Archive for The Law & CODEX – Page 53
The International Survey of Herbicide Resistant Weeds documents on its site, www.weedscience.org/in.asp, that resistance to herbicides in general, and herbicides used in genetically modified crops in particular, has escalated at exponential rates.
Tracking all types of weeds globally and their resistance to herbicides, their graphic images are particularly telling.
Glyphosate (RoundUp (c)) resistant crops have transferred their resistance to Monsanto’s RoundUp (c) and other brands of glyphosate at an alarming speed which corresponds closely to the global incidence of herbicide resistant weeds.
For example, global resistance to glyphosate occurs as follows:
Global incidence of herbicide resistance by year sorted by Mode of Action indicates the sharpest rise in weed resistance in ALS inhibitor herbicides. RoundUp (c) (glyphosate) is an ALS inhibitor.
Chronological incidents of unique weed resistance parallels the incidence in weed resistance to Glyphosate.
Global distribution of herbicide resistant weeds is concentrated in the major industrial agricultural nations:
Global distribution of ALS (Glyphosate, RoundUp (c) ) resistant weeds parallels global distribution of resistant weeds:
WeedScience has documented specific resistant weed occurances to glphosate around the world:
Glyphosate is sprayed on genetically modified crops with the intent to kill weeks while the crops, specifically modified to resist the herbicide, will tolerate the dosing. Genetic material is transferred through cross pollination to other species despite initial commercial assurances that such transfer was impossible.
While Australia urges the rotation of crops which are genetically modified with crops which are not to prolong the life of glyphosate as a useful agricultural chemical (see below), others support the idea of herbicide-free organic growing instead. Such organic growing would require soil remediation to restore soil quality after commercial fertilizer damage and other modifications of current agricultural practice including a the use of non GMO crops.
Yours in health and freedom,
Dr. Rima
Rima E. Laibow, MD
Medical Director
Natural Solutions Foundation
www.HealthFreedomUSA.org
www.GlobalHealthFreedom.org
www.Organics4U.org
Weeds seen more resistant to herbicide
Sunday, Sept. 14, 2003
Source:CropChoice News
Emily Gersema, AP: WASHINGTON – Increased findings that weeds are developing resistance to Roundup, the world’s most popular herbicide, have some scientists urging new planting practices. The product’s manufacturer says the problem is being overblown.
Roundup, whose generic name is glyphosate, has been on the market for more than 30 years. It long has been a favorite of farmers, home gardeners and golf course greenskeepers because of its effectiveness in killing weeds.
It allows growers to cut back on tilling, a more labor-intensive and expensive method of controlling weeds, and does not pollute the environment.
“Roundup Ready” crops, which have been genetically altered to tolerate the chemical, now cover much of the nation’s farmland since their development in the late 1990s. They allow farmers to spray the glyphosate herbicides widely without harming crops.
The Agriculture Department estimates that 80 percent of the 73 million acres of soybeans in the United States are Roundup Ready soybeans, and Roundup Ready cotton accounts for more than 30 percent of the 12 million acres planted. The corn variety, still new to the market, covers 11 percent of 70 million acres.
“Farmers are planting too many Roundup Ready crops,” said Stephen Powles, an expert on weed resistance at the University of Western Australia.
The herbicide is vital for food production systems in the United States and in many other parts of the world, Powles said. Should weed resistance become widespread, he said, “I think the problem will become a crisis.”
In 1996, Australia was the first to note that weed resistance to glyphosate was developing in rigid ryegrass found in a few grain and sorghum fields. Five years later, South Africa reported seeing the resilient rigid ryegrass had infested a few hundred acres of vineyards.
In 2000, University of Delaware scientists reported to the Weed Science Society of America, which tracks farm chemical resistance, that in some soybean fields, mare’s tail was resisting glyphosate. Since then, resistant mare’s tail has been reported in other states – Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, New Jersey, Ohio, Arkansas, Mississippi and Tennessee.
Far more worrisome are cases in Iowa, Illinois and Missouri, where glyphosate is becoming ineffective on abundant weeds such as velvet leaf and water hemp.
Allan Felsot, an environmental toxicologist at Washington State University, said weeds naturally develop resistance to a pesticide and dismissed the idea they might be picking up a resistant gene from Roundup Ready soybeans, corn or cotton.
“Any time you have a place where you’re using a strictly singular herbicide, you may end up with some resistance in some cases,” he said.
Nonetheless, some scientists want farmers to alter their planting practices to assure that Roundup and competing brand names of glyphosate maintain their effectiveness as a herbicide in the future. The Australian Powles advocates cutting back on plantings of Roundup Ready crops.
Mark VanGessel, a weed scientist at the University of Delaware, advocates a more moderate course. He suggested that farmers rotate their Roundup Ready crops with conventional varieties.
“My gut reaction is that we do need to limit the use of glyphosate-resistant crops,” VanGessel said. “That doesn’t necessarily mean don’t develop them or don’t use them altogether, but instead use a planned approach so to not use the glyphosate-resistant crops year in and year out.”
Monsanto Co., which markets Roundup Ready crops in addition to the herbicide, said the problem is not nearly that severe.
“Most of the situations that we’re dealing with, we’re dealing with very small acres,” said Greg Elmore, a soybean technical manager at Monsanto. “We’re not talking about a whole county. In some cases, we have one field only.”
Regardless, farmers could turn to tilling and a combination of other chemicals besides glyphosate, he said.
Monsanto’s competitor, Syngenta, agrees with VanGessel that farmers should rotate planting of Roundup Ready corn and soybeans with conventional crops. Syngenta makes its own glyphosate spray, Touchdown.
“We really feel like the problem is real and the problem is growing,” said Sherry Ford, a Syngenta spokeswoman. “Just like with antibiotics, an overreliance on one type of solution is going to eventually make that solution ineffective.”
Below is a copy of a blog I posted at http://vitaminlawyerhealthfreedom.blogspot.com/ on March 28, 2008; it was entitled: “Media Blitz Supports Big Pharma Vaccination “Big Lie” Propaganda.” Within a day of posting, my blog (which, along with Dr. Rima’s blog on this site, are the top two “health freedom blogs” on Google) was marked as “spam” and blocked by Blogger. You can see my previous blog entries, but the blog entry below is no longer on the site and I cannot post new blogs there. They threaten to remove the entire blog. The blog has been marked as “spam” though, when you read Blogger’s spam rule, there is no spam violation; I only posted a couple times in March and had only a couple links in the postings. Why, do you suppose, Blogger and Google, its owner, thinks my little blog is “spam” — must be doing something right!
I am outraged by this blatant censorship. Is Blogger trying to make itself part of the MMD (Media of Mass Deception)? With Blogger pretending that political speech is “spam” and its parent company, Google, kowtowing to tyrants and big business world-wide, why should we trust either? Google’s users tell us that my blog and Dr. Rima’s blog are the top health freedom blogs in the world… so, Blogger, what will it be? Are you in service to speech or part of the control mechanism to suppress speech?
Ralph Fucetola JD
NSF Trustee
The suppressed blog entry:
——————————————————
Over the past week or so, media has been filled with articles and opinions all supporting forced vaccinations. Mere coincidence, of course!
Natural Solutions Foundation just filed a formal Petition with the FTC (Federal Trade Commission) demanding an end to all vaccine advertisements that are not “truthful and not misleading” (FTC advertising standard).
You can read the Petition at:
http://drrimatruthreports.com/index.php?p=507
You’ll see there that it was mailed to FTC on March 6, 2008 and, according to the USPS it was delivered on March 11th. Follow-up with FTC indicates the Agency could not find the mailing. Therefore we got the name of a specific person (the Secretary to the Commission) and have remailed the Petition. You can check it’s progress through the Post Office by this tracking number: 0305 2710 0001 6182 7672. It was received by USPS on March 28th.
[Update Note: the Petition was delivered, according to the USPS on April 1, 2008.]
The Petition requests emergent action by the FTC to immediately stop all vaccine advertisements until a proper safety warning and exemption rights disclosure can be mandated.
So the media finds itself parroting the same line: vaccines are safe; parents shouldn’t be trusted to make choices; go back to sleep…
One skillful example of the technique: Inoculated Against Facts – New York Times, Paul Offit
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/31/opinion/31offit.html
Note the implied attack: only the media-anointed can have the “true facts” – a typical Big Lie technique! Here are the comments I submitted to the NYT… wonder if they’ll post same?
——————
Leaving aside the bizarre comment of one physician on this forum that vaccination should not be a “personal matter” (has he ever heard of the World Medical Association’s Declaration of Helsinki and voluntary, informed consent?), I am very concerned that the risk experts in our society have rejected the common views of pro-vaccine physicians and the pharmaceutical industry expressed by some commentors here.
Who are those experts? The insurance industry. You know you can buy insurance, as some price, for any risky activity. Do you want to sky-dive? Pay an extra premium and you can… BUT there are two areas of our economy where the insurance industry has refused to write insurance; areas that are un-insurable risks. These are, nuclear power and, yes, vaccination. You cannot insure yourself or your kids against vaccine induced injuries. Neither can the pharmaceutical industry.
That’s why Congress, ever supine to the economic interests of the pharmaceutical cartel, created the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. Add a tax to the cost of the vaccines to compensate the collateral damage, so to speak, and Big Pharma gets the profits… and huge they are.
Wake up folks, this is not about “herd effect” or about “science” — this is about money. And if a few tens of thousands of kids end up autistic, or dead, well, that’s just triage. Hey?
Check out: www.ageofautism.com (where you can see that “trace” but dangerous amounts of mercury toxicity remain in vaccines) and www.healthfreedomusa.org (where you can help stop this assault on children). You may also want to join http://groups.yahoo.com/group/no-forced-vaccination/
Ralph Fucetola JD
———————————————–
Do you get angry when powerful companies suppress speech and kowtow to other big companies? There is just one thing that can stop them: the money to fight the good fight for health and freedom. Please donate at: http://drrimatruthreports.com/index.php?page_id=189
The Natural Solutions Foundation, the leading Global Health Freedom organization, is proud to present this information to you. We protect your right to know about – and to use – natural ways to maintain and regain your health, no matter where in the world you live. Among your freedoms is the right to clean, unadulterated food free of genetic manipulation, pesticides, heavy metals or other contaminants and access to herbs, supplements, frequency devices and other means as therapies that may benefit or to protect your well-being without drugs and other dangerous interventions, if you choose.
For more information on our global programs, including the International Decade of Nutrition, and our US based ones, please visit us at www.HealthFreedomUSA.org and www.GlobalHealthFreedom.org and join the free email list for the Health Freedom eAlerts to keep you in the loop, informed and active defending your right to make your own decisions about your health and wellbeing!
Our activities are supported 100% by your tax deductible donations. Please give generously (http://drrimatruthreports.com/index.php?page_id=189) to the Natural Solutions Foundation. Thank you for your support.
Feel free to disseminate this information as widely as possible with full attribution.
Yours in health and freedom,
Dr. Rima
Rima E. Laibow, MD
Medical Director
Natural Solutions Foundation
www.HealthFreedomUSA.org
www.GlobalHealthFreedom.org
When reading the following article, bear in mind that under Codex, all cows are to be treated with Monsanto’s recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone and there are no upper limits. Since peasant farmers who cannot read or write have neither the money nor the skills necessary to manage chronically ill cows who require antibiotics, etc., to control their constant infections (including mastitis which creates continual production of pus in milk), they will be driven out of the milk business which means, in all too many cases, off their farms.
The creation of every increasing cadres of the abjectly urban poor is fueled by just this process.
The Natural Solutions Foundation International Decade of Nutrition is helping to stop this cycle.
Yours in health and freedom,
Dr. Rima
Rima E. Laibow, MD
Medical Director
Natural Solutions Foundation
www.HealthFreedomUSA.org
www.GlobalHealthFreedom.org
Monsanto doesn’t want consumers to know the truth about the milk they’re drinking. The corporation’s monopoly is at stake.
‘Frankenfoods’ Giant Monsanto Plays Bully Over Consumer Labeling
By Scott Thill, AlterNet. Posted March 6, 2008.
“There are some corporations that clearly are operating at a level that are disastrous for the general public … And in fact I suppose one could argue that in many respects a corporation of that sort is the prototypical psychopath, at the corporate level instead of the individual level.”
–Dr. Robert Hare, The Corporation
Since 1901, Monsanto has brought us Agent Orange, PCBs, Terminator seeds and recombined milk, among other infamous products. But it’s currently obsessed with the milk, or, more importantly, the milk labels, particularly those that read “rBST-free” or “rBGH-free.” It’s not the “BST” or “BGH” that bothers them so much; after all, bovine somatrophin, also known as bovine growth hormone, isn’t exactly what the company is known for. Which is to say, it’s naturally occurring. No, the problem is the “r” denoting “recombined.” There’s nothing natural about it. In fact, the science is increasingly pointing to the possibility that recombined milk is — surprise! — not as good for you as the real thing.
“Consumption of dairy products from cows treated with rbGH raise a number of health issues,” explained Michael Hansen, a senior scientist for Consumers Union. “That includes increased antibiotic resistance, due to use of antibiotics to treat mastitis and other health problems, as well as increased levels of IGF-1, which has been linked to a range of cancers.”
For its part, Monsanto is leaning on the crutch of terminology to derail the mounting threat to its bottom line: The consumer-driven revolution against recombined food. And so the St. Louis-based agri-chem giant has launched a war of words in the form of a full-court press to suppress the “rBGH-free” label at the state level. And it’s sticking to its guns by obfuscating and indulging in cheap semantics.
“RBST is a supplement that helps the cow produce more milk,” Monsanto spokesperson Lori Hoag explained to me via email. “It is injected into the cow, not into the milk. There is no way to test because the milk is absolutely the same. Neither the public nor a scientist can tell the difference in the milk because there is not a difference. Consumers absolutely have a right to know if there is a difference in foods they are buying. In this case, there simply is not a difference.”
“Monsanto has an unfortunate habit of mixing some things together that confuse the issue,” counters Rick North, director of Campaign for Safe Food from Physicians for Social Responsibility’s Oregon chapter. “It’s true that all cows have natural bovine growth hormone. But only cows injected with recombinant, genetically engineered bovine growth hormone have rBGH. And this isn’t a ‘supplement.’ This is a drug that revs up cow metabolism so high that they’re typically burned out after two lactation cycles and slaughtered. Non-rBGH cows typically live four, seven, ten or more years.”
The threat of rBGH to cows and humans alike encouraged Canada, Australia and parts of the European Union to ban Monsanto’s recombined milk outright. As for the corporation’s native United States, it has predictably signed off on another unproven growth opportunity with possibly lethal environmental side effects. They’re in it for the money. And so the battle lines on the threat have been drawn, as North takes pains to point out, between “the FDA and those who follow them,” and those who don’t. “These proposed state bans or restrictions on rBGH-free type of labeling have nothing to do with protecting consumers,” he asserts. “They have everything to do with protecting Monsanto’s profits.”
But that battle over labels and profits hasn’t stopped Monsanto from creating its own press at home in the United States, where it infamously got two Fox News journos fired in 1997 for refusing to bend the truth about rBGH on the air. Yet, over the long term, the multinational’s attention to press relations hasn’t paid off so well. Medical authorities like Samuel Epstein and Robert Hare, quoted above, have targeted them from both the physical and psychological health perspective. Meanwhile, farmers and consumers across the world have demanded labels that differentiate the recombined milk from its naturally occurring counterparts on the store shelves. And they don’t think it’s too much to ask, given the facts.
Hoag is “accurate” when she argued “that there is no commercial test for this drug,” North concedes. “But that’s entirely different than saying there is no difference. Monsanto and its front groups have tried to equate the lack of a verifying lab test with the label being false or misleading. This is a non sequitur. There are all kinds of legitimate labels that aren’t verified by lab tests, such as state or country of origin labeling, fair trade labeling, bottled water that is labeled as originating from a spring, and so on.”
Monsanto, meanwhile, is bedeviling the details to distort the big picture. “Sure, the label can make a claim one way or the other,” Hoag admitted, “but there is no way to verify that the claim is true. This is precisely why the labels are misleading. They make consumers believe there is a difference, when in fact there is none.”
That sounds simple enough, but consumers don’t seem to need or want Monsanto’s mothering. In 2007, its efforts at an outright ban on rBGH-free labels in Pennsylvania were almost cleared for takeoff, until the state invited its citizens to publicly comment, which eventually doomed the move. That scenario has replayed itself across the United States in accelerated fashion with success.
“The issue looks pretty dead in Indiana and Ohio, and there are solid victories in Pennsylvania and New Jersey,” explains Recipe for America’s Jill Richardson, author of the forthcoming book Vegetables of Mass Destruction. “Utah and Kansas are probably going to revise their bills after their hearings, because of opposition.”
This opposition comes in spite of Monsanto’s funding of so-called grass-roots farming coalitions like the American Farmers for Advancement and Conservation of Technology — also known as, cleverly enough, AFACT. Monsanto’s public relations firm Osborn & Barr built a site for AFACT pro bono, knitting the two organizations together in a way that may not sit well in states currently pondering their own label bans. AFACT’s attacks have virally replicated across the nation, as farmers on Monsanto’s payroll have taken to harassing their state legislatures in concert with the multinational’s usual tactics at the federal level, such as forcing skeptical scientists off advisory panels, intimidating critics and so on.
But the assault has only met equally powerful resistance, as environmental awareness has driven the market into a recombinant-free zone. In the end, this might be Monsanto’s last gasp in the fight.
“Monsanto has seen the writing on the wall in terms of consumer rejection of artificial growth hormones,” claims National Family Farm Coalition policy analyst Irene Lin. “Consumers are becoming more aware and educated about what goes into their bodies and what their kids are drinking. And this is Monsanto’s last-ditch, desperate attempt to maintain its profit. And they are hiding behind dairy farmers to do it.”
But for every farmer who toes Monsanto’s line, there are as many if not more, and not just in the United States, who are amassing in opposition to the multinational’s attempt to change, and then patent, how America grows (and describes) its food. And behind them, in ever larger numbers, are consumers and stores themselves, who are demanding more, not less, information from those who produce the food.
“In the last year or so, some really big names have announced that they will only buy rBGH-free milk,” explains Food and Water Watch’s assistant director Patty Lovera, “including Chipotle, Starbucks, Tillamook and lots of supermarket house brands, like Kroger, Meiers and Publix. Even Kraft is going to do an rBGH-free line of cheese.”
In the end, Monsanto’s quibbling over labels has added up — ironically enough, given all the text it has generated — to censorship, pure and simple. And, as with past debacles like the aforementioned Agent Orange, PCBs and Terminator seed, they’ve established a pattern of stopping at nothing to increase not your health but their profits. At your expense.
“Absolutely nothing good could come from a ban on rBGH-free labeling,” concludes Hansen. “More information is a good thing, and all these state actions are anti-consumer, restrict free speech and interfere with the smooth functioning of free markets.”
Learn more about the ban on rBGH-free labeling and take action.
http://www.alternet.org/workplace/78660/
The Natural Solutions Foundation, the leading Global Health Freedom organization, is proud to present this information to you. We protect your right to know about – and to use – natural ways to maintain and regain your health, no matter where in the world you live. Among your freedoms is the right to clean, unadulterated food free of genetic manipulation, pesticides, heavy metals or other contaminants and access to herbs, supplements, frequency devices and other means as therapies that may benefit or to protect your well-being without drugs and other dangerous interventions, if you choose.
For more information on our global programs, including the International Decade of Nutrition, and our US based ones, please visit us at www.HealthFreedomUSA.org and www.GlobalHealthFreedom.org and join the free email list for the Health Freedom eAlerts to keep you in the loop, informed and active defending your right to make your own decisions about your health and wellbeing!
Our activities are supported 100% by your tax deductible donations. Please give generously (http://drrimatruthreports.com/index.php?page_id=189) to the Natural Solutions Foundation. Thank you for your support.
Feel free to disseminate this information as widely as possible with full attribution.
Yours in health and freedom,
Dr. Rima
Rima E. Laibow, MD
Medical Director
Natural Solutions Foundation
www.HealthFreedomUSA.org
www.GlobalHealthFreedom.org
Bird flu as biological weapon “nutty” idea, says Gates
JAKARTA (JP): United States Defense Secretary Robert Gates has denied allegations by Indonesia’s Health Minister Siti Fadilah Supari that his country is developing biological weapons frombird flu strains found in Indonesia.
“I think it’s the nuttiest idea I’ve ever heard,” Gates saidMonday after addressing his speech to the Indonesian Council onWorld Affairs at the Four Seasons Hotel, South Jakarta.
Siti’s book, It’s Time for the World to Change, Divine Hands Behind Bird Flu, alleges the U.S. and the World HealthOrganization are conspiring against developing countries by seizing control of bird flu samples.
The book says virus samples being sent to a laboratory in Los Alamos are under U.S military control.
After meeting with President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono and Defense Minister Juwono Sudarsono at the State Palace, Gates saidhe did not discuss the issue with the President.
“I respectfully and strongly disagree with the minister, andit is not true that the United States offered military equipmentif the book was withdrawn,” he said in response to allegations that the U.S would provide military aid for Indonesia as long as the English version of the book was withdrawn.
Presidential spokesman Dino Pati Djalal said any claim the U.S designed the virus as a biological weapon was a personal view of the minister and not the President.
U.S State Department spokeswoman Susan Stahl recently denied Siti’s claim.
Recently, Siti said she was pulling the English version of the book from distribution after less than a month, citing inaccuratetranslations as the main reason.
The book was launched on Feb. 6 and is a 182-page memoir recording Siti’s struggle to change the allegedly unfair virus sample sharing.
She claimed the system was not transparent and did not accommodate the needs of developing nations.
The Indonesian government decided to stop sharing virus samples early last year following a perceived leakage in the GISN as vaccine makers in developed countries could obtain samplessent by Indonesia to produce bird flu vaccines.
However, the government resumed sharing last week and sent 12samples to the Center for Disease Control and Protection in Atlanta, Georgia. (anw/dsy/**)
Two hopeful items have surfaced recently.
Reuters reported last month “French judges probe firms over vaccinations”
PARIS, Jan 31 (Reuters) – French authorities have opened a formal investigation into two managers from drugs groups GlaxoSmithKline and Sanofi Pasteur over a vaccination campaign in the 1990s, a judicial source said late on Thursday.
Judge Marie-Odile Bertella-Geffroy also opened an investigation for manslaughter against Sanofi Pasteur MSD, a joint venture between Sanofi Aventis (SASY.PA: Quote, Profile, Research) and Merck (MRK.N: Quote, Profile, Research), the same source said.
The investigations follow allegations that the companies failed to fully disclose side effects from an anti-hepatitis B drug used in a vaccination campaign between 1994 and 1998.
There was no immediate comment from the companies or the two managers involved.
From 1994 to 1998, almost two thirds of the French population and almost all newborn babies were vaccinated against hepatitis B, but the campaign was suspended after concerns arose about possible secondary effects from the treatments.
Some 30 plaintiffs have launched a civil action in the case, including the families of five people who died after vaccination. (Reporting by Thierry Leveque; Writing by James Mackenzie; Editing by David Holmes) RECENT CIVIL ACTIONS FOR DAMAGES AGAINST BIG PHARMA BY STATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL IN THE USA REGARDING THE “ANTIPSYCHOTIC” DRUGS RACKET
by Justice Lover
The following report was emailed to me today by ALLIANCE FOR HUMAN RESEARCH PROTECTION (AHRP):
Promoting Openness, Full Disclosure, and Accountability
Cong. Bart Stupak and Cong. John Dingell, the chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, threatened to hold Health and Human Services Secretary Michael Leavitt in contempt for refusing to turn over FDA briefing documents subpoenaed by the committee in its probe over an antibiotic and a blood thinner linked to four deaths.
Sec. Leavitt oversees the FDA and other health care agencies. The documents in question were used to prepare FDA Commissioner, Andrew von Eschenbach,MD, for his appearance before House lawmakers last year. The commissioner testified that FDA did not use the flawed safety study to approve Ketek. But Cong. Stupak called that statement untrue and subpoenaed von Eschenbach’s notes to determine if he lied under oath.The agency has said there was no intention to deceive the public.
Cong. Stupak called on Dr. von Eschenbach to step down because he has demonstrated “a total lack of leadership.”
Underscoring FDA officials’ disregard for the agency’s mission–which is to protect the public health, and ensure that scientifically validated information is disseminated about prescription drugs–the agency has just issued proposed guidelines that would overturn the prohibition against drug manufacturers disseminating information to encourage doctors to prescribe their drug for “off-label” unapproved uses.
In essence, top FDA officials are serving as industry’s handmaiden by attempting to legitimize illegal marketing activities.
Representative Henry Waxman, said the proposed rule “caters to the industry’s desire to market their products without adequate testing or review.” The Food, Drugs, and Cosmetics Act prohibits companies from promoting off-label uses of approved drugs.FDA would protect these manufacturers from deceptive marketing by accepting industry-sponsored and industry controlled articles containing false and misleading information. Such commercially sponsored articles have been shown to inflate the claimed benefits—while concealing the lethal risks.
The proposed FDA rule would legitimize the very activities that have led State Attorneys General and the Justice Department to sue Big Pharma companies.For example, 18 states are suing manufacturers of the so-called ‘atypical’ antipsychotic drugs–the most toxic harm-producing psychotropics–for off-label marketing:
9 states are suing Eli Lilly regarding Zyprexa: Alaska, Louisiana,Mississippi, Montana, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Utah and West Virginia. 6 states are suing Janssen regarding Risperdal: Arkansas, Louisiana,Montana, South Carolina, Texas and Pennsylvania. 3 states are suing AstraZeneca regarding Seroquel: Pennsylvania, SouthCarolina, and now, Montana . See the complaint posted at http://www.helenair.com/extras/complaint.pdf
AHRP applauds Cong. Stupak for calling a spade a spade.We would further recommend calling for the removal of the top echelon of FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER).These officials have systematically relegated scientific evidence to file drawers and lent the seal of approval to lethal drugs that caused tens of thousands of Americans to die. That is a colossal disservice of an agency mandated to protect the public health.
-END-
This is what happens when public pressure and education efforts are focused on Congress. Despite the huge amounts of money drug companies spend to buy Congress, when the offenses are hurting their constituents, and their constituents tell them so, or when the offenses are so outrageous that even Congress cannot ignore them, things CAN change.
The Natural Solutions Foundation works with Congress to educate them now. We would like to be able to lobby directly and, for that, need to set up a 501 (c) 4 organization so that we can do just that. Of course, that takes a bit of money, not a lot, really, when you consider what is at stake. If you want to help fund this activity, send an email to Ralph Fucetola, ralph.fucetola@usa.net with “Lobbying” as the subject line. We need about $5,000 to set up the organization and about $3,500 per month to cover expenses. Now is a ripe time for this activity: there is growing public and judicial action on our side. But, of course, we cannot do this important work without the funding necessary. When you think about it, the amounts are minuscule compared to what industry spends, yet our impact far outweighs the dollar input we need in order to make it.
To be clear, the reason that our impact, our footprint, as they say, is so large is because Natural Solutions Foundation supporters take the action steps that we recommend and write to Congress when we ask them to. that means that we are a known, and significant, force because constituents – you – are involved in these issues in large numbers. So between these two forces, we are a force to be reckoned with!
And don’t forget to set up your recurring tax deductible donation (http://drrimatruthreports.com/index.php?page_id=189) which gives us the financial life-blood we need to protect your health and health freedom.
Thanks!
Yours in health and freedom,
Dr. Rima
Rima E. Laibow, MD
Medical Director
Natural Solutions Foundation
www.HealthFreedomUSA.org
www.GlobalHealthFreedom.org