In a remarkable letter written on April 6, 2006 to the Helen Clark, the Prime Minister of New Zealand, the Scientists of the Physicians and Scientists for Responsible Genetics [PSRG] took the bold step of warning the PM and every member of the New Zealand Parliament about the known and unknown dangers of biotech foods. They urged the PM and Parliament to move very cautiously on the approval of any genetically modified foods and cited a wealth or reasons why that caution was necessary.
They also urged that they not rely on US decision making since the US FDA and USDA cannot be relied upon to act responsibly in this issue and detail some of the reasons for that lack of trust questioning, among other things, the competency and accuracy of the US agencies involved with approval of GM foods. They charge, and document both FDA and USDA with very specific deficiencies, including the fact that they ignore their own scientists and approve GM foods as safe when there is no evidence that they are, in fact, safe. US approval, however, is generally taken around the world as strong and often compelling evidence of a food’s safety by the countries around the world which still chose to believe the deadly fiction that the US has the world’s best food supply, safety and security. The EU Food Safety organization takes some heavy hits, too, as it is quoted as saying that it has no idea how to analyze and, whether GM or not.
The report is rather technical in spots so, although it is presented without editing, I have taken the liberty of emphasizing parts of it which I find particularly interesting and relevant. In other words, I have placed all bold face text in that format since it does not appear in bold in the original letter.
Please share this information widely since it directly and compellingly offers information that consumers need to know as they choose their diets for themselves and their families. Please remember that the US FDA prohibits the accurate labeling of genetically modified foods so that consumers will not make the “mistake” of rejecting GM food in the US. It strongly urges the rest of the world to adopt the same potentially deadly standard through Codex and, in fact, the Working Group on Biotech (GM) Foods (Accra, Ghana, January 28-30, 2007) will consider this proposition again (as the same group did in Norway last year). The Natural Solutions Foundation will be there reporting on every development for you.
Support our kind of on-going information for yourself and your circle of influence. Join the Natural Solutions Foundation’s Health Freedom e-Alerts (https://staging.drrimatruthreports.com/index.php?page_id=187). Your information is secure with us. I promise.
Oh, yes, there is something else you can do in this critically important process of reclaiming our food: disseminate widely (with proper attribution so people can find the Natural Solutions Foundation when they go looking for more information) and donate. Your tax exempt donations are the life blood of the Natural Solutions Foundation. Help us keep on helping you to maintain your health freedom!
And eat organic. You will note in the MP’s letter that the changes induced by the GM crops could be reversed over time even in adults. That should give you pause and hope. Organic, real organic, not phony Codex-standard organic, is the answer there.
Yours in health and freedom,
Dr. Rima
Rima E. Laibow, MD
Medical Director
Natural Solutions Foundation
www.HealthFreedomUSA.org
www.GlobalHealthFreedom.org
Letter to PM on genetically engineered organisms
Thursday, 6 April 2006, 2:56 pm
Press Release: Physicians and Scientists for Responsible Genetics
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0604/S00056.htm
The Right Hon. Helen Clark
Cc to all MPs
Prime Minister
ERMA
Parliament Buildings
FSANZ
WELLINGTON
Media
A letter addressed to Prime Minister Helen Clark
Dear Helen Clark
PSRG calls your attention to 8 April 2006, designated the day to inform people and to demonstrate public concern about genetically engineered organisms (GEOs).
Of particular concern to us are decisions of FSANZ and other regulatory bodies; the decision not to adopt country of origin labeling; the inadequacy of current GEO label ling requirements; the use of genetic engineering technology to produce pharmaceutical and industrial materials; and potential applications to release GEOs into the New Zealand environment.
(For the purposes of this letter, genetic engineering and genetic modification are synonymous.)
1. The effects on human consumers ingesting genetically engineered organisms
We advise you of the following research that raises serious concerns about the risks of consuming GEOs.
1.1. Eating genetically engineered soybeans affected the liver and pancreas of study mice.
In 2005, Italian researchers1 found that genetically engineered (GE) soybeans affected the liver and pancreas in mice. Previously, the researchers had shown that absorption of GE soy by mice induced modifications in the nuclei of their liver cells. It was later shown that reverting the diet of the mice to conventional food caused the observed differences to disappear. It was also found that several of these changes could be “induced in adult organisms in a very short time.”
1.2. Genetically engineered pea research abandoned because of adverse results
Also in 2005, CSIRO2 scientists abandoned a research project after ten years. They found that the genetically engineered peas they had developed caused lung damage in mice.
1.3. The cauliflower mosaic virus acting as a catalyst to provoke gene expression (2006)
ADVERTISEMENT
Dr Terje Traavik, scientific director of the University of Tromso’s Institute of Genetic Ecology in Norway, has demonstrated 3 that an element of the genetic structures used to engineer a plant – the cauliflower mosaic virus (35S CaMV) promoter – can provoke gene expression in cultured human cells. [In other words, this genetic element could promote cancer] Developers of genetically engineered plants have previously claimed that the promoter normally only performs that way with plants.
1.4. Monsanto’s MON 863 genetically engineered corn
In April 2004, a toxicological study released to Le Monde4 reportedly showed that rats fed with MON 863 presented anomalies, including an increase in the white blood cell count, changes in blood sugar, and a reduction in the red blood cell count. The paper claimed that in considering a decision on its release, despite re-examining the file, regulators did not reportedly take another look at Monsanto’s statistical analysis.
An independent study was commissioned from Gilles-Eric Seralini, of the University of Caen, and Dominique Cellier, of the University of Rouen. Dominique Cellier, a biocomputer specialist, is reported to have said that: “Monsanto’s statistical analysis of the differences observed in the rats was very superficial. They isolate the variables instead of using so-called multi-variable analysis methods, which consist of looking at the observed anomalies in a coherent way. If one uses those methods, one observes coherence between the weight, urinary tract, and haematological anomalies in the animals fed GMOs.”
Commenting on evaluating procedures for GEOs, Jean-Michel Wal of the GEO group of the European Authority on Food Security, is cited as saying: “We don’t know how to study a food overall, whether it’s a GMO or not; there’s no norm.”
2. Regulation and safety testing of GEOs
We wish to raise serious concerns about New Zealand’s reliance on the approval process of US government agencies. The companies that develop and promote genetically engineered food crops generally carry out toxicological studies on the effects of consuming them. These studies are meant to then be double checked by food safety authorities, but the criticism is that the experiments are simply not reproduced [by the FDA], even though industry studies often show adverse biological impacts.
2.1. Inadequate and unsatisfactory regulation
The FDA declared genetically engineered foods are substantially equivalent to conventional foods. It ignored the warnings of its own scientists and put in place food rules that assume no unforeseen effects will occur and, therefore, no safety testing is required, for genetically engineered foods. This premise has been well proven to be wrong.
2.1.a. Early in 2000, German scientists discovered that antibiotic resistant marker (ARM) genes from engineered canola were transferring their resistance to the bacteria found in the guts of bees that had consumed pollen from the plants.
2.1.b. Earlier European Union studies had revealed that ARM genes found in genetically engineered foods could transfer into bacteria in the human gut as well as soil bacteria (http://www.organicconsumers.org/ge/genemarker.cfm ).
2.2. British Medial Association
Concerns were raised as long ago as 1999 when the British Medical Association called for a global moratorium on genetically engineered crops. The BMA were concerned that ARM genes would cause antibiotic resistance to develop in bacteria by horizontal gene transfer. Such resistance would serve to erode the effectiveness of antibiotics for humankind. Crops are still produced using ARM genes.
2.3. Recommended new safety test method
In 2006, agricultural economist, Dr Charles Benbrook – a former adviser to the Carter, Reagan and Clinton administrations – warned of serious concerns over safety in respect of generically engineered foods.5 He claims that these food crops should be re-tested using Australian food safety technology developed by the Australian National University. The failed pea trials were tested using it.
2.4. Instigating safety assessments
As a direct result of the failed pea trails (1.2), Western Australia has instigated an independent, long-term animal feeding trial to collect and assess data on the safety of GE food crops. New Zealand should also take the initiative.
3. Current applications for genetically engineered crops
Recent applications to Food Safety ANZ for the approval of foods derived from genetically engineered alfalfa and corn raise concerns.
a.. Food derived from glyphosate-tolerant Lucerne (Application A575) J101 and J163 for human consumption.
b.. Food derived from Monsanto’s high-lysine corn LY038 (Application A549) genetically engineered to have higher than usual levels of the amino acid, lysine, intended for animal feed.
It is stated that these will be used for animal feed, although some may find its way into human food products. PSRG maintains that the risks that it is intrinsically unwise to allow GE animal feed into the human food chain.
3.1. Transgenes in cows’ milk
In June 2004, a study was released by the Research Centre for Milk and Foodstuffs in Weihenstephan, Bavaria that showed that parts of the gene construct from RoundupReady soybean and from Bt176 maize was found in milk from cows fed these genetically engineered plants. The report says the gene segments may have got into the milk via feed or dust from the feed in the air. No further studies have been made to clarify the exact means by which the DNA fragments got into the milk. (See http://news.bbc.co.uk/.)
3.2. Transgenes in the gut bacteria of human volunteers
A study commissioned by the UK Food Standards Agency (FSA) and carried out at the University of Newcastle, demonstrated that DNA from a genetically engineered food – in this case soybean in the form of a burger and a milkshake – found its way into the gut bacteria of human volunteers. (See the FSA Report on http://www.foodstandards.gov.uk/.)
3.3. The long-term effects of ingesting material from transgenic sources on a daily basis have not been assessed.
4. Adverse effects of genetically engineered crops – MON 8106, 7, 8 Monsanto’s MON 810 corn produces an artificial, truncated version of a Cry toxin derived from the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis. This family of toxins has a pathogenic effect on Lepidopteron insects.
4.1. Genetically engineered plants are not equivalent to bio pesticides
A study spanning several years has monitored the quantity of Cry1Ab toxins in DK-440 BTY (MON 810) corn. Cry toxins are compounds that have gained acceptance in pest control (i.e., in bio pesticides such as DIPEL). However, genetically engineered plants are not equivalent to these bio-pesticides from the aspect of environmental analysis and ecotoxicology.
The principal difference with regard to toxin release is related to the extent and duration of exposure: while bio-pesticide applications release a small quantity of the toxin on a single or several occasions, the GE plant produces the toxin protein on a continuous basis, unnecessarily, during its entire vegetation cycle, as long as the gene section(s) added artificially to the plant and responsible for encoding the protein are active.6
4.2. Cry toxin produced in the entire plant during the whole growth period Székács et al6 have confirmed that the Cry toxin is produced in the plant during the whole period of growth. That is, in a dry plant, under moderate temperature, the toxin remains biologically active for several years. Post-harvest the maize stubble contains a significant quantity of Cry toxin. Cry toxin, over-wintering in the stubble, can be detected in plant residues after a period of one year.
4.3. Comparisons between bio pesticides and Bt plants
Székács et al compared the quantity of Cry-toxin proteins produced by the Bt-plant with the doses registered and permitted for their use in bio pesticides, and determined the toxin quantity in DIPEL. They found that MON 810 Bt-corn produces 1500-3000 times more Cry1Ab toxin than the Cry1Ab toxin dose corresponding to a single treatment with DIPEL.
They also found that only part of the toxin from the Bt-plant is decomposed during the growth period. Further, a significant part of the remaining quantity in the stubble enters the soil, where it may affect soil life (animals and micro-organisms).
4.4. Cry pollen and contamination
A study (Marva’s et al)7 carried out over several years looked at the possible effects of the pollen of DK-440 BTY corn grown in Nagykovácsi, Júlia-major, a valley where no maize was grown during the years concerned.
The distance of the intra-specific hybrid formation was examined on white, tassel-free maize and the results showed that pollen transfer could occur at 800 metres.
This poses risks for organically grown maize where zero tolerance is accepted for GE [Genetically Engineered – editor] -hybrids. Seeds developing from a traditional female blossom pollinated with cry gene- containing pollen (i.e., from MON 810), have a high probability (1/3) of acquiring the capability of producing the Cry1Ab toxin.
4.5. The effects on essential insect species
Around fields planted with Bt-corn hybrids, the Bt-pollen settled on weeds, presenting a danger to the hatching caterpillars of protected varieties of butterflies. This means that in the case of extensive Bt-corn cultivation, butterfly species could recede [that is, be damaged or extermated – editor].
A study by Béla Darvas and Éva Lauber8 found that insects developed resistance to the toxin content in Bt-corn leaves. The conclusion is that this will generate a growth in the number of insect populations on which Bacillus thuringiensis products – used almost exclusively in organic farming – will no longer have a suitable effect.
5. Food crops engineered to produce non-food [chemicals and pharmaceuticals -editor] products – the potential contamination of other engineered, conventional and organically grown crops.
In 2004, the US Department of Agriculture oversaw 67,000 acres of biotech field trials, some of which involved producing non-food products in a food crop. Corn is the most utilized food crop for engineered traits because it is easy to work with and produces a lot of grain. The concern is that food plants genetically engineered for non-food products could contaminate plants engineered as food crops and/or conventional crops, and enter the food supply as did StarLink’s Cry9C protein in 2000.
5.1. Report on the US Department of Agriculture as a regulator9
A recent report found that the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) has failed to properly oversee field trials of genetically engineered crops, including plants engineered to produce chemicals for medical and industrial uses. The report says that the USDA “lacks basic information” on field trial locations and what happens to the crops after harvest. For example, auditors located two harvested pharmaceutical crops in storage, about which the USDA knew nothing nor had it approved.
The two-year safety audit by the United States Office of Inspector General also found that: “Current (USDA) regulations, policies and procedures do not go far enough to ensure the safe introduction of agricultural biotechnology.”
6. Pharmaceutical drugs produced using genetic engineering technology
Some people react differently to proteins that are genetically engineered as against equivalent proteins that are produced naturally. Genetic engineering technology is not as precise or as predictable as chemical drugs because it relies on the intricate workings of complex living cells in the process of manufacture, and even the subtlest of changes in the process can have unpredictable results. Some drugs – e.g. human insulin – are created by engineering the required human gene into bacterial or animal cells.
PSRG [Physicians and Scientists for Responsible Genetics – REL] urges you, Prime Minister, to put safety before industry profit and instigate changes to the NZ system of regulation that will protect New Zealanders.
Signed by the Trustees of Physicians and Scientists for Responsible Genetics
Paul G Butler, BSc, MB, ChB, Dip. Obst. (Auckland), FRNZCGP General Practitioner, Trustee PSRG, AUCKLAND
John R Clearwater, BSc, MSc, PhD
Principal Scientist, Clearwater Research and Consulting, Trustee PSRG, AUCKLAND
Bernard J Conlon, MB, BCh, BAO, DCH, DRCOG, DGM, MRCGP (UK), FRNZCGP General Practitioner, Trustee PSRG, MURUPARA
Elvira Dommisse, BSc(Hons), PhD
Former Research Scientist, Trustee PSRG, CHRISTCHURCH
Michael E Godfrey, MBBS, FACAM, FACNEM
Director, Bay of Plenty Environmental Health Clinic, Trustee PSRG, TAURANGA
Neil Macgregor, BSc, MSc, PhD
Soil Microbiologist, Institute of Natural Resources, Massey University, Trustee PSRG, PALMERSTON NORTH
Peter R Wills, BSc, PhD
Associate Professor, University of Auckland, Trustee PSRG, AUCKLAND
Robert G Anderson, BSc, PhD
Lecturer retired, Trustee PSRG, TAURANGA
Jean Anderson
Businesswoman retired, Trustee PSRG, TAURANGA.
Signed on behalf of PSRG
Jean Anderson
Secretary
www.psrg.org.nz.
for the Trustees of Physicians and Scientists for Responsible Genetics
You know we have to travel a lot to represent your interests at international meetings, such a Codex Alimenatrius. When I go to Europe I eat with a feeling of moderate confidence that my food, unless imported from the US, will be free of Genetically Modified (GM) ingredients. Moderate confidence, I say, because, as a meat eater I know that although food intended directly for people is, for the most part GM free, animals raised in the EU for human consumption can be fed GM feeds. The foreign DNA, and the artificially introduced antibiotic resistance which is used as a marker for GM techniques in the laboratory, are transmitted to the animal and then to you, the eater.
Vegetarians what are ready to take smug satisfaction from that fact, however, should consider that the EU authorities are adding new species of approved GM crops on a nearly daily basis. That means that the confidence with which you eat food in Europe should decline almost on a daily basis.
Now there is another kick to the consumer’s safety and confidence in Europe. “Probably safe” apparently is safe enough, at least for the EU regulators. Cloned food, now judged to be “probably safe”, is being approved in the US along with cloned meat. It is true, of course, that Dolly the cloned sheep died young and the health of other cloned animals is questionable over time. Dolly not only contracted a “common livestock disease” (What? Her immune system was not strong and effective in protecting her from it even with the superb care she must surely have been receiving?) and her cells showed signs of premature aging! What about your cells when you invite Dolly to dinner – and eat her? The cloned DNA was not actually identical in terms of keeping the animals alive and well over time. Well, to my mind, just as the foreign and unstable DNA in GM foods gets woven into your DNA and may provide one of the worst health disasters in human history, so cloned DNA may add to the debacle. Of course, according to the AP, the EU’s 47 page report, released this week, stated that “there was “only limited data available” on animal cloning” and it did urge consultation with scientists and consumer groups which have in the past objected to allowing such products onto the market.”
In the US, however, where there is just as little data available, the FDA has exercised no such caution. In fact, it has rushed headlong into the approval process for milk and meat and stipulates that because IT, the FDA, says that there is no danger (or at least no danger KNOWN – yet) both meat and milk will be permitted in our markets and our mouths. And when we find that cloned meat and milk are dangerous? Well, think Vioxx.
The headlong rush to make the Biotech industry happy [remember, a Monsanto employee was seated as a member of the US Delegation at last year’s Codex Working Group on Labeling Foods Derived from BioTechnology (that’s GM foods when you take away the fancy language) in Oslo] is a perfect example of why the FDA, controlled solely and totally, as far as anyone observing it can see, by the industries it supposedly regulated, MUST be divested of its food regulatory authority. Not only is the FDA clearly incapable of resisting the pressures – and payments – of Big Pharma, Big Biotech, Big Agribiz and all the other Bigs, it receives a significant portion of its operating budget from drug company “User Fees” and now wants to receive similar “User Fees” from the Food, Chemical and Biotech industries! This is a killer system. The consumer is the victim. As a consumer, an eater (and not a useless one, I would assert!), I find this industry-centric, consumer-contemptuous approach appalling.
Join the Natural Solutions Foundation, www.HealthFreedomUSA.org, www.GlobalHealthFreedom.org, in supporting protective standards for consumers, not the multinational corporations! Sign up today for our Health Freedom eAlerts and become part of the global community speaking for health freedom! Your data is safe with us. You have my promise.
Yours in health and freedom,
Dr. Rima
Rima E. Laibow, MD
Medical Director
Natural Solutions Foundation
www.HealthFreedomUSA.org
www.GlobalHealthFreedom.org
EU Report Says Cloned Food Probably Safe
There were no consumer advocates or independent scientists on that delegation, of course. IN a few weeks General Stubblebine and I will be attending this year’s iteration of that meeting in Ghana. It will be interesting to see who is sitting on the US Delegation this time!
Published: 1/11/08, 6:46 PM EDT
BRUSSELS, Belgium (AP) – Meat and milk from cloned animals is probably safe for humans, the European Union’s food safety agency said in a preliminary report released Friday. The report, by the European Food Safety Authority, seems likely to fuel new debate over whether the EU should allow cloned animals to enter the food chain.
The 47-page draft cautioned, however, that there was “only limited data available” on animal cloning. It urged consultation with scientists and consumer groups, which have in the past objected to allowing such products onto the market.
The EU’s Food Safety Authority, which is based in Italy, was directed by the EU’s executive office in Brussels last year to investigate what risks were involved in making projects for human consumption from cloned animals.
The 27-nation union currently has no laws regulating animal cloning and food. The European Commission is trying to decide whether legislation is needed, said Nina Papadoulaki, spokeswoman for EU Health Commissioner Markos Kyprianou.
“Based on current knowledge, there is no expectation that clones or their progeny would introduce any new food safety risks compared with conventionally bred animals,” the preliminary report said.
Papadoulaki said the commission hoped the report would help EU officials determine whether there is public support for allowing cloned food onto supermarket shelves.
She said the commission would seek further advice from an ethics group specializing in science and new technologies, which includes 15 scientists, philosophers, theologians and lawyers.
That group is scheduled to issue its own report on the “ethical aspects of animal cloning for food supply” on Jan. 16.
Some countries outside the EU are moving to permit cloned animals to enter the food chain.
The United States is expected to allow food from cloned animals onto the market sometime this year. A poll conducted in 2006 found, however, that 64 percent of Americans were uncomfortable with animal cloning.
The issue is also under review in Australia, New Zealand, Japan and Canada.
Scientists across Europe have for years investigated different animal cloning techniques. The most famous example was the cloning of Dolly the sheep in Britain. Dolly was euthanized in 2003 after she contracted a common livestock disease and her cells showed signs of premature aging.
Italian scientists cloned a racehorse in 2005, hoping to pass on genetic lines of champion thoroughbreds.
Copyright 2007 Associated Press. All rights reserved.
This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed
Posted on January 11, 2008
The West Australian, January 4, 2008
Here is a helpful and cheery little article sent to me by a friend and correspondent in Western Australia. He knows, as you do, that Genetically Modified (GM) crops are dangerous and that, once mixed with native crops, the foreign, dangerous and untested DNA it inserts into neighboring plants can never be removed from the food supply. Never. Take a look at what the new book “Seeds of Destruction” has to say on the topic. Then please come back here and take a look at this article.
He knows, as do you, that GM crops which “volunteer” (that’s commercial-eze for “invade” or “trespass”) into a farmer’s crop then force the farmer to pay “intellectual property” rights to the owner of the GM DNA (which is patented by the US Patent Office, but not safety tested by the FDA or USDA, or the EPA, for that matter!) He knows, like you, that crops and animals are modified with marker genes which confer resistance to antibiotics and that resistance transfers to the animals and people that eat the crop. He knows that the foreign DNA is not stable in the nucleus: it jumps around from place to place causing totally unexpected and unanticipated impacts. Even when it is stable, it is often indigestible so that instead of being broken down in the GI tract, it passes through cell walls intact causing auto immune problems and being literally woven into the DNA of cells, most especially rapidly dividing ones like your stomach lining, or a fetus’ brain, for example. That DNA is then woven into the genome of its consumer and no one we know has any idea what it does then or 40 years later. DNA, of course, generally causes proteins to be produced. If the proteins have never before been produced, no one knows what they will do now or in the future.
He knows that independent research, which the FDA does not review (but, to be fair, it does not review company safety data, either, before it approves a food for human use) shows that GM foods cause infertility, holes in the GI tract, fetal death and still birth in rats, smaller kidneys and depressed immune function in rat pups which survived (most did not) and a host of other serious problems. He also knows that scientists who dare speak out to even so much as question this technology and the wisdom of using it before it has been shown to be safe are exposed to a vast and well orchestrated disinformation campaign against them and their careers are, literally, not figuratively, over. Their tenure vanishes, so do their job prospects. In fact, I was sitting at the Tiburon CA Health Freedom Leaders meeting which produced the Tiburon Declaration against Forced Vaccination which you and your organization can sign here (https://staging.drrimatruthreports.com/index.php?p=460) when our hostess got a call from an academic who had published an article merely raising questions about GM foods. His academic appointment at a prestigious university was abruptly terminated and he found that he was blackballed. This professor of Organic and Environmental Agriculture whose specialty is rebuilding damaged ecosystems in the cleanest way possible was out of a job and apparently out of luck. You would think, of course, that such a skill base would be huge demand. Not if Monsanto and the others have anything to say. And they do, they do!
It is by now a truism that Big Pharma runs the FDA. You do know, as does our friend in Australia, that Big Agribiz and Big Biotechna are also massively big players on the food scene (and therefore in Codex Alimentarius – the World Food Code). Recall that Monsanto, a pharmaceutical, chemical and GM giant in its own right, but by no means the biggest in the field, has said that it would own the world’s food supply by 2010. Well, it looks like it is about to own Australia’s wheat.
How to stop this? One good way is to shift to a diet comprised TOTALLY of organic food. Protect yourself and the environment. Protect farmers and their ability to stay on their land. Now get active. Disseminate what you learn in these posts to everyone you know. And ask them to join the Health Freedom eAlerts and become informed, activated and disseminators!
And, of course, don’t forget to donate to the Natural Solutions Foundation. Our friend in Australia knows, and you know, too, that the other side has more money than God but that the Natural Solutions Foundation is raising awareness all over the world about these dangerous foods. For example, we will be at the Codex Working Group in Ghana on January 28-30, 2008 in which dozens of countries will try – again – to prevent the US from shipping, and selling, food with any sort of GM food in it they want with absolutely zero identification on the label. That is US policy in the US and, working for the Biotech industry (who actually have a seat on the US delegation at this meeting and others), if the US has anything to say about it, in the whole world.
Other countries are not so sure they like this. Australia is, however, a bone in the tale of the US dog at Codex and happily endorses anything the US wants at Codex. So here is Australia endorsing potentially deadly food.
Then International Decade of Nutrition, a program of the Natural Solutions Foundation, is designed to give farmers the power to stay on their land, grow their crops without chemicals and then feed themselves and their families with enough economic advantage so that they can stay on the land. We will be in several African countries following the Codex meeting to start projects for the International Decade of Nutrition. Not, I can assure you, with GM crops or animals.
Now for the article. Don’t forget to let others know what you already know: they need to know it!
Yours in health and freedom,
Dr. Rima
Rima E. Laibow, MD
Medical Director
Natural Solutions Foundation
Drought-tolerant GM crop trials welcome in WA, says Chance
by Jodie Thomson
Development of genetically modified crops with drought-tolerant properties would be welcomed in WA in order to attract a share of Federal assistance to help farmers copewith climate change, Agricultural Minister Kim Chance said yesterday.
He also signalled that the WA Government’s drought assistance package, which included grants of up to $8000 to affected farmers, could be overhauled and the money poured into development of other plant varieties or farming methods to manage drought.
“We are talking with farmers here in terms of converting the State’s drought assistance to one which actually deals with the longer-term issues,” he said. “I think the cash component of last year’s package was some $7.3 million- you could do an enormous amount of work.”
It follows a revamp in drought-relief payments by the Rudd Government, which would include funding ways to help farmers deal with global warming through using GM crops,changing ploughing methods and specific water management strategies.Mr. Chance said the State Government was supporting drought research progrms such as trials of mustard biofuels crops in the north-eastern Wheatbelt and ploughing techniques.
But research into genetically modified crops, in particularwheat, would be a “nice addition” to those programs already under way and to a joint plant breeding project recently struck with Zhejiang University, the headquarters of the China National Barley Research Centre.
WA was in the last year of its moratorium on coommercial GM crops,due for review at the end of 2008. But Mr. Chance has previously signalled it is unlikely to be lifted until concerns about GM safety and labelling were allayed. GM issues willbe on the agenda when he expects to meet Agriculture Minister Tony Burke this month.
Nationals leader Warren Truss said yesterday farmers had serious concerns about the Federal Government’s drought relief reform.
“the new Rudd Government has confirmed the fears of regional and rural communities around Australia that it will embark on a new bout of slash and burn,” Mr. Truss said.
The idea that your medical history and facts are private is offensive to the illness care industry, which trades on your data without your knowledge or consent. So does the US Government and so do a host of companies and marketers who buy and sell your information as a matter of course. Of course, if your doctor or anyone in the office tells you that your records have been accessed by the government, that is a felony for which the doctor and whomever it was that told you can both go to jail.
Data mining, and the sale of prescription information has become routine and offers Big Pharma and others interested in your health (and lack thereof) a huge source of profit.
Now the US Courts are weighing in on whether you have a right to your prescription privacy and, as of right now, the answer is a resounding “NO!”.
This madness is just one more reason that it is imperative to fight for our health and health freedom, including health privacy NOW! Join the Natural Solutions Foundation’s Health Freedom eAlert list and donate generously to the Natural Solutions Foundation so we can protect all of your health freedoms with your active help. Remember: Big Pharma and its friends have more money than God. We don’t need that much. But we do need to raise $1Million in 2008 to bring the battle to the level it requires for significant forward motion on all fronts. If you donate just $10 per month, and so does everyone else reading this, we have what we need. Please make your recurring donation now if your health, privacy and freedom is worth as much as 2.5 Starbuck’s Medium Cappuccinos each month (even if you don’t drink coffee!)
Yours in privacy and health and freedom,
Dr. Rima
Rima E. Laibow, MD
Medical Director
Natural Solutions Foundation
Prescription Privacy?
January 2nd, 2008
Michele Cagan
Chalk up another win for Big Pharma, as we lose our privacy so they can make more sales. Apparently, a federal district judge believes – and has ruled – that a corporation’s first amendment rights trumps our human right to privacy.
That’s right. According to that judge, prescriptions aren’t private, at least from the doctor’s side of things. In fact, keeping a doctor’s prescription-writing habits private and confidential “violates the Constitution.†And, in his opinion, so did the Maine law that allowed that information to remain confidential.
How did this all end up in court? Some corporations that make a practice of selling information about people’s prescriptions got pretty ticked off when the Maine courts said those records were confidential. Those medical data corporations (namely IMS Health, Wolters Kluwer Health, and VeriSpan) took their case to a higher court and won. After all, they can’t make any money if they don’t sell our private medical information to Big Pharma, who need it so they can better direct-market unnecessary and possibly dangerous drugs to us and our doctors.
But, really, they’re doing all of this for our own good. Here’s one “important†reason, cited by the corporations, that they need access to this information (and permission to trade on it): It will help “monitor the safety of new drugs.†That sound you hear, it’s me laughing so hard I’m crying. Because we all know a system designed to sell information about doctors’ prescription-writing habits to the drug companies is really focused on selling more (and more expensive) drugs…and not on protecting us from the problems associated with those drugs.
The federal district court judge on this case followed a similar ruling from earlier this year that struck down a New Hampshire prescription privacy law. And now another similar case involving a Vermont law is being tried in federal court. In the mean time, Maine intends to appeal this ridiculous, scary ruling. And hopefully someone in the federal government will realize that the constitution is supposed to protect people, not profits.
Here are a group of articles which appeared on www.WorldNetDaily.com detailing the incredible intrusion of SWAT teams into a home to take custody of their child because a local judge did not like the way the child was cared for after an unreported incident of horse play.
Is this health freedom? Is this freedom? Is this OK with you? It certainly is not OK with me and is not tolerable!
Can you think of a better time than right now to make sure we nip this atrocity in every bud it has put forth? That’s what the Natural Solutions Foundation is all about and that is why we need your help and support. Sign up now for our Health Freedom eAlerts and give generously to make sure we have the resources for this battle which needs to be fought on so many fronts!
Yours in health and freedom,
Rima E. Laibow, MD
Monday, January 7, 2008
POLICE STATE, USA
SWAT officers invade home, take 11-year-old at gunpoint
Cops demand boy go to doctor because of fall during horseplay
Posted: January 7, 2008
1:00 a.m. Eastern
By Bob Unruh
© 2008 WorldNetDaily.com
Nearly a dozen members of a police SWAT team in western Colorado punched a hole in the front door and invaded a family’s home with guns drawn, demanding that an 11-year-old boy who had had an accidental fall accompany them to the hospital, on the order of Garfield County Magistrate Lain Leoniak.
The boy’s parents and siblings were thrown to the floor at gunpoint and the parents were handcuffed in the weekend assault, and the boy’s father told WND it was all because a paramedic was upset the family preferred to care for their son themselves.
Someone, apparently the unidentified paramedic, called police, the sheriff’s office and social services, eventually providing Leoniak with a report that generated the magistrate’s court order to the sheriff’s office for the SWAT team assault on the family’s home in a mobile home development outside of Glenwood Springs, the father, Tom Shiflett, told WND.
(Story continues below)
WND calls and e-mails to Garfield County Social Services were not returned, and Leoniak, who earlier served as a water court clerk/referee, also was not available.
Sheriff Lou Vallario, however, did call back, and told WND he ordered his officers to do exactly what the magistrate demanded.
“I was given a court order by the magistrate to seize the child, and arrange for medical evaluation, and that’s what we did,” he said.
According to friends of the family, Tom Shiflett, who has 10 children including six still at home, and served with paramedics in Vietnam, was monitoring his son’s condition himself.
The paramedic and magistrate, however, ruled that that wasn’t adequate, and dispatched the officers to take the boy, John, to a hospital, where a doctor evaluated him and released him immediately.
The accident happened during horseplay, Tom Shiflett told WND. John was grabbing the door handle of a car as his sister was starting to drive away slowly. He slipped, fell to the ground and hit his head, Shiflett said.
He immediately carried his son into their home several doors away, and John was able to recite Bible verses and correctly spell words as his father and mother, Tina, requested. There were no broken bones, no dilated eyes, or any other noticeable problems.
The family, whose members live by faith and home school, decided not to call an ambulance. But a neighbor did call Westcare Ambulance, and paramedics responded to the home, asking to see and evaluate the boy.
The paramedics were allowed to see the boy, and found no significant impairment, but wanted to take him to the hospital for an evaluation anyway. Fearing the hospital’s bills, the family refused to allow that.
“This apparently did not go over well with one of the paramedics and they started getting aggravated at Tom for not letting them have their way,” a family acquaintance told WND.
“The paramedics were not at all respectful of Tom’s decision, nor did they act in a manner we would expect from professional paramedics,” the acquaintance said.
So the ambulance crew, who also could not be reached by WND, called police, only to be told the decision was up to the Shiflett family.
The paramedics then called the sheriff’s office, and officers responded to the home, and were told everyone was being cared for.
Then the next day, Friday, social services workers appeared at the door and demanded to talk with John “in private.”
They were so persistent Tom ended up having to get John out of the bathtub he was just soaking in, to bring him to the front porch where the social workers could see him, the family reported.
Then, following an afternoon shopping trip to town, the family settled in for the evening, only to be shocked with the SWAT team attack.
The sheriff said the decision to use SWAT team force was justified because the father was a “self-proclaimed constitutionalist” and had made threats and “comments” over the years.
However, the sheriff declined to provide a single instance of the father’s illegal behavior. “I can’t tell you specifically,” he said.
“He was refusing to provide medical care,” the sheriff said.
However, the sheriff said if his own children were involved in an at-home accident, he would want to be the one to make decisions on their healthcare, as did Shiflett.
“I guess if that was one of my children, I would make that decision,” the sheriff said.
But he said Shiflett was “rude and confrontational” when the paramedics arrived and entered his home without his permission.
The sheriff also admitted that the injury to the child had been at least 24 hours earlier, because the fall apparently happened Thursday afternoon, and the SWAT attack happened late Friday evening.
Officials with the Home School Legal Defense Association reported they were looking into the case, because of requests from family friends who are members of the organization.
“While people can debate whether or not the father should have brought his son to the ER – it seems like this was not the kind of emergency that warrants this kind of outrageous conduct by government officials,” a spokesman said.
Tom Shiflett said when John was evaluated by the physician, “they didn’t find anything wrong with him.”
He said the paramedics never should have entered his home, but they followed his wife in the front door when she came in.
“My attention was on my son,” Shiflett said.
He said the SWAT team punched a hole in his door with a ramrod, and the first officer in the home pointed a gun right in the face of Tom’s 20-year-old daughter.
“I don’t know where social services ever got started, or where they got their authority,” he said. “But I want to know why we have something in this country that violates our rights, that takes a parental right away.”
He said he saw a multitude of injuries in Vietnam, and while he recognized that his son needed to be watched, he wasn’t willing to turn his child over to the paramedics.
With 10 children, most of them older than John, it’s not as if he hasn’t seen a bruise or two, either, he said.
“Now I’m hunting for lawyers that will take the case … I’m going to sue everybody whose name was on that page right down to the judge,” he said.
Mike Donnelly, a lawyer with the HSLDA, told WND the case had a set of circumstances that could be problematic for authorities.
“In Doe V. Heck, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals held that parents have a fundamental right to familial relations including a liberty interest in the care, custody and control of their children,” he said.
He also said many social services agencies apply “a one size fits all approach” to cases, regardless of circumstances.
Follow-up story on this atrocious case:
POLICE STATE, USA
Mother warns community about ‘Nazi’ home invasion
Officers told her ‘rights’ were ‘only in the movies’
Posted: January 10, 2008
1:00 a.m. Eastern
By Bob Unruh
© 2008 WorldNetDaily.com
The mother of an 11-year-old boy abducted by SWAT team members and taken to a hospital after he was bruised while horsing around is warning members of her community of the “Nazi” tactics she endured, including a statement from the officers that her “rights” were “only in the movies.”
The case involves Jon Shiflett, who injured himself while trying to grab the handle of a door on a car his sister was driving. He slipped and fell to the pavement, hitting his head. His parents treated him for the injury and rejected paramedics’ demands that they be allowed to take him to a hospital.
Nearly 36 hours later, SWAT team members broke into the family home in western Colorado near New Castle and took Jon to a hospital, where a doctor said the family should keep ice on his bruise, exactly the treatment the family already had been providing.
Tina Shiflett, Jon’s mother, has written a letter to the editor to a local newspaper, the Post Independent, “to awaken, alert and appall any who read it and hear the bells ringing.”
“A fully armed SWAT team broke into our home, slammed my children to the floor face down with their hands behind their backs and shoved a gun in my daughter’s face and handcuffed her…” her letter said.
In a separate letter to WND, she elaborated a little more fully.
(Story continues below)
During the attack, she wrote, “One (officer) grabbed my daughter Beth (18 years), who also had a gun to her face, slammed her down and kneed her in the back and held her in that position… My sons Adam (14) and Noah (only 7) lay down willingly, yet they were still forced to put their hands behind their backs and were yelled at to keep their heads down.
“My daughter Jeanette was coming out from the back bedroom when she was grabbed, drug down the hallway, across a couch and slammed to the ground,” she said. “The officers then began throwing scissors and screwdrivers across the room (out of our reach, I suppose) and going through our cupboards.
“I asked if I could make a phone call and was told, ‘no.’ My daughter asked if that wasn’t one of our rights. The reply was made, ‘That’s only in the movies,'” she told WND.
It was some unidentified person, possibly a paramedic who had been refused permission to take Jon Shiflett to the hospital as she wanted, who provided information last week that convinced a magistrate to issue a court order that Jon be taken into state custody and examined by a doctor.
He was taken by SWAT team members dispatched by the sheriff to the family’s home at 11 p.m. at night, and they punched a hole in the front door and held guns on other children in the family in order to take Jon.
“The armed men in black masks took my terrified son against his wishes to Grand River Hospital, where he was examined by a doctor and interrogated by Social Services. No evidence was found that he had not been properly taken care of. Upon his return, we were told to keep ice on his head,” Tina Shiflett’s letter to the editor said.
“To the SWAT Team members … how far will you go in ‘just doing your job?’ If you feel no guilt busting into an innocent family’s home, traumatizing young children and stomping the security found therein, will you follow more horrific orders?” she wrote.
“May I remind you that in Nazi Germany, outrageous, monstrous crimes were committed by soldiers ‘just doing their job?’ What will be next? Where will this stop?” she wrote.
“Fathers, mothers, families and countrymen, I challenge you to consider our story and ask yourself the question, ‘If this were my family, what would I do?’ For it very well could be you … next!”
Garfield County Sheriff Lou Vallario told WND he simply ordered his officers to do exactly what the magistrate demanded.
“I was given a court order by the magistrate to seize the child, and arrange for medical evaluation, and that’s what we did,” he said.
The situation developed at the Apple Tree Mobile Home Park near New Castle last week when Jon Shiflett was horsing around and fell. Tom Shiflett carried his son home and put an ice pack on his head, while examining him to see whether his mental faculties were there. The boy correctly recited Bible verses and spelled words, the parents told WND.
But paramedics were called by a neighbor, and when they arrived, Tom Shiflett let them see his son, but refused their demands that he be taken to a hospital. The paramedics then apparently lobbied the city police, the sheriff’s office, social workers and eventually the magistrate in order to get their way in having Jon taken to a hospital.
Jim Bradford, a court clerk in Garfield County, said it was a juvenile matter and he could not comment on any aspect of the case, and he declined to allow WND to leave a message for Garfield County Magistrate Lain Leoniak, who signed the order.
But participants in a forum at the Rocky Mountain News, which carried reports subsequent to the WND report, seemed to agree with Tina Shiflett.
Wrote ItsJustMe, “Welcome to the coming socialist police state.”
Said “mrNiceGuy,” “Police man shoots man in heart at a distant range, is not charged. Police cover up the events that proceed (sic) the death of someone in their custody, no one is charged. Police enter wrong apartment and shoot an unarmed man thinking a can is a weapon, no charges filed. But a kid bumps his head and his parents deem him to be ok – knock the door in and start cuffing people.”
“I cannot describe the feeling of having your child abducted, taken from your care, not knowing what will happen to him, and if he will ever be returned back into your arms again,” Tina Shiflett wrote in the separate letter to WND. “I record this by my own hand in hopes of awakening anyone who would read it to the injustice of our police depart (sic), social services and court system. But above all to glorify my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, whose reign is supreme over all this earth…”
The letter clarifies that the family did, indeed, cooperate with officers who arrived about 11 p.m. on that night.
“Between 10 and 11 … a sheriff came to the door. My husband met him at the window and he began to question my husband. My husband spoke with him and answered all his questions. The sheriff then said if Tom would just let him speak with Jonathan (our 11 yr. old son) this whole matter (story following) would be closed,” she documented.
“Tom said, ‘You are saying, ‘If I let you speak to Jonathan this whole matter will be closed.?’ Then Tom called for Jonathan to come to the window,” she said.
“As soon as Jonathan was visible to the sheriff, a SWAT team appeared shining lights on Jon’s face and others were bashing at the door with a ramming device. My daughter resisted and pushed against the door to stop them as she didn’t know who they were. I told her to back up and not try to fight them. They then entered our home, held a gun to my daughter’s face and others of them, five or more, rushed into the living room and physically forced my other children to the ground.”
“We were told Jonathan would be taken to a hospital near us for evaluation, and then questioned by the human resources. At this point Jonathan was scared, crying and shaking. We asked if we could accompany him, or follow them to the hospital. We were warned not to try to follow him or come to the hospital or criminal charges would be pressed against us.
“Our son was returned to us at 2:30 a.m. Saturday morning. In all this was not one shred of evidence found that we had done anything wrong or that Jon had not been properly cared for at home,” she said.
“what the?” was KarlSpackler’s comment on a forum at the Denver Post.
And “mamm354” added, “Whoever it was that gave the order to do this should be thrown in jail. Illegal assaults on our privacy is why we need the second amendment. I don’t see the police being this aggressive against illegal aliens but they approach their work with this level of zest against citizens!?!?! Heads should roll for this.”
Lynn Rennick, the social services director in Garfield County, has said her office is required to intervene when it receives a report about “possible mistreatment” of children, but she didn’t comment on any such report in this case, who may have filed it, or what it might have said.
A spokeswoman for WestCare Ambulance, which reportedly responded to the call, also refused to answer any questions about the case, saying all issues were considered patient confidentiality issues.
Ross Talbott, the owner of the Apple Tree Mobile Home Park who rents to the Shifletts, called the SWAT team actions “gross irresponsibility and stupidity.”
“Is this Russia? I don’t know what we’re coming to when they think your kid needs medical help and they send a SWAT team,” he said.
Here are some reader comments filed on www.WordNetDaily.com on this developing medical fascism:
“ItsJustMe” commented, “Welcome to the coming socialist police state.”
Said “mrNiceGuy,” “Police man shoots man in heart at a distant range, is not charged. Police cover up the events that proceed (sic) the death of someone in their custody, no one is charged. Police enter wrong apartment and shoot an unarmed man thinking a can is a weapon, no charges filed. But a kid bumps his head and his parents deem him to be ok – knock the door in and start cuffing people.” “mamm354” said, “Whoever it was that gave the order to do this should be thrown in jail. Illegal assaults on our privacy is why we need the second amendment. I don’t see the police being this aggressive against illegal aliens but they approach their work with this level of zest against citizens!?!?! Heads should roll for this.”
But Wait! There’s More!
Here is another story posted by the same source of a New Jersey infant being kidnapped while in hospital by the State authorities in New Jersey and having their parental rights severed without a Court proceeding. Who is next? Whose children are next?
Parents fight state for 8-month-old son
Claims of abuse for undiagnosed condition trigger custody battle
Posted: October 15, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com
A New Jersey family is hoping for a court hearing today to regain physical custody of their 8-month-old son, who is being detained now at Morristown Memorial Hospital on the order of the state Division of Youth and Family Services.
“The only thing the family appears guilty of is standing up to the heavy handed approach of the Sussex County office [of the agency],” said Mike Donnelly, a lawyer with the Home School Legal Defense Association.
Gabriel Stansfield was born to Doug and Sally Stansfield eight months ago with spina bifida. He was evaluated by several experts at his birth, including Dr. Catherine Mazzola at Morristown Memorial, and has had numerous maintenance visits to the family’s pediatrician with no complications, his parents told WND.
However, the family told WND, he was taken to the Morristown hospital a little more than a week ago because the tissue around the shunt installed to divert fluid from his brain had changed in texture, and they wanted to prevent any significant complications.
After five days in the hospital, doctors diagnosed Gabriel with a colon obstruction, and treated him for that. But while the baby still was in the hospital and with no notice to the family, a social worker from the Sussex office arrived on the family’s doorstep, demanding admittance to interview Gabriel’s six siblings, outside of the presence of their parents, regarding Gabriel.
Kevin Ryan, commissioner of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families, which runs the Division of Youth and Family Services
The news hit like a bombshell that the parents were being investigated by the state Department of Children and Families, run by Commissioner Kevin Ryan, on allegations of abusing Gabriel, who after treatment for the blockage was in good health and otherwise ready to be discharged.
First, Sally Stansfield dealt with the social worker.
“You can’t come into my house,” she said, so the social worker called a police officer, who arrived and told Mrs. Stansfield that she must allow the social worker in, and she didn’t need a warrant.
Sally Stansfield refused, based on HSLDA advice that such an intrusion was a violation of her civil rights. And after talking directly with Donnelly, the officer and social worker left.
(Story continues below)
The family then talked to hospital officials, who said not only had they been told “of the DYFS situation,” but they warned the state agency was planning to stop the parents from taking their son, even though medically he was being discharged. The parents immediately directed the hospital to prevent the physician they suspected of generating the complaint, Mazzola, from being involved in their son’s treatment in any fashion.
Hospital workers also informed the parents their parental rights had been terminated, which in New Jersey requires a court order.
Rob Seman, a spokesman for the hospital, declined to comment on the situation, and WND telephone calls to the state agency went unanswered.
“This is an egregious accusation,” Doug Stansfield told WND.
The parents, unable to believe a court order actually had been issued, went to the hospital Saturday to have Gabriel discharged, and took their lawyer, Janet Porro, with them. They asked for the discharge process to be done, and hospital workers again told them their rights were terminated.
The family’s lawyer asked to see the court order and the hospital failed to produce one, instead providing a copy of the state form that allows a child to be evaluated for three days.
Their lawyer noted the state law requires such documentation to be filed with a court on the first day there is any suspicion of abuse, and said the child can be held for three days for the state to prove the case.
“They knew because it was Saturday, we wouldn’t be able to challenge it in court right away,” Sally Stansfield said. “We could have caused a scene, but decided to wait until Monday [today].”
“We are gathering information to prepare for court,” Sally Stansfield told WND. “This is ridiculous. This never should have happened.”
Among the information they’ve assembled is Gabriel’s medical history. “We have a list of medical care we have provided over his eight months of life, [including] four visits to his pediatrician, two assessments for a government program, monthly physical therapy and two reviews from a neurosurgeon,” Sally Stansfield told WND.
Doug Stansfield said he believes Mazzola was miffed at the family for not following her exact requirements, which included multiple visits with her, and instead following the recommendations of their own pediatrician, who thought fewer visits to fewer specialists was within reason.
Donnelly told WND in addition to being advocates for homeschooling nationally and helping members with disputes with local education authorities, the HSLDA is committed to helping members defend 4th and 5th amendment rights in the context of social services investigations.
While non-homeschooling matters are not automatically addressed by the organization, “in circumstances where there is a clear violation … HSLDA may, as we have done in the past, choose to take the case in an effort to establish a legal precedent,” he said.
“Most social services agencies apply a one size fits all approach to investigating allegations regardless of what the allegations are. Even if the allegations have nothing to do with abuse, they often insist on interviewing children. Even if allegations have nothing to do with the safety of the home, these workers demand to come in. Why? In some cases because they blindly follow the policy protocol established by the agency, regardless of the circumstances. These ‘fishing expeditions’ are used by case workers to see if there is ‘anything else going on’ that they ‘should be concerned with’,” Donnelly said.
“In the case of the Stansfields, members of HSLDA, it appears that a conflict between the hospital specialist and the family has resulted in a heavy handed approach which may violate the family’s civil rights,” he said. “In Doe v. Heck, the 7th circuit court of appeals held that parents have a fundamental right to familial relations including a liberty interest in the care custody and control of their children.”
He said Gabriel has been cleared medically and should be returned to his family, “where he can receive loving care from his mother, father and siblings” instead of being detained in a hospital.
“The hospital has also continued to allow the offending specialist to treat Gabriel, even though the family has expressly forbade the doctor to be involved in Gabriel’s treatment as they are seeking a new specialist whom they can trust to work with them,” he said.
“No credible evidence of any kind has been provided showing that Gabriel is being neglected or at risk of harm in being released to his family who have been caring for him since his birth eight months ago,” he said.
In an e-mail request to friends for prayer support, Doug Stansfield said, “This isn’t over yet … We will most likely end up in court. This can happen to anyone. This case stems from Dr. Mazzola saying that we did not follow her medical protocol after he [Gabriel] was released from the hospital back in January.
“Admittedly, we did not. We spoke with our pediatrician about her protocol and he didn’t think we needed to follow it directly. Therefore, we have been taking Gabriel to see the pediatrician whenever he got sick.”
“For one doctor to have the power to unleash this fury on my family and cause the emotional trauma of having state troopers at my doorstep and to wonder whether or not the state was going to take them away!!!” he said. “A doctor that doesn’t know my family at all and has never met them or been to my house can make one phone call which will cause this much harassment is outrageous and shouldn’t be allowed to happen.”
The child was returned to his parents on October 18, but the New Jersey Child Welfare system is still deeply involved in the family and the home despite the fact that there was never an issue of abuse or neglect, just an apparently miffed doc who did not get the respect, or the income from the visits, that she felt was due her.