Watch out for "Big Brother"

Testimony

    When Big Government can control Testimony in one facet of our lives, it will control other facets until our lives are nothing but dust. We will have lost all our freedom and fallen to corrupt government which is the master of everything but thought.  What has happened to "Free Speech"?  When "Government" can open a wedge through FDA and FTC, and the individual can not bear testimony of a health system,  a natural product, or an experience, WATCH OUT FOR YOUR RELIGION, YOUR BELIEFS,  WATCH OUT FOR YOUR VERY LIFE!

    This is one of several notices I have received from different people interested in Health.:

Hello GERALD!

Here is another example of our great government at work! This should alarm anyone concerned about their freedom. 

 OPERATION CURE.ALL -- WHO'S CURE?

  by Ruth James

  Something very disturbing happened this week. The long arm of   the government got longer. Going by the name of Operation   Cure.All, the FDA and the FTC have launched a joint campaign to   cure themselves of all competition.

  Apparently, the growing popularity of alternative medicine and   sales of health products are putting a dent in big medicine's   pockets. So much so, that they've launched a serious campaign   on and offline against it.

  The government's proclaimed goal is protecting the health of   citizens. To that end, testimonials are basically deemed   unsubstantiated and deceptive unless they follow stringent rules   and legalities set up by the government.

  One of these rules is that testimonials and endorsements must be   backed up by "competent and reliable scientific evidence" (i.e.,   scientific tests, analyses, research, and studies). While this   sounds commendable, what does this really mean?

  It means that unless there are clinical studies, research, tests   and analysis behind even the most mundane statement, it cannot   be used. Most of us are not qualified to do scientific   research, nor do we have the money to hire a scientist to do it   for us every time we want to give a testimonial.

  The government requires that testimonials cannot imply that they   treat, cure, prevent, or mitigate any disease. What makes it   difficult is that exactly what is permissible and what is not is   extremely complex and baffling. The average person could not   possibly understand the 50 pages the FDA takes up explaining the   regulations and all their intricacies without a skilled lawyer.

  In addition, there are only certain ways testimonials can be   structured, called "structure/function" rules. In most cases, a   genuine statement from an average person would not fill the   criteria of "structure/function." Even if someone were aware of
  the stringent rules that applied, it would be very difficult for   anyone but a skilled lawyer to give an acceptable testimony.

  Since very few testimonies are legal, this nearly completely   and conveniently eliminates using them. As an added burden, if   all the correct documentation exists and the testimony is   structured correctly, a report must be filed with the FDA   within 30 days of using the testimony. It appears the   government has found a way to tie the hands of Internet health   companies so that testimonies about their products cannot be  heard.

  Another one of the new regulations is under the guise of   'deception.' While I agree that advertising should not be   misleading, it is now illegal for health websites to mention the   name of a condition, such as 'headache,' 'arthritis,' 'heart   disease,' or even 'pain' anywhere, not only in testimonials.   Symptoms relating to diseases also cannot be used because they   IMPLY a disease condition. Even a factual statement such as,   "According to the National Cancer Institute, ingredient X   protects smoker's lungs," is considered an impermissible disease   claim.

  Basically, no relationship can exist between a supplement and a  disease condition. Even natural states such as pregnancy,  menopause and menstrual cycles qualify as diseases! All I can  say is, its going to be very hard for health websites, including  mine, to explain their products in anything but the most  watered-down terms.

  The other major area of concern is that the FDA has taken the  position that Internet advertising qualifies as labeling, and  therefore falls within its scope of its authority.

  So, if someone makes a claim that a supplement will treat, cure,  prevent, or mitigate a disease, the supplement loses its status  as a supplement and is then categorized as a drug.

  And?all drugs must pass the FDA's review process to ensure that  they are safe and effective for their represented uses. This is  a rigorous and incredibly expensive and lengthy review process  that nobody really wants to go through - not even the drug  companies! But until it is completed, the FDA considers the  product to be an unapproved new drug, which may not be marketed.

  And putting some teeth into their decree, the FDA has the  authority to seize the product if it is distributed to the  public.

  Now that's power! Designed to make Internet health marketers  shake in their boots, no doubt.

  The FDA and FTC take the position that they have the  jurisdiction to control freedom of speech for the sake of  protecting public health. They argue that 'deception' is  misleading the public. They are doing their best to discredit  promotions that use words like "exclusive products," "secret  ingredient" or "ancient remedy" -- claiming that these are  meaningless scientific terms.

  As far as I know, nobody was ever trying to call them scientific  terms. They are marketing terms, pure and simple. They were  never meant to be scientific. I mean, would you mistake "secret  ingredient" or "ancient remedy" for a scientific term? You'll  find these terms in many books on headlines and sales letters. I  don't think anyone would be foolish enough to go searching for  them in a researcher's study. Why is the government implying  there is deception here?

  The government gave their approval for drug companies to  advertise their prescription medications in TV commercials and  in magazine ads. TV viewers are blasted with them every night.  But they want to make sure that information about natural  products is suppressed. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to  figure out what's going on here.

  The FDA claims it is afraid that "people could cancel their  surgery, radiation or chemotherapy in favor of herbal cures that  cost hundreds of dollars." I'd like to ask if the government  has totaled up the cost of surgery, radiation and chemotherapy  lately? These established medical treatments total up into the  tens of thousands, not hundreds, per person. But I don't see  the government concerned about these skyrocketing costs.

  After all, there's a whole industry out there profiting from it.  Think of all the hospitals and cancer centers in existence with  all the equipment they purchase and all the people they employ.  Think of all the companies that manufacture this specialized  equipment. And think of all the medical schools and nursing  schools that train doctors and nurses to use it. Think of the  drug companies that manufacture chemo and all the money they  make from it. And don't forget the insurance companies.

  When you think of all this, you can get a picture of just the  'cancer industry' alone. Yet the government is afraid a few  people might spend a few hundred dollars on natural substances?  No, they are afraid the cancer industry might lose money. They  are afraid that since the sales of health items are increasing,  they are losing their edge - that their brainwashing of the  public is growing thin. Hence, they have come out with a new  campaign of fresh ideas for re-brainwashing the public.

  Also targeted is a device that delivers a mild electric current  that purportedly kills the parasites causing such serious  diseases as cancer and Alzheimer's. I tried such a device  personally. Did it work? No. But I'm glad I had the freedom  to try it and find out for myself. The mild electric current  didn't hurt me and the cost was insignificant.

  I also tried colloidal silver and found it didn't work for me.  Nor did it harm me. I really don't need the government's  protection for something that is harmless. And I don't need  the government making my decisions for me.

  The FDA and FTC are also concerned that those with HIV or AIDS  could use St. John's Wort as a treatment for the disease. And  that St. John's Wort is known to interfere with proven HIV/AIDS  medications. I seriously doubt that very many HIV or AIDS  patients would use St. John's Wort as their sole treatment. But  if they do, why should the government prohibit them? Why  shouldn't they have the choice?

  I picked up an issue of 'People' magazine the other day. I was  astounded when I opened to a very convincing full-color, two-  page ad placed by the government discrediting what they called  'unsubstantiated and undocumented' claims by health companies.  They urged readers not try any health product without discussing  it with their doctor first and going to the government website.

  Discussing it with your doctor? We can pretty well predict how  that will turn out. How many doctors know anything about all  the health products available? How many doctors even know  anything about nutrition, considering doctors are only required  to take one course on nutrition? How many doctors are  interested in anything natural, considering they are trained to  dispense drugs, and are given bonuses and incentives to do so  (even all-expense paid vacations to exotic locations for  'training')? How many doctors even care that the medicine they  give you for your heart may damage your nerves or your liver?

  Several times, I have refused medication due to side effects.  I  was treated with utter disgust and contempt by the doctors and  their staff. A friend of mine cancelled surgery on her nose for  a skin problem, only to receive an irate call from her doctor  who blamed her for negatively impacting his income!

  Not only that, but I have seen many of my friends and relatives  go through chemo. I've seen what it can do to the body and the  brain. And I've seen too many young women die horrible deaths  shortly after starting chemo. And still others died the second  time around, because the chemo-treated cancer returned.

  Yet the only three legal treatments for cancer in this country  are chemotherapy, surgery, and radiation.

  Does the government require doctors to give you the rates of
  failure with chemo or the side-effects of radiation? Does the
  government even require the doctors to tell you that there were
  17,000 deaths from Aspirin alone last year? How about the fact
  that doctors are the third leading cause of death in America
  today?

  That's right, according to the "Journal of the American Medical  Association" Vol. 284 July 26, 2000, things like unnecessary  surgery, medication errors, negative effects of drugs, etc.,  cause almost as many deaths as heart disease and cancer.

  This comes to a total to 250,000 deaths per year from latrogenic  causes! Iatrogenic means it was caused by a physician's  activity, manner, or therapy. And these estimates are for  deaths only and do not include negative effects that are  associated with disability or discomfort!

  Doesn't this beg the question, "Is treatment from a doctor  safe?" Yet I do not see the government addressing this issue in  any way.

  It is a known fact the US health care system is the most  expensive in the world, yet the quality of health in the US  rates poorly. In a recent comparison of the health care in 13  countries, the United States ranked an average of 12th (second  from the bottom) for 16 available health indicators. In another  study by the World Health Organization of 25 industrialized  countries, the US ranked 15th.

  This prompts me to ask, who is the government protecting? And  why?

  I'll never forget one brave woman with cancer that I knew who  chose to die naturally, without chemo or radiation.  She died in  peace, surrounded by her loving family, with all her wits about  her.  In contrast, I remember the horrible deaths of my friends  who received full doses of chemo and died anyway. They had  loving families too, but they did not die gracefully or in  peace. The chemo had affected their mental (and emotional and  physical) faculties and they lost touch with the world long  before it seemed right.

  And then, I read about how 'required' food labels, mandated by  the FDA, are concealing a hardened killer - trans fat, found in  snack foods. The labels are not required to mention trans fat.  Yet trans fat is considered worse than saturated fat by some  scientists. It elevates bad cholesterol; lowers good  cholesterol; increases triglycerides; and makes blood platelets  stickier, increasing the chance of clots. Even if the saturated  fat content of a food is low, the trans fat content can be very  high.

  Back in 1999 a cost-benefit analysis done for the FDA estimated that labeling trans fat would save $3 billion to $8 billion  annually in averted heart disease costs. And labeling would  save from 2,000 to 5,000 lives a year. But the FDA has not yet  required industrial trans fat to be listed on labels. This  means the labels are actually MISLEADING heart patients,  diabetics, athletes and millions of other consumers who watch  their fat intake.

  But the FDA has been reluctant to require labeling. Aren't  they concerned that 'Nutritional Facts' labels on foods are  misleading? Perhaps their logic is, why should they bother the  big snack food manufacturers? After all, they insure the  hospitals get plenty of patients. And nobody knows about trans  fat anyway. It's so much easier to target the health food and  supplement industry. It's so much easier to declare that  websites are a form of 'labels' and slap on regulations. And  its easy to discredit a smaller industry that is concerned about  real health.

  Every time the FDA attempts to require that nutritional  supplements be obtained by prescription only, there is  tremendous public outcry. Petitions are circulated, letters are  send in, calls are placed. The government is forced to back off  due to public indignation. Now, they have found a way to gain a  stronghold. They have found a way to slip suppression of  nutritional information past the public. They are hoping you  never know of this. And that you don't notice what is not being  said so that they can creep a little further, with each new  regulation, into taking your health choices away until they are  eventually controlling all your health decisions.

  Ask yourself, whose health is the government really concerned  about? Yours or the pockets of the drug and medical industry?

  Don't let them take your choices away from you.

  ----------------------------------
  Right now there is no coalition to fight the new regulations.  There is no advocate to represent nutritional companies in  Washington DC. If we don't speak out individually and  collectively, the government will take further infringements  upon our freedom of choice in health. If you would like your  voice to be heard, please contact your federal representatives  and complain. You can find the names and contact information of  your representatives here: http://www.house.gov and your  senators here: http://www.senate.gov/

  FTC Announcement
  http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2001/06/cureall.htm

  Ruth James
  rjames@therealessentials.com

 

Gerald Jones

gcj@gcje.net

http://www.gcje.net