To: IAHF List
Subject: TACD TRANSPARENCY REGARDING "HARMONIZING" EU AND US DIETARY SUPPLEMENT REGS ???
From: "International Advocates for Health Freedom" firstname.lastname@example.org
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 01:15:32 -0500
All Webmasters: Please post and forward to your lists.
Everyone: Please forward to vitamin consumers world wide. Anyone can be on the IAHF email distribution list by signing up at http://www.iahf.com (Just because you are receiving this doesn't mean you are on the IAHF list.)
To: Beate Kettlitz: BEUC as well as the Steering Committee of the Trans Atlantic Consumer Dialogue http://www.tacd.org/contacts.html
re: emails below from Poul Møller, Lipidchemist, M.Sc and Josef Hasslberger, from La Leva di Archimede http://www.laleva.org/
THE NEED FOR TACD TRANSPARENCY IN ALL DELIBERATIONS REGARDING "HARMONIZING" EU AND US DIETARY SUPPLEMENT REGS
Dear Beate Kettlitz (and everyone on the steering committee of the TACD, especially the working group on foods):
I have read Møller's email to you from Denmark (below) with great interest, and would appreciate being cc'ed on your response to him and to Mr. Hasslberger. Today I heard Mr. Hasslberger interviewed on an American radio program called "Natural Living With Gary Null". Null's program is nationally syndicated here in the states, but it was also listened to by vitamin consumers throughout the world, including many throughout the European Union who listened to it in real time yesterday on the web at http://www.vitalcast.com/ Null had several proponents of dietary supplements on his show today from several countries: Denmark, Italy, Ireland, South Africa, New Zealand, and the USA. The purpose of his show today was to examine the pharmaceutically driven campaign to attempt to "harmonize" dietary supplement regulations world wide to the detriment of consumers, and he will be doing additional shows to examine this important public health issue.
Please be mindful of the fact that the TACD as well as the Trans Atlantic Business Dialogue http://www.tabd.org/ are both coming under scrutiny from vitamin consumers world wide due to a perceived lack of transparency involving the deliberations of both bodies, and an apparent unwillingness to engage in a thoroughly honest, open dialogue on these issues. Neither the TACD or the TABD are subject to the American Freedom of Information Act, and consumers are increasingly questioning whether or not they are truly represented and properly enfranchised by the Trans Atlantic Consumer Dialogue, especially when that body includes Center for Science in the Public Interest, and Public Citizen- two organizations that have publicly called for the repealment of the American Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994, an Act of Congress generated by a massive revolt wherein American vitamin consumers deluged Congress with the largest flood of mail, faxes, and phone calls ever received in the HISTORY of Congress (more mail even than was generated by the Vietnam War.)
In the wake of this Consumer Revolt against the Pharma Cartel, the TACD (Trans Atlantic Consumer Dialogue) is attempting to tell our government and the American people that they must conduct a "safety and efficacy review" of dietary supplement ingredients "which shall include the establishment of safe upper limits." http://www.tacd.org/foodf.html#dietary I don't recall ever having the chance to ELECT anyone to the TACD, so why should I feel any level of comfort with any DICTATE emanating from this body of which you are a part?
Where are the alleged "dead bodies" which the TACD surely must claim exist to warrant this allegedly necessary "safety and efficacy" review??? Please enlighten us, I seem to be missing something important. Properly researched, regulated, and properly used drugs are the 4th leading cause of death in the world (JAMA)- they're killing an estimated 200,000 people per year, the equivalent to a 747 crashing and burning every day, 365 days per year: DEATHS caused by pharmaceutical drugs. How many people per year are dying as a result of vitamins and minerals by comparison? Please cite any evidence you may have. We do have evidence of 3-4000 Adverse reaction reports being filed in poison control centers by alarmed mothers whose kids have swallowed a whole bottle of dietary supplements upon occassion, but very few of these recorded "exposures" have resulted in any serious injury, much less death. http://www.aapcc.org/
On the other hand, we do know that the sale of dietary supplements is cutting into the global sale of patented prescription drugs, and that this angers many pharmaceutical giants who we suspect would indeed stoop low enough to create an organization called the "Trans Atlantic Consumer Dialogue" as it would fit their Orwellian nature to do so. For this reason, any world body calling itself the "Trans Atlantic Consumer Dialogue" which has the ear of government officials in both the EU and USA and which has announced as its mission to "harmonize" the laws governing the sale of vitamins and minerals between the EU and USA is worthy of our attention as consumers world wide who wish nothing more than the absolute right to ingest whatever WE WISH into our bodies, which WE and not the STATE are sovereign over, being as we are endowed by our CREATOR with certain unalienable rights, among which are the right to LIFE, LIBERTY and the PURSUIT of HAPPINESS. If we want to ingest VITAMINS and MINERALS in MEGA DOSES that is our ABSOLUTE God Given RIGHT as these natural substances comprise the proteins that create each and every one of our CELLS, they are indigenous to the body, and are very safe (in marked contrast to toxic pharmaceutical drugs which we largely reject as relics from an ignorant past which we seek to no longer ingest, preferring PREVENTION to dumping TOXINS into our bodies.
Dr. Null made quite a supreme effort on today's radio show to interview health freedom advocates from a number of countries around the world including New Zealand, South Africa, Ireland, Italy, Denmark, and the USA to examine this rapidly escalating global "harmonization" of laws pertaining to consumer access to vitamins and minerals, and I feel quite sure he'd give serious consideration to putting you on the air along with Møller for the sake of a stimulating dialogue that could be listened to by vitamin consumers world wide, including many in the EU who will be impacted by whatever decisions are made regarding the EU Vitamin Directive.
Surely BEUC must believe in transparency with regards to these matters and would welcome such a chance for a dialogue, would you not? I am ccing this to Null's producer at email@example.com and encourage you to please cc your response to Møller to not only Hasslberger and I, but also to Null's producer, who's name is Jonathan Eder. As a consumer advocate who knows the healing properties of dietary supplements from first hand experience, I feel that the public health implications of the EU's vitamin deliberations certainly bear close global scrutiny,and careful deliberation of the sort that is fostered through programs such as Dr. Null's. Of course, you don't have to engage in this sort of dialogue if you wish not to, but please be mindful of the fact that there was a demonstration in Cincinnati against the TABD, just as there was in Seattle against the WTO, and there is nothing sacred about the TACD- if this body wishes to have the backing of the vitamin consuming masses, it must EARN our trust, and not shrink from opportunities of this sort for a dialogue regarding the sort of issues raised by Møller, otherwise your objectivity as well as impartiality could come into question, and the reputation of BEUC (and the TACD by extension) would, of necessity, suffer. What say you? Do you accept this challenge to engage in an open debate on these matters? Does ANYONE from the TACD???
Please let me, as well as all of the other vitamin consumers world wide on the IAHF email distribution list and who visit the IAHF website know. I will post any response to this email. If none is sent to me, I will be debating an empty chair, and the chair will be SEEN AS EMPTY by the more than 6000 unique visitors to the IAHF website each day who download and further disseminate megabytes of information daily, much of which is being globally disseminated through a growing number of health freedom websites now being run by vitamin consumers all over the world. Now- what say you in response to Møller's email below?
For Health Freedom,
John Hammell, President
International Advocates for Health Freedom
PO Box 625 Floyd VA 24091 USA
540-763-3051 (local and overseas)
At 07:57 PM 12/27/00 -0800, you wrote:
Dear Beate Kettlitz,
some time ago we sent you a write-up regarding food supplements, which considers the BEUC position on these products and asks to take into account the important element of consumer choice, when lobbying to represent consumers' interests. We would of course be interested in knowing the viewpoint BEUC reaches after considering the matter.
Meanwhile, we have received a comment from Denmark regarding food supplements and BEUCs policy towards them, which we would like to forward to you for your consideration, together with our own arguments for freedom of choice.
Please see below the letter of Poul Møller, M.Sc., and our reply to him.
La Leva di Archimede
====================Letter by Poul Møller===================
Sent by Poul Møller, Lipidchemist, M.Sc. who understands the chemical role and the value of antioxidants and to some extent also minerals in the human body.
I am retired and completely independent of the medical profession and have no income in the area.
Dear Dr. Josef Hasslberger.
In case the mail of Tuesday 20th did not reach you. The text is exactly the same.
To: La Leva di Archimede
Associazione di Consumatori per la Libertà di Scelta
Consumers Association for Freedom of Choice
Vicolo Monte del Gallo 19, 00165 Rome - Italy
Re: Your Comments on the BEUC position on food supplements
Dec 19, 2000
It was a relief to read your views against unnecessary control and restrictions on vitamins and minerals promoted by the pharma industry, more or less supported by BEUC. It is extremely important, that the public does not get poorer health and that scope for innovation remains. Your protest against BEUC has inspired me to this mail and I have the feeling, that you will be open-minded to the following views.
"4.2 Claims on food supplements We want to make it clear that most people have access to a balanced diet and they should ideally obtain all the nutrients they require from their normal diet. People should therefore be encouraged to attain/achieve a balanced diet from food before considering food supplements."
The first question is whether people in reality eat the balanced food? Not all encouragement is being followed up by those encouraged, e.g. smoking; "you can lead the horse to water, but you cannot make him drink" a.s.o. The next question is whether this balanced diet will do. There is a terrific ignorance in health science - and no prestige - about the value of vitamins and minerals. It seems to remain at the level of preventing diseases of deficiency as 70 years ago and have not reached that of preventing chronic diseases or even curing them. The biochemists do know, but they seem to be disregarded.
Certainly the Mediterranean diet and the French paradox show far better results than a balanced diet in Northern Europe, so the latter is not sufficient. In all, the claim of BEUC is not considered, it neglects the damage from an inner pollution. It is a rather naive attitude.
It is a disaster, that everything concerning health has to be evaluated by the double blind clinical research method incl. placebo, invented in the 50´ies. It is different from anything else in the science of Nature, has therefore created a monopoly, which makes manipulation and tyranny possible. The very high expenses of this research limit drastically the number of "scientific proofs" and noboby will care for doing research in the topical field. It is too easy to state "not scientifically proven", if something does not suit the profession e.g. at a board of appeal. My professional paper recently published a well supported article: Clinical research is often full of methodic errors.
Further the argumentation is a bit strange. A physician observes some inexplicable symptoms and puts forward a series of causal hypotheses. A double blind investigation of a population of sufficient size including placebo shows the cause of highest statistical significance without making sure that the real one is included. In other words a qualified guessing going back-wards from symptom to cause. Incidentally without regard for body-chemistry; at the end it is conclusive for our health and well-being. Chemical facts have a conclusive power of proof superior to that of medical probabilities. Peculiarly enough the extremely toxic mercury from amalgam is - for some reason - never considered a possible cause in the science of Establishment.
In the exact chemical science the debate shifts to the logical direction starting with the origin of a disorder and ending up with the disease. Injuries and diseases originating from an inner pollution of a smaller quantity of a poison, e.g. pesticides, drugs and heavy metals, where antioxidants are beneficial, requires a chemical understanding of the processes in the body. Epidemiological studies will never be able to correlate such toxins deposited in various organs and tissues, their locations and quantity to diseases, because analyses have to be made post mortem. A predominant example is mercury from amalgam, the most potent substance creating free radicals in excess. The patients are in urgent need of antioxidants. Chemistry and common sense easily prove that the safe claim of amalgam is a scientific blunder disgracing universities and the whole medical profession.
After these introductory remarks to the scene for handling the topic of vitamins and minerals it is now time to inform you why I am dealing with the matter. From lipid chemistry I am very familiar with the generation of free radicals by tiny amounts of heavy metals. In the near family we have had severe disorders due to poisoning from amalgam, which have now been cured along the lines of my thinking, including a case of MS. So I have studied intensively the topic and came across the terribly large creation of free radicals by this metal giving the organism "oxidative stress". The biochemists have shown that CHRONIC DISEASES are linked to long term oxidative stress, the following ones falling into these categories::
senile dementia, Parkinson´s and Alzheimer´s dz. MS and ALS,
schizophrenia, fibromyalgia, epilepsy, migraine
tinnitus, chronic fatigue atherosclerosis, cancer
osteoporosis, cataract, some allergies - asthma and psoriasis
some rheumatic dz. reduced quality of sperm.
Add to this the ability of mercury to combine strongly with proteins containing sulfur and selenium. Suspicion of a link between mercury and AD has been considerably heightened by the findings, that the degeneration of the microtubules of the axons in the brain due to mercury is similar to that of patients with Alzheimer's, Parkinson's diseases and ALS
Furthermore mercury reacts into methylmercury, able to cross otherwise protecting barriers between blood and brain, in the placenta and in the milk glands. The mother transfers this compound to the fetus and the baby. It is able to kill nerve cells and to some extent the development of the brain may be blocked. It may get incomplete, and mental retardation has been shown to occur as a result.
Finally all the chemistry of mercury accelerates the process of ageing.
Conclusion: The pattern of age-degenerative diseases and that of elderly people loosing more mental alertness than necessary in the Western World is to a major extent due to amalgam. The use of amalgam is nothing less than a crime and it would therefore be crime No. 2 to restrict the availability of the remedying substances, vitamins and minerals to the general population. How can health authorities, the whole profession and the scientists be so ignorant, apart from a small minority who has realized the truth?
Removal of amalgam from the teeth and of mercury from the body will take many years due to the tremendous dimensions of the job. In the meantime the patients must have antioxidants available to counteract the toxic oxidative stress. Vitamin E, carotenes and vitamin C + selenium have proven best.
It is very urgent, too, to leave scope for innovation and future developments in our dynamic world. For instance: In 2 to 3 years natural carotene, superior to the synthetic ß-type ex Roche etc., and tocotrienols, a very potent type of vitamin E effective against some forms of cancer, both extracted from palm oil, will be available in marketable quantities. These and other similar innovations must have free entry to the market as they have to-day.
At the bitter end it is the question whether sick people have to remain sick to the benefit of the drug industry or they can get well to the benefit of themselves, their relatives and the societies. The consequences are even greater: When people remain mentally alert at a great age, they will be able to retire later, diminishing some of the demographic problems. We may discontinue the talk of the boom of elderly people threatening social welfare. It does not matter, that the number of elderly people increases by 25%, if the cost per person is being reduced by 50% and this is the aim. In a few years thinking in the whole area will be forced into a revolution. It is a great mission to help it happen.. .
Those promoting restrictions simply do not know, what they are doing, they are unaware of the impact of their political attitude. As we all know, intelligence may be limited, but stupidity unlimited. We are close to latter, if the predominant views can not be stopped
I hope you will find my views of interest. More scientific information with references is available.
Kind regards, Poul Møller.
======================La Leva's reply======================
Dear Dr. Møller,
thank you very much for your e-mail. We agree with you that much of today's health trouble is from the dual suppression of health by toxic substances and other hazards in our environment, and by a lack of the nutritive substances the body needs to biochemically handle the toxins and other hazards.
Medical science has degraded into profiteering off of selling further damaging chemical cures, because they can be patented and thus the profits of the producer protected, while selling simple biochemical substances or nutritive substances such as vitamins is subject to the laws of competition, which the large companies do not like at all.
Of course our present trouble of convincing legislators and even some consumer representatives of the necessity of "allowing" the use of natural biochemical substances runs square against the vital interests of these pharmaceutical companies who now "own" medicine. That is why we have a difficult fight before us.
We are glad to know that you are with us in this fight for a better understanding of health, and for the legislative basis of keeping ourselves healthy.
We would like to send a copy of your e-mail to BEUC and would like to also put it on the website of La Leva di Archimede. Do we have your permission to do so?
P.S. Please go to the following address and add your name to the growing list of people who are openly supporting the free availability of supplements and other natural health products, and are asking legislators to respect this wish. (I know you are doing more than that personally, but every signature helps).
============end of letter of La Leva to Poul Møller==============