November 10, 2007
I am writing this at 7:15 AM in my room at the Steigenberger Hotel, Bad Neuenahr, Germany. General Stubblebine and I were in San Francisco three days ago in a week-long meeting with our film makers for the new DVD on Health Freedom and the Codex Agenda. We have worked out a powerful and dynamic way of telling the story which is accurate, comprehensive, action-oriented and compelling film and we are all really excited. Stay tuned for more about that in another post, but you can be sure that it will be well worth seeing and sharing! Of course, we are asking for your support to make this film. Instead of getting investors involved, this is a film by popular demand created with popular support – yours! Your donation will help us reach the $150,000 goal. (https://staging.drrimatruthreports.com/index.php?page_id=189)Donations to allow us to make this video (and all donations are tax deductible, by the way) of $100 or more will be acknowledged in the final version of the film.
The Natural Solutions Foundation is attending the Codex Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses (CCNFSDU) this week. There are two initial workshops which we will also attend. The first, a Working Group on Gluten – Free Foods will take place today (in just a few hours) and the second will take place tomorrow on “Risk Analysis”. Every day the US has a meeting for Americans attending Codex and we will be attending those, too.
The meeting itself has a fixed agenda which is sometimes adhered to and sometimes not. In our observations, it is rigidly adhered to when that serves the intent of the Codex Committee and, most especially, the rather astonishingly dictatorial Chair of CCNFSDU, Dr. Rolf Grossklaus, MD, the man who declared in 2003 that “Nutrients are not relevant to human health!”. That is, I believe, a rather astonishing position for a physician with a specialty in Nutritional Medicine! Even more astonishing, of course, is his insistence that Codex treat nutrients like dangerous industrial toxins and subject them to “Risk Assessment”, a technique taken directly from toxicology in which the maximum doses of poisons to which humans can be exposed without discernible change is determined, cut by a “safety margin” (usually by dividing the highest dose that produced no changes by 100) and then declared to be a safe Maximum Permissible Upper Limit or MPUL for human exposure. Perhaps the fact that Dr. Grossklaus is the Chairman of the Board of a German company called bFR (which specializes in Risk Assessment of toxins, or, in this case, supposed toxins) and that he just might have a vested financial interest in making every known nutrient into something which must be tested, perhaps by his own company, just might have some impact on his insistence, with potentially deadly consequences, that nutrients are toxins. Hmmm. What do you think? Just perhaps?
This, a wildly inappropriate system for nutrient doses, is the very system that Dr. Grossklaus has been so very enthusiastic in driving Codex to in its determination of upper limits for nutrients. Upper limits for nutrients? Oh, yes, that violates US law since nutrients are, in our legal system, considered to be foods under the 1994 Dietary Supplements Health and Education Act (DSHEA). Under DSHEA, importantly, those very foods are generally considered to be safe since foods are generally considered to be safe and they ARE foods. Hmmm. What about the fact that the US FDA announced that it would ‘ “HARMonize” US food standards and regulation to International Standards even if not complete’ (which is bureaucratic talk for “Codex”)? Yes, indeed, what about it? We are asking people who have grave reservations about this illegal “HARMonization” to sign the Natural Solutions Foundation Citizens Petition, (https://staging.drrimatruthreports.com/index.php?page_id=184) a legal challenge to this illegal stand by the corporate-compromised FDA.
CCNFSDU has a number of other activities besides setting upper limits on nutrition (not legal in the US, remember, but enthusiastically endorsed and supported by the FDA here at the meetings and at home). It is interesting to note that at many Codex meetings people from the FDA serve as the Delegate representing the US. (There is only one Delegate per country but they are supported by advisers from their country). Often the US Delegate at this meeting and at a number of others is Dr. Barbara Schneeman, Head of the Office of Dietary Supplements of the FDA. She is a pleasant lady who acts against the interests of makers and takers of Dietary Supplements at every turn, as far as I can see. For example, by moving the deadly and restrictive Vitamin and Mineral Guideline (ratified July 4, 2005, Rome, Italy) forward in CCNFSDU, she is setting up a situation in which the US must have, I kid you not, a “Nutrient Risk Manager” (!) who will determine the maximum dose available for any nutrient permitted in the US (!) as long as that maximum dose is NOT more than 15% higher than the dose of the nutrient found in unprocessed food (of course, that includes food grown in demineralized soils). Hmmm. Where is that FDA bread buttered? Could it be by the Big Pharma through their impact on every aspect of FDA policy whether it is for food or drugs? Consider the wisdom of divesting the FDA of its responsibilities for the regulation of food, a policy which the Natural Solutions Foundation is presenting to Congress in our Congressional Education program.
CCNFSDU also sets standards for infant formula and foods for other special groups. It was at this same committee last November that the Natural Solutions Foundation played such a pivotal role in blocking the US’s determined efforts to include fluoride (which even the American Dental Association now admits babies under 1 year should NEVER be exposed to) as a permitted additive to infant formula for healthy babies. With the help of our African and Asian health-friendly allies we kept baby formula safe from this deadly additive – except for sick babies, of course, which Dr. Schneeman made sure would be exposed to fluoride by a last minute maneuver as the meeting was closing!
Now it is time for me to go get dressed to attend the Workshop on Gluten – Foods as your eyes and ears. More to come. Please let everyone on your list know the health freedom battle is raging both at home and internationally and that the Natural Solutions Foundation is in it protecting your health, your freedom and your right to make the health choices you want for yourself and your loved ones. Ask them to sign up for our Health Freedom Alerts (and help financially, too!) at www.HealthFreedomUSA.org.
Yours in health and freedom,
Dr. Rima
Rima E. Laibow, MD
Medical Director
Natural Solutions Foundation
www.HealthFreedomUSA.org
www.GlobalHealthFreedom.org
Are Science and the Biotech Industry Sleeping in the Same Bed?
By Jeffrey M. Smith, author of Seeds of Deception
One day in April 1998, Professor Phillip James walked into the office of Arpad
Pusztai and placed a large stack of documents on his desk . The documents were
submissions from biotech companies seeking approval of their GM soy, corn, and
tomatoes. He called in Arpad’s wife Susan from the adjoining office. James was
the director of the Rowett Institute in Aberdeen, Scotland, Europe’s leading
nutritional research facility.
He told the Pusztais, both senior scientists there, that the British
agriculture minister was meeting with European ministers in Brussels to vote
on genetically modified (GM) foods, and he wanted a scientific opinion on
them.
Arpad Pusztai looked at the stack-nearly 700 pages-then back at James. He was
confident that his director and the other eleven scientists on the committee
that approves GM foods for the UK were far too busy to actually read these
studies.
The Pusztais, however, had worked for more than two years on a UK government
grant, leading a 20-member research team to design the ideal testing protocol
for evaluating GM foods. They also conducted safety tests on a new variety of
GM potatoes intended for commercialization.
The Pusztais were therefore among the most qualified scientists in the world
to evaluate the papers James had just given them. Arpad asked how much time
they had. “Two and a half hours,” said James. They quickly got to work,
focusing on the design and the data.
Arpad was shocked at what he discovered. The research was incredibly poor. He
described it as superficial, flimsy, and just plain bad science. Reading those
studies was a turning point in the life of this very pro-biotech scientist.
Arpad was the leading researcher in his field, with more than 300 articles and
12 books to his credit. Based on his reputation and experience, the government
had awarded him the GM research grant over 27 competing applicants.
As a man of integrity, accustomed to thorough and rigorous science, Arpad
expected the same from others. But he realized that the approach taken by
biotech industry scientists was diametrically opposed to his own. “I was doing
safety studies,” he said. “They were doing as little as possible to get their
products to market as quickly as possible.”
Abominable Scientific Methods Ignored
Pusztai called the minister and told him that although he wasn’t expecting to
have such a strong opinion after only two and a half hours, there was
definitely not enough information to declare the foods safe for humans.
But the minister responded, “I don’t know why you are telling me this,
Professor James has already accepted it.” It had already been on the market
for two years.
Months later, Arpad had another shock. Young rats fed a genetically engineered
potato developed extensive health problems. Some had smaller, less developed
brains, livers, and testicles, and also partial atrophy of the liver. Some
suffered damaged immune systems and organ damage. And there was excessive cell
growth in the stomach and intestines.
The potato was engineered to produce its own insecticide, but the insecticide
itself was not the cause of these problems. In fact, other rats that had eaten
natural potatoes that were spiked with the insecticide fared much better.
Thus, since the insecticide was not the cause of the poor health of the GM-fed
rats, it was almost certainly the process of genetically modifying the
potatoes that was the culprit.
Arpad realized that if his potatoes had been subjected to the same superficial
industry studies he had reviewed, the potatoes would have been approved. The
organ damage, cell growth, immune functions, and so on, would be undetected.
More worrisome was the fact that the soy, corn, and tomatoes that were
approved were not tested for these potential problems. And they were created
with the same process that Arpad used to engineer his potatoes.
The Cost of Speaking Out
With permission from his director, Arpad accepted an invitation to be
interviewed on television and express his concerns about GM food. For two days
he was a hero at his institute.
Then, on a Tuesday afternoon, two phone calls from the prime minister’s office
were allegedly forwarded through the institute’s receptionist to the director.
On Wednesday morning, Phillip James fired Arpad after 35 years and silenced
him with threats of a lawsuit. His 20-member research team was dismantled and
the UK government abandoned its plans for long-term safety study requirements
for GM foods. The Rowett Institute then issued several statements trashing
Arpad and his research in an apparent attempt to protect the biotech
industry.
Eventually Arpad was invited to speak before Parliament, his gag order lifted,
and his research published in the prestigious Lancet.
Despite his work being cut off in the middle, his rat study remains the most
in-depth animal feeding safety study ever published on GM foods. Tragically,
no similar studies have yet been applied to the GM foods on the market. No one
is monitoring to see if the organs, immune system, and cells of humans eating
GM foods are being similarly influenced.
Arpad has since been commissioned to review all published animal feeding
studies on GM foods. There are only about a dozen. In his paper, published as
a chapter in the book Food Safety, he reported consistent shortcomings in
industry-sponsored research. Their poor designs allow significant problems to
go unnoticed. When problems were identified, they were not followed up.
Arpad and his wife have made presentations on GM foods around the world. In
2001, they appeared before New Zealand’s Royal Commission of Inquiry on
Genetic Modification, where the sentiments and experience of several other
presenters echoed their own.
Are Science and Commerce ‘Sleeping in the Same Bed’?
Parliament member Sue Kedgley testified: “Personally I have been contacted by
telephone and e-mail by a number of scientists who have serious concerns about
aspects of the research that is taking place… and the increasingly close
ties that are developing between science and commerce, but who are convinced
that if they express these fears publicly, even at such a Commission… or
even if they asked the awkward and difficult questions, they will be eased out
of their institution.”
Mae-Wan Ho, a biophysicist and geneticist, told the Commission that the
scientific evidence on GM foods “simply did not support the claims… that the
technology is precise and safe.” Ho has endured numerous attacks for her
opinions, including being hounded out of her position at the UK’s Open
University.
Epidemiologist Judy Carman testified that the few animal feeding studies on GM
foods are too short to adequately test for cancer or for problems in
offspring. Further, they are not evaluating “biochemistry, immunology, tissue
pathology, gut function, liver function, and kidney function.” Carman, who has
investigated outbreaks of disease, said that health problems associated with
GM foods might be impossible to track in the human population, or take decades
to discover.
Carman is repeatedly attacked for her critical stance. One pro-GM scientist
threatened disciplinary action through her Vice-Chancellor. Another circulated
a defamatory letter to government and university officials in October 2004,
alleging that Carman was unethical and that her work was similar to
“inaccurate
anti-vaccine scaremongering [that] kills people.”
Geneticist Michael Antoniou, who works on human gene therapy, told the New
Zealand Commission, “genetic engineering technology, as it’s being applied in
agriculture now, [is] based on the understanding of genetics we had 15 years
ago, about genes being isolated little units that work independently of each
other.” He explained that genes actually “work as an integrated whole of
families.”
Falling on (More) Deaf Ears in the UK and Around the World
In 2003, Antoniou represented non-governmental organizations on the UK’s
supposedly balanced GM Science Review Panel that was part of the nationwide
“GM Nation?” public debate. He was shocked to find scientists there still
supporting obsolete theories of gene independence. Some even claimed that the
order of genes in the DNA was entirely irrelevant. Antoniou was outnumbered by
eleven scientists representing either the biotech industry or appointed by the
pro-biotech UK government. His well-supported arguments fell on deaf ears.
Since the debate, new studies have further verified Antoniou’s position by
showing that genes are not randomly located along the DNA, but clustered into
groups with related functions.
Virologist Terje Traavik testified that GM crops “might be the basis for real
ecological and health catastrophes.” Three years later, in a February 2004
meeting with delegates to the UN biosafety protocol conference, Traavik
presented preliminary evidence from three studies which might fulfill his
earlier prediction.
a.. Philippinos living next to a GM cornfield developed serious symptoms
while the corn was pollinating.
b.. Promoters-genetic material routinely inserted into GM crops-were found
to transfer to rat organs after a single transgenic meal. Key safety
assumptions about genetically engineered viruses were overturned, calling into
question the safety of using these viruses as vaccines.
Traavik, naturally, was attacked.
Biologist Phil Regal told the Commission, “I think the people who boost
genetic engineering are going to have to do a mea culpa and ask for
forgiveness, like the Pope did on the inquisition; you know, ‘we made a
mistake, let’s start over.'”
Sue Kedgley had another idea. She said, “I would recommend that perhaps we
could set up human clinical trials using volunteers of genetically engineered
scientists and their families, because. they are so convinced of the safety of
the products that they are creating. they would very readily volunteer to
become part of a human clinical trial.”
(C) Jeffrey Smith, 2004
Not eager to eat GM foods? At least 70% of all prepared foods in the US have GM components. Organic foods, on the other hand, do not. Eat organic. It’s cheap compared to disease.
Here is the story which gives more details on the harrowing attempt by the State of California to impose the will of the cancer industry on a young man who does not have cancer. The story was blogged on October 3, 2007, before a court hearing on the case but has just surfaced today.
It was originally posted by angryscientist in Bad Science, Whistleblower Corner.
An unholy alliance of California Child Protective Services (CPS) with a hostile doctor and judge is attempting to railroad Laurie Jessop, framed as a threat to her son and the establishment for finding a way to cure him of malignant melanoma. She is now on trial, under a gag order, since she had gone to the press. When she was arrested, she was put in maximum security, solitary confinement, in the Orange County, CA jail. They claim that everything about. her says anti-Establishment, so she was told, as she was considered a threat in starting a riot.
On the morning of Sept. 12, Gary Null read on KPFK, a Pacifica station in Los Angeles, an e-mail from Ron Miller, who had met Ms. Jessop at the Cancer Control Society annual convention during the Labor Day weekend. They had discussed this persecution by Big Brother in the guise of saving her son from this evil mother who has failed to protect him! She disobeyed doctor’s orders and found a natural way to cure her son. These forces arrayed against her and insisted he must have the cancer removed surgically and attacked with the standard chemical fare. The cancer is gone, but nobody in authority will accept that because her doctor doesn’t believe that’s possible.
The initial biopsy of the mole was done in February. Their regular doctor was on leave when test results came in. A nurse informed them of the bad news. On May 8, Chad Jessop had a follow up appointment with a medical group doctor, by the name of Dr. Masciana, who insisted he needed surgery to excise the site within a week, or he could die any day now! This doctor is a general practitioner, not an oncologist or qualified to do cancer diagnosis or surgery. Chad and his mom decided to pursue holistic treatment for him. Incensed, the doctor reported her to Child Protective Services on the grounds of gross negligent child endangerment. She yelled at Laurie “all of you Jehovah’s Witnesses are all the same,” never mind Laurie and Chad are not Jehovah’s witnesses. Dr. Masciana also told Laurie, with her son present, that his death was imminent. At the close of the appointment, Dr. Masciana informed Laurie that she was referring the case to Social Services. In further investigation, Child Protective Social Services is a misnamed government agency whose employees get paid bonuses every time they take children away from their parents.
That evening Laurie called an attorney who advised her that she had 48 hours or less before Social Services showed up. If she could not prove she was following doctor’s orders, they’d take her son. Since Dr. Masciana had created such a traumatic experience for Chad, he feared the doctors and threatened to run away. In honoring Chad’s wishes for continued holistic care, Laurie took her son to San Diego to continue holistic care using a number of various alternative treatments such as: ozone, hyperbaric oxygen chamber, hydrogen peroxide, energy work, Rife, nutritional supplements, and deep emotional work. Laurie also used “black salve” that she purchased from Canada to remove the mole tissue. Black salve was developed by Native American Indians more than 200 years ago, and used in the treatment of skin lesions, cancers, warts, and moles. Figures our FDA banned it, because it works.
When Chad insisted on hitting the road to continue alternative therapies and getting further diagnostics, that left a question as to where Laurie’s daughter Crystal would go. A close friend of the family and Crystal’s best friend agreed, and this felt like a perfect fit under the circumstances, so Laurie legally signed Crystal over to the family and gave them all the necessary medical insurance information. On May 22, the local sheriff and CPS had taken her daughter out of class, interrogating her mercilessly, telling her lies about her mother, trying to force her to reveal where Laurie and Chad had gone, and then forced her to go on a police joy ride and show them where they reside. All of this was done against her will and carried on for six hours!
They applied “Black Salve” directly to the area in question, thus giving Chad a holistic version of a large border excision. It took about two and a half weeks for the wound to heal. When it was healed Laurie took Chad to a Del Mar dermatologist for a biopsy. The test results were negative of any signs of melanoma! The next two weeks were concentrated on once again healing the tissue to get another biopsy. Upon the wound site being healed, a melanoma specialist did a punch biopsy and a complete lab analysis on Friday, June 15. Again, no sign of cancer could be found in the biopsy and the blood work was in healthy ranges with no distinguishing markers that would otherwise be present in a patient that would have advanced stage four melanoma, as had been previously reported! Was it a miracle, or an activated immune system in a healthy young man, with some useful help, that healed the melanoma?
The following Monday, June 18th, Laurie and Chad turned themselves in to the San Diego Social Services office, with all of their documentation. They were detained for 4 hours, then told that arrest warrants for Laurie and Chad were issued from Orange County. Chad was locked up at the Palenskie Center in San Diego for one night. He had 2 guards watching him around the clock, since he was considered a flight risk. When Laurie went to visit Chad they could not have any privacy, as both guards listened to every word that was said. Laurie spent over nine thousand bucks in San Diego for the treatments done over the five week period of time, and has all the receipts as proof. A new social worker, David Harper, was put on the case. He picked Chad up in San Diego transporting him to Orangewood Children’s Home in Orange County for the next two weeks, where he got fed spaghetti and meat balls, food not fitting one healing from cancer. One aspect of Chad’s treatment was a healthy diet of living foods, but Ms. Jessop’s requests of this social worker that Chad get proper food fell on deaf ears. He did tell her she was allowed to see her daughter graduate from Junior High School. She told him nobody could keep her away without a court order, and that she would be there! The social worker informed Laurie that he completed the paper work to lift the warrant order on her.
After her daughter’s graduation, on June 21st Laurie went to make academic arrangements for her son, having missed five weeks of school. Laurie showed the documentation to the principal and vice principal. The Vice Principal knew Chad well, as Chad did his Eagle Scout project for him at the high school. Chad is now an advanced Eagle Scout. No matter, the VP called police to arrest Laurie at the school and haul her off to the county jail. The arresting deputy harassed her. When Laurie protested, the officer told her she didn’t have to like her or be nice to her. After arriving at the county jail, her first telephone call had been to the social worker, David Harper, although he did nothing to get her out of jail, nor was he willing to help correct the record. Laurie was physically abused, they spread her legs twisting her knee, when she complained they called out “Resisting…Resisting” then they pushed her violently to a cell wall (behind the cameras) causing her to twist her neck, shoulder and arm. After being worked over, they took away her jacket, shoes, socks, and toilet paper, and locked her up. Her holding cell was extremely cold and she was deliberately denied toilet paper. She asked for toilet paper, only to be answered it must have been taken for good reason and she was not getting any. She was denied toilet paper from approximately 3:30pm until 11:00pm. One has to wonder, what was she going to do with the toilet paper, hang herself? By 11:00 pm Laurie got taken to be assessed. She asked “is this a madhouse run by animals, who is running this place?” Laurie told this officer her story for half an hour. He let her talk, then said he sees all kinds of characters, his job is to ascertain threats. He told her she has the fire, the spirit and the power to overturn the system and create a riot. He informed her she’d be put in solitary confinement, but she might get a roommate, probably a drug offender. She was forced to take a chest X-ray against her will, without any explanation and ridicule from the officers. Laurie and her two children have never been in any type of trouble with the law, but were treated like hardened criminals. She was shocked to learn women taking showers have no privacy, that male guards are watching. The next night she got a 58-year old roommate charged with kidnapping her children from her husband 20 years ago, after being extradited from Tennessee on outdated bogus charges tagged with 200 thousand bail. It would appear that Orange County is desperately trying to maintain job security at the expense of the innocent!
Laurie was released on the streets of Santa Ana after midnight, in an unsafe area of Southern California for a woman, after five days of incarceration. Upon Laurie’s arrest, officers impounded her van and turned it upside down looking for drugs. She had to pay over 300 dollars in impound fees to get the van back.
Social Services approved the foster families that Laurie had arranged for Chad and Crystal. Now Laurie is on trial, forbidden to speak under a gag order, by the very judge that had issued the bench warrant for her arrest, because she refused to go along with orthodox medicine. The dermatologist, appointed by Social Services, testified in court that the melanoma is playing hide and go seek, that they’d have to subject Chad to unnecessary and dangerous further biopsies and medical procedures to find where it migrated to. The dermatologist further stated that the melanoma had become even more deadly, claiming it has now traveled to different organs. The prescription for surgery is a large border excision to the skullbone. Chad says he is old enough to defend this country’s freedoms, but he is denied that same freedom of choice when it comes to his own health and he is also under gag order. Ms. Jessop intends to sue anyone who touches her son against their wishes. All Chad’s blood tests are consistent with a healthy 17 year old 6?2? young man. They refuse to tolerate anyone trying to clear their conscience at his expense. Laurie says her record stands, she will not back down, and she wants parents to know they do not have to be intimidated by this system! The judge has stated twice that she doesn’t want Chad to die while she is on the bench; which sounds like she has bias in the case! Surgery and chemotherapy had been intended for the following week. The doctor is still of the mind Chad could die any day now. When giving testimony, the dermatologist was asked if he could perform surgery on Chad, knowing that Chad would not cooperate with any Western medical butchery. His answer was emphatic No, he could not perform an operation on anyone against their will.
What Big Brother has been doing to Ms. Jessop and her children is unconscionable, beyond outrageous, a gross miscarriage of justice and an abuse of authority. Many families have been torn apart by lesser abuses of CPS and modern medicine. The Jessop family is very united and strong in their convictions, very aware of their constitutional rights, and will not give up to our corrupt system. Being a single parent for the last 11 years, Laurie has done herself proud raising her children and is extremely close to both of them. Laurie and her children have stood the test and this hellish ordeal has brought them closer together as a family. She said at the press conference, “I am a mama bear and no one is messing with my cubs!”
Laurie’s deadbeat ex-husband, Marcus, has never voluntarily paid for child support or any of the children’s medical bills, even though he is legally bound to pay for half according to their divorce agreement. She has had to drag him into court to get a judgment and garnish his wages in order to collect on past due medical bills. It so happens Marcus is in agreement with the state, he wants his son, (having had no contact for the last 10 years) to be butchered and drugged to eliminate this incredible cancer, that refuses to carry out its death sentence and is too clever to show up on tests. Marcus is in court with his own public defender, pushing for this even though he has no legal or physical custody, not even any visitation rights. If he was in agreement with Laurie’s medical beliefs, this court probably wouldn’t allow him in the courtroom. Our tax dollars, hard at work!
In the state of Virginia, a brilliant 17 year old young man went through a very similar ordeal, but won his battle with CPS. Once his case was over, he was instrumental in passing a new law in the state of Virginia. Abraham’s Law, that gives a minor the right to make their own medical decisions when they are bright and understand their choices. Laurie wants to get her story out and push through a similar bill in California, called “Chad’s Law,” so that other families do not have to go through the abusive nature of a department that is supposed to be protecting our children. As “Roy of Hollywood” stated on KPFK recently, who is protecting us from the Child Protective Social Services Department? Pushing through a bill like this may be very expensive, but once Laurie makes up her mind that she is doing something, she is all steel, determined, and will persevere to find a way to make this happen. ….
Orthodox medicine is unwilling to admit it does not know everything, and it hates competition. Its methods of treating cancer are not the only ways that can work. Ms. Jessop believed she could find another way, and her son, given a diagnosis of imminent death, is now free of cancer. Never mind, the doctor is sure it’s still there, so Big Brother intends to make an example of her as an unfit mother for disobeying her doctor, putting her son in mortal danger. That’s not happening, but truth often doesn’t matter to Big Brother, as is apparent in most government policy. If Chad were actually endangered by not getting conventional treatment, the authorities might have a leg to stand on, but in this case, it’s not his mother putting him in jeopardy, it’s the system! The doctor has egg on her face, because she was sure Chad would die quickly without aggressive conventional treatment, and she has been proven wrong! Instead of learning from her error, she wants to make Ms. Jessop and her son pay for showing her up!
I’m helping her get her story out. One newspaper did a story, but in general, very little has been reported so far. I tried to find the story online, but no luck. A press conference was held on Sept. 6th, just before court. Two of the major TV news stations and one of the largest AM radio all news stations showed up. KFWB radio ran the story immediately that day. As soon as court started the judge announced that there was a gag order on this case and threatened jail time and contempt of court to anyone (including the minor in question), that spoke to the press or anyone else for that matter. One of the TV news stations didn’t want to run the story without interviewing Chad and getting his viewpoints. The judge denied a continuance six different times, ignoring all six times valid reasons for the requests. The judge also denied Laurie the right to hire her own attorney! She retained a law firm with her own money, but the judge insisted she has to keep her Public Defender, presumably as a public servant easier to control than a private attorney not so dependent on the system.
The final outcome of the Jessop saga is unfolding now. Stay tuned
November 3, 2004
Here are the questions we asked of each Presidential candidate on our Health Freedom Scorecard. To date, only Dr. Ron Paul (R-TX) has provided his answers to those questions.
We urge all candidates for the office of President of the United States take the time and effort necessary to consider, and answer,
HFUSA: The FDA current Good Manufacturing Practices (cGMP) Final Rule
Do you support the FDA cGMP Final Rule for dietary supplements, issued on June 22, 2007, requiring the batch testing of all food dietary supplements although
– Supplements have an enviable safety record
– The FDA’s own economic analysis of the impact of the cGMP shows that it will drive a significant number of small and medium size manufacturers out of business?
Dr. Paul: I oppose all federal regulations that burden dietary supplement manufacturers. There is no need for the federal nogovernment to impose “Good Manufacturing Practices” on the dietary supplement industry. In addition, the federal government lacks constitutional authority to create standards for the supplement industry.
HFUSA: The FDA draft Guidance on Health Claim substantiation
A. Are your aware of the FDA draft guidance on Health Claim substantiation, issued this summer, which mandates an unreasonably high “Significant Scientific Agreement” standard instead of the FTC “competent and reliable scientific evidence”, as proposed in HR 2117, The Health Freedom Protection Act?
Dr. Paul: I oppose the CAM Regulation draft guidelines and submitted comments to the FDA in opposition to the CAM regulations.
HFUSA: Do you support HR2117 {Health Freedom Protection Act]?
Dr. Paul: I introduced HR 2117, and oppose all FDA actions that in any way infringe on the First Amendment rights of consumers to learn about the health benefits of dietary supplements.
HFUSA: Protection of Dietary Supplements
Do you support continuing strong protection for Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA) products?
Dr. Paul: I support DSHEA.
HFUSA: Bio-Identical Hormones
Do you support the right of men and women to use supplemental Bio-identical Hormones such as DHEA and progesterone to support normal function during change of life and premature aging in preference to less effective, dangerous and more expensive prescription drugs if they prefer bio-identical hormones?
Dr. Paul: The federal government has no constitutional authority to stop Americans from using bio-identical hormones.
HFUSA: Compounding Pharmacies
Do you support the right of Compounding Pharmacists and licensed physicians to continue to provide compounded medications, on a doctor’s prescription, for special needs and choices of individuals, communicating their availability to the public, as permitted by the landmark Supreme Court case of Thompson vs. Western States Medical Centers?
Dr. Paul: The federal government has constitutional authority to restrict the operations of compounding pharmacies.
HFUSA: A. Trilateral Cooperation Charter/North American Union/Security and Prosperity Partnership
A. Do you support the “North American Union” and its companion “Security and Prosperity Partnership” which were created without Congressional debate and approval?
Dr. Paul: A. I am the leading Congressional opponent of the North American Union and the Security and Prosperity Partnership.
HFUSA: B. Do you support FDA’s policy of “harmonization” of regulations with those of Mexico and Canada through the North American Union and the already-operating Trilateral Cooperation Charter which fuses the national health departments of all three countries into a single entity without Congressional oversight or authorization of any entity?
Dr. Paul: B. I oppose all efforts to harmonize American law with the law of other countries and I have taken the lead in working to mobilize congressional opposition to the Trilateral Cooperation Charter.
HFUSA: C. Do you support such executive agreements without Congressional debate and approval?
Dr. Paul: C. No; I do not support allowing the President to erode our freedom and threaten our sovereignty by executive agreement.
HFUSA: D. If elected, do you pledge to use the power of the Executive Branch of Government to overturn or reverse the North American Union, Security and Prosperity Partnership and the Trilateral Cooperation Charter?
Dr. Paul: D. As President, I will withdraw the United States from the North American Union, the Security and Prosperity Partnership, and the Trilateral Cooperation Charter.
HFUSA: HARMonization of FDA regulations with international and foreign agencies and entities
A. Do you support FDA?s policy of ?harmonization? of regulations with those of the European Union, under executive agreement?
Dr. Paul: A. I oppose harmonization. Centralization of power and control breeds oppression.
HFUSA:B. Do you support FDA?s policy of ?HARMonization? of regulations with the standards and guidelines of the Codex Alimentarius when those texts are created through the US efforts on behalf of industrialized food supply constituents and degrade and render toxic the US and global food supplies?
Dr. Paul: B. I am the leading Congressional opponent of CODEX.
HFUSA: C. If elected, what steps do you pledge to take to end these HARMonization activities of the FDA, USDA, FTC and EPA?
Dr. Paul: C. I will seek to stop US participation in the Codex process and make it clear to the UN and the WTO that my administration will not change one comma in American law to make the bureaucrats at Codex happy.
HFUSA:Anti-HARMonization Statute
Do you support strict enforcement of the Anti-Harmonization Statute, 19 USC 3512, which prohibits such harmonization with respect to the US food supply and those foods known as Dietary Supplements?
Dr. Paul: I was instrumental in drafting the anti-harmonization statute, so, yes; I supported strict enforcement of it.
HFUSA: FDA HARMonization with international standards
A. Are you aware and do you support the FDA’s announced policy of “harmonization” with International Standards, even where those standards are not finalized: “In a notice published in the Federal Register of October 11, 1995 (60 FR 53078), FDA articulated its policy regarding the development and use of standards with respect to the harmonization of various national and international regulatory requirements and guidelines? – http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~lrd/fr970707.html ?
Dr. Paul: A. As stated before, I am strongly opposed to harmonization.
HFUSA:B If elected, what steps do you pledge to take to reign in such HARMonization and return the US to regulatory sovereignty?
Dr. Paul: B. please see my previous answers.
HFUSA: World Trade Organization and similar international bodies
A. Do you support harmonizing America’s legal structure and freedoms to international restrictions through participation in bodies such as the World Trade Organization?
Dr. Paul: A. No; I oppose harmonizing American laws with those of foreign countries to satisfy the WTO or any other international regime.
HFUSA: B. Do you support withdrawing from the World Trade Organization?
Dr. Paul: B. Yes; as a Congressman, I took advantage of the clause in the WTO enabling legislation that allows any member of Congress to introduce legislation withdrawing the United States from the WTO. In fact, by twice introducing WTO withdrawal legislation, I twice forced Congress to vote on withdrawing the United States from the WTO.
HFUSA: C. Do you support withdrawing from the United Nations?
Dr. Paul: C. Yes; I have introduced legislation to withdraw from the UN (HR 1146).
HFUSA: Divesting the FDA of food regulatory authority
A. Since nutrient and natural health products are regulated as Food in accordance with US law, do you support a division of the FDA into two separate agencies, one focusing on Foods (including dietary supplements and all natural or non-pharmaceutical health products) and the other finally focusing on protecting the safety of the public with regard to dangerous drugs and invasive medical devices?
Dr. Paul: A. No; I favor reducing the power of the FDA, not “rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic” by dividing the FDA bureaucracy.
HFUSA: B. Do you support the FDA’s approval of genetically modified foods in the absence of any safety testing, requiring only a patent before the genetically modified food can be admixed with the food supply?
Dr. Paul: B. Consumers should have the right to choose whether or not to use genetically modified food without having the FDA deny them that choice.
HFUSA: C. Do you support the FDA’s position that since the FDA has declared genetically modified foods equivalent to natural ones in the absence of any testing to demonstrate that to be the case and its stated understanding that the public would reject genetically modified foods if they knew what they were buying and eating, that it would be false and misleading if genetically modified foods were identified as such so their labeling is prohibited?
Dr. Paul: C. Consumers have every right to demand that genetically-modified food be labeled as such.
HFUSA: Compulsory medical treatment
A. Do you support the use of the State’s powers to compel compulsory mental health or other screening, forced drugging or other medical treatment under any circumstances?
Dr. Paul: A. No; I oppose compulsory medical treatment.
HFUSA: B. Do you support removing children from parental custody when parents refuse to use medication for alleged “mental health problems” in their children?
Dr. Paul: B. The federal government has no authority to remove children from their parents’ custody because those parents have refused to medicate their children according to federal edicts.
HFUSA: C. Do you support removing children from parental custody when parents refuse to use medication for the allopathic (pharmaceutical) treatment of life threatening diseases such as cancer?
Dr. Paul: C. The federal government has no constitutional authority to remove a child from a parent’s custody because of that parent’s refusal to seek state-ordered medical treatments for their child.
HFUSA: D. Do you support the forced use of pharmaceutical or other medical treatment in adults under any circumstances?
Dr. Paul: D. I have a difficult time imaging a scenario where I would support forcing medical treatment on someone against their will, especially in my capacity as a federal elected official.
HFUSA: E. Do you support the right of parents or adult persons to chose natural medical treatments over pharmaceutical ones if they desire?
Dr. Paul: E. Of course; I support the right of adults to choose natural medical treatments. I have consistently cosponsored legislation in Congress to protect this right.
HFUSA: Mandatory screening
A. Do you support mandatory mental health or other health screening?
Dr. Paul: A. I am the leading Congressional opponent of Mandatory Mental Health Screening.
HFUSA: B. Do you support the use of Federal funds for such screening?
Dr. Paul: B. I have introduced the Parental Consent Act (HR 2387), which forbids federal funds for mandatory mental health screening of children without parental consent. I oppose any use of funds for mandatory mental health screening.
HFUSA: C. Do you support the use of Federal funds to pay for forced drugging of children or adults?
Dr. Paul: C. Yes, I oppose the use of federal funds to pay for forced medicating of children (or adults).
HFUSA: Natural Health Options
Do you support the use of Federal funds for natural medical and health therapy services and treatments on a par with pharmaceutical and other allopathic treatments, at the discretion of the patient?
Dr. Paul: As long as the federal government is financing health care, it should allow the beneficiaries to choose to use their federal funds for alternative treatments.
HFUSA: Vaccination
A. Do you oppose mandatory vaccination under all circumstances?
Dr. Paul: A. It is difficult for me to imagine a scenario where I could support forced vaccinations, especially in my capacity as a federal elected official.
HFUSA: B. Do you support continuing the pharmaceutical industry’s exemption from legal responsibility for injuries caused by vaccinations?
Dr. Paul: B. No, I do not believe the pharmaceutical industry should be protected from paying compensation to those harmed by their vaccines.
HFUSA: C. Do you support continuing the pharmaceutical industry’s exemption from legal responsibility for injuries caused by drugs approved for any indication?
Dr. Paul: C. No, the pharmaceutical industry should not be protected from being held accountable to those injured by their products.
HFUSA: . Reproductive Autonomy
A. Do you support a woman’s right to control her reproductive life without interference from the Federal government?
Dr. Paul: A. As a physician, I oppose abortion. I believe this should be dealt with by state and local governments; it is not a federal issue.
HFUSA: B. If elected, what will you pledge to do to protect the reproductive autonomy of women?
Dr. Paul: [No Answer provided]
HFUSA: Freedom Plank
How soon can the American public expect a formal Health Freedom Plank in your campaign platform?
Dr. Paul: There is further information on my position on health freedom on my website at http://www.RonPaul2008.com.
Here are the Findings listed at the beginning of HR 2387, introduced on May 17, 2007 into the House of Representatives by Congressman Ron Paul:
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
The Congress finds as follows:
(1) The United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) issued findings and recommendations against screening for suicide that corroborate those of the Canadian Preventive Services Task Force. `USPSTF found no evidence that screening for suicide risk reduces suicide attempts or mortality. There is limited evidence on the accuracy of screening tools to identify suicide risk in the primary care setting, including tools to identify those at high risk.’.
(2) The 1999 Surgeon General’s report on mental health admitted the serious conflicts in the medical literature regarding the definitions of mental health and mental illness when it said, `In other words, what it means to be mentally healthy is subject to many different interpretations that are rooted in value judgments that may vary across cultures. The challenge of defining mental health has stalled the development of programs to foster mental health (Secker, 1998). . . .’.
(3) A 2005 report by the National Center for Infant and Early Childhood Health Policy admitted, with respect to the psychiatric screening of children from birth to age 5, the following: `We have mentioned a number of the problems for the new field of IMH [Infant Mental Health] throughout this paper, and many of them complicate examining outcomes.’. Briefly, such problems include:
(A) Lack of baseline
(B) Lack of agreement about diagnosis.
(C) Criteria for referrals or acceptance into services are not always well defined.
(D) Lack of longitudinal outcome studies.
(E) Appropriate assessment and treatment requires multiple informants involved with the young child: parents, clinicians, child care staff, preschool staff, medical personnel, and other service providers.
(F) Broad parameters for determining socioemotional outcomes are not clearly defined, although much attention is now being given to school readiness.
(4) Authors of the bible of psychiatric diagnosis, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, admit that the diagnostic criteria for mental illness are vague, saying, `DSM-IV criteria remain a consensus without clear empirical data supporting the number of items required for the diagnosis. . . . Furthermore, the behavioral characteristics specified in DSM-IV, despite efforts to standardize them, remain subjective. . . .’ (American Psychiatric Association Committee on the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM-IV 1994), pp. 1162-1163).
(5) Because of the subjectivity of psychiatric diagnosis, it is all too easy for a psychiatrist to label a person’s disagreement with the psychiatrist’s political beliefs a mental disorder.
(6) Efforts are underway to add a diagnosis of `extreme intolerance’ to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual. Prisoners in the California State penal system judged to have this extreme intolerance based on race or sexual orientation are considered to be delusional and are being medicated with anti-psychotic drugs. (Washington Post 12/10/05)
(7) At least one federally-funded school violence prevention program has suggested that a child who shares his or her parent’s traditional values may be likely to instigate school violence.
(8) Despite many statements in the popular press and by groups promoting the psychiatric labeling and medication of children, that ADD/ADHD is due to a chemical imbalance in the brain, the 1998 National Institutes of Health Consensus Conference said, `. . . further research is necessary to firmly establish ADHD as a brain disorder. This is not unique to ADHD, but applies as well to most psychiatric disorders, including disabling diseases such as schizophrenia. . . . Although an independent diagnostic test for ADHD does not exist. . . . Finally, after years of clinical research and experience with ADHD, our knowledge about the cause or causes of ADHD remains speculative.’.
(9) There has been a precipitous increase in the prescription rates of psychiatric drugs in children:
(A) The use of antipsychotic medication in children has increased nearly fivefold between 1995 and 2002 with more than 2.5 million children receiving these medications, the youngest being 18 months old. (Vanderbilt University, 2006)
(B) More than 2.2 million children are receiving more than one psychotropic drug at one time with no scientific evidence of safety or effectiveness. (Medco Health Solutions, 2006)
(C) More money was spent on psychiatric drugs for children than on antibiotics or asthma medication in 2003. (Medco Trends, 2004)
(10) A September 2004 Food and Drug Administration hearing found that more than two-thirds of studies of antidepressants given to depressed children showed that they were no more effective than placebo, or sugar pills, and that only the positive trials were published by the pharmaceutical industry. The lack of effectiveness of antidepressants has been known by the Food and Drug Administration since at least 2000 when, according to the Food and Drug Administration Background Comments on Pediatric Depression, Robert Temple of the Food and Drug Administration Office of Drug Evaluation acknowledged the `preponderance of negative studies of antidepressants in pediatric populations’. The Surgeon General’s report said of stimulant medication like Ritalin, `However, psychostimulants do not appear to achieve long-term changes in outcomes such as peer relationships, social or academic skills, or school achievement.’.
(11) The Food and Drug Administration finally acknowledged by issuing its most severe Black Box Warnings in September 2004, that the newer antidepressants are related to suicidal thoughts and actions in children and that this data was hidden for years. A confirmatory review of that data published in 2006 by Columbia University’s department of psychiatry, which is also the originator of the TeenScreen instrument, found that `in children and adolescents (aged 6-18 years), antidepressant drug treatment was significantly associated with suicide attempts . . . and suicide deaths. . . . ‘. The Food and Drug Administration had over 2000 reports of completed suicides from 1987 to 1995 for the drug Prozac alone, which by the agency’s own calculations represent but a fraction of the suicides. Prozac is the only such drug approved by the Food and Drug Administration for use in children.
(12) Other possible side effects of psychiatric medication used in children include mania, violence, dependence, weight gain, and insomnia from the newer antidepressants; cardiac toxicity including lethal arrhythmias from the older antidepressants; growth suppression, psychosis, and violence from stimulants; and diabetes from the newer anti-psychotic medications.
(13) Parents are already being coerced to put their children on psychiatric medications and some children are dying because of it. Universal or mandatory mental health screening and the accompanying treatments recommended by the President’s New Freedom Commission on Mental Health will only increase that problem. Across the country, Patricia Weathers, the Carroll Family, the Johnston Family, and the Salazar Family were all charged or threatened with child abuse charges for refusing or taking their children off of psychiatric medications.
(14) The United States Supreme Court in Pierce versus Society of Sisters (268 U.S. 510 (1925)) held that parents have a right to direct the education and upbringing of their children.
(15) Universal or mandatory mental health screening violates the right of parents to direct and control the upbringing of their children.
(16) Federal funds should never be used to support programs that could lead to the increased over-medication of children, the stigmatization of children and adults as mentally disturbed based on their political or other beliefs, or the violation of the liberty and privacy of Americans by subjecting them to invasive `mental health screening’ (the results of which are placed in medical records which are available to government officials and special interests without the patient’s consent).
SEC. 3. PROHIBITION AGAINST FEDERAL FUNDING OF UNIVERSAL OR MANDATORY MENTAL HEALTH SCREENING.
(a) Universal or Mandatory Mental Health Screening Program- No Federal funds may be used to establish or implement any universal or mandatory mental health, psychiatric, or socioemotional screening program.
(b) Refusal to Consent as Basis of a Charge of Child Abuse or Education Neglect- No Federal education funds may be paid to any local educational agency or other instrument of government that uses the refusal of a parent or legal guardian to provide express, written, voluntary, informed consent to mental health screening for his or her child as the basis of a charge of child abuse, child neglect, medical neglect, or education neglect until the agency or instrument demonstrates that it is no longer using such refusal as a basis of such a charge.
(c) Definition- For purposes of this Act, the term `universal or mandatory mental health, psychiatric, or socioemotional screening program’–
(1) means any mental health screening program in which a set of individuals (other than members of the Armed Forces or individuals serving a sentence resulting from conviction for a criminal offense) is automatically screened without regard to whether there was a prior indication of a need for mental health treatment; and
(2) includes–
(A) any program of State incentive grants for transformation to implement recommendations in the July 2003 report of the President’s New Freedom Commission on Mental Health, the State Early Childhood Comprehensive System, grants for TeenScreen, and the Foundations for Learning Grants; and
(B) any student mental health screening program that allows mental health screening of individuals under 18 years of age without the express, written, voluntary, informed consent of the parent or legal guardian of the individual involved.