This was written in 1999 - Codex

[Guest guest]

Fwd from : Friends for health group.

 

Article...Your Next Bottle of Supplements Could Be Your Last! by Gary

Null

 

http://garynull.com/Documents/warning_your_next_bottle_of_supp.htm

 

 

 

WARNING

Your Next Bottle of Supplements Could Be Your

Last!

 

by Gary Null

 

Published in Penthouse Magazine, 9/99

Reprinted with permission

 

 

 

Note: The information on this website is not a substitute for

diagnosis and treatment by a qualified, licensed professional.

 

Americans' freedom of choice is under attack from big medicine, the

pharmaceutical establishment, and their allies in big

government and the United Nations.

 

Every year, the largest increase in the U.S. gross national product is in the

medical sector. It's been estimated that $600 billion could be trimmed yearly

from our

$1.3 trillion medical bill if we were to eliminate al unnecessary, overused,

unproved, and dangerous procedures. We have 100 million what I call " medical

refugees "

in this country -- people who have given their absolute trust, faith, and life

savings to the orthodox approach, only to find that this route has failed them.

In recent

years these people have begun to look elsewhere for answers -- resulting in big

medicine, the pharmaceutical establishment, and their allies in big government

all

joining forces to protect their own interests. These threatened groups engage

in fear-mongering before Congress to get legislation that would sic state

medical

boards on alternative therapies, let dietitians control the dispensing of

nutritional advice, and keep the public from having freedom of choice by

turning as many

nutrients as possible into prescription drugs. This is what the future will

bring unless we take action.

 

Not far into the twenty-first century you may be saying so long to your St,

John's wort, goodbye to your ginkgo biloba. These and many other supplements may

become things .of the past, at least as reasonably priced over-the-counter

items.

 

Picture the following scenario. It's winter, in a year just past the start of

the new millennium. You've been pushing yourself a little too hard, and you

feel a cold

coming on. You decide to get some vitamin-C-plus-bioflavonoid tablets; this

particular supplement also contains selenium and has helped you keep cold

symptoms

at bay many times in the past, Taking some now seems like a prudent thing to

do. So you pick up the phone and call your doctor to make an appointment. When

you finally get through and can talk to a human, you are told that the doctor

-- your primary-care physician -- is really busy, and so are all his associates

in the

H.M.O., but luckily they can squeeze you in in two days. Two days later your

cold is already hitting full force, and it's snowing heavily, but you figure,

what the heck,

the supplements may still help. So you decide to go ahead and get them. After

bundling yourself into the car, you drive several miles past the local

drugstore to the

doctor's office. There, after languishing for an hour and a half in the crowded

waiting room, you see the doctor for a cursory four-minute examination, during

which

your blood pressure's a little high because you're nervous about getting the

tablets. But your powers of persuasion are good -- you explain how many times

the

C-plus-bioflavonoid supplements have worked for you in the past-and the

doctor's a nice guy anyway. Triumphant, you leave the office tightly clutching

your little

white scrip.

 

'Yes! " you say to yourself. " I've done it! I've got my prescription! "

 

In the car again you drive over icy roads the several miles homeward, stopping

at the drugstore. You give the prescription to the pharmacist, who, like the

doctor, is

swamped with work. You're stuck cooling your heels in the store aisles for a

good 20 minutes until the pharmacist has a chance to fill the prescription and

you can

pay for it. Once you're home, the feeling of triumph you had in the doctor's

office has faded somewhat. It's been a long day, full of waiting. At the end of

it, you had

to pay what seemed like a small fortune to get a few tablets. Plus by now your

cold really has you in its grip. You think back fondly to the days when you

could stroll

down to the drugstore any time, pick whatever vitamin, mineral, herb, or other

nutritional supplement you wanted right off the shelf, and pay a reasonable

amount for

it.

 

" Ah, for the good old days, " you say to yourself, " the days before Codex

Alimentarius got its way. "

 

Codex Alimentarius, which means " food code " in Latin, is the name of a United

Nations commission that operates as part of the World Health Organization. The

Codex Alimentarius Commission's mandate is to set international standards for

trade in all kinds of food products. Its concerns include raw- and

processed-food

standards, pesticide and other contaminant levels, nutritional content, and

labeling. Codex also is concerned with global trade rules for health

supplements, and it is

what the commission is aiming to do in this field that is really scary.

 

First, the Codex Alimentarius Commission wants to establish a world guideline

saying that no dietary supplement can be sold for preventive or therapeutic

purposes.

Actually, in the U.S. we already have a labeling constraint to this effect: The

Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 prohibits claims on

supplement

labels that relate to treatment or prevention of disease other than classic

nutrient-deficiency diseases, like scurvy. That's why our vitamin bottles don't

tell us much

about what their contents are good for -- they're not allowed to.

 

Second, the Codex Alimentarius Commission wants to limit over-the-counter sales

of dietary supplements to those of low or R.D.A. dosage, the kind that prevent

deficiency diseases but not chronic diseases like cancer. Dietary supplements

of higher potency -- the dosages that work to fortify the immune system and

stave off

aging and chronic disease-would become pharmaceuticals. You would have to get

them from a pharmacist.

 

Today, many of the newly popular supplements, such as those being taken for

their immune-enhancing powers, have never been assigned a recommended daily

allowance. These R.D.A -less substances, such as bioflavonoids, selenium,

chromium, and coenzyme Q10, also would be classified, according to the Codex

scheme, as drugs, meaning you'd need a prescription to get any of them.

 

And there's more on the Codex agenda. The group wants all new supplements to

have to be approved by the commission before becoming available. Without

approval there'd be no legal sale anywhere. That's another aspect of what the

Codex Alimentarius Commission wants to do -- it wants to make its guidelines

universal. The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade that the U.S. and other

nations have signed contains an escape clause on regulations

 

that allows us to set our own standards. But Codex wants to eliminate that

clause and force Americans into the commission's restrictive system. It speaks

in terms of

governments " harmonizing " their rules so that everyone in the world sticks to

the same standards. " Harmonization " might be a nice concept if you were talking

about

the whole world abiding by some minimum standards on democracy, decent wages,

human rights. Unfortunately, in this case the harmonized standards will mean

nothing less than the loss of our capacity to maintain and care for our own

bodies in the ways we judge best. We'd be losing the ability to educate

ourselves on how

to enhance health and then act on what we've learned. The gainer in all this

would be the medical establishment, particularly the large pharmaceutical

companies.

What it boils down to is that there'd be a medical monopoly controlling our

very body chemistry.

 

Sometimes threats to our freedom remain in the shadows until it's too late.

That may turn out to be the case with the Codex Alimentarius Commission, which

certainly has not been a household term in America. Our media seem to have been

asleep at the wheel when it comes to reporting on this outfit.

 

The Codex Alimentarius Commission, composed of member governments, exists under

the joint auspices of the U.N.'s World Health Organization and Food and

Agriculture Organization as part of a food-standards program. The commission

meets in Rome or Geneva every two years, with smaller get-togethers in various

locales all over the world at other times. While it is concerned with

protecting the health of consumers, it's also a trade group, and of the

international organizations

that send delegates to Codex, more than 90 percent represent large

multinational corporations.

 

Codex is not an organization in which the American public or any other

country's public, for that matter-is given a voice. Although there's a

one-nation, one-vote

rule, those representing their respective countries are un-elected bureaucrats.

There is no system of accountability whereby these bureaucrats would have to

face the

citizens whose lives their decisions affect. The Life Extension Foundation, a

watchdog group that has taken the trouble to look into the goings-on at Codex

meetings,

gives details on the group's workings:

 

" The Codex Alimentarius Commission as an international body makes little or no

provision for the minimum requirements of representative governance. For

example, Codex committee chairmanships can and have remained vested in the

hands of a particular nation-state for decades at a time, with no mechanism for

either

rotation of chairmanships or accountability for the acts of particular nations

as the chair of a particular committee. Many nations have retained

chairmanships in an

uninterrupted fashion for the last 30 or more years. "

 

The watchdog organization goes on to explain that " committee chair nations

wield considerable power under the Codex system, since a chair nation is

responsible

not only for the costs associated with the assumption of that role but also for

the shepherding of committee recommendations throughout the Codex process, The

Codex process contains no meaningful system of accountability for acts of chair

nations or mechanism for containment or review of the considerable powers

wielded

by chair nations. "

 

The Life Extension Foundation also points out that meaningful consumer

representation at Codex is virtually nil. And it has this to say about the U.S.

delegation to

the organization: " Within the United States delegation, the voting delegate is

assisted by a group of nonvoting delegates who are selected by either the

Department of

Agriculture and/or the Food and Drug Administration under an ill-defined and

unregulated system in which the agencies openly represent vested commercial

interests

or commercial interests thinly disguised as consumer groups, with no

requirement that genuine consumer or public interests be represented at all. "

 

The Codex story gets even more interesting when you find out who's behind the

proposed new rules. The proposals were originally put forth by the German

delegation to the commission, a panel sponsored by three giant drug

companies-Hoechst, Bayer, and BASF. These are none other than the daughter

companies

formed after World War 11 when Nazi Germany's notorious I.G. Farben cartel was

disbanded. (In May of this year, two federal class-action lawsuits were filed

against Bayer AG, Hoechst AG, and Schering AG, charging these German companies

with participating in Nazi medical experiments, some of which were under the

direction of Dr. Joseph Mengele.) As the Life Extension Foundation points out,

it is such companies that are now the firmest supporters of the proposals that

would

so drastically curtail our healthcare freedoms.

 

(Earlier this year BASF and the Swiss drug company La Roche Holding AG pleaded

guilty to the largest antitrust conspiracy to fix vitamin prices uncovered to

date.

They agreed to pay fines of $500 million and $225 million, respectively, for

raising and fixing vitamin prices and allocating their volume of sales and

market shares.

" Day by day, " Attorney General Janet Reno said, 11 consumers took a hit in

their wallet so that these co-conspirators could reap hundreds of millions of

dollars in

additional revenue. " )

 

It's instructive to look at the supplement situation in Germany today; one can

get an indication of the way things would go if the Codex proposals are

adopted. In

Germany, until 1996, one could buy, freely, 500-mg vitamin-C tablets, the way

you can here. Now the highest dosage generally available to Germans is 200 mg;

anything higher is sold through pharmacists only-at extremely high prices.

Likewise, generally available vitamin E capsules go up to 45 I.U. only and B,

is limited to

2.4 mg.

 

Other countries also provide a preview of what may be ahead for the U.S. In

Norway, all supplements that exceed R.D.A, levels are considered drugs.

Examples of

cutoff potency levels are 200 mg of vitamin C, 2.4 mg of B1, 2.8 mg of B2, 4.2

mg of B6, and 32 mg of niacin. Many natural substances are available in Norway

only through the very costly prescription route, if they're available at all. A

black market in supplements has emerged. In England, it recently took the

objections of a

large consumer lobby to defeat a measure before Parliament that would have

banned vitamin B6 beyond the less-than-therapeutic dosage of ten mg. And in

Europe

as a whole, the European Economic Community has said that if an herb is

medicinal or affects physiological function in any way, it is a medicine and

should be sold

as a drug.

 

Closer to home, in Canada, herbs with medicinal effects-that is, any herb for

which claims are made that it improves health-are classified as drugs. The

supplements

tryptophan and L-carnitine, once available in Canadian health-food stores for

$14 per 100 capsules, are now available only by prescription-for $120 to $190.

In the

U.S., what's happened with tryptophan may be indicative of our future

direction. In 1990, after a batch of the amino acid turned out to have been

contaminated, the

FD.A. banned sales of tryptophan completely. But the substance is now available

by prescription at highly inflated prices. If Americans do not take notice of

the

worldwide trend toward medicalization of nutrients, many of the supplements

that we now take for granted we will not be able to take at all.

 

The medicalization of nutritional supplements might not be such a bad thing if

the medical/pharmaceutical complex were in the habit of working in the public's

best

interest. But anyone who thinks that this is the case is being naive. You don't

have to look further than that bastion of the establishment The New York Times

to see

how pharmaceutical companies team up with physicians in the latest kind of

pharmaceutical sleaze.

 

The results of a ten-month Times investigation, reported on May 16 of this

year, show that there's a widespread conflict of interest when doctors recruit

patients for

clinical trials of experimental drugs. When a doctor gets a patient to enroll

in a clinical trial, chances are good that that doctor is paid a hefty fee-from

about $1,000

to more than $4,000-for each enlistee. A physician can significantly augment

his income if he or she aggressively recruits patients into testing programs.

The problem,

of course, is that with the monetary incentive doctors are tempted to fudge on

the requirements and restrictions as to who can safely participate in the study

And, as

the Times story revealed, this happens all too frequently. Doctors overlook

contraindications to a patient's taking a particular drug. Or they enroll

people in a trial

who have no need for a drug at all. The power gap between doctor and patient is

so great that most patients are going to agree to whatever the doctor suggests

without question. Plus most patients hearing a recommendation to enter a

clinical trial have no idea that money is changing hands practically as the

doctor speaks.

 

This didn't used to be the way things worked in the pharmaceutical research

field. As recently as the 1980s, testing of drugs was done largely by

university doctors,

with no monetary incentive for patient recruitment. But in the past decade,

with the rise of managed care and its power to curtail the price drug companies

can

charge per prescription, the companies realized that the way to pump profits

back up was to come out with new " blockbuster " medicines at a faster rate than

previously. To quicken the pace of clinical testing they came up with the

newest twist on fee-splitting this scheme of paying doctors incentives for

test-subject

recruitment. The incentives include not just a per-person fee, but rewards for

recruiting a certain number of subjects within a specified time, as well as

" co-authorship " of trial-result articles that are in fact written not by the

doctors, but by drug-company or research-company ghostwriters.

 

Research companies are another new development. It used to be that

pharmaceutical companies guided their own research. Now they're outsourcing it

to new firms

that have sprung up ready to take care of every aspect of research, from

designing studies to finding doctors who will participate to writing papers to

submitting

documentation to the F.D.A. Unfortunately, the whole process seems shot through

with shoddiness. Beyond the ethical question of doctors being offered incentives

to recruit patients is the reality that many doctors chosen by the research

firms to do recruiting should not have been selected because they're not

specialists in the

field for which they're testing medicines. This seems not to worry the research

companies, which aren't picky about the experience of the doctors who are

handing

out unproved medicines. The name of the game these days is speed in turning out

new drugs-not expertise in helping patients.

 

The result of such shady dealings by the pharmaceutical industry is not just

its enrichment to the tune of several billion dollars. Much more serious is the

sometimes

life-or-death risk these practices pose for patients. And so the question

becomes, Is our F.D.A., which is supposed to be looking out for our lives,

really doing so?

The search for an answer leads to some troubling facts.

 

Consider, for instance, that of 198 new drugs introduced from 1976 to 1985,

more than half caused unexpected side effects and had to be withdrawn or

relabeled.

Or consider a 1998 study reported in the Journal of the American Medical

Association. Serious adverse drug reactions were found to occur in almost seven

percent

of hospitalized patients. These were not errors of dosage or noncompliance with

instructi6ns, but simply bad reactions to the drugs. Such reactions, the JAMA

authors revealed, were between the fourth- and sixth-leading causes of death.

 

Or look at specific drugs that the F.D.A. has approved. In 1997 the diet drugs

fenfluramine and dexfenfluramine were pulled from the market after they were

linked

to serious irreversible heart problems-and to deaths-when they were used with

another drug, phentermine. This so-called fen-phen combination had been a widely

advertised and prescribed drug duo used by people trying to lose weight, people

who never suspected their hearts could be seriously damaged in the process. The

billion-dollar-lawsuit aftermath of this tragedy is only beginning to be felt.

Other popular medications approved by the F.D.A. include those called

nonsteroidal

antiinflammatory drugs, used to treat, among other conditions, arthritis.

According to Stanford University researcher Dr. G. Singh, writing in the

American Journal of

Medicine, " Conservative calculations estimate that approximately 107,000

patients are hospitalized annually for non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug

(NSAID)-related gastrointestinal complications, and at least 16,500

NSAID-related deaths occur each year among arthritis patients alone. "

 

A drug that has been much touted of late is tamoxifen, which recently gained

FD.A. approval to be used as a breast-cancer preventive by healthy women deemed

at

high risk for the disease. While tamoxifen has been used to prevent recurrence

of breast cancer in those who have already had the disease, okaying its use by

healthy

women is troubling for a number of reasons.

 

For one thing, there's the question of who's really at high risk. The computer

models used to determine risk are often little more than informed guesswork (for

example, according to the Los Angeles Times, " the National Cancer Institute

computer model that most doctors use to assess risk does not take genetics into

account, nor the ages at which close relatives contracted the disease " ). The

reason this is such a critical point is that the women placed in this category

are now being

encouraged to take a drug that is not a benign substance. Tamoxifen carries

with it a number of risks, just one of which is that it can cause endometrial,

or uterine,

cancer.

 

Giving cancer patients a drug with risk attached is understandable. But

encouraging healthy individuals to take a carcinogenic substance is ethically

questionable, to

say the least. Recently, Judy Norsigian of the Boston Women's Health Collective

was quoted as saying such practices were " disease substitution, not disease

prevention. " And yet the F.D.A. approved the drug for use by the healthy. It

should be noted that in doing so it opened up a market worth billions of dollars

annually.

 

So what's the F.D.A. up to these days if it's not carefully scrutinizing risky

new drugs? It is suppressing information on safer natural substances. For

example, stevia

is a legal herb that is a natural sweetener, a substance that might rival the

synthetic and dangerous Aspartame. Our federal government says that while

stevia herbal

products may be marketed as dietary supplements, no mention of their having

sweetening power is allowed in their marketing. So you have the phenomenon of

F.D.A. compliance officers getting after the Stevita Company, of Arlington,

Texas, to destroy " offending " cookbooks and other literature, and of attempting

to

regulate Internet Websites dealing with the herb. James Kirkland, author of the

book Cooking With Stevia, has made the point that his book is illegal, while a

volume called The Anarchist's Cookbook, which tells how to construct homemade

bombs, is not, The situation would be humorous if it were not so serious.

 

A situation that is definitely not humorous involves folic acid. The U.S.

Public Health Service was imploring childbearing-age women to take folic acid

to prevent

birth defects for two years before the F.D.A. finally approved the labeling

claim. Folic acid, taken before and during pregnancy, has been shown to prevent

babies

from being born with spina bifida, a condition that causes partial to full

paralysis, permanent deformity and shortened life span. It's been estimated

that during the two

years the F.D.A. dragged its feet on allowing claims to this effect, more than

3,500 children were born with spina bifida -- a tragedy that could have been

prevented

had their mothers taken folic acid.

 

In another area, many people today are trying to lower their cholesterol

levels, and you would think that a safe way to help do this would be welcomed

by the

F.D.A, But one of the over-the-counter herbal products that the F.D.A. has been

trying to declare an illegal drug is Cholestin, which is made from a kind of

Chinese

rice fermented with red yeast and is used as a cholesterol-lowering agent. The

F.D.A. recently impounded ten tons of the red yeast rice, but a court ruled

that the

manufacturer could continue making Cholestin while legal wrangling goes on.

Cholestin is a natural supplement based on a 2,000year-old Chinese product. The

problem seems to be that it threatens the more expensive-and

riskier-prescription cholesterol reducers.

 

The F.D.A. seems to relish conducting raids on small businesses selling

supplements that the agency has problems with. Their storm trooper-like

tactics, while not

widely publicized, have not been appreciated by those affected. One example: In

October 1990, according to the National Review, " an F.D.A. sting operation led

to a raid on [the home and business of Kenneth Scott, the owner of a small

Oregon vitamin company] by 11 armed federal marshals, nine F.D.A. agents, and a

horde of local and state police officers. " What was Scott's crime? He was

mailing reprints of an article from Omni magazine to customers who requested

them.

Because the F.D.A. did not approve of what the article reported about an

ingredient in one of Scott's products, it told Scott that it considered his

mailing the article

as " labeling. " Scott eventually decided that he didn't have the time and money

to fight the feds and cut a deal with them.

 

Another example from 1990: Solid Gold Pet Foods, a California store that sold

holistic pet-food products, was raided by the F.D.A., and its owner imprisoned

for

114 days, because, according to the Washington Times, " a judge ruled that

claims concerning her natural pet food were unsubstantiated. " The newspaper

went on to

report that she " was released only after President Bush revised legislation on

food labeling. "

 

Another example also involves a California company, this one called

Nutricology. In 1991 it was raided by the F.D.A., which seized the firm's bank

accounts and

shut it down for two weeks, charging its principals with wire fraud, mail

fraud, and selling unapproved drugs, unsafe food additives, and misbranded

drugs. Armed

agents conducted an exhaustive search of the company's office and warehouse. In

1991 a federal judge denied the F.D.A.'s request for a preliminary injunction,

and

so did an appeals court to which the agency turned. In 1993, the F.D.A.'s

motion for summary judgment was denied, and the company is still thriving.

 

Although in some cases there is vindication for health-food businesses, in many

instances of F.D.A. raids the small-business people involved are totally

intimidated

and ruined. As Nutricology president Stephen A. Levine said when his company

was under attack, " The F.D.A. will wipe out our entire industry if we let them. "

 

The flip side of all the bad news about F.D.A. shenanigans and about risky new

drugs is an avalanche of good news about the healing powers of natural

supplements. That's what makes the impending Codex actions to restrict our

access to them so excruciatingly ill timed. Let's look at just a few of the

encouraging

studies.

 

First, have you heard about the Linxian trials? Probably not. Linxian is an

area in China. The trials there had nothing to do with court cases, but with a

joint effort by

the U.S. National Cancer Institute and the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences

to see if daily ingestion of vitamin/mineral supplements would reduce cancer

incidence and mortality Results of the experimental trials, which involved more

than 30,000 people, showed that a beta-carotene/vitamin E/selenium combination

had

a significant preventive effect for stomach and esophageal cancer, and for

stroke as well.

 

Another study, in another area, involved multivitamin supplements and

H.I.V-infected women. Reported in 1998 in the British medical journal The

Lancet, this study

showed that multivitamins improved pregnancy outcomes for these women,

significantly reducing rates of fetal death, as well as low birth weight and

other problems

for the babies. What's more, the low-cost vitamins improved the women's T-cell

counts, a sign that their immune systems had benefited.

 

Studies on fish oil have been noteworthy in the medical literature lately. For

instance, in a 1997 study, fish oil, compared to a placebo, lowered the number

of

" cardiac events " in a group of patients with suspected heart attacks. Another

study, published the same year, in the Journal of the National Medical

Association,

involved fish oil and garlic. This seemingly lowly combo did great things when

taken as a supplement for a month. Unlike a placebo, which did nothing, the

supplement lowered total cholesterol 11 percent, triglycerides 34 percent, and

low-density lipoprotein ten percent. Things went swimmingly for fish

supplements in

still another study, reported in the journal Cancer in 1998. In that one, the

omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids of fish oil were shown to lengthen survival

time of

cancer patients.

 

In human health, this is a time of opportunity, and of challenge. Information

about the benefits of vitamins, minerals, herbs, and other natural supplements

is growing

daily. We have an opportunity to make our lives healthier and longer by putting

this new knowledge to use. Indeed, many Americans are already doing so, as

indicated by the latest estimate that 100 million of us are taking vitamins on

a regular basis. And Americans in record numbers are seeking out complementary

approaches to medical care, be they nutritional counseling, chiropractic,

acupuncture, stress-management techniques, or other avenues to health. When I

travel the

country on lecture tours, I get a sense that people are hungry for ways to go

beyond what the medical establishment has to offer.

 

This is not to say that the traditional medical establishment has nothing of

value to offer. It has brought us many lifesaving innovations, including

emergency and

post-trauma care and, yes, drugs. Antibiotics, for instance, have been miracle

medicines, and it's not the fault of the developers of antibiotics that they've

been so

over-prescribed that anti biotic-resistant bacterial strains have now

developed. The problem with mainstream medicine is that it hasn't been good at

dealing with the

chronic conditions plaguing us today, such as cancer, heart disease, arthritis,

and depression. The magic-bullet approach that orthodox medicine is geared to

just

doesn't work with these-because, first, magic bullets tend to have side

effects, and, second, to really make a dent in these chronic conditions, you

have to make

lifestyle changes.

 

That's what the challenge we face today is about. We finally want to make

lifestyle changes. We finally want to give natural supplements a real try

because we're

learning more about what they can do. But there are forces now that are trying

to prevent us from freely choosing these alternatives. Our challenge is to

educate

ourselves about those who would lay siege to our freedom of choice, and then

figure out how to counter them.

--- End forwarded message ---

 

 

 

 

 

 

Gettingwell- / Vitamins, Herbs, Aminos, etc.

 

To , e-mail to: Gettingwell-

Or, go to our group site: Gettingwell

 

 

 

 

Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now