just by making a guidance

[Guest guest]

Sepp posted:

The FDA is not a law-making body that can change the

rules overnight, just by making a " guidance " .

 

Gail:

The FDA can and does change the rules overnight. It has become a

virtual mafia, a law unto its self. It has violated its own rules and

guide lines when that suits its agenda, and has violated the rules of

this land as passed by congress. It has usurped & grabbed power it was

never meant to have. It has been rebuked by the court but like in the

monster movies, no matter how many times you shoot it down, it just

won't die.

 

It has flagrantly disregarded the original mission for which it was

created' and time and time, both recently and in its history, violated

the law, abused its power, abysmally failed the public trust and

disregarded those they (supposedly) exist to serve.

Serve?? They dictate to us, they act like the divine right rules of

old. Not at all American, as in of the people, by the people, for the

people.

 

While 85% or more of the people want genetically foods labeled, the

FDA says its

" significantly the same " and does not have to be labeled. Though

Americans want to avoid irridated food, the FDA is now moving to allow

irridated foods to be called pasteurized or by some other euphemism.

Most Americans trust the FDA and think it protects them from toxic food

and products; they believe the FDA will not let industry lie to us.

Yet by some quirk of 1984 truth telling, they are going to allow almond

makers to pasteurize---

high heat treat or essentially cook and utilize other processing on

them but still label them RAW......a term implying they are now as they

were at harvest from the tree, (uncooked, unprocessed). Like the song

about Lola, " What ever business wants, business gets "

if, of course, they have the big money to fast tract it, lobby it in,

or install themselves

as a head hancho in the regulatory agency that rules on it.

 

WHAT THE SUPREME COURT SAID

" In sharply worded opinions, the (supreme) Court has repeatedly rebuked

the FDA's " highly paternalistic approach " to keeping information from

people for their own good. When the FDA tried to keep compounding

pharmacies from advertising, the Court warned the agency that whether a

person wants alternative choices is not the government's decision to

make. The searing verdict: Bans against truthful, nonmisleading

commercial speech . . . usually rest solely on the offensive assumption

that the public will respond " irrationally " to the truth. " ... " The

Court further admonished the agency to quit trying to protect favored

markets by suppressing information. "

 

Even after court warnings, The FDA carries forth is self chosen agenda

and

puts out its " Guidance " . You can download it as pdf

here:http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dockets/06d0480/06d0480.htm

 

Be sure to download the second entry GDL1 which is the 17 page

document, not the

NAD1 which is a commentary about the document's purpose.

 

The Truth Will Set You Free.

We have freedom of speech in this country. That does not

give you the right to libel another. But we can speak the truth.

 

Or can we?

 

Maybe it depends on whose money and power base our

speaking the truth is affecting.

 

The guidance will cover food, food additives, food supplements,

pro-biotics,

pre-biotics. God said " I GIVE you every herb and food. Cayce said

for every thing that ails you, there is in nature a cure. And the FDA

said, " no way...not unless I approve, and in the form and amount I

approve of, and likewise I will tell you what you can and cannot

legally say about it and to whom.

 

The guidance goes further: It covers cosmetics (massage oil would be a

cosmetic) and

energy work, body based work (massage/reflexology) and any implement

or device

used in these modalities. It covers biologics (the pre and pro biotics

and other microbial life as found in yougurt, keiffer, etc.). Also

mind body medicine, energy and vibrational modalities, and age -old

other systems such as naturopathy or chinese acupunture/accupressure,

which the FDA now classifies as a " Whole Medical System " .

 

Included as additives to be regulated are vitamins, minerals, amino

acids, digestive

enzymes, however, exempted for regulation as additives are certain

substances such as pesticide residues and color additives.

 

 

It says and I quote verbatim: " To illustrate how a CAM practice might

involve " food " , juice therapy uses juice made from vegetables and

fruits. Absent any claims that would make the juice subject to the

drug definition, the juice would be a " food " under section 20l(f) of

the Act because it is used for food or drink for man " . Oh but don't

you dare say ( or advertise) that it will alkalize the body, thus be

instrumental in healing some health condition that comes from being too

acid. Then that juice treats

you and it is a drug. To use it as a drug you must have FDA approval

based on 'FDA approved testing.

 

You can say cranberry tablets (dietary supplement) will maintain health

but if you say

it prevents urinary tract infections its a drug. Say that and you are

practicing medicine

without a liscence. (page 12 of pdf). Lets extrapolate: I told a

friend that rosemary (a culinary herb) could help her get rid of her

congestion if she would boil some water, put the rosemary in it, then

with a towel over her head and inhale the steamy vapors. I told her

that would carry its antifungal, antiviral, antibacterial qualities of

rosemary through her nasal passages and into her lungs. Under the

proposed guidance, what I did will be considered illegal since I am not

a doctor giving AMA approved advice.

 

If I were a hypnotist (body mind medicine) and told you to crow like a

chicken, I'm entertainment and I am legal. If I tell you your body "

will now remember how to heal itself and your immune system will now

carry toxins from your body quickly and effeciently " .........oh, oh,

thats going to be

medicine and again, I'm not a doctor, so I that would be illegal.

 

If I run an a guided affirmation class, giving you the same suggestion,

well thats practicing medicine too since anything can be considered a

drug if its for " diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention

of disease, or to affect the structure or any function of the body "

Good grief, eating food affects the function of my digestive system.

And eliminatory system, my endocrine system and......

 

The docoument says the intent determines the classification. If as a

massage therapist, and I rub oil on your body to facilitate the

massage, its a cosmetic. But if I rub lavender oil or other herbal oil

on you to help with sore muscles,

I am not massaging you, I am treating (sore muscles) you with a drug

(the oil

ameloriates the pain. page 12 of the pdf.

 

Theoretically, if I smell the flower with full knowledge that it has

aromatheraputic qualities that will help my (fill in the blank with any

dis-ease) I am self medicating. If I tell you too, I practicing

medicine because the flower just became a drug.

 

Seems absurd, but if you think the people in the FDA are kind gentle

people who are wise as solomon, read about their long history of

raiding raw milk dairies (two kids got sick, no indication they even

drank raw milk), or health food stores (sold some item some FDA agent

decided was dangerous like stevia) . They let teachers and principals

demand and force you to put your children on ritalin and turn a blind

eye, yet will storm a doctor's office whois doing something alternative

like treating cancer not only with traditional therapy but also with

vitamin and dietary measures. How odd, the ones they

raid most are the ones that have a good cure rate.

 

They have stormed in gestapo fashion, guns drawn, destroyed and

commandeered equipment and merchandise, taken computers and hard

drives, and tied up business

with red tape and bureaucratic hoops to jump through just to get your

equipment back.

 

 

On TV, you learn that some toasty little O shaped oat cereal will help

your heart, or some flakey other grain will give you a " heart healthy "

life, the FDA does nothing.

 

Processed cereal is not good for you. (Too see just how bad it is, even

health food cereals, see next email). The FDA does nothing about all

that toxicity or about any spurioius cereal claim that its good as

nutrition or good for your heart or for

clogged arteries.

 

Yet when cherry growers say fresh cherries are good for you and cite

evidence from scientific studies from independent sources which have

no vested interested in the outcome, the FDA is all over them, like

flies

on spoiled meat.

 

So now FDA has its PROPOSED " Guidance " - a set of guidelines which on

how they will act in the future. Proposed? They are already

implementing much of it. Ignoring the DSHEA, the law of the land, and

the Supreme Court, they are forging ahead to protect us all as they

see fit, as THEY and no one else defines what that protection is

 

 

 

Here is how they are right now protecting us protecting us from

cherries and cranberries ...............some clips from:

http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag2006

mar2006_cover_cherries_01.htm

 

George Washington cut down one tree. Bureaucrats in Washington, DC, are

trying to pull up the whole orchard. On October 17, 2005, letters went

out from the Food and Drug Administration warning cherry purveyors that

they had better quit telling people that cherries have health benefits

or dire things are going to happen. The lucky recipients were warned

that it's illegal to say things like, " The same chemicals that give

tart cherries their color may relieve pain better than aspirin and

ibuprofen. " testimonials such as " I no longer take any drugs! " had

better cease-or else.

 

Inquiries to the office of Judith Putz, compliance officer for the

FDA's Detroit district office, didn't yield answers beyond that the FDA

had become aware that people were " making claims. "

 

((NOTE: further down, see that this is SUBSTANTIATED info -- and yes it

is " making claims " --claims of truth11!!)

 

At that time, a letter was fired off to the king of cranberries, Ocean

Spray, telling the company that, despite recommendations of the Surgeon

General and the National Research Council, it had better quit repeating

the story that eating foods high in plant nutrients may protect against

some types of cancer and strokes. The alleged criminal acts had

occurred on Ocean Spray's website. Normally, the FDA has no authority

over websites, but the company had put its website address on its

products, and the agency does have authority over labels. On the theory

that the website was now part of the label, the agency moved to censor

what Ocean Spray was saying. In response, the company moved its health

and anti-aging data to the Cranberry Institute's site, thus separating

product from information. Today, however, the site contains a lot of

scientific data about how the proanthocyanidins in cranberries prevent

bacteria from sticking to the urinary tract.

 

((NOTE -- well, well, well, the truth will not set you free, it just

mean your place of business is raided with gun toting gestato like

storm troops, your produce or product taken from you,

your hard drive and hard data commandeered, and land you in jail or

get you heavily fined if the FDA doesn't want that truth told or that

product sold. Since when did the first amendment give special

exemptions for what the FDA wants you not to know without

being a virtual research scientist or professional investigative

reporter in order to ferret it out

-- often armed with the freedom of information act since in some cases

thats the only way you can get that truth released.)))

 

Unlike the cranberry situation, however, the recent attack on cherries

is aimed at statements made on websites not linked to labels. Since the

FDA has no authority to dictate website content-which is regulated by

the Federal Trade Commission-I asked the agency by what authority it

was threatening to seize property and stop people from selling cherry

products. The agency responded that websites are part of the legal

definition of " label. " A reading of the legal definition, however,

reveals that a label is, well, a label-something stuck to a product or

its package

 

Incredibly, the information on cherries that the FDA wants to censor

was funded by a different governmental agency. The US Department of

Agriculture (USDA) gave the cherry industry a $141,210 grant to

investigate the health benefits of cherries

 

The FDA does not want the cherry industry to tell people that recent

studies show that cherries contain substances that are potentially 10

times stronger than aspirin or ibuprofen for relieving pain. It does

not want the public to know that substances in cherries may kill cancer

cells and prevent cancer. It makes no difference whether these

statements are true. What's important is that the public not be told

that a natural substance (cherries) has been shown to work as well as

or better than an unnatural one (ibuprofen). Only drugs, according to

the FDA's legal doctrine, can prevent, treat, mitigate, or cure

disease. If something does those things, it's a drug. And if it's a

drug, it has to be tested for its ability to do those things. In this

double-speak world, no natural substance can do anything significant

against disease-that is, unless it undergoes testing as a drug.

The article goes on with other eye-opening info and facts

 

Meanwhile they let our cosmetics be filled with carcinogenics and BPA

lined baby bottles contaminate the milk that babies drink; they keep

drugs on the market long after other countries have banned them due to

irrefutable proof that they kill or cause serious organs damage.

Meanwhile they practice orwellian speak. Meanwhile they suppress

studies that show substances killed all the rats and say its safe and

approve it.

 

Meanwhile they.........it goes on ad infinitum for a whole libraries

full of literature. This " guidance " is not harmless, its another power

grab and a warning of how yet again, they intend to turn us more into

a nanny state of little children that must be protected from themselves

and told what, how, when, to do with our bodies.

 

Its " just a guidance " ? Harmless well meaning guidance? No its

draconian and

fascist.