Actor Jim Carrey: The Judgment on Vaccines Is In?

by Jim Carrey

Recently, I was amazed to hear a commentary by CNN’s Campbell Brown on the controversial vaccine issue. After a ruling by the ’special vaccine court’ saying the Measles, Mumps, Rubella shot wasn’t found to be responsible for the plaintiffs’ autism, she and others in the media began making assertions that the judgment was in, and vaccines had been proven safe. No one would be more relieved than Jenny and I if that were true.

But with all due respect to Ms. Brown, a ruling against causation in three cases out of more than 5000 hardly proves that other children won’t be adversely affected by the MMR, let alone that all vaccines are safe. This is a huge leap of logic by anyone’s standards. Not everyone gets cancer from smoking, but cigarettes do cause cancer. After 100 years and many rulings in favor of the tobacco companies, we finally figured that out.

The truth is that no one without a vested interest in the profitability of vaccines has studied all 36 of them in depth. There are more than 100 vaccines in development, and no tests for cumulative effect or vaccine interaction of all 36 vaccines in the current schedule have ever been done. If I’m mistaken, I challenge those who are making such grand pronouncements about vaccine safety to produce those studies.

If we are to believe that the ruling of the ‘vaccine court’ in these cases mean that all vaccines are safe, then we must also consider the rulings of that same court in the Hannah Polling and Bailey Banks cases, which ruled vaccines were the cause of autism and therefore assume that all vaccines are unsafe. Clearly both are irresponsible assumptions, and neither option is prudent.

In this growing crisis, we cannot afford to blindly trumpet the agenda of the CDC, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) or vaccine makers. Now more than ever, we must resist the urge to close this book before it’s been written. The anecdotal evidence of millions of parents who’ve seen their totally normal kids regress into sickness and mental isolation after a trip to the pediatrician’s office must be seriously considered. The legitimate concern they and many in the scientific community have that environmental toxins, including those found in vaccines, may be causing autism and other disorders (Aspergers, ADD, ADHD), cannot be dissuaded by a show of sympathy and a friendly invitation to look for the ‘real’ cause of autism anywhere but within the lucrative vaccine program.

With vaccines being the fastest growing division of the pharmaceutical industry, isn’t it possible that profits may play a part in the decision-making? That the vaccine program is becoming more of a profit engine than a means of prevention? In a world left reeling from the catastrophic effects of greed, mismanagement and corporate insensitivity, is it so absurd for us to wonder why American children are being given twice as many vaccines on average, compared to the top 30 first world countries?

Paul Offit, the vaccine advocate and profiteer, who helped invent a Rotavirus vaccine is said to have paved the way for his own multi-million dollar windfall while serving on the very council that eventually voted his Rotavirus vaccine onto our children’s schedule. On August 21, 2000 a congressional investigation’s report titled, “Conflicts in Vaccine Policy,” stated:

It has become clear over the course of this investigation that the VRBPAC and the ACIP [the two main advisory boards that determine the vaccine schedule] are dominated by individuals with close working relationships with the vaccine producers. This was never the intent of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, which requires that a diversity of views be represented on advisory committees.

Isn’t that enough to raise questions about the process of choosing the vaccine schedule?

With many states like Minnesota now reporting the number at 1 in 80 children affected with autism, can we afford to trust those who serve two masters or their logic that tells us “one size fits all” when it comes to vaccines? Can we afford to ignore vaccines as a possible cause of these rising numbers when they are one of the fastest growing elements in our children’s environment? With all the doubt that’s left hanging on this topic, how can anyone in the media or medical profession, boldly demand that all parents march out and give their kids 36 of these shots, six at a time in dosage levels equal to that given to a 200 pound man? This is a bias of the most dangerous kind.

I’ve also heard it said that no evidence of a link between vaccines and autism has ever been found. That statement is only true for the CDC, the AAP and the vaccine makers who’ve been ignoring mountains of scientific information and testimony. There’s no evidence of the Lincoln Memorial if you look the other way and refuse to turn around. But if you care to look, it’s really quite impressive. For a sample of vaccine injury evidence go to www.generationrescue.org/lincolnmemorial.html.

We have never argued that people shouldn’t be immunized for the most serious threats including measles and polio, but surely there’s a limit as to how many viruses and toxins can be introduced into the body of a small child. Veterinarians found out years ago that in many cases they were over-immunizing our pets, a syndrome they call Vaccinosis. It overwhelmed the immune system of the animals, causing myriad physical and neurological disorders. Sound familiar? If you can over-immunize a dog, is it so far out to assume that you can over-immunize a child? These forward thinking vets also decided to remove thimerosal from animal vaccines in 1992, and yet this substance, which is 49% mercury, is still in human vaccines. Don’t our children deserve as much consideration as our pets?

I think I’d rather listen to the more sensible voice of Dr. Bernadine Healy, former head of the National Institute of Health, who says:

Listen to the patients and the patients will teach… I think there is an inexcusable issue, and that’s the lack of research that’s been done here… A parent can legitimately question giving a one-day old baby, or a two-day old baby [the] Hepatitis B vaccine that has no risk for it [and] the mother has no risk for it. That’s a heavy-duty vaccine given on day two [of life]. I think those are legitimate questions.

Dr. Healy is also calling for a long overdue study of vaccinated vs. unvaccinated. Dr. Frank Engly, a researcher and microbiologist who served on the boards of the CDC, FDA and EPA during the 70s and 80s, warned:

The CDC cannot afford to admit thimerosal is toxic because they have been promoting it for several years… If they would have followed through with our 1982 report, vaccines would have been freed of thimerosal and all this autism as they tell me would not have occurred. But as it is, it all occurred.

In all likelihood the truth about vaccines is that they are both good and bad. While ingredients like aluminum, mercury, ether, formaldehyde and anti-freeze may help preserve and enhance vaccines, they can be toxic as well. The assortment of viruses delivered by multiple immunizations may also be a hazard. I agree with the growing number of voices within the medical and scientific community who believe that vaccines, like every other drug, have risks as well as benefits and that for the sake of profit, American children are being given too many, too soon. One thing is certain. We don’t know enough to announce that all vaccines are safe!

If the CDC, the AAP and Ms. Brown insist that our children take twice as many shots as the rest of the western world, we need more independent vaccine research not done by the drug companies selling the vaccines or by organizations under their influence. Studies that cannot be internally suppressed. Answers parents can trust. Perhaps this is what Campbell Brown should be demanding and how the power of the press could better serve the public in the future.

– Jim Carrey

Top 10 Ways to Know You're Living in a Medical Police State

NaturalNews.com

by Mike Adams, NaturalNews Editor

Are Americans really living in a medical police state? The recent news with Daniel Hauser and his family's fight over chemotherapy seems to indicate so. Here are ten ways to recognize whether you're living under the oppressive tyranny of a medical police state.

#1 - If an armed U.S. Marshall is posted outside your house at night -- just to make sure you don't escape "treatment" -- you're probably living in a medical police state.

Source: "Daniel was allowed to spend the night at home, but County Attorney James Olson said a deputy was posted at the Hauser farm in Sleepy Eye." (FoxNews)

#2 - If saying "I'd rather not inject my child with that poison" to your doctor results in him calling Child Protective Services, you're most likely living in a medical police state.

#3 - If a nationwide manhunt (involving FBI agents) is unleashed just to find you and drag you back to the hospital to submit to dangerous pharmaceuticals, there's little doubt you're living in a medical police state.

#4 - If you find yourself suddenly wondering if you should flee to Mexico in order to find freedom, you're probably living in a medical police state.

#5 - If doctors call the police to prevent you from visiting competing cancer clinics outside the country, that's a warning sign that you're living in a medical police state.

#6 - If your doctor claims to be practicing "integrative medicine" but then calls the police when you don't submit to chemotherapy, you're definitely living in a medical police state.

Quote from Daniel Hauser's oncologist, Dr. Bostrom: "Although I've had patients concerned about getting chemo, this is the first time I've ever had to report someone." Source: http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Cancer...

#7 - If you're blasted by the mainstream media for supporting a mother's right to protect her teenage son from an injection of toxic chemicals, you're almost certainly living in a medical police state (populated by sheeple).

#8 - If you walk into a hospital and they handcuff you, steal your child and forcibly inject him with dangerous poisons while explaining, "It's for your own good," then you're almost certainly living in a medical police state.

#9 - If the State calls you "medically negligent" for feeding your child raw foods, or medicinal herbs, or holistic diets that are free from sugar, red meat and chemical additives, then you're definitely living in a medical police state. (Fact: Parents who feed their children diets of raw, living foods have been accused of medical neglect.)

#10 - If you disagree with your psychiatrist, and in response he diagnosis you with "Oppositional Defiance Disorder" and demands you take his mind-altering psych drugs, you are absolutely living in a medical police state!

Unconscionable Police Raid on Family's Home and Organic Food Co-op

Mercola.com





Steps have been taken to start legal action against the Ohio Department of Agriculture (ODA) and the Lorain County Health Department for violating the constitutional rights of John and Jacqueline Stowers of LaGrange, Ohio.

The Stowers operate an organic food cooperative called Manna Storehouse. ODA and Lorain County Health Department agents forcefully raided their home and seized the family's personal food supply, cell phones and personal computers.

On the morning of December 1, 2008, law enforcement officers forcefully entered the Stowers' residence without first announcing they were police or stating the purpose of the visit. With guns drawn, they swiftly and immediately moved to the upstairs of the home, where ten children were in the middle of a home-schooling lesson. Officers then moved Jacqueline Stowers and her children to their living room, where they were held for more than six hours.

There has never been a complaint filed against Manna Storehouse or the Stowers related to the quality or healthfulness of the food distributed through the co-op.

Click here for Dr. Mercola's comments.

Irradiated Foods Cause Severe Neurological Damage

NaturalNews.com

by Sherry Baker, Health Sciences Editor

In a study just published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, scientists from the University of Wisconsin-Madison (UW-Madison) report on cats developing severe neurological symptoms due to a degradation of myelin, the fatty insulator of nerve fibers called axons. Because myelin facilitates the conduction of nerve signals, when it is lost or damaged there can be impairment of sensation, movement, thinking and other functions, depending on what particular nerves are affected. This loss of myelin is found in several disorders of the central nervous system in humans -- the best known being multiple sclerosis (MS).

So what caused the cats to develop neurological problems? Although the researchers' statement to the media practically buries the fact, a close read shows the animals were fine until fed irradiated food. What's more, when they were taken off the irradiated diet, the animals' nervous systems began healing.

The new study took place when the researchers were faced with reports of a mysterious illness in pregnant cats. A commercial company had been testing various diets on the animals to see how the food impacted growth and development in the felines. The food used, it turns out, had been irradiated. Irradiation, which is approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for many human as well as animal foods, involves exposing foods briefly to a radiant energy source such as gamma rays or electron beams in order to kill bacteria.

Some of the cats eating the irradiated cat food exhibited very severe neurological symptoms, including movement disorders, vision loss and even paralysis. "After being on the diet for three to four months, the pregnant cats started to develop progressive neurological disease," said Ian Duncan, a professor of medical sciences at the UW-Madison School of Veterinary Medicine and an authority on demyelinating diseases, in a statement to the media.

The sick cats were shown to have widely distributed the very severe demyelization of the central nervous system. Their neurological symptoms were very much like those seen in people with MS and other demyelization disorders. When the felines were taken off the irradiated foods, they began to recover slowly. However, according to Dr. Duncan, the restored myelin sheaths were no longer as thick as normal myelin sheaths.

The finding is important, the scientists concluded in their study, because it shows the central nervous system retains the ability to reestablish myelin -- so strategies that could be developed to spur the growth of new myelin sheaths anywhere nerves themselves are preserved could be a possible therapy for treating a host of severe neurological diseases in humans. "The key thing is that it absolutely confirms the notion that remyelinating strategies are clinically important," Duncan stated.

Curiously, although the scientists' related their findings to possible human applications, they were quick to dismiss a possible connection between people, irradiated food and health risk. "We think it is extremely unlikely that (irradiated food) could become a human health problem," Duncan explained in the media statement. "We think it is species specific."

However, not everyone agrees irradiated food is fine for humans or animals. According to the Center for Food Safety, studies have shown irradiation produces volatile toxic chemicals such as benzene and toluene, which are known or suspected to cause cancer and birth defects. A 2001 study found an association between colon tumors and 2-alkylcyclobutanones (2-ACB's), a new chemical compound detected only in foods that have been irradiated.


For more information:

http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/...
http://firedoglake.com/2008/08/23/n...
http://www.fda.gov/opacom/catalog/i...


About the author:

Sherry Baker is a widely published writer whose work has appeared in Newsweek, Health, the Atlanta Journal and Constitution, Yoga Journal, Optometry, Atlanta, Arthritis Today, Natural Healing Newsletter, OMNI, UCLA's "Healthy Years" newsletter, Mount Sinai School of Medicine's "Focus on Health Aging" newsletter, the Cleveland Clinic's "Men's Health Advisor" newsletter and many others.

Big Pharma Funded Activist Groups Behind the EPA Petition to Regulate Silver

by Tony Isaacs


Recently it was revealed that a handful of the activist agencies behind the petition to the EPA to regulate nano-silver as a pesticide have received funding from pharmaceutical giant Merck, which annually has hundreds of billions of dollars in profits from patented antibiotics which many believe are less effective, less safe and far more expensive than colloidal nano-silver products. Now, further investigation has discovered that the initial revelations may just be the tip of the iceberg when it comes to Merck and other pharmaceutical companies' funding of the groups who support the EPA petition.

The actual source of the funding that was first revealed in emails and colloidal silver blogsites was the John Merck Fund which was set up in 1970 by Serena Merck, the widow of Merck Pharmaceuticals CEO George W. Merck, in honor of their short-lived son John. The recipients of funding who are signees on the petition to the EPA were identified as:


Funding To Activist Groups-----------------Total Donated---Time Frame
Center for Food Safety $1,305,000.00 1999 – 2005
Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy $490,000.00 1992 – 2003
International Center for Technology Assessment $247,500.00 1999 – 1999
Consumers Union of the United States $90,000.00 2000 – 2001
Greenpeace $80,000.00 2000 – 2002
Friends of the Earth $45,000.00 1992 – 2000


The Center for Food Safety (CFS) which along with its sister organization the International Center for Technology Assessment (ICTA), initiated the EPA petition and enlisted the other groups which signed off on the petition, received the second largest amount of funding of any group from the John Merck Fund - second only to the huge total of the Tides Center/Tides Foundation, whose total funding of almost $2.7 Million dwarfs the combined total of $1.75 Million given to the CFS and the ICTA and CFS.

Tides Foundation & Tides Center $2,693,000.00 1989 – 2005

http://www.activistcash.com/foundation.cfm?did=138

As it turns out, the top funding recipient Tides Foundation and Tides Center are also actively involved in the petition to regulate silver, as well as the source of funding and support to several of the other groups who signed the EPA petition. When one goes to the Tides Center website, their position is apparent to one and all with the posting of a press release urging support of the EPA petition:

http://www.tidescenter.org/news-resources/news-releases/single-press-release/article/epa-petitioned-to-stop-sale-of-260-products-containing-nanosilver/index.html

Information on Tides Center's website and other web searches found the following Tides Center/Tides Foundation connections to groups not listed as Merck funding recipients:

* Center for Environmental Health (a project of the Tides Center)
* Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (previous funding and connections with the Tides Foundation)
* Clean Production Action (a Tides Center project)
* Food and Water Watch (receives donations from the Tides Foundation)
* The Loka Institute (has no current offices but was previously provided office space and a mailbox in Washington. DC by the International Center for Technology Assessment in their offices)

In addition, a $200,000 grant for 2006-2007 from a second Merck Foundation, the Merck Family Fund to another petitioner, Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition, was discovered.

A quick internet search reveals that Merck is not the only pharmaceutical company which provides funding to the Tides Foundation and Tides Center, as this listing of the top funding recipient from the Pfizer Foundation demonstrates:

Funding To Activist Groups----------Total Donated------Time Frame
Tides Foundation & Tides Center $300,000.00 2003 – 2004


The Tides Foundation is described by Activistcash.com as quickly becoming "the 800 pound gorilla for activist funding." As reported on ActivistCash:

The Tides foundation was established in 1976 by California activist Drummond Pike, Tides does two things better than any other foundation or charity in the U.S. today: it routinely obscures the sources of its tax-exempt millions, and makes it difficult (if not impossible) to discern how the funds are actually being used.

In practice, “Tides” behaves less like a philanthropy than a money-laundering enterprise (apologies to Procter & Gamble), taking money from other foundations and spending it as the donor requires. Called donor-advised giving, this pass-through funding vehicle provides public-relations insulation for the money’s original donors. By using Tides to funnel its capital, a large public charity can indirectly fund a project with which it would prefer not to be directly identified in public. Drummond Pike has reinforced this view, telling The Chronicle of Philanthropy: “Anonymity is very important to most of the people we work with.”

Although determining the scope of funding for the Tides group as well as the individual activist groups would be difficult due to the efforts of many of them to insure anonymity, a quick web search turned up the following information for the Pfizer Foundation:

One can only wonder what other pharmaceutical funding is linked to these groups and shudder to think of how many activist groups have been corrupted by funding from Big Pharma and other companies with agendas that are anything but in the public interest.

It is easy to see how such subterfuge can corrupt decision making, the same as can paid lobbyists and political funding. Obviously it would be in the distinct public interest to require full disclosure of funding sources for every organization which petitions a government agency or legislative body to see where there might be funding sources who would stand to benefit as a result of the desired action or legislation.

Similarly, it would also be in the public interest to require full details of all the activities and efforts of lobbyists, including expenses and the details of each meeting held by lobbyists with government officials. While we are at it, we would also be a better informed and better served citizenry if every elected officials vote on any measure included donations and links to any companies or other entities affected by such legislation.

Granted, such reforms are a tall order, but until we see such altruistic change all the talk about true transparency in government is merely lip service - and the words from our own lips will continue to have little chance of reaching those whose ears are captured by the special interests who have bought off and otherwise rigged the process in their favor.


See Also:

"Action Alert: Stop EPA from Eliminating Access to Colloidal Silver"


Notes:

The complete list of groups who signed the petition to the EPA is: The International Center for Technology Assessment, the Center for Food Safety (the sister organization of the CTA), Beyond Pesticides, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, ETC Group, Center for Environmental Health, Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition , Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, Clean Production Action, Food and Water Watch, the Loka Institute, the Center for Study of Responsive Law, and Consumers Union.


Sources included:

http://www.silvermedicine.org/nano-silver.html

http://www.activistcash.com/

http://www.tidescenter.org/

FDA Running Extortion Racket: Natural Supplement Companies Threatened with Arrest if They Don't Pay Up

NaturalNews.com

by Mike Adams

NaturalNews has learned the U.S. Food and Drug Administration is running a criminal extortion racket designed to drain cash from health supplement companies and shift it into the pockets of top FDA contractors. This organized crime operation has been running for years, and it has operated with impunity because each company targeted by the scam feels isolated and alone, unable to face the astronomical legal bills of going to court and battling the FDA. So one by one, they agree to "settle" with the FDA for crimes they never committed. Part of the settlement, of course, involves the payment of FDA employees or contractors who pocket the money extorted from health companies.

NaturalNews has interviewed executives from three different companies who have been targeted for extortion by U.S. Food and Drug Administration employees. At their request, the names of those companies are being kept confidential until legal action being taken against them is resolved. Interviews have been recorded, with permission, with two of those companies and will be released to the public at a later date. Documents proving this FDA extortion racket are included here.

How the FDA extorts money from nutritional supplement companies

The FDA extortion racket works like this: FDA employees use keyword-scanning software to scan the web pages of natural health product and supplement companies, searching for terms like cancer, cures, treatment, remedies and other "forbidden" words. FDA employees then review the discovered pages to determine if they contain any words that might inform consumers of the health benefits of the nutritional products. FDA employees also look for links that might point web users to scientific articles from peer-reviewed medical journals that further explain the health benefits of specific foods, supplements or nutrients.

When offending words or links are found by the FDA, their extortion team goes into full swing. First, they contact the company and warn them to remove all information and links from their websites. This is the most important step from the FDA's standpoint, because by doing this, they can keep the health-conscious public in a state of nutritional ignorance about the scientifically-supported healing properties of natural supplements. Cherry products, for example, cannot link to scientific articles explaining the simple biological fact that cherries ease inflammation in human beings. Such links are considered "drug claims" by the FDA.

NaturalNews has even learned that companies are now being targeted for simply posting customer testimonials, even when those testimonials make absolutely no health claims. FDA and FTC agents are now threatening the owners of such companies with imprisonment if they do not immediately remove all customer testimonials from their websites and marketing materials.

If the company being targeted for extortion refuses to fully comply with the FDA's requests to remove all educational information from their website, the FDA then escalates the extortion tactics by threatening the company principals with arrest and seizure unless they agree to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to top FDA contractors and sign a "consent decree" where the company "admits" to committing various crimes (see below). This consent decree is a blatant violation of the Constitutional rights of U.S. citizens, of course, and it violates numerous sections of the Bill of Rights (Amendments #1 and #5, at the very least).

The FDA employees or contractors receiving the extorted money, it is claimed, are being paid to "review web pages" to make sure they don't contain anything that might inform consumers about the scientifically-validated benefits of the health products being sold. FDA extortion agreements specify that FDA employees should be paid the rate of $100 per hour, with no limit on the number of hours they may bill the company for. The extortion agreement also requires companies to pay for all the following:

• $100 per hour for the travel time of FDA employees.
• Hotel rooms for FDA employees.
• Storage fees for all products seized by the FDA.

The same agreement also requires the company to comply with FDA demands by never placing any links or "illegal" information on its website, where "illegal" means anything that offers an accurate description of the health benefits offered by natural health products.

The Consent Decree

Part of the FDA's strategy for oppression and control is to force targeted companies to sign a "consent decree" where they admit to crimes they never committed. NaturalNews obtained a copy of a public court document the FruitFast company was forced to sign due to FDA threats and extortion tactics.

You can view this document yourself at:
http://www.naturalnews.com/investigations/FruitFastConsentDecree.pdf

This document requires the FruitFast company to admit to crimes it did not commit; namely:

"Violating the Act, by introducing or delivering for introduction, or causing to be introduced or delivered for introduction, into interstate commerce articles of drug that are misbranded within the meaning of 21 U.S.C. SS 352(f)(1)."

What "drugs" did the FruitFast company introduce that were "misbranded?" Cherries, it turns out. Cherry juice concentrate was being sold with the accurate statement that it helped eliminate gout (which it does). This, according to the FDA, was enough to magically transform cherry juice into an "unapproved drug" and cause it to be "misbranded."

It also requires targeted companies to contractually agree that they have:

"...removed all claims from Defendants' product labels, labeling, promotional materials, websites owned or controlled by Defendants, and in any other media that cause that product to be a drug and/or contain unapproved or unauthorized health claims within the meaning of the Act; and

(ii) removed, from their product labels, labeling, promotional materials, and websites owned or controlled by Defendants, references to or endorsements of any other website that conveys information about Defendants' products that cause those products to be a drug and/or contain unapproved or unauthorized health claims within the meaning of the Act."

This means, of course, that these companies can no longer even LINK to other websites, including websites of scientific journals that discuss the proven health benefits of such natural products (foods, herbs, etc.)

The truth is now subject to FDA approval

Once a company removes all educational information and links from their website, they are then required to submit to draconian measures of "censorship enforcement" by the FDA. This is fully explained in this section of the FDA's Consent Decree: (bolding added for emphasis)

Within ten (10) calendar days of FDA's request for any labels, labeling, promotional materials, and/or downloaded copies (on CD-Rom) of any internet websites owned or controlled by Defendants or websites referenced by, endorsed, or adopted directly or indirectly by Defendants, Defendants shall submit a copy of the requested materials to FDA at the address specified in paragraph 19.

Within twenty (20) calendar days of entry of this Decree, Defendants shall submit to FDA a certification of compliance, signed by each of the individually-named Defendants in this matter, each Defendant stating that he: (a) has personally reviewed all of Defendants' product labels, labeling, promotional materials, and the internet websites referred to in paragraph 8 above; and (b) personally certifies that the product labels, labeling, promotional materials, and internet websites strictly comply with the requirements of the Act and its regulations and do not include unapproved or unauthorized claims that the products cure, mitigate, treat, prevent and/or reduce the risk of disease. Thereafter, Defendants shall submit certifications of compliance every three (3) months for a period of two (2) years.

Furthermore, the FDA then requires that the company being targeted by the extortion racket hire a person (called the "expert") to enforce all this censorship the company has agreed to.

As you'll note in the language below, this "expert" must be paid $100 an hour, for an unlimited number of hours, to conduct surprise inspections of the company's administrative offices, warehouses and fulfillment centers:

Within fourteen (14) calendar days of entry of this Decree, Defendants shall retain an independent person or persons (the "expert")... who by reason of background, experience, education, and training is qualified to assess Defendants' compliance with the Act, to review the claims Defendants make for all of their products on their product labels, labeling, promotional material, any internet websites owned or controlled by Defendants, including, but not limited to, the websites referred to in paragraph 8 above. At the conclusion of the expert's review, the expert shall prepare a written report analyzing whether Defendants are operating in compliance with the Act and in particular, certify whether Defendants have omitted all claims from their product labels, labeling, promotional materials, websites owned or controlled by Defendants, and in any other media, that make any of their products drugs and/or constitute unapproved or unauthorized health claims within the meaning of the Act. The expert shall also review Defendants' product labels, labeling, promotional materials, and websites owned or controlled by Defendants to determine whether these include any references to or endorsements of any other websites that convey information about Defendants' products that cause those products to be a drug and/or contain unapproved or unauthorized health claims within the meaning of the Act, and certify in the written report whether Defendants have omitted any such references or endorsements. The expert shall submit this report to FDA and Defendants within thirty-five (35) calendar days of the entry of this Decree. If the expert reports any violations of the Act, Defendants shall, within seven (7) calendar days of receipt of the report, correct those deviations, unless FDA notifies Defendants that a shorter time period is necessary.

In other words, this section requires the company being targeted to pay the "Expert" huge fees to make sure it doesn't "illegally" link to other websites that might tell the truth about the health products in question.

FDA tyranny unleashed

So what happens if the company slips up and does something illegal like, let's say, posting a clickable link to a science journal that discusses research citing the health benefits of cherries? As you'll see below, there are no limits to the action the FDA can take in retribution, including the seizure of all company assets and the arrest of its principals.

Specifically, the Consent Decree forces company owners to agree to the following:

If, at any time after this Decree has been entered, FDA determines, based on the results of an inspection, the analyses of Defendants' product labels, labeling, promotional materials, websites owned or controlled by Defendants, or websites referenced by, endorsed, or adopted directly or indirectly by Defendants that convey information about Defendants' products, a report prepared by Defendants' expert, or any other information, that additional corrective actions are necessary to achieve compliance with the Act, applicable regulations, or this Decree, FDA may, as and when it deems necessary, direct Defendants, in writing, to take one or more of the actions:

A. Cease manufacturing, processing, packing, labeling, holding, and/or distributing any article(s);

B. Submit additional reports or information to FDA;

C. Recall any article(s) at Defendants' expense; or

D. Take any other reasonable corrective action(s) as FDA, in its discretion, deems necessary to bring Defendants and their products into compliance with the Act, applicable regulations, and this Decree.

Surprise inspections, secret police and non-stop persecution

Just to keep the targeted company in a state of constant fear (which is why I have labeled the FDA a terrorist organization), the FDA forces it to agree to surprise inspections where it must pay FDA "compliance officers" to rummage through their product shelves and paperwork, looking for evidence of non-compliance:

Duly authorized representatives of FDA shall be permitted, without prior notice and as and when FDA deems necessary, to make [surprise] inspections of Defendants' facilities and, without prior notice, take any other measures necessary to monitor and ensure continuing compliance with the terms of this Decree. During such inspections, FDA representatives shall be permitted prompt access to buildings, equipment, in-process and finished materials, containers, labeling and other materials therein; to take photographs and make video recordings; to take samples of Defendants' finished and unfinished materials and products, containers, labels, labeling, and other promotional materials; and to examine and copy all records relating to the receipt, manufacture, processing, packing, labeling, promoting, holding, and distribution of any and all Defendants' products in order to ensure continuing compliance with the terms of this Decree. The inspections shall be permitted upon presentation of a copy of this Decree and appropriate credentials. The inspection authority granted by this Decree is separate from, and in addition to, the authority to conduct inspections under the Act, 21 U.S.C. §374.

And just to make sure the company is further driven into bankruptcy, the FDA requires them to PAY for all these surprise "compliance" investigations! As stated in the Consent Decree:

Defendants shall reimburse FDA for the costs of all FDA inspections, investigations, supervision, reviews, examinations, and analyses specified in this Decree or that FDA deems necessary to evaluate Defendants' compliance with this Decree. The costs of such inspections shall be borne by Defendants at the prevailing rates in effect at the time the costs are incurred. As of the date that this Decree is signed by the parties, these rates are: $78.09 per hour and fraction thereof per representative for inspection work; $93.61 per hour or fraction thereof per representative for analytical or review work; $0.485 per mile for travel expenses by automobile; government rate or the equivalent for travel by air or other means; and the published government per diem rate or the equivalent for the areas in which the inspections are performed per-day, per-representative for subsistence expenses, where necessary. In the event that the standard rates applicable to FDA supervision of court-ordered compliance are modified, these rates shall be increased or decreased without further order of the Court."

Are you getting the picture here? The FDA can simply show up on a "surprise" inspection, bring ten FDA agents, bill the company for thousands of hours, and bankrupt the company while padding its own pockets.

Doesn't this sound a lot like the King's Consent Decree against the American colonies? The FDA's agreement reads amazingly like a document a King might force his subjects to sign as he's taking over their land and gold, imprisoning them in his kingdom.

But it gets better: The FDA also requires the Defendants to reveal all sorts of details about their business operations:

"Within ten (10) calendar days of entry of this Decree, Defendants shall provide FDA a list of all domain names and IP addresses they use to market or describe any product, regardless of whether such sites mention specific products Defendants sell.

Defendants shall notify the District Director, FDA Detroit District Office, in writing at least fifteen (15) calendar days before any change in ownership, character, or name of its business.

If Defendants fail to comply with any of the provisions of this Decree, including any time frame imposed by this Decree, then, on motion of the United States in this proceeding, Defendants Brownwood Acres and/or Cherry Capital shall pay to the United States of America the sum of one thousand dollars ($1,000) in liquidated damages per violation per day so long as such violation continues.

Should the United States bring, and prevail in, a contempt action to enforce the terms of this Decree, Defendants shall, in addition to other remedies, reimburse the United States for its attorneys* fees, investigational expenses, expert witness fees, travel expenses incurred by attorneys and witnesses, and administrative court costs relating to such contempt proceedings.

And finally, just to make sure everybody knows who's in charge, here's what the agreement says about final judgment:

All decisions specified in this Decree shall be vested in the discretion of FDA and shall be final.

In other words, the FDA is the King. It is above the law. It answers to no one but itself.

Welcome to the United States of Tyranny, FDA style.

The full text of the FDA's agreement, including the names of the top FDA criminals who signed it, is included at the end of this article.

This brand of tyranny is reserved for health supplement companies

While the FDA gives drug companies a free pass of easy approval for dangerous drugs, this Consent Decree is the kind of treatment it slams down upon health product companies. As you can see from the text in the decree, above, this is a document of outright tyranny and oppression.

Any company signing this document gives the FDA all the tools it needs to drive that company completely out of business. Sadly, dozens of companies have signed this in just the last year. The FDA's reign of terror is working. It's putting health companies out of business and forcing them to censor themselves. It even forces them to remove all web links to information sources like NaturalNews.com or peer-reviewed science journals.

This is all part of the FDA's campaign of health illiteracy -- a war of disinformation being waged against the American people. It is a secret war being fought out of the view of the mainstream media (which refuses to report this story) and far from the scrutiny of the U.S. Dept. of Justice (which doesn't care about the real tyrants running loose in this country).

As I have often stated here on NaturalNews.com, the FDA is an out-of-control, rogue agency engaged in acts of terrorism against the American people. By itself, it is negligent in the deaths of tens of millions of Americans, and it has taken it upon itself to increase the body count by making sure consumers have zero access to honest, truthful, scientifically-validated information about the healing properties of health supplements.

The FDA, by any account, is a much greater threat to the security and safety of the American people than any terrorist group, and if the U.S. really wanted to fight terror and tyranny, it would start by arresting top FDA officials at gunpoint. Those targeted for arrest and prosecution should also include the lawyers and paper pushers involved in this very agreement (see their names on the legal documents at the end of this article).

In my view, these people are the real criminals at work here. They are the masterminds of this campaign of extortion and terror being leveled against health companies by the rogue U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Much like Hitler's top generals, they play an important role in the mass disinformation that's resulting in the needless death of millions of people. By any account, they are all guilty of crimes against humanity and should be arrested and prosecuted as such. We should all be so fortunate to live to the day where we can see these white-collar criminals behind bars, perhaps sharing their jail cells with other war criminals from the Bush Administration.

Sign this or you'll be arrested

What you haven't yet seen in all this is the barrage of threats leveled against companies if they don't sign this Consent Decree! Company executives receive both written and verbal threats from top FDA "enforcement officers" who claim they will "throw you in prison" if you don't sign the agreement.

Every major health trade show hosts an FDA compliance officer (much like a Nazi Gestapo officer) whose job it is to walk the show floor and threaten companies into compliance. This includes shows like Expo West and Expo East, where show organizers also serve as de facto FDA agents themselves, barring the participation of exhibitors who dare to tell the truth about their natural products. This smacks of KGB secret police operations in the former Soviet Union. But secret FDA police are now a reality in the United States of America.

NaturalNews has learned of numerous verbal threats from FDA compliance officers directed at health supplement companies during trade shows, including threats to "put you out of business," "throw you in prison" or "take every last dollar you've ever earned."

FDA compliance officers are the foot soldiers of the agency's war against the truth. They seek out any health claim that might inform consumers about the properties of nutritional supplements, then they work to squash such statements before they become too well known. In essence, they are censorship officers who enforce nutritional illiteracy and prevent knowledge from being shared.

As such, they are acting not merely as secret police on a mission to destroy small American businesses; they are actually agents of disinformation, bent on destroying knowledge and enforcing a system of mandatory ignorance. This is entirely consistent with the FDA's history of ordering the destruction of recipe books that promoted the use of the natural herb stevia, among many other examples of information suppression.

The FDA's campaign of health illiteracy and enforced ignorance

It is the FDA's position that there is no such thing as any food, beverage, supplement or herb that has any health benefit whatsoever. Merely making such a claim instantly qualifies your product as a "new and unapproved drug," according to the FDA.

Officially, the FDA claims all health products are inert and have no properties other than their macronutrients (fiber, carbohydrates, protein, etc.).

There is only one class of substances that have any biological effect on the human body, the FDA claims: Pharmaceuticals. Only those patented, synthetic chemicals are allowed to be described as having benefits to human health.

This convenient position is entirely consistent with the protection of the profits of drug companies. It's no coincidence that the drug companies fund the FDA through "user fees," and most FDA employees are dependent on drug company money... except, of course, those FDA people earning their living by extorting millions of dollars from health product companies.

The upshot of the FDA's campaign against health supplements is that most of the American people remain nutritionally illiterate, oblivious to the scientifically-validated health benefits offered by tens of thousands of different nutrients, plants, supplements and products. To say that zinc speeds healing, or that vitamin D prevents cancer, or that resveratrol lowers high cholesterol is common sense in the scientific community, but it's a crime in the eyes of the FDA.

It's time to stop the FDA's reign of terror over health supplements

It is time to end the FDA's extortion racket, restore Free Speech rights to health supplements, and bring the organized crime kingpins at the FDA to justice.

NaturalNews is organizing a list of companies who wish to help fund legal action against the FDA. We intend to take part in a lawsuit against the FDA that would reign in the FDA's control over nutritional supplements and defend health freedoms for American consumers.

To do this, we need to gather information from those companies who are willing to help fund this legal action, which may cost several hundred thousand dollars. If you represent a company willing to take part in this legal action against the FDA, contact us now at StopTheFDA@naturalnews.com

Simply email us your name and contact phone number. We'll contact you to continue the conversation. Any information sent to us is kept strictly confidential. We will refuse to turn over such information even with a court order.

With enough support from the natural products community, we will take part in the reporting and grassroots organization of this legal action.

We must stop the FDA now

It is the belief of NaturalNews that the FDA is being run as a system of organized crime, using the exact same extortion tactics as the Mob. Through intimidation, censorship and threats of imprisonment, the FDA is right now extorting tens of millions of dollars from the very same health supplement companies you depend on to bring you lifesaving, disease-reversing products.

Even worse, the FDA is getting away with it. Backed by the threat of imprisonment and the ability to conduct armed raids against health product companies (see the history of armed FDA raids against vitamin companies here: http://www.naturalnews.com/021791.html ), the FDA is able to overpower health product companies when they stand alone.

The industry must band together if it hopes to defend itself against this tyranny. A lone villager cannot defend himself against a band of marauders, but an organized and well-defended band of villagers can fight off attackers many times their size. If it wishes to survive, the natural products industry must band together and defend itself against the FDA. It must take back its right to tell the truth about health supplements, and it must forever banish censorship and ignorance from the health products marketplace.

The FDA will not stop its reign of terror, you see, until every health supplement companies is silenced, every company founder is imprisoned and every consumer is enslaved in a state of outright nutritional illiteracy. They will seize products and let them rot in warehouses; they'll recruit armed law enforcement personnel to conduct SWAT-style raids on vitamin shops; they'll extort millions of dollars from health companies and pocket the profits; and they'll do it all while burning taxpayer dollars and claiming they're working to "protect" consumers from natural health products like cherry juice concentrate, which is of course so incredibly dangerous that we need an entire government agency just to make sure we don't find out it might ease arthritis inflammation.

What you can do right now to help halt the FDA's reign of terror

As a consumer, you can use your voice to help stop the FDA from destroying the natural products marketplace. Simply go to www.ReformFDA.org and sign the petition there.

It's sponsored by the American Association for Health Freedom (AAHF), an organization fighting to end the FDA's tyrannical rule over the health of the American people.

Sign that petition and spread the word: NaturalNews and the AAHF are working together to bring back honesty, freedom and free speech to the health supplements industry, and we need your help to get it done.

You can also protest the FDA with your Congressperson or Senator. Contact them and insist that they support efforts to end the reign of FDA tyranny and reestablish Free Speech rights for nutritional supplement companies.

Notably, Rep. Ron Paul has sponsored the Health Freedom Protection Act, which you can read here: http://www.StopFDACensorship.org

Grab your cameras, folks

Finally, NaturalNews urges those in the natural health community to go out and buy video cameras and still cameras and start snapping photos of rogue FDA agents arresting people, seizing products, accepting bribes or other outrageous acts. We cannot simply lie down and let the FDA march in to our company warehouses and seize products. One video can change the world. It's up to you to get that video recorded and get it to us here at NaturalNews. Use our feedback form to contact us: www.NaturalNews.com/feedback.html

We've also opened up an audio tips line, where FDA employees who wish to leak information to NaturalNews can anonymously call us and leave a message: (323) 924-1664

With your help, we will soon start publishing videos and photos showing FDA agents directly engaged in acts of tyranny against health companies. And for those who'd like to earn some extra money snapping photos, we're willing to pay you for photos of FDA "compliance officers" walking trade show floors where they threaten companies in person. Contact us for details if you're a photographer with a long lens who would like to start earning money snapping photos of FDA agents engaged in their dirty work.

It's time to shed light on the real actions of the FDA. We can no longer sit back and allow this criminal organization to operate in secret. But grabbing the public's attention all comes down to getting this on video. This is the YouTube era. If it's not on video, it doesn't exist. But if it's on video, we can likely get it on mainstream news. (I can see it now: the FDA raids a warehouse and handcuffs the screaming, crying business owner. And why? Because their bottle said, "Eases inflammation." The public won't stand for it.)

The FDA, of course, will have its own people doing the same thing to people like me. They're trying to catch us eating at McDonald's or going through the local pharmacy drive-thru. All I can say about that is they'll be waiting a long, long time to see that day!

Please forward this story to everyone you know. We the People must either prevail in this fight for our freedom, or we will all end up illiterate, imprisoned or silenced. The FDA will take away your rights, your speech and your health, and it will laugh all the way to the bank while it steals your hard-earned money. It will break every law, ignore every court order and commit every crime necessary to bring health companies into line... UNLESS we fight back and do our part to end this grave threat to our health, safety and freedoms.

The FDA is the enemy of the People. It is a criminal organization bent on destroying American freedoms and consumer health. It operates with impunity, using its own secret compliance officers, wreaking death and destruction across our nation like a dark plague unleashed. If we hope to ever regain our health, our freedoms and the basic human right to tell the truth about the healing properties of simple foods, then we must bring this agency to justice and prosecute its mob bosses for their many crimes against the People.

It is time to stand up for your health freedoms, or lose them forever. Please join me in this courageous stand against tyranny and oppression.

- Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, editor of NaturalNews.com


Click here for the complete report including The Full Consent Decree of Permanent Injunction

Big Pharma Ties Want to Shut Down Vaccine 'Conspiracy Theories'

Mercola.com

A foundation populated by the giants of business, banking, government and military wants to “vet” websites and limit the spread of information that it says creates “conspiracy theories”.

The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) says it is worried about the way the web has been “used to spread disinformation”. They want to introduce a new system that would give websites a label for trustworthiness or unreliability.

One “damaging conspiracy theory” they want to shut down is the notion that MMR vaccines are harmful. Of course, this “conspiracy theory” stems not from paranoid forum postings and misquoted blog entries, but from scientific research into the mercury based preservative thimerosal.

Thimerosal was developed by Eli Lilly, and Merck is the world’s largest supplier of the MMR triple jab -- and it is little wonder W3C considers such information to be “damaging” given that Eli Lilly and Merck are both paid up and approved members of the Consortium! If anyone should be labeled with an “unreliable” rating, it is the W3C.


Sources:

Prison Planet September 15, 2008
BBC News September 15, 2008

FDA Plots to Mislead Consumers Over Irradiated Foods

NaturalNews.com

by Mike Adams

NaturalNews has learned that the FDA is intentionally plotting to deceive consumers over the labeling of irradiated foods, attempting to eliminate any requirement for informative labeling or replace the word "irradiated" with "pasteurized."

In a feature story published by NaturalNews yesterday, we stated that the FDA does not require foods to be labeled as irradiated. We received a lot of questions from readers about that point, with some stating the FDA does, in fact, require foods to be labeled when irradiated. This is not always correct: Most foods are not required to be labeled as irradiated. This story explains the FDA's food irradiation labeling policy in more detail and reveals the FDA's plot to deceive consumers by misleading them into thinking irradiated foods are NOT irradiated.

Foods that are exempt from irradiation labeling:

According to current FDA regulations, any food used as an ingredient in another food does NOT have to be labeled as irradiated. For example, if you buy coleslaw, and the cabbage in the coleslaw has been irradiated, there is no requirement that the coleslaw carry any labeling indicating it has been irradiated.

However, if raw cabbage is irradiated, then current FDA regulations do require it to carry an irradiation label. This label, however, is a symbol, not text, and many consumers have no idea what the symbol really means -- it actually looks like a "fresh" symbol of some sort. In no way does it clearly indicate the food has been irradiated. This is the FDA's way to "hide" the fact that these foods have been irradiated. (The symbol looks a lot more like leaves under the sun than food being irradiated...)

That same head of cabbage, by the way, if served in a restaurant, requires absolutely no irradiation labeling. All restaurant foods are excused from any irradiation labeling requirement. As stated at the FDA's own website (1):

Irradiation labeling requirements apply only to foods sold in stores. For example, irradiated spices or fresh strawberries should be labeled. When used as ingredients in other foods, however, the label of the other food does not need to describe these ingredients as irradiated. Irradiation labeling also does not apply to restaurant foods.

How the FDA plans to deceive consumers and further hide the fact that foods are being irradiated

As stated above, the FDA does not want consumers to realize their foods are being irradiated. Consumer awareness is considered undesirable by the FDA; an agency that also works hard to censor truthful statements about nutritional supplements and functional foods. Accordingly, the FDA pursues a policy of enforced ignorance of consumers regarding irradiated foods, nutritional supplements, medicinal herbs and all sorts of natural substances. It is currently illegal in the United States to state that cherries help ease arthritis inflammation if you are selling cherries. (http://www.naturalnews.com/019366.html)

On the food irradiation issue, the FDA is now proposing two things that are nothing short of astonishing in their degree of deceit:

FDA proposal #1: Irradiated foods shouldn't be labeled as irradiated unless consumers can visibly tell they're irradiated.

This ridiculous proposal by the FDA suggests that foods shouldn't be labeled as irradiated unless there is some obvious material damage to the foods (like their leaves are wilting). Thus, foods that don't appear to be irradiated should not have to be labeled as irradiated.

Imagine if this same ridiculous logic were used to regulate heavy metals content in foods: If consumers can't SEE the heavy metals, then they should be declared free of heavy metals!

FDA proposal #2: Irradiated foods should be labeled as "pasteurized," not "irradiated."

This FDA proposal is so bizarre that it makes you wonder whether the people working at the FDA are smoking crystal meth. They literally want irradiated foods to be labeled as "pasteurized."

And why? Because the word "pasteurized" sounds a lot more palatable to consumers, of course. Never mind the fact that it's a lie. Irradiated foods are not pasteurized, and pasteurized foods are not irradiated. These two words mean two different things, which is precisely why they each have their own entries in the dictionary. When you look up "irradiated," it does not say, "See pasteurized."

But the FDA is now playing the game of thought police by manipulating the public with screwy word replacement games that bear a strange resemblance to the kind of language used in the novel 1984 by George Orwell. And it is, indeed, an Orwellian kind of mind game that the FDA wants to play with the food supply: After unleashing Weapons of Mass Destruction (radiation) onto the foods, the FDA wants to label them all as simply being "pasteurized," keeping consumers ignorant and uninformed.

How do I know the FDA wants to do this? The agency said so itself in an April 4, 2007 document filed in the Federal Register (Volume 72, Number 64). As published in the document (2):

FDA is also proposing to allow a firm to petition FDA for use of an alternate term to "irradiation'' (other than "pasteurized''). In addition, FDA is proposing to permit a firm to use the term "pasteurized'' in lieu of "irradiated,'' provided it notifies the agency that the irradiation process being used meets the criteria specified for use of the term "pasteurized'' in the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act) and the agency does not object to the notification.

Did you follow all that mind-warping logic? The FDA is essentially begging a company to petition it to use the term "pasteurized" instead of "irradiated" as long as they both result in the food being killed. Once it receives such a petition, it will approve it, claiming it is meeting "the needs of industry."

The FDA already allows lots of word substitutions in the areas of health and medicine. The phrase "Toxic Poison" has been replaced with "Chemotherapy," for example. "Over-medicated with dangerous psychiatric drugs" has been replaced with the term, "Treatment." And the phrase, "Regulated with life-threatening synthetic chemicals" has been replaced with the word "managed," as in "her diabetes has been managed."

So why not introduce all sorts of other word substitutions that might continue the Orwellian "Ministry of Language" propaganda put forth by the FDA?

I say we substitute the word "medicated" with "treated" and "treated" with "rewarded." That way, when a patient describes what drugs she's on, she can say, "I've been rewarded with ten different prescriptions!"

Better yet, let's replace the word "surgery" with "enhancement." So anybody who undergoes heart bypass surgery, for example, can say they've really just had "Heart bypass enhancement!"

It sounds a lot easier to swallow, doesn't it? And that's what it's all about, folks, when it comes to irradiating the food supply: Making it all sounds a lot less treacherous than it really is. Control the words and you control people's ideas, and if there's one thing the tyrannical FDA is really, really good at, it's controlling words!

What the FDA really wants to accomplish

Let's get down to some blunt truth about the FDA's real genocidal agenda. What the FDA wants here is two things:

1) The destruction of the food supply (genocide)

2) The complete ignorance of the consuming public (nutritional illiteracy)

Genocide and illiteracy. Ignorance and fear. Tyranny, radiation and chemicals... These are the things the FDA truly stands for.

That pretty much sums up the FDA's intent on this whole food irradiation issue. Destroy the food and mislead the People. And then wait for the windfall of profits at Big Pharma as the People degenerate into a mass of diseased, disoriented and desperate health patients. It's business as usual at the FDA.

That's why Dr. James Duke, creator of the world's largest phytochemical database (http://www.ars-grin.gov/duke), had this to say about the FDA's food irradiation policy:

"Perhaps the FDA should call up a billion dollar team to consider irradiating another health hazard - the FDA itself, which is almost as dangerous to our health as the pharmaceutical industry."

Why I call this the unleashing of "Weapons of Mass Destruction"

In my previous article on this issue, I've called this food irradiation agenda a "Weapon of Mass Destruction" against the food supply. A couple of readers questioned me about that. Why, they asked, do I consider food irradiation to be a WMD?

WMDs include weapons that indiscriminately cause damage to people and infrastructure that serves the People. Dumping a radioactive substance into the water supply that serves a major city, for example, would be considered using a Weapon of Mass Destruction.

Interestingly, the use of Depleted Uranium by the U.S. military in Iraq and Afghanistan is also an example of Weapons of Mass Destruction, making the U.S. guilty of yet more crimes against humanity. (A previous example is the dropping of nuclear weapons on Japan's civilian population in World War II.)

Irradiating the food supply is also an application of Weapons of Mass Destruction, and here's a thought experiment that will clearly demonstrate it:

Suppose you wanted to irradiate your own garden vegetables. The minute you start trying to buy a machine that produces radiation, you would be quickly considered a terrorist and investigated by the FBI. They would visit your home and ask, "Why do you need a radiation machine?" And if you said you needed to irradiate your garden vegetables, they would look at you like you were completely nuts and probably haul you into the local FBI field office for yet more questioning, all while considering you a possible terrorist and likely adding your name to the no-fly list so you could never travel on commercial airlines.

If you don't believe me, try to acquire a high-powered radiation emitting device and see what happens...

So why is it considered bizarre and possibly criminal when an individual buys a radiation machine to irradiate their own foods, but when the FDA pushes the same agenda on a larger scale, they call it "safety?"

Irradiated food isn't altered, claims the FDA

Of course, the FDA says the irradiated food isn't altered by the radiation. This statement is an insult to the intelligence of anyone with a pulse. Why? Because if the radiation doesn't alter anything, then how can it kill e.coli and salmonella?

The whole point of the radiation is to kill living organisms. And it works by causing fatal damage to the tissues and DNA of those microorganisms. So guess what it does to the plants? Since radiation isn't selective, it also irradiates the plant fibers and tissues, causing DNA damage and the destruction of enzymes and phytochemicals.

Amazingly, the FDA claims this does not count as "altering" the food because these changes aren't visible.

If it weren't such a nutritional atrocity, it would be downright hilarious. DNA changes are not visible to the human eye, but they can result in serious health consequences. Just ask anyone born with two Y chromosomes.

Eat up, guinea pigs!

Of course, the radiation pushers will claim that nobody really knows whether irradiating the food kills just 1% of the phytochemicals or 99% (or something in between). And they don't know what the long-term effect is on human health, either. This is exactly my point: The irradiation of fresh produce is a dangerous experiment, and we've all been involuntarily recruited as guinea pigs.

I will be curious to see a serious scientific inquiry into the nutritional damage caused to fresh produce by irradiation. I also find it simply astonishing that this decision by the FDA has been made in the absence of such scientific studies. Much like it does with the pharmaceutical industry, the FDA prefers to poison the people first, and then figure out later just how much damage might have been caused.

I say when you're dealing with the food supply, you should err on the side of caution. We are talking about the health of the nation here. This is not a small matter. It should be treated with extreme caution, skepticism and scientific scrutiny. Instead, it is being addressed with a gung-ho attitude framed in mind games and enforced ignorance.

In other words, rather than figuring out whether food irradiation is actually safe, the FDA would rather simply pretend it is.

Welcome to Make Believe Land, where all your food is now safe and nutritious, courtesy of the FDA!

Sources:

(1) http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/qa-fdb33.html

(2) http://www.foodsafety.gov/~lrd/fr070404.html

A Small Supplement Company's Fight for Health Freedom

NaturalNews.com

by Tony Isaacs

For the past five years, the Utopia Silver Supplement Company has been waging a battle for health freedom against the giants of the State of Texas and the FDA -- one which may have major implications for all of us regarding the freedom of access to natural health supplements.

"This system operates on fear, you have no fear and that's a problem for us." - Texas district court official to Utopia Silver Company owner Ben Taylor.

Much like the Alamo defenders in days gone by, this small Texas company and its supporters of health freedom are pitted against a corrupt giant determined to impose its will and stifle freedom -- and just like the Alamo and the struggles that followed, the outcome may effect the freedom and future of millions.

The conflict began as a result of an FDA complaint five years ago that seeks to set a precedent for how much control the FDA has over all natural supplement companies and specifically the manufacture and sale of colloidal silver supplements.

While the Texas Attorney General's office may try to contend that this is merely a state action "to insure the safety of the citizens of the State of Texas", the truth is that the prosecuting Texas assistant attorney general and TDSHS officials are commissioned as officers of the FDA and there is no denying that the investigation into Utopia Silver began as a result of an FDA complaint. The certificates of Commission were obtained after several filings of Texas Public Information Act requests. Therefore, this is really a Federal action by proxy and it has pitted Utopia Silver Supplements against the Goliath of the FDA and the World Pharma lords the FDA serves.

The persecution of Utopia Silver began five years or so ago, about the same time that the FDA began renewed targeting of colloidal silver because of its effectiveness as a natural anti-biotic and rising popularity -- and, coincidentally, as a threat to the profits of Big Pharma and mainstream medicine -- the FDA sent an email to the Texas Department of State Health Services (TDSHS) essentially complaining that Utopia Silver was making medical claims which, in the eyes of the FDA turned their supplements into drugs. The TDSHS then brought the 'complaint' to the Office of the Texas Attorney General (TAG).

It has since been determined that among the targeted objections are: having 'disease' terms such as cancer, hepatitis, diabetes, etc., posted anywhere on the website; having any 'disease' terms in a search engine, and the posting of testimonials from customers who had used Utopia Silver products and defeated or improved any 'disease' condition.

Such restrictions appear to be a clear violation of the First Amendment (Freedom of Speech) of the Constitution of the United States of America, especially the supposed prohibition against posting testimonials and speaking the truth about how people believe that dietary supplements have helped them. If the FDA is to have their way, they will stifle a supplement company's constitutionally protected freedom of speech to the extent that a person seeking a natural dietary supplement for any medical condition would not be able to go to any website which offered vitamins, minerals, natural supplements or any other alternatives to mainstream medicine and be able to find that term in a search of the site or mentioned anywhere in the site. Neither would they be able to find testimonials/customer opinion from anyone who had used an alternative to FDA approved drugs and medical procedures.

It is no secret that the FDA has targeted colloidal silver, which is a safe, effective, natural and inexpensive pathogen destroyer -- four common traits of dietary supplements that represent competition to the approved drugs of Big Pharma and which frequently come under FDA attack. It is worth noting that the FDA at one time had approved 34 different prescribed and OTC (over-the-counter) medications containing silver, but withdrew approval at about the same time antibiotics came on the market and superior methods of making colloidal silver commercially and at home were devised.

The Texas state district court hearings and threatened trial are purportedly about licensing and inspections, but the FDA complaint was centered around the publication of customer testimonials which the FDA considers to be health claims that supposedly enable them to label Colloidal Silver and other Utopia Silver dietary supplements as drugs, and that too is part of the legal proceedings.

Although the State of Texas maintains that they are acting alone, Utopia Silver has obtained copies of individual certificates which show that the state health and AG employees are also "Commissioned Officers" of the FDA -- in apparent conflict with the separation of state and federal powers. It is Utopia Silver's contention that the actions to restrict them are unconstitutional restraints on the freedom of commercial speech (as borne out by previous Supreme Court decisions) and further contends that there is no constitutional jurisdiction for the state agencies, who are actually for-profit corporations (and they are listed as such by Dun and Bradstreet) disguised as constitutional entities.

Utopia Silver believes, as do many others including legal scholars, that much of the country's court system and agencies operate outside the Constitution as corporate entities, having no real jurisdiction until defendants unwittingly submit to the jurisdiction by entering into a "contract" with the courts and agencies through such measures as making a 'general' rather than a 'special' appearance before a court, entering a motion, applying for a license, hiring an attorney (who are themselves 'officers of the court'), etc. Such scholars and observers point to the yellow fringed admiralty flags flying in most of our courts as clear symbols that the courts are not constitutional courts but rather administrative corporate courts operating under the "color of law".

In the case against Utopia Silver, Taylor contends that there is no constitutionally mandated requirement for them to submit to what amounts to a commercial contract with the STATE OF TEXAS, a corporation acting under the color of law but not under the state or federal constitutions, and not in accordance with the God-given unalienable rights clearly declared by our forefathers when this country was founded.

So far the Texas Attorney General's Office (TAG), has given no indication of making a fair or reasonable settlement -- although in the Spring of 2005, the Assistant Texas Attorney General in charge of the case, Raul Noriega, first agreed and then reneged on an oral agreement that would have settled the case. When asked why, Noriega's response was that he was told by higher ups to proceed to trial despite the prior agreement to settle.

In the summer of 2006, TDSHS employees paid three separate visits to the Utopia Silver offices and demanded with a bogus warrant to make inspections. The first time, two TDSHS officers paid a visit. One identified himself as an "inspector" and the other as an "investigator". The owner of Utopia Silver, Ben Taylor, asked to see credentials so he could make copies. When they refused he ordered them to leave his premises and they complied.

The next day they returned, accompanied by two Texas State Troopers, and said they had a warrant. When Taylor demanded to see a supporting affidavit, they refused, saying he could go to Austin if he wanted to see it and threatening to arrest Taylor if he did not comply. At that point, Taylor began placing a phone call to the local sheriff, and the TDSHS employees and State Troopers beat a hasty retreat. It was later determined that no properly executed affidavit ever existed.

Two days later the TDSHS employees returned for a third time, just ahead of a Sheriff's Deputy. Taylor told them that since he was expecting the deputy to be there that morning to take statements about their previous visits, he would talk to them after he spoke to the deputy. He told the two TDSHS/FDA 'officers' to wait outside until the deputy took statements from four employees who had witnessed what had transpired the previous days.

"In the middle of the first statement," said Taylor, "the investigator came and asked to speak to the deputy. The deputy followed him to the lobby and I followed right behind. The TDSHS/FDA officer asked if I was going to comply with the warrant for an inspection. I again told him that I would talk to him when I finished with the deputy."

"He then proceeded to say that since I was refusing his inspection," Taylor continued, "would I sign a document stating that I refused inspection, and I said no and they meekly left. After that, we finished giving our statements to the Sheriff's deputy and so far they have not been back."

Since then, they continued to stonewall and refused to answer questions or otherwise attempt to make clarifications requested by Ben Taylor in accordance with the presiding judge's request for both sides to work together to try to work out an agreement. When Utopia Silver asked why they were being singled out for such actions and nothing was happening to similar companies, Assistant Attorney General Noriega said that it had been decided to make Utopia Silver a test case. After he made the statement, he was interrupted by the TDSHS officer, who, according to Taylor "proceeded to hem and haw on that point, obviously not comfortable with that statement having been made by the Assistant Attorney General."

At a subsequent hearing in the Fall of 2007, the judge stated that he was ordering a trial date to be set then and tried to first intimidate and then coerce Ben Taylor to agree to date for the trial. Mr. Taylor refused to agree, since in doing so he would be in effect entering into a contract to agree to the court's jurisdiction. At one point a deputy was summoned with the clear implication that Mr. Taylor might be arrested if he failed to agree.

Taylor, after various other tactics of intimidation by the judge, told the judge that, "The court might have the power to force me into a trial, but I will never agree to any trial date and will attend only "in propria persona" (in one's own proper person) by "special appearance" in order to defend my God-given Rights." (Note: an appearance may be either general or special; the former is a simple unqualified or unrestricted submission to the jurisdiction of the court where the defendant waives defects of service, the latter is for the purpose of objecting to the sufficiency of service or the jurisdiction of the court over a defendant without submitting to such jurisdiction).

Later, Taylor was told by a court official, "This system operates on fear, you have no fear and that's a problem for us."

Instead of setting a trial, a hearing was set before a new judge to determine a date for interrogatories and discovery as well as inspections and sanctions -- all of which are slippery grounds and another step towards a trial. At the subsequent hearing, Taylor again stated his objections to the jurisdiction and a new hearing was ordered to determine jurisdiction. When the new hearing was held and both sides presented their arguments, the judge rendered no immediate verdict and said she would take it under advisement and render a subsequent decision.

As expected, when the judge made her ruling she apparently ignored all evidence against the 'court's jurisdiction' entered by Taylor and co-defendant Adask, however she failed to do so pursuant to the State's own Rules of Civil Procedure, first sending an email of her ruling and then later sending a letter of the ruling when challenged about her emailing a 'court order'. Some observers believe that such an unorthodox method of 'delivering' a purported 'court order' was yet another in a string of ploys intended to trap Taylor, Adask and other defendants into unwittingly submitting to the court's jurisdiction.

Instead of accepting the improper service, Taylor sent his own "Notice of Insufficient Process" to the court along with a demand to the court and the prosecutor to "Cease and Desist" their fraudulent actions against Taylor, Adask and Utopia Silver.

Taylor's notice was sent on November 30th of last year -- and since it was filed, a silence has descended upon the case. As Taylor reports, "We haven't heard anything from the Texas Attorney General or the courts since late November of last year (about 230 days). At that time, the "judge" issued (by email initially) a court order denying my and Al Adask's (Anti-Shyster publisher and Texas State Supreme Court Libertarian Party candidate) special appearance." (As noted previously, a "special appearance" is one in which is made without submitting to the jurisdiction of the court).

As Taylor reports, "This Notice along with co-defendant Al Adask's "Man or other animals filing", see ((http://wordpress.com/tag/man-or-other-a...) , seems to have short-circuited the Plaintiff's intention to set another court hearing date for Motions for court ordered interrogatories and depositions under oath, as well as a restraining order to prevent my selling of colloidal silver (which they say is a drug because of customer testimonials) and silver generators (which they call a medical device).

"Also filed by us into evidence was a number of other things, including, but not limited to, The Organic Laws of The United States of America, The Common Law (specifically The Herbalist Charter), The Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act of 1938, which limits the FDA's jurisdiction/authority to Washington, DC and the territories (supported by the 18th and 21st Amendments) except in the regulating (organizing for efficient flow) of interstate commerce (transportation across State lines -- there is no FDA authority to control the sale and manufacturing of anything that I can find.), the case of Lopez v. United States, Dun & Bradstreet documents showing that the Texas Courts and government 'agencies' are "corporations for profit", the United States Code 28 Sec. 3002 showing that the "United States" is a federal corporation (which is a fictitious rather than an organic entity- our God-given Rights are recognized only by the organic United States of America) and numerous other Supreme cases that establish that God-given Rights cannot be statutorily converted into privileges."

Has Taylor and health freedom triumphed over a system that is corrupt and unconstitutional? Time may tell otherwise, but so far the silence has been deafening. Many who have followed the case feel that the FDA and their state servants bit off much more than they realized when they decided to take on Taylor and Utopia Silver. Instead of finding a small company and a man they could steamroll and bully, they have instead been fought to a standstill by a man who is determined to carry this fight to the very end no matter what the personal cost.

More than one astute observer has pointed out that the powers that be may well be facing some very thorny issues that had not seen the light of day -- such as the FDA commissioning state officers, the constitutional limits on the true powers of the FDA and other such agencies' true constitutional powers, freedom of commercial speech, and the issue of whether God-given unalienable rights set out in the Declaration of Independence and secured by the Constitution trump the entire corporate "color of law" administrative system of courts and agencies which have been used to usurp our freedoms and liberties over the year.

Should the state and their FDA masters continue further actions, Taylor promises that not only will such issues be at the forefront of his case, but also that he and his co-defendants will then "go on the offensive by filing suit against key officials (in their individual capacities) who have conspired to violate our Constitutionally secured Rights. Public servants/government officials lose their "official immunity" if they overstep their authority as granted (and limited) by the Organic Laws of the USA.

Full article including notice sent to the court click here