Is it Ten Minutes to Midnight
for the Alternative Health Industry?

all about vitamins, herbs, and naughty government officials….
Q & A time with Campaign for Truth founder Phillip Day

ECLUB: Last issue we were dealing with the huge European Union vitamin and herbal issue. You were explaining that the EU is determined to regulate alternative remedies in its efforts to standardise commerce across the Eurozone, and that the vitamin issue is just one example among many of how the new European superstate is arrogantly muscling in on citizens' personal freedoms. You see Britain leaving the EU as a means of solving a number of this country's problems simultaneously, don't you?

PHILLIP DAY: We hear about the benefits of Britain being part of 'Europe', but the EU is not Europe. It's 15 nations, due to go to 25 next year, out of a total of 45 countries that make up the true 'Europe'. And who's ever learned in detail what these EU benefits are Britain is supposed to be enjoying? I've hunted in vain. All we see is Britain paying £1.25 million an hour to be part of a new Soviet-style EU superstate which threatens our very nationhood and sovereignty, and intends to abolish our legal system and currency, all the while dictating what British citizens can and can't do down to the last detail with tens of thousands of Gestapo-like diktats. Who needs all this when we are the EU's biggest customer and Brussels would have to continue trading with Britain with or without our asinine membership?

ECLUB: How do you see the European health legislation affecting, say, the United States, Australia and Canada?

PHILLIP DAY: Good question. Last fall, when I was touring Australia and New Zealand, a rather interesting article appeared in the press. A Professor Alistair MacLennan announced that a study by Adelaide University had discovered that Australians are spending $2.3 billion a year on alternative medicines and therapies - four times the amount they spend over the counter on pharmaceutical products.

ECLUB: That speaks volumes about the direction things are headed Down Under.

PHILLIP DAY: Yes. In my new book, Ten Minutes to Midnight, I discuss that this is the crux of the problem facing the drug industry. Now recognising it has severely underestimated the public's lack of faith in drug-based medicine, the pharmaceutical cartel is seeking to redress its crisis of market-share by dominating the huge, alternative health sector. We know that in Europe, pharmaceutical interests lobbied heavily for the passing of the food supplements and herbal directives last March. This new legislation will hand over marketing control of key nutritional products to Corporate Medicine with effect from July 2005. The question is, if the European Union succeeds in its supplement takeover, will other nations follow suit? There is good indication Australia will.

ECLUB: What evidence do you have?

PHILLIP DAY: Professor MacLennan's report on the Australian situation concluded with him advising Australians that "no children or pregnant women should be given these alternative medicines - they are particularly vulnerable and none of these products have been tested for their safety." Never mind that these products, often food factors, have been used for decades without any problems. MacLennan went on to state that all alternative medicines should face the same testing and labelling as standard pharmaceuticals. By implication, this would present enormous problems for small Australian manufacturers of alternative remedies and nutritional supplements having to stump up millions to get their products through regulation, which is what it costs these days. Almost certainly, they would never recoup the expenses incurred through subsequent profits from sales, so the end result is that they cease selling the product.

ECLUB: And the corporations pick up the slack?

PHILLIP DAY: Drug companies already have a well established relationship with government regulatory committees. It's no bother to run another few products through the approval program. Needless to say, these companies have the budgets necessary to smooth over any lumps or bumps in the process. The little guys don't.

ECLUB: And what about the United States?

PHILLIP DAY: The battle-lines are more obvious in America. The Food and Drug Administration has employed enforcers for years to arrest and harass alternative health practitioners and naughty supplement manufacturing companies. The result? A highly intimidated and paranoid US alternative health industry, constantly on the back foot.

ECLUB: You covered some examples of this harassment in your book Cancer: Why We're Still Dying to Know the Truth.

PHILLIP DAY: Yes. Essiac, Vitamin B17, Vitamin C… the battles between government/big business and the underdog have been endless. American government agencies like the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), the FDA, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are legendary for their Darth Vader tactics. Consistently applied strategies against the alternative health industry over the years have inculcated in the public mind the belief that Big Government is unchallengeable in matters of health and will do whatever it wants anyway. Many today believe you can't fight City Hall.

ECLUB: But there's a change in the public mood lately, isn't there?

PHILLIP DAY: No question. Over one million turned out in London in February to protest the idea of an Iraqi war. Similar protest marches were seen all over the world. Forget about whether you agree with the opinions of the marchers or not. If we look beneath the surface, we can appreciate that there were middle Englanders marching with anarchists along Piccadilly. Hippies with secretaries from Streatham. Mullahs marching with mother. Goggle-eyed eco-warriors shoulder to shoulder with stock brokers. These marches, while all about Iraq, also revealed a deeper indignation. That the public is now at the end of its tether with spin, hypocrisy, cover-up and sleaze, routinely used not just by one government, but by politicians the world over. People want to live in peace, and yet increasingly, this offensive new government style is seen by the people as the enemy of personal freedoms. I think the current change in public mood is highly significant… and heartening. It means people are finally waking up and getting ticked off.

ECLUB: You've been on your new 'Let's Fix Britain' UK tour for a few months, talking about the EU directives and health in general. Are you seeing an acceleration of mood in the people you meet?

PHILLIP DAY: Absolutely. Also, the threat to the alternative industry has compelled its organisations to work together in ways they normally wouldn't have under different circumstances. For instance, I'm currently working with a whole spread of alternative health and traditional medical organisations around the world I wouldn't otherwise be meeting. This is creating a powerful synergy for potential action in the future.

ECLUB: Give us an example.

PHILLIP DAY: In the UK, the Health Freedom Movement has organised a march in London this coming 15th June, starting in Hyde Park at 11am. Primarily, the event is about healthcare freedom and to protest the EU directives. Thousands are planning to be there. Also, anti-European Union organisations will be attending to draw public attention to those issues of British sovereignty and free choice we covered in the last edition. The march, like others before it, will become a statement of anger and concern by the public that once again their rulers are not taking heed of the people.

ECLUB: Are people getting mobilised in America and Australia?

PHILLIP DAY: Yes, and the tensions over Iraq are perversely helping. Folks are already feeling threatened on the global stage because of the potential for more terrorism and war. They're wondering what else is happening that they should know about. The Campaign for Truth in Medicine has representatives in these countries who hold meetings and discuss similar issues to those I cover in my talks. The Campaign is receiving record sign-ups, which to me is a clear indication of the public's desire to articulate their concerns and join with others in sending an unequivocal message to their leaders.

ECLUB: Would you say the public, while angry, has also become unnerved in sensing that the government isn't listening to them?

PHILLIP DAY: Yes, you can see this in many western nations today where voter apathy is epidemic. The public has simply lost the sense that it's being represented at all in many areas of public policy. So much horse-trading and dickering is carried out by ministers and representatives on the national and international level, and at such a rate, that the public is rarely told a lot of what is going on, let alone consulted on the issues. The pixie dust the politicians puff back at the electorate is just the usual "We know what we are doing. We're changing things for the better and we're doing it FOR YOU!" which of course they mostly don't and won't.

In Ten Minutes to Midnight, the man and woman on the street are becoming skittish. Those used to a traditional parliamentary or congressional democracy are sensing that as governments grow more socialist, they become more remote, more inscrutable and harder to rein in or control. People are unprepared for and unwilling to tolerate the modern style of 'shoot first and stroke the public later'. They hate the impotent feeling of not being able to do anything about it.

ECLUB: But many ordinary people are getting active, certainly on the EU supplements issue, who would previously have laughed at the notion of becoming an activist….

PHILLIP DAY: Many are commendably coming out of their comfort zone because if they don't get on the stump, who will? Speaking in the Daily Telegraph on 3rd September 2002, Conservative Member of the European Parliament Daniel Hannan stated: "If you are a regular buyer of natural remedies, but have never before campaigned against an EU measure, try extrapolating from this experience. You are now being treated as fishermen, art dealers, abattoir workers, hauliers and countless other victims of EU meddling have been treated before. It is not just this law that is wrong, it is the system that spawned it."

ECLUB: But in fairness, don't you feel that the alternative health industry, largely unregulated, could benefit from some standardisation and policing?

PHILLIP DAY: No question. But, also in fairness, the argument stands: why regulate supplements and herbs into oblivion that have been used for decades with no ill-effects? No-one's seriously questioning that the alternative health industry needs to operate responsibly, but the supposed harmonisation of vitamins and herbs has nothing to do with enhancing the safety of the public. This is a corporate coup d'état, pure and simple. And the public knows it.

ECLUB:
What advice do you have for readers in Australia, America and other nations who are monitoring these developments in Europe, who want to become involved?

PHILLIP DAY: It's important to get an organisation put together now in your country and link it in with the Campaign for Truth in Medicine (www.campaignfortruth.com). CTM in turn is linked with organisations across the world, so this gives us the resources and contact ability to pass information quickly and effectively. Anyone's organisation can provide members with a regular e-mail update of the latest news. It's vital for people to be engaged and educated on these issues. Never underestimate the clout a huge, co-ordinated, well-informed, and outraged public can bring to bear on governments. If the millions who participated in the marches proved anything, that was it.

Brussels Elite Accused over 'Federalist Coup'
by Ambrose Evans-Pritchard

Britain will lose control of foreign policy and defence and will be stripped of its sovereign power to legislate in almost all areas of national life, under the draft text of the European constitution released yesterday.

Sweeping aside British objections, the document established the European Union on a 'federal basis', enjoying 'primacy over the law of the member states'.

The 16 articles unveiled at the European Parliament are the first piece of a constitutional text being drawn up for the Convention on the Future of Europe.

Article 3 gives the EU powers to 'co-ordinate the economic policies of the member states', which covers fiscal policy.

Article 4 says 'the Union shall have competence to define and implement a common foreign and security policy, including the progressive framing of a common defence policy'.

Virtually all the current activities of the British Government will fall under the 'exclusive' or 'shared competence' of the EU - meaning that Westminster will be prohibited from legislating unless Brussels chooses to waive its primacy.

The areas cover public health, social policy, transport, justice, agriculture, fisheries, energy, economic and social cohesion, the environment, internal and external trade, and consumer protection.

The Government reacted with horror to the text yesterday, accusing an elite group of insiders on the convention's 13 member praesidium of carrying out a 'federalist' coup.

Downing Street's envoy to the convention, Peter Hain, the Welsh Secretary, said the authors had disregarded the collective will of the 105 members of the body, which is drawn from MEPs, MPs, and governments of the EU's 28 current and future stats.

He said: "The praesidium has got a lot of explaining to do, and we'll be making clear that a lot of the material in the draft has got to change." Mr Hain added that the text appeared to "put the EU in charge of foreign policy and economic governance", even though the working groups were divided or had rejected such proposals outright.

He said a large group of countries, including France, Spain, Holland and Romania was 'very unhappy' about the document, pointing to a future blocking alliance that would force the praesidium to retreat.

"The member states are the key building blocks of the European Union. There is no question at all of a federal superstate being erected here in Brussels" he said.

Tim Kirkhope, an MEP and Tory justice spokesman, accused the praesidium of flirting with 'dictatorship'.

He said: "This puts our parliamentary democracy under grave threat. It turns the EU on its head by saying that everything is the competence of Brussels unless determined otherwise. It is totally unacceptable to the British people".

The text of the constitution is being released in chunks, culminating in a final version by early summer. The convention delegates can suggest changes, but they do not have voting power to impose their views.

EU diplomats said the praesidium had been hijacked by a group of EU insiders. The two European commissioner on the body, France's Michel Barnier and Portugal's Antonio Vitorino, have taken charge, bringing in commission lawyers to draft the language.

There was speculation lat night that the term 'federal basis' would be removed from the final text as a sop to Britain, although this would not in any way lessen the transfer of power to Brussels.

In theory, any state can veto the document at the end of an 'inter-governmental' vetting process this autumn, giving the British a second chance to slow the juggernaut.

But the convention's president, Valery Giscard d'Estaing, says that no one state should be allowed to block the majority, saying that naysayers will have to leave the EU altogether.
The Daily Telegraph, 7th February 2003

PHILLIP DAY COMMENT: The Brussels agenda for a European federal superstate, for those who refused to accept it, is now starkly on the table. The new constitution may also give Brussels the power to compel Britain to join the euro, even against the wish of her citizens. Nothing less than a major backlash by concerned citizens in Britain and her territories will do to send a clear and unambiguous message to Westminster and Brussels that they are going to have a fight on their hands.

For those wanting more information on the European Union's plans for the destruction of Britain you, please visit the Campaign for Truth in Europe web-site and take the tour, or else obtain a copy of my new book Ten Minutes to Midnight.

Europol Strengthens its Powers
by Nigel Farage
MEP-South East region (UKIP)
Vice President of the EDD Group, European Parliament

The stealthy march towards a federal state by the European Union has been taking place for some considerable time. One of the institutions it decided that it needed was a police force. The establishment of Europol was agreed as a concept during the Maastricht Treaty discussions in 1992. based in The Hague, it began limited operations in 1994 by setting up the Europol Drugs Unit to aid the fight against drugs. Europol began its full activities, however, in July 1999.

Europol's original remit was to support action against drug trafficking, immigration networks, vehicle trafficking, trafficking in human beings, child pornography, trafficking of radioactive materials, forgery and terrorism., three years on, Europol is assuming the mantle of a force akin to the American Federal Bureau of Investigation but with wider legal powers. Under the terms of the Schengen Agreement in 1985, a law enforcement database was set up to counteract criminal abuses caused by the loss of border controls, including: arrest for extradition, persons refused entry to the Schengen area for national security reasons, missing people, minors or people wanted for detention, the prosecution of arrest warrants, either as suspects of witnesses and so on.

Europol has put forward a proposal to the Commission that it be given access to this database with the 'possibility of updating, deleting and modifying information'. They have wanted access to this information for some time and have only been prevented by the reluctance of the member states to share it. With Europol gaining access, the Schengen database will virtually come under its control. At present, only member states can attend, delete or modify their own data. Under their proposal, Europol will be able to gain full access and amend, delete and modify the information.

Internet Surveillance
Even more controversial are Europol's efforts to control surveillance on data retention. The proposals will require Internet Service Providers to retain user ID's and passwords, number of bytes transmitted and received, credit card numbers and bank accounts for subscription payments. E-mail servers will be required to retain similar information whilst Web serves will be treated similarly. Details of telephone users, including mobiles, will be required to be kept which for mobile users, means that their geographical location will be logged.

Add to all of this the EU-wide arrest warrant and the European Union would appear to be moving towards a police state of '1984' proportions. The implications for the individual's privacy, civil liberties and data protection are considerable, particularly if the European judicial system of Corpus Juris is adopted in this country. The Criminal Justice Bill, announced in the Queen's speech in November, contained elements of Corpus Juris including doing away with juries for some trials and the eradication of the 'double jeopardy' rule. It is only a matter of time before a suspect will be held in custody indefinitely without the rights enshrined in Habeas Corpus.
Liberty News No.2, 2003
The official newspaper for the Campaign for an Independent Britain.

To find out more about this excellent organisation and receive their materials, write to CIB, 81, Ashmole Street, London SW8 1NF or call (0208) 340 0314

United States of Europe - It's Official

Long years of campaigning in the face of vilification and intimidation have finally been vindicated. Battle scarred EU-sceptics can raise their heads high, thanks to the President of the Convention on the Future of Europe, President Chairman Valery Giscard d'Estaing. M.Estaing has confirmed that the major objective of the integrationist policies of the EU is the creation of a new political entity. Giscard has published an interim report aimed at outlining the future of the EU, in which he explicitly mentions that the EU should in future be a United States of Europe (USE).

Blatantly federalist, the proposed written constitution would lead to greater centralisation of power in the hands of Brussels, a legal personality for the USE giving it authority to speak for itself in international matters rather than for the member nations. This new entity would replace the EU as we know it and the national veto would be all but lost.

However, the British Government may face difficulties in signing any treaty incorporating the written constitution for the USE without holding a referendum. A leading QC has expressed the opinion that the Government would be exceeding its authority if it were to sign on the dotted line without first asking the British people. If it does so, it could face legal proceedings from at least one political part and other euro sceptic groups are known to be considering similar action.
Liberty News, No.3, 2003
The official newspaper for the Campaign for an Independent Britain.

To find out more about this excellent organisation and receive their materials, write to CIB, 81, Ashmole Street, London SW8 1NF or call (0208) 340 0314

Help Build a World without Fear

If there's one thing that sets Credence, the publisher for CTM, apart from others, it's that we report on issues without fear of editorial restraint. If it's threatening to health, we'll name and shame.

Recently, there has been a spate of world press again about AIDS, prompting us once more to remind our readers about the information contained in World Without AIDS. When this book first came out, we broadcasted a clear warning that for the Western world to view AIDS as a third world 'problem' only would be to our great cost. We should not worry about 'catching' anything. There is no fear from infection. The virus is a mere phantom, as this book clearly demonstrates. The real dangers we face instead are false science, toxic drugs and mandatory HIV testing.

The HIV test is a highly inaccurate diagnostic tool. Powerful vested interests are keeping this proven fact quiet. Their fear is loss of AIDS revenues and huge litigation costs should this become public knowledge. Innocently submitting to the HIV test can lead to false diagnosis, emotional devastation, severe loss of freedoms and rapid health decline, not because of any virus, but due to the toxic drugs given to all those labelled 'HIV positive'.

HIV drugs are powerful and highly dangerous chemotherapy agents. "That will never happen to me!" No? Are you aware of these dangers or of impending legislation? In the UK, for instance, there are now calls by senior health officials to enforce the HIV test on various sections of society, such as pregnant mothers, hospital staff and visitors to the UK. Don't fall foul of faulty science. Get informed. Read World Without AIDS. Don't forget. Credence information is always relevant.

AIDS is by no means the only disease that is being magnified out of all proportion. The recent TB and measles scares, the MMR and other vaccine debates, all these stories have been making the headlines recently. The common threads running through these stories once again are greed, misinformation and vested interests. All these issues and more are clearly discussed in another Credence title, Plague, Pestilence and the Pursuit of Power.

We all want to enjoy the precious gifts of health and freedom, but we must realise that these gifts have a wily enemy: errant, conventional science, politics and big business. Wake up to their deceits. And in so doing, awaken also to better health, clarity of mind and a wonderful and precious freedom from fear.

World Without AIDS by Steven Ransom and Phillip Day
Plague, Pestilence and the Pursuit of Power by Steven Ransom
Available through www.credence.org

Are You DOING YOURSELF IN…
One Mouthful at a Time?

you should be getting in the raw

CTM founder Phillip Day, with some Food For Thought

We all know western nations are having a troubled interaction with nourishment. Obesity and ill-heath are epidemic. Our children eat junk, stay in front of the television or computer and refuse to exercise. Magazines at supermarket checkouts still run those must-read articles: "Washboard Abs in 30 Days!" "Eat Your Way to Constant Passion!" "You Can Have Kylie's Bottom in Just Three Weeks!"

But in the real world - not the noxious, over-hyped and stimulated world of the pony-tailed ad executive - we actually never quite get Kylie's bottom, do we? In fact, who was the last person you know ever to get 'Satisfaction or Your Money Back'? Bianca Jagger? Wise up. The closest Ms Minogue's buns will ever get to most of us will be on the poster hanging in the gents at Kennington tube station. That is, unless we start doing things differently.

Fad diets always fail, and yet those who lose weight and keep it off do so by going back to nature for their food. A quaint idea, but there's lots of sense to it. There's a reason why hormonal concerns clear up after switching onto natural, whole foods. There's a reason why you don't see heifers cooking pizza or orang-utans clicking their nails impatiently at the Kentucky Fried Drive-Thru. Ever wondered why animals rarely get cancer in the wild? Ever wondered why we have eighteen cultures alive today who avoid cancer completely in their isolated state?

Raw fruits and veggies. Raw fruits and veggies.

Sounds restrictive, doesn't it? And yet, there are people recovering all the time from 'terminal' illnesses on regular, small meals of raw fruits, vegetables, pulses, nuts, seeds and legumes, washed down with nature's clean water. But what about the rest of us? Who among us realises the awful truth for a moment, as we lie in hospital, nurses piping those toxic, gaily-coloured chemos into our veins, that it was ignorance of our food which drove us to our sorry Waterloo, one supermarket-trolley-load of plastic cack at a time?

Why is it that cancer patients have the best shot at long-term survival if they adopt a living, whole-food menu and concentrate on providing the body with the nutritional sustenance it craves? Heart disease, arthritis, diabetes, osteoporosis, AIDS, ADD, and a bewildering array of other 'fatal' problems all have an established track record of responding to the Hunza-like approach to what we put into our mouths. So why do we ignore this, preferring to die chemically under the withering eye of Matron?

What is food?
In Food For Thought, the recipe companion to Health Wars and Cancer: Why We're Still Dying to Know the Truth, I get into some of those natural laws we break every day which are doing us in. Food is the single-most important factor in maintaining health or conquering disease, and yet most of us are not even eating real food. So what is food? It's stuff the body can use to make more of you, that's what. Yet most of what passes for food today won't even support bacterial life, let alone a 10-year old.

As Samantha and I tour, we stay in endless hotels. In the morning, many of these establishments lay on some incredible fruit spreads for breakfast, and later, during lunch hours, the salad bar is crammed full with a huge and delightful variety of goodies (America's best for this, although herbal teas should always be superheated prior to applying to the groin area). I sometimes wish I could have a crowd of you gathered around these spreads, so I could show you how expansive and varied the raw choices can be with Nature's greatest food groups, if you only take a little trouble to prepare them. The problem is, most of us don't have the time. That's why it's Heart Attack on a Plate instead: fried eggs, fried bread, sausages, hash browns, blood pudding, chips, baked beans, coffee and a copy of The Sun.

The population's collective brain has been seduced by the Taste Monster. Most of Britain, America and Australia would eat cardboard and wet nappies if there were some fries and ketchup on the side. Food marketing, that most deceitful and deadly of professions, is all about persuading you to go against your instincts, selling you on taste and texture, leaving your body with the nightmare of having to find the nutrition it needs to build more cells.

Today endless supermarket rows of plastic-wrapped 'food' stare smugly back at us, having been stripped of their enzymes, denuded of fibre and vitamins to ensure longer shelf-life, and then pumped full of the most boggling array of chemicals and fillers to bewitch us with taste, texture and aroma. With our crushing schedules, who's got the time to dicker around in the kitchen? Let's speed the whole process up so we can spend more time in the office. Just rub that fast food on your hips and cut out the middle-man. Let's face it, that's where it's all going to end up.

Today in the western industrialised nations, we have unlimited food and drink, and a huge selection of it. When has First World mankind ever had it so good in the food department? We've got those endless Pollyanna government departments nannying us to make sure we don't get poisoned, conned, lied to, or choke on our own tongue. Yet, what happens to us? We're poisoned, conned, lied to, and get to choke on our own tongue too as a bonus. Perhaps the obscene irony of where we've arrived as a culture today is that, while millions starve in poorer countries for want of basic sustenance, clean water and shelter, the leading killers flooring us in the First World are actually starvation-related diseases, like heart disease, cancer and stroke.

Out of sight, out of mind
Few members of the public actually consider what their food is doing to them. It's been said that a man will be obstinate and not believe the extent to which the western diet is contributing to his early demise but his next of kin certainly will if they are allowed to view his autopsy. When we finally have the stomach to face it, so much a part of reversing the cancer and heart disease trends of the 21st century will have to do with changing that human behaviour which controls what we shove down our own throats and the gaping maws of our fledglings. We've seen the future of cancer and heart disease, and the future is REAL, LIVING, WHOLE, ORGANIC FOOD, most of it eaten raw. Now what are you going to do?

Full of nature's goodness, raw fruits, vegetables, pulses, nuts and legumes provide a comprehensive spectrum of nutrients, including enzymes, carbohydrates, proteins and fats in their proper forms , which the body needs for continued sustenance. Deny the body this kit, and you're headed for Baghdad. Also, the ratios of foods we eat today are doing us in. Too many grains and cereals are killing us; we're chomping down 400% more meat than 80 years ago and we're guzzling so much cow's milk, butter and other dairy products, the resultant Niagara Nose is gluey enough to cement up the Channel Tunnel. Australian physician Dr Dorothea Snook explains how imbalances of diet will eventually catch up with you, whether you believe they will or not:

"Trouble in the gall bladder may indicate an overdose of fats; in the liver, an overdose of grains; in the heart, an overdose of animal fats; in the kidneys, an overdose of high-protein foods and inorganic minerals; in the bladder, an overdose of acid-forming foods; in the stomach, an overdose of inorganic minerals; arthritis, an overdose of cow's milk and acid-forming foods; cancer, an accumulation of waste matter and undigested foods, producing foul air in the bowels and the lungs…."

Most believe the tommyrot they read in the newspapers and got scared into thinking that if they didn't eat the hind legs of three wildebeest and half the Serengeti before noon, they'd be struck down with a protein deficiency. Never mind that you couldn't get a protein deficiency in the western world with a gun held to your head. The main problems facing western medicine today are the consequences of protein poisoning. It has since been found that the human body requires no more than 30-40 g of protein a day. That's about half a McDonald's cheeseburger, in today's vernacular.

Enzymes
The major differences between real and plastic food lie in the available enzyme, vitamin, mineral and antioxidant content. Real food, grown in mineral-rich soil, is busting out all over with them. Enzymes are vital for the continuance of life. I call them 'the life in the food'. The absence of a single enzyme in the body can produce a metabolic disorder. Enzymes are long-chain proteins that cut apart other proteins, acting as catalysts, turbo-charging biochemical reactions in the body. Enzymes are the do-it molecules in food, working synergistically with vitamins, minerals, fats, amino acids, co-enzyme factors, etc. to get the job of life working right inside you. Enzymes turn off healing processes in the body. If they don't, those healing processes can become cancer. Enzymes cause food to ripen, to spoil and rot - hence the reason why they become the first target of food processing. Cook anything consistently over 115F (47C) and you kill the enzymes within. Since the boiling point of water is 212F (100C), you become guilty of enzyme murder simply by heating food for any length of time.

The medical establishment, with its concerned expression of faint apology, tells us to eat our fruits and vegetables to protect ourselves against cancer, and yet refuses to train its doctors in nutrition, or even feed cancer patients with real, living, whole foods in hospitals. This must mean that our medical supremos apparently believe that food is good enough to keep us alive but not good enough to fix us when we're sick, thus they fuel the cancer juggernaut further by condemning their patient, who was once a person, to the fate of medicines that kill and don't work, and doctors who can't heal.

There are faxes and letters and e-mails I receive every day testifying to the miracle of common sense when it comes to looking after ourselves and those we love by feeding the family proper nosh. If you are still being wicked with what you put in your mouth, do something different and begin feeling absolutely great! Pick up a copy of Food For Thought today and start GETTING IN THE RAW. You won't get arrested, I promise. Instead, your body, and those watching you through next door's twitching curtains, will love you for it.

Who knows, you might even end up with Kylie's bottom.

Food for Thought by Phillip Day
Available through www.credence.org

Horses for Courses

Have the ladies been seduced by some tall tails?

It is a fact that 50% of American women will have a hysterectomy in their lifetime. The most common reason for this drastic removal of the woman's womb, often with the ovaries taken out simultaneously, is a diagnosis of fibroids - benign tumours of fibrous and muscular tissue, one or more of which may have developed in the muscular wall of the uterus.

The second most common reason for these hysterectomies will be a diagnosis of endometriosis - the presence of tissue similar to the lining of the uterus found at other sites around the pelvis, in the ovaries and Fallopian tubes. These tissues infiltrate others, reacting to the hormone stimuli of menstruation, causing inflammation, pain and bleeding.

Conclusion: 50% of women in the USA weren't made right to begin with, since medicine believes these ladies need some drastic retooling at some point.

What rubbish. And dangerous rubbish too, as we'll see. Hormone Heresy author Sherrill Sellman remarks: "Hysterectomies are [a] big industry. The Pill has been a significant contributor to conditions that, later on, necessitate the removal of a woman's uterus and ovaries. To date, it has been estimated that 20 million Americans have had their uteruses removed. Close to one million American women have hysterectomies each year. Of those women, 42% will also have their ovaries removed. It's shocking to realize that presently 1 out of 3 women in the US will have a hysterectomy by 60 years of age… three-quarters of them performed on women under the age of 49. Removal of the uterus as well as the ovaries will immediately catapult a woman into "surgical menopause", which necessitates hormones. What's more, an oophorectomy (removal of the ovaries), medically classified as castration, will also require more hormones."

Sellman estimates the hysterectomy industry is worth $4 billion in the US alone. Find a market. Sell the need, and keep pitching into that market. There is little wonder, Sellman concludes, that the medical industry views women as an unlimited resource to be plundered. "When it comes to profits, unbiased controlled studies, long-term trials and natural alternatives are all sacrificed for the insatiable hunger for profits," she states.

The assault on womanhood begins with the drug industry promising the usual very lucrative benefits: unlimited, safe and unbridled sex with no biological accountability (and no apparent downside) through chemical birth control and surgical or chemical abortion; an end to those heavy, burdensome periods with all of their associated difficulties of stress, irregularity and mood-swings; a removal of our fears concerning osteoporosis and the menopause. In fact, so successful are the drug companies in talking us into this particular marketing bonanza, that husbands and boyfriends are often the ones persuading their ladies to get signed up for this promise of sexual freedom and social equality for the modern woman.

But Dr Lynette J Dumble, Senior Research Fellow at the University of Melbourne in Australia, is aghast: "…the sole basis of HRT is to create a commercial market that is highly profitable for the pharmaceutical companies and doctors. The supposed benefits of HRT are totally unproven." She's right, of course.

Menopause is presented to women as a deficiency of the sex hormone estrogen - a disease no less, requiring hormone supplementation. Dr John R Lee, world-renowned authority on hormonal replacement therapy (HRT) and its archest critic, explains that HRT violates that most precious of balances between the sex hormones estrogen and progesterone, resulting in the female experiencing estrogen dominance (unopposed estrogen). To supplement females with synthetic estrogen to disrupt and increase the estrogen dominance further is to invite a litany of symptoms all too depressingly familiar with women who have been down this particular path: hot flushes, mood swings, sharpening knives in a sinister fashion, heightened risk of cancer of the breast and endometrium (the inner lining of the uterus), ovarian cysts, uterine fibroids, anaerobic cell respiration (depletion of oxygen in cells - a cancer precursor), disrupted thyroid activity, breast fibrocysts, excessive blood clotting leading to thrombo-embolisms, and decreased sex drive. Then the doctor recommends hysterectomy. After all, if the equipment doesn't work and the warranty's expired, take it all out and throw it away.

As I travel around the world doing talks, I see this problem everywhere, and with fellas too, in the prostate department (testosterone). In Health Wars I have a special chapter entitled, appropriately enough, Barking up the Wrong Tree, which highlights the latest research showing how we can avoid these problems before they start and what to do if we have them.

The chief causes of the male and female problem with hormones lie in diet, lifestyle and environment. But since doctors are not trained to understand the horrendous effects of the 21st century western diet and environment on the human body (because fruits and vegetables don't make Porsche payments), the drug industry has focussed its most brilliant strategists instead on securing this most lucrative female market with their patented potions and treatments. On offer through your local GP are synthetic hormones (cancer-causing), implants (cancer-causing), the Pill (cancer- and thrombosis-causing), drugs (all sorts of problems), medical tests (expensive and mostly unnecessary), mammograms (radiation, cancer-causing), diagnostic tests (often misleading and wrong), and then more drugs and diagnostics to combat the side-effects of the previous drugs and surgical procedures. Tempting, isn't it?

Hormone drugs especially are brilliant at racking up the turnover. With Premarin on its own grossing a little under $1 billion a year, this most widely prescribed drug in the US in 1992 is so named because it's derived from pregnant mare's urine. Now that's what I call marketing. To any of you ladies who tried some of this stuff and ended up snorting and whinnying, pawing the ground and coming in second at Kempton Park, you may be interested to know there are some gentler alternatives that don't require you to go over all the jumps. Consider the following:

Ø The number of women with fibroids or endometriosis who are relieved of pain and heavy bleeding within three months of adopting a low-fat, high-fibre organic, raw diet - the vast majority
Ø Percentage of American physicians who recommend dietary changes for fibroids and endometriosis - less than 1%
Ø Most widely prescribed drug in the US in 1992 - Premarin (used as 'estrogen replacement therapy').
Ø Primary reasons prescribed - hot flushes, osteoporosis and heart disease (classic estrogen dominance)
Ø Percentage of women who obtained complete relief from hot flushes by taking 200mg of vitamin C and 200mg of bioflavanoids, 6 times a day - 67%
Ø Percentage of menopausal women who obtained relief from hot flushes by taking two herbal capsules three times a day (licorice root, burdock root, wild yam root, dong quai root and motherwort) for three months in a double-blind, placebo-controlled study - 100%
Ø Percentage of US physicians discussing natural approaches with their menopausal patients - 2%

Once again, nutritional science demonstrates the amazing success of diet and sensible supplementation without the need for harmful surgery or drug intervention. Of course, a doctor's opinion must always be sought, yadda, yadda, yadda, but what do you have to lose in changing your diet, along with Vitamin C complex supplementation (ascorbates plus bioflavonoids), a decent general vitamin and mineral supplement and some natural progesterone cream?

Also essential: take toxic ingredients out of the household whose chemicals can mimic estrogen. These can be found in personal care and household cleaning products, as well as petroleum-based items. The most respected and largest of the companies in this market is Neways International, which can help in providing good quality, non-toxic and safe alternatives. They have representatives all over the world and their web-site's at www.neways.com.

Millions of lives are being made miserable and fearful through misdiagnosis, ignorance of the effects of a bad diet, and a toxic home environment. Not addressing the root causes of hormone dominance problems will set you up for cancers later on, count on it. Better deal with it now, especially since there's a simple alternative: change your behaviour, change your diet, change out the toxic chemicals, indulge in some happy exercise, supplement with the right nutrients, and then let's see what Nature's going to do for you.

Oh, and rein in that blind faith in the religion of medicine.

Hasn't there been enough horsing around already?

Health Wars by Phillip Day
Available through www.credence.org

FDA Cannot Ensure Safety of Biotech Foods

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) lacks both the authority and the information to adequately evaluate the safety of genetically engineered (GE) foods, according to the non-profit Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI). A new report from the group says that while the few GE food crops now on the market appear to be safe, the FDA is ill-equipped to assure the safety of future foods that will be engineered in increasingly complex ways.

Currently, biotechnology companies are encouraged -- but not required -- to submit safety-testing data to the FDA for its review. CSPI's examination of 14 such submissions obtained under the Freedom of Information Act found that companies sometimes refused FDA requests for more information. Monsanto, CIBA-Geigy (now Syngenta), and Dow AgroSciences, for instance, each declined to provide requested scientific data to the FDA about strains of genetically engineered insect-resistant corn.

"The voluntary notification process by which the FDA reviews safety data for new crops allows biotechnology companies to safely ignore FDA requests for more information," said Doug Gurian-Sherman, science director of CSPI's biotechnology project and the report's author. "Without a legally mandated approval process, the FDA can only review whatever data that a company lets it review."

The report also found technical shortcomings in the safety data provided by biotech companies, as well as some obvious errors that the FDA failed to detect. Submissions from Exelixis (formerly Agitrope) about GE delayed-ripening tomatoes and cantaloupe, for example, contained erroneous and unsupported conclusions that went unremarked upon by the FDA. The CSPI report also found that one GE developer used inadequate methodology to test for allergens, and that others failed to evaluate toxicants and anti-nutrients. Errors like those might have been caught by observers outside the government, says Gurian-Sherman, had the process not been secret.

The first recommendation in the CSPI report is to replace the voluntary notification system with a mandatory pre-market approval system that requires biotechnology companies to submit much more detailed testing information and obtain FDA approval before marketing the product. Legislation that would do exactly that was introduced last fall by Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL), who is expected to reintroduce the bill this year.

Even without legislation, says CSPI, the FDA can take steps to give consumers greater confidence that the GE foods the agency reviews are safe. Most basically, the FDA should develop detailed safety testing guidelines for biotech developers.

"We found that biotech companies weren't always performing the right tests to look for potentially dangerous compounds, including allergens, and that there was a great deal of unevenness among different developers' submissions," said Gurian-Sherman. "But the FDA isn't giving companies enough guidance about what tests companies should conduct, or how much data companies should provide."

GE crops have the potential to provide enormous benefits to both consumers and the environment, according to CSPI's report. But the group warns that the technology's life span would be short if dangerous biotech products were to show up on supermarket shelves.
"The public will -- and should -- only have confidence in GE foods if the government formally approves them as safe after a thorough and transparent review," said Gurian-Sherman. "The biotech industry itself should be clamoring for that kind of a process."

On Tuesday, Gurian-Sherman will present CSPI's concerns at a meeting of a committee of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) that is reviewing some of the food-safety aspects of GE crops. "I hope the NAS committee will provide the FDA and industry with specific advice on the kinds of tests that should be done," Gurian-Sherman said.
Center for Science in the Public Interest January 7, 2003

DR. MERCOLA'S COMMENT: The evidence of the potentially devastating effects of genetically altered food continues to mount. Already, pig vaccines are starting to contaminate U.S. crops, and there is no telling what may be next.

There is still some time to make some positive efforts to stop this insanity, however. The public has remained silent, and continues to remain silent, as industry is irreversibly contaminating the oceans with mercury and polluting all of the fish. Now, industry is threatening the food that keeps us alive.

Food is our only fuel source. We can't play with our fuel source if we ever hope to have healthy future generations. This is about protecting your grandchildren and generations to come.

I am a big believer in technology, but technology may not have a solution for this one until it is far too late.
www.mercola.com

Free-Range Farms will be Forced to Stamp Every Egg
by Robert Uhlig - Farming Correspondent

The future of hundreds of specialist free-range and organic egg producers is under threat because the European Commission has ordained that, from next year, every egg must be stamped with its home address.

Under the EU directive, farmers will have to buy inkjet printers to label every egg with a raft of information, including details of the hen that laid it.

Large operators will be able to absorb the expense of the printing technology, but Peter Wood, who keeps 40,000 hens near Bristol, said the prospect of the cost of the equipment was already driving smaller producers out of business.

"I already know of a handful who have given up because they know they will not be able to afford to implement what is a completely over the top requirement," he said. "Each hen typically makes a profit of only 50 pence across its lifetime. Farmers with only hundreds or a few thousand hens will never be able to afford the printers, which start at around £5,000 each."

The regulation threatens to put out of business those producers that consumers value most - farmers with small free-range or organic flocks, often specialists, producing eggs regarded to have more flavour than those from battery hens.

Since the salmonella scare, egg boxes have been required to carry information on the producer and the freshness of the egg, as well as its size and type.

But under the new directive, eggs will have to be stamped with the method of production, the country of origin, the code for the producer-packer, a best before date and, if the farmer is a member of the scheme, the British Lion mark.

To add insult to injury, an official in Brussels recently told a delegation of farmers from the south-west of England that the task of labelling the eggs 'would be a nice job for the farmers' wives'.

A spokesman for the National Farmer's Union South West said: "We understand the need for consumers to know where their eggs come from and to be totally confident about eating them but this is a step too far."

The Daily Telegraph, 7th February 2003

Hands off Vitamins and Herbs

Visits to complementary alternative medicine practitioners throughout Europe outnumber those to doctors by two to one. Government figures show UK citizens spend £70 million per year on nutritional supplements and about 20% of the population use vitamins and minerals in their diets. But European Parliament Directives passed in March 2002 will ban food supplements, in a bid to re-classify them as medical drugs. Sam Burcher reports.
Full story at http://www.i-sis.org.uk/vitamins.php

Herbal Medicines and Food Supplements
No Logic in EU Position

UK North Thanet's Member of Parliament Roger Gale, has said that there is 'no logic' in the European Union position of Food Supplements and Herbal Medicines.

Intervening during an Opposition debate on the subject in the Commons chamber tonight (Monday) the MP asked: "Why is it in order for the EU to subsidise and promote the production and use of a leaf - tobacco - which it is known causes harm but not in order for herbal medicines and food supplements that have been taken by humans for years with no harmful effects to remain on the shelves of our healthfood stores. There is no logic in this position whatsoever."

Speaking after the debate the MP said at Westminster: "Under the guise of 'consumer protection' we head the Health Minister present a litany of Euro bureaucracy to no useful purpose. Many products or their sources will disappear simply because their producers will not be prepared to go to the expense of justifying them.

Why should it be necessary to 'prove' the efficacy of a product so long as it does not cause harm? These are not NHS medicines, they are over the counter products bought willingly by people who want to use them and if they only believe that those products are doing them good then they probably are.

The EU is proposing to limit the quantities of vitamin additives available. The ludicrous part of that is that there is no practical or scientific difference between one 100 milligram capsule of B6 and four 25 milligram capsules of B6 - so if people want 100 milligrams they will simply take 4 tablets instead of one!

Worse, the suggestion is that some products will be 'phased out' between 2005 and 2009. If they are bad for you in 2009 then surely they must be bad for you now - in which case why are they on the market at all? And if they are not bad for you now, or in 2005, then they are not bad for you in 2009 - so why is the EU trying to mend an industry and consumer choice that isn't broken?

The very many constituents that have signed petitions in the healthfood stores in my constituency and throughout Kent are going to find it hard to believe that this government has done other than give in to French and German pressure to 'harmonise' our own regulation with their own much stricter controls. The nanny state is bad enough - this is the nanny union write large."
Herne Bay Gazette, 23 January 2003

INTERNATIONAL FLUORIDE INFORMATION NETWORK

IFIN BULLETIN: IFIN 737: VICTORY in Canton, NY.
February 18, 2003

Dear All,

Raise your glasses. Tonight we stopped fluoridation in Canton, NY, our home town. The Village Trustees voted 3 to 1, with the Mayor abstaining, to halt fluoridation. The fluoridation was discontinued in July, 2001 for technical reasons - the equipment needed replacing. This provided us a window of opportunity to halt fluoridation permanently, a goal which was realized tonight.

A turning point in our campaign came when we were able to get 130 faculty and staff, including the Dean of Students; the Registrar and four heads of department, from my university ( St. Lawrence University) to sign a petition asking the Village Trustees not to put fluoride into the water. Nearly 300 students also signed this petition.

What was also telling was that at a public meeting people, who had been previously pro fluoridation, spoke out against it. Moreover, a young local dentist when asked about the issue was lukewarm about fluoridation's benefits. He said words to the effect, "If you don't continue I don't think we will have a dental crisis, and if we continue I don't think we will see an end to tooth decay". Also, of enormous importance, both for our morale, and for the education of the Trustees, was the fact that Dr. Hardy Limeback drove all the way from Toronto (over fours away by car) to give testimony, and then after a short meal and discussion with the troops, drove all the way back to Toronto, the same evening. He did this without fee and wouldn't even accept travel expenses! We - and the whole movement - are truly blessed to have such a man on our side.

Thank you all for your many letters of support and all the other ways so many of you have helped us win this battle.

Today, Canton, tomorrow the world (or at least New York City!)

Paul Connett
www.fluoridealert.org

Junk Food to be Taken off Prison Menus
in a Bid to Reduce Violence
By Auslan Cramb

Chips, pies and sweets are to be taken off the menu at three prisons during a study intended to reduce violence.

Initial trials last year at a prison in Aylesbury, Bucks, suggested that raising the levels of vitamins, minerals and fatty acids in the diet of teenage prisoners reduced anti-social behaviour.

The charity Natural Justice will now carry out more detailed trials for the Home Office and the Scottish Prison Service at jails including Polmont young offenders institute in central Scotland to discovere which elements in the diet determine behaviour.

Bernard Gesch, a physiologist of Oxford University, is leading the study, which will take palce this summer. He said "Research suggests that we may have seriously under-estimated the importance of nutrition for our social behaviour. "Since the 1950s there has been a ten-fold increase in offences. How else an we explain that but by diet? "It is not down to genetics. The main change over that period has been in nutrients".

The £2 million project will involve participants being prevented from eating large amounts of high fat, high carbohydrate foods, sweets and sugary products. They will eat more fruit and vegetables and will take nutrient capsules.

Last year a team led by Mr Gesch carried out a study that suggested inmates, who took supplements, committed 26 percent fewer disciplinary offences than those who unknowingly took placebo pills.

I hope that this study is carried out properly, with effective nutrition and supplements, unlike the one Roche did recently with the resulting headlines in the papers "vitamin supplements are useless!!"

I work with young men who are constantly drinking coke, Dr. Pepper, and Lucozade and it definitely affects their behaviour. Of course, I have done my best to educate them and in fact one 18 year old showed me that he had bought a carton of fresh orange juice one morning instead, but it didn't last long, I think he was missing the kick he got from these other drinks (which are often addictive).

I am also working with two people who have cancer and again I am trying my best and I have succeeded with one of them of whom I heard last week is eating apricot kernels (I have yet to find out what else he is doing as he has been off). However, most of the staff think I am rather "odd" as they are completely out of touch with what is going on and all this is new to them. It is quite a challenge working with young men (I am being educated myself in more ways than one (not necessarily good!).
The Daily Telegraph, Feb 2003

Prozac Use Approved for Depressed Kids

Prozac, the serotonin-boosting antidepressant drug, has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to treat depression in children.

Although the drug, made by Eli Lilly & Co., was not initially intended for children, psychiatrists have prescribed it for children in the past despite a lack of research to prove its effectiveness.

Now, the FDA has stated that there is proof that Prozac eases depression in children aged 8 years and older. The drug's label will now include child-specific information, which may make doctors, rather than just depression specialists, more likely to prescribe it.

Depression affects close to 25 percent of U.S. children and eight percent of teenagers.

Prozac has also been approved to treat obsessive-compulsive disorder in children. The disorder affects about two percent of Americans, and at least one-third of these cases began during childhood.

While some Prozac side effects, including tiredness, nervousness, dizziness and difficulty concentrating, are similar for adults and children, the drug was found to affect growth in children and teenagers.

Children and teenagers who took Prozac grew about a half inch less in height and 2 pounds less in weight over a 19-week period than children who took a placebo. It is not known whether this effect continues in the long-term; Eli Lilly is further researching these findings.

Reportedly, psychiatrists favored Prozac's FDA approval for children. Drug manufacturers do not have much reason to study the effects of adult drugs in children, as many times doctors prescribe the medications without such research.

The FDA has tried to require more pediatric testing, but the requirement was recently thrown out by a federal court.
U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) January 3, 2003

DR. MERCOLA'S COMMENT: Now one-quarter of American children are officially candidates for Prozac. The drug's manufacturer, Eli Lilly, claims that they don't plan on marketing the drug for children, but who paid for the research to get it approved for children in the first place?

Lilly is the same company who, a few short weeks ago, skirted vaccine-related liability through the last minute addition of an amendment to the Homeland Security Bill. The amendment protects Lilly, which manufactured the mercury-containing preservative that was inserted into many vaccines, from any related liability, despite the belief by many that the mercury-laden vaccines have contributed to autism in tens of thousands of children. More information at www.mercola.com

PROZAC (fluoxetine)
Profile: Manufactured by Eli Lilly. Designed as a 'mood brightener', released in 1987 and instantly became part of Hollywood chic. Prozac is now routinely prescribed to 'problem' children. Side-effects can include abnormal dreams, bronchitis, agitation, chills, diarrhoea, dizziness, loss of appetite, paranoid reaction and insomnia (Physician's Desk Reference). The side-effects list for Prozac in the PDR runs to over 100 adverse reactions.

Sales of Prozac reached $125 million in 1988 and $350 million the following year. The drug attracted massive publicity, both in support and condemnation. In 1993, Peter Kramer, a columnist for the Psychiatric Times, wrote his bestseller Listening to Prozac, in support of the drug. In spite of 160 lawsuits brought against the manufacturer for alleged suicidal or violent reactions to their product, Eli Lilly's sales of Prozac in 1993 reached a staggering $1.2 billion.

The medical journal Cancer Research published research which demonstrated that Prozac and other anti-depressants "bind to growth-regulatory… receptors", propagating malignant cancer growth in rats. Interestingly, it appears that the famous American 'Delaney Amendment', designed to outlaw consumption of drugs which provoke cancer at any dosage, was not invoked in the case of Prozac.

Extracted from The Mind Game by Phillip Day
Available through www.credence.org

U.S. Food Industry Expected to Increase Food Irradiation

The use of new technology to irradiate meat as a protective measure against bacteria such as E. coli and listeria is expected to increase, despite concerns of some consumer groups about its unknown health effects.

Irradiation exposes products to ionizing radiation to kill insects, molds and bacteria. The U.S. government approved irradiation treatment of ground beef in January 2000, and the first batch was processed in May of that year. Currently, it's estimated that less than five percent of the total volume of beef production is being irradiated. However, after Pilgrim's Pride Corp. recalled 27.4 million pounds of listeria-contaminated poultry products in 2002--the largest meat recall in U.S. history--irradiation is expected to increase.

SureBeam Corp., the largest provider of irradiation technology, plans to process between 300 million and 350 million pounds of beef this year, up from about 15 million in 2002.The process eliminates 99.9 percent of contaminants, including E. coli, salmonella and listeria. Higher doses have been used in the sterilization of non-food products such as toothbrushes and surgical tools, as well as to kill insects in wheat flour. For food use, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) allows gamma rays, high-energy electrons and X-rays to be used.

Critics of irradiation say that the process may deplete vitamins and nutrients, as well as leave chemical byproducts in the food. They also say that the process would be unnecessary if meat packers and processors cleaned up food-handling processes.

While the FDA requires a label to be placed on irradiated meat, if the products are permitted in school cafeterias, they will not contain such retail labels. Critics point out that parents will have no way of knowing whether their children's food has been irradiated. Despite these concerns, 48 percent of Americans would purchase irradiated meat, according to a survey conducted by the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, and the World Health Organization has stated that the process is one of the most effective food decontamination methods available.

Many meat packers and processors, including Excel, a division of Minnesota-based Cargill Inc., TeMeats, and W.W. Johnson Co., are making plans to contract for irradiation capabilities and market irradiated products. The former ConAgra Foods Inc., now operating as Swift and Co., also has plans to irradiate some of its meat. The company was involved in the third-largest beef recall in history when they recalled close to 19 million pounds of beef because of possible E. coli contamination.

According to the Minnesota Beef Council, food irradiation will become a foundational part of public health right along with pasteurization of milk, immunization against disease and chlorination of the water supply.
Reuters, February 5, 2003
Per www.mercola.com

Recommended reading:
Food for Thought
Health Wars
Cancer: Why We're Still Dying to Know the Truth
www.credence.org

US Losing War on Cancer, Ignoring Prevention

WASHINGTON, DC, February 20, 2003 (ENS) - Leading players in the war on cancer should do more to educate the American public about how to minimize its risk of contracting the disease, according to a new report from the Cancer Prevention Coalition (CPC).

Americans face increasing cancer risks from occupational and environmental exposure to industrial carcinogens, the report finds, but established government and nonprofit cancer organizations are fixated on treatment rather than prevention.

"This report makes it clear that we are losing the war against cancer," said Dr. Samuel Epstein, CPC chairman and author of "The Stop Cancer Before It Starts Campaign: How to Win the Losing War Against Cancer." "But," he said, "there are opportunities for reversing this trend."

Based on available data, the overall incidence of cancers in the American population is on the rise. Men have a little less than a one in two lifetime risk of developing cancer, for women the risk is a bit more than one in three.

Adjusted to reflect the aging population, the U.S. cancer incidence is up some 24 percent from 1973 to 1999. Mortality rates are up some 30 percent over the same time period.

But some argue these numbers are misleading, as the medical community's ability to identify cancer has improved over that time period. Still, cancer kills some 550,000 Americans each year and is the second leading cause of death. Some 1.3 million Americans contract cancer each year.

And the American war on cancer, Epstein said, has been undermined by the myopic focus on treatment by the National Cancer Institute (NCI), a government agency, and the American Cancer Society (ACS), a nationwide, community based voluntary health organization.

These organizations, he said, have been silent on a wide range of avoidable causes of cancer, other than personal lifestyle choices such as smoking. Epstein said there is enough evidence to warn people of the presence of industrial pollutants, the concentrations of pesticides in nonorganic fruits and vegetables and the possible risks of irradiated foods.

The National Cancer Institute and the American Cancer Society should do more to warn the public about how they can avoid risks of cancer, according to the Cancer Prevention Coalition.

Mainstream cosmetics contain a wide range of carcinogenic materials, he said, and there are increased cancer risks from some prescription medications.

Epstein said neither NCI nor ACS has taken a strong stand on the dangers from carcinogenic exposures from pesticides or hazardous industrial waste.

"This has tacitly encouraged powerful corporate polluters and industries to continue manufacturing carcinogenic products," Epstein warned. These organizations tend to "blame the victim" for contracting cancer, he said, rather than explore the environmental causation that could be responsible for their illness.

ACS spokesman Greg Donaldson said Epstein's comments about his organization and its commitment to prevention efforts are "simply false."

Identifying the specific cause of cancer is still often extremely difficult, Donaldson said. ACS is funding some $40 million in prevention programs, he said, including studies into environmental causation.

"We are committed to funding research on this," Donaldson said, "but we only speak when there is science based evidence one way or another."

The National Cancer Institute did not return calls for comment.

Epstein released the new report at a press briefing today in Washington, DC and announced that the Cancer Prevention Coalition and others will use it as a springboard for a new grassroots effort.

This effort aims to reform the National Cancer Institute and the American Cancer Society and to pressure federal and state governmental organizations to improve the public's understanding of how to limit their risks of contracting cancer.

The public should have access to a registry compiled by NCI of "avoidable carcinogens," Epstein said, and Congress may need to step in to ensure this happens. What is frustrating, according to Dr. Nicholas Ashford, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology public policy expert, is that NCI should already be doing this. "The legal mandate of NCI is to inform the public about avoidable causes of cancer," he said.

The National Cancer Institute is not fulfilling its mandate to inform the public about cancer risks, according to Dr. Nicholas Ashford.

This mandate comes from the 1971 National Cancer Act, signed by President Richard Nixon, and was strengthened by amendments in 1988 that called for "an expanded and intensified research program for the prevention of cancer caused by occupational or environmental exposure to carcinogens."

Prompting significant changes to NCI under the current political climate in Washington will be very difficult, Epstein said, but there are opportunities at state and local levels.

The Cancer Prevention Coalition report calls on states to enact the equivalent of a toxics use reduction act passed in 1989 by Massachusetts. The law requires statewide industries to disclose the chemicals they use, and since its passage the state's environmental emissions decreased by 73 percent.

"This could set the stage for phasing out harmful carcinogens," Epstein said. That should be the ultimate goal, said Ashford. "When we know there are safe alternatives, we should use them," he said. "We are not talking about bankrupting industry."

The effort to reform NCI will closely monitor how it spends its annual budget of some $4.6 billion. Tracking NCI's budget increases against the cancer incidence numbers, Epstein said that "the more money we spend on cancer, the more cancer we get." But he does not argue that less money should be spent. Instead, Epstein said it should be spent better, with much more of it earmarked for prevention efforts.

NCI should be doing more research on avoidable exposures to industrial carcinogens, Epstein said, and should inform the public of known risks from occupational and environmental exposure to carcinogens.

The report suggests that both organizations should adopt the precautionary principle and research cancer clusters in the vicinity of major sources of urban pollution, power plants, petrochemical factories and Superfund hazardous waste sites.

It is time to focus on cancer prevention, said Dr. Richard Clapp.

This research, Epstein said, could complement the available data on air and water pollutants documented through the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's National Toxic Release Inventory as well as data from states.

"We have not begun to win the war on cancer," said Dr. Richard Clapp, an epidemiological professor at the Boston University School of Public Health. "We have not even turned the corner. We have to move beyond the body count and begin to prevent exposures before they occur."
Environment News Service (ENS) 2003

CTM COMMENT: And now for the good news:
Cancer: Why We're Still Dying to Know the Truth by Phillip Day
Great News on Cancer in the 21st Century by Steven Ransom
For more information on these titles, please visit www.credence.org

Schools Receive $400
For Every Child Diagnosed With ADHD
Posted by: CULTURESHOCKTV.COM Mon Jan 6 15:11:30 2003

BREAKING DOWN THE MAIN CRIME

Tom De Weese, writing in NewsWithViews.com, marks the moment when ADHD took a quantum leap forward as a government-sponsored "disorder."

In 1991, fed rules were adopted which granted US schools $400 for each child diagnosed with ADHD. (I'm trying to determine whether this program extends to all or only some US school districts, and whether there is additional state aid involved.)

Also in 1991, the US Dept. of Education issued a formal recognition of ADHD as a debilitating condition and ordered state education departments to screen students and give ADHD cases special services.

So numbers of children with ADHD shot up.

The guiding principle here is pretty simple: that which the feds give money for becomes plentiful. If the government will offer funds for every chipmunk with blue teeth, you can be sure people will find them in the woods. All over the place. And no one will worry about the fact that, before the $$ offering, such chipmunks were non-existent.

In the case of ADHD, there has never been a diagnostic test which locates a chemical or biological root cause for the so-called disorder. That means there is no proof that ADHD, as a distinct clinical condition, exists.

"Well, my son definitely has a problem. He can't sit still, he wanders all over the classroom, he talks out of turn, he can't concentrate. So don't tell me ADHD doesn't exist."

I get this all the time, and all the time I point out: having problems is real, but that doesn't mean ADHD is real.

Here is a partial list of factors that can cause a child to have these "ADHD problems": chemicals and dyes in food, excess sugar intake, vaccines, med drugs, heavy metals, poor teaching, failure to grasp basic subjects (e,g., reading), head injuries, parents who aren't home, parents who don't care, unsafe schools, street drugs, poor nutrition.

Beyond any of this, if the government keeps giving money to schools for the identification of handicaps, then that is what school officials will focus on.

I see no government programs that hand out bonuses for each student who passes standardized tests with flying grades. I'm talking about A's.

Actually, the whole grant-bonus system is flawed, no matter which way it's applied, because the school officials will cook the books in any old direction to get those fed funds.

"Oh, they're giving $600 for every A student? Let's set up special study groups where we drill the kids on past standardized exams, so they pass the new tests without really knowing how to do anything except parrot answers."

Money isn't the determining factor in making education work. Teaching is.

On a related front, let's look at how government medical honchos certify that a new vaccine is effective. It's pretty much: the vaccine causes the production of antibodies? Good, it's effective.

On this basis alone, all sorts of government validation flows into the arena of vaccines for the kiddies.

Therefore, vaccine manufacturers, seeking government approval for a new vaccine, do nothing except develop vaccines that produce antibodies, everyone is happy, and all sorts of trouble ensues---because, the truth is, production of antibodies is not an accurate test for what a vaccine is supposed to do: give immunity from disease.

The immune system and its responses are a far more complex situation than this.

The government must stamp its approval on every new med drug or vaccine before a doctor may start churning out prescriptions. If the government says a new drug must produce blue teeth or orange noses or purple fingers, the drug companies will find a way to create new drugs which do these things. And everyone---except the patient---will be happy.

Another illustration: As drug companies turn out new and newer chemo drugs for cancer, the government, when all is said and done, applies a single standard for approval: does the drug kill cells like crazy? I'm not talking about cancer cells. I'm talking about any and all cells.

Because chemo drugs are sheer cell poisons.

And drug companies are happy to market new cell poisons, if the government only asks for cell death as the standard.

So if the diagnosis of ADHD is sloppy and subjective and no one really cares who gets slapped with a label, and if the government is willing to award schools $$ for such diagnoses, the money machine will run. And run. And little Jimmy, who eats junk food and tons of sugar every day and can't sit still, becomes another pawn in the money game. No one is going to worry about the actual causes of Jimmy's problem. It only matters that he fits the general criteria for an ADHD diagnosis.

And then, on top of his sugar and junk-food problem, he gets Ritalin. That drug, which is a cheap form of speed, gives the appearance of focusing his concentration---for a certain time---and then the Ritalin flattens out his emotional responses to life and starts to produce a speed crash---slow or fast---at which point, Jimmy may become morose. This situation is then diagnosed as clinical depression, and Jimmy is given Prozac or Paxil. (Do keyword search on my archive for many pieces on these drugs and their effects.)

But who cares? The school received its government money for the original diagnosis of ADHD. And as long as the school continues to zero in on government money as its desired goal, the basic criminal enterprise continues.

Make no mistake, the government-school money embrace is a RICO case, ongoing, and if the law allowed for it, it should be prosecuted as such.

In Nazi Germany, in the 1930s, citizens looked the other way as the new government began to turn the whole nation into an armed camp geared up for mass murder. In the US, the ADHD RICO conspiracy is based on the same practice: everyone looks the other way and takes the money.

"We didn't know."

"The psychiatrists said it was a good drug."

"The doctor assured us that ADHD is a real disease."

"We are told that mental disorders should carry no stigma."

"We're just trying to do the right thing. Share and care."

"These kids are out of control. They need a drug."

"The government wouldn't give us money unless we were doing the right thing."

"Maybe we were just failing to see that chipmunks with blue teeth were everywhere."

"If the government develops standards for aid, we have to follow those guidelines."

"If we tried to eliminate sugar-powered vending machines from school, we'd lose money."

"The kids would go crazy if they couldn't drink Coke during the day."

"You have to be reasonable about these things."

"The government would never approve a drug that could harm my child."

"I have to put my faith somewhere."

"I'm not a medical doctor."

"I can't be responsible for a medical decision."

"The government is just trying to help my family. Why would they offer help if it were dangerous?"

"If I reject my doctor, then where do I turn?"

And on the basis of these and other rationalizations, parents and teachers and government functionaries and school officials push kids down the vortex into misery, toxification, and ruination.

The machine I'm describing is not hard to set up. You just establish standards and you feed money into the front end of the apparatus. The rest takes care of itself.

Now, once you see the machine for what it is, you have to ask yourself, could it have been created as some kind of overall strategy? Could the machine have been invented to achieve the deleterious effects it produces?

Shall we say that the machine was put together as a gigantic blunder, one stupid piece after another, by errant and basically misguided people---or, from the very top of the control ladder, was it designed to make use of the compliant worker ants below in order to bring about great damage?

If you and I can view this machine in toto, we can be sure someone else could have too---before it was created. And this is where the rubber meets the road. This is where world views are made. At the crux, where designers with precise goals lay out structures that will debilitate populations.

Do you see how easy it is to mask the true aims of a machine? How easy it is to gain support from the workers who keep the infernal device running?

In the case of ADHD and other such "mental disorders", the very ant-workers who play such a great role in keeping the machine in good working order, the psychiatrists and psychologists, have no wisdom from their own disciplines to fall back on so they can see what is really being done in the name of "treatment".

What wisdom am I talking about?

A missing pillar of knowledge that informs them about how dupes are made.

You see, real psychology would recognize, from the get go, that making a dupe is a basic cause of what they call "mental illness" in the minds of the dupes.

If a shrink could treat a patient by illuminating all the ways in which that patient had bought into becoming a dupe---well then, we would really have something. Then, psychology could stand tall and proud and say, our business is deconstructing dupehood. That's what we do. We free people from the illusions they have bought, from the illusions which lead them to conclude that the authorities are looking out for their well being.

I assure you, this basic illusion is well understood by the elites that create it. And the true role of psychology should be revealing that illusion, instead of harming children.

But it turns out that soon after it began, psychology was invaded and hijacked (and, yes, funded) by the very people who know that the making of a dupe should be a verboten subject of study. After all, if you come to understand that process, you suddenly and instantly re-write all of history, to say nothing of the present and the future.

You begin to free those drones who run the Machine. They see what's what, and they walk away from their designated posts. They opt out. They speak up. They even, God forbid, reject the inducement of money.

A healthy and fertile chaos ensues. A chaos in which great things, great beginnings can occur.
By Jon Rappoport Friday, January 03, 2003 www.stratiawire.com

Jon Rappoport has worked as a free-lance investigative reporter for 20 years. He has written articles on politics, health, media, culture and art for LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, Village Voice, Nexus, CBS Healthwatch, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe

Recommended reading on this subject:
The Mind Game by Phillip Day
Available through www.credence.org