Codex Allows Seven Deadly Pesticides Banned by Stockholm Convention and US Law
A smoking gun in the hand of an enraged man who is looking down at the inert corpse bleeding at his feet is the next best evidence to actually seeing the perpetrator pull the trigger. All of us who understand Codex as a threat (rather than the supposed “consumer protection” creature its apologists claim that it is) know that Codex is a sandbox in which the multinational corporations play their greed need games with no concern for the well-being of those who will pay the price in every coin. Those of use without our own illegal cattle, milk and supplements farms and factories will have no choice but to eat the food Codex has adulterated. We won’t have the nutrients we need when our natural health choices have disappeared because Codex has “protected” us from the “toxic nutrients” we used to take to keep our selves healthy.
What would you say if I told you that I had found Codex’s smoking gun, Codex’s dirtiest secret which is so foul that it makes clear just how far from a consumer protection system Codex is? Consumer protection like the Turks had in 1954-59 when they ate food grown from seeds containing Hexachlorobenzene and 95% of the children who were exposed in the womb died? Or protection like older people got when 14% of them died from the poison. Well, guess what! Hexachlorobenzene is but one of the seven deadly toxins Codex will let the Big Chema poison you with.
Well, we found the smoking gun. But how many consumers must it kill before we take the gun out of the madman’s hand?
If you are like me, you would both rejoice and come close to speechless frustration and outrage at the same time. How could “they” do this? What are they thinking” Where do they think they will raise their grandchildren?
Click here for Codex’s dirty secret: Codex permits 7 of the 9 most deadly chemicals known, all of which are illegal in the US and all of which have been banned by every member of Codex from being used anywhere on the planet.
The Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants agreed upon a list of the 12 most poisonous chemicals in the world and 176 countries banned them. The US banned them, too. But Codex has a better idea (Smoking gun coming right up). Instead of protecting consumers, Codex says, “Let’s set dangerous pesticide and real toxic residue levels really, really high and let’s pretend that nutrients are toxins (so we can “protect” consumers from food without them, of course) and, best of all, [cock the trigger back: smoke coming up], we will, despite a global ban on the worst chemicals possible, will ignore all of that and pull the trigger!”
“We, Codex, will allow seven of the nine deadliest, nearly universally banned, pesticides known to human kind to be used on your foods! Allow us to protect you, dear consumer, at the point of a smoking gun!”
If we let our Congress know that we are on to Codex and the multinational corporations that are driving Codex and, in fact, pulling the trigger on the smoking gun, we can change the course of history and avoid eating foods poisoned with the seven deadly pesticides.
Yours in health and freedom,
Dr. Laibow
Medical Director
In 2001, the International Community did something right. The came together and created the Stockholm Convention, devoted to removing the 12 deadliest compounds polluting our world. These horrors are all members of the same class of compounds, Persistent Organic Pollutants or POPs. Within a short time every member of the United Nations, including the US, had either signed or ratified (or both) this agreement. They had committed themselves to getting rid of these incredibly dangerous chemicals. These chemicals have names like aldrin, chlordane, dieldrin, DDT, endrin, heptachlor, hexachlorobenzene, mirex, toxaphene, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), dioxins, and furans. These chemical are extremely widely used and, among the hundreds of thousands of bad chemicals which disrupt endocrine function, lead to birth defects and cancers, cause serious harm to the environment in every corner of the globe, accumulate in food and degrade the ability of people to lead long, healthy lives, these are the worst of the worst.
The report on POPs in Chile starts with a quote: “The future will depend on our wisdom not to replace one poison with another.” Well, as lovely as that sentiment is, it never reached the people in Codex land. Of the 12 worst POPs in the world, 9 are pesticides. Of those widely used, and wildly toxic POPs, 7, yes, 7, have are permitted by Codex in our food. Sure, you can put these poisons on crops: no problem. Codex has set allowable pesticide residues for 7 of them.
Do any of those names sound familiar to you? How about Aldrin and Dieldrin? They are bio-concentrated by children eating the apple a day we used to eat to keep the Doctor away. Have you ever had your house treated for termites with a foundation treatment? Then you probably already know chlordane pretty well since you’ve been breathing it for a while. How about apples and Aldrin? Heptachlor? The official heptachlor fact sheet says that it should not be permitted to enter the environment and that it is really toxic to people, the aquatic environment and fish. But Codex says we can put it on our food. How about Mirex? It’s been described as “one of the most chronically toxic and slowly degrading compounds ever produced on an industrial scale” But it’s OK to use on food. Codex tells me so.
Can’t you see the hand of the Big Chema in this one? Industry-friendly Codex must have been all too happy to agree to the standards they were asked for by their Big Chema handlers. And the workers who use these pesticides which are so deadly that every member of the UN has agreed to end their use and ban them? And we, who will eat the food from all over the world contaminated with this deadly brew (and hundreds of other poisons? What happens to us and our children and our other loved ones when our food is contaminated with compounds so deadly that every single country in the UN has decided they are too dangerous to use?
But wait! The World Trade Organization uses Codex standards in trade dispute resolution. What happens if a country elects to follow the Stockholm Convention Guidelines and not the Codex ones? Trade sanctions for protecting your people from poisons? What kind of madness are we observing unfold when the interest of industry overwhelms the entire international community’s will?
Is this what we want for ourselves? If not, take action. Go to our legislative action page and let Congress know what is important to you. I’ll bet not one member of Congress has thought about the conflict between the Stockholm Convention and Codex. Tell them. Better yet, make an appointment and take a bunch of your friends to go see your Congressmen and women in their local offices (or in DC if you’d like) and let them know that people with faces and families, voices and votes are rallying around health and health freedom. “Work with us and maybe we’ll let you go back to Congress. Oppose us and your DC days are over. We are the people and we are that strong!”
Yours in health and freedom,
Rima E. Laibow, MD
Medical Director
At the present
“Nutraceuticide”: The Death of Nutritional Medicine
To understand why Codex equals the death of nutritional medicine, let me introduce you to a new word: Nutraceutraceuticid, (new truh sue tih side):
1. The death of individuals and populations through intentional restriction of vital nutrients to sub-clinical doses in the presence of a massively adulterated food supply
2. The death of the nutritional health profession through limitation of supplemental nutrients to a small number of ultra low dose materials with no biological effect in the presence of a massively adulterated food supply
3. The termination of natural health options and strategies by criminalizing the means and materials necessary for those strategies
Nutriceuticide is rapidly being put in place by Codex Alimentarius (Latin for “Food Rules”) which classifies nutrients as toxins from which we need protection (!) inappropriately using Risk Assessment (a branch of toxicology) to determine permitted nutrient doses so low that, by design, they have no impact on any human being.
Codex ratified the restrictive Vitamin and Mineral Guideline July 4, 2005 (Rome) which, when globally enacted, is expected to result in the death of at least 3 billion people according to the World Health Organization and Food and Agriculture Organization (WHO/FAO) estimates. At the same time, clean, unadulterated food (free of pesticides, exogenous growth hormones, veterinary drugs, irradiation and genetic modification) will be unavailable and actually illegal! Information which includes health benefits associated with nutrients would be forbidden.
Although the US is currently protected by laws which prevent us from “HARMonizing” with standards like these, these protective laws are under significant legislative attack. Equally chilling, clinically effective doses of nutritional supplements will no longer be legal once the United States is “HARMonized” with Codex Alimentarius.
Created in 1962 as a UN trade commission, Codex Alimentarius sets World Trade Organization (WTO) trade sanction-enforced global standards for everything ingested: crops, animal food, animal feed, processed food, nutrients, water, etc. These regulations clearly serve the interests of multinational Bigs: Big Pharma, Big Agribiz, Big Chema, Big Biotechna and Big Medica.
Codex permits pesticide and toxin residues which are incompatible with human health and longevity, mandates food irradiation, antibiotic and hormone treatment of food animals (and Monsanto rBGH in all dairy cattle world wide), while declaring that nutrients are toxins. As toxins, they are restricted to daily dosages determined by Risk Assessment (toxicology) to have no impact on any human, no matter how sensitive. These nutrient restrictions (in conjunction with an adulterated food supply) serve to guarantee a steady market for pharmaceuticals. Nutritional strategies for health will be both unavailable and illegal.
If Codex implementation is permitted to take place, it spells the death of nutritional health strategies.
What can we do?
1. Write Congress with a personalized letter telling them why you treasure your health freedom and how they need to support it.
2. Organize your friends and visit your Congressional delegates. Tell them to oppose the pro-illness legislation before them (and the many more to follow). Write them a follow up letter after you see them.
3. Help everyone you know to take steps 1 and 2 above. Use the internet! It works.
4. Listen to FREE US/FREE US!, the Voice of Health Freedom ™ live every Wednesday 7 -8 PM (Eastern) on Internet radio If the time isn’t good, for you, listen on the archives when the time is ripe. But please do listen.
And don’t forget to support the Natural Solutions Foundation. We depend on your donations to protect your health freedoms.
We need you and your enthusiasm: your health depends upon it.
Yours in health and freedom,
Rima E. Laibow, MD
Medical Director
This week the British Medical Journal published a study which reported that older people don’t benefit from taking a nutritional supplement. A few months ago, the same journal published another study that reported Multivitamins Won’t Ward Off Infection in Elderly – Senior Health, Aging and Elder Care Health Conditions Show No Decrease in Infection among the elderly who took supplements. Another articles in The Lancet and the British Medical Journal trumpets supplements don’t reduce the risk of fracture in the elderly. And David Bender graced the pages of the British Medical Journal with an editorial incorrectly asserting that we have no biomarkers for optimal health and that there is no point to a daily multivitamin for the elderly.
Years ago someone who knew a lot about a lot said, “The answer has to make sense”. So does this make sense? Nope! No sense at all. Well, then, what’s wrong with this picture? These are reputable journals, right? Peer reviewed, right? So the articles must be real science, right? Wrong, wrong, wrong.
Here’s what’s wrong. The study on infection used a vitamin pill with values so low that they match what we can expect in Codex’s standards. And they had, as they are designed to have, no effect on keeping people healthy as they were intended not to have. Here are the nutrient contents of the supplement in the infection study with the amount that I take of each substance on a health-promotion basis in bold for comparison:
800 µg vitamin A (acetate) REL: 50,000 µg , 60 mg vitamin C REL:6,000 mg, 5 µg vitamin D3 REL:6,000 µg, 10 mg vitamin E (D, L-{alpha} tocopheryl acetate) REL:1,200 IU mixed tocopherols, 1.4 mg thiamin (mononitrate)REL:100 mg, 1.6 mg riboflavinREL:100 mg, 18 mg niacin (nicotinamide)REL:1000 mg, 6 mg pantothenic acid (calcium D-pantothenate)REL:400 mg, 2 mg pyridoxine (hydrochloride)REL:50 mg, 1 µg vitamin B12, REL:1000 µg , 200 µg folic acidREL:25,000 µg, 14 mg iron (fumurate) REL:0 mg, 150 µg iodine (potassium iodide)REL:150 µg, 0.75 mg copper (gluconate)REL:1 mg, 15 mg zinc (oxide)REL:25 mg, and 1 mg manganese (sulphate)REL:10 mg. The doses I take are those that I typically recommend for a health adult who wants to stay that way. I take 100 times as much Vitamin C, 1200 times the Vitamin D, 55.5 times as much niacin, and 25,000 times as much folic acid as test subjects recieved. So what the authors are actually testing is pretty close to the the Risk Assessment values which Coydex wants make the universal standard. Risk Assessment, you will remember, is a branch of toxicology and the Risk Assessment values of Vitamins and Minerals are those which are chosen because they have no effect on any human being! So of course they did not show an impact. DUH!
So guess what, here it is, hot off the press: Ultra low dose nutrients actually don’t work! But wait: what’s this? Buried deep in the study is the following fascinating set of statements: “Our participants were similar in age and place of residence to those studied in a previous, disputed trial that reported beneficial effects from supplementation…. Unlike our trial, the supplement used in the previous trial had four times the levels of vitamin E and vitamin B12 and also contained selenium, magnesium, calcium, and {beta} carotene. (emphasis added) ….Supplementation, especially of trace elements, has been shown to reduce infections in older people in nursing care with higher levels of nutritional deficiency….We cannot exclude the possibility that the intakes provided in the supplement were inadequate to affect the immune system.
These nutrient levels were either carefully chosen to show no impact (which is highly unethical considering the impact on human health and well-being if therapeutic dosages of these nutrients had been given) or the authors are astonishingly incompetence scientists who committed a large number of subjects, scientist hours, journal pages, etc., to experiments designed by nincompoops. If the latter is the case, then the peer reviewers and all the department chairmen involved were nincompoops, too. And while I have seen my share of academic nincompoops, I don’t think that is the explanation here. Remember, the answer has to make sense.
No, I believe these articles are part of the poison press against safe, simple, effective and non toxic health choices.
So I have a couple of questions about these studies (which are questions I always ask): Who funded these studies? Who wrote the articles? The principle author or a ghost writer? What are the financial interests of the authors in the outcomes of the studies? Who chose the level of nutrients to be tested and upon what basis?
And, most important, why did these well educated people want to perform studies that “show” nutrients have no value so badly that they shamed themselves in front of anyone who understands biochemistry, scientific methodology or medical ethics?
I guess I would feel better if they were nincompoops.
Yours in health and freedom,
Rima E. Laibow, MD
Medical Director
Sometimes the best way to make a serious point is with humor and wit. Richard Brodie has made that clear. After I wrote a blog (Help Shape the Grassroots Campaign) asking for suggestions for slogans to capture the imagination of America, many of you wrote in with wonderful suggestions. Richard went one further: first, he wrote a limerick for us:
There were “Food Rules” once, very nefarious,
With which Bayer intended to bury us.
But we said “Go to hell!”
To Big Pharma’s cartel,
And “Screw you, Codex ALIMENTARIUS!”
But wait! There’s More! Then he wrote a side splittingly funny annotated version of Susan Davis’ devastatingly bad bill, HR 3156 Davis bill is funny? No, but the annotation is wonderful and it is funny. Best of all, it makes the point beautifully.
Once you read it, share it widely via a link in your emails to the Natural Solutions Foundation guide to important Congressional bills, www.HealthFreedomUSA.org/bills
And share Richard’s limerick, too. CODEX is a bloated, pompous beast! Laugh at it and watch it deflate to a manageable size!
Yours in health and freedom (and laughter, too),
Rima E. Laibow, MD
Medical Director