Guest guest Posted April 11, 2007 Report Share Posted April 11, 2007 I got an email alerting me to a message from Rima Laibow regarding an FDA guidance that comments are invited on from interested persons. It appears that there is some exaggeration going on. My answer to the question is here below. Kind regards Sepp Sepp Hasslberger 11 aprile 2007 19:49:08 GMT+02:00 GE Re: FDA new draft legislation Gene, can you tell me what exactly is shocking about the FDA discussing what kind of regulation products used in complementary medicine are to be regulated under, and inviting public comment about this? Have you thought of contacting the FDA about getting a copy of the actual draft guidance (if there is more to it than the text that has been published in the Federal Register) and about eventually submitting a comment? It doesn't seem to me that there is anything out of the ordinary with this but please correct me if you know more. If you are referring to this: " their ploy is to declare the therapies are " Medicine " so any non- physician who uses them will be practicing medicine without a license. " which is published on the Rima Laibow article you pointed me to, I don't quite understand. Nowhere in the document referred to does it say or even imply that those therapies should only be practiced by medical doctors. The FDA is not a law-making body that can change the rules overnight, just by making a " guidance " . To me, what is said does not seem particularly alarming, and if anyone says that the FDA is coming after complementary medicine, I cannot immediately see that. The document is an invitation to those interested to comment on a rule or guideline the FDA is considering, on how to regulate products used by complementary medicine. They may be " biological products, cosmetics, drugs, devices, or foods " (including additives or supplements) and they may be regulated either under the FDA act or under another law called the Public Health Service Act. I think that this following statement by Rima Laibow " Public, professional and industry comments are being accepted on the FDA proposal to " capture " alternative procedures and products as " medicine " and then make them illegal. The history of these repressive attacks by the FDA makes it clear that public outcry, IN HUGE NUMBERS, is the only effective tool that natural health supporters have to change this disastrous outcome. Comments will be accepted until April 30. By contacting everyone you can reach to ask for their participation in this comment campaign, we can kill this assault on personal health freedom. " is an exaggeration and a misrepresentation of what is actually happening. If you're concerned, I think the best thing would be to get all the information and to make a comment. But I don't think it is time to cry " wolf " just yet. Here is what the FDA says in the actual document (see below). Kind regards Sepp What the FDA document says: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled ‘‘Complementary and Alternative Medicine Products and Their Regulation by the Food and Drug Administration.’’ In recent years, the practice of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) has increased in the United States, and we have seen increased confusion as to whether certain products used in CAM are subject to regulation under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act) or Public Health Service Act (PHS Act). We have also seen an increase in the number of CAM products imported into the United States. Therefore, the draft guidance discusses when a CAM product is subject to the act or the PHS Act. DATES: Submit written or electronic comments on the draft guidance by April 30, 2007. General comments on agency guidance documents are welcome at any time. FDA is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled ‘‘Complementary and Alternative Medicine Products and Their Regulation by the Food and Drug Administration.’’ The term ‘‘complementary and alternative medicine’’ (CAM) encompasses a wide array of health care practices, products, and therapies that are distinct from practices, products, and therapies used in ‘‘conventional’’ or ‘‘allopathic’’ medicine. In the United States, the practice of CAM has risen dramatically in recent years. In 1992, Congress established the Office of Unconventional Therapies, which later became the Office of Alternative Medicine (OAM), to explore ‘‘unconventional medical practices.’’ In 1998, OAM became the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM). NCCAM is a center within the National Institutes of Health. The Institute of Medicine, in its book entitled, Complementary and Alternative Medicine in the United States, stated that more than one-third of American adults reported using some form of CAM and that visits to CAM providers each year exceed those to primary care physicians (see Institute of Medicine, Complementary and Alternative Medicine in the United States, pages 34 through 35 (2005)). As the practice of CAM has increased in the United States, we have seen increased confusion as to whether certain products used in CAM (which, for convenience, we will refer to as ‘‘CAM products’’) are subject to regulation under the act or the PHS Act. We have also seen an increase in the number of CAM products imported into the United States. Therefore, the draft guidance discusses when a CAM product is subject to the act or the PHS Act. (When the draft guidance mentions a particular CAM therapy, practice, or product, it does so in order to provide background information or to serve as an example or illustration; any mention of a particular CAM therapy, practice, or product should not be construed as expressing FDA’s support for or endorsement of that particular CAM therapy, practice, or product or, unless specified otherwise, as an agency determination that a particular product is safe and effective for its intended uses or is safe for use.) The draft guidance makes the following two fundamental points: • First, depending on the CAM therapy or practice, a product used in a CAM therapy or practice may be subject to regulation as a biological product, cosmetic, drug, device, or food (including food additives and dietary supplements) under the act or the PHS Act. • Second, neither the act nor the PHS Act exempts CAM products from regulation. This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA’s good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when finalized, will represent the agency’s current thinking on the regulation of complementary and alternative medicine products by FDA. It does not create or confer any rights for or on any person and does not operate to bind FDA or the public. An alternative approach may be used if such approach satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations. Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management written or electronic comments regarding this document. On 11/apr/07, at 03:53, GE wrote: > Sepp; > > I received the following thru a friend. > > Shocking. > > The 'tinyurl' site is by Rima Laibow whom you no doubt know. > > So what happens to chiros, NDs, and CCNs I wonder? > > Cheers .... Gene Excoffon > > -------------------- > > On April 30, 2007 the FDA will close the public comment period on a > " Guidance " which will classify every alternative practice as > medicine so that only licensed physicians can carry out the > procedure AND vitamins, minerals, herbs, etc., will suddenly become > " untested drugs " which will be forbidden. > > Bad? Real Bad! But public outcry can stop this assault on your > health and your freedom. > > from the FDA website: > http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/DOCKETSCLOSE/Commentsduehtm > The Draft Guidance > Docket No. 2006D-0480. Draft Guidance for Industry on > Complementary and Alternative Medicine Products and Their > Regulation by the Food and Drug Administration; Availability. > Pages 8756-8757 [FR Doc. E7-3259] [ TXT ] [ PDF ] Comments due > April 30, 2007 > > > Spread the word! Tell everyone in your Circle of Influence, > professionals, alternative practitioners, nutrient and herb > companies, everyone! Let them know how important their > participation is to make sure the FDA backs off from this > repressive course. > > Please share this link with them and urge them to take action: > http://tinyurl.com/2u7ghc > > Yours in health and freedom, > > Kathy Thomas, RN, PHN, Certified Wellness Consultant > > > Take action now at http://www.democracyinaction.org/ > healthfreedomusa/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=7185 & t= > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 12, 2007 Report Share Posted April 12, 2007 Further to my message of yesterday, Gene Excoffon replied and I again commented. Here is the second part of this exchange. As you will see from my reply, I believe that cohesion of the people fighting for health freedom is more important than who's right and who's wrong over the FDA issue. The fact is that the FDA is about to bleed health alternatives to death by a strategy of a thousand small cuts, and that this time is as good as any to stand up and draw that line in the sand... Kind regards Sepp > Sepp Hasslberger <sepp > 12 aprile 2007 17:04:29 GMT+02:00 > GE <gle12 > Re: FDA new draft legislation > > Gene, > > thank you for in turn replying in a thoughtful and measured way. I > cannot argue against what you are saying. > > Although I do not believe that the recent FDA move is a grave as it > is made out to be, it is nevertheless part of a trend that you > describe very well and that is going in a direction of control and > eventual elimination of natural health alternatives. So really the > defenders of natural health options might as well start at any time > in this process to put their foot down and draw a line in the sand. > > The game is one of gradual erosion of the freedoms the people in > the US secured with the passage of DSHEA. Each step taken is not > grave enough to get too concerned about, but together, they go in > the direction that you have outlined. > > So while I do not believe the arguments of Rima are entirely > factual, I give her credit for starting the ball rolling in the > right direction. If her campaign can be brought together with what > John Hammell is doing, warning of the impending takeover of the US > by a newly-to-be-established North American Union, which includes > some ugly prospects for health freedom as well, I think the people > of the (North) American continent have a chance to turn things around. > > If, on the other hand, politics and petty distinctions prevail, > you're done for. > > I will, in the interests of fairness and complete information > forward your reply and this message to the same people to whom I > forwarded your previous message and my reply of yesterday. > > Kind regards > Sepp > > > > On 12/apr/07, at 14:04, GE wrote: > >> Sepp: >> >> Thanks for the thoughtful reply. >> >>> can you tell me what exactly is shocking about the FDA discussing >>> what kind of regulation products used in complementary medicine >>> are to be regulated under, and inviting public comment about this? >>> >> We have always known that the FDA had the ability to declare any >> natural substance a drug regardless of whether generally >> recognized as safe or not. I'm sure you know that the FDA has gone >> after cherry growers in WA State for making health claims about >> the healthy benefits of eating cherries or drinking cherry juice. >> Another business owner was told that even water could be declared >> a drug if health claims were made for it! >> http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag2006/mar2006_awsi_01.htm >> >> In fact the FDA says in its own docket >> " ...if a person decides to produce and sell raw vegetable juice >> for use in juice therapy to promote optimal health... [and] if the >> juice therapy is intended for use as part of a disease treatment >> regimen instead of for the general wellness, the vegetable juice >> would also be subject to regulation as a drug under the Act. " >> The point here is that ONLY drugs will be considered as legitimate >> for treatment of any disease, more formally. Henceforth nutrition >> and supplements can be used for treating disease BUT they are >> then being used as untested new drugs and can only be administered >> thru a 'licensed physician'. This is the situation in Norway which >> harmonized with Codex so that vitamin C above a certain amount is >> a Rx drug and costs 600% more than it used to. The same is true of >> most of Europe. The USA is the stand-out exception due to the >> DHSEA. I believe that this is about to change - and they will use >> NAFTA instead of / in addition to Codex to kill easy access. >> >> There are many problems with that >> 1) Nutrients and supplements are not drugs regardless of the >> intent behind their use. Their safety is as old as the use >> of such natural substances and plants by humanity over millennia >> 2) MDs know NOTHING about health and nutrition. Not only are they >> not taught but they are taught instead that 'vitamins just >> make expensive urine'. (Not as expensive as Rx drugs actually). >> 3) A MD who is absolutely not qualified by the years of clinical >> nutrition training should never be in a position to decide whether >> to earn the prescribing bonus of a Rx drug or use a supplement. >> They are not qualified and are biased. >> 4) It seems that NDs and CCNs (certified clinical nutrionists) and >> RCNs will be largely put out of business because they are not >> 'licensed physicians' who alone can treat disease. >> What's wrong with that? We know full well that cancer is treatable >> by supplements as Dr Kelley convincingly proved with more than >> 33,000 patients. We even know what causes cancer - the etiology - >> which was discovered more than a century go and Nobels awared in >> 1931 and 1944 (Otto Warburg). But it is all heavily, heavily >> suppressed so that ONLY MDS and the Medical Mafia are legally >> allowed to 'treat' cancer. The result is that cancer is one of the >> top two 'official' leading causes of death. I say official because >> unofficially MDs are the leading cause of death in industrialized >> nations. Even JAMA in Aug 2000 admitted that MDs were the third >> leading cause of death. Now if JAMA, which has a vested interest >> position as the publication organ of the Medical Mafia, will >> confess to 'third' then you know it must be a lot worse than >> that. And sure enough within 2 years further studies by less self- >> serving interests conservatively found MDs to be the leading cause >> of death (Dr Gary Null, Dr Carolyn Dean et al). >> >> So we see the result of allowing the FDA to further entrench this >> type of approach. Death rates will climb further. The approach >> with cancer is the proof of failure. No one needs to die of cancer >> proving they have access to the supplements which are extremely >> tightly controlled and in fact not allowed to be made or sold in >> some cases in the USA. Dr Kelly had to make his own enzyme >> formulas. But a cure for cancer cannot even be published without >> risking imprisonment. As Dr Kelley found out, surviving and curing >> his terminal cancer was the easy part - the harassment and >> attempts to destroy him financially, professionally and even >> physically continued for decades after he started helping others >> do what he had done. >> >>> Have you thought of contacting the FDA about getting a copy of >>> the actual draft guidance (if there is more to it than the text >>> that has been published in the Federal Register) and about >>> eventually submitting a comment? >> Granted the first docket info link I fwded from my source may >> refer more to the comment period than the detail itself, so was >> indirect. But this other one was mentioned >> http://www.fda.gov/OHRMS/DOCKETS/98fr/06d-0480-gld0001.pdf >> >> Here is a quote >> To illustrate how these definitions might apply, consider an >> herbal product that is >> intended to treat arthritis in humans. The herbal product, which >> would be a " biologically >> based practice " insofar as CAM domains are concerned, would be a >> " drug " under section >> 201 (g)(l)(B) of the Act because it is intended for use in the >> diagnosis, cure, mitigation, >> treatment, or prevention of disease (arthritis) in man. The same >> herbal product would >> also be a " new drug " under section 201 (p)(l) of the Act unless it >> is generally recognized, >> among experts qualified by scientific training and experience to >> evaluate the safety and >> effectiveness of drugs, as safe and effective for use under the >> conditions prescribed, >> recommended, or suggested in the labeling. " New drug " status >> triggers the Act's >> requirements for premarket review and approval by FDA.'~ >> These are the same people that gave is Vioxx and Celebrex which >> has killed more Americans than the Viet Nam war (by double >> according to some estimates) and last I heard involved some 15,000 >> lawsuits. >>> The FDA is not a law-making body that can change the rules >>> overnight, just by making a " guidance " . >> Technically that's true but in practice what they decide to >> enforce renders them much like a law unto themselves. The guidance >> is a 'draft' for coming legislation and likely a new trend in >> enforcement. For example I called Health Canada not long ago >> because a product ordered from the USA was turned back at the >> border. I protested that is was only a herbal supplement >> (contained nettle root). They said that if they wished to they >> could today require that all vitamin C require a Rx, but that >> their enforcement of the law had not yet become that strict. I >> pointed out that it was legal under DHSEA and that is not from >> some third rate country. They replied that the DHSEA is far too >> lenient and should be abolished. Argh. >> >> Under the new NAFTA agreement (MUCH) the new policies will be >> lead by Mexico which has the most draconian access laws, and I >> believe DHSEA will be neutered. It is an end-run around Congress >> and Parliament. As with the EU, NAFTA now has another level of >> policy makers that claim to supercede mere 'national' laws. More >> on that here >> http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55028 >> >>> I think that this following statement by Rima Laibow ... >>> is an exaggeration and a misrepresentation of what is actually >>> happening. >>> >> It would seem so on the sruface. It is the direction they are >> moving towards and face value is not trustworthy for statements >> made by the FDA. Always one must look at past actions and global >> context (Codex). >> >> Rima has quit her practice to fight Codex full time with her >> husband so is no mere alarmist. She personally attends Codex >> metings in Europe and lobbies diligently against them. I have to >> cut her some slack that she is well informed.... better than I am. >> >> But apart from that I do think her 'capture' comments are indeed >> the hidden agenda - rather than the stated one of course. Will >> chiros and osteos be affected? It depends upon the definition of >> 'licensed physician'. To me they qualify as such so should be >> exempt but we also know from the Wilks case that the attempt by >> the Medical Mafia to kill those disciplines is a never ending >> campaign to squash all competition to Medicine and Big Pharma. So >> they may also decide that these professions can no longer 'treat', >> just as 'juices' or herbs used to 'treat' will be considered 'new >> drugs'. >> >> Thus what is exaggeration to one might be shocking to another - as >> an enunciated new policy direction. It was less out in the open >> before and not strictly enforced. >> >> Here is another take on it from News Target. >> http://www.newstarget.com/021789.html >> >> To effect the NAFTA changes, the FDA and regulatory agencies in >> Canada and Mexico will have to HARMonize their legislation and >> procedures. Congress and Parliament will simply be bypassed as >> with the SPP and NASCO. That's my take. But Hamell is an old >> experienced hand at this and a one man army for many years back in >> the 80s - utterly astonishing how he was everywhere. He is a >> major asset to the health freedom movement. Like Linus Pauling he >> takes some 20,000 mg a day of vitamin C and has for decades so has >> a keen personal interest too. >> >> This is not just about vitamins, it is about the real health >> professions and health itself. >> >> I don't think even most health professionals understand that the >> Club of Rome drives the agenda for the UN, WHO/WTO, Codex A., and >> that their stated goal is de-population of the Earth from current >> levels (6.5 billion) down to no more than 2 Billion. As Rima says >> in the video on her web site, Codex themselves estimate that a >> combination of changes to controls on medicine, supplements and >> food is estimated to reap a de-population target of 3 billion in >> themselves. As a Rockefeller rep at the UN once said " control food >> and you control the people " . Mass starvation looms as a >> possibility eventually, crop failures and health detriments via GM >> and pesticides à la Monsanto (Mondiablo), and lack of access to >> healthy alternatives like certified organic raw milk and >> unprocessed foods. >> >> In other words restricting access to supplements and Medical Mafia >> invasion of CAM moves in the wrong direction if one is for health, >> and in the right direction if the intent is to continue or >> accelerate the kill rate by MDs, already a leading cause of death. >> It is not even about profits anymore except as an incidental. It >> is almost a NAZI-like hatred of humanity justified by ecology >> arguements about saving the planet. >> >> The thin edge of the wedge is now getting fatter with the above >> policy trends. >> >> Kind regards .... Gene Excoffon >> >> ======================= >> >> Sepp Hasslberger wrote: >>> Gene, >>> >>> can you tell me what exactly is shocking about the FDA discussing >>> what kind of regulation products used in complementary medicine >>> are to be regulated under, and inviting public comment about this? >>> >>> Have you thought of contacting the FDA about getting a copy of >>> the actual draft guidance (if there is more to it than the text >>> that has been published in the Federal Register) and about >>> eventually submitting a comment? >>> >>> It doesn't seem to me that there is anything out of the ordinary >>> with this but please correct me if you know more. >>> >>> If you are referring to this: >>> >>> " their ploy is to declare the therapies are " Medicine " so any non- >>> physician who uses them will be practicing medicine without a >>> license. " >>> >>> which is published on the Rima Laibow article you pointed me to, >>> I don't quite understand. Nowhere in the document referred to >>> does it say or even imply that those therapies should only be >>> practiced by medical doctors. The FDA is not a law-making body >>> that can change the rules overnight, just by making a " guidance " . >>> >>> To me, what is said does not seem particularly alarming, and if >>> anyone says that the FDA is coming after complementary medicine, >>> I cannot immediately see that. The document is an invitation to >>> those interested to comment on a rule or guideline the FDA is >>> considering, on how to regulate products used by complementary >>> medicine. They may be " biological products, cosmetics, drugs, >>> devices, or foods " (including additives or supplements) and they >>> may be regulated either under the FDA act or under another law >>> called the Public Health Service Act. >>> >>> I think that this following statement by Rima Laibow >>> >>> " Public, professional and industry comments are being accepted on >>> the FDA proposal to " capture " alternative procedures and products >>> as " medicine " and then make them illegal. The history of these >>> repressive attacks by the FDA makes it clear that public outcry, >>> IN HUGE NUMBERS, is the only effective tool that natural health >>> supporters have to change this disastrous outcome. Comments will >>> be accepted until April 30. By contacting everyone you can reach >>> to ask for their participation in this comment campaign, we can >>> kill this assault on personal health freedom. " >>> >>> is an exaggeration and a misrepresentation of what is actually >>> happening. >>> >>> If you're concerned, I think the best thing would be to get all >>> the information and to make a comment. But I don't think it is >>> time to cry " wolf " just yet. >>> >>> Here is what the FDA says in the actual document (see below). >>> >>> Kind regards >>> Sepp >>> >>> >>> >>> What the FDA document says: >>> >>> The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the >>> availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled >>> ‘‘Complementary and Alternative Medicine Products and Their >>> Regulation by the Food and Drug Administration.’’ In recent >>> years, the practice of complementary and alternative medicine >>> (CAM) has increased in the United States, and we have seen >>> increased confusion as to whether certain products used in CAM >>> are subject to regulation under the Federal Food, Drug, and >>> Cosmetic Act (the act) or Public Health Service Act (PHS Act). We >>> have also seen an increase in the number of CAM products imported >>> into the United States. Therefore, the draft guidance discusses >>> when a CAM product is subject to the act or the PHS Act. >>> >>> DATES: Submit written or electronic comments on the draft >>> guidance by April 30, 2007. General comments on >>> agency guidance documents are welcome at any time. >>> >>> FDA is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for >>> industry entitled ‘‘Complementary and Alternative Medicine >>> Products and Their Regulation by the Food and Drug Administration.’’ >>> >>> The term ‘‘complementary and alternative medicine’’ (CAM) >>> encompasses a wide array of health care practices, products, and >>> therapies that are distinct from practices, products, and >>> therapies used in ‘‘conventional’’ or >>> ‘‘allopathic’’ medicine. In the United States, the practice of >>> CAM has risen dramatically in recent years. In 1992, Congress >>> established the Office of Unconventional Therapies, which later >>> became the Office of Alternative Medicine (OAM), to explore >>> ‘‘unconventional medical practices.’’ In 1998, OAM became the >>> National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine >>> (NCCAM). NCCAM is a center within the National Institutes of >>> Health. The Institute of Medicine, in its book entitled, >>> Complementary and Alternative Medicine in the United States, >>> stated that more than one-third of American adults reported using >>> some form of CAM and that visits to CAM providers each year >>> exceed those to primary care physicians (see Institute of >>> Medicine, Complementary and Alternative Medicine in the United >>> States, pages 34 through 35 (2005)). >>> >>> As the practice of CAM has increased in the United States, we >>> have seen increased confusion as to whether certain products used >>> in CAM (which, for convenience, we will refer to as ‘‘CAM >>> products’’) are subject to regulation under the act or the PHS >>> Act. We have also seen an increase in the number of CAM products >>> imported into the United States. Therefore, the draft guidance >>> discusses when a CAM product is subject to the act or the PHS >>> Act. (When the draft guidance mentions a particular CAM therapy, >>> practice, or product, it does so in order to provide background >>> information or to serve as an example or illustration; any >>> mention of a particular CAM therapy, practice, or product should >>> not be construed as expressing FDA’s support for or endorsement >>> of that particular CAM therapy, practice, or product or, unless >>> specified otherwise, as an agency determination that a particular >>> product is safe and effective for its intended uses or is safe >>> for use.) The draft guidance makes the following two fundamental >>> points: >>> >>> • First, depending on the CAM therapy or practice, a product used >>> in a CAM therapy or practice may be subject to regulation as a >>> biological product, cosmetic, drug, device, or food (including >>> food additives and dietary supplements) under the act or the PHS >>> Act. >>> >>> • Second, neither the act nor the PHS Act exempts CAM products >>> from regulation. >>> >>> This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA’s good >>> guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). >>> >>> The draft guidance, when finalized, will represent the agency’s >>> current thinking on the regulation of complementary and >>> alternative medicine products by FDA. It does not create or >>> confer any rights for or on any person and does not operate to >>> bind FDA or the public. An alternative approach may be used if >>> such approach satisfies the requirements of the applicable >>> statutes and regulations. >>> >>> Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets >>> Management written or electronic >>> comments regarding this document. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 11/apr/07, at 03:53, GE wrote: >>> >>>> Sepp; >>>> >>>> I received the following thru a friend. >>>> >>>> Shocking. >>>> >>>> The 'tinyurl' site is by Rima Laibow whom you no doubt know. >>>> >>>> So what happens to chiros, NDs, and CCNs I wonder? >>>> >>>> Cheers .... Gene Excoffon >>>> >>>> -------------------- >>>> >>>> On April 30, 2007 the FDA will close the public comment period >>>> on a " Guidance " which will classify every alternative practice >>>> as medicine so that only licensed physicians can carry out the >>>> procedure AND vitamins, minerals, herbs, etc., will suddenly >>>> become " untested drugs " which will be forbidden. >>>> >>>> Bad? Real Bad! But public outcry can stop this assault on your >>>> health and your freedom. >>>> >>>> from the FDA website: >>>> http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/DOCKETSCLOSE/Commentsduehtm >>>> The Draft Guidance >>>> Docket No. 2006D-0480. Draft Guidance for Industry on >>>> Complementary and Alternative Medicine Products and Their >>>> Regulation by the Food and Drug Administration; Availability. >>>> Pages 8756-8757 [FR Doc. E7-3259] [ TXT ] [ PDF ] Comments due >>>> April 30, 2007 >>>> >>>> >>>> Spread the word! Tell everyone in your Circle of Influence, >>>> professionals, alternative practitioners, nutrient and herb >>>> companies, everyone! Let them know how important their >>>> participation is to make sure the FDA backs off from this >>>> repressive course. >>>> >>>> Please share this link with them and urge them to take action: >>>> http://tinyurl.com/2u7ghc >>>> >>>> Yours in health and freedom, >>>> >>>> Kathy Thomas, RN, PHN, Certified Wellness Consultant >>>> >>>> >>>> Take action now at http://www.democracyinaction.org/ >>>> healthfreedomusa/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=7185 & t= >>>> >>>> >>> >> > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.