From: John Hammell
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 16:39:30 -0500

Yo: Rosemary, Herbert, Renner, Jarvis, Barrett, and you OTHER Scoundrels at the so called "National Council Against Health Fraud":

Attorney Jonathan Emord just won a landmark court victory against your stinking, beloved, Fraud and Drudge Association (FDA) which you pro gummint slime can read about and weep at:

As a result of this great and glorious first amendment victory, the FDA is now being forced to do something which they'd really rather _NOT_ have to do (he!he!he! Lovin' It!:

Now those degenerates at FDA have been COURT ORDERED to attempt to do that which is scientifically IMPOSSIBLE: they have been ordered by the Court to define what is MEANT by the ambiguous, undefinable TAUTOLOGY known as "significant scientific agreement" (the ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS barrier by which FDA has illegally and unconstitutionally been MURDERING Americans with for years, by fascistically denying us (in classic Orwellian style) from knowing the TRUTH, at the point of sale in labels and labeling on vitamin bottles, the TRUTH which the pharmaceutical SCUM don't want people to know, because it cuts into the sale of useless, DANGEROUS pharmaceutical drugs (which no one should use!)

Your beloved FDA is screwed now, baby! They won't be able to keep messin' with our GOD GIVEN first amendment RIGHT to inform the public of the healing powers of dietary supplements, and I'm lovin' it too! Now, I realize that ya'll figure to make an END RUN around this via the fraudulent, unscientific so called "RISK ASSESSMENT" document which the FDA has ILLEGALLY put on the table at CODEX, however I'm on you like GLUE over that, so ya'll may as well GUESS AGAIN, comprende? There is nothing "scientific" about the so called "National Academy of Science" and they can shove their so called "risk assessment" document right up their collective buttholes, comprende, bitch?

If somethin' is true about a dietary supplement, under the first our first amendment God Given RIGHT to FREE SPEECH, we should be allowed to inform the consumer, at the point of sale, through labels and labeling, capiche, amigo??? Show this to Barrett,Renner, Jarvis, Herbert and those other dspicable tools of the Satanic Drug Cartel, eh? I want 'em to gnash their teeth in mortal agony, and I want 'em to lose SLEEP at night, YEAH! I want 'em to piss their pants! he!he!he! LOVE IT!!!

The Emord case (actually the Durk Pearson and Sandy Shaw case, was based on the following four specific claims allowed on dietary supplement labels:

1)"Consumption of antioxidant vitamins may reduce the risk of certain kinds of cancers."

2)"Consumption of fiber may reduce the risk of colorectal cancer."

3) "Consumption of Omega 3 Fatty Acids may reduce the risk of coronary heart disease."

4. ".8 mg of folic acid in a dietary supplement is more effective in reducing the risk of neural tube defects than a lower amount in foods in common form."

On January 15th, the US Court of Appeals reversed the previous unfair and immoral court decision and ordered the FDA to reconsider these 4 health claims on supplement labels. The Appeals Court reversal came despite arguments made by US Department of Justice attorneys on behalf of FDA and the support of the American Cancer Society and Bruce Silverglade of Center for Science in the Public Interest. In reversing the lower courts decision, the US Court of Appeals made several significant comments concerning the government's argument:

"As best we understand the government, its first amendment argument runs along the following lines:that health claims lacking signficant scientific agreement are inherently misleading because they have such an awesome impact on consumers as to make it virtually impossible for them to exercise any judgement at the point of sale. It would be as if the consumers were asked to buy something while hypnotized, and therefor they are bound to be misled. We think this contention is almost frivolous."

"Because it is not claimed that the product is harmful, the government's underlying-- if unarticulated-- premise must be that consumers have a limited amount of either attention or dollars that could be devoted to pursuing health through nutrition, and therefore products that are not indisputably health enhancing shoud be discouraged as threatening to crowd out more worthy expenditures. We are rather dubious that this simplistic view of human nature or of market behavior is sound, but, in any event, it surely cannot be said that this notion-- which the government does not even dare openly set forth-- is a direct pursuit of consumers health; it would seem a rather indirect route, to say the least."

I have vitamin consuming spies from all over the world monitoring the lunatic fringe represented by the so called "National Council Against Health Fraud" and a member of the International Advocates for Health Freedom crowd picked off the following message about me from you which was disseminated via the NCAHF mailing list.

I'd like to thank you for helping my credibility amongst the anti FDA crowd by discussing my work on the nausea provoking NCAHF list, and simultaneously, I'd like to call your attention to the fact that you and your fascist anti vitamin cohorts may as well pack it in so as to avoid what is certain to be nothing but ongoing humiliation and psychic pain as we are only going to keep winning victories of this sort, and if you persist in annoying me with stuff such as the following, its only going to backfire on you because when I see stuff like this written about me, it only causes me to redouble my resolve to drive you all into the sea, because this planet aint big enough for IAHF and the likes of NCAHF, and ya'll may as well DISSOLVE, capiche baby?

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

I just pulled some files on John Hammell and The International Advocates for Health Freedom (IAHF). In comments submitted to the Dietary Sup. Label Com. John states, "John C. Hammell, the founder of IAHF recovered from schizophrenia 18 years ago by taking dietary supplements. He recovered via othomolecular medicine after mainstream methods almost killed him. The physician who set him on the (?) to recovery was the late Carl C. Pheiffer, MD, PhD, founder of the Princeton Bio Center, in Skillman N.J. Peiffer was the author of Mental and Elemental Nutrients. Hammell has benefitted tremendously by using dietary supplements and only wants others to have the same chance to heal. He was a member of the ad hoc advisory board that helped estabnlish the Office of Alternative Medicine at the National Institutes of Health."

Also, "IAHF is networking with consumers world wide via the internet. Groups that we network with include the Life Extension Foundation, National Health Federation, the Law Loft, and the Amer. Preventive Med. Ass., Internat. Society of Individual Liberty, the Libertarian Party (US), Freedom of Choice in Health Care, Canadians for Responsible Government, the Abolistionist Party, the Reform Party, the Free World News, (Canada); Consumers for Health Choice, Society for the Promotion of Nutritional Therapy, Maperton Trust (UK), Campaign Against Fraudulent Medical Research, Nexus Magazine, Health and Healing Magazine (Australia), Healthy Options Magazine (NZ), PHARMAPACT (SA), Heilsufrelsi (Iceland), ASEED (Netherlands) as well as groups in Jamaica, Spain & Japan."

In the Sept. 1997 issue of the publication LIFE EXTENSION, John notes that Clinton Miller & Milton Bass lament that DSHEA gives the FDA a powerful weapon in allowing them to create GMPs or standards for "good manufacturing practices" for dietary supplements. (In other words, FDA can insist that manufacturers have clean plants and get the right herb in the bottle. Miller & Bass think that giving a government agency this kind of power is bad for you and me.) Hammell also says that he was detained by Canandian Customs when trying to enter that country. He says it was because of a complaint from the publisher of a vitamin trade publication.

Hammel is very alarmed by the attempt of pharmaceutical companies to take over the natural products industry. He sees evidence of this in a double-blind study on Echinacea supposedly being conducted at Bastyr U. in 1997 in Seattle, Wash. (Has anyone seen results published? When NIH gave this naturopathic "school" a grant to conduct a survey on the use of "alt. med.", I believe that they had to find someone to show them how to do such a study scientifically.) As further evidence of the pharmaceutical industry taking over natural products, Hammell cites the attempt of PharmaPrint to patent a "complex herbal molecule".

This stuff goes on and on. Before you dismiss it as lunatic fringe, I saw Alain Rock, the Canadian Minister of Health, on the Canadian nightly news walking through a store in Toronto parroting the health freedom party line. Rock is a lawyer. As far as I know he doesn't have a background in science or medicine. I doubt that he had any idea where the statements he was making were coming from. Hammell criticizes American botanical companies and the members of the Dietary Supplement Label Com claiming that they are "dominated by pharmaceutical interests". (I claim that the committee was dominated by the botanical industry & put it in the public record.) People like Rob McCaleb then mention the criticism to imply that he is a moderate. I don't believe that for a minute. But whether or not I do or not is irrelevant. Drugs and therapies should be evaluated on the evidence not on the political proclivities (?) of special interest groups, certainly not those with a financial interest in them.

Author's name withheld

IAHF website maintained by webmaster, Jan Rosenstreich, 
Mystic Gateway Holistic Center -

Donations needed for trips to Washington to Secure Congressional Oversight
Hearing: IAHF 2411 Monroe St. Hollywood, FL 33020 USA
800-333-2553, 954-929-0507 fax,,