Your right to choose your vitamin, mineral and other supplements may

[Guest guest]

CODEX Archives

Slipping CODEX in the back door! Archive.

 

http://askwaltstollmd.com/archives/codex/326350.html

 

 

Slipping CODEX in the back door! Archive.

Posted by Walt Stoll [9.1465] on January 25, 2005 at 06:35:10:

Thanks, Misty.

 

Apathy in this country is going to ruin it for all of us.

 

Walt

 

 

-

" Misty L. Trepke "

To:

Monday, January 24, 2005 9:38 PM

[s-A] Bills to Oppose+Support for Health Freedom

 

 

>

>

>Comments? Misty L. Trepke http://www..com

>

>Your right to choose your vitamin, mineral and other supplements may end in

>June of this year (2005). After that U.S. supplements will be defined and

>controlled by the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the World Health

>Organization (WHO). The CODEX ALIMENTARIUS (Food Code) is setting the

>supplement standards for all countries in the WTO. They will be enforced by

>the WTO and will over ride U.S. laws. The U.S. President and Congress

>agreed to this take-over when the WTO Treaty was signed. Violations are

>punished by WTO trade sanctions. CODEX drastically restricts vitamins,

>minerals, herbs and other supplements. CODEX met secretly in November, 2004

>and finalized " Step 8 (the final stage) " to begin implementation in June,

>2005.

>

>

>The CODE includes:

>

>(1) No supplement can be sold for preventive or therapeutic use.

>

>(2) Any potency higher than RDA (minimal strength) is a " drug " requiring a

>prescription and must be produced by drug companies. Over 5000 safe items

>now in health stores will be banned, terminating health stores as we now

>know them.

>

>(3) CODEX regulations become binding internationally.

>

>(4) New supplements are banned unless given very expensive CODEX testing

>and approval.

>

>

>CODEX now applies to Norway and Germany, among others, where zinc tablets

>rose from $4 per bottle to $52. Echinacea (an ancient immune- enhancement

>herb) rose from $14 to $153 (both examples are now allowed by prescription

>only). They are now " drugs " . Vitamin C above 200 mg, niacin above 32 mg,

>vitamin B6 above 4 mg-all are banned over-the-counter as drugs. No amino

>acids (arginine, lysine, carnitine, et c. = essential amino acids!),

>essential fatty acids (omegas 3, 6, 9, etc.), or other essential

>supplements such as DMEA, DHEA, CoQ10, MSM, beta-carotene, etc. are

>allowed.

>

>

>The CODEX rules are not based on real science. They are made by a few

>people meeting in secret (see web sites below), not necessarily scientists.

>In 1993 the FDA and drug corporations tried to put all supplements under

>restriction and prescription. But over 4 million Americans told Congress

>and the President to protect their freedom of choice on health supplements.

>The DSHEA Law was passed in 1994, which does so. But this will be over

>ruled by CODEX and the World Trade Organization.

>

>

>Virtually nothing about it has been in the media. What the drug

>corporations have failed to do through Congress they have gotten by sneak

>attack through CODEX with the help of a silent media. What can be done at

>this late hour?

>

>

>(1) Spread the word as much as possible. Inform yourselves fully at

>

>www.ahha.org, www.iahf.com, and www.alliance-natural-health.org.

>

>(2) Oppose bills S.722 and H.R.3377. These support the CODEX restrictions

>with U.S. laws, changing the DSHEA law.

>

>(3) Support H. R.1146 which would restore the sovereignty of the U.S.

>Constitution over CODEX, etc.

>

>(4) Express your wishes to the President, Senators and Representatives

>

>(They got us into this!) ASAP.

>

>(5) Contact multi-level health marketing groups that can get their members

>to inform the government.

>

>(6) Send donations, however small, to the British Alliance for Natural

>Health (see web site above). It has succeeded in challenging the CODEX

>directives in World Court later this month or next. They need help

>financially, having carried the fight effectively for everyone. CODEX and

>the FDA wish to protect us by controlling supplements in the same way they

>do prescription drugs. A study of the latter by three medical scientists

>was reported in the Journal of the American Medical Association, April 15,

>1998-Vol. 279, No. 15, p. 1200 " .Incidence of Adverse Drug Reactions

>(ADR's) was found to be extremely high. " Covering 30 years (1966 to 1996)

>it was found that in the U.S. an average of 106,000 hospitalized patients

>per year (290 per day)! die from ADR's and 2,200,000 need more

>hospitalization for recovery. These were FDA approved drugs, properly

>administered by competent professionals in hospitals--none were considered

>malpractice. This is the number four cause of death in the U.S. When

>combined, these account for 7% of all hospitalized patients. This is

>equivalent to a 9-11 attack every ten days. There are very few fatalities

>from supplements or the news would be on every front page. There is no need

>for more FDA control of supplements than is already in place, which is

>substantial. Instead of drastically restricting supplements, why doesn't

>the FDA better control and restrict the extremely dangerous pharmaceutical

>drugs which are now killing us at the rate of a major airline crash per

>day?

>

>Wallace G. Heath, Ph.D.

>

>1145 Marine Drive Bellingham, WA 98225

>

>www.pulseplus@e...

>

>

>

 

 

Follow Ups:

 

Re: Slipping CODEX in the back door! Archive. Marian [15.1641] 18:32:22

1/25/05 (1)

Re: Slipping CODEX in the back door! Archive. Walt Stoll [9.1465] 07:08:54

1/26/05 (0)

Re: Slipping CODEX in the back door! Archive. Sapphire [422.1366] 15:25:25

1/25/05 (1)

Re: Slipping CODEX in the back door! Archive. dd [1706.26] 00:54:51 1/26/05

(0)

non-US posters-what's the vitamin situation there?nmi ANN [1003.516]

09:23:30 1/25/05 (0)

would this make supplies we already have illegal? ANN [1003.516] 09:21:40

1/25/05 (1)

Re: would this make supplies we already have illegal? Walt Stoll [9.1465]

14:30:59 1/25/05 (0)

Re: Slipping CODEX in the back door! Archive. Alexandria Dumas [2848.20]

09:02:45 1/25/05 (9)

Re: Slipping CODEX in the back door! Archive. PhillyLady [1906.1536]

09:56:30 1/25/05 (8)

Re: Slipping CODEX in the back door! Archive. Alexandria Dumas [2848.20]

10:36:04 1/25/05 (7)

Re: Slipping CODEX in the back door! Archive. PhillyLady [1906.1536]

12:32:20 1/25/05 (0)

Re: Slipping CODEX in the back door! Archive. PhillyLady [1906.1536]

10:47:40 1/25/05 (5)

Re: Slipping CODEX in the back door! Archive. Alexandria Dumas [2848.20]

14:22:29 1/25/05 (2)

Re: Slipping CODEX in the back door! Archive. PhillyLady [2051.1599]

20:25:06 1/25/05 (1)

Re: Slipping CODEX in the back door! Archive. Alexandria Dumas [2848.20]

20:46:46 1/25/05 (0)

Re: Slipping CODEX in the back door! Archive. DonnaW [302.465] 11:17:38

1/25/05 (1)

Re: Slipping CODEX in the back door! Archive. PhillyLady [1906.1536]

12:38:14 1/25/05 (0)

Re: Slipping CODEX in the back door! Archive. Eric d'cleric [3011.129]

08:09:39 1/25/05 (0)

 

 

 

Re: Slipping CODEX in the back door! Archive.

Posted by Eric d'cleric [3011.129] on January 25, 2005 at 08:09:39:

In Reply to: Slipping CODEX in the back door! Archive. posted by Walt Stoll

[9.1465] on January 25, 2005 at 06:35:10:

 

Yikes, if this is the case people need to know! I'll

forward a link to this thread to a couple of minor and

major publications devoted to this kind of stuff.

 

I need my MSM!

 

As an aside (and sarcastic commentary), it would just

be more difficult to purchase supplements, after all,

even narcotics can be bought online, and as 60

minutes reported, they weren't knock offs, but the real

thing. But it would certainly be unsavory.

 

 

Follow Ups:

 

 

 

Re: Slipping CODEX in the back door! Archive.

Posted by Alexandria Dumas [2848.20] on January 25, 2005 at 09:02:45:

In Reply to: Slipping CODEX in the back door! Archive. posted by Walt Stoll

[9.1465] on January 25, 2005 at 06:35:10:

 

I've gone to the Thomas website where all the Congressional bills and

resolutions can be searched, and the bill numbers given here are not valid.

I then conducted a search for the text of bills with the words " codex, " and

" supplements, " and " vitamins " and also found nothing.

 

Which leaves this whole Codex article suspect. If someone has further

information and can actually produce resolution numbers that are valid,

please advise.

 

Otherwise, this is a scam and intended to defraud those who send in

donations.

 

 

Thomas Legislative Information on the Internet

Follow Ups:

 

Re: Slipping CODEX in the back door! Archive. PhillyLady [1906.1536]

09:56:30 1/25/05 (8)

Re: Slipping CODEX in the back door! Archive. Alexandria Dumas [2848.20]

10:36:04 1/25/05 (7)

Re: Slipping CODEX in the back door! Archive. PhillyLady [1906.1536]

12:32:20 1/25/05 (0)

Re: Slipping CODEX in the back door! Archive. PhillyLady [1906.1536]

10:47:40 1/25/05 (5)

Re: Slipping CODEX in the back door! Archive. Alexandria Dumas [2848.20]

14:22:29 1/25/05 (2)

Re: Slipping CODEX in the back door! Archive. PhillyLady [2051.1599]

20:25:06 1/25/05 (1)

Re: Slipping CODEX in the back door! Archive. Alexandria Dumas [2848.20]

20:46:46 1/25/05 (0)

Re: Slipping CODEX in the back door! Archive. DonnaW [302.465] 11:17:38

1/25/05 (1)

Re: Slipping CODEX in the back door! Archive. PhillyLady [1906.1536]

12:38:14 1/25/05 (0)

 

 

 

would this make supplies we already have illegal?

Posted by ANN [1003.516] on January 25, 2005 at 09:21:40:

In Reply to: Slipping CODEX in the back door! Archive. posted by Walt Stoll

[9.1465] on January 25, 2005 at 06:35:10:

 

just wondering about the stuff already in our houses-would possession become

illegal? Most multi-vitamins have more than the RDA in them and my B-12

pills are really high dose (I think most of the ones on the market are).

 

 

Follow Ups:

 

Re: would this make supplies we already have illegal? Walt Stoll [9.1465]

14:30:59 1/25/05 (0)

 

 

 

non-US posters-what's the vitamin situation there?nmi

Posted by ANN [1003.516] on January 25, 2005 at 09:23:30:

In Reply to: Slipping CODEX in the back door! Archive. posted by Walt Stoll

[9.1465] on January 25, 2005 at 06:35:10:

 

nmi

 

 

Follow Ups:

 

 

 

Re: Slipping CODEX in the back door! Archive.

Posted by PhillyLady [1906.1536] on January 25, 2005 at 09:56:30:

In Reply to: Re: Slipping CODEX in the back door! Archive. posted by

Alexandria Dumas [2848.20] on January 25, 2005 at 09:02:45:

 

Hi Alexandria:

 

I posted something in another post that may help you get more information.

 

Session 26 - 05/28/26

http://www.codexalimentarius.net/web/reports.jsp?lang=en

 

 

CODEX: Session 26 (in PDF format)

Follow Ups:

 

Re: Slipping CODEX in the back door! Archive. Alexandria Dumas [2848.20]

10:36:04 1/25/05 (7)

Re: Slipping CODEX in the back door! Archive. PhillyLady [1906.1536]

12:32:20 1/25/05 (0)

Re: Slipping CODEX in the back door! Archive. PhillyLady [1906.1536]

10:47:40 1/25/05 (5)

Re: Slipping CODEX in the back door! Archive. Alexandria Dumas [2848.20]

14:22:29 1/25/05 (2)

Re: Slipping CODEX in the back door! Archive. PhillyLady [2051.1599]

20:25:06 1/25/05 (1)

Re: Slipping CODEX in the back door! Archive. Alexandria Dumas [2848.20]

20:46:46 1/25/05 (0)

Re: Slipping CODEX in the back door! Archive. DonnaW [302.465] 11:17:38

1/25/05 (1)

Re: Slipping CODEX in the back door! Archive. PhillyLady [1906.1536]

12:38:14 1/25/05 (0)

 

 

 

Re: Slipping CODEX in the back door! Archive.

Posted by Alexandria Dumas [2848.20] on January 25, 2005 at 10:36:04:

In Reply to: Re: Slipping CODEX in the back door! Archive. posted by

PhillyLady [1906.1536] on January 25, 2005 at 09:56:30:

 

Thanks. There is just so much on that site with so little actual content

compared to the whole, it's hard to go through (wonder if that was the

idea?).

 

It's a UN construct, though, right? From what I saw in my very quick

perusal, it seems benign, like a global body that wants to set standards

(please don't get the impression I personally believe it's benign). I saw

something about establishing standards for additives in food. Sounds good,

doesn't it? (I'm being sarcastic.)

 

In any event, why would " Misty " be sending out emails to Dr. Stoll with

congressional bill numbers/resolutions that are not valid? We must be on

guard to internet scams and we certainly don't need to waste our energies on

something that is bogus.

 

And, finally, insofar as I know, the UN isn't allowed to make laws for our

country.....yet.

 

We really need to hear from people from other countries and their

experiences in buying supplements and the cost and the labeling.

 

 

 

 

Follow Ups:

 

Re: Slipping CODEX in the back door! Archive. PhillyLady [1906.1536]

12:32:20 1/25/05 (0)

Re: Slipping CODEX in the back door! Archive. PhillyLady [1906.1536]

10:47:40 1/25/05 (5)

Re: Slipping CODEX in the back door! Archive. Alexandria Dumas [2848.20]

14:22:29 1/25/05 (2)

Re: Slipping CODEX in the back door! Archive. PhillyLady [2051.1599]

20:25:06 1/25/05 (1)

Re: Slipping CODEX in the back door! Archive. Alexandria Dumas [2848.20]

20:46:46 1/25/05 (0)

Re: Slipping CODEX in the back door! Archive. DonnaW [302.465] 11:17:38

1/25/05 (1)

Re: Slipping CODEX in the back door! Archive. PhillyLady [1906.1536]

12:38:14 1/25/05 (0)

 

 

 

Re: Slipping CODEX in the back door! Archive.

Posted by PhillyLady [1906.1536] on January 25, 2005 at 10:47:40:

In Reply to: Re: Slipping CODEX in the back door! Archive. posted by

Alexandria Dumas [2848.20] on January 25, 2005 at 10:36:04:

 

Hi Alexandria:

 

The bill is not bogus. See link.

 

 

CODEX: Bill S722........

Follow Ups:

 

Re: Slipping CODEX in the back door! Archive. Alexandria Dumas [2848.20]

14:22:29 1/25/05 (2)

Re: Slipping CODEX in the back door! Archive. PhillyLady [2051.1599]

20:25:06 1/25/05 (1)

Re: Slipping CODEX in the back door! Archive. Alexandria Dumas [2848.20]

20:46:46 1/25/05 (0)

Re: Slipping CODEX in the back door! Archive. DonnaW [302.465] 11:17:38

1/25/05 (1)

Re: Slipping CODEX in the back door! Archive. PhillyLady [1906.1536]

12:38:14 1/25/05 (0)

 

 

 

Re: Slipping CODEX in the back door! Archive.

Posted by DonnaW [302.465] on January 25, 2005 at 11:17:38:

In Reply to: Re: Slipping CODEX in the back door! Archive. posted by

PhillyLady [1906.1536] on January 25, 2005 at 10:47:40:

 

Hi PhillyLady,

 

I think the latest on S. 722 is that it was referred to the Committee on

Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions in March of 2003 -- nothing since.

The concern now is the review of the DSHEA Act by the FDA. They're proposing

regulations for products that weren't on the market in 1994 when DSHEA was

passed. I got this from newmediaexplorer.org:

 

January 2005: An action alert received from Citizens for Health

 

URGENT HEALTH ALERT! DEADLINE FEBRUARY 1st

Dietary Supplements are Important to YOUR Health

Tell the FDA to RESPECT your HEALTH RIGHTS

 

 

Take Action Today! It only takes one minute to send an email message to the

FDA.

 

FDA is reviewing portions of DSHEA, the Dietary Supplement Health Education

Act. The agency may propose new and overly burdensome regulations that could

restrict your access to new dietary ingredients and dietary supplements that

were not on the market prior to 1994 when DSHEA was passed.

 

Recall that 2.5 million concerned consumers contacted Congress between 1992

and 1994 to support DSHEA and assure access to their supplements. In

response to the overwhelming consumer support, Congress passed DSHEA and

deliberately created new and different regulations for dietary supplements.

Congress enacted DSHEA to stop the FDA from treating dietary supplements

like food additives or drugs and to protect consumer's rights to purchase

these products.

 

We need to make our voices heard once again!

The deadline is February 1, 2005. Send YOUR Letter NOW

 

Tell the FDA to uphold DSHEA and your continued access to beneficial dietary

supplements today!

 

 

At risk are many innovative and particularly effective dietary supplements.

FDA needs to hear from you to preserve your hard-won access to the most

innovative and important health products. Any new guidelines that require

onerous food additive and drug like notifications, excessive testing and

documentation will make the introduction of new products unnecessarily

expensive.

 

This disincentive for companies to develop new health promoting products

will assuredly lead to the reduction of many products that can benefit the

health of Americans It could block consumer access to validated new and

innovative products -- for good. American consumers have the right to these

health enhancing products that are also shown, in many cases, to reduce the

staggering public health burden, and reduce the cost of health care.

We only have a few short weeks to send a strong message. The FDA is

considering comments until February 1,2005. Make sure your voice is heard.

 

Washington, DC needs to hear from at least 25,000 consumers who care about

their health rights. Urge the FDA to ensure that any new guidelines for New

Dietary Ingredients reflect the intent of Congress and continue to provide

complete access to the safe, affordable and innovative dietary supplements

you rely on for your health.

 

Be well,

 

Donna

 

 

Follow Ups:

 

Re: Slipping CODEX in the back door! Archive. PhillyLady [1906.1536]

12:38:14 1/25/05 (0)

 

 

 

Re: Slipping CODEX in the back door! Archive.

Posted by PhillyLady [1906.1536] on January 25, 2005 at 12:32:20:

In Reply to: Re: Slipping CODEX in the back door! Archive. posted by

Alexandria Dumas [2848.20] on January 25, 2005 at 10:36:04:

 

Hi Alexandria:

 

CODEX has stated its objectives and priorities. It appears that the food and

supplement guidelines are set with global agreement/approval in full force.

 

This is taken from the link below from their website:

 

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES AND PRIORITIES

 

6. The fundamental objective of the Codex Alimentarius Commission is to

establish sound internationally agreed guidelines for national food control

systems based on the criteria of consumer health protection and fair

practices in trade and taking into account the needs and special concerns of

all countries. All of the objectives listed below are considered to be

equally important to the overall achievement of the strategic vision.

 

 

 

CODEX: Strategic Objectives (in their own words)

Follow Ups:

 

 

 

Re: Slipping CODEX in the back door! Archive.

Posted by PhillyLady [1906.1536] on January 25, 2005 at 12:38:14:

In Reply to: Re: Slipping CODEX in the back door! Archive. posted by DonnaW

[302.465] on January 25, 2005 at 11:17:38:

 

Hi Donna:

 

Thanks for the info. They can still get around to restricting supplements

that were in use prior to 1994 by claiming that the product is " unsafe " .

That's how they were able to ban ephedra.

 

 

Follow Ups:

 

 

 

Re: Slipping CODEX in the back door! Archive.

Posted by Alexandria Dumas [2848.20] on January 25, 2005 at 14:22:29:

In Reply to: Re: Slipping CODEX in the back door! Archive. posted by

PhillyLady [1906.1536] on January 25, 2005 at 10:47:40:

 

Thanks, found it, finally. Funny how it didn't show up in all my searches on

Thomas. Did you read the text? Here's the summary in case anyone's

interested:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bill Summary & Status for the 108th Congress

 

 

--

 

 

NEW SEARCH

| HOME

| HELP

 

--

 

S.722

 

Title: A bill to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to require

that manufacturers of dietary supplements submit to the Food and Drug

Administration reports on adverse experiences with dietary supplements, and

for other purposes.

 

Sponsor: Sen Durbin, Richard J. [iL]

(introduced 3/26/2003)

Cosponsors (4)

 

 

Latest Major Action: 3/26/2003

Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the

Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.

 

 

--

 

Jump to: Summary, Major Actions, All Actions, Titles, Cosponsors,

Committees, Related Bill Details, Amendments, Summary

 

 

--

SUMMARY AS OF:

 

3/26/2003--Introduced.

Amends the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to require each manufacturer

of a dietary supplement (supplement), and each packer or distributor of a

supplement the name of which appears on the labeling, to report serious

adverse experiences to the Secretary of Health and Human Services and to

investigate such occurrences. Defines a serious adverse experience as an

adverse event associated with the use of a supplement in a human that

involves death or one of other serious calamities. Directs the Secretary to

conduct a clinical evaluation of each such reported experience.

 

Requires the manufacturer of a dietary supplement to report periodically on

other adverse experiences and to review such occurrences.

 

Allows the Secretary to grant a waiver from the above reporting, reviewing,

and investigating requirements with respect to a dietary supplement upon

determination that compliance is not necessary to protect the public health.

 

Authorizes the Secretary to require a manufacturer to conduct postmarket

surveillance for a supplement under specified circumstances.

 

Permits the Secretary to require a manufacturer of a supplement or of an

ingredient in a supplement to demonstrate that its product is safe under

specified circumstances. Directs the Secretary to approve the continued

marketing of such a supplement or ingredient or to disapprove it.

 

Prohibits any introduction into interstate commerce of a supplement

containing a stimulant unless it is approved by the Secretary under this

Act.

 

Amends the Act to exclude a product that bears or contains an anabolic

steroid from the definition of a dietary supplement for a specified chapter

of the Act.

 

Eliminates a provision of the Act requiring the United States to bear the

burden of proof to show a supplement or an ingredient in a supplement is

adulterated due to a safety violation.

 

 

 

--

MAJOR ACTIONS: (color indicates Senate actions)

 

***NONE***

 

 

--

ALL ACTIONS: (color indicates Senate actions)

 

3/26/2003:

Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and

Pensions.

 

4/1/2004:

Introductory remarks on measure. (CR S3547-3548)

 

 

 

--

TITLE(S): (italics indicate a title for a portion of a bill)

 

 

***NONE***

 

 

 

 

--

 

COSPONSORS(4), ALPHABETICAL [followed by Cosponsors withdrawn]: (Sort:

 

by date)

Sen Clinton, Hillary Rodham [NY]

- 7/10/2003 Sen Feinstein, Dianne [CA]

- 7/10/2003

 

Sen McCain, John [AZ]

- 11/4/2003 Sen Schumer, Charles E. [NY]

- 4/2/2003

 

 

 

 

--

COMMITTEE(S):

 

 

 

 

Committee/Subcommittee:

Activity:

 

Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Referral, In Committee

 

 

 

 

 

 

--

RELATED BILL DETAILS:

***NONE***

 

 

 

 

 

--

AMENDMENT(S):

 

***NONE***

 

 

 

 

 

Follow Ups:

 

Re: Slipping CODEX in the back door! Archive. PhillyLady [2051.1599]

20:25:06 1/25/05 (1)

Re: Slipping CODEX in the back door! Archive. Alexandria Dumas [2848.20]

20:46:46 1/25/05 (0)

 

 

 

Re: would this make supplies we already have illegal?

Posted by Walt Stoll [9.1465] on January 25, 2005 at 14:30:59:

In Reply to: would this make supplies we already have illegal? posted by ANN

[1003.516] on January 25, 2005 at 09:21:40:

 

No, Ann.

 

So, it might be wise to stock up and freeze stuff to make it last longer.

 

Walt

 

 

Follow Ups:

 

 

 

Re: Slipping CODEX in the back door! Archive.

Posted by Sapphire [422.1366] on January 25, 2005 at 15:25:25:

In Reply to: Slipping CODEX in the back door! Archive. posted by Walt Stoll

[9.1465] on January 25, 2005 at 06:35:10:

 

Hi Walt,

 

I just sent an email to '60 Minutes " with a copy of this post, and also a

reference to CODEX archives. Maybe they will get interested enough in this

to do an investigative report on CODEX.

 

Sapphire

 

 

Follow Ups:

 

Re: Slipping CODEX in the back door! Archive. dd [1706.26] 00:54:51 1/26/05

(0)

 

 

 

Re: Slipping CODEX in the back door! Archive.

Posted by Marian [15.1641] on January 25, 2005 at 18:32:22:

In Reply to: Slipping CODEX in the back door! Archive. posted by Walt Stoll

[9.1465] on January 25, 2005 at 06:35:10:

 

I am posting this to all the forums I go to. Here is a good link:

 

http://www.congress.org/congressorg/issues/alert/?alertid=6799531 & content_dir=ua\

_congressorg

 

Marian

 

 

Follow Ups:

 

Re: Slipping CODEX in the back door! Archive. Walt Stoll [9.1465] 07:08:54

1/26/05 (0)

 

 

 

Re: Slipping CODEX in the back door! Archive.

Posted by PhillyLady [2051.1599] on January 25, 2005 at 20:25:06:

In Reply to: Re: Slipping CODEX in the back door! Archive. posted by

Alexandria Dumas [2848.20] on January 25, 2005 at 14:22:29:

 

Hi Alexandria:

 

The problem with reporting " adverse conditions " when taking supplements is

that this reporting is NOT scientific and cannot correctly identify the

culprit responsible for those hypothetical adverse reactions.

 

The finger-pointing will ultimately be pointed at the supplement and not

take into account the many other factors responsible for adverse reactions.

 

Example: Man takes harmless supplement with several gulps of Diet Coke

(aspartame). Man suffers light-headedness and vision problems and suspects

the supplement is responsible. Man does not suspect the poisonous Diet Coke.

Man incorrectly reports an adverse reaction to the supplement, not to the

Diet Coke (the real culprit).

 

Result: The supplement is deemed harmful, while the criminal Diet Coke goes

free.

 

 

Follow Ups:

 

Re: Slipping CODEX in the back door! Archive. Alexandria Dumas [2848.20]

20:46:46 1/25/05 (0)

 

 

 

Re: Slipping CODEX in the back door! Archive.

Posted by Alexandria Dumas [2848.20] on January 25, 2005 at 20:46:46:

In Reply to: Re: Slipping CODEX in the back door! Archive. posted by

PhillyLady [2051.1599] on January 25, 2005 at 20:25:06:

 

Exactly. Just like Epidrine. Harmless (and helpful to some) unless abused.

So we get the baseball player who is out of shape and takes it (along with

who knows what else), and voila! Perfect excuse to ban it in this oh so free

country.

 

You know, one thing about that whole situation with the baseball player that

I've always wondered about. Government moves oh so slowly most of the time.

But for some reason in that instance, it took them no time at all to ban

that particular substance. Big Pharma must have had it in the works, just

waiting for the right set of circumstances. People walking in off the street

purchasing an inexpensive bottle from their local health food store must

have really been cutting in on Big Pharma's profits.

 

We are all children you know, and must be protected from ourselves.

 

 

Follow Ups:

 

 

 

Re: Slipping CODEX in the back door! Archive.

Posted by dd [1706.26] on January 26, 2005 at 00:54:51:

In Reply to: Re: Slipping CODEX in the back door! Archive. posted by

Sapphire [422.1366] on January 25, 2005 at 15:25:25:

 

Very good idea Sapphire! Let us know what they say. If

they ignore it, we could ALL bombard them with similar

emails!! Thanks!

 

dd

 

 

Follow Ups:

 

 

 

Re: Slipping CODEX in the back door! Archive.

Posted by Walt Stoll [9.1465] on January 26, 2005 at 07:08:54:

In Reply to: Re: Slipping CODEX in the back door! Archive. posted by Marian

[15.1641] on January 25, 2005 at 18:32:22:

 

Thanks, Marian.

 

I hope everyone who cares contacts everyone they know. If this is not

stopped (possibly too late already) it will set back self-help 100 years.

 

Walt

 

 

Follow Ups:

 

 

[ CODEX Archive ]

[ Main Archives Page ] [ Glossary/Index ]

[ FAQ ] [ Recommended Books ] [ Bulletin Board ] Search this site!

 

Match ANYMatch ALL

 

_______________

Don’t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!

http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/