TheOmnivore.com June 26, 2005 newsletter

[Guest guest]

If you have difficulty reading this e-mail, please visit:

http://www.theomnivore.com/June_26_2005_Newsletter.html

---

 

YOU'RE ALL SICK!

 

For pharmaceutical companies to establish the widest possible market

for their drugs, they need to convince practitioners and the public

that they possess a real need for these very drugs. One way to do this

is to have drug company-funded researchers and 'opinion-leaders' sit

on the advisory boards that set official health treatment guidelines.

By gradually lowering the upper limits of what constitutes normal

range for a particular measurement, such as blood cholesterol,

millions of potential new customers are created for the drug companies

at the stroke of a pen.

 

This practice has well and truly gotten out of hand: The latest

British Medical Journal reports that new guidelines setting ever lower

thresholds for normal blood pressure and cholesterol mean that 90% of

people over 50 could be labelled as sick!

 

The latest European guidelines on prevention of cardiovascular disease

suggest blood pressure above 140/90 mm Hg, with no age correction, and

serum cholesterol of 5 mmol/l as the appropriate thresholds for being

labelled at risk.

 

While I agree that elevated blood pressure is a cuase for concern (a

concern that should be dealt with using exercise, weight loss, diet,

supplements, and relaxation therapies), claiming that a cholesterol

reading over 5.0 constitues a 'disease' state is absolutely absurd!

 

When researchers applied these guidelines to adults in Norway, they

found that half the population would be considered at risk by the

early age of 24 years, rising to 90% by the age of 49. As much as 76%

of the total adult population would be considered at increased risk.

 

These proportions are disturbingly high, and are likely to be even

higher in other populations, such as the United Kingdom, say the

authors.

 

Potential benefits for treated patients become less at lower risk

levels, note the authors, whereas the rates of side effects remain

similar. Evidence for the long term effectiveness of treatment is also

lacking.

 

Finally, the huge cost of drug treatment for an ever greater

proportion of the population has the potential to destabilise publicly

funded healthcare systems in even the richest nations, they warn.

 

http://bmj.com/cgi/content/full/330/7506/1461

 

---

 

EATING SOY MAY IMPAIR A WOMAN'S FERTILITY

 

Women should avoid eating too much soy if they are trying for a baby,

a UK fertility expert believes. A study in humans has shown a compound

in soy called genistein sabotages the sperm as it swims towards the

egg.

 

Professor Lynn Fraser, from King's College London, said even tiny

doses in the female tract could burn sperm out. She told a European

fertility conference that avoiding soya around women's most fertile

days of the month might aid conception.

 

Professor Fraser tested what happened to human sperm exposed to the

compound in a dish in the lab. The compound kick-started a reaction in

a large proportion of the sperm that gives them the ability to

fertilise an egg. In real life, this does not usually happen until the

sperm have been inside the female for some hours and are close to

completing their long swim towards the egg. Therefore, if women have

genistein in and around the womb this could hamper conception by

making sperm peak too soon, believes Professor Fraser. This could mean

they would not be able to fertilise the egg, she told the annual

meeting of the European Society for Human Reproduction and Embryology.

 

What was especially surprising was that it took smaller doses of

genistein to create infertility problems in human females than in

mice!

 

" We were really surprised. Human sperm proved to be even more

responsive than mouse sperm to genistein, responding to very low

concentrations - well within the amounts that have been measured in

people's blood. "

 

" But it might be best for a woman to avoid them for a few days around

the time she is ovulating. "

 

BBC News June 21, 2005

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4115506.stm

 

---

 

VACCINE BETRAYAL

 

In a recent newsletter I presented readers with a link to a shocking

expose by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. about thimerosal-containing vaccines.

Kennedy's article revealed the concerted efforts of drug companies and

government 'health' agencies to hide the truth about vaccines and the

widespread damage they are causing to our children.

 

This article by Mark Sircus Ac., OMD, Director International Medical

Veritas Association, further expands upon the issue and reports on the

aftermath of Kennedy's revelatons. Learn how the drug

company-sponsored maintream media appears only interested in

personally attacking Kennedy, rather than seriously addressing his

claims:

 

http://www.theomnivore.com/vaccine_betrayal_June_2005.html

 

---

 

MERCK TRIED TO ALTER VIOXX IN 2000

 

Merck & Co. researchers privately sought to reformulate Vioxx in 2000

to reduce its cardiovascular side effects, even as the drug maker was

publicly playing down a study that highlighted the pain relief

medication's potential heart attack risk, an internal company document

shows.

 

http://biz./ap/050622/vioxx_safety.html?.v=9

 

---

 

CAFTA COULD BE DECIDED BY JUST ONE VOTE NEXT WEEK! OUR CALLS MATTER!

STOP CODEX HERE!

 

by John C. Hammell, President

International Advocates for Health Freedom

 

They're going to bring CAFTA to the floor of the House just prior to

the July 4th recess. The Washington Post and the Food and Drug Law

Institute are telling us (see below) that it could pass by a margin as

tight as a SINGLE VOTE! All day I've been calling key people and

organizations so that our movement can FLOOD Congress with phonecalls,

emails and faxes ALL WEEK- next week and everyone is pitching in, so

please do YOUR part!

 

When you call your Congressmen via 202-225-3121 (Capital Switchboard),

ask to speak with your Congressman (give your zipcode if you don't

know their names) and tell them you oppose CAFTA due to harmonization

language contained in the trade agreement which would adversely impact

your access to dietary supplements.

 

If they want to know more, you can read off the form letter on either

of the websites below which you can send in with just one mouseclick.

Please FORWARD THIS and read on for more details including todays

Washington Post article which shows you just how CLOSE this vote is

going to be! Our movement could make a REAL DIFFERENCE in KILLING this

horrible trade agreement which not only threatens to kill your access

to supplements- it also threatens to continue the failed economic

policy of NAFTA which has caused our $617 Billion dollar trade deficit

which threatens to destroy the dollar and our country with it....

 

Please help IAHF, and the Coalition for Health Freedom to sound an

alarm about this. see

http://capwiz.com/lef/mail/oneclick_compose/?alertid=7739691

see http://www.coalitionforhealthfreedom.org/action.html

 

If Codex is set back to step 5 in Rome, it will only be because China,

Venezuela, and Australia want language changes- see

http://www.nutraingredients.com/news/printNewsBis.asp?id=60764

 

Our movement doesn't have any leverage to set things back because our

political reality is that we have no leverage over Scarbrough, or over

any other national delegate. Only South Africa firmly opposes

ratification.

 

We can't assume they won't ratify the standard, and if they do, and

CAFTA goes thru, we'll be set up like bowling pins via Article 3 of

the SPS Agreement which is in CAFTA and FTAA and which states: " To

harmonize sanitary and phytosanitary measures on as wide a basis as

possible, Members SHALL base their food safety measures on

international standards, guidelines or recommendations. "

 

Even if they don't ratify Codex in July, its only a matter of time

before they do and we have no leverage to stop them- but we DO have

leverage to stop CAFTA/ FTAA- but only if we act NOW in large enough

numbers- our movment can actually make a DIFFERENCE here, but only if

enough people help sound the alarm!!!

 

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

 

FOR CAFTA, PARTY PRESSURE AND PORK

 

By Jonathan Weisman

Washington Post Staff Writer

Wednesday, June 22, 2005; Page D01

 

Earlier this month, at a closed-door meeting of Democrats, House

Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) was blunt: Any Democrat who

votes for the Central American Free Trade Agreement will allow an

embattled Republican to squirm off the hook and vote no. A vote for

CAFTA, she said, was a vote to keep the GOP in the majority.

 

It was a speech that was tough enough to make the party's free-traders

cringe, said Rep. James P. Moran Jr. (D-Va.), but both parties are

treating the coming showdown over CAFTA like a political donnybrook.

Democratic leaders are leaning hard on members to keep defections to a

tiny minority, while the Bush administration considers major

concessions on sugar crop subsidies and China trade.

 

If those don't work, administration officials may have to resort to

old-fashioned political pork. " With the Democrats almost united, we

have to deal with the most protectionist Republicans in Congress, and

that means [dealing with] textiles, sugar and whoever else comes

along, " said one U.S. trade official, who spoke on condition of

anonymity because negotiations are ongoing. " If you take 170 Democrats

off the playing field, it means we're going to have to cut some

deals. "

 

" An awful lot is stake here, and control of Congress is the grand

prize, " said Moran, one of only five Democrats who have publicly

pledged to vote for the treaty. " The stakes are very, very high. "

 

>From an economic standpoint, the Central American Free Trade

Agreement

appears to be a relatively minor treaty. The accord would extend

NAFTA-like trading preferences to El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras,

Nicaragua, Costa Rica and the Dominican Republic, six countries whose

combined economies -- at $85 billion in 2003 -- are smaller than the

Czech Republic's.

 

But with a growing backlash against free trade, the treaty has grown

in political importance. Republican Rep. Bob Inglis, whose upstate

South Carolina district includes much of the nation's decimated

textile industry, said he has received more than 1,000 inquiries on

CAFTA, making it the hottest issue since he returned to Congress this

year.

 

In past trade agreements, dozens of Democrats have joined Republican

majorities to help secure passage. But this time, as few as 10 may

vote for it. That means Republicans from hard-hit districts

representing textile mills, machine-tool manufacturers and sugar

growers will have to vote yes if President Bush is to avoid a major

political defeat.

 

" What's different is how much this has become a party-line issue for

the Democrats, which has really raised the pressure on Republicans, "

said Rep. Peter T. King (R-N.Y.).

 

Administration officials had hoped to win passage of the treaty before

Congress's July 4 recess, but they acknowledge they do not have the

votes -- yet. Indeed, Rep. Walter B. Jones Jr. (R-N.C.) said between

20 and 23 House Republicans are solidly against the treaty.

 

But the White House is working hard to chip away at the opposition on

both sides of the aisle. On June 15, in a letter to 14 members of the

House Democratic Hispanic Caucus, Commerce Secretary Carlos M.

Gutierrez tried to answer concerns over the enforcement of labor laws

in the CAFTA countries, offering " a long-term, sustained commitment to

labor capacity-building " in Central America as well as an

international donors conference before the end of July to win aid to

the countries' labor ministries and labor courts.

 

A U.S. trade official, speaking on condition of anonymity because

negotiations are ongoing, said the White House has secured $20 million

to beef up enforcement of labor and environmental laws in the CAFTA

countries.

 

Sugar-state lawmakers late last week presented the White House with a

series of demands drafted by the sugar industry to assuage concerns

that the treaty would undermine the U.S. system of sugar price

supports. They include government purchases of surplus U.S. sugar to

make up for new imports from Central America and assurances that sugar

will be excluded from future trade deals.

 

And yesterday, Bush invited 14 wavering House members to the White

House to listen to their demands. Inglis told Bush he could vote for

the treaty only if a separate, binding agreement is reached with each

of the signatories to ensure that cheap Chinese textiles could not be

brought into Central America, then shipped duty-free to the United

States. Rep. Steven C. LaTourette (R-Ohio) said Bush is unlikely to

win him over, but he wanted to hear how far the White House is willing

to go to force China to float its currency.

 

Such overtures have some leading Democrats convinced CAFTA will

ultimately pass, perhaps by a single vote. Rep. Charles B. Rangel

(N.Y.), the ranking Democrat on the House Ways and Means Committee,

which has jurisdiction over trade, said he has not been swayed by a

personal visit from Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and an

audience with the president. But, he said, others probably will be.

 

" I always had thought it would be impossible to pass this thing

because of the hemorrhaging of Republican votes, " he said, " but that

was before I saw what they were doing to get Democratic votes. If

there's no limit to what they'll pay, they've got to win. "

 

So far, trade officials concede such talks have yielded only limited

results. After one conversation with Bush and three with Gutierrez,

Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-Tex.) said he has been won over.

 

" I am interested in doing the right thing, not in making one political

party look bad, " Cuellar said. " We cannot politicize this type of

agreement. "

 

But Democratic leaders aren't about to bend. House Democratic Caucus

Chairman Robert Menendez (N.J.) said the White House cannot cut

development assistance to Latin America and allow congressional

Republicans to pass anti-immigrant measures, such as the recent

clampdown on driver's license issuances, then come to Latino lawmakers

promising aid in exchange for their votes.

 

" I make of it all to be hollow promises, too little, too late and, to

be honest with you, incredibly offensive, " he said.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic

le/2005/06/21/AR2005062101446.html?nav=rss_business

 

---