The Systematic Destruction of Voting Rights in America

NaturalNews.com

by Heidi Stevenson

You might think you have the right to vote. You might think your vote counts. You might think that there's a problem here or there, but that they're the exceptions. You might think that the 2000 presidential election was an aberration, in which the U.S. Supreme Court violated ethical and court precedents to crown the election loser, countering the will of the people. You might think it can't possibly be an ongoing problem.

You might be very sadly mistaken.

Voting rights are under systematic attack in the United States. Techniques include:

* Outright disenfranchisement.

* Vote switching in election machines.

* Refusal to allow the public to see how votes are counted.

* Use of the people's courts by political parties and corporations to subvert the law.

* Use of lawsuit threats by large corporations against cash-strapped local governments to prevent them from examining voting machines.

Each one might not seem like a major issue, but taken together, it's clear that there's a coordinated attack on American citizens' rights to vote.

Vote Flipping

Brad Friedman has been following the problem for years, but even he was stunned when it happened to him when he voted in Los Angeles during the June 3rd California election:

"Right before my very eyes, the computer-printed ballot produced by the voting system I was using, incorrectly filled in bubbles for four of the races I was voting in. Had I not been incredibly careful, after the ballot was printed out, to painstakingly compare what was printed to what I actually voted for, I'd have never known my votes were being given to candidates I did not vote for."

As Friedman went on to point out, if he'd been blind, there would have been no way to know that his votes were changed. Forty percent of his votes were flipped. Because of his prominence, the machine he'd voted on was quarantined. No one bothered to check out the rest of the machines at that polling place or others of the same type.

Voter Caging

Legitimate voters who are likely to vote for the "wrong" candidates are identified and systematically excluded from the voter rolls. Different techniques are used, but one documented by reporter Greg Palast tells of one method.

Before the 2004 election, military personnel who came from predominantly black neighborhoods were targeted. The Republican National Committee sent them letters addressed "Do Not Forward". Most, if not all, of the addressees were serving their country in foreign lands. Lists were drawn up of the names on the letters that had been returned as undeliverable. The lists were sent to the RNC. These soldiers had been "caged".

Their voting registrations were challenged, based on the returned mail. Once their names had been removed from the voting rolls -- without any attempts to locate and inform them -- they lost the right to vote in the next election, whether they had returned home and gone to the polls or they had sent absentee ballots.

Through voter caging and other techniques, over half a million voters were disenfranchised during the 2004 election. The vast majority of those who were disenfranchised by caging were black military personnel.

Lack of Transparency in Vote Counting

In the recent June 3rd election in Monterey, California, two election observers were harassed and prevented from observing the process and the equipment used for tabulating votes. From the first, when they formally requested access, citing the California code that specifies the rules for observation -- which quite clearly gives the right to check out all phases of the election, along with all computer and tabulating equipment -- they were stonewalled.

In spite of the attempts to stop them, Valerie Lane and Brian Rothenberger were able to see obviously illegal activities and clear indications that it would be easy to tamper with the vote count. They were stalled, ordered to leave, and threatened with arrest.

The second article in this series will discuss the specifics of how Mr. Rothenberger and Ms. Lane were prevented from doing precisely what the law -- and democracy -- requires.

Lawsuit Threat

In New Jersey's Union County, paper records of the number of voters in the recent primary election did not match the results produced by Sequoia Voting Systems' machine printouts. Naturally, the County Clerk, Joanne Rajoppi, wanted the problem investigated. The Constitutional Officers Association of New Jersey, an organization of state sheriffs, county clerks, and other similar officials, concurred, calling for an independent review. They planned to have it done by a Princeton University computer scientist who has experience with voting machines.

It isn't going to happen. Sequoia claims, without any proof, that the errors were the result of errors by poll workers -- an interesting concept, considering it's never happened before. Using double-speak without a hint of embarrassment, they say that they "welcome all such responsibly executed review activities." How that can be done, though, they don't say -- but they aren't going to let Union County do an investigation.

Sequoia threatened a lawsuit against Union County, claiming that an independent investigation would violate their licensing agreement. The county has no option but to capitulate. The cost of defending such a lawsuit is prohibitive for them.

Left in the balance are the voters who have been disenfranchised.

A Chilling Subversion of Our Democracy

The implications for American democracy are chilling. A concerted and systematic effort has been underway to prevent the will of the people from being heard. The very basis of the governance of our nation is at extreme risk.

Thomas Jefferson wrote: "Should things go wrong at any time, the people will set them to rights by the peaceable exercise of their elective rights." He had faith in the people's ability to make good decisions through voting. What would he think now, when that most basic of freedoms -- the one at the heart of our society -- is becoming a ghost, nothing more than the image of what it was meant to be?

Alexander Hamilton said that a republic's right to vote "ought to stand foremost in the estimation of the law." Now, the right to vote is becoming little more than a shadow cast behind the actions of those who cast their votes into a void. Increasingly, it exists more in form than in substance.

Different techniques that have been used -- and continue to be used -- will be discussed in depth in upcoming articles. The only way to stop the theft of democracy is through awareness of what's happening. If you know that you're a potential target of vote theft, then you can protect both yourself and the future of the nation.


References:

The Brad Blog, by Brad Friedman, (http://www.bradblog.com/?p=6043) , (http://www.blackboxvoting.org/)

Black Box Voting, (http://www.blackboxvoting.org/)

"Buffalo Soldiers Scrubbed by Secret GOP Hit List", by Greg Palast, ((http://www.gregpalast.com/massacre-of-t...)

"Plan for voting machine probe dropped after lawsuit threat", by Diane C. Walsh, Real-Time News, ((http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2008/0...)

"Sequoia Threatens Lawsuit Over E-Voting Machine Review", by K.C. Jones, Information Week, ((http://www.informationweek.com/news/man...)

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

Pentobarbital Is Killing Eagles But the FDA Says It's Safe for Pets

NaturalNews.com

by Susan Thixton

Just when you think you've seen it all and nothing would be too shocking to learn or read about the pet food industry, you stumble across something that causes your jaw to drop. I stumbled across something that proves once again –- you can't be too careful about the food and treats you give to your pet.

First – a little background information. Back in 2002, the FDA released a report of their 2-year study/testing finding pentobarbital (the drug used to euthanize animals) in pet food. Their findings were that many brands of pet foods –- purchased right off of store shelves -- contained the euthanizing drug pentobarbital. With that finding, the FDA began an 8-week test to see if levels of pentobarbital in pet food could be harmful to pets. The FDA testing showed that the amounts of pentobarbital in pet food would not harm pets (even though their study only tested dogs). You should know that the FDA ran their testing on 42 twelve week-old Beagles –- and again the testing was only for 8 weeks.

Pentobarbital was found in many pet foods yet was determined by the FDA not to be harmful to pets. And one more time –- the testing to determine this only lasted 8 weeks even though our pets might be eating this euthanizing drug in pet food their entire life.

So, to the point of this article -- I just stumbled upon a U.S. Fish and Wildlife report that stated pentobarbital is considered an environmental hazard "responsible for the deaths of over 140 Bald and Golden Eagles in recent years -- as well as numerous other wildlife and dogs." Other wildlife named in the report were California Condors, Vultures, Hawks, Wood Storks, Gulls, Crows, Ravens, Bears, Lynxes, Foxes, Bobcats, and Cougars.

This report stated the reason the wildlife was exposed to pentobarbital is from access to euthanized carcasses of farm animals and small animals in land fills. "Poisonings due to accidental feeding of tainted meat to captive animals have also been reported."

In big bold letters the report stated "Poisoning of eagles or other wild birds, even if accidental, violates Federal law!" This report also stated that Veterinarians and livestock owners have been recently fined for 'involuntary killing' of eagles. "Veterinarians must inform clients that a pentobarbital euthanized carcass is poisonous and requires proper disposal. The client needs to know that the carcass can poison and kill scavenging animals, including federally protected species, other wildlife, or even pet dogs."

Even though the FDA determined through their eight week test that pentobarbital in pet food was Not harmful to our pets, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Agency is saying that pentobarbital euthanized carcasses are killing wildlife, including endangered species. Do we have a conflict between Federal Agencies?

As I wondered about the 'conflict' between the FDA and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Agency, I continued to dig a little further, and that's when I found the jaw dropper document. I wondered if the FDA had any information regarding the U.S. Fish and Wildlife report –- and low and behold, I found something...Dated July 21, 2003 (a little over a year after the FDA's report that pentobarbital found in pet food was determined to be safe for our pets to consume) –- the FDA posted a change in the labeling requirements for pentobarbital and a change in the definitions. The following are the quoted changes... "Special considerations. Product labeling shall bear the following warning statements: ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARD: This product is toxic to wildlife. Birds and mammals feeding on treated animals may be killed. Euthanized animals must be properly disposed of by deep burial, incineration, or other method in compliance with state and local laws, to prevent consumption of carcass material by scavenging wildlife." And "Limitations. Do not use in animals intended for food."

So this is what we have: Euthanized animals are being rendered and the end ingredients become ingredients used in pet food. The FDA determined that the pet food/treat ingredient most likely to contain pentobarbital is Animal Fat. Pets are consuming pentobarbital as you read this right now.Pentobarbital euthanized animal carcasses are killing wildlife. The FDA's own rules for the drug specify its limitations 'not for use in animals intended for food.' Yet it's still there. Granted, and geez I hate to give them this, the amount of pentobarbital in pet food –- since it is found in only some pet food and pet treat ingredients (but some very commonly used ingredients) –- is not at the same levels as would be consumed by wildlife in a euthanized carcass. But come on folks (FDA, CVM, and AAFCO) –- can you not add two and two and come up with four?

Personally, I think the FDA should again test pet food for pentobarbital and any dog food, cat food, dog treat, or cat treat (and any other animal feed for that matter) that contains even the slightest bit of the drug –- the manufacturer should be heavily fined. With respect to our national treasures –- the Bald Eagles and Golden Eagles: "The laws provide for substantial fines and prison sentences in criminal cases. For example, the maximum fine for violating the Eagle Act is $100,000.00 for a person or $200,000.00 for an organization and one year in prison." Under Federal Law 'intent' is not required for conviction –- criminal convictions require the violation be 'knowingly' committed. With respect to our pets, we've got a 'knowingly' committed act. The guilty pet food manufacturers knowingly purchase ingredients that contain pentobarbital. Yet no one fines them for breaking the law.

One year (2002) the FDA determines pentobarbital in pet food is perfectly safe for our pets to consume, and the very next year (2003) they determine pentobarbital an environmental hazard responsible for killing over 140 eagles. No further study or regulation change within the FDA has occurred since the 2003 label change. Did they forget about our pets? I think so.

Eagles are a national treasure –- no grey area there. Our pets are a treasure as well. They enhance our lives. They are family. To allow pentobarbital euthanized animals to be cooked and placed into pet food is criminal and should be stopped immediately.

One more quote from the FDA document dated July 21, 2003, "This rule does not meet the definition of "rule" in 5 U.S.C. 804(3)(A) because it is a rule of "particular applicability." Therefore, it is not subject to the congressional review requirements in 5 U.S.C. 801-808." I'm just guessing that the above quote means 'let's keep this quiet. After all, if people find out about this, we might have to go back and change what we said about pet food.' Just a guess.

Wishing you and your pets the best.

Cloned Beef Has Already Entered U.S. Food Supply, Even Before FDA Nod

NaturalNews.com

by David Gutierrez

The major cattle cloning companies in the United States have admitted that they have not bothered to try and keep meat from the offspring of clones out of the U.S. food supply, in spite of a request by the FDA several years ago.

"This is a fairy tale that this technology is not being used and is not already in the food chain," said Donald Coover, who owns a specialty cattle semen business. "Anyone who tells you otherwise either doesn't know what they're talking about, or they're not being honest."

Coover admitted that for several years, he has been openly selling semen from cloned bulls. He is sure, he added, that others are doing the same.

The revelation came as the FDA approved cloned beef as safe for human consumption but the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) asked farmers to keep it out of the food supply anyway.

The USDA's primary concern is that if cloned beef enters the U.S. food supply, other countries might refuse to purchase beef from the United States. Similar problems have emerged in the past with genetically modified U.S. crops being rejected, particularly in Europe but also in parts of Africa, Asia and the Americas. Insiders from agencies such as the USDA and Office of the U.S. Trade Representative noted that a product that no other country wants to buy might do the United States more harm than good.

The USDA's request for a moratorium on cloned beef is meant to give time for "an acceptance process" that will be needed "given the emotional nature of this issue."

A survey by the International Food Information Council Foundation found that 22 percent of U.S. residents surveyed had a favorable impression of cloned meat in 2007, as opposed to 16 percent in 2006. Approximately 50 percent had a negative impression of such food.

The FDA has rejected calls to require the labeling of food produced from cloned animals.

Despite some Headlines – Keep Taking Your Vitamins!

by Tony Isaacs

Latest Industry Backed "Study" Seriously Flawed and Biased.

A “new” study condemning the use of vitamins as ineffective and potentially dangerous is generating headlines throughout the mainstream media in the United States and Europe.
Apparently generating headlines was the sole intention, as the study is neither new, scientific nor objective.

The “study” was led by Serbian scientist and “visiting researcher” at Copenhagen University Hospital, Goran Bjelakovic, whose name is now synonymous with vitamin meta-analyses (studies of other studies) which appear to show that vitamin supplements either don’t work or end up increasing your risk of death. Two similar Bjelakovic “studies” on vitamin supplements, in October 2004 and February 2007, resulted in similar outbursts of negative international headlines.

Upon closer examination, the flaws in the so-called study are apparent. First of all, in evaluating studies for inclusion, the authors omitted a massive 405 potentially eligible studies because there were no deaths in the studies and another 69 studies were excluded because they weren’t randomized controlled trials.

In other words, instead of conducting an honest review of all the studies, the authors arbitrarily eliminated all studies in which vitamins prevented mortality and kept people alive - leaving only the studies in which people died from various causes. Most of the trials used pertain to already sick people being given very high dose, synthetic, isolated nutrients for relatively short periods – they therefore have no relevance to the vast majority of vitamin consumers.

When you select or reject studies on criteria that only mean something to statisticians, and ignore important things like duration, how long the study ran for — which ranged from 28 days to 14 years — your findings are immediately meaningless. Even the huge difference in dose of supplements between different studies was not deemed important - for example, Vitamin E ranging from 10 to 5000 units daily.

The studies in the latest meta-analysis not only relied on synthetic forms of vitamins, in most instances they relied on very high dosages of pharmaceutical-grade, synthetic forms of supplements manufactured by the pharmaceutical industry. The dosages used are typically much greater than those recommended on the labels of food or dietary supplement products. In most countries, the dosages used in the trials would be considered ‘medicinal’ by regulatory authorities and therefore would not legally be allowed for food or dietary supplements.

As a result, these studies actually apply only to synthetic forms of vitamins produced by the pharmaceutical industry in amounts much larger than most consumers would ever take. The authors of this latest Cochrane review state: “The present review does not assess antioxidant supplements for treatment of specific diseases (tertiary prevention), antioxidant supplements for patients with demonstrated specific needs of antioxidants, or the effects of antioxidants contained in fruits or vegetables.” This shows that the study has no relevance to natural sources of vitamins and minerals or antioxidants sourced from plants (e.g. flavonoids, anthocyanins, sulforaphanes, salvestrols/resveratrol, etc.), which are included in many of the leading-edge natural health supplements claiming potent antioxidant activity.

Make no mistake, this isn’t research. This is a re-analysis of studies that have been conducted and reported on previously, by a group of men with a known axe to grind, who have never produced a study favorable to supplements, which is itself statistically unlikely unless you have a bias.

There is extensive scientific evidence that higher intakes of vitamins in the forms and combinations consumed in the diet substantially reduce risk of killer diseases such as cancer and heart disease. In fact, it is this research (some of which is referenced in the introduction to both the JAMA and Cochrane papers) that has stimulated pharmaceutical companies to undertake research on pharmaceutical-grade, synthetic forms of supplements, which they manufacture. As is often the case when pharmaceutical companies try to synthesize or unnaturally isolate compounds found in nature so they can patent and profit from them, their synthetic version have been largely disappointing.

A good source to see why their results have largely failed can be seen in this paper by the Alliance for Natural Health:

http://www.alliance-natural-health.org/_docs/ANHwebsiteDoc_231.pdf

As a final note on the study: although presented as “new”, the study is really no more than a rehash of a paper by the very same authors, published last year (February 2007) in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA). Extensive international media followed the 2007 JAMA paper, including a front page articles in major newspapers telling consumers that vitamin pills could cause early death. The “new” study review relies on 67 of the 68 studies used in the JAMA paper.

The world pharmaceutical empire is a trillion dollar juggernaut whose continued profits depend on continued illness as well as a continued monopoly on approved medications and suppression of any alternatives which might provide prevention and treatment more effectively, more safely and less expensively – such as those found in nature. And so there are a trillion reasons why we see the repeated headlines about misleading and flawed studies like this one on vitamins, minerals and other natural supplements that represent billions of dollars in potential lost profits due to improved health and competition with patented drugs.

The best possible model for profits would be a monopoly on side-effect laden drugs which lead to complications requiring yet more side effect laden drugs in a never ending cycle so that by the time a person reaches the age of 65 they take an average of 15 prescribed and over the counter medications daily when it all started with one or two conditions that could have been treated naturally. A great model for profits and a horrible one for health and humanity.

The bottom line for all those who reject such a model: don’t stop taking your vitamins, minerals and other supplements - especially those derived from natural sources which insure adequate amounts of daily nutrition vital to your optimum health.


Sources:

Alliance for Natural Health
Natural News
JAMA
Lancet