nutritional supplements


Sr. editorial writer

The Orange County Register


    If you take vitamin supplements, as I do, you'll want to pay attention to an emerging debate over how closely vitamins might be regulated in this country.

    The outcome could be as severe as the Food and Drug Administration regulating vitamins like prescription drugs or as simple as more detailed labeling about vitamin supplements and their effects. Whichever way it goes, the controversy is gathering momentum.

    Every day I get several e-mails warning that a shadowy international body, Codex Alimentarius, is on the verge of cutting off availability of vitamins and other nutritional supplements to American consumers, restricting our health freedom, or dictating formulas so large dosages just won't be available.

    Most of the vitamin consumers worried about Codex are also concerned with the recently passed Central American Free Trade Agreement. As Texas Republican Rep. Ron Paul put it, CAFTA "increases the possibility that Codex regulations will be imposed on the American public."

    How real are these threats? In brief, the threats exist but are not yet cataclysmic. But it could take mobilizing vitamin and supplement consumers to neutralize them.

    Where does the main threat come from? Codex Alimentarius, Latin for "food code" or "food law," is a United Nations-affiliated international organization formed in 1963 under the aegis of the Food and Agriculture Organization and World Health Organization. It promulgates international regulatory guidelines on a range of food-related issues. At its July 4-9 meeting in Rome it dealt mostly with uncontroversial minutiae like "proposed draft maximum level for total aflatoxins in unprocessed almonds, hazelnuts and pistachios" and "maximum residue levels in/on dried chili peppers" and a lot of organizational detail.

    It spent about five minutes on July 4 passing a proposal to promulgate guidelines for regulating vitamins and mineral food supplements. As the FAO/WHO reported, "The guidelines recommend labeling that contains information on maximum consumption levels of vitamins and mineral food supplements, assisting countries to increase consumer information, which will help consumers use them in a safe and effective way...

    "The guidelines say that people should be encouraged to select a balanced diet to get the sufficient amount of vitamins and minerals. Only in cases where food does not provide sufficient vitamins and minerals should supplements be used."That wording is a red flag to many users of vitamins and other supplements.

    There are two distinct approaches to vitamins, both with nuances. One approach sees the main purpose of supplements as preventing diseases caused by deficiencies, like scurvy, beriberi and pellagra. The early quasi-official "recommended daily allowances," which have been revised only slightly, are based loosely, without allowance for individual biochemical or environmental differences, on the amounts of nutrients needed to prevent deficiencies that lead to deadly diseases.

    Other researchers, including Linus Pauling (who developed the concept of "molecular disease" after DNA was discovered), Denham Harman (the free-radical theory of aging) and Roger Williams (biochemical and nutritional individuality) began to develop and test the idea that there might be levels of nutrients that not only prevented deadly diseases but improved health and ameliorated the aging process. Since the late 1950s studies have suggested strongly that the intake of certain vitamins can reduce the risk of numerous diseases, including heart disease and cancer.

    Europe acts with caution

    As there are different approaches to the usefulness of vitamins, there are different approaches to the most desirable way to regulate vitamins (assuming there's a need to regulate; the fact that the American Association of Poison Control Centers has reported no deaths due to vitamins for the last 8 years suggests the putative dangers of "overdose" are somewhat overblown).

    One faction believes that vitamins are useful only to prevent deficiency diseases, that there must be potential dangers to doses markedly higher than deficiency-prevention doses, that claims about disease prevention are mainly the work of charlatans, and that vitamins should, by and large, be used only under medical supervision. This is a variation on the "precautionary principle," which suggests that substances should not be allowed on the market until they are proven safe and effective beyond doubt, though how that can apply to natural substances that occur in food and are already readily available is a question.

    Most European countries and Australia regulate vitamins similarly to the way the United States regulates prescription drugs. A set of EU guidelines, the Food Supplements Directive, based on 1998 German regulations that emphasize "maximum upper limits" and would have taken as many as 5,000 products off the European market, went into effect August 1, but its impact might be mitigated by litigation.

      U.S. treats vitamins as food

    The United States, on the other hand, at least since the 1994 Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act, treats vitamins as food, not drugs. The act was passed in one of the more remarkable instances of grassroots politicking - vitamin manufacturers mobilized many of their customers - in response to efforts by the FDA to assume more control over vitamins and supplements, which would probably have led to pharmaceutical-like restrictions if the FDA had had its druthers. Since the 1994 act vitamins and supplements have grown from a $3.4 billion to a $20 billion industry. And the FDA would still love to get its regulatory mitts on vitamins and supplements.

    The Codex Commission obviously leans toward the European model. Its guidelines - still not written, and there's a chance, if minuscule, of influencing them with a barrage of scientific evidence - are likely to recommend dosages similar to current RDAs, with the strong suggestion that higher dosage formulas not be allowed.

Even if such formulations are not mandated, they will come with a great deal of "education" to the effect that the authorities have determined that vitamins with higher dosages are a waste that leaves consumers literally urinating away their money. Many vitamin consumers who pay little attention will believe this, according to Bill Sardi, a nutrition journalist, author and consumer advocate in San Dimas (www.knowledgeofhealth.com). If those who believe there are therapeutic and disease-preventing dosages are right, a great deal of unnecessary illness will ensue.

    U.S. will be divided on Codex

    The Codex guidelines will find a friendly reception in some quarters in the United States. The FDA would certainly like to exercise more regulatory oversight on supplements than is authorized by current law. This April the Department of Health and Human Services wrote a report urging more power for the FDA. Most big pharmaceutical companies, which are accustomed to dealing with the FDA in pharmaceuticals, wouldn't mind this; they would probably increase their market share as smaller vitamin companies found the regulations too onerous to deal with and thus close up, find a partner, or sell out to a larger company.

    The 1994 Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act would deter such efforts to "harmonize" U.S. law with international guidelines, but laws can be changed and determined bureaucrats can be skillful at following their own agendas without quite going so far as to violate the law too obviously. The FDA lost an appeals court decision in Pearson v. Shalala in 1999 that challenged its practice of forbidding health claims on vitamin packages. The court said the First Amendment applied even to FDA efforts to restrict such free speech. But it responded by setting up a bureaucratic process to govern "qualified health claims" and to date has approved only nine of them.

Those who dismiss concerns about Codex as alarmist note that Codex guidelines would be voluntary, so health freedom in the U.S. would not be threatened. Skeptics point out that the Codex guidelines, even prior to being formulated, were specifically mentioned as the "gold standard" of desirable vitamin guidelines in the CAFTA treaty.

    International pressures

    Is it out of the question to speculate that some other country might challenge the "antiquated" and "dangerously permissive" U.S. law as intruding on the freedom of trade that would be promoted by uniform standards?

Scott Tips, counsel for the National Health Federation (www.thenhf.com), a 50-year-old advocate for consumer choice in health care, who has attended Codex meetings since 2000, thinks not. "Most European officials see the freedom allowed under the [Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act]as dangerous, and quite sincerely," he told me.

Might the World Trade Organization then authorize the complaining country to impose countervailing duties as a punishment? If these were politically targeted - as were the duties proposed by the EU when the WTO said it could impose trade sanctions after the U.S. imposed steel tariffs - they might persuade Congress to change U.S. law.

Even absent a WTO action, U.S. companies that sell in international markets might find it convenient to adopt Codex's guidelines. If they started producing mostly "upper limit" vitamins, that would make it inconvenient and more expensive for consumers who believe "megadoses" are desirable.

    Health choices in the balance

  The threat to nutritional freedom posed by Codex is indirect but real. The antagonism toward vitamins and supplements - partly explainable by the fact that some vitamin advocates have displayed signs of quackery and some enthusiasms or fads for certain supplements have turned out to be overblown after heavy promotion - seen in some quarters of the regulatory bureaucracy, certain politicians and most of the media, is an important factor. These elements will pounce on the Codex guidelines eagerly and seek to make U.S. law conform.

Contrary to Internet articles with titles like "Kiss Your Vitamins Good Bye," however, this fight is just beginning. Vitamin consumers may have to mobilize again, as they did in 1994. But there are more of them now than there were then, especially as the boomers age.

    Whether its guidelines take root in the United States or not, the Codex influence could make it more important than ever that consumers inform themselves independently and not assume the duly constituted authorities know what they're talking about. It could take some political acumen to maintain and expand health freedom, but it's far from impossible.



    Reprinted from an Orange County, California Newspaper, The Register and originally written in the summer of 2005.  Several years have passed since this article was written and the Codex Alimentarius World Food Code Meetings continue to be convened annually. The goal is FOOD AND SUPPLEMENT CONTROL FROM A WORLD BODY!

ARTICLE #2:  Dr. Rima Laibow is an activist who is fighting around the world for Food Freedom. Some of her views are radical. Decide where you stand in this important issue of Food Freedom.

    There are many YouTube Videos of Dr. Rima Laibow, Medical Director of the Natural Solutions Foundation, discussing what’s happening at the the Codex Alimentarius World Food Code Meetings that are taking place annually.  If you wish to maintain any semblance of your health freedom, these videos are a MUST SEE! Here are a series of Videos from the Codex Meeting that took place from July 5-9, 2010. You can see her many other Codex Reports going back in the timeline on You Tube.

    This definition of Codex Alimentrius was taken from the Natural Solutions Foundation web-site: “Codex Alimentarius was founded in 1962 by the UN to establish international free trade foods. It is jointly administered by the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) through annual and regional meetings.”  “Codex pertains to every bite - and kind of - food traded internationally and allows high doses of pesticides, veterinary drugs, synthetic hormones, contaminants, artificial sweeteners, and other dangerous compounds and processes (like mandated irradiation of food) while it forbids health claims for food.”  It also classifies vitamins and minerals as toxins.

    Everything you would want to know about Codex Alimentarius is discussed on the Natural Solutions Foundation website also known as Health Freedom USA.  Just click here:

http://www.healthfreedomusa.org  This website is one of the best sources for information regarding a variety of health and food related topics.

    Working closely with the Natural Solutions Foundation is Ralph Fucetola JD, also known as the Vitamin Lawyer.  Check out his Blog at:   http://vitaminlawyerhealthfreedom.blogspot.com


    A Natural Solutions Foundation White Paper Mandating No HARMonization with CODEX, Food Safety and Food Regulation Regarding U.S. Codex Office and Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) for Adoption of Codex Committee Policies by the U.S. Codex Delegation and FSIS in Harmony with the Dietary Substances Health and Education Act (DSHEA), 19 USC 3512 (the Anti-Harmonization Statute) and other Statutory and Case Law

Action Item: Tell your members of Congress “NO! to forced industrialization of food” — DEFEAT the fake “Food Safety” bills or to amend them to protect us all! Click here: http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/568/t/1128/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=26714

    Here’s a brief excerpt from the above referenced White Paper (bold italics are mine).

“This White Paper addresses the urgent need for Congress to adopt further assurances that American access to clean, biologically effective, health promoting and wholesome nutrition will not be compromised by “HARMonization” with new Federal food safety laws (including HR 875, 759, S. 425, etc.) or domestic or international rules, regulations or standards such as the Guidelines and Standards ratified and promulgated by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (the World Food Code). Such assurances already exist in US law (see paragraph 3 below) but are flagrantly ignored by those attending Codex Alimentarius. Reigning in that disregard is essential to the food safety and security of the United States.

US participation in Codex Alimentarius and similar international activities drives food toward the unsustainable, the toxic, the non-nutritive and the undisclosed. It supports forced industrialization of food, denigrating natural and organic standards while placing unsustainable burdens on non-industrialized, family, home, private association food production, including home businesses, farms, ranches and gardens.

In 1994 Congress unanimously adopted DSHEA, signaling a new approach to allowing Americans the freedom to develop the most advanced and dynamic nutritional marketplace in the world. Memorializing the essential concept that nutrients are to be treated as foods, and, as such, cannot be limited or controlled in their dose or combination any more than eating, for example, lamb flavored ice cream could – or should – be regulated, DSHEA created a legal climate which allows natural remedies, therapies that may benefit and medical treatment to flourish through the active participation of over 90% of the US population. 

However, that expression of the People’s will has been continually undercut by a clear Federal agency [FDA, IOM, EPA, USDA] prejudice against natural, wholesome, non-industrialized food and nutrition. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), EPA, IOM, NIH and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) all fail the Public trust in this regard.

Many people in the health and wellness industries, Health Freedom Advocates like the Natural Solutions Foundation and consumers fear that the Federal agencies’ avowed adherence to “HARMonizing” our laws and regulations to the Codex Alimentarius process (starting October 11, 1995, Federal Register and continuing unabated since then) is, over time, reversing these positive, and widely supported developments. There is great public consternation and well-earned concern that these agencies are seeking to HARMonize United States Standards, Guidelines and Codes of Practice with the restrictive rules and practices prevalent in certain countries outside the United States.

The Codex Alimentarius Commission has adopted Standards, Guidelines and Codes of Practice based on regulatory principles that will, if the United States “Harmonizes” with them as announced, but despite US law, over time, limit access to nutrients, complementary therapies and dietary supplements of consumers in the United States, and that will significantly restrict access to clinically effective vitamin and mineral supplements worldwide. This will have a markedly deleterious impact on liberty and an equally significant one health, if the definition of the major killers of our time as preventable diseases of under-nutrition by the World Health Organization is be believed.

Codex was founded upon the initiative of pharmaceutical executives who stand to profit from under nutrition because it leads to diseases they make treatments for. It was not founded by nutritionists or humanitarians.

The US delegation to Codex is packed with representatives of, and people representing the interests of, corporate concerns who manufacture and market drugs for humans and animals, agricultural chemicals, industrialized food supply companies whose and other industrial sectors whose interests run counter to health and consumer protection. Consumers and health professionals are scant on Codex delegations and their positions are given virtually no weight either in the Codex deliberations or the preparation of US Codex positions.

Please take ACTION.  Here’s another opportunity to save your health freedom and thousands of lives (maybe even your own). 

Action Item: Tell your members of Congress “NO! to forced industrialization of food” — DEFEAT the fake “Food Safety” bills or to amend them to protect us all! Click here: http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/568/t/1128/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=26714


    Please allow us to introduce Dr. Leonard Horowitz.  He’s an Activist speaking out for the Health of Humans; and his message is powerful.  After you view these first two amazing reports also produced by the Bridge Stone Media Group on the War on BIO Terrorism, go to YouTube and watch the other 14 Parts of this Documentary. Then go to his website at www.tetrahedron.org to discover more about this courageous Doctor. 

Ralph,  would you please get us out of this website or at least find another page because I can’t even say Codex Alimentarius. Well, there I said it. I’m learning something.
Ralph,  would you please get us out of this website or at least find another page because I can’t even say Codex Alimentarius. Well, there I said it. I’m learning something.

ARTICLE #6:  Yes, it’s true.  Baxter Pharmaceutical put Avian Flu in their vaccine!


Check out these YouTube Videos that will give you an overall view of what’s happening with Food and Why. Pay particular attention to the GMO information and what Monsanto’s plan is. Also, be sure to watch the 3rd and 4th Videos of Mr. Bryan Hubbard’s summaries of recent issues of “What Doctors Don’t Tell You” in London at www.wddty.com .  Hubbard shares a frightening scenario of what is coming in Europe as Big Pharma literally wipes out almost all access to Alternative Medicine there in 2011 and 2012. His other Video discusses drugs that harm instead of heal. This is what is in store for the unsuspecting people in the US, as well, if we don’t keep fighting for our Health Freedoms with Dr. Laibow, Dr. Horowitz and others.


Go to www.healthfreedomusa.org and put Codex Alimentarius into their search engine to get the full scoop from another freedom fighter, Dr. Rima Laibow.


    If you want to know what’s happening here in the US regarding our Health Freedom, watch this Video by Ralph Fucetola JD, one of the Trustees of the National Solutions Foundation. He explains what Bills are in Congress as of May 2010 that could both benefit and deter your Health Freedoms. He also gives you some great ideas on what you can do to get and stay involved in this important topic of our right to our own Health Freedom choices. Also, be sure to watch the 2nd Video on the dangers of Aspertame.



In light of what Mr Hubbard above just discussed, there are a lot of Big Pharma drugs out there that are darn-right dangerous. Read this article by an ex-drug-design chemist for Big Pharma, Shane Ellison M. Sc. He bears his soul about how he sold it to Big Pharma before becoming the whistle blower he is today. Shane is my newest Hero on the ever-growing list of those who are fighting for our Health Freedoms.


By Shane Ellison M. Sc.
The People's Chemist
July 30, 2010

I ask questions with period marks to shorten conversations. I avoid eye contact with strangers in fear (maybe it’s anxiety) that I might learn too much about them. I secretly think that Metallica would be making better music if they went back to bludgeoning themselves with party drugs and alcohol, instead of “therapy.” I’m trying to master the Law of Un-attraction to shield myself from a “real job,” small homes and junky cars. And, I’m constantly giving my children advice, only to give it to myself.

Psychiatry, can your drugs help me?

Perhaps these questions are what motivated me to pursue a career as a drug design chemist, winning multiple awards for my work. Nothing gets me more excited than drugs and how they affect the body (except my wife’s abs). I’ve studied their molecular anatomy, risked life and limb to mix and match explosive chemicals in a round bottom flask, and even sold my soul to Big Pharma in exchange for a lab bench and chemical hood.

During this time, I’ve made some surprising discoveries about psychiatric meds, which include antidepressants, antipsychotics, stimulants, and anti-anxiety drugs. Understanding what I’ve learned will protect you from the flood of side effects that are now being discovered at breakneck speeds, courtesy of the myriad of patients taking them in the name of mental health.

Your Own Personal Hell

Antidepressants strive to increase the levels of a “coping” molecule known as serotonin in the brain. It supposedly helps us find happiness when it’s covered in an avalanche of nastiness. But, it’s never been proven. Still, the drugs attempt to boost serotonin by “selectively” stopping the “reuptake” among brain cells. This is where the whole SSRI acronym came from – “selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor.” It’s a slick name, but a stupid idea. Nothing is selective in the body.

While trying to block the reuptake of serotonin, antidepressants can also prevent its release and that of another brain compound known as dopamine. The areas of the brain responsible for release and reuptake of these neurotransmitters are so damn similar (after all, they work on the same molecule) that an antidepressant drug isn’t smart enough to understand which one it is supposed to work on. So it does what any dumb drug would do, it blocks both. That’s why users usually carry a glassy stare in their eye. Fully under the psychiatric spell, they’ve tuned out.

Deep sadness, fear, anger and aggression can set in over time. By removing serotonin and dopamine from the brain, long-term antidepressant users can’t find or feel happiness. Instead, they may become buried in the avalanche of nastiness. And if you can’t find or feel happiness in life, what’s the point? What’s going to stop you from snapping your own neck or spraying bullets on your classmates? Not much when you live in your own personal antidepressant hell.

Think this is all opinion?

According to the FDA, antidepressants can cause suicidal thoughts and behavior, worsening depression, anxiety, panic attacks, insomnia, irritability, hostility, impulsivity, aggression, psychotic episodes and violence. Some even cause homicidal ideation according to the manufacturers. Many long-term antidepressant users will tell you they no longer feel normal emotions—they’re numb, like zombies.

But the side effects of these drugs aren’t limited to hijacking your feelings and emotional state, causing violent and psychotic states. Physical side effects occur too and include abnormal bleeding, birth defects, heart attack, seizures and sudden death. Over one hundred and seventy drug regulatory warnings and studies have been issued on antidepressants, to sound the alarm on these side effects.

For Elephant Use Only

Psychiatrists prescribe antipsychotic meds such as Zyprexa and Seroquel, for anything from schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, delusional disorder, psychotic depression, autism or anything else they can think of, even “pervasive developmental disorder,” which is perfect for boosting sales because it targets children who suffer from irritability, aggression, and agitation. It’s a shame ‘cause these drugs are good for nothing but sedating irate elephants, not curing psychiatric disease.

According to a study published in Psychological Medicine, antipsychotic drugs cause brains to shrink – they lessen brain matter and volume. Originally designed for those deemed “schizophrenic,” the drug companies came up with a brilliant marketing campaign to sell these drugs to a much wider market—unsatisfied antidepressant users. You've probably seen the ads—if your “depression medication” isn’t working, then don't blame the drug; you may just have bipolar disorder!”

Once swallowed, antipsychotics sail through the blood stream where they’re carried to the brain. Like a giant oil spill, antipsychotics cover the brain in a medicinal slick, where brain wave transmission is blocked. Users become devoid of normal brain activity. Motivation, drive and feelings of reward are shunted. If psychiatry considers this a “treatment,” they’re the crazy ones.

If you’ve ever seen someone who has suffered from the “spill” courtesy of following doctor’s orders, you can’t mistake one of the most common side effects, it’s called Akathisia. Involuntary movements, tics, jerks in the face and the entire body can become permanent side effects for antipsychotic users.

Antipsychotics also cause obesity, diabetes, stroke, cardiac events, respiratory problems, delusional thinking and psychosis. Drug regulators from the U.S., Canada, United Kingdom, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa warn that they can also lead to death. I wouldn’t be surprised if psychiatrists considered this a cure…

Use This to Jump The Grand Canyon

If you’re going to attempt to jump your scooter over the Grand Canyon, or ride your snowboard off Kilimanjaro, stimulants are great. They flood the brain with dopamine and trigger an inhuman surge of adrenaline, responsible for making you believe life is grand, despite eminent death. Outside of that, you’re either a speed freak, a college student trying to learn an entire semester of Biology 101 in 4 hours, or a fifth grader “following doctor’s orders.”

Top stimulants being prescribed today are nothing more than a mix of amphetamines packaged into trade names like Adderall, Dexedrine and Ritalin. Street thugs sell it as meth, poor man’s cocaine, crystal, ice, glass and speed. It’s no wonder kids are now abusing Ritalin, Adderall and these drugs more than street drugs, they’re cheaper to get and they’re “legal,” hence the term kiddie cocaine.

Even the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) categorizes Ritalin in the Schedule ll category, meaning a high potential for abuse—just like cocaine and morphine. All of them have the same effects regardless of how they’re named: Central nervous system overload leading to heart attack and/or heart failure. And kids are dropping faster than Meth Heads at Raves…

I’m not exaggerating.

Eleven international drug regulatory agencies and our own FDA has issued warnings that stimulants like Ritalin cause addiction, depression, insomnia, drug dependence, mania, psychosis, heart problems, stroke and sudden death.

Bash Your Head in with Anti-Anxiety Drugs

If you’re not man enough for a drug that could sedate an elephant like antipsychotics, then psychiatrists will prescribe anti-anxiety meds, particularly benzodiazepines. Choosing between the two is akin to deciding whether or not you should be hit in the head with an aluminum bat or a wooden one; anti-anxiety meds being the latter.

Discovered in the stinky chemistry labs of Hoffman La Roche in 1955, anti-anxiety meds aim to trigger sleep receptors in the brain, just slightly. So, rather than being riddled with anxiety, you are put to sleep, halfway. It’s “treatment,” and psychiatrists have been “practicing it for decades.” But, it has yet to work, because drugging your problems away is more dangerous than anxiety. The use of anti-anxiety meds is coupled with a host of nasty side effects such as seizures, aggression and violence once the drug wears off. Hallucinations, delusional thinking, confusion, abnormal behavior, hostility, agitation, irritability, depression and suicidal thinking are all possible outcomes according to Big Pharma’s heavily guarded research papers.

Getting off the drugs could be harder than abandoning a heroin addiction. Some have described withdrawal from “benzos” being akin to pulling hundreds of fish hooks out of their skin, without anesthesia. If you doubt their addictive nature, go to Google search and type in a few of the leading anti-anxiety drugs like Klonopin or Xanax and here is what you’ll find:

“Klonopin withdrawal” 1,860,000 results
“Xanax withdrawal” 1,980,000 results
Exposing Psychiatry: How to Get The Truth

In total, the side effects of psychiatric meds spread far and wide. And most are hidden from patients and doctors alike. Fortunately, Citizens Commission on Human Rights has solved this problem with a state-of-the-art database that allows people to search through the adverse reaction reports sent to the FDA on psychiatric drugs. It also provides international drug regulatory agency warnings and studies published on the side effects of the drugs.

So, can psychiatry help me? No. And that’s surprising because psychiatric meds are some of the biggest selling drugs, poised to seal the hopes and dreams of millions. Regardless of what mental state I might be in (or anyone else for that matter), there is not a single drug that cures, treats or solves the perceived problems of mental health.

While people can suffer miserably from emotional or mental duress that can hinder their lifestyle, the pseudo-science of psychiatry has yet to solve any of these problems, and in fact only contributes to poor health as seen by the wide array of side effects. Marketing campaigns and ghostwritten medical journals are designed to obscure these facts. But the psychiatric drug side effect database courtesy of CCHR ensures that all patients have access to the truth, to the documented facts, which could save their life or that of a loved one.

© 2010 Shane Ellison - All Rights Reserve   This article came with a Share Button; and that’s what I’m doing--sharing it because it’s too important to miss. Thank you, Shane, for fighting the Big Fight with Big Pharma.

ARTICLE #11: Wait until you see this Video of what’s happening in Venice, California over a few bottles of raw milk.

ARTICLE #12: If you don’t know about S510, make it a point to learn about it right NOW and right HERE because it’s threatening to take away your FOOD FREEDOM! This is the most important Article in this section. Please, please read it carefully and then start screaming bloody murder at your Congressmen to NOT FUND S510.

By Steve Green

S 510, the Food Safety Modernization Act,  may be the most dangerous bill in the history of the US.  It is to our food what the bailout was to our economy, only we can live without money. 

“If accepted [S 510] would preclude the public’s right to grow, own, trade, transport, share, feed and eat each and every food that nature makes.  It will become the most offensive authority against the cultivation, trade and consumption of food and agricultural products of one’s choice. It will be unconstitutional and contrary to natural law or, if you like, the will of God.”  ~Dr. Shiv Chopra, Canada Health whistleblower

It is similar to what India faced with imposition of the salt tax during British rule, only S 510 extends control over all food in the US, violating the fundamental human right to food. 

Monsanto says it has no interest in the bill and would not benefit from it, but Monsanto’s Michael Taylor who gave us rBGH and unregulated genetically modified (GM) organisms, appears to have designed it and is waiting as an appointed Food Czar to the FDA (a position unapproved by Congress) to administer the agency it would create — without judicial review — if it passes.  S 510 would give Monsanto unlimited power over all US seed, food supplements, food and farming. [IT PASSED, NOW LET’S NOT FUND IT!]


In the 1990s, Bill Clinton introduced HACCP (Hazardous Analysis Critical Control Points) purportedly to deal with contamination in the meat industry.  Clinton’s HACCP delighted the offending corporate (World Trade Organization “WTO”) meat packers since it allowed them to inspect themselves, eliminated thousands of local food processors (with no history of contamination), and centralized meat into their control.  Monsanto promoted HACCP

In 2008, Hillary Clinton, urged a powerful centralized food safety agency as part of her campaign for president.  Her advisor was Mark Penn, CEO of Burson Marsteller*, a giant PR firm representing Monsanto.  Clinton lost, but Clinton friends such as Rosa DeLauro, whose husband’s firm lists Monsanto as a progressive client and globalization as an area of expertise, introduced early versions of S 510. 


1.  It puts all US food and all US farms under Homeland Security and the Department of Defense, in the event of contamination or an ill-defined emergency.  It resembles the Kissinger Plan.

2.  It would end US sovereignty over its own food supply by insisting on compliance with the WTO, thus threatening national security.  It would end the Uruguay Round Agreement Act of 1994, which put US sovereignty and US law under perfect protection.  Instead, S 510 says: 


Nothing in this Act (or an amendment made by this Act) shall be construed in a manner inconsistent with the agreement establishing the World Trade Organization or any other treaty or international agreement to which the United States is a party.

3.  It would allow the government, under Maritime Law, to define the introduction of any food into commerce (even direct sales between individuals) as smuggling into “the United States.”  Since under that law, the US is a corporate entity and not a location, “entry of food into the US” covers food produced anywhere within the land mass of this country and “entering into” it by virtue of being produced. 

4.  It imposes Codex Alimentarius on the US, a global system of control over food.  It allows the United Nations (UN), World Health Organization (WHO), UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), and the WTO to take control of every food on earth and remove access to natural food supplements.  Its bizarre history and its expected impact in limiting access to adequate nutrition (while mandating GM food, GM animals, pesticides, hormones, irradiation of food, etc.) threatens all safe and organic food and health itself, since the world knows now it needs vitamins to survive, not just to treat illnesses. 

5.  It would remove the right to clean, store and thus own seed in the US, putting control of seeds in the hands of Monsanto and other multinationals, threatening US security. See Seeds – How to criminalize them, for more details.

6.  It includes NAIS, an animal traceability program that threatens all small farmers and ranchers raising animals.  The UN is participating through the WHO, FAO, WTO, and World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) in allowing mass slaughter of even heritage breeds of animals and without proof of disease.  Biodiversity in farm animals is being wiped out to substitute genetically engineered animals on which corporations hold patents.  Animal diseases can be falsely declared.  S 510 includes the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), despite its corrupt involvement in the H1N1 scandal, which is now said to have been concocted by the corporations.

7.  It extends a failed and destructive HACCP to all food, thus threatening to do to all local food production and farming what HACCP did to meat production – put it in corporate hands and worsen food safety. 

8.  It deconstructs what is left of the American economy.  It takes agriculture and food, which are the cornerstone of all economies, out of the hands of the citizenry, and puts them under the total control of multinational corporations influencing the UN, WHO, FAO and WTO, with HHS, and CDC, acting as agents, with Homeland Security as the enforcer.  The chance to rebuild the economy based on farming, ranching, gardens, food production, natural health, and all the jobs, tools and connected occupations would be eliminated.

9.  It would allow the government to mandate antibiotics, hormones, slaughterhouse waste, pesticides and GMOs.  This would industrialize every farm in the US, eliminate local organic farming, greatly increase global warming from increased use of oil-based products and long-distance delivery of foods, and make food even more unsafe.  The five items listed — the Five Pillars of Food Safety — are precisely the items in the food supply which are the primary source of its danger. 

  1. 10.It uses food crimes as the entry into police state power and control.  The bill postpones defining all the regulations to be imposed; postpones defining crimes to be punished, postpones defining penalties to be applied.  It removes fundamental constitutional protections from all citizens in the country, making them subject to a corporate tribunal with unlimited power and penalties, and without judicial review.  It is (similar to C-6 in Canada) the end of Rule of Law in the US.

We have got to stop this draconian Bill designed to give total control of our food to Big Agri. Communicate with your Congressmen and Senators today that you do not want this bill funded. The Natural Solutions Foundation makes it as easy as falling off a log. Just click on here ACTION ALERT; and your voice will be heard on the Hill.

BBC HEALTH NEWS FEED                   

The FOOD POLICE are at it again and right now the most important issue on this page is at the bottom, Article 12. (Look for the Police Badge) It’s the information about the Bill that passed Congress during the Lame Duck Session, S510, the fake food protection act. You can bet if a Bill pretends to be about your “protection” that it’s really about CONTROL; and this one wants to separate you from your FOOD FREEDOM and make the US compliant with the WTO (World Trade Organization) through Codex Alimentarius. You can skip over to this important information here and go directly to the ACTION ALERT designed to support the defunding of this bill. This is one of the most important Bills that has ever come before Congress.

Important Health/Science/Environment BBC News Feed, Bottom of Page, Article #13

Codex What?
Ralph,  would you please get us out of this website or at least find another page because I can’t even say Codex Alimentarius. Well, there I said it. I’m learning something.

If you haven’t met Dr. Vandana Shiva, go to our Show Page and watch one of her Videos. She’s one of the most famous Food Activists on the planet today.

ARTICLE #13: We may be a little late to the MEATRIX Table, which was first made in 2003; but we’ve got to bring this excellent parody on the MATRIX that reveals the horrors of an Industrialized Food Market dominated by big Agricultural Giants. Watch these wonderful Videos and then go to the MEATRIX website at http://www.themeatrix.com/# and get involved.

ARTICLE #13 (continued): To finish off this section, you have to see Uncle Sam singing “Buy, Buy American Pie” as it enumerates exactly how far we’ve gone from the family farm providing us our food.

We’ve saved the best for last, the one man who is making the biggest difference and will succeed in freeing us from the clutches of the GMO Biotech Giants--Meet Jeffrey M. Smith on our Show Page.