WHO + FAO Go Thru Motions Of Soliciting Public Input Of Safe Levels Of Nutrie

[Guest guest]

13 Nov 2004 21:36:01 -0000

" IAHF.COM " <jham

 

Subject:WHO + FAO GO THRU MOTIONS OF " SOLICITING PUBLIC INPUT " FOR

" DEVELOPMENT " OF " SAFE UPPER LEVELS FOR NUTRIENTS "

 

IAHF Webmaster: Breaking News, Whats New, What to Do, All Countries,

Codex

 

IAHF List:

 

In pushing the Codex vitamin standard through to completion at step 8,

Codex just passed a framework, intending to " fill in the blanks " on

allowable potency levels for vitamins " later. " (One of the sleazy NWO

tactics of incrementalism used to sidestep a public backlash.)

 

They've convened a " working group on Risk Analysis " chaired by

Australia for that purpose.

This working group will be interracting with a WHO panel described

below which is currently pretending to solicit input from us til December

10th

 

(See details below, but first read the information from two key health

freedom fighters, Brian Leibovitz, PhD and Alan Gaby, MD who expose the

scientific fraudulence of what WHO and CODEX are attempting to foist

off on us.)

 

 

WHAT PEOPLE IN THE US, CANADA, MEXICO, CENTRAL and SOUTH AMERICA CAN DO

TO STOP HARM-ONIZATION

 

One thing is clear to me: Americans and others in our hemisphere must

work very hard in opposition to the FTAA (Free Trade Area of the

Americas)- see http://www.stoptheftaa.org because that will be the

primary

weapon used to try to harmonize our dietary supplement laws to this

mindless emerging international " standard. "

 

Yesterday I read a commentary about the FTAA and the Sanitary

Phytosanitary Measures Agreement- which is how the USA is roped into

harmonizing

its vitamin laws to an international standard. If you'd like to you can

read that in this HARMONIZATION ALERT

http://www.citizen.org/documents/Final2JulyOctoberHarm.PDF

 

Before you examine the mindless message below from our would be masters

at the so called " World Health Organization " whose intention is clearly

to limit our access high potency vitamins, minerals, and other dietary

supplements for eugenics purposes while going through the motions of

" being fair " as they go about screwing us, read these article from people

on OUR SIDE who have EXPOSED this insanity:

 

1) The ABC's of Confustion as a Weapon: by Brian Leibovitz, PhD former

editor of the Journal of Applied Nutrition, former editor of the

Journal of Optimal Nutrition

committed suicide in part due to extreme depression over the coming

global genocide via CODEX blocking consumer access to nutrients:

http://www.iahf.com/leibovitz/jon.html#CONFUSE

 

Leibovitz gives Dr.John Hathcock (then of the FDA) a " BS " or " Bad

Science " Award in his editorial in which he criticizes Hathcock for

stringing together the largest number of inane acronyms ever strung

together in

a supposedly " scientific " article as Leibovitz creates such confusing

and worthless concepts as " NOAEL " (No Observable Adverse Effect Level)

and " LOAEL " (Lowest Observable Adverse Effect Level) and others.

Leibovitz criticizes Hathcock for misextrapolating from a toxicology risk

assessment formula originally intended to be used in the assessment of

toxic chemical substances and misapplying them to SAFE NUTRIENTS.

 

The problem vitamin consumers world wide face today is that Hathcock's

bad science, (originally developed when he worked at FDA), is now being

used as the " basis " to establish " one size fits all " allowable

potencies that totally IGNORE biochemical individuality. Hathcock as

moved from

the FDA to the Council for Responsible Nutrition, the pharma dominated

vitamin trade association that has done such a good job of pulling the

wool over the eyes of its vitamin company members vis a vis CODEX.

 

2) Safe Upper Levels for Nutritional Supplements: One Giant Step

Backward- by Alan Gaby, MD http://www.iahf.com/20040127.html

In this article, which was published in the Journal of Orthomolecular

Medicine Volume 18 Third & Fourth Quarters, 2003 Numbers 3 & 4, Gaby

exposes the scientific fraudulence of a report generated by the UK's

" Expert Group on Vitamins and Minerals " (one of the groups cited by

the WHO

as being directly involved in their deliberations for creating global

allowable " Safe Upper Levels " )

 

 

THE MAIN SUBJECT OF THIS EMAIL:

 

WHO + FAO ANNOUNCE " NUTRIENT RISK ASSESSMENT PROJECT TO DEFINE SCIENCE

BASED- INTERNATIONALLY APPLICABLE STANDARD "

http://www.who.int/ipcs/highlights/nutrientraproject/en/

 

Background Paper Including Questions They're Pretending to Solicit

Public Input On (To Attempt to Give the Public Appearance of

" Fairness " and

" Transparency " )

http://www.who.int/ipcs/highlights/en/nutrient_background.pdf

 

Nonsensical Questions they're pretending to ask for " input " on:

(Deadline of December 10th, '2004)

 

QUESTIONS: REQUEST FOR COMMENT

 

As a result of the considerations in this Background Paper and in

anticipation of convening a technical workshop on nutrient risk

assessment,

FAO/WHO are seeking input on several key issues related to the

development of an international approach for nutrient risk assessment.

 

Response to the questions below are being accepted electronically

through 10 December 2004.

 

(1) The Background Paper discusses the possibility that hazard

identification and hazard characterization have global relevance, while

exposure assessment and risk characterization are relevant to

populations. If

such a conceptual framework for the four steps is appropriate, then

scientific principals could be organized and considered along these same

lines.

 

Question (1)(a) Is the distinction between global relevanace and

population relevance for the 4 risk assessment steps a meaningful

distincition for the purposes of developing an international risk

nutrient risk

assessment approach? (Please indicate why or why not.)

 

Question (1) (b) If so, please provide specific suggestions about how

best to further articulate and made good use of the differences in

identifying the scientific principles for nutrient risk assessment.

 

(2) Hazard identification and characterization involve a number of

decision points that require scientific judgement in order to derive a

UL.

Please provide input as to how guidelines for these judgements can be

developed for the following decision points:

 

Question (2)(a) Criteria for the evaluation of the quality and utility

of relevant scientific evidence.

 

Question (2)(b) Extrapolation to various age, gender groups

 

Question (2) © Determination and use of uncertainty factors.

 

Question (2) (d) Other

 

(3) The conduct of exposure assessment and risk characterization also

requires sound scientific principles that can be applied to the various

decision points, including but not limited to compilation and

collection of intake data and decision making for summarizing the

potential for

harm.

 

Question (3) (a) Please provide input on general scientific principals

relevant to the process of determining exposure for a nutrient or

related substance.

 

Question (3) (b) Please provide input on general scientific principles

for the charictarization of the severity and degree to which intakes

exceed the UL or other aspects of risk characterization.

 

(4) The Background Paper reflects a " thought process " and is intended

to inform the longer process for the development of a technical expert

workshop. Clearly the process will benefit from additional input.

 

Question (4) (a) Please provide comments on other general factors or

considerations that could be taken into account during the process of

identifying principles for nutrient risk assessment.

 

Question (4) (b) Please provide other comments on the content of the

Background Paper.

 

If you wish to respond to these questions, please access the Nutrient

Risk Assessment Project web page available on the International

Programme on Chemical Safety (IPCS) website http://www.who.int/icps/en

 

CALL FOR INFORMATION

 

If you are aware of other resources, information or documents that

would be useful, we would appreciate your providing them or calling

them to

our attention. The Call for Information is included on the Nutrient

Risk Assessment web page. Persons who wish to submit information are

informed that they can forward such submissions to the following address:

 

ATTN: Nutrient Risk Assessment Project

International Programme on Chemical Safety

World Health Organization

20 Avenue Appia

CH-1211 Geneva 27 Switzerland

or nrproject

 

--

For Health Freedom,

John C. Hammell, President

International Advocates for Health Freedom

556 Boundary Bay Road

Point Roberts, WA 98281-8702 USA

http://www.iahf.com

jham

800-333-2553 N.America

360-945-0352 World

 

______________________