Codex Alimentarius
6/24/2009 Update - CODEX Action Alert
CDC and WHO are predicting that the H1N1 "Swine Flu" will be back this fall in a new and deadly form. WHO*, after changing the definition to fit current conditions, has declared a "Level 6" pandemic. Since the organism appears to have been man made, this prediction may be one they can make "accurately."
They also say that a new vaccine will be ready for deployment at the very time when the H1N1 Pandemic virus circulates around the globe and are proposing universal (mandatory) vaccination, starting with our most vulnerable: the very young and the very old.
The White House is proposing vaccination for both seasonal flu and H1N1 flu, although the total number of US fatalities to date from H1N1 has reached a total of about 2.
State Emergency Medical Powers Acts and Federal legislation, including the Patriot Acts I, II and III, BARDA and others provide for mandatory vaccination or drugging. No exemptions (religious or otherwise) are provided. Those who refuse will be classified as felons at the State level, subject to immedate incarceration and quarantine of indefinite length in jails or other facilities reserved for such "vaccine refusers."
Please send the Action Item email below to help educate decision makers, modified as you prefer. Then send this action item link, http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/568/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=27275 to every person on your list, all organizations which care about health, freedom and liberty and urge them to do the same!
We must make this demand that the government respect our rights become "viral" through your efforts and result in many hundreds of thousands of messages to decision makers, on the State and Federal levels!
Our White Paper on the Right to Self-Quarantine and Self-Shielding is at: http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/?p=2752
Here is the link to the text of the bill for which we are seeking congressional sponsorship, the Protecting Americans' Self-Shielding Act [PASS Act] - http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/?p=2888 [text excerpt below**]
http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/568/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=27275
A team at Purdue University School of Veterinary Medicine conducted several studies (1,2) to
determine if vaccines can cause changes in the immune system of dogs that might lead to lifethreatening immune-mediated diseases. They obviously conducted this research because concern already existed. It was sponsored by the Haywood Foundation which itself was looking for evidence that such changes in the human immune system might also be vaccine induced. It
found the evidence.
The vaccinated, but not the non-vaccinated, dogs in the Purdue studies developed autoantibodies
to many of their own biochemicals, including fibronectin, laminin, DNA, albumin, cytochrome C,
cardiolipin and collagen.
This means that the vaccinated dogs -- "but not the non-vaccinated dogs"-- were attacking their
own fibronectin, which is involved in tissue repair, cell multiplication and growth, and
differentiation between tissues and organs in a living organism.
The vaccinated Purdue dogs also developed autoantibodies to laminin, which is involved in
many cellular activities including the adhesion, spreading, differentiation, proliferation and
movement of cells. Vaccines thus appear to be capable of removing the natural intelligence of
cells.
The Purdue studies also found that vaccinated dogs were developing autoantibodies to their own
collagen. About one quarter of all the protein in the body is collagen. Collagen provides structure to our bodies, protecting and supporting the softer tissues and connecting them with the skeleton. It is no wonder that Canine Health Concern's 1997 study of 4,000 dogs showed a high number of dogs developing mobility problems shortly after they were vaccinated (noted in my 1997 book, What Vets Don't Tell You About Vaccines).
Perhaps most worryingly, the Purdue studies found that the vaccinated dogs had developed
autoantibodies to their own DNA. Did the alarm bells sound? Did the scientific community call a
halt to the vaccination program? No. Instead, they stuck their fingers in the air, saying more
research is needed to ascertain whether vaccines can cause genetic damage. Meanwhile, the study
dogs were found good homes, but no long-term follow-up has been conducted. At around the
same time, the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) Vaccine-Associated Feline
Sarcoma Task Force initiated several studies to find out why 160,000 cats each year in the USA
develop terminal cancer at their vaccine injection sites.(3)
But other species are okay - right? Wrong. In August 2003, the Journal of Veterinary Medicine
carried an Italian study which showed that dogs also develop vaccine-induced cancers at their
injection sites.(5) We already know that vaccine-site cancer is a possible sequel to human
vaccines, too, since the Salk polio vaccine was said to carry a monkey retrovirus (from cultivating the vaccine on monkey organs) that produces inheritable cancer. The monkey retrovirus SV40 keeps turning up in human cancer sites.
Modified live-virus (MLV) vaccines replicate in the patient until an immune response is
provoked. If a defence isn't stimulated, then the vaccine continues to replicate until it gives the patient the very disease it was intending to prevent.
Alternatively, a deranged immune response will lead to inflammatory conditions such as
arthritis, pancreatitis, colitis, encephalitis and any number of autoimmune diseases such as cancer and leukaemia, where the body attacks its own cells.
http://www.drcarley.com/Science_of_vaccine_damage.pdf
Book - Horrors of Vaccination Exposed...
http://www.drcarley.com/Horrors_of_Vaccination_Exposed.pdf
6/4/2009
The Codex Alimentarius (Latin for "food code" or "food book") is a collection of internationally recognized standards, codes of practice, guidelines and other recommendations relating to foods, food production and food safety. Its name derives from the Codex Alimentarius Austriacus.[1] Its texts are developed and maintained by the Codex Alimentarius Commission, a body that was established in 1963 by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and the World Health Organization (WHO). The Commission's main aims are stated as being to protect the health of consumers and ensure fair practices in the international food trade. The Codex Alimentarius is recognized by the World Trade Organization as an international reference point for the resolution of disputes concerning food safety and consumer protection.[2][3]
The Codex Alimentarius officially covers all foods, whether processed, semi-processed or raw, but far more attention has been given to foods that are marketed directly to consumers. In addition to standards for specific foods, the Codex Alimentarius contains general standards covering matters such as food labeling, food hygiene, food additives and pesticide residues, and procedures for assessing the safety of foods derived from modern biotechnology. It also contains guidelines for the management of official (i.e., governmental) import and export inspection and certification systems for foods.
The controversy over the Codex Alimentarius relates to a perception that it is a mandatory standard for food - including vitamin and mineral supplement - safety. Supporters of the Codex Alimentarius say that it is a voluntary reference standard for food and that there is no obligation on countries to adopt Codex standards as a member of either Codex or any other international trade organization. From the point of view of its opponents, however, one of the main causes of concern is that the Codex Alimentarius is recognized by the World Trade Organization as an international reference standard for the resolution of disputes concerning food safety and consumer protection.[2][4]. Proponents argue that the use of Codex Alimentarius during international disputes does not exclude the use of other references or scientific studies as evidence of food safety and consumer protection. Nevertheless, although countries are not excluded from using other references or scientific studies as evidence of food safety and consumer protection, opponents claim that developing countries in particular are unlikely to have alternative references.
Much of the controversy relates to the way in which the Codex Alimentarius treats vitamin and mineral food supplements. Some countries categorize vitamin and mineral supplements as a food. Others, however, categorize them as drugs. Meanwhile, some countries, such as Canada, have created separate non-drug categories for these products. Opponents of the Codex Alimentarius Commission claim that it is unduly influenced by pharmaceutical companies, and that its guidelines for vitamin and mineral food supplements are unnecessarily restrictive.
It is reported that in 1996 the German delegation put forward a proposal that no herb, vitamin or mineral should be sold for preventive or therapeutic reasons, and that supplements should be reclassified as drugs.[5] The proposal was agreed, but protests halted its implementation.[5] The 28th Session of the Codex Alimentarius Commission was subsequently held July 4 - July 9, 2005.[6] Among the many issues discussed were the "Guidelines for Vitamin and Mineral Food Supplements"[7], which were adopted during the meeting as new global safety guidelines.[8] This text has been the subject of considerable controversy, in part because many member countries may choose to regulate dietary supplements as therapeutic goods or pharmaceuticals or by some other category. The text does not seek to ban supplements, but subjects them to labeling and packaging requirements, sets criteria for the setting of maximum and minimum dosage levels, and requires that safety and efficacy are considered when determining ingredient sources. The United Nations' Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and World Health Organization (WHO) have stated that the guidelines are "to stop consumers overdosing on vitamin and mineral food supplements." The Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC) has said that the guidelines call "for labelling that contains information on maximum consumption levels of vitamin and mineral food supplements." The WHO has also said that the Guidelines "ensure that consumers receive beneficial health effects from vitamins and minerals." [9]
Similarities have been noted between the EU's Food Supplements Directive and the Codex Alimentarius Guidelines for Vitamin and Mineral Supplements.[10]
Texas Republican Rep. Ron Paul has said that the Central American Free Trade Agreement "increases the possibility that Codex regulations will be imposed on the American public." [11]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Alimentarius
Codex Alimentarius was founded in 1962 by the UN to establish international free trade foods. It is jointly administered by the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) through annual and regional meetings.
Codex sets advisory standards and guidelines which nations may adopt or modify. If they modify them without special protections, nations may be found guilty of setting up trade barriers by the World Trade Organization (WTO), and be assessed crippling financial penalties. If, on the other hand, countries deviate from Codex texts by creating a scientifically strong alternative guideline or standard, and pass enabling legislation (a process we refer to as "The Codex Two Step") they are free to deviate from Codex without being found guilty of creating barriers to trade. WTO has repeatedly refused to grant Codex a unique position as THE international food code, saying it is one of several such standards.
Codex decisions are, however, often perceived as inevitable by many developing nations which are not aware of the flexibility to protect the health of their people through the Two Step Process.
Codex' decisions are heavily influenced by the desires of multinational special interest groups who send representatives to sit on national committees and as NGO delegates. Because Codex is so heavily influenced by corporate interests, its decisions are, in our opinion, often helpful to corporate well-being but strikingly detrimental to human and einviromental health.
Codex pertains to every bite - and kind of - food traded internationally and allows high doses of pesticides, veterinary drugs, synthetic hormones, contaminants, artificial sweeteners, and other dangerous compounds and processes (like mandated irradiation of food) while it forbids health claims for food.
http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/
More and more people are becoming concerned about the shady, secretive organization that is Codex Alimentarius - the thinly-veiled propaganda arm of the international pharmaceutical industry that does everything it can to promote industry objectives whilst limiting individual options to maintain health (which would diminish mermbers profits).
Codex alimentarius is one of the major bodies behind the effort to limit access to nutritional products and information. Its motivation is not rocket science and neither is the source of its funding - money that somehow expected to return a profit to its members . . . Most of the information available regarding codex alimentarius refers to its role in the USA, but it is not a US-specific body. Far from it, Codex has wiggled its dirty little tentacles into just about every national or international body concerned with public health. Posing as a benefactor, it then uses its significant financial and political clout to do its masters bidding.
As you can read in the excellent article below, there is much to be concerned about when considering codex alimentarius - ignore it at your peril.
Codex Alimentarius - The Sinister Truth Behind Operation Cure-All
What's really behind Operation Cure-All? Is it just the FDA and FTC taking their power too far? Or is there a deeper, more sinister purpose to this campaign? Who are Codex Alimentarius?
How could a country that prides itself in its freedom of speech, freedom of choice, and freedom of information be facing such severe restrictions in health freedom and dietary supplements? Haven't the people made their will known? Didn't our government pass the Dietary Supplement Health & Education Act of 1994 to insure our right to health supplements?
Indeed, our government did. But the FDA and FTC have found ways to get around that. The laws put in place to protect us are being ignored. And what's worse is that those laws are about to be superseded, if the powers that be have their way.
OPERATION CURE ALL IS JUST ONE MEANS TO AN END
You see, Operation Cure-All is just a tactic, a vehicle, in a much bigger overall plan. It is a result of "Codex Alimentarius" (meaning food code) -- a set of regulations that aim to outlaw any health information in connection with vitamins and limit free access to natural therapies on a worldwide scale.
WHAT'S BEHIND CODEX ALMENTARIUS?
Behind the Codex Alimentarius Commission is the United Nations and the World Health Organization working in conjunction with the multinational pharmaceutical cartel and international banks. Its initial efforts in the US with the FDA were defeated, so it found another ally in the FTC. Now Codex, with the FTC and the pharmaceutical cartel behind it, it threatens to become a trade issue, using the campaign of Operation Cure-All to advance its goals.
Codex began simply enough when the U.N. authorized the World Health Organization and the Food and Agriculture Organization to develop a universal food code. Their purpose was to 'harmonize' regulations for dietary supplements worldwide and set international safety standards for the purposes of increased trade. Pharmaceutical interests stepped in and began exerting their influence. Instead of focusing on food safety, Codex is using its power to promote worldwide restrictions on vitamins and food supplements, severely limiting their availability and dosages.
REAL GOALS OF CODEX
This is to bring about international 'harmonization.' While global harmony sounds benign, is that the real purpose of this plan? While the stated goal of Codex is to establish unilateral regulations for dietary supplements in every country, the actual goal is to outlaw health products and information on vitamins and dietary supplements, except those under their direct control. These regulations would supersede United States domestic laws without the American people's voice or vote in the matter.
HOW CAN IT BE POSSIBLE?
Americans gasp at the thought. It goes against everything America stands for. Many believe this can't be possible. The truth is, it's not only possible, it's required by the Codex Alimentarius agreement.
In fact, under the terms of the Uruguay Round of GATT, which created the World Trade Organization, the United States agreed to harmonize its domestic laws to the international standards. This includes standards for dietary supplements being developed by the United Nation's Codex Alimentarius Commission's Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Use.
The Uruguay Round Agreements carry explicit language clearly indicating that the U.S. must harmonize to international standards:
"Members are fully responsible under this Agreement for the observance of all provisions.... members shall formulate and implement positive measures and mechanisms in support of the observance of the provisions.... by other than central government bodies." [WTO TBT Agreement at Article 3.5]"
In other words, the federal government must NOT ONLY CHANGE FEDERAL LAW, but must ALSO require state and local governments to change their laws as well to be in accordance with international law.
Not only that, but Codex Alimentarius is now enforceable through the World Trade Organization (WTO). If a country disagrees with or refuses to follow Codex standards, the WTO applies pressure by withdrawing trade privileges and imposing crippling trade sanctions. Congress has already bowed to this pressure several times and so have the governments of many countries.
While the exemption clause (USC 3512(a)(1) and (a)(2) was created to supposedly protect our laws from harmonization to international standards, it has proven to be totally ineffective. The United States has already lost seven trade disputes despite the exemption clause. Due to the enormous pressures put on them by lobbyists from multinational corporations (who contribute millions to congressional campaigns), Congress bowed to pressure and changed U.S. laws.
It appears our government (as well as al others) is being manipulated one way or another to serve the goals of the UN, the World Health Organization and the World Trade Organization. Food control equals people control -- and population control. Is this beginning to sound like world government and one-world order? Could this be the real goal behind Codex Alimentarius?
The United States, Canada, the Europeans, Japan, most of Asia, and South America have already signed agreements pledging total harmonization of their laws including food and drug laws to these international standards in the future.
WHAT CODEX WILL BRING
What can we expect under Codex? To give you an idea, here are some important points:
* Dietary supplements could not be sold for preventive (prophylactic) or therapeutic use.
* Potencies would be limited to extremely low dosages. Only the drug companies and the big phytopharmaceutical companies would have the right to produce and sell the higher potency products (at inflated prices).
* Prescriptions would be required for anything above the extremely low doses allowed (such as 35 mg. on niacin).
* Common foods such as garlic and peppermint would be classified as drugs or a third category (neither food nor drugs) that only big pharmaceutical companies could regulate and sell. Any food with any therapeutic effect can be considered a drug, even benign everyday substances like water.
* Codex regulations for dietary supplements would become binding (escape clauses would be eliminated).
* All new dietary supplements would be banned unless they go through Codex testing and approval.
* Genetically altered food would be sold worldwide without labeling.
According to John Hammell, a legislative advocate and the founder of International Advocates for Health Freedom (IAHF), here is what we have to look forward to:
"If Codex Alimentarius has its way, then herbs, vitamins, minerals, homeopathic remedies, amino acids and other natural remedies you have taken for granted most of your life will be gone. The name of the game for Codex Alimentarius is to shift all remedies into the prescription category so they can be controlled exclusively by the medical monopoly and its bosses, the major pharmaceutical firms. Predictably, this scenario has been denied by both the Canadian Health Food Association and the Health Protection Branch of Canada (HPB).
The Codex Alimentarius proposals already exist as law in Norway and Germany where the entire health food industry has literally been taken over by the drug companies. In these countries, vitamin C above 200 mg is illegal as is vitamin E above 45 IU, vitamin B1 over 2.4 mg and so on. Shering-Plough, the Norway pharmaceutical giant, now controls an Echinacea tincture, which is being sold there as an over the counter drug at grossly inflated prices. The same is true of ginkgo and many other herbs, and only one government controlled pharmacy has the right to import supplements as medicines which they can sell to health food stores, convenience stores or pharmacies."
It is now a criminal offence in parts of Europe to sell herbs as foods. An agreement called EEC6565 equates selling herbs as foods to selling other illegal drugs. Action is being taken to accelerate other European countries into 'harmonization' as well.
Paul Hellyer in his book, "The Evil Empire," states: "Codex Alimentarius is supported by international banks and multinational corporations including some in Canada, and is in reality a bill of rights for these banks and the corporations they control. It will hand over our sovereign rights concerning who may or may not invest in our countries to an unelected world organization run by big business. The treaty would make it impossible for Canadian legislators either federal or provincial to alter or improve environmental standards for fear of being sued by multinational corporations whether operating in Canada or not.
This will create a world without borders ruled by a virtual dictatorship of the world's most powerful central banks and multinational companies. This world is an absolute certainty if we all sit on our hands and do nothing."
This is the future the FDA and FTC are striving to bring us via Codex harmonization. Is this a future we are going to willingly accept or prevent?
WHY TARGET THE INTERNET?
It is no accident that the FDA and FTC are targeting Internet health sites through Operation Cure-All. We are standing in the doorway of an unprecedented revolution -- the information revolution brought about by the Internet.
Now all people everywhere have the ability to learn about anything that interests them with just a few clicks. History has shown that informed, educated people change civilizations -- they change the flow of thought and they change the flow of money. They can even change the direction of a country. When similar transitions have happened in the past, the powers that existed did not give up willingly. The Catholic Church fiercely protected its practice of selling 'indulgences' as a forgiveness of sin. When the practice was abolished, the Catholic Church lost a great deal of power and money.
When the printing press was invented, books were banned and printers were imprisoned by the authorities, who feared an educated public could not be governed. In the same way, the medical monopoly (and the UN) now fears that a public educated in health and privy to the shortcomings of modern medicine could not be controlled. Loss of control means loss of revenue and loss of power. And they are doing everything they can to stop progress so they can contain their losses and strengthen their power.
The printing press changed the world. Can you imagine what life would be like today if the book banners had their way? But because the printing press won out, society progressed and freedom was embraced. The Internet is changing the world in an equally significant way. While the entire Internet can hardly be suppressed, the pharma-cartels and their backers are looking to protect their interests by restricting as much information as they can on the Internet.
Will we, the people, win out again -- or will the UN and the World Health Organization agenda and the pharmaceutical cartel change the course of history and take us back to the "dark ages" of medicine?
http://www.natural-health-information-centre.com/codex-alimentarius.html
Enforcement
Traditionally Codex "standards" were considered mandatory regulations, while "guidelines" were optional suggestions. Because Codex does not have power to enforce the trade standards it develops, acceptance of standards and guidelines by member countries was not an issue.
Everything changed in 1995 when the World Trade Organization (WTO) was created. Each country joining the WTO had to commit to abide by all WTO trade regulation agreements and international trade standards. This included granting the WTO the authority to enforcement trade dispute decisions coming out of the WTO Dispute Settlement Process by imposing compulsory trade sanctions against the losing country. As a result of Codex's designation as the body for setting food-related international trade standards and the WTO's stance that it would not differentiate between Codex standards, guidelines, and recommendations, all Codex documents (standards, guidelines, and recommendations) became elevated to mandatory international trade standards enforceable by the WTO.
http://ahha.org/codex1.htm
(NaturalNews) Codeath (sorry, I meant Codex) Alimentarius, latin for Food Code, is a very misunderstood organization that most people (including nearly all U.S. congressmen) have never heard of, never mind understand the true reality of this extremely powerful trade organization. From the official Codex website (www.codexalimentarius.net) the altruistic purpose of this commission is in "protecting health of the consumers and ensuring fair trade practices in the food trade, and promoting coordination of all food standards work undertaken by international governmental and non-governmental organizations". Codex is a joint venture regulated by the Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) and World Health Organization (WHO).
Brief History of Codex
The history of Codex began in 1893 when the Austria-Hungarian empire decided it needed a specific set of guidelines by which the courts could rule on cases dealing with food [1]. This regulatory set of mandates became known as Codex Alimentarius and was effectively implemented until the fall of the empire in 1918. The United Nations (UN) met in 1962 and decided that Codex should be re-implemented worldwide in order to protect health of the consumers. Two-thirds of funding for Codex emanates from the FAO while the other third comes from the WHO.
In 2002, the FAO and WHO had serious concerns about the direction of Codex and hired an external consultant to determine its performance since 1962 and to designate which direction to take the trade organization [2]. The consultant concluded that Codex should be immediately scrapped and eliminated. It was at this time that big industry realized the full monetary potential of this organization and exerted its powerful influence. The updated outcome was a toned down report asking Codex to address 20 various concerns within the organization.
Since 2002, the Codex Alimentarius Commission has covertly surrendered its role as an international public health and consumer protection organization. Under the helm of big industry, the sole surreptitious purpose of the new codex is to increase profits for the global corporate juggernauts while controlling the world through food. The implicit understanding of their philosophy is that if you control food, you control the world.
Codex Now
The most dominant country behind the agenda of Codex is the United States whose sole purpose is to benefit multinational interests like Big Pharma, Big Agribusiness, Big Chema and the like. At the latest meeting in Geneva, the U.S. recently became the chair of Codex which will facilitate an exacerbation of the distortion of health freedom and will continue the promulgation of misinformation and lies about genetically modified organism (GMOs) and nutrients while fulfilling the tacit population control agenda. The reason the U.S. continues to dominate Codex is because other countries falsely believe the U.S. possesses the latest and greatest safety technology when it comes to food and hence, whatever the U.S. asks for, its allies (E.U., Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Mexico, Australia, Malaysia, Indonesia, Japan, Singapore) follow suit nearly every time.
Many of the countries who wish to participate and want to voice their opinions are not allowed to attend the Codex meetings as the U.S. denies most visas for these representatives whenever they feel like it. Many of these countries (South Africa, Swaziland, Kenya, Ghana, Egypt, Cameroon, Sudan, Nigeria) realize that Codex has been altered from a benevolent food organization to one that is fraudulent, lethal and illegitimate. The fact that Codex meetings are held all over the world is also no accident and allows the U.S. to maintain its tight grip on the Codex agenda as the less economically viable countries are not able to attend.
The Real Threat
While the esoteric agenda of the media is busy driving fear into the hearts of the world by focusing on terrorism, global warming, salmonella, and food shortages, the real threats are clandestinely becoming a reality. Soon every single thing you put into your mouth (with the exception of pharmaceuticals, of course) will be highly regulated by Codex Alimentarius, including water. The standards of Codex are a complete affront to the freedom of clean and healthy food, yet these regulations have no legal international standing. Why should we be worried? These soon-to-be mandatory standards will apply to every country who are members of the WTO (World Trade Organization). If countries do not follow these standards, then enormous trade sanctions will result. Some Codex standards that will take effect on December 31, 2009 and once initiated are completely irrevocable include [2]:
* All nutrients (vitamins and minerals) are to be considered toxins/poisons and are to be removed from all food because Codex prohibits the use of nutrients to "prevent, treat or cure any condition or disease"
* All food (including organic) is to be irradiated, removing all toxic nutrients from food (unless eaten locally and raw).
* Nutrients allowed will be limited to a Positive List developed by Codex which will include such beneficial nutrients like Fluoride (3.8 mg daily) developed from environmental waste. All other nutrients will be prohibited nationally and internationally to all Codex-compliant countries [2].
* All nutrients (e.g., CoQ10, Vitamins A, B, C, D, Zinc and Magnesium) that have any positive health impact on the body will be deemed illegal under Codex and are to be reduced to amounts negligible to humans' health [3].
* You will not even be able to obtain these anywhere in the world even with a prescription.
* All advice on nutrition (including written online or journal articles or oral advice to a friend, family member or anyone) will be illegal. This includes naturalnews.com reports on vitamins and minerals and all nutritionist's consultations.
* All dairy cows are to be treated with Monsanto's recombinant bovine growth hormone.
* All animals used for food are to be treated with potent antibiotics and exogenous growth hormones.
* The reintroduction of deadly and carcinogenic organic pesticides that in 1991, 176 countries (including the U.S.) have banned worldwide including 7 of the 12 worst at the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pesticides (e.g., Hexachlorobenzene, Toxaphene, and Aldrin) will be allowed back into food at elevated levels [4].
* Dangerous and toxic levels (0.5 ppb) of aflotoxin in milk produced from moldy storage conditions of animal feed will be allowed. Aflotoxin is the second most potent (non-radiation) carcinogenic compound known to man.
* Mandatory use of growth hormones and antibiotics on all food herds, fish and flocks
* Worldwide implementation of unlabeled GMOs into crops, animals, fish and trees.
* Elevated levels of residue from pesticides and insecticides that are toxic to humans and animals.
Some examples of potential permissible safe levels of nutrients under Codex include [2]:
* Niacin - upper limits of 34 mcg daily (effective daily doses include 2000 to 3000 mcgs).
* Vitamin C - upper limits of 65 to 225 mcg daily (effective daily doses include 6000 to 10000 mcgs).
* Vitamin D - upper limits of 5 μg daily (effective daily doses include 6000 to 10000 μg).
* Vitamin E - upper limits of 15 IU of alpha tocopherol only per day, even though alpha tocopherol by itself has been implicated in cell damage and is toxic to the body (effective daily doses of mixed tocopherols include 10000 to 12000 IU).
The Door is Open for Codex
In 1995, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) created an illegal policy stating that international standards (i.e, Codex) would supersede U.S. laws governing all food even if these standards were incomplete [5]. Furthermore, in 2004 the U.S. passed the Central American Free Trade Agreement (illegal under U.S. law, but legal under international law) that requires the U.S. to conform to Codex in December of 2009 [6].
Once these standards are adopted there is no possible way to return to the standards of the old. Once Codex compliance begins in any area, as long as we remain a member of the WTO, it is totally irrevocable. These standards are then unable to be repealed, changed or altered in any way shape or form [1, 2, 7].
Population control for money is the easiest way to describe the new Codex which is run by the U.S. and controlled by Big Pharma and the like to reduce the population to a sustainable 500 million - a reduction of approximately 93 percent. The FAO and WHO have the audacity to estimate that by the introduction of just the vitamin and mineral guideline alone, at a minimum 3 billion deaths (1 billion from starvation and another 2 billion from preventable and degenerative diseases of under nutrition, e.g., cancer, cardiovascular disease, and diabetes) will result.
Degraded, demineralized, pesticide-filled and irradiated foods are the fastest and most efficient way to cause a profitable surge in malnutrition, preventable and degenerative disease which the most appropriate course of action is always pharmaceuticals. Death for profit is the new name of the game. Big Pharma has been waiting for this opportunity for years.
Fighting Back
Dr. Rima Laibow, M.D., who is the medical director for Natural Solutions Foundation, has undertaken legal action against the U.S. government and continues to attend every Codex meeting while fighting for your health freedom. The latest Codex meeting in Geneva heard some dissenting voices that were tired of the U.S. bullying every other country in the world with its population control agenda. Brazil and China have stated that when smaller, underrepresented countries are unable to attend Codex meetings (due to the U.S. not allowing Visas or for lack of monetary means) then every decision made in their absence is invalid. As a result, Codex may soon fall apart under the weight of it own corruption, but pressure needs to be unilaterally applied.
Dr. Rima has also been meeting with delegates from other countries and making them aware of something called Private Standards. Private standards allow countries to draft food standards which are safer and higher than those mandated by Codex. Obviously, this is not a very difficult task and many countries can seemingly circumvent the flawed and irrevocable guidelines Codex is attempting to implement on December 31, 2009 [7].
What Can You Do?
The only way to avoid such cataclysmic events are to fight with the dissemination of knowledge to everyone you know. It does not matter whether they are still asleep or hypnotized by the enslavement of daily life or too busy to pay attention -- the time to wake up is now. The U.S. government and the collaborating media have been trying to distract America while all these egregious and mandatory standards are covertly passed. It is time to take action and you can do so by going to (www.healthfreedomusa.org) and following the latest updates on Codex. You can also sign a legal citizen's petition here: (http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/ind...) .
Another effective way to get your voice heard is through sending emails or writing to your congressman (https://forms.house.gov/wyr/welcome.shtml) . If you send one email to congress, it will ostensibly count as 13,000 emails. The U.S. Congress believes that for each person who takes the time to write or email them there are another 13,000 others who share similar views but do not take the time to promulgate them. Those living in other countries need to contact their representatives in order to have your voice heard. It is very important that swift and vociferous action be taken now. Times are changing very rapidly and unless we all come together on this issue we may all have to start thinking about growing our own food in the near future to avoid extermination.
Codex Contacts to Take Action
Dr. F. Edward Scarbrough U.S. Manager for Codex U.S. Department of Agriculture 4861-South Building Washington, DC 20250 Phone: (202) 205-7760 Fax: (202) 720-3157 Ed.scarbrough@fsis.usda.gov
The U.S. Codex official website is (http://www.fsis.usda.gov/regulation...)
For Further Information Contact: U.S. Codex Office Room 4861, South Building Washington, DC 20250-3700 Phone: (202) 205-7760 Fax: (202) 720-3157 uscodex@fsis.usda.gov
References:
1. Bauman, D.E., Nutricide: Criminalizing natural health, vitamin, and herbs. 2005, The Natural Solutions Foundation: USA.
2. Laibow, R.E., "Neutraceuticide" and Codex Alimentarius: The death of nutritional medicine. Alternative & Complementary Therapies, 2005. 11(5): p. 223-229.
3. Codex Guidelines for Vitamin and Mineral Food Supplements. [cited July 10, 2008]. Available from:
(http://www.chfa.ca/media/pdf_files/...)
4. Stockholm Convention on persistent organic pollutants. [cited July 10, 2008]. Available from: (http://chm.pops.int/)
5. Federal Register: October 11, 1995 (Volume 60, Number 196). [cited July 10, 2008]. Available from: (http://www.fda.gov/oia/IH_policy.html)
6. Central America Dominican Republic Free Trade Agreement. [cited July 10, 2008]. Available from: (http://www.wola.org/index.php?&opti...)
7. Laibow, R.E. Natural Solutions Foundation Codex Commission Report. [cited July 10, 2008]. Available from: (http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/)
8. Laibow, R.E., Dispatch #9 - Post-Codex Video #5 from Dr. Laibow: Propelling us into the future. [cited July 10, 2008]. Available from: (http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/ind...)
http://www.naturalnews.com/024128.html
Half of the 198 new drugs the FDA approved from 1976 to 1985 had to be withdrawn or relabeled because they caused unexpected side effects. Predictably no one at the FDA withdrew Donald Rumsfeld’s Aspartame sold under the trade names Equal and NutraSweet. Aspartame is a deadly carcinogen made from the feces of e coli bacteria that we can’t avoid because it’s an additive in just about every food we eat.
The story gets even more interesting when you find out NAZI Germany’s notorious I.G. Farben cartel is behind Codex and the proposals that would drastically curtail our health care freedoms.
Catherine Bertini, the head of the UN food programs in 1995, paraphrased the famous Kissinger statement, “Food is power. We use it to change behavior.”
Is this the first time you have heard of “Codex Alimentarius?” That’s not unusual because Codex is an “open secret.” The information is available if you want to look for it but the corporate controlled media isn’t going to tell you about it until its already too late.
Monsanto, Big Pharma, Chema and Agra have convinced most companies “Codex is a non-issue”, and that they will actually gain market share when Codex is implemented.
So who is raising awareness about this issue?
John C. Hammell of International Advocates for Health Freedom and Ian Crane an ex oil field executive. Ian lectures and writes on U.S. Hegemony and the NWO agenda for control of Global Resources.
Mr Crane says, “After spending the past twelve months investigating Codex Alimentarius, I am deeply disturbed by the almost total lack of awareness (or even interest) with regard to the implications of this pernicious global Commission, particularly amongst those most affected by the excesses of this restrictive legislation.”
Ian warns of the “pernicious” effects legislation will have believing “without a shadow of a doubt” there is a plot by major food and pharmaceutical companies to see that the Codex proposals become international law.
Think buying organic will help you? Well, not as much as you think, because the U.S. currently allows for up to 10% of GMO contamination of organic foods (the highest of any country in the world, most permit 0.1%).
You can make a difference by support local self sustaining farmers who refuse to use GMO seeds. And of course start a garden and grow your own food.
Because guess what? …..They can’t stop us from growing our own food.
http://www.dailynewscaster.com/2009/02/04/codex-alimetarius-how-the-global-elite-will-control-your-food-supply/
An Ohio family whose members have served their friends and neighbors with food cooperative services involving bulk and discount supplies has been targeted in a raid by armed law enforcement officers wearing black fatigues
who forcibly rounded up the mom and 10 children and held them for six hours.
The raid prompted a complaint filed today on behalf of the family by the Center for Constitutional Law at the Buckeye Institute. It alleges authorities "made a haphazard unannounced entry into the property with guns drawn, as other officers surrounded the property, with guns drawn," then "confiscated the family's personal food supply, personal computers, and personal cell phones."
The complaint names the Ohio Department of Agriculture, the Lorain County General Health District and the state's attorney general. A spokeswoman at the Department of Agriculture said its officers were at the scene in an advisory role. A spokeswoman at the county health agency refused to comment except to explain it was a "licensing" issue regarding the family's Manna Storehouse.
An prosecutor assigned to handle the case declined to respond to WND requests for a comment.
In the video, Jacqueline Stowers describes how she first started ordering bulk health foods for her own family, and gradually other families asked if they, also, could gain access to the food sources.
Then, about a year ago, the family had a conversation with county officials about licensing. The family asked questions but heard nothing further until the armed raid Dec. 1.
"We had a sheriff's department group of about 11-12, I don't know, 13 men come into our home. It was violent, it was belligerent, they didn't identify themselves," she stated.
She and 10 children were forcibly herded into a room and held there for at least six hours, she said.
"In the meantime we had people with guns inside and outside," she said.
"The use of these police state tactics on a peaceful family is simply unacceptable," said Buckeye Institute President David Hansen. "Officers rushed into the Stowers' home with guns drawn and held the family – including 10 young children – captive for six hours. This outrageous case of bureaucratic overreach must be addressed."
The Buckeye Institute argues the core issue – the right to buy food directly from local farmers, distribute locally-grown food to neighbors and pool resources to purchase food in bulk – are rights that do not require a license.
"The Stowers' constitutional rights were violated over grass-fed cattle, free-range chickens and pesticide-free produce," said Thompson, the institute's Center of Constitutional Law director. "Ohioans do not need a government permission slip to run a family farm and co-op, and should not be subjected to raids when they do not have one. This legal action will ensure the ODA understands and respects Ohioans' rights."
The institute said licensure law enforcement is one thing, raids are another.
"The Buckeye Institute seeks an injunction against similar future raids, and a declaration that such licensure laws are unconstitutional as applied the Stowers and individuals like them," the institute said. "There has never been a complaint filed against Manna Storehouse or the Stowers related to the quality or healthfulness of the food distributed through the co-op."
Online bloggers raged over the situation.
"Agents began rifling through all of the family's possessions, a task that lasted hours and resulted in a complete upheaval of every private area in the home. Many items were taken that were not listed on the search warrant. The family was not permitted a phone call, and they were not told what crime they were being charged with. They were not read their rights. Over ten thousand dollars worth of food was taken, including the family's personal stock of food for the coming year," said one.
The complaint notes Manna Storehouse deals with wheat, flour, sugar, grass-fed beef, lamb, turkey and eggs from free range chickens, mostly coming from local farmers. The raid was based on an affidavit from Ohio Department of Agriculture agent William Lesho that "makes numerous conclusory and unsubstantiated claims," the complaint said.
The complaint states:
* The affidavit does not indicate that the Stowers are dangerous.
* The affidavit does not indicate … exigent circumstances … that would warrant using force.
* The police knocked on the door, and Katie Stowers opened.
* Police shoved Katie to the side and immediately entered the residence without first announcing (1) that they are police; or (2) the purpose of the visit.
* During the raid, at least one, if not several police entered the home with guns drawn, and the Stowers home was surrounded by police who also had guns drawn.
* Once having obtained entry… the lead officer … with his gun drawn, swiftly and immediately moved to the upstairs of the home, where he found eight small children."
* The officer used physical force to get Jacqueline Stowers and her children down the stairs.
* The officers held the Stowers family captive in their living room for in excess of six hours.
The complaint raises issues of unlawful search and seizure, taking of private property, due process and unlawful application of police power.
http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=83865
Their story....
More on Codex Alimentarius....
THE European Parliament voted yesterday for a clampdown on unfettered sales of vitamins and mineral supplements, defying a lobbying campaign by the health food industry.
The parliament's computer system crashed under the strain of thousands of speed-dial emails, wildly claiming that the new directive would ban 300 popular supplements and drive British health stores out of business.
The new law will bring Britain into line with the rest of Europe over the next 10 years, requiring manufacturers of vitamins and minerals to carry out scientific tests proving that their products are safe.
The labels on pills will recommend maximum safe doses, highlight possible risks and side-effects and remind users that supplements are no substitute for a healthy diet.
At the moment, any supplement can be sold in Britain unless it is shown to be harmful, a policy that reflects the legal tradition of English common law that allows people to do what they want unless specifically banned. By contrast, Europe's Napoleonic legal system starts from the premise that everything is banned until legally authorised.
Only 50 or so vitamins and minerals are on the safe list in most EU countries, so rarer products such as Selenium compounds used to treat cancer can only be obtained through prescription drugs, generating a much higher profit for the big drug companies. Dr Robert Verkerk, spokesman for the Free Choice for Supplements Alliance, said: "The directive would massively reduce the freedom of consumers to make their own informed choices."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/1387759/Euro-MPs-vote-for-clampdown-on-vitamin-sales.html
NINETY per cent of multi-vitamin and mineral preparations and many other supplements are likely to be removed from the shelves of British health shops and chemists if a European directive becomes law, as many expect it will, on Wednesday.
Under a move to harmonise the sale of vitamin and mineral supplements, lists have been drawn up of permissible supplements and their sources which exclude more than 300 items available in Britain.
The supplements which will be affected are those offering dozens of vitamins and minerals in one capsule.
Dr Caroline Jackson, Conservative MEP for the South West Region who is fighting the proposals, said: "MEPs are receiving dozens of letters from desperate people who believe their future health depends on being able to buy these products.
"Many people believe these supplements are vital to them. This is heavy-handed legislation which I believe should be withdrawn but all we may be able to do is a damage limitation exercise."
The only hope will be to get the provisions changed during the lengthy committee process, to settle details, which will be held after the directive is approved, she added.
Dr Jackson said the problem was that British laws governing the sale of vitamin and mineral supplements were liberal - as they were in Holland and Ireland - but very restrictive in countries like Germany.
The effect of harmonising the regulations will be to impose strict German standards on UK sales. Sue Croft, of Consumers for Health Choice, a European consumer lobby group, said many people with cancer and chronic disease used supplements to maintain health.
"This is hugely upsetting to large numbers of people who will feel absolutely bereft if they cannot get their supplements and who may suffer psychological damage as result."
Examples of supplements not on the list include the minerals, boron, sulphur and vanadium, commonly used in multi supplements.
Boron is important for healthy teeth and bones, and found in raisins, prunes and almonds; sulphur for acne and healthy skin and found in cabbage, dried beans, and eggs. Vanadian deficiency is linked with bone deformity. Naturally it is found in seafood, parsley, cereals and mushrooms.
Manufacturers will be able to make a case for supplements to be put on the list if they can prove their efficacy and safety, but many small companies do not have the resources for this kind of research trial.
Free Choice for Supplements Alliance, which represent makers, said there were 1,300 independent health food retailers in Britain, many of them unaware of the impending legislation.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/1387384/300-vitamin-treaments-face-ban-in-Euro-purge.html
Implicit in estimates by the two organizations which run Codex Alimentarius for the
UN[1] are that implementation of just the restrictive Vitamin and Mineral Guideline
alone[2] will result in the deaths of at least 3 billion people world wide. Those
estimates anticipate the deaths of at least 1 billion people from simple starvation and 2
billion more from what WHO and FAO identify as the “preventable chronic diseases of
under nutrition”: cancers, cardiovascular disease, stroke, diabetes and obesity.
[1] World Health Organization (WHO) and Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO)
[2] Ratified July 4, 2005 by the Codex Alimentarius Commission in Rome, Italy
http://www.scribd.com/doc/7701130/Rima-Laibow-Nutricide-The-Killing-Camps-of-Codex-Alimentarius?autodown=pdf
The feds are close to winding up an investigating into whether polio vaccines used in the 1950s and '60s were contaminated with a virus that may cause several rare cancers in humans.
The study could help determine whether today's Baby Boomers have ticking time bombs from their childhood inoculations.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/news_alert_072002_depopulation.html
Many studies have reported the presence of simian virus 40 (SV40) or protein in human brain tumors and bone cancers, malignant mesothelioma, and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, however many of the studies were small or lacking control groups, which made it difficult to determine whether they were reliable.
Further, the history of some SV40 infections in humans is linked to the use of polio vaccines.
According to conservative estimates, from 1955 to 1963 more than 98 million children and adults in the United States were exposed inadvertently to live SV40 because of SV40-contaminated polio vaccines.
The vaccines were also distributed to many other countries and different adenovirus vaccines used on some U.S. military personnel from 1961 to 1965 also contained live SV40.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/Pages/100604_polio_vaccine_cancer2.html
Researchers have been discussing accusations that contaminated polio vaccine stocks are to blame for certain cancers, based on the publication a month ago of two high-profile papers linking the simian virus SV40 to human lymphomas.
Less than a week after the papers were published in March, the US National Cancer Institute contacted the researchers to establish plans to send blinded results to three independent labs.
Researchers scanned 99 lymphomas, 235 epithelial tumors and 40 control tissues for the virus. They found the virus in 43% of non-Hodgkin's lymphomas, 9% of Hodgkin's lymphomas, and in none of the control tissues. A second team independently found the virus in 42% of non-Hodgkin's lymphomas, almost unbelievable agreement.
"These are very respectable labs with basically identical results," said Michele Carbone, associate professor of pathology at Loyola University in Chicago. The "clear clustering of positives" is "no accident."
http://www.vaccinationnews.com/DailyNews/May2002/SV40PolioVax&CancerBeyondCoincidence.htm
Yet the Advisory Committee for Immunization Practices has issued a warning, passed along by the CDC, that "all children aged 6 [months] to 23 months and pregnant women in their second and third trimester" receive the inactive influenza vaccine – which contains a full 25 micrograms of mercury – 250 times the limit the EPA recommends for tuna-lovers.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=36677
Scientists have raised fears that a mercury-based preservative used in vaccines may cause symptoms of autism.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3788443.stm
World-famous microbiologist Sir Macfarlane Burnet, the Nobel prize winner revered as Australia's greatest medical research scientist, secretly urged the government to develop biological weapons for use against Indonesia and other "overpopulated" countries of South-East Asia.
The revelation is contained in top-secret files declassified by the National Archives of Australia, despite resistance from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.
Sir Macfarlane recommended in a secret report in 1947 that biological and chemical weapons should be developed to target food crops and spread infectious diseases.
His key advisory role on biological warfare was uncovered by Canberra historian Philip Dorling in the National Archives in 1998.
The department initially blocked release of the material on the basis it would damage Australia's international relations. Dr Dorling sought a review and the material was finally released to him late last year.
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/03/09/1015365752044.html?oneclick=true
Almost 18 months after Time-Warner vice-chairman Ted Turner announced he would give $1 billion to the United Nations, serious questions remain about the nature and influence of his "gift."
When Turner announced his $1 billion donation last September, the media described the gift in glowing terms. Turner would help the UN with much-needed funds to take care of children, women and the environment.
UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan called Turner a "world citizen extra-ordinaire." The New York Times described the proposal as "probably the single largest charitable donation in history." And it earned Turner a cover story in Newsweek, which quoted him as saying he was "putting the rich on notice" to follow his lead. There was even talk that Turner might be awarded the Nobel Prize.
Turner’s gift, it turns out, is not as generous as described in media reports. An amount of up to $1 billion will be donated in the form of Time-Warner stock in ten annual installments. The cost to Turner could be significantly less than $1 billion if he takes advantage of tax write-offs, tax deductions and ways to avoid estate taxes. Amazingly, USA Today claims "Turner, or at least his heirs, could end up $100 million richer because he’s giving a billion away."
Moreover, the donation will be made not to the UN directly, but to Turner’s private UN Foundation. The foundation is tax-exempt under U.S. law and has no legal affiliation with the UN.
The UN and the UN Foundation have completed a 20-page agreement governing the use of foundation grants. According to the agreement, UN Secretary-General Annan will review grant applications before asking for approval from the UN Foundation board. But foundation grants will be disbursed by UN officials.
Annan has created his own bureaucracy to manage the money. The UN Fund for International Partnerships (UNFIP) is led by Miles Stoby of Guyana, the former Deputy Executive Coordinator for UN Reform. To demonstrate the importance of Ted Turner’s funds to the UN, Annan has announced that Stoby will report directly to him, and Stoby’s post will be at the level of Assistant Secretary-General.
The Better World Fund, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit under the same leadership and trustees as the UN Foundation, will coordinate "public education" on behalf of the UN. It aims to create "a broader constituency of citizens, organizations and businesses with a deeper commitment to international cooperation through the United Nations."
Two UN agencies received more than 50 percent of the first-year grants: the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) received almost $12.2 million, and $18.6 million went to the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF). Both agencies are involved in controversial projects to encourage and assist abortions and other population control measures.
Another big recipient of UN Foundation funds is the World Health Organization (WHO), which is linked to UNICEF and UNFPA through a "Coordinating Committee on Health." Last year, WHO received two UN Foundation grants totalling almost $9 million. An additional grant worth $2.8 million was awarded jointly to WHO and UNICEF.
It is no surprise that a sizeable portion of the UN Foundation’s grants support UNFPA, UNICEF and WHO. These agencies have been criticized for their population control activities and complacency regarding human rights abuses, and from the outset Turner announced that his foundation would support population control.
Harvard Law Professor Mary Ann Glendon asked in a May 5, 1998 Wall Street Journal column whether the UN was being manipulated by Turner and his associates to maintain an aggressive campaign to reduce the human population "by any means possible."
Examples of UN Foundation grants supporting population control include UNFPA grants for "the delivery of family planning services" to reduce high fertility rates in Bolivia, the Comoros, Lebanon and the Philippines. Other grants encourage journalists to cover population control issues and target adolescent girls for family planning services.
Turner has a long history of support for population control activities. Turner and wife Jane Fonda served as "Goodwill Ambassadors" for UNFPA. Fonda now leads a Georgia campaign against teen pregnancy, partly funded by a private condom maker.
According to Nicholas Eberstadt, a population expert with the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C., Turner is on record in favor of a radical policy that Eberstadt calls "de-population." As recently as last month, the father of five children called for a worldwide one-child-per-family policy to reduce the world population. "We could do it in a very humane way, if everybody adopted a one-child policy for 100 years," Turner told participants at the annual meeting of the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association in Washington, D.C.
Once honored as "Humanist of the Year" by the American Humanist Association, Turner’s stridency on population control has earned him a reputation as an anti-Christian bigot. In remarks last October to the Society of Environmental Journalists, he complained that the Judeo-Christian tradition emphasizes "dominion over everything" and "increase and multiply." Turner once told a Dallas Morning News reporter that Christianity is "a religion for losers" and "I don’t want anybody [i.e., Jesus Christ] to die for me."
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/turner.htm
Jacques-Yves Cousteau wanted to go part of the way toward abolishing mankind. In a November 1991 interview with The UNESCO Courier, he said:
[In response to an interviewer's question, "Some snakes, mosquitoes, and other animal species pose threats or dangers for humankind. Can they be eliminated like viruses that cause certain diseases?," Cousteau said:] "Getting rid of viruses is an admirable idea, but it raises enormous problems. In the first 1,400 years of the Christian era, population numbers were virtually stationary. Through epidemics, nature compensated for excess births by excess deaths. I talked about this problem with the director of the Egyptian Academy of Sciences. He told me that scientists were appalled to think that by the year 2080 the population of Egypt might reach 250 million. What should we do to eliminate suffering and disease? It's a wonderful idea but perhaps not altogether a beneficial one in the long run. If we try to implement it we may jeopardize the future of our species. It's terrible to have to say this. World population must be stabilized and to do that we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. This is so horrible to contemplate that we shouldn't even say it. But the general situation in which we are involved is lamentable." (1126)
"We must eliminate 350,000 people per day." That works out to 127,750,000 people per year, and 1.27 billion people over 10 years.
Ted Turner
Ted Turner, one of the co-chairs of the State of the World Forum, is more patient than Cousteau is. He will allow 80 to 100 years to reduce the population of the Earth from 6 billion to 2 billion. In an interview with E Magazine, an environmentalist publication, Turner explained:
"The simplest answer is that the world's population should be about two billion, and we've got about six billion now. I haven't done the actuarial tables, but if every woman in the world voluntarily stepped up and said, 'I'll only have one child,' and if we did that for the next 80 to 100 years, that would reduce the kind of suffering we're having. ... We could have 10 billion people living below the poverty line, or we could have two billion people living well, and having color TVs and an automobile. The planet can support that number of people, and that's the way it was in 1930. You didn't have the global warming problem then, or all these problems that have occurred since the population has built up. And how you get there is very complicated. It's going to take a lot of education and improvements in health care. Personally, I think the population should be closer to when we had indigenous populations, back before the advent of farming. Fifteen thousand years ago, there was somewhere between 40 and 100 million people. But [population researchers] Paul and Anne Ehrlich have convinced me that if we're going to have a modern infrastructure, with commercial airlines and interstate highways around the world, we're going to need about two billion people to support it." (1127)
Paul Ehrlich
Paul Ehrlich, the Stanford University population biologist who achieved fame by writing The Population Bomb in the late 1960s, agrees with Ted Turner that the Earth's population should decrease to 2 billion. On June 20, 1999, the San Francisco Chronicle reported:
" 'We're at 6 billion people on the Earth,' said Paul Ehrlich, Bing Professor of Population Studies at Stanford University, who was awarded the prestigious Blue Planet prize last week. 'And that's roughly three times what the planet should have. About 2 billion is optimal.' " (1128)
Ernest Callenbach
Ernest Callenbach, author of Ecotopia and other best-selling environmentalist books, recently published Ecology: A Pocket Guide. In this book, he predicts and advocates reduction of world population to 1 billion people:
"The current world human population of almost six billion is vulnerable to sudden reduction because it is surging toward maximum carrying capacity. Rough estimates suggest that about one billion people, using renewable energy and other technologies that reduce ecological impacts, could survive sustainably on Earth at a level of consumption close to that of modern industrial peoples." (1129)
"The movement called Deep Ecology emphasizes spiritual or religious awareness as a guide for our relationships to the living world. ... Supporters of Deep Ecology have laid down these principles as a platform for their movement: ... * That civilization could continue to flourish during the substantial decrease of the human population that is needed to reduce our ecological impacts, with an improvement in 'life quality' rather than increasing levels of consumption." (1130)
"There are simply too many consumption-minded people for the carrying capacity of the planet. It seems likely that in the next several decades, one way or another, their combined impacts will bring breakdowns in food production, health protection, and social order. Ironically, disruptions and possibly collapses of corporate production would bring about a reduction in world human population - and thus lower impacts too." (1131)
"A sustainable future would also require a steady or declining rather than growing human population, much smaller than today's unless the average level of consumption were far lower." (1132)
"In the long run, nature will enforce the basic rules of sustainability; she does not accept excuses." (1133)
The University of California Press, not the Unabomber Press, published these misanthropic sentiments.
Rosemary Radford Ruether
The eco-feminist theologian Rosemary Radford Ruether has a similarly low view of humanity. Like Callenbach, she favors "Deep Ecology," saying, "the flourishing of human life and cultures is compatible with a substantial decrease of the human population. The flourishing of non-human life requires such a decrease." (1134) She also said, "The world of nature, plants and animals existed billions of years before we came on the scene. Nature dies not need us to rule over it, but runs itself very well and better without humans. We are the parasites on the food chain of life, consuming more and more, and putting too little back to restore and maintain the life system that supports us." (1135)
Ruether told those who attended a May 1998 conference that "We need to seek the most compassionate way of weeding out people.":
" 'To allow unrestrained fertility is not pro-life' she said. "A good gardener weeds and thins his seedlings to allow the proper amount of room for the plants to grow properly. We need to seek the most compassionate way of weeding out people. Our current pro-life movement is really killing people through disease and poverty,' she said. In place of the pro-life movement we need to develop the 'spirituality of recycling,' proposed Ruether, 'a spirituality that includes ourselves in the renewal of earth and self. We need to compost ourselves'." (1136)
http://fatima.freehosting.net/Articles/Art3.htm
Multi-billionaire, Ted Turner, Jane Fonda's husband, told last week's 27th annual meeting of the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association (NEPRHA), "We have to defeat those congressmen and senators who are standing in the way of progress. We've got to win the next election." Ted Turner, founder of CNN and vice chairman of Time-Warner, Inc., was sounding the alarm that something must be done about overpopulation. This father of five said we could achieve the "ideal" world population of two billion people, as opposed to today's six billion, "if everybody adopted a one-child policy for 100 years." How did Mr. Turner arrive at the ideal population? He learned it from his mentor Professor Paul Erlich, author of the 1968 best-seller, "The Population Bomb." In that book, Erlich predicted major food shortages in the U.S. and by "the 1970s. . . hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death." Erlich forecasted the starvation of 65 million Americans between 1980 and 1989, and by 1999 the U.S. population would have declined to 22.6 million. Professor Erlich saw England in more desperate situation, saying, "If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000."
Idiots like Erlich and organizations such as Planned Parenthood, the State Department's Agency for International Development (AID) and NEPRHA constantly sound nonsense warnings about how overpopulation produces disaster and poverty. There is absolutely no relationship between high populations, disaster and poverty. Population control idiots might consider Zaire's meager population density of 39 people per square mile to be ideal while Hong Kong's population density of 247,501 people per square mile is problematic. Hong Kong is 6,000 times more crowded than Zaire. Yet Hong Kong's per capita income is $8,260 while Zaire, the world's poorest country, has a per capital income of less than $200.
Planet Earth is loaded with room. We could put the world's entire population into the United States. Doing so would make our population density 1,531 people per square mile. That's a far lower population density than what now exists in New York (11,440), Los Angeles (9,126) and Houston (7,512). The entire U.S. population could move to Texas and each family of four would enjoy 2.9 acres of land. If the entire world's population moved to Texas, California, Colorado and Alaska, each family of four would enjoy nine-tenths of an acre of land.
So-called overpopulation problems are really a result of socialistic government practices that reduce the capacity of people to educate, clothe, house and feed themselves. Poor countries are rife with agricultural restrictions controls, export and import controls, restrictive licensing, price controls, not to mention gross human rights abuses that encourage their most productive people to emigrate. The most promising anti-poverty tool for poor people and poor countries is personal liberty.
But let's get back to the population control gang and ask: suppose the rest of us don't feel like adopting a one-child policy, then what? The elite's answer will be to use brute government force, like China does, to impose a one-child policy. You say, "Williams, what would make you say that? Just ask who are the heroes of America's liberals, including Ted Turner's wife, Jane Fonda? They are some of history's most despicable blood thirsty tyrants like Mao Zedong, Lenin, Stalin and Castro. Don't forget that it was the 1960s campus liberals who marched around singing the praises of Mao, Lenin and Ho Chi Min. The difference between now and then is that many of these liberals have moved up to become congressmen, senators, presidents, college professors and government workers.
Walter E. Williams
http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/articles/99/Population-Control.htm
WASHINGTON – Some of the richest men and women in the world met secretly recently in New York to conspire on using their vast wealth to bring the world's population growth under control.
The meeting included some of the biggest names in the "billionaires club," according to the London Times – Bill Gates, David Rockefeller, Ted Turner, Oprah Winfrey, Warren Buffett, George Soros and Michael Bloomberg.
The meeting at the home of Sir Paul Nurse, a British Nobel Prize-winning biochemist and president of Rockefeller University, was the inspiration of Gates and took place three weeks ago.
"The informal afternoon session was so discreet that some of the billionaires' aides were told they were at 'security briefings,'" the Times reported today.
Stacy Palmer, editor of the Chronicle of Philanthropy, speculated that the secrecy surrounding the meeting may have been due to concern that "they don’t want to be seen as a global cabal."
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=99105
The philanthropists who attended a summit convened on the initiative of Bill Gates, the Microsoft co-founder, discussed joining forces to overcome political and religious obstacles to change.
Described as the Good Club by one insider it included David Rockefeller Jr, the patriarch of America’s wealthiest dynasty, Warren Buffett and George Soros, the financiers, Michael Bloomberg, the mayor of New York, and the media moguls Ted Turner and Oprah Winfrey.
These members, along with Gates, have given away more than £45 billion since 1996 to causes ranging from health programmes in developing countries to ghetto schools nearer to home.
They gathered at the home of Sir Paul Nurse, a British Nobel prize biochemist and president of the private Rockefeller University, in Manhattan on May 5. The informal afternoon session was so discreet that some of the billionaires’ aides were told they were at “security briefings”.
Gates, 53, who is giving away most of his fortune, argued that healthier families, freed from malaria and extreme poverty, would change their habits and have fewer children within half a generation.
At a conference in Long Beach, California, last February, he had made similar points. “Official projections say the world’s population will peak at 9.3 billion [up from 6.6 billion today] but with charitable initiatives, such as better reproductive healthcare, we think we can cap that at 8.3 billion,” Gates said then.
Patricia Stonesifer, former chief executive of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which gives more than £2 billion a year to good causes, attended the Rockefeller summit. She said the billionaires met to “discuss how to increase giving” and they intended to “continue the dialogue” over the next few months.
Another guest said there was “nothing as crude as a vote” but a consensus emerged that they would back a strategy in which population growth would be tackled as a potentially disastrous environmental, social and industrial threat.
“This is something so nightmarish that everyone in this group agreed it needs big-brain answers,” said the guest. “They need to be independent of government agencies, which are unable to head off the disaster we all see looming.”
Why all the secrecy? “They wanted to speak rich to rich without worrying anything they said would end up in the newspapers, painting them as an alternative world government,” he said.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6350303.ece
Dr. Eric R. Pianka gave a speech to the Texas Academy of Science last month in which he advocated the need to exterminate 90% of the population through the airborne ebola virus. Pianka’s chilling comments, and their enthusiastic reception again underscore the elite’s agenda to enact horrifying measures of population control.
Standing in front of a slide of human skulls, Pianka gleefully advocated airborne ebola as his preferred method of exterminating the necessary 90% of humans, choosing it over AIDS because of its faster kill period. Ebola victims suffer the most tortuous deaths imaginable as the virus kills by liquefying the internal organs. The body literally dissolves as the victim writhes in pain bleeding from every orifice.
Pianka was later presented with a distinguished scientist award by the Academy. Pianka is no crackpot. He has given lectures to prestigious universities worldwide.
The reason he is being awarded is because he is simply espousing the views that have been put forward by UN agencies such as the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), WHO and UNICEF and international NGO’s such as the International Planned Parenthood Federation, as well as The US Government for the last 35 years.
Pianka suggests that we should begin to sterilize the human population now, a call that has previously been put forward by Henry Kissinger in a declassified document of the National Security Council (1974) entitled “The Implications of World-wide Population Growth on the Security and External Interests of the United States”.
This document lists as a priority birth-rate control in 13 key countries in the Third World, especially in South America. Extraordinary resources were allotted to the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) to implement the policy of birth-rate control.
It also contains sections entitled:
Creating Conditions Conducive to Fertility Decline, which calls for, amongst other things, “reducing infant and child mortality”
Concentration on Education and Indoctrination of The Rising Generation of Children Regarding the Desirability of Smaller Family Size
Utilization of Mass Media and Satellite Communications Systems for Family Planning
The memorandum also includes a section that lauds abortion and states that ” — It would be unwise to restrict abortion research for the following reasons: 1) The persistent and ubiquitous nature of abortion. 2) Widespread lack of safe abortion techniques…”
The memorandum basically stresses the need to offer increased aid for third world countries that agree to implement programs of sterilization and depopulation.
Kissinger also prepared a depopulation manifesto for President Jimmy Carter called ‘Global 2000′ which detailed using food as a weapon to depopulate the third world.
In 2002 Secretary of State Colin Powell stated in a letter to Congress:
“Regrettably, the PRC has in place a regime of severe penalties on women who have unapproved births. This regime plainly operates to coerce pregnant women to have abortions in order to avoid the penalties and therefore amounts to a ‘program of coercive abortion.’ Regardless of the modest size of UNFPA’s budget in China or any benefits its programs provide, UNFPA’s support of, and involvement in, China’s population-planning activities allows the Chinese government to implement more effectively its program of coercive abortion.”
Yet The UNPFA seem to think this is a great thing
“China has had the most successful family planning policy in the history of mankind in terms of quantity and with that, China has done mankind a favour,” United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) representative Sven Burmester said last week. —10/11/99 Agence France-Presse
Under the Regan Administration legislation sponsored by then-Rep. Jack Kemp (NY) and then-Sen. Bob Kasten (WI) ensured funding to the UNPFA was cut off for these very reasons. Yet is was no surprise when In 1993, the Clinton Administration dramatically revised the official interpretation of the “Kemp-Kasten amendment” in order to facilitate U.S. funding of UNFPA, thus making available $14.5 million.
In May 2003, the House Committee on International Relations narrowly adopted an an amendment by Rep. Joseph Crowley (D-NY) revoking the ban on such participation with the UNPFA. The amendment earmarked $100 million for UNFPA over the next two years.
There are countless other instances of depopulation programs, too numerous to go into in this brief article. We urge our readers to research them and expose them further.
Dr Pianka’s comments are merely echoes of the elite lust for a Malthusian social Darwinist control mechanism. They wish to use the excuse of having to “save the earth” in order to take away freedom and implement a massive authoritarian control grid.
Amazingly the audience of fellow scientists and students present at Dr Pianka’s presentation in Texas actually applauded, cheered and laughed approvingly.
Dr Forrest Mims, who has been valiantly trying to expose Pianka’s hideous calls, commented that he wrote to Pianka – or “Dr Death” as he has been dubbed – and asked for an explanation as to why he wanted to see a worldwide epidemic that would only kill Africans. Pianka responded by saying he was not racially prejudice and wanted to see 90% of all races exterminated.
“He wants an equal opportunity killer virus” Mims said.
Mims further quoted Pianka as having said that “We need to sterilize everybody on the earth and make the antidote freely available to anyone willing to work for it”.
http://bataiosu.wordpress.com/2009/04/25/biologul-american-eric-r-pianka-vrea-ca-90-din-populatia-globului-sa-dispara-iar-cei-care-fac-mai-mult-de-un-copil-sa-fie-pusi-sub-acuzare/
http://www.population-security.org/11-CH3.html#1
One of the most fundamental aspects of the impact of population growth on the political and economic well-being of the globe is its relationship to food. Here the problem of the interrelationship of population, national resources, environment, productivity and political and economic stability come together when shortages of this basic human need occur.
USDA projections indicate that the quantity of grain imports needed by the LDCs in the 1980s will grow significantly, both in overall and per capita terms. In addition, these countries will face year-to-year fluctuations in production due to the influence of weather and other factors.
This is not to say that the LDCs need face starvation in the next two decades, for the same projections indicate an even greater increase in production of grains in the developed nations. It should be pointed out, however, that these projections assume that such major problems as the vast increase in the need for fresh water, the ecological effects of the vast increase in the application of fertilizer, pesticides, and irrigation, and the apparent adverse trend in the global climate, are solved. At present, there are no solutions to these problems in sight.
The major challenge will be to increase food production in the LDCs themselves and to liberalize the system in which grain is transferred commercially from producer to consumer countries. We also see food aid as an important way of meeting part of the chronic shortfall and emergency needs caused by year-to-year variation at least through the end of this decade. Many outside experts predict just such difficulties even if major efforts are undertaken to expand world agricultural output, especially in the LDCs themselves but also in the U.S. and in other major feed grain producers. In the longer run, LDCs must both decrease population growth and increase agricultural production significantly. At some point the "excess capacity" of the food exporting countries will run out. Some countries have already moved from a net food exporter to a net importer of food.
There are major interagency studies now progressing in the food area and this report cannot go deeply into this field. It can only point to serious problems as they relate to population and suggest minimum requirements and goals in the food area. In particular, we believe that population growth may have very serious negative consequences on food production in the LDCs including over-expectations of the capacity of the land to produce, downgrading the ecological economics of marginal areas, and overharvesting the seas. All of these conditions may affect the viability of the world's economy and thereby its prospects for peace and security.
Utilization of Mass Media for Dissemination of Family Planning Services and Information
The potential of education and its various media is primarily a function of (a) target populations where socio-economic conditions would permit reasonable people to change their behavior with the receipt of information about family planning and (b) the adequate development of the substantive motivating context of the message. While dramatic limitations in the availability of any family planning related message are most severe in rural areas of developing countries, even more serious gaps exist in the understanding of the implicit incentives in the system for large families and the potential of the informational message to alter those conditions.
Nevertheless, progress in the technology for mass media communications has led to the suggestion that the priority need might lie in the utilization of this technology, particularly with large and illiterate rural populations. While there are on-going efforts they have not yet reached their full potential. Nor have the principal U.S. agencies concerned yet integrated or given sufficient priority to family planning information and population programs generally.
Yet A.I.D.'s work suggests that radio, posters, printed material, and various types of personal contacts by health/family planning workers tend to be more cost-effective than television except in those areas (generally urban) where a TV system is already in place which reaches more than just the middle and upper classes. There is great scope for use of mass media, particularly in the initial stages of making people aware of the benefits of family planning and of services available; in this way mass media can effectively complement necessary interpersonal communications.
In almost every country of the world there are channels of communication (media) available, such, as print media, radio, posters, and personal contacts, which already reach the vast majority of the population. For example, studies in India - with only 30% literacy, show that most of the population is aware of the government's family planning program. If response is low it is not because of lack of media to transmit information.
A.I.D. believes that the best bet in media strategy is to encourage intensive use of media already available, or available at relatively low cost. For example, radio is a medium which in some countries already reaches a sizeable percentage of the rural population; a recent A.I.D. financed study by Stanford indicates that radio is as effective as television, costs one-fifth as much, and offers more opportunities for programming for local needs and for local feedback.
Recommendations
USAID and USIA should encourage other population donors and organizations to develop comprehensive information and educational programs dealing with population and family planning consistent with the geographic and functional population emphasis discussed in other sections. Such programs should make use of the results of AID's extensive experience in this field and should include consideration of social, cultural and economic factors in population control as well as strictly technical and educational ones.
2. Use of U.S. broadcast satellites for dissemination of family planning and health information to key LDC countries
Discussion:
One key factor in the effective use of existing contraceptive techniques has been the problem of education. In particular, this problem is most severe in rural areas of the developing countries. There is need to develop a cost-effective communications system designed for rural areas which, together with local direct governmental efforts, can provide comprehensive health information and in particular, family planning guidance. One new supporting technology which has been under development is the broadcast satellite. NASA and Fairchild have now developed an ATS (Applied Technology Satellite), now in orbit, which has the capability of beaming educational television programs to isolated areas via small inexpensive community receivers.
http://www.population-security.org/28-APP2.html
CDC and WHO are predicting that the H1N1 "Swine Flu" will be back this fall in a new and deadly form. WHO*, after changing the definition to fit current conditions, has declared a "Level 6" pandemic. Since the organism appears to have been man made, this prediction may be one they can make "accurately."
They also say that a new vaccine will be ready for deployment at the very time when the H1N1 Pandemic virus circulates around the globe and are proposing universal (mandatory) vaccination, starting with our most vulnerable: the very young and the very old.
The White House is proposing vaccination for both seasonal flu and H1N1 flu, although the total number of US fatalities to date from H1N1 has reached a total of about 2.
State Emergency Medical Powers Acts and Federal legislation, including the Patriot Acts I, II and III, BARDA and others provide for mandatory vaccination or drugging. No exemptions (religious or otherwise) are provided. Those who refuse will be classified as felons at the State level, subject to immedate incarceration and quarantine of indefinite length in jails or other facilities reserved for such "vaccine refusers."
Please send the Action Item email below to help educate decision makers, modified as you prefer. Then send this action item link, http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/568/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=27275 to every person on your list, all organizations which care about health, freedom and liberty and urge them to do the same!
We must make this demand that the government respect our rights become "viral" through your efforts and result in many hundreds of thousands of messages to decision makers, on the State and Federal levels!
Our White Paper on the Right to Self-Quarantine and Self-Shielding is at: http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/?p=2752
Here is the link to the text of the bill for which we are seeking congressional sponsorship, the Protecting Americans' Self-Shielding Act [PASS Act] - http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/?p=2888 [text excerpt below**]
http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/568/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=27275
A team at Purdue University School of Veterinary Medicine conducted several studies (1,2) to
determine if vaccines can cause changes in the immune system of dogs that might lead to lifethreatening immune-mediated diseases. They obviously conducted this research because concern already existed. It was sponsored by the Haywood Foundation which itself was looking for evidence that such changes in the human immune system might also be vaccine induced. It
found the evidence.
The vaccinated, but not the non-vaccinated, dogs in the Purdue studies developed autoantibodies
to many of their own biochemicals, including fibronectin, laminin, DNA, albumin, cytochrome C,
cardiolipin and collagen.
This means that the vaccinated dogs -- "but not the non-vaccinated dogs"-- were attacking their
own fibronectin, which is involved in tissue repair, cell multiplication and growth, and
differentiation between tissues and organs in a living organism.
The vaccinated Purdue dogs also developed autoantibodies to laminin, which is involved in
many cellular activities including the adhesion, spreading, differentiation, proliferation and
movement of cells. Vaccines thus appear to be capable of removing the natural intelligence of
cells.
The Purdue studies also found that vaccinated dogs were developing autoantibodies to their own
collagen. About one quarter of all the protein in the body is collagen. Collagen provides structure to our bodies, protecting and supporting the softer tissues and connecting them with the skeleton. It is no wonder that Canine Health Concern's 1997 study of 4,000 dogs showed a high number of dogs developing mobility problems shortly after they were vaccinated (noted in my 1997 book, What Vets Don't Tell You About Vaccines).
Perhaps most worryingly, the Purdue studies found that the vaccinated dogs had developed
autoantibodies to their own DNA. Did the alarm bells sound? Did the scientific community call a
halt to the vaccination program? No. Instead, they stuck their fingers in the air, saying more
research is needed to ascertain whether vaccines can cause genetic damage. Meanwhile, the study
dogs were found good homes, but no long-term follow-up has been conducted. At around the
same time, the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) Vaccine-Associated Feline
Sarcoma Task Force initiated several studies to find out why 160,000 cats each year in the USA
develop terminal cancer at their vaccine injection sites.(3)
But other species are okay - right? Wrong. In August 2003, the Journal of Veterinary Medicine
carried an Italian study which showed that dogs also develop vaccine-induced cancers at their
injection sites.(5) We already know that vaccine-site cancer is a possible sequel to human
vaccines, too, since the Salk polio vaccine was said to carry a monkey retrovirus (from cultivating the vaccine on monkey organs) that produces inheritable cancer. The monkey retrovirus SV40 keeps turning up in human cancer sites.
Modified live-virus (MLV) vaccines replicate in the patient until an immune response is
provoked. If a defence isn't stimulated, then the vaccine continues to replicate until it gives the patient the very disease it was intending to prevent.
Alternatively, a deranged immune response will lead to inflammatory conditions such as
arthritis, pancreatitis, colitis, encephalitis and any number of autoimmune diseases such as cancer and leukaemia, where the body attacks its own cells.
http://www.drcarley.com/Science_of_vaccine_damage.pdf
Book - Horrors of Vaccination Exposed...
http://www.drcarley.com/Horrors_of_Vaccination_Exposed.pdf
6/4/2009
The Codex Alimentarius (Latin for "food code" or "food book") is a collection of internationally recognized standards, codes of practice, guidelines and other recommendations relating to foods, food production and food safety. Its name derives from the Codex Alimentarius Austriacus.[1] Its texts are developed and maintained by the Codex Alimentarius Commission, a body that was established in 1963 by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and the World Health Organization (WHO). The Commission's main aims are stated as being to protect the health of consumers and ensure fair practices in the international food trade. The Codex Alimentarius is recognized by the World Trade Organization as an international reference point for the resolution of disputes concerning food safety and consumer protection.[2][3]
The Codex Alimentarius officially covers all foods, whether processed, semi-processed or raw, but far more attention has been given to foods that are marketed directly to consumers. In addition to standards for specific foods, the Codex Alimentarius contains general standards covering matters such as food labeling, food hygiene, food additives and pesticide residues, and procedures for assessing the safety of foods derived from modern biotechnology. It also contains guidelines for the management of official (i.e., governmental) import and export inspection and certification systems for foods.
The controversy over the Codex Alimentarius relates to a perception that it is a mandatory standard for food - including vitamin and mineral supplement - safety. Supporters of the Codex Alimentarius say that it is a voluntary reference standard for food and that there is no obligation on countries to adopt Codex standards as a member of either Codex or any other international trade organization. From the point of view of its opponents, however, one of the main causes of concern is that the Codex Alimentarius is recognized by the World Trade Organization as an international reference standard for the resolution of disputes concerning food safety and consumer protection.[2][4]. Proponents argue that the use of Codex Alimentarius during international disputes does not exclude the use of other references or scientific studies as evidence of food safety and consumer protection. Nevertheless, although countries are not excluded from using other references or scientific studies as evidence of food safety and consumer protection, opponents claim that developing countries in particular are unlikely to have alternative references.
Much of the controversy relates to the way in which the Codex Alimentarius treats vitamin and mineral food supplements. Some countries categorize vitamin and mineral supplements as a food. Others, however, categorize them as drugs. Meanwhile, some countries, such as Canada, have created separate non-drug categories for these products. Opponents of the Codex Alimentarius Commission claim that it is unduly influenced by pharmaceutical companies, and that its guidelines for vitamin and mineral food supplements are unnecessarily restrictive.
It is reported that in 1996 the German delegation put forward a proposal that no herb, vitamin or mineral should be sold for preventive or therapeutic reasons, and that supplements should be reclassified as drugs.[5] The proposal was agreed, but protests halted its implementation.[5] The 28th Session of the Codex Alimentarius Commission was subsequently held July 4 - July 9, 2005.[6] Among the many issues discussed were the "Guidelines for Vitamin and Mineral Food Supplements"[7], which were adopted during the meeting as new global safety guidelines.[8] This text has been the subject of considerable controversy, in part because many member countries may choose to regulate dietary supplements as therapeutic goods or pharmaceuticals or by some other category. The text does not seek to ban supplements, but subjects them to labeling and packaging requirements, sets criteria for the setting of maximum and minimum dosage levels, and requires that safety and efficacy are considered when determining ingredient sources. The United Nations' Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and World Health Organization (WHO) have stated that the guidelines are "to stop consumers overdosing on vitamin and mineral food supplements." The Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC) has said that the guidelines call "for labelling that contains information on maximum consumption levels of vitamin and mineral food supplements." The WHO has also said that the Guidelines "ensure that consumers receive beneficial health effects from vitamins and minerals." [9]
Similarities have been noted between the EU's Food Supplements Directive and the Codex Alimentarius Guidelines for Vitamin and Mineral Supplements.[10]
Texas Republican Rep. Ron Paul has said that the Central American Free Trade Agreement "increases the possibility that Codex regulations will be imposed on the American public." [11]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Alimentarius
Codex Alimentarius was founded in 1962 by the UN to establish international free trade foods. It is jointly administered by the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) through annual and regional meetings.
Codex sets advisory standards and guidelines which nations may adopt or modify. If they modify them without special protections, nations may be found guilty of setting up trade barriers by the World Trade Organization (WTO), and be assessed crippling financial penalties. If, on the other hand, countries deviate from Codex texts by creating a scientifically strong alternative guideline or standard, and pass enabling legislation (a process we refer to as "The Codex Two Step") they are free to deviate from Codex without being found guilty of creating barriers to trade. WTO has repeatedly refused to grant Codex a unique position as THE international food code, saying it is one of several such standards.
Codex decisions are, however, often perceived as inevitable by many developing nations which are not aware of the flexibility to protect the health of their people through the Two Step Process.
Codex' decisions are heavily influenced by the desires of multinational special interest groups who send representatives to sit on national committees and as NGO delegates. Because Codex is so heavily influenced by corporate interests, its decisions are, in our opinion, often helpful to corporate well-being but strikingly detrimental to human and einviromental health.
Codex pertains to every bite - and kind of - food traded internationally and allows high doses of pesticides, veterinary drugs, synthetic hormones, contaminants, artificial sweeteners, and other dangerous compounds and processes (like mandated irradiation of food) while it forbids health claims for food.
http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/
More and more people are becoming concerned about the shady, secretive organization that is Codex Alimentarius - the thinly-veiled propaganda arm of the international pharmaceutical industry that does everything it can to promote industry objectives whilst limiting individual options to maintain health (which would diminish mermbers profits).
Codex alimentarius is one of the major bodies behind the effort to limit access to nutritional products and information. Its motivation is not rocket science and neither is the source of its funding - money that somehow expected to return a profit to its members . . . Most of the information available regarding codex alimentarius refers to its role in the USA, but it is not a US-specific body. Far from it, Codex has wiggled its dirty little tentacles into just about every national or international body concerned with public health. Posing as a benefactor, it then uses its significant financial and political clout to do its masters bidding.
As you can read in the excellent article below, there is much to be concerned about when considering codex alimentarius - ignore it at your peril.
Codex Alimentarius - The Sinister Truth Behind Operation Cure-All
What's really behind Operation Cure-All? Is it just the FDA and FTC taking their power too far? Or is there a deeper, more sinister purpose to this campaign? Who are Codex Alimentarius?
How could a country that prides itself in its freedom of speech, freedom of choice, and freedom of information be facing such severe restrictions in health freedom and dietary supplements? Haven't the people made their will known? Didn't our government pass the Dietary Supplement Health & Education Act of 1994 to insure our right to health supplements?
Indeed, our government did. But the FDA and FTC have found ways to get around that. The laws put in place to protect us are being ignored. And what's worse is that those laws are about to be superseded, if the powers that be have their way.
OPERATION CURE ALL IS JUST ONE MEANS TO AN END
You see, Operation Cure-All is just a tactic, a vehicle, in a much bigger overall plan. It is a result of "Codex Alimentarius" (meaning food code) -- a set of regulations that aim to outlaw any health information in connection with vitamins and limit free access to natural therapies on a worldwide scale.
WHAT'S BEHIND CODEX ALMENTARIUS?
Behind the Codex Alimentarius Commission is the United Nations and the World Health Organization working in conjunction with the multinational pharmaceutical cartel and international banks. Its initial efforts in the US with the FDA were defeated, so it found another ally in the FTC. Now Codex, with the FTC and the pharmaceutical cartel behind it, it threatens to become a trade issue, using the campaign of Operation Cure-All to advance its goals.
Codex began simply enough when the U.N. authorized the World Health Organization and the Food and Agriculture Organization to develop a universal food code. Their purpose was to 'harmonize' regulations for dietary supplements worldwide and set international safety standards for the purposes of increased trade. Pharmaceutical interests stepped in and began exerting their influence. Instead of focusing on food safety, Codex is using its power to promote worldwide restrictions on vitamins and food supplements, severely limiting their availability and dosages.
REAL GOALS OF CODEX
This is to bring about international 'harmonization.' While global harmony sounds benign, is that the real purpose of this plan? While the stated goal of Codex is to establish unilateral regulations for dietary supplements in every country, the actual goal is to outlaw health products and information on vitamins and dietary supplements, except those under their direct control. These regulations would supersede United States domestic laws without the American people's voice or vote in the matter.
HOW CAN IT BE POSSIBLE?
Americans gasp at the thought. It goes against everything America stands for. Many believe this can't be possible. The truth is, it's not only possible, it's required by the Codex Alimentarius agreement.
In fact, under the terms of the Uruguay Round of GATT, which created the World Trade Organization, the United States agreed to harmonize its domestic laws to the international standards. This includes standards for dietary supplements being developed by the United Nation's Codex Alimentarius Commission's Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Use.
The Uruguay Round Agreements carry explicit language clearly indicating that the U.S. must harmonize to international standards:
"Members are fully responsible under this Agreement for the observance of all provisions.... members shall formulate and implement positive measures and mechanisms in support of the observance of the provisions.... by other than central government bodies." [WTO TBT Agreement at Article 3.5]"
In other words, the federal government must NOT ONLY CHANGE FEDERAL LAW, but must ALSO require state and local governments to change their laws as well to be in accordance with international law.
Not only that, but Codex Alimentarius is now enforceable through the World Trade Organization (WTO). If a country disagrees with or refuses to follow Codex standards, the WTO applies pressure by withdrawing trade privileges and imposing crippling trade sanctions. Congress has already bowed to this pressure several times and so have the governments of many countries.
While the exemption clause (USC 3512(a)(1) and (a)(2) was created to supposedly protect our laws from harmonization to international standards, it has proven to be totally ineffective. The United States has already lost seven trade disputes despite the exemption clause. Due to the enormous pressures put on them by lobbyists from multinational corporations (who contribute millions to congressional campaigns), Congress bowed to pressure and changed U.S. laws.
It appears our government (as well as al others) is being manipulated one way or another to serve the goals of the UN, the World Health Organization and the World Trade Organization. Food control equals people control -- and population control. Is this beginning to sound like world government and one-world order? Could this be the real goal behind Codex Alimentarius?
The United States, Canada, the Europeans, Japan, most of Asia, and South America have already signed agreements pledging total harmonization of their laws including food and drug laws to these international standards in the future.
WHAT CODEX WILL BRING
What can we expect under Codex? To give you an idea, here are some important points:
* Dietary supplements could not be sold for preventive (prophylactic) or therapeutic use.
* Potencies would be limited to extremely low dosages. Only the drug companies and the big phytopharmaceutical companies would have the right to produce and sell the higher potency products (at inflated prices).
* Prescriptions would be required for anything above the extremely low doses allowed (such as 35 mg. on niacin).
* Common foods such as garlic and peppermint would be classified as drugs or a third category (neither food nor drugs) that only big pharmaceutical companies could regulate and sell. Any food with any therapeutic effect can be considered a drug, even benign everyday substances like water.
* Codex regulations for dietary supplements would become binding (escape clauses would be eliminated).
* All new dietary supplements would be banned unless they go through Codex testing and approval.
* Genetically altered food would be sold worldwide without labeling.
According to John Hammell, a legislative advocate and the founder of International Advocates for Health Freedom (IAHF), here is what we have to look forward to:
"If Codex Alimentarius has its way, then herbs, vitamins, minerals, homeopathic remedies, amino acids and other natural remedies you have taken for granted most of your life will be gone. The name of the game for Codex Alimentarius is to shift all remedies into the prescription category so they can be controlled exclusively by the medical monopoly and its bosses, the major pharmaceutical firms. Predictably, this scenario has been denied by both the Canadian Health Food Association and the Health Protection Branch of Canada (HPB).
The Codex Alimentarius proposals already exist as law in Norway and Germany where the entire health food industry has literally been taken over by the drug companies. In these countries, vitamin C above 200 mg is illegal as is vitamin E above 45 IU, vitamin B1 over 2.4 mg and so on. Shering-Plough, the Norway pharmaceutical giant, now controls an Echinacea tincture, which is being sold there as an over the counter drug at grossly inflated prices. The same is true of ginkgo and many other herbs, and only one government controlled pharmacy has the right to import supplements as medicines which they can sell to health food stores, convenience stores or pharmacies."
It is now a criminal offence in parts of Europe to sell herbs as foods. An agreement called EEC6565 equates selling herbs as foods to selling other illegal drugs. Action is being taken to accelerate other European countries into 'harmonization' as well.
Paul Hellyer in his book, "The Evil Empire," states: "Codex Alimentarius is supported by international banks and multinational corporations including some in Canada, and is in reality a bill of rights for these banks and the corporations they control. It will hand over our sovereign rights concerning who may or may not invest in our countries to an unelected world organization run by big business. The treaty would make it impossible for Canadian legislators either federal or provincial to alter or improve environmental standards for fear of being sued by multinational corporations whether operating in Canada or not.
This will create a world without borders ruled by a virtual dictatorship of the world's most powerful central banks and multinational companies. This world is an absolute certainty if we all sit on our hands and do nothing."
This is the future the FDA and FTC are striving to bring us via Codex harmonization. Is this a future we are going to willingly accept or prevent?
WHY TARGET THE INTERNET?
It is no accident that the FDA and FTC are targeting Internet health sites through Operation Cure-All. We are standing in the doorway of an unprecedented revolution -- the information revolution brought about by the Internet.
Now all people everywhere have the ability to learn about anything that interests them with just a few clicks. History has shown that informed, educated people change civilizations -- they change the flow of thought and they change the flow of money. They can even change the direction of a country. When similar transitions have happened in the past, the powers that existed did not give up willingly. The Catholic Church fiercely protected its practice of selling 'indulgences' as a forgiveness of sin. When the practice was abolished, the Catholic Church lost a great deal of power and money.
When the printing press was invented, books were banned and printers were imprisoned by the authorities, who feared an educated public could not be governed. In the same way, the medical monopoly (and the UN) now fears that a public educated in health and privy to the shortcomings of modern medicine could not be controlled. Loss of control means loss of revenue and loss of power. And they are doing everything they can to stop progress so they can contain their losses and strengthen their power.
The printing press changed the world. Can you imagine what life would be like today if the book banners had their way? But because the printing press won out, society progressed and freedom was embraced. The Internet is changing the world in an equally significant way. While the entire Internet can hardly be suppressed, the pharma-cartels and their backers are looking to protect their interests by restricting as much information as they can on the Internet.
Will we, the people, win out again -- or will the UN and the World Health Organization agenda and the pharmaceutical cartel change the course of history and take us back to the "dark ages" of medicine?
http://www.natural-health-information-centre.com/codex-alimentarius.html
Enforcement
Traditionally Codex "standards" were considered mandatory regulations, while "guidelines" were optional suggestions. Because Codex does not have power to enforce the trade standards it develops, acceptance of standards and guidelines by member countries was not an issue.
Everything changed in 1995 when the World Trade Organization (WTO) was created. Each country joining the WTO had to commit to abide by all WTO trade regulation agreements and international trade standards. This included granting the WTO the authority to enforcement trade dispute decisions coming out of the WTO Dispute Settlement Process by imposing compulsory trade sanctions against the losing country. As a result of Codex's designation as the body for setting food-related international trade standards and the WTO's stance that it would not differentiate between Codex standards, guidelines, and recommendations, all Codex documents (standards, guidelines, and recommendations) became elevated to mandatory international trade standards enforceable by the WTO.
http://ahha.org/codex1.htm
(NaturalNews) Codeath (sorry, I meant Codex) Alimentarius, latin for Food Code, is a very misunderstood organization that most people (including nearly all U.S. congressmen) have never heard of, never mind understand the true reality of this extremely powerful trade organization. From the official Codex website (www.codexalimentarius.net) the altruistic purpose of this commission is in "protecting health of the consumers and ensuring fair trade practices in the food trade, and promoting coordination of all food standards work undertaken by international governmental and non-governmental organizations". Codex is a joint venture regulated by the Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) and World Health Organization (WHO).
Brief History of Codex
The history of Codex began in 1893 when the Austria-Hungarian empire decided it needed a specific set of guidelines by which the courts could rule on cases dealing with food [1]. This regulatory set of mandates became known as Codex Alimentarius and was effectively implemented until the fall of the empire in 1918. The United Nations (UN) met in 1962 and decided that Codex should be re-implemented worldwide in order to protect health of the consumers. Two-thirds of funding for Codex emanates from the FAO while the other third comes from the WHO.
In 2002, the FAO and WHO had serious concerns about the direction of Codex and hired an external consultant to determine its performance since 1962 and to designate which direction to take the trade organization [2]. The consultant concluded that Codex should be immediately scrapped and eliminated. It was at this time that big industry realized the full monetary potential of this organization and exerted its powerful influence. The updated outcome was a toned down report asking Codex to address 20 various concerns within the organization.
Since 2002, the Codex Alimentarius Commission has covertly surrendered its role as an international public health and consumer protection organization. Under the helm of big industry, the sole surreptitious purpose of the new codex is to increase profits for the global corporate juggernauts while controlling the world through food. The implicit understanding of their philosophy is that if you control food, you control the world.
Codex Now
The most dominant country behind the agenda of Codex is the United States whose sole purpose is to benefit multinational interests like Big Pharma, Big Agribusiness, Big Chema and the like. At the latest meeting in Geneva, the U.S. recently became the chair of Codex which will facilitate an exacerbation of the distortion of health freedom and will continue the promulgation of misinformation and lies about genetically modified organism (GMOs) and nutrients while fulfilling the tacit population control agenda. The reason the U.S. continues to dominate Codex is because other countries falsely believe the U.S. possesses the latest and greatest safety technology when it comes to food and hence, whatever the U.S. asks for, its allies (E.U., Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Mexico, Australia, Malaysia, Indonesia, Japan, Singapore) follow suit nearly every time.
Many of the countries who wish to participate and want to voice their opinions are not allowed to attend the Codex meetings as the U.S. denies most visas for these representatives whenever they feel like it. Many of these countries (South Africa, Swaziland, Kenya, Ghana, Egypt, Cameroon, Sudan, Nigeria) realize that Codex has been altered from a benevolent food organization to one that is fraudulent, lethal and illegitimate. The fact that Codex meetings are held all over the world is also no accident and allows the U.S. to maintain its tight grip on the Codex agenda as the less economically viable countries are not able to attend.
The Real Threat
While the esoteric agenda of the media is busy driving fear into the hearts of the world by focusing on terrorism, global warming, salmonella, and food shortages, the real threats are clandestinely becoming a reality. Soon every single thing you put into your mouth (with the exception of pharmaceuticals, of course) will be highly regulated by Codex Alimentarius, including water. The standards of Codex are a complete affront to the freedom of clean and healthy food, yet these regulations have no legal international standing. Why should we be worried? These soon-to-be mandatory standards will apply to every country who are members of the WTO (World Trade Organization). If countries do not follow these standards, then enormous trade sanctions will result. Some Codex standards that will take effect on December 31, 2009 and once initiated are completely irrevocable include [2]:
* All nutrients (vitamins and minerals) are to be considered toxins/poisons and are to be removed from all food because Codex prohibits the use of nutrients to "prevent, treat or cure any condition or disease"
* All food (including organic) is to be irradiated, removing all toxic nutrients from food (unless eaten locally and raw).
* Nutrients allowed will be limited to a Positive List developed by Codex which will include such beneficial nutrients like Fluoride (3.8 mg daily) developed from environmental waste. All other nutrients will be prohibited nationally and internationally to all Codex-compliant countries [2].
* All nutrients (e.g., CoQ10, Vitamins A, B, C, D, Zinc and Magnesium) that have any positive health impact on the body will be deemed illegal under Codex and are to be reduced to amounts negligible to humans' health [3].
* You will not even be able to obtain these anywhere in the world even with a prescription.
* All advice on nutrition (including written online or journal articles or oral advice to a friend, family member or anyone) will be illegal. This includes naturalnews.com reports on vitamins and minerals and all nutritionist's consultations.
* All dairy cows are to be treated with Monsanto's recombinant bovine growth hormone.
* All animals used for food are to be treated with potent antibiotics and exogenous growth hormones.
* The reintroduction of deadly and carcinogenic organic pesticides that in 1991, 176 countries (including the U.S.) have banned worldwide including 7 of the 12 worst at the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pesticides (e.g., Hexachlorobenzene, Toxaphene, and Aldrin) will be allowed back into food at elevated levels [4].
* Dangerous and toxic levels (0.5 ppb) of aflotoxin in milk produced from moldy storage conditions of animal feed will be allowed. Aflotoxin is the second most potent (non-radiation) carcinogenic compound known to man.
* Mandatory use of growth hormones and antibiotics on all food herds, fish and flocks
* Worldwide implementation of unlabeled GMOs into crops, animals, fish and trees.
* Elevated levels of residue from pesticides and insecticides that are toxic to humans and animals.
Some examples of potential permissible safe levels of nutrients under Codex include [2]:
* Niacin - upper limits of 34 mcg daily (effective daily doses include 2000 to 3000 mcgs).
* Vitamin C - upper limits of 65 to 225 mcg daily (effective daily doses include 6000 to 10000 mcgs).
* Vitamin D - upper limits of 5 μg daily (effective daily doses include 6000 to 10000 μg).
* Vitamin E - upper limits of 15 IU of alpha tocopherol only per day, even though alpha tocopherol by itself has been implicated in cell damage and is toxic to the body (effective daily doses of mixed tocopherols include 10000 to 12000 IU).
The Door is Open for Codex
In 1995, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) created an illegal policy stating that international standards (i.e, Codex) would supersede U.S. laws governing all food even if these standards were incomplete [5]. Furthermore, in 2004 the U.S. passed the Central American Free Trade Agreement (illegal under U.S. law, but legal under international law) that requires the U.S. to conform to Codex in December of 2009 [6].
Once these standards are adopted there is no possible way to return to the standards of the old. Once Codex compliance begins in any area, as long as we remain a member of the WTO, it is totally irrevocable. These standards are then unable to be repealed, changed or altered in any way shape or form [1, 2, 7].
Population control for money is the easiest way to describe the new Codex which is run by the U.S. and controlled by Big Pharma and the like to reduce the population to a sustainable 500 million - a reduction of approximately 93 percent. The FAO and WHO have the audacity to estimate that by the introduction of just the vitamin and mineral guideline alone, at a minimum 3 billion deaths (1 billion from starvation and another 2 billion from preventable and degenerative diseases of under nutrition, e.g., cancer, cardiovascular disease, and diabetes) will result.
Degraded, demineralized, pesticide-filled and irradiated foods are the fastest and most efficient way to cause a profitable surge in malnutrition, preventable and degenerative disease which the most appropriate course of action is always pharmaceuticals. Death for profit is the new name of the game. Big Pharma has been waiting for this opportunity for years.
Fighting Back
Dr. Rima Laibow, M.D., who is the medical director for Natural Solutions Foundation, has undertaken legal action against the U.S. government and continues to attend every Codex meeting while fighting for your health freedom. The latest Codex meeting in Geneva heard some dissenting voices that were tired of the U.S. bullying every other country in the world with its population control agenda. Brazil and China have stated that when smaller, underrepresented countries are unable to attend Codex meetings (due to the U.S. not allowing Visas or for lack of monetary means) then every decision made in their absence is invalid. As a result, Codex may soon fall apart under the weight of it own corruption, but pressure needs to be unilaterally applied.
Dr. Rima has also been meeting with delegates from other countries and making them aware of something called Private Standards. Private standards allow countries to draft food standards which are safer and higher than those mandated by Codex. Obviously, this is not a very difficult task and many countries can seemingly circumvent the flawed and irrevocable guidelines Codex is attempting to implement on December 31, 2009 [7].
What Can You Do?
The only way to avoid such cataclysmic events are to fight with the dissemination of knowledge to everyone you know. It does not matter whether they are still asleep or hypnotized by the enslavement of daily life or too busy to pay attention -- the time to wake up is now. The U.S. government and the collaborating media have been trying to distract America while all these egregious and mandatory standards are covertly passed. It is time to take action and you can do so by going to (www.healthfreedomusa.org) and following the latest updates on Codex. You can also sign a legal citizen's petition here: (http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/ind...) .
Another effective way to get your voice heard is through sending emails or writing to your congressman (https://forms.house.gov/wyr/welcome.shtml) . If you send one email to congress, it will ostensibly count as 13,000 emails. The U.S. Congress believes that for each person who takes the time to write or email them there are another 13,000 others who share similar views but do not take the time to promulgate them. Those living in other countries need to contact their representatives in order to have your voice heard. It is very important that swift and vociferous action be taken now. Times are changing very rapidly and unless we all come together on this issue we may all have to start thinking about growing our own food in the near future to avoid extermination.
Codex Contacts to Take Action
Dr. F. Edward Scarbrough U.S. Manager for Codex U.S. Department of Agriculture 4861-South Building Washington, DC 20250 Phone: (202) 205-7760 Fax: (202) 720-3157 Ed.scarbrough@fsis.usda.gov
The U.S. Codex official website is (http://www.fsis.usda.gov/regulation...)
For Further Information Contact: U.S. Codex Office Room 4861, South Building Washington, DC 20250-3700 Phone: (202) 205-7760 Fax: (202) 720-3157 uscodex@fsis.usda.gov
References:
1. Bauman, D.E., Nutricide: Criminalizing natural health, vitamin, and herbs. 2005, The Natural Solutions Foundation: USA.
2. Laibow, R.E., "Neutraceuticide" and Codex Alimentarius: The death of nutritional medicine. Alternative & Complementary Therapies, 2005. 11(5): p. 223-229.
3. Codex Guidelines for Vitamin and Mineral Food Supplements. [cited July 10, 2008]. Available from:
(http://www.chfa.ca/media/pdf_files/...)
4. Stockholm Convention on persistent organic pollutants. [cited July 10, 2008]. Available from: (http://chm.pops.int/)
5. Federal Register: October 11, 1995 (Volume 60, Number 196). [cited July 10, 2008]. Available from: (http://www.fda.gov/oia/IH_policy.html)
6. Central America Dominican Republic Free Trade Agreement. [cited July 10, 2008]. Available from: (http://www.wola.org/index.php?&opti...)
7. Laibow, R.E. Natural Solutions Foundation Codex Commission Report. [cited July 10, 2008]. Available from: (http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/)
8. Laibow, R.E., Dispatch #9 - Post-Codex Video #5 from Dr. Laibow: Propelling us into the future. [cited July 10, 2008]. Available from: (http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/ind...)
http://www.naturalnews.com/024128.html
Half of the 198 new drugs the FDA approved from 1976 to 1985 had to be withdrawn or relabeled because they caused unexpected side effects. Predictably no one at the FDA withdrew Donald Rumsfeld’s Aspartame sold under the trade names Equal and NutraSweet. Aspartame is a deadly carcinogen made from the feces of e coli bacteria that we can’t avoid because it’s an additive in just about every food we eat.
The story gets even more interesting when you find out NAZI Germany’s notorious I.G. Farben cartel is behind Codex and the proposals that would drastically curtail our health care freedoms.
Catherine Bertini, the head of the UN food programs in 1995, paraphrased the famous Kissinger statement, “Food is power. We use it to change behavior.”
Is this the first time you have heard of “Codex Alimentarius?” That’s not unusual because Codex is an “open secret.” The information is available if you want to look for it but the corporate controlled media isn’t going to tell you about it until its already too late.
Monsanto, Big Pharma, Chema and Agra have convinced most companies “Codex is a non-issue”, and that they will actually gain market share when Codex is implemented.
So who is raising awareness about this issue?
John C. Hammell of International Advocates for Health Freedom and Ian Crane an ex oil field executive. Ian lectures and writes on U.S. Hegemony and the NWO agenda for control of Global Resources.
Mr Crane says, “After spending the past twelve months investigating Codex Alimentarius, I am deeply disturbed by the almost total lack of awareness (or even interest) with regard to the implications of this pernicious global Commission, particularly amongst those most affected by the excesses of this restrictive legislation.”
Ian warns of the “pernicious” effects legislation will have believing “without a shadow of a doubt” there is a plot by major food and pharmaceutical companies to see that the Codex proposals become international law.
Think buying organic will help you? Well, not as much as you think, because the U.S. currently allows for up to 10% of GMO contamination of organic foods (the highest of any country in the world, most permit 0.1%).
You can make a difference by support local self sustaining farmers who refuse to use GMO seeds. And of course start a garden and grow your own food.
Because guess what? …..They can’t stop us from growing our own food.
http://www.dailynewscaster.com/2009/02/04/codex-alimetarius-how-the-global-elite-will-control-your-food-supply/
An Ohio family whose members have served their friends and neighbors with food cooperative services involving bulk and discount supplies has been targeted in a raid by armed law enforcement officers wearing black fatigues
who forcibly rounded up the mom and 10 children and held them for six hours.
The raid prompted a complaint filed today on behalf of the family by the Center for Constitutional Law at the Buckeye Institute. It alleges authorities "made a haphazard unannounced entry into the property with guns drawn, as other officers surrounded the property, with guns drawn," then "confiscated the family's personal food supply, personal computers, and personal cell phones."
The complaint names the Ohio Department of Agriculture, the Lorain County General Health District and the state's attorney general. A spokeswoman at the Department of Agriculture said its officers were at the scene in an advisory role. A spokeswoman at the county health agency refused to comment except to explain it was a "licensing" issue regarding the family's Manna Storehouse.
An prosecutor assigned to handle the case declined to respond to WND requests for a comment.
In the video, Jacqueline Stowers describes how she first started ordering bulk health foods for her own family, and gradually other families asked if they, also, could gain access to the food sources.
Then, about a year ago, the family had a conversation with county officials about licensing. The family asked questions but heard nothing further until the armed raid Dec. 1.
"We had a sheriff's department group of about 11-12, I don't know, 13 men come into our home. It was violent, it was belligerent, they didn't identify themselves," she stated.
She and 10 children were forcibly herded into a room and held there for at least six hours, she said.
"In the meantime we had people with guns inside and outside," she said.
"The use of these police state tactics on a peaceful family is simply unacceptable," said Buckeye Institute President David Hansen. "Officers rushed into the Stowers' home with guns drawn and held the family – including 10 young children – captive for six hours. This outrageous case of bureaucratic overreach must be addressed."
The Buckeye Institute argues the core issue – the right to buy food directly from local farmers, distribute locally-grown food to neighbors and pool resources to purchase food in bulk – are rights that do not require a license.
"The Stowers' constitutional rights were violated over grass-fed cattle, free-range chickens and pesticide-free produce," said Thompson, the institute's Center of Constitutional Law director. "Ohioans do not need a government permission slip to run a family farm and co-op, and should not be subjected to raids when they do not have one. This legal action will ensure the ODA understands and respects Ohioans' rights."
The institute said licensure law enforcement is one thing, raids are another.
"The Buckeye Institute seeks an injunction against similar future raids, and a declaration that such licensure laws are unconstitutional as applied the Stowers and individuals like them," the institute said. "There has never been a complaint filed against Manna Storehouse or the Stowers related to the quality or healthfulness of the food distributed through the co-op."
Online bloggers raged over the situation.
"Agents began rifling through all of the family's possessions, a task that lasted hours and resulted in a complete upheaval of every private area in the home. Many items were taken that were not listed on the search warrant. The family was not permitted a phone call, and they were not told what crime they were being charged with. They were not read their rights. Over ten thousand dollars worth of food was taken, including the family's personal stock of food for the coming year," said one.
The complaint notes Manna Storehouse deals with wheat, flour, sugar, grass-fed beef, lamb, turkey and eggs from free range chickens, mostly coming from local farmers. The raid was based on an affidavit from Ohio Department of Agriculture agent William Lesho that "makes numerous conclusory and unsubstantiated claims," the complaint said.
The complaint states:
* The affidavit does not indicate that the Stowers are dangerous.
* The affidavit does not indicate … exigent circumstances … that would warrant using force.
* The police knocked on the door, and Katie Stowers opened.
* Police shoved Katie to the side and immediately entered the residence without first announcing (1) that they are police; or (2) the purpose of the visit.
* During the raid, at least one, if not several police entered the home with guns drawn, and the Stowers home was surrounded by police who also had guns drawn.
* Once having obtained entry… the lead officer … with his gun drawn, swiftly and immediately moved to the upstairs of the home, where he found eight small children."
* The officer used physical force to get Jacqueline Stowers and her children down the stairs.
* The officers held the Stowers family captive in their living room for in excess of six hours.
The complaint raises issues of unlawful search and seizure, taking of private property, due process and unlawful application of police power.
http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=83865
Their story....
More on Codex Alimentarius....
THE European Parliament voted yesterday for a clampdown on unfettered sales of vitamins and mineral supplements, defying a lobbying campaign by the health food industry.
The parliament's computer system crashed under the strain of thousands of speed-dial emails, wildly claiming that the new directive would ban 300 popular supplements and drive British health stores out of business.
The new law will bring Britain into line with the rest of Europe over the next 10 years, requiring manufacturers of vitamins and minerals to carry out scientific tests proving that their products are safe.
The labels on pills will recommend maximum safe doses, highlight possible risks and side-effects and remind users that supplements are no substitute for a healthy diet.
At the moment, any supplement can be sold in Britain unless it is shown to be harmful, a policy that reflects the legal tradition of English common law that allows people to do what they want unless specifically banned. By contrast, Europe's Napoleonic legal system starts from the premise that everything is banned until legally authorised.
Only 50 or so vitamins and minerals are on the safe list in most EU countries, so rarer products such as Selenium compounds used to treat cancer can only be obtained through prescription drugs, generating a much higher profit for the big drug companies. Dr Robert Verkerk, spokesman for the Free Choice for Supplements Alliance, said: "The directive would massively reduce the freedom of consumers to make their own informed choices."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/1387759/Euro-MPs-vote-for-clampdown-on-vitamin-sales.html
NINETY per cent of multi-vitamin and mineral preparations and many other supplements are likely to be removed from the shelves of British health shops and chemists if a European directive becomes law, as many expect it will, on Wednesday.
Under a move to harmonise the sale of vitamin and mineral supplements, lists have been drawn up of permissible supplements and their sources which exclude more than 300 items available in Britain.
The supplements which will be affected are those offering dozens of vitamins and minerals in one capsule.
Dr Caroline Jackson, Conservative MEP for the South West Region who is fighting the proposals, said: "MEPs are receiving dozens of letters from desperate people who believe their future health depends on being able to buy these products.
"Many people believe these supplements are vital to them. This is heavy-handed legislation which I believe should be withdrawn but all we may be able to do is a damage limitation exercise."
The only hope will be to get the provisions changed during the lengthy committee process, to settle details, which will be held after the directive is approved, she added.
Dr Jackson said the problem was that British laws governing the sale of vitamin and mineral supplements were liberal - as they were in Holland and Ireland - but very restrictive in countries like Germany.
The effect of harmonising the regulations will be to impose strict German standards on UK sales. Sue Croft, of Consumers for Health Choice, a European consumer lobby group, said many people with cancer and chronic disease used supplements to maintain health.
"This is hugely upsetting to large numbers of people who will feel absolutely bereft if they cannot get their supplements and who may suffer psychological damage as result."
Examples of supplements not on the list include the minerals, boron, sulphur and vanadium, commonly used in multi supplements.
Boron is important for healthy teeth and bones, and found in raisins, prunes and almonds; sulphur for acne and healthy skin and found in cabbage, dried beans, and eggs. Vanadian deficiency is linked with bone deformity. Naturally it is found in seafood, parsley, cereals and mushrooms.
Manufacturers will be able to make a case for supplements to be put on the list if they can prove their efficacy and safety, but many small companies do not have the resources for this kind of research trial.
Free Choice for Supplements Alliance, which represent makers, said there were 1,300 independent health food retailers in Britain, many of them unaware of the impending legislation.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/1387384/300-vitamin-treaments-face-ban-in-Euro-purge.html
Implicit in estimates by the two organizations which run Codex Alimentarius for the
UN[1] are that implementation of just the restrictive Vitamin and Mineral Guideline
alone[2] will result in the deaths of at least 3 billion people world wide. Those
estimates anticipate the deaths of at least 1 billion people from simple starvation and 2
billion more from what WHO and FAO identify as the “preventable chronic diseases of
under nutrition”: cancers, cardiovascular disease, stroke, diabetes and obesity.
[1] World Health Organization (WHO) and Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO)
[2] Ratified July 4, 2005 by the Codex Alimentarius Commission in Rome, Italy
http://www.scribd.com/doc/7701130/Rima-Laibow-Nutricide-The-Killing-Camps-of-Codex-Alimentarius?autodown=pdf
The feds are close to winding up an investigating into whether polio vaccines used in the 1950s and '60s were contaminated with a virus that may cause several rare cancers in humans.
The study could help determine whether today's Baby Boomers have ticking time bombs from their childhood inoculations.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/news_alert_072002_depopulation.html
Many studies have reported the presence of simian virus 40 (SV40) or protein in human brain tumors and bone cancers, malignant mesothelioma, and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, however many of the studies were small or lacking control groups, which made it difficult to determine whether they were reliable.
Further, the history of some SV40 infections in humans is linked to the use of polio vaccines.
According to conservative estimates, from 1955 to 1963 more than 98 million children and adults in the United States were exposed inadvertently to live SV40 because of SV40-contaminated polio vaccines.
The vaccines were also distributed to many other countries and different adenovirus vaccines used on some U.S. military personnel from 1961 to 1965 also contained live SV40.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/Pages/100604_polio_vaccine_cancer2.html
Researchers have been discussing accusations that contaminated polio vaccine stocks are to blame for certain cancers, based on the publication a month ago of two high-profile papers linking the simian virus SV40 to human lymphomas.
Less than a week after the papers were published in March, the US National Cancer Institute contacted the researchers to establish plans to send blinded results to three independent labs.
Researchers scanned 99 lymphomas, 235 epithelial tumors and 40 control tissues for the virus. They found the virus in 43% of non-Hodgkin's lymphomas, 9% of Hodgkin's lymphomas, and in none of the control tissues. A second team independently found the virus in 42% of non-Hodgkin's lymphomas, almost unbelievable agreement.
"These are very respectable labs with basically identical results," said Michele Carbone, associate professor of pathology at Loyola University in Chicago. The "clear clustering of positives" is "no accident."
http://www.vaccinationnews.com/DailyNews/May2002/SV40PolioVax&CancerBeyondCoincidence.htm
Yet the Advisory Committee for Immunization Practices has issued a warning, passed along by the CDC, that "all children aged 6 [months] to 23 months and pregnant women in their second and third trimester" receive the inactive influenza vaccine – which contains a full 25 micrograms of mercury – 250 times the limit the EPA recommends for tuna-lovers.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=36677
Scientists have raised fears that a mercury-based preservative used in vaccines may cause symptoms of autism.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3788443.stm
World-famous microbiologist Sir Macfarlane Burnet, the Nobel prize winner revered as Australia's greatest medical research scientist, secretly urged the government to develop biological weapons for use against Indonesia and other "overpopulated" countries of South-East Asia.
The revelation is contained in top-secret files declassified by the National Archives of Australia, despite resistance from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.
Sir Macfarlane recommended in a secret report in 1947 that biological and chemical weapons should be developed to target food crops and spread infectious diseases.
His key advisory role on biological warfare was uncovered by Canberra historian Philip Dorling in the National Archives in 1998.
The department initially blocked release of the material on the basis it would damage Australia's international relations. Dr Dorling sought a review and the material was finally released to him late last year.
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/03/09/1015365752044.html?oneclick=true
Almost 18 months after Time-Warner vice-chairman Ted Turner announced he would give $1 billion to the United Nations, serious questions remain about the nature and influence of his "gift."
When Turner announced his $1 billion donation last September, the media described the gift in glowing terms. Turner would help the UN with much-needed funds to take care of children, women and the environment.
UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan called Turner a "world citizen extra-ordinaire." The New York Times described the proposal as "probably the single largest charitable donation in history." And it earned Turner a cover story in Newsweek, which quoted him as saying he was "putting the rich on notice" to follow his lead. There was even talk that Turner might be awarded the Nobel Prize.
Turner’s gift, it turns out, is not as generous as described in media reports. An amount of up to $1 billion will be donated in the form of Time-Warner stock in ten annual installments. The cost to Turner could be significantly less than $1 billion if he takes advantage of tax write-offs, tax deductions and ways to avoid estate taxes. Amazingly, USA Today claims "Turner, or at least his heirs, could end up $100 million richer because he’s giving a billion away."
Moreover, the donation will be made not to the UN directly, but to Turner’s private UN Foundation. The foundation is tax-exempt under U.S. law and has no legal affiliation with the UN.
The UN and the UN Foundation have completed a 20-page agreement governing the use of foundation grants. According to the agreement, UN Secretary-General Annan will review grant applications before asking for approval from the UN Foundation board. But foundation grants will be disbursed by UN officials.
Annan has created his own bureaucracy to manage the money. The UN Fund for International Partnerships (UNFIP) is led by Miles Stoby of Guyana, the former Deputy Executive Coordinator for UN Reform. To demonstrate the importance of Ted Turner’s funds to the UN, Annan has announced that Stoby will report directly to him, and Stoby’s post will be at the level of Assistant Secretary-General.
The Better World Fund, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit under the same leadership and trustees as the UN Foundation, will coordinate "public education" on behalf of the UN. It aims to create "a broader constituency of citizens, organizations and businesses with a deeper commitment to international cooperation through the United Nations."
Two UN agencies received more than 50 percent of the first-year grants: the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) received almost $12.2 million, and $18.6 million went to the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF). Both agencies are involved in controversial projects to encourage and assist abortions and other population control measures.
Another big recipient of UN Foundation funds is the World Health Organization (WHO), which is linked to UNICEF and UNFPA through a "Coordinating Committee on Health." Last year, WHO received two UN Foundation grants totalling almost $9 million. An additional grant worth $2.8 million was awarded jointly to WHO and UNICEF.
It is no surprise that a sizeable portion of the UN Foundation’s grants support UNFPA, UNICEF and WHO. These agencies have been criticized for their population control activities and complacency regarding human rights abuses, and from the outset Turner announced that his foundation would support population control.
Harvard Law Professor Mary Ann Glendon asked in a May 5, 1998 Wall Street Journal column whether the UN was being manipulated by Turner and his associates to maintain an aggressive campaign to reduce the human population "by any means possible."
Examples of UN Foundation grants supporting population control include UNFPA grants for "the delivery of family planning services" to reduce high fertility rates in Bolivia, the Comoros, Lebanon and the Philippines. Other grants encourage journalists to cover population control issues and target adolescent girls for family planning services.
Turner has a long history of support for population control activities. Turner and wife Jane Fonda served as "Goodwill Ambassadors" for UNFPA. Fonda now leads a Georgia campaign against teen pregnancy, partly funded by a private condom maker.
According to Nicholas Eberstadt, a population expert with the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C., Turner is on record in favor of a radical policy that Eberstadt calls "de-population." As recently as last month, the father of five children called for a worldwide one-child-per-family policy to reduce the world population. "We could do it in a very humane way, if everybody adopted a one-child policy for 100 years," Turner told participants at the annual meeting of the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association in Washington, D.C.
Once honored as "Humanist of the Year" by the American Humanist Association, Turner’s stridency on population control has earned him a reputation as an anti-Christian bigot. In remarks last October to the Society of Environmental Journalists, he complained that the Judeo-Christian tradition emphasizes "dominion over everything" and "increase and multiply." Turner once told a Dallas Morning News reporter that Christianity is "a religion for losers" and "I don’t want anybody [i.e., Jesus Christ] to die for me."
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/turner.htm
Jacques-Yves Cousteau wanted to go part of the way toward abolishing mankind. In a November 1991 interview with The UNESCO Courier, he said:
[In response to an interviewer's question, "Some snakes, mosquitoes, and other animal species pose threats or dangers for humankind. Can they be eliminated like viruses that cause certain diseases?," Cousteau said:] "Getting rid of viruses is an admirable idea, but it raises enormous problems. In the first 1,400 years of the Christian era, population numbers were virtually stationary. Through epidemics, nature compensated for excess births by excess deaths. I talked about this problem with the director of the Egyptian Academy of Sciences. He told me that scientists were appalled to think that by the year 2080 the population of Egypt might reach 250 million. What should we do to eliminate suffering and disease? It's a wonderful idea but perhaps not altogether a beneficial one in the long run. If we try to implement it we may jeopardize the future of our species. It's terrible to have to say this. World population must be stabilized and to do that we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. This is so horrible to contemplate that we shouldn't even say it. But the general situation in which we are involved is lamentable." (1126)
"We must eliminate 350,000 people per day." That works out to 127,750,000 people per year, and 1.27 billion people over 10 years.
Ted Turner
Ted Turner, one of the co-chairs of the State of the World Forum, is more patient than Cousteau is. He will allow 80 to 100 years to reduce the population of the Earth from 6 billion to 2 billion. In an interview with E Magazine, an environmentalist publication, Turner explained:
"The simplest answer is that the world's population should be about two billion, and we've got about six billion now. I haven't done the actuarial tables, but if every woman in the world voluntarily stepped up and said, 'I'll only have one child,' and if we did that for the next 80 to 100 years, that would reduce the kind of suffering we're having. ... We could have 10 billion people living below the poverty line, or we could have two billion people living well, and having color TVs and an automobile. The planet can support that number of people, and that's the way it was in 1930. You didn't have the global warming problem then, or all these problems that have occurred since the population has built up. And how you get there is very complicated. It's going to take a lot of education and improvements in health care. Personally, I think the population should be closer to when we had indigenous populations, back before the advent of farming. Fifteen thousand years ago, there was somewhere between 40 and 100 million people. But [population researchers] Paul and Anne Ehrlich have convinced me that if we're going to have a modern infrastructure, with commercial airlines and interstate highways around the world, we're going to need about two billion people to support it." (1127)
Paul Ehrlich
Paul Ehrlich, the Stanford University population biologist who achieved fame by writing The Population Bomb in the late 1960s, agrees with Ted Turner that the Earth's population should decrease to 2 billion. On June 20, 1999, the San Francisco Chronicle reported:
" 'We're at 6 billion people on the Earth,' said Paul Ehrlich, Bing Professor of Population Studies at Stanford University, who was awarded the prestigious Blue Planet prize last week. 'And that's roughly three times what the planet should have. About 2 billion is optimal.' " (1128)
Ernest Callenbach
Ernest Callenbach, author of Ecotopia and other best-selling environmentalist books, recently published Ecology: A Pocket Guide. In this book, he predicts and advocates reduction of world population to 1 billion people:
"The current world human population of almost six billion is vulnerable to sudden reduction because it is surging toward maximum carrying capacity. Rough estimates suggest that about one billion people, using renewable energy and other technologies that reduce ecological impacts, could survive sustainably on Earth at a level of consumption close to that of modern industrial peoples." (1129)
"The movement called Deep Ecology emphasizes spiritual or religious awareness as a guide for our relationships to the living world. ... Supporters of Deep Ecology have laid down these principles as a platform for their movement: ... * That civilization could continue to flourish during the substantial decrease of the human population that is needed to reduce our ecological impacts, with an improvement in 'life quality' rather than increasing levels of consumption." (1130)
"There are simply too many consumption-minded people for the carrying capacity of the planet. It seems likely that in the next several decades, one way or another, their combined impacts will bring breakdowns in food production, health protection, and social order. Ironically, disruptions and possibly collapses of corporate production would bring about a reduction in world human population - and thus lower impacts too." (1131)
"A sustainable future would also require a steady or declining rather than growing human population, much smaller than today's unless the average level of consumption were far lower." (1132)
"In the long run, nature will enforce the basic rules of sustainability; she does not accept excuses." (1133)
The University of California Press, not the Unabomber Press, published these misanthropic sentiments.
Rosemary Radford Ruether
The eco-feminist theologian Rosemary Radford Ruether has a similarly low view of humanity. Like Callenbach, she favors "Deep Ecology," saying, "the flourishing of human life and cultures is compatible with a substantial decrease of the human population. The flourishing of non-human life requires such a decrease." (1134) She also said, "The world of nature, plants and animals existed billions of years before we came on the scene. Nature dies not need us to rule over it, but runs itself very well and better without humans. We are the parasites on the food chain of life, consuming more and more, and putting too little back to restore and maintain the life system that supports us." (1135)
Ruether told those who attended a May 1998 conference that "We need to seek the most compassionate way of weeding out people.":
" 'To allow unrestrained fertility is not pro-life' she said. "A good gardener weeds and thins his seedlings to allow the proper amount of room for the plants to grow properly. We need to seek the most compassionate way of weeding out people. Our current pro-life movement is really killing people through disease and poverty,' she said. In place of the pro-life movement we need to develop the 'spirituality of recycling,' proposed Ruether, 'a spirituality that includes ourselves in the renewal of earth and self. We need to compost ourselves'." (1136)
http://fatima.freehosting.net/Articles/Art3.htm
Multi-billionaire, Ted Turner, Jane Fonda's husband, told last week's 27th annual meeting of the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association (NEPRHA), "We have to defeat those congressmen and senators who are standing in the way of progress. We've got to win the next election." Ted Turner, founder of CNN and vice chairman of Time-Warner, Inc., was sounding the alarm that something must be done about overpopulation. This father of five said we could achieve the "ideal" world population of two billion people, as opposed to today's six billion, "if everybody adopted a one-child policy for 100 years." How did Mr. Turner arrive at the ideal population? He learned it from his mentor Professor Paul Erlich, author of the 1968 best-seller, "The Population Bomb." In that book, Erlich predicted major food shortages in the U.S. and by "the 1970s. . . hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death." Erlich forecasted the starvation of 65 million Americans between 1980 and 1989, and by 1999 the U.S. population would have declined to 22.6 million. Professor Erlich saw England in more desperate situation, saying, "If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000."
Idiots like Erlich and organizations such as Planned Parenthood, the State Department's Agency for International Development (AID) and NEPRHA constantly sound nonsense warnings about how overpopulation produces disaster and poverty. There is absolutely no relationship between high populations, disaster and poverty. Population control idiots might consider Zaire's meager population density of 39 people per square mile to be ideal while Hong Kong's population density of 247,501 people per square mile is problematic. Hong Kong is 6,000 times more crowded than Zaire. Yet Hong Kong's per capita income is $8,260 while Zaire, the world's poorest country, has a per capital income of less than $200.
Planet Earth is loaded with room. We could put the world's entire population into the United States. Doing so would make our population density 1,531 people per square mile. That's a far lower population density than what now exists in New York (11,440), Los Angeles (9,126) and Houston (7,512). The entire U.S. population could move to Texas and each family of four would enjoy 2.9 acres of land. If the entire world's population moved to Texas, California, Colorado and Alaska, each family of four would enjoy nine-tenths of an acre of land.
So-called overpopulation problems are really a result of socialistic government practices that reduce the capacity of people to educate, clothe, house and feed themselves. Poor countries are rife with agricultural restrictions controls, export and import controls, restrictive licensing, price controls, not to mention gross human rights abuses that encourage their most productive people to emigrate. The most promising anti-poverty tool for poor people and poor countries is personal liberty.
But let's get back to the population control gang and ask: suppose the rest of us don't feel like adopting a one-child policy, then what? The elite's answer will be to use brute government force, like China does, to impose a one-child policy. You say, "Williams, what would make you say that? Just ask who are the heroes of America's liberals, including Ted Turner's wife, Jane Fonda? They are some of history's most despicable blood thirsty tyrants like Mao Zedong, Lenin, Stalin and Castro. Don't forget that it was the 1960s campus liberals who marched around singing the praises of Mao, Lenin and Ho Chi Min. The difference between now and then is that many of these liberals have moved up to become congressmen, senators, presidents, college professors and government workers.
Walter E. Williams
http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/articles/99/Population-Control.htm
WASHINGTON – Some of the richest men and women in the world met secretly recently in New York to conspire on using their vast wealth to bring the world's population growth under control.
The meeting included some of the biggest names in the "billionaires club," according to the London Times – Bill Gates, David Rockefeller, Ted Turner, Oprah Winfrey, Warren Buffett, George Soros and Michael Bloomberg.
The meeting at the home of Sir Paul Nurse, a British Nobel Prize-winning biochemist and president of Rockefeller University, was the inspiration of Gates and took place three weeks ago.
"The informal afternoon session was so discreet that some of the billionaires' aides were told they were at 'security briefings,'" the Times reported today.
Stacy Palmer, editor of the Chronicle of Philanthropy, speculated that the secrecy surrounding the meeting may have been due to concern that "they don’t want to be seen as a global cabal."
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=99105
The philanthropists who attended a summit convened on the initiative of Bill Gates, the Microsoft co-founder, discussed joining forces to overcome political and religious obstacles to change.
Described as the Good Club by one insider it included David Rockefeller Jr, the patriarch of America’s wealthiest dynasty, Warren Buffett and George Soros, the financiers, Michael Bloomberg, the mayor of New York, and the media moguls Ted Turner and Oprah Winfrey.
These members, along with Gates, have given away more than £45 billion since 1996 to causes ranging from health programmes in developing countries to ghetto schools nearer to home.
They gathered at the home of Sir Paul Nurse, a British Nobel prize biochemist and president of the private Rockefeller University, in Manhattan on May 5. The informal afternoon session was so discreet that some of the billionaires’ aides were told they were at “security briefings”.
Gates, 53, who is giving away most of his fortune, argued that healthier families, freed from malaria and extreme poverty, would change their habits and have fewer children within half a generation.
At a conference in Long Beach, California, last February, he had made similar points. “Official projections say the world’s population will peak at 9.3 billion [up from 6.6 billion today] but with charitable initiatives, such as better reproductive healthcare, we think we can cap that at 8.3 billion,” Gates said then.
Patricia Stonesifer, former chief executive of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which gives more than £2 billion a year to good causes, attended the Rockefeller summit. She said the billionaires met to “discuss how to increase giving” and they intended to “continue the dialogue” over the next few months.
Another guest said there was “nothing as crude as a vote” but a consensus emerged that they would back a strategy in which population growth would be tackled as a potentially disastrous environmental, social and industrial threat.
“This is something so nightmarish that everyone in this group agreed it needs big-brain answers,” said the guest. “They need to be independent of government agencies, which are unable to head off the disaster we all see looming.”
Why all the secrecy? “They wanted to speak rich to rich without worrying anything they said would end up in the newspapers, painting them as an alternative world government,” he said.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6350303.ece
Dr. Eric R. Pianka gave a speech to the Texas Academy of Science last month in which he advocated the need to exterminate 90% of the population through the airborne ebola virus. Pianka’s chilling comments, and their enthusiastic reception again underscore the elite’s agenda to enact horrifying measures of population control.
Standing in front of a slide of human skulls, Pianka gleefully advocated airborne ebola as his preferred method of exterminating the necessary 90% of humans, choosing it over AIDS because of its faster kill period. Ebola victims suffer the most tortuous deaths imaginable as the virus kills by liquefying the internal organs. The body literally dissolves as the victim writhes in pain bleeding from every orifice.
Pianka was later presented with a distinguished scientist award by the Academy. Pianka is no crackpot. He has given lectures to prestigious universities worldwide.
The reason he is being awarded is because he is simply espousing the views that have been put forward by UN agencies such as the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), WHO and UNICEF and international NGO’s such as the International Planned Parenthood Federation, as well as The US Government for the last 35 years.
Pianka suggests that we should begin to sterilize the human population now, a call that has previously been put forward by Henry Kissinger in a declassified document of the National Security Council (1974) entitled “The Implications of World-wide Population Growth on the Security and External Interests of the United States”.
This document lists as a priority birth-rate control in 13 key countries in the Third World, especially in South America. Extraordinary resources were allotted to the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) to implement the policy of birth-rate control.
It also contains sections entitled:
Creating Conditions Conducive to Fertility Decline, which calls for, amongst other things, “reducing infant and child mortality”
Concentration on Education and Indoctrination of The Rising Generation of Children Regarding the Desirability of Smaller Family Size
Utilization of Mass Media and Satellite Communications Systems for Family Planning
The memorandum also includes a section that lauds abortion and states that ” — It would be unwise to restrict abortion research for the following reasons: 1) The persistent and ubiquitous nature of abortion. 2) Widespread lack of safe abortion techniques…”
The memorandum basically stresses the need to offer increased aid for third world countries that agree to implement programs of sterilization and depopulation.
Kissinger also prepared a depopulation manifesto for President Jimmy Carter called ‘Global 2000′ which detailed using food as a weapon to depopulate the third world.
In 2002 Secretary of State Colin Powell stated in a letter to Congress:
“Regrettably, the PRC has in place a regime of severe penalties on women who have unapproved births. This regime plainly operates to coerce pregnant women to have abortions in order to avoid the penalties and therefore amounts to a ‘program of coercive abortion.’ Regardless of the modest size of UNFPA’s budget in China or any benefits its programs provide, UNFPA’s support of, and involvement in, China’s population-planning activities allows the Chinese government to implement more effectively its program of coercive abortion.”
Yet The UNPFA seem to think this is a great thing
“China has had the most successful family planning policy in the history of mankind in terms of quantity and with that, China has done mankind a favour,” United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) representative Sven Burmester said last week. —10/11/99 Agence France-Presse
Under the Regan Administration legislation sponsored by then-Rep. Jack Kemp (NY) and then-Sen. Bob Kasten (WI) ensured funding to the UNPFA was cut off for these very reasons. Yet is was no surprise when In 1993, the Clinton Administration dramatically revised the official interpretation of the “Kemp-Kasten amendment” in order to facilitate U.S. funding of UNFPA, thus making available $14.5 million.
In May 2003, the House Committee on International Relations narrowly adopted an an amendment by Rep. Joseph Crowley (D-NY) revoking the ban on such participation with the UNPFA. The amendment earmarked $100 million for UNFPA over the next two years.
There are countless other instances of depopulation programs, too numerous to go into in this brief article. We urge our readers to research them and expose them further.
Dr Pianka’s comments are merely echoes of the elite lust for a Malthusian social Darwinist control mechanism. They wish to use the excuse of having to “save the earth” in order to take away freedom and implement a massive authoritarian control grid.
Amazingly the audience of fellow scientists and students present at Dr Pianka’s presentation in Texas actually applauded, cheered and laughed approvingly.
Dr Forrest Mims, who has been valiantly trying to expose Pianka’s hideous calls, commented that he wrote to Pianka – or “Dr Death” as he has been dubbed – and asked for an explanation as to why he wanted to see a worldwide epidemic that would only kill Africans. Pianka responded by saying he was not racially prejudice and wanted to see 90% of all races exterminated.
“He wants an equal opportunity killer virus” Mims said.
Mims further quoted Pianka as having said that “We need to sterilize everybody on the earth and make the antidote freely available to anyone willing to work for it”.
http://bataiosu.wordpress.com/2009/04/25/biologul-american-eric-r-pianka-vrea-ca-90-din-populatia-globului-sa-dispara-iar-cei-care-fac-mai-mult-de-un-copil-sa-fie-pusi-sub-acuzare/
http://www.population-security.org/11-CH3.html#1
One of the most fundamental aspects of the impact of population growth on the political and economic well-being of the globe is its relationship to food. Here the problem of the interrelationship of population, national resources, environment, productivity and political and economic stability come together when shortages of this basic human need occur.
USDA projections indicate that the quantity of grain imports needed by the LDCs in the 1980s will grow significantly, both in overall and per capita terms. In addition, these countries will face year-to-year fluctuations in production due to the influence of weather and other factors.
This is not to say that the LDCs need face starvation in the next two decades, for the same projections indicate an even greater increase in production of grains in the developed nations. It should be pointed out, however, that these projections assume that such major problems as the vast increase in the need for fresh water, the ecological effects of the vast increase in the application of fertilizer, pesticides, and irrigation, and the apparent adverse trend in the global climate, are solved. At present, there are no solutions to these problems in sight.
The major challenge will be to increase food production in the LDCs themselves and to liberalize the system in which grain is transferred commercially from producer to consumer countries. We also see food aid as an important way of meeting part of the chronic shortfall and emergency needs caused by year-to-year variation at least through the end of this decade. Many outside experts predict just such difficulties even if major efforts are undertaken to expand world agricultural output, especially in the LDCs themselves but also in the U.S. and in other major feed grain producers. In the longer run, LDCs must both decrease population growth and increase agricultural production significantly. At some point the "excess capacity" of the food exporting countries will run out. Some countries have already moved from a net food exporter to a net importer of food.
There are major interagency studies now progressing in the food area and this report cannot go deeply into this field. It can only point to serious problems as they relate to population and suggest minimum requirements and goals in the food area. In particular, we believe that population growth may have very serious negative consequences on food production in the LDCs including over-expectations of the capacity of the land to produce, downgrading the ecological economics of marginal areas, and overharvesting the seas. All of these conditions may affect the viability of the world's economy and thereby its prospects for peace and security.
Utilization of Mass Media for Dissemination of Family Planning Services and Information
The potential of education and its various media is primarily a function of (a) target populations where socio-economic conditions would permit reasonable people to change their behavior with the receipt of information about family planning and (b) the adequate development of the substantive motivating context of the message. While dramatic limitations in the availability of any family planning related message are most severe in rural areas of developing countries, even more serious gaps exist in the understanding of the implicit incentives in the system for large families and the potential of the informational message to alter those conditions.
Nevertheless, progress in the technology for mass media communications has led to the suggestion that the priority need might lie in the utilization of this technology, particularly with large and illiterate rural populations. While there are on-going efforts they have not yet reached their full potential. Nor have the principal U.S. agencies concerned yet integrated or given sufficient priority to family planning information and population programs generally.
Yet A.I.D.'s work suggests that radio, posters, printed material, and various types of personal contacts by health/family planning workers tend to be more cost-effective than television except in those areas (generally urban) where a TV system is already in place which reaches more than just the middle and upper classes. There is great scope for use of mass media, particularly in the initial stages of making people aware of the benefits of family planning and of services available; in this way mass media can effectively complement necessary interpersonal communications.
In almost every country of the world there are channels of communication (media) available, such, as print media, radio, posters, and personal contacts, which already reach the vast majority of the population. For example, studies in India - with only 30% literacy, show that most of the population is aware of the government's family planning program. If response is low it is not because of lack of media to transmit information.
A.I.D. believes that the best bet in media strategy is to encourage intensive use of media already available, or available at relatively low cost. For example, radio is a medium which in some countries already reaches a sizeable percentage of the rural population; a recent A.I.D. financed study by Stanford indicates that radio is as effective as television, costs one-fifth as much, and offers more opportunities for programming for local needs and for local feedback.
Recommendations
USAID and USIA should encourage other population donors and organizations to develop comprehensive information and educational programs dealing with population and family planning consistent with the geographic and functional population emphasis discussed in other sections. Such programs should make use of the results of AID's extensive experience in this field and should include consideration of social, cultural and economic factors in population control as well as strictly technical and educational ones.
2. Use of U.S. broadcast satellites for dissemination of family planning and health information to key LDC countries
Discussion:
One key factor in the effective use of existing contraceptive techniques has been the problem of education. In particular, this problem is most severe in rural areas of the developing countries. There is need to develop a cost-effective communications system designed for rural areas which, together with local direct governmental efforts, can provide comprehensive health information and in particular, family planning guidance. One new supporting technology which has been under development is the broadcast satellite. NASA and Fairchild have now developed an ATS (Applied Technology Satellite), now in orbit, which has the capability of beaming educational television programs to isolated areas via small inexpensive community receivers.
http://www.population-security.org/28-APP2.html
