Korean Job Discussion Forums

[some waygug-in]

Perhaps this site would be instructive?

It's interesting to note what effect the CODEX is having in Canada, where is has been adopted.

http://www.taxtyranny.ca/images/HTML/Vaccines/Articles/HCBullonCodex.doc


I found the third page very interesting.

[mindmetoo]

[huffdaddy]

[mindmetoo]

[mindmetoo]

Some thoughts on standards. It seems to me the CA is an international trade standards body. As I noted above, instead of 178 countries all having 178 different rules for what kind of meat you can export to them, they all agree on one standard. If the USA's meat meets the international standard, then no signatory can reject the product. If they do, then there are ethical trade sanctions the USA can impose. No one forces an American farmer to export his goods. If he wants to sell only to Americans, it seems to me he is subject to American law. If you know of an example where an international trade agreement has trumped American law and forced an American conducting business solely in America to change his business practice, please provide it. (Justification: There are no blue fairies, I've looked, prove me wrong by showing me one. Just one.)

Now in any debate over standards, there will be winners and losers. In the VHS vs Beta war, Sony lost. Certainly some industries take a hit but then change is a fact of life. You change or die. Did Sony die? No. It bought a movie studio. It made piles of cash on VHS tapes. Everyone learned from the VHS war and found a DVD standard. Now we're going back on that learning and battling over HD DVD. Anyway, standards aren't meant to impede trade. They are meant to do away with the guess work and let people get on with selling.

The supplement, health, and alternative medicine (SHAM) industry seems to think the CA is a threat, in the same way Monsato thinks a farmer putting "no hormones" on his milk is a threat. There is no scientific evidence growth hormones are bad or that the milk even contains the hormone. So to Monsato this might create a false public perception and hurt their business (a kind of "Have you stopped beating your wife?" allegation). So they employed a legal means: they sued. They took it to a venue of fact and logic and argued their case. As best I can figure the safe compromise was put "contains no hormones although there is no evidence hormones have been shown to have negative health effects". Is there a problem there?

Likewise the SHAM industry seems to think the CA will have all kinds of adverse effects. I've seen no evidence, other than supposition, that the CA will have these effects (ie getting vitamins declared toxins and forcing farmers to use hormones). Maybe their fear is people will look at the science and go "wow, there is no good reason to take 500 mg of vitamin C". I don't know. There can be no doubt the CA, even if it only a set of guidelines for compliance with international trade, can hurt the SHAM industry's bottom line. It might change public perception. Global trade being a huge cash cow, and a good set of trade standards to facilitate that and increase international trade, might cause farmers et al to make the business decision to standardize all their farming based on CA guidelines. Oh well, people like to make as much money as possible. It's hard to buy a car these days that doesn't have parts only measured in metric.

If we suspect the truthiness of big pharma based on the profit motive, there seems to me no good reason then to suspect the profit-driven SHAM industry is just out to protect the health of Betty and Joe Lunchbucket.

But they are employing legal means: rallying public out cry. Pubic out cry leads to political debate. Maybe there's a class action suit. And then the case is argued in a venue of fact and logic. Then the SHAM industry can put up their evidence. Hope it's good.

[some waygug-in]

About the growth hormone.

I have tried to find information on that and have not been able to do so. I have sent an email to the web site in question and am waiting for a reply. For now, that's the best I can do.

Regarding CODEX and how it all plays out:

Several of the links I posted talk about this. There is a seeming gap between what is said on the surface and the way things work out in reality.

http://www.taxtyranny.ca/images/HTML/Vaccines/Articles/HCBullonCodex.doc

1. In paragraph one, the Health Canada advisor states: "CAC [standards] are intended for voluntary use by governments...". This is untrue. Last November according to all reports by those who attended the voluntary status was rejected and Codex voted in complete compliance by all member states. See the attachment I sent you by Lawloft. Canada objected, to its credit, but it was outvoted. Whatever Codex decided on nutrients with medicinal properties is now binding.

2. In paragraph two he provides the fact that the CCNFSDU is a "technical subsidiary body" of Codex in general. My point exactly - is is Codex that treats these supplements as a third category to be specially attended to and regulated. They have, according to the case heard in the International Court no such mandate or jurisdiction; this subsidiary is contrary to the EU Constitution.

3. In paragraph three he makes three points all of which are, charitably judged, doublespeak. As usually is the case with health Canada: the question always haunts one: are they criminal or are they stupid? I don't care which it is they are, you and I are neither and need to attend to the facts and defend ourselves. The three points he makes are:

a. the guidelines are supposed to be "safe, efficacious....etc." There never was any evidence that they were anything else by safe. The supplements being targeted are not Chinese herbs in which sometimes heavy metals or ground-up endangered species' parts were found. The Codex subsidiary committee is going after the standard stuff in every health food store that has no body count. No harmonization is needed, no report has ever been filed (to my knowledge) showing that there are trade barriers, misleading packaging etc. etc. Total smoke screen. Codex is pro-active, not reactive in this case, which they have no mandate to be. It is standard medicine that has established safety levels of vitamins and minerals, and on those standard research reports from the peer-reviewed medical journals, the production of vitamins and minerals are based. This is of vital significance - this fact is the basis for the organized objection to this whole exercise by doctors from around the world, also a little known fact in the health food industry. Remember: everything you produce, sell and develop comes from mainstream medical research!

b. Health Canada asserts that only vitamins and minerals are involved. This is untrue. The EU Directive has two lists, the "positive" and the "negative" list - download the text from the internet and see for yourself. All other supplements and herbal medicines are the ones to be targeted the same way when the first "positive" list has been dealt with.

c. Health Canada refers to "scientific risk assessment based on generally accepted scientific data...". This is so horrendous a deception that it feels like being struck in the face. The report that has already been published which utilizes these "scientific risk assessment" data is written by Codex chairman Dr. Grossklaus and his team. The report is only in German, and Germany has already made its recommendations law in January - even though the report was only publicly available in November (go figure!). I am preparing a detailed summary of this one. This report advises that all vitamins and minerals be roughly reduced to one fourth of the current RDA because the report asserts that we must assume that all people get vitamins and minerals anyway from their foods. The effect of this recommendation is that vitamins and minerals in therapeutic doses can only be provided through doctors, but only until after Codex has decided what those levels are. The RDA is totally inappropriate already, which is why people decide on the basis of their bio-individual needs how much to take. Worst of all, the science upon which this tabacco-science report relies is all incestuous, internal
Codex material and outdated reports - nothing contemporary! As I have said before: if this report was a PhD thesis, the faculty would sent Grossklaus and company back to kindergarten to learn how to write a proper review. No university would award a PhD on the basis of this nonsense.

[mindmetoo]

[some waygug-in]

[mindmetoo]

[some waygug-in]

Well, if Pharma were backing their own claims that would make sense, but in many cases they seem to be going against what their own scientists are saying. So how in the world can anyone say that pharmaceuticals are safe?

[mindmetoo]

[igotthisguitar]

Fluoride Accumulates in Pineal Gland
Categories
Health

Fluoride, added to the water supply of many cities and counties and sold by WalMart in its nursery water, has a tendency to accumulate not only in developing teeth causing discoloration, and in bones making them brittle. The mineral is associated with cancer and it also accumulates in the pineal gland, an important hormone control center, where it wreaks considerable havoc. Paul Connett of Fluoride Action Network comments on Jennifer Luke's research which was part of her PhD thesis and had just been published in Caries Research under the title: Fluoride Deposition in the Aged Human Pineal Gland.

Fluoride is a poison, yet we add it to our water and toothpaste and even call it a supplement, although it has no nutritional value. Its medicinal value - the prevention of tooth decay - is the official explanation for adding the toxic mineral to the water supply. But that value is far outweighed by its toxic side effects - amply documented by Paul Connett in his Statement of Concern.

Recent European Union legislation on food supplements lists fluoride as an essential element to offer for supplementation. This is somewhat ironic when contrasted with the European legislators' feigned concern over the putative toxicity of vitamins and their efforts to limit dosages of these vital nutrients in order to "protect public health".

We also use fluoride in many household items, such as non-stick frying pans, high-tech water repellent fabrics and others. Recently, at least some timid attempts to start assessing the disease burden caused by fluoride are under way. The Journal of Water Health carries an article on this research. Meanwhile in the US, the FDA has decided that fluoride should be allowed in bottled water, perhaps in deference to WalMart's offerings.

The use of fluoride for "health" reasons is one of the great insanities of our times. Could it be just by chance that the Germans and Russians both used fluoride to make prisoners stupid and docile or that the US government faced legal action over the toxic effects in the environment of this nuclear waste by-product?

Perhaps the push for 'enriching' our water and our foods with fluoride has some ulterior motive that has little to do with health. Be that as it may, the campaign for fluoridation is stil in full swing and health authorities are pushing the poison as if their monthly paychecks depended on it.

Jennifer Luke's PhD thesis on fluoride and its accumulation in the pineal gland - Paul Connett says that research might just be the scientific straw that breaks the camel's back:


- - -

Fluoride & the Pineal Gland:
Study Published in Caries Research

The wheels of science grind very slowly. Finally, the first half of the work that was the subject of Jennifer Luke's Ph.D. thesis; presentation in Bellingham, Washington (ISFR conference) in 1998 and a videotaped interview I had with her (see www.fluoridealert.org/videos.htm), has been published in Caries Research.

In my view this work is of enormous importance and could be (or should be) the scientific straw that breaks the camel's back of fluoridation.

When Luke found out that the pineal gland - a little gland in the center of the brain, responsible for a very large range of regulating activities (it produces serotonin and melatonin) - was also a calcifying tissue, like the teeth and the bones, she hypothesized it would concentrate fluoride to very high levels. The gland is not protected by the blood brain barrier and has a very high perfusion rate of blood, second only to the kidney.

Luke had 11 cadavers analyzed in the UK. As she predicted she found astronomically high levels of fluoride in the calcium hydroxy apatite crystals produced by the gland. The average was 9000 ppm and went as high as 21,000 in one case. These levels are at, or higher, than fluoride levels in the bones of people suffering from skeletal fluorosis. It is these findings which have just been published.

It is the ramifications of these findings which have yet to be published. In the second half of her work she treated animals (Mongolian gerbils) with fluoride at a crack pineal gland research unit at the University of Surrey, UK (so there is no question about the quality of this work). She found that melatonin production (as measured by the concentration of a melatonin metabolite in the urine) was lower in the animals treated with high fluoride levels compared with those treated with low levels.

Luke hypothesizes that one of the four enzymes needed to convert the amino acid tryptophan (from the diet) into melatonin is being inhibited by fluoride. It could be one of the two enzymes which convert tryptophan to serotonin or one of the two which convert serotonin to melatonin.

Significance? Huge. Melatonin is reponsible for regulating all kinds of activities and there is a vast amount of work investigating its possible roles in aging, cancer and many other life processes. The one activity that Luke is particularly interested in is the onset of puberty. The highest levels of melatonin ( produced only at night) is generated in young children. It is thought that it is the fall of these melatonin levels which acts like a biological clock and triggers the onset of puberty. In her gerbil study she found that the high fluoride treated animals were reaching puberty earlier than the low fluoride ones.

We know from recent studies - and considerable press coverage - that young girls are reaching puberty earlier and earlier in the US. Luke is not saying that fluoride (or fluoridation) is the cause but her work waves a very worrying red flag. Fluoride's role in earlier puberty needs more thorough investigation. Of an interesting historical note, in the Newburgh versus Kingston fluoridation trial (1945-1955), it was found that the girls in fluoridated Newburgh were reaching menstruation, on average, five months earlier than the girls in unfluoridated Kingston, but the result was not thought to be significant at the time (Schlessinger et al, 1956).

When one considers the seriousness of a possible interference by fluoride on a growing child's pineal gland (and for that matter, elderly pineal glands) it underlines the recklessness of fluoridation. The precautionary principle would say, as would basic common sense, that you don't take these kind of risks with our children for a benefit which, at best, amounts to 0.6 tooth surfaces out of 128 tooth surfaces in a child's mouth (Brunelle and Carlos, 1990, Table 6).

I have a copy of Luke's Ph.D. thesis and would be willing to share it with those who have a serious scientific interest in this issue. The other references cited above can be found in my Statement of Concern which is published on the FAN webpage: http://www.fluoridealert.org/fluoride-statement.htm

http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/sepp/2006/12/30/fluoride_accumulates_in_pineal_gland.htm

[some waygug-in]

http://www.newstarget.com/009278.html

Statistics prove prescription drugs are 16,400% more deadly than terrorists
Tuesday, July 05, 2005 by: Jessica Fraser
Printable version Key concepts: prescription drugs, prescription drug and pharmaceutical industry.





Well, forget "what if." The tragedy is happening right now. Over 750,000 people actually do die in the United States every year, although not from plane crashes. They die from something far more common and rarely perceived by the public as dangerous: modern medicine.

According to the groundbreaking 2003 medical report Death by Medicine, by Drs. Gary Null, Carolyn Dean, Martin Feldman, Debora Rasio and Dorothy Smith, 783,936 people in the United States die every year from conventional medicine mistakes. That's the equivalent of six jumbo jet crashes a day for an entire year. But where is the media attention for this tragedy? Where is the government support for stopping these medical mistakes before they happen?



Good thing the government is "keeping and eye on these things".




Then if we look at deaths by vitamin overdose:


http://www.emedicine.com/emerg/topic638.htm


In the US: Data from the 2003 American Association of Poison Control Centers' Toxic Exposure Surveillance System document the total number of exposures for each class of vitamins, the number of patients with major adverse outcomes, and the number of fatalities from that ingestion, as follows:



Adult multiple vitamins without iron or fluoride - 2760 total exposures, 9 major outcomes, and 0 deaths



Adult multiple vitamins with iron but without fluoride - 7080 total exposures, 9 major outcomes, and 1 death



Pediatric multiple vitamins without iron or fluoride - 9996 total exposures, 2 major outcomes, and 0 deaths



Pediatric multiple vitamins with iron but without fluoride - 18,172 total exposures, 1 major outcome, and 0 deaths



Vitamin A - 707 total exposures, 2 major outcomes, and 0 deaths



Niacin - 2646 total exposures, 5 major outcomes, and 0 deaths



Pyridoxine - 383 total exposures, 5 major outcomes, and 1 death



Other B complex vitamins - 2625 total exposures, 16 major outcomes, and 0 deaths



Vitamin C - 2390 total exposures, 3 major outcomes, and 1 death



Vitamin D - 326 total exposures, 2 major outcomes, and 0 deaths



Vitamin E - 1816 total exposures, 1 major outcome, and 0 deaths



Overall, 57,801 exposures to different types of vitamins were reported to the poison control centers across the US in 2003, accounting for 63 major adverse outcomes and 4 deaths. Of the total exposures, 45,352 exposures occurred in children younger than age 6 years.




Gee, I guess there is a crying, urgent need for the government to watch over vitamins more.



I've yet to find a site that lists deaths from ingesting herbal remedies, but there are plenty that warn of problems.

http://your-doctor.com/patient_info/alternative_remedies/alt_rem_hp_content.html


Should herbal remedies be regulated? Yes, perhaps, but using this as a reason to submit to the CODEX A. is an over-reaction in my opinion.

[mindmetoo]

[igotthisguitar]