Category: Health & Freedom

The celebrated Celebrex drug results were only from short term studies regarding a precursor to colon cancer.  Much better results with the essential nutrient selenium from a much longer study regarding actual colon cancer were roundly criticized ten years ago and have since been soundly ignored.

Last month the same unholy trinity as above noted that dietary ‘supplements’ were ineffective against arthritis pain while crowing about the effectiveness of the drug Celebrex against arthritis pain.

The lengthy ‘news’ story about the study by AP (Associated Press or Associated Propaganda?) noted in the headline that “supplements fail to ease arthritis pain”.  This study was again only a short term study.  Both the headline and the opening line addressed supplements in general though the study addressed only two specific supplements.  Even those two were addressed deceptively.

Figures don’t lie but liars can figure

The lengthy AP article noted at its beginning that government (Pfederal?) researchers at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) found glucosamine and chondroitin sulfate “were no better than dummy pills at pain relief”.

The article continued at great length against effectiveness of supplements for arthritis pain.

Finally nearing the end of the article for those who stuck with it that long it was noted that 60 per cent of those “who took the dummy medication had reduced pain”.

Reduced pain was found by “64 per cent who took glucosamine, 65 per cent who took chondroitin and 67 per cent” who took both glucosamine and chondroitin.

New math?

When I went to school 64, 65 and 67 were all numbers that exceeded 60.  Yet w-a-a-a-y back at the beginning of the article it was reported that the supplements “were no better than dummy pills at pain relief” though the numbers tell a different story.

The AP article then noted of the obviously increased differences that they “were so small that they could have occurred by chance alone” in a blatant attempt to cover AP’s naked behind near the end of its story.

Yet the very next line of the article heralded that “Celebrex did reduce pain” noting this as “affirming the study’s validity”.  It was noted of the Pfizer made drug celebrated by AP and Pfederal researchers that “70 per cent reported improvement”.

So 64, 65, and 67 per cent improvement with supplements is “so small that they could have occurred by chance alone” with 4, 5 and 7 points more than dummy pills but 70 per cent with the Pfizer drug Celebrex is celebrated though only an even smaller, paltry 3 points more than the 67 per cent that was rejected as ineffective?

Furthermore, the article then concluded with other figures noting that the two dietary supplements together were 79 per cent effective against pain in more severe cases while the drug Celebrex was only 69 per cent effective in more severe cases.  Yet the entire focus of the study and article was that supplements don’t work and drugs do.

The lead study author and another author who wrote an editorial accompanying the study’s publication in the New England Journal of Medicine have received consultancy and grant funds from Pfizer

Selenium again

The study above was specifically with arthritis of the knees.  Only a few months ago a much longer, 15-year study with almost 1,000 participants reported that only one-tenth of one part per million of selenium in the body significantly decreased risk of knee arthritis.  It further noted that the more selenium present the greater the decreased risk of knee arthritis.

This study and story was not reported by AP or any other mainstream news agencies.  Yet its results came from press releases by both the American College of Rheumatology from its annual meetings and from the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill.  Involvement with this research also came from NIH, CDC, the University of California-Los Angeles (UCLA), the University of Missouri-Columbia and the University of Maryland.

Once again the mineral nutrient selenium is ignored while the Pfizer drug Celebrex is widely heralded though the promise of the mineral nutrient selenium is much greater than that of the Pfizer drug Celebrex.

The Pfeds and Pfizer again

Last summer a United States Supreme Court ruling determined that government can take the homes of individuals that have lived there for many years to give to a private, corporate entity in a widely criticized decision.  Not so widely reported was that the specific case involved taking of many peoples’ homes to give to Pfizer for warehouse space.

Lest you think that changes at the United States Supreme Court may improve upon matters such as this then note that new Chief Justice John Roberts is a multi-millionaire with extensive pharmaceutical holdings including a plentiful portfolio of Pfizer stock.

Opening day of the new United States Supreme Court season revealed Chief Justice Roberts as critical of authority of the states in medical matters in his opening act according to an AP story.  The article noted Roberts “as an aggressive defender of federal authority” regarding medicine and health care.

Perhaps AP should have written of United States Supreme Court Justice John Roberts rather “as an aggressive defender of Pfederal authority.”

    By NotADoc at 04/12/2006

Case and point
Samantha Burton was 25 weeks pregnant when her membranes ruptured. Following good sense, she sought help from her obstetrician, Dr. Jana Bures-Forsthoefel. When Samantha tried to leave the hospital for a second opinion this outrageous doctor refused to allow her to leave and then grabbed a court order requiring Samantha to forsake her job and children at home and undergo "any and all medical treatments" the physician deemed necessary. The Kangaroo Court hearing by telephone from her hospital bed denied Samantha the opportunity for an attorney or her requested second opinion and request to change hospitals. Sadly, three days into her court-ordered confinement, Samantha lost her baby.

After laboring at home and becoming dehydrated, Laura Pemberton sought medical help and requested intravenous fluids, but physicians conditioned her medical care on agreement to a cesarean section. She refused the procedure and left the hospital. The demigod doctors snatched a court order to retrieve her from her home and forced her to the hospital by ambulance. She was then subjected to undergo an apparently unnecessary cesarean section.

In the ongoing case of 10-year-old Jacob Stieler, omniscient doctors compelled the Michigan DHS into seeking to force deadly treatment upon the child against the parents' wishes. PET scans show Jacob to be in cancer remission but the powers that be maintain he still needs poisonous chemotherapy and radiation therapy. The doctors insist that Jacob will surely die without treatment even though the recommended drugs are not FDA approved for his treatment. Attorney Michael Farris, says "There's no doubt that in the day that we live in, the medical community thinks it gets to decide what we all should do."

Hospital lawyers deputized
Forced care cases are usually heard on an emergency basis and judicial decisions are made without full briefing on relevant law, medicine, and policy. A patient put into a forced care situation has the undue burden to instantaneously conjure up expert witnesses to testify on their behalf. Hospital lawyers deputized to act as state attorneys have a clear conflict of interest as noted by the Supreme Court of Florida, saying it is inappropriate for a hospital "to argue zealously against the wishes of its own patient," and "it cannot act on behalf of the State to assert the state interests" when a competent adult refuses care. (Matter of Dubreuil).

Of course, subjecting a patient to forced care, even court-ordered care, may lead to a lawsuit for violations of civil and constitutional rights. Courts' opinions generally begin with the premise that "every person of adult years and sound mind has the right to determine what shall be done with his body." (Schloendorff v. Society of N.Y. Hospital).

Physicians should discuss the risks, benefits, and alternatives for recommended care at the bedside or in the exam room and then let it go and never involve courts. At the bedside and with the patients' autonomy intact is where it should end.

Right to know
Physicians who seek judicial intervention should disclose that practice so patients can seek care elsewhere. Next thing will be that patients will be prosecuted and jailed for adverse outcomes when they reject medical care. In the case of refusing harmful vaccinations (which are medical procedures with deadly risks), it is already happening in other countries.

KOTV NewsOn6.com, which was the first to break the heartbreaking story, explains a situation that is becoming disturbingly common in America today. A phantom "neighbor" allegedly complains about the victim's yard, which prompts overzealous city officials to conduct a witch hunt that includes coercing the victim into complying with their unlawful demands. When said victim refuses and tries to fight back and reclaim her legal rights, the city proceeds to trespass on her property and destroy it, along with her livelihood.

For Denise, this is exactly what happened when a "neighbor" complained about her edible garden, which she just so happened to be using to naturally treat her diabetes, high blood pressure, and arthritis. In this garden were strawberries, stevia, several varieties of mint, apple trees, pecan trees, walnut trees, grapes, lemons, garlic, and chives, to name just a few — and each of these plants had a specific purpose in Denise's life, whether it was simply for nourishment, or for the prevention and treatment of various diseases.

But City of Tulsa code enforcement officials, apparently doped up on their own sick delusions of perceived grandeur, decided that Denise's garden violated local code, even though it most clearly did not. In fact, nowhere in the local code is there even a hint of verbiage that suggests Denise's garden was in violation of any local laws whatsoever — Tulsa city officials appear to have simply made up phony violations in order to target Denise.

You can watch the full NewsOn6.com report here:
http://www.newson6.com

Local code reveals Denise's garden in full compliance with the law
Code enforcement officials tried to claim that Denise's plants were too tall, exceeding the 12-inch limit for plants, and thus had to be removed. But as you will see in the following portion of Tulsa's Code of Ordinances titled Nuisances Classified, plants exceedingly twelve inches in height are permitted as long as they are "healthy trees, shrubs or produce for human consumption grown in a tended and cultivated garden." (http://library.municode.com).

Denise tried to point this fact out to officials, but they ignored her. She repeatedly tried to show them pictures of her garden and set up meetings to discuss the matter, but they continually refused, ordering her to remove the garden or else face further penalties.

"Every word out of their mouth was, 'we don't care,'" said Morrison to NewsOn6.com about how the city treated her when she tried to defend the legitimacy of her garden.

Denise was not about to be steamrolled without a fight, however. Rather than rip out her garden, she decided to call the police, who issued her a citation in order to have the issue worked out at a later day in court. But before the postponed hearing could even take place, code enforcement officials, in violation of both the court order and the city's own laws, arrived at Denise's house and proceeded to forcefully remove every single plant from both her front and back yards.

Several days later, Denise, who had left her house following the incident, came back to see the aftermath of what had taken place. The destruction was so severe that Denise sat in her driveway and cried for several minutes before eventually leaving.

"Not only are the plants my livelihood, they're my food and I was unemployed at the time and had no food left, no medicine left, and I didn't have insurance," said Morrison about her garden. "They basically took away my life and my livelihood."

Americans need to start standing up and defending their freedoms against government terrorists
Denise has since filed a civil rights lawsuit against the city for tyrannizing her and destroying her personal property. Some of her supporters have also set up a Change.org petition demanding that the City of Tulsa replant her garden, compensate her for all losses, and apologize to her for their illegal activities against her (http://www.change.org).

As we reported previously, Steven Cooksey, a former diabetic, abandoned conventional wisdom concerning diabetes after watching it fail him and land him in the hospital, and instead chose to take an alternative route. This included adopting a so-called "Paleolithic" diet that is high in fats, low in carbohydrates, devoid of grains, and completely contrary to the establishment medical system's views about what diabetics should eat.

After experiencing incredible success with this new Paleolithic method, which contradicted everything his doctors had told him concerning diet for his "incurable" condition, Cooksey decided to create a website called "Diabetes Warrior" to help other diabetics achieve similar success through this unique dietary approach.

You can view Cooksey's website here:
http://www.diabetes-warrior.net

Things for Cooksey turned sour, however, when he butted heads with the director of diabetic services at a local hospital during a nutrition seminar. During the question and answer portion of the presentation, Cooksey challenged the director's views, who just so happened to be dispensing dietary information that directly opposed Cooksey's Paleolithic approach, with his own personal experience and dietary approach.

Just three days after questioning the director about her views that diabetics should eat a diet rich in whole-grain carbohydrates and low in fat, Cooksey says he received a call from Charla Mae Burill, director of NCBDN, saying that someone at the seminar filed a complaint against him. This individual, who appears to have been Burill, also accused Cooksey of playing the role of a dietitian without being licensed by the state.

NCBDN then proceeded to aggressively comb Cooksey's website, going line by line and identifying what it believed to be violations of state law. The group then ordered him to stop dispensing nutritional advice without a license, which included selling his nutritional coaching services, and to completely restructure his site, or else be forced to take it down.

Cooksey refuses to bow down to state, files lawsuit against NCBDN
Cooksey, however, never claimed to be a registered dietitian, and detailed plainly on his website that he was not officially certified. His readers, in others words, were fully aware that the information presented simply reflected his own personal experience, which led to a complete reversal of his diabetic condition, and his significant loss of roughly 78 pounds.

"When did it become illegal to tell people to eat meats and vegetables?" asked Cooksey in a recent interview with the Associated Press. "How is it illegal to tell people not to eat grains? We're talking about healthy eating. This is wrong."

In response to North Carolina's attempted violations of his free speech rights, Cooksey has filed a federal lawsuit. NCBDN and several of its board members are reportedly named as defendants in the case, which continues to receive national attention.

Meanwhile, Cooksey's website is still up and running, and still contains plenty of useful information about his unconventional dietary approach that has helped many. You can check it out here:
http://www.diabetes-warrior.net

Cooksey's case is important, as it will set a precedent concerning government censorship of free speech. If government officials are allowed to deny Cooksey his ability to share truthful information about health with online readers, then no online free speech is safe from censorship.

But, this FDA action to get tough on warning letters is just another example of why the National Health Federation’s legislation, the Dietary Supplement Protection Act (H.R.3380), is needed and needed now.  And, not sitting on the sidelines while oppression from the FDA continues.

Many of you have been great supporters and have called and petitioned your Congressional representatives to co-sponsor H.R.3380, but many of you reading this have not.  Please get onboard with this cause and legislation and get others to back this legislation.  Contrary to rumors, H.R.3380 can pass.  If it does not, then it will be a major setback for all of us.

We need a tsunami wave of consumer outrage to hit the FDA and Congress and force this legislation to be enacted.  Just recently, the Family Farm bill was withdrawn due to the deluge that Congress received from the grassroots groups of individuals, farmers, and others who vehemently opposed this bill.  The bill basically told farmers under what conditions their own children could work on their own farms, a definite overreach by government if there ever was one.  The issue also became too politically risky for Obama in an election year.  But, what is most important is that it was stopped by American citizens persistently demanding their rights.

As an American, you must fight back against the FDA and let them hear your voice.  You may never have another chance to make this issue right.  Do not stay in the shadows, hoping that someone else will speak for you, they will not.

Join the NHF in demanding our dietary-supplement rights via H.R.3380.

Specifically, the FBI wants the 1994 Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, or CALEA, amended to require Internet platforms such as Facebook, as well as Web-based email programs like Gmail and Yahoo! to build back doors into their systems, so the FBI can access them at will to spy. Presumably other constitutional requirements of eavesdropping – such as the Fourth Amendment's requirement for law enforcement to secure a warrant "upon probable cause" – would apply, but these days, you just never know. And besides, once the back doors are "installed," who's to say they won't be accessed by prying eyes at will?

Not surprisingly, the FBI doesn't consider such a proposal an expansion of its power – merely an extension of its authority in this Information Age as a way to improve our security. Sound familiar?

Hesitant companies, but can they hold out?

In what can only be good news for Web surfers and email clients, the companies are hesitant to simply go along with the FBI's proposal; after all, recent congressional attempts to pass privacy-stealing legislation like SOPA and CISPA have met with huge consumer backlash.

That's understandable, since any misuse of the technology will have a much more detrimental effect on the bottom line of the companies, as users flee their services for other providers who are less accommodating.

Again, though, officials at the bureau pushing for the changes see their effort as a way to enhance security. They say technology is changing so rapidly that what is useful today likely won't be in a few months, and that much is true. They point to procedures already in place that make it easy to tap cell phones or landlines, but argue that getting direct surveillance for Facebook chats or Twitter posts is much more difficult, and that without the back doors, the agency is in danger of becoming ineffective. The bureau calls this alleged phenomenon "Going Dark," according to what then-FBI general counsel Valerie Caproni was planning to warn Congress of in February 2011.

In other words, the needs of national security trump individual constitutional rights – something the founding fathers warned should never happen.

Rolling back the leviathan

According to reports, the FBI would still be required to get a warrant to conduct any electronic surveillance through these back doors. But privacy advocates say such access will ultimately prove too tempting for overzealous agents.

"New methods of communication should not be subject to a government green light before they can be used," Ross Schulman, of the Computer and Communications Industry Association, told CNET.com.

A number of Internet and tech companies are following the FBI's quiet efforts to change CALEA. CNET.com reported that Apple, which distributes iChat and FaceTime, is "currently lobbying on the effort," while Microsoft – which owns Skype and Hotmail – says its lobbyists are following the FBI's efforts to bring about legislation before Congress. Yahoo!, Google and Facebook would not comment, but the safe money says these firms are following the issue closely as well.

But it may be that legislation, ultimately, won't be needed. There are indications the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) may consider "reinterpreting CALEA to demand that products that allow video or voice chat over the Internet — from Skype to Google Hangouts to Xbox Live — include surveillance backdoors to help the FBI with its 'Going Dark' program," CNET.com said.

"We have noticed a massive uptick in the amount of FCC CALEA inquiries and enforcement proceedings within the last year, most of which are intended to address 'Going Dark' issues," Christopher Canter, lead compliance counsel at the Marashlian and Donahue law firm, which specializes in CALEA, said.

"This generally means that the FCC is laying the groundwork for regulatory action."

The moral of the story here is the same: What the leviathan wants, the leviathan will get, one way or another.

I was in a meeting once and I gave an analogy to my staff . . . The Romans used to conquer little villages in the Mediterranean. They’d go into a little Turkish town somewhere, they’d find the first five guys they saw and they would crucify them. And then you know that town was really easy to manage for the next few years. . . . And so you make examples out of people who are in this case not compliant with the law. Find people who are not compliant with the law, and you hit them as hard as you can and you make examples out of them, and there is a deterrent effect there . . . . And companies that are smart see that, they don’t want to play that game, and they decide at that point that it’s time to clean up.

Instead of confirming the lies and misinformation of the state-sanctioned nutrition guidelines for diabetes, which frown on things like saturated fats and encourage consumption of grain-based carbohydrates, Cooksey spoke up about the importance of consuming saturated fats as part of a healthy diet, and warned about how eating too many carbohydrates is detrimental to health. He also passed out business cards to event attendees that directed them to his blog.

A mere three days later, Cooksey was reportedly contacted by Charla Mae Burill, Director of NCBDN (http://www.avvo.com/attorneys/27560-nc-charla-burill-1918146.html), and told that he "could not give out nutritional advice without a license," according to the Carolina Journal. Burill also threatened to file an injunction against Cooksey unless he completely revamps his site, or takes it offline.

You can view Cooksey's blog here:
http://www.diabetes-warrior.net/

NCBDN threats against Cooksey violate the U.S. Constitution
In its defense, NCBDN says Cooksey is specifically violating state law by "counseling" readers about nutrition, rather than just providing general information about diet plans. But any rational, unbiased assessment of the situation, and of Cooksey's blog specifically, will reveal that NCBDN's accusations are petty at best — and in all truth, they are completely unwarranted and ridiculous.

NCBDN's accusations are also unconstitutional, as Cooksey has every legal right under the U.S. Constitution to share health information online, and even to assist his readers in curing their own diseases by sharing how certain dietary protocols have helped him. So no matter how NCBDN tries to spin the issue, Cooksey has complete, sovereign authority over his own person to share his health experiences online without having to deal with duress from government bureaucrats.

"The First Amendment says state and federal governments 'shall make no law' abridging freedom of speech," says Declan McCullagh, a CBS News correspondent and expert in free speech issues, who believes the case is nonsense. "It doesn't say 'except for what annoys the North Carolina Board of Dietetics and Nutrition.'"

"If that language appeared in a book or a magazine article, do you think the board would complain? How about if someone said that to a friend over dinner at a restaurant? Of course not. But because it's on the Web, they seem to think that the First Amendment no longer applies."

NCBDN concerned with maintaining its own health monopoly, not with improving public health
If NCBDN was really concerned about improving the health and eating habits of North Carolinians, it would not be wasting precious time and resources pursuing a man whose experience and expertise in the matter has actually been proven to reverse and cure disease. But it is precisely because Cooksey's expertise is effective and runs contrary to NCBDN's outmoded dietary doctrine that the organization is seeking to squelch him.

It is a classic case of a centralized power institution seeking to maintain complete control over an entire industry, which in this case is health and nutrition. Any information or advice that runs contrary to its own antiquated dogma, which includes Cooksey's blog, cannot be tolerated if the institution is to survive.

But the free people of the United States, and specifically of North Carolina, cannot tolerate NCBDN's extreme abuse of its own perceived authority, either, which it technically and legally does not even possess in the first place. And it is time to put this board in its place by demanding that it leave Cooksey, and all other sovereign individuals, alone.

Regardless of whether or not you live in North Carolina, you can contact NCBDN to express your thoughts, and to urge the group to back off, by writing, calling, faxing or emailing:

North Carolina Board of Dietetics / Nutrition
1000 Centre Green Way
Suite 200
Cary, NC 27513

Phone: (919) 228-6391
Toll Free: (800) 849-2936
Fax: (919) 882-1776

Yes, the word "protection" is in the title, but a closer examination of the language of the bill, as well as its intent, by those who know how things works on Capitol Hill, find that the only "protection" the bill offers is that afforded the federal government.

According to a summary of the bill by the Congressional Research Service, the legislation amends "the National Security Act of 1947 to add provisions concerning cyber threat intelligence and information sharing." In particular, cyber threat intelligence is defined "as information in the possession of an element of the intelligence community directly pertaining to a vulnerability of, or threat to, a system or network of a government or private entity […]"

What that means, essentially, is that it will be easier for the government and the private sector to share information about cyber threats, which, truthfully, is a major emerging national security problem.

Making conditions ripe for privacy violations – again

Trouble is, according to groups opposed to CISPA, once again citizens' privacy concerns are taking a back seat in this Information Age. And that could be one reason why the White House has threatened to veto it, should CISPA pass the Senate.

On the one hand, business groups say the bill is necessary to make it easier for companies in the private sector to share potential cyber threat information with government security elements such as the National Security Agency.

On the other, groups like the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT) think the law will be used as yet another tool to violate privacy rights.

The CDT, which initially backed the legislation, pulled its support after becoming "disappointed that CISPA passed the House in such flawed form and under such a flawed process." The group said its biggest concern was that the law, as it is now written, would allow information to move "from the private sector directly to the NSA." The bill also inappropriately allows information to be applied to national security issues other than just cyber security – and therein lies the problem.

"CISPA goes too far for little reason," says ACLU legislative counsel Michelle Richardson, according to the Washington Post. "Cybersecurity does not have to mean abdication of Americans' online privacy. As we've seen repeatedly, once the government gets expansive national security authorities, there's no going back. We encourage the Senate to let this horrible bill fade into obscurity."

CISPA: Bypassing privacy on weakest of excuses

The impetus of the legislation – to protect U.S. infrastructure, which is run by computer – from attack is as noble as it is necessary in these digital times. Cyber attacks on the U.S. have been mounting quickly, especially against U.S. military, industrial and corporate targets. But as usual, critics point out that the legislation isn't what it appears to be.

"I do think there is a need for companies to get more information from the government in a timely fashion. The problem that arises with CISPA is that it does so much more than that," says Rainey Reitman, activism director for the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

"It also opens the floodgates for companies to intercept communications of everyday Internet users and pass unredacted personal information to the governments," she added.

CISPA would let companies essentially bypass current privacy laws "and pass citizens' personal data to the government even if there's a weak excuse that the information is related to cyber security purposes," says a report by PC World.

"The government in return has said that if they get information that's unrelated to cyber security they 'may' – don't have to, but may choose to – remove some of the implications toward civil liberties. But they don't have to and there's no real guidelines on what they would have to do about it," Reitman said.

Protecting the country from cyber attacks is imperative. Some say the cyber-equivalent of a Pearl Harbor-style attack is on the horizon.

Fine – let's protect our electronic and digital infrastructure. But for once, let's not trample the constitutional rights of our citizens in the process.