HR 2749: “Food Safety” Bill Has Martial Law Provisions

July 5, 2009
Food Freedom
July 5, 2009

HR 2749 is a strange bill in many ways.  While the other “food safety” bills have been around since winter, allowing for much public discussion on the internet, HR 2749 has only suddenly appeared.  It is a mutant conglomeration of the worst of the other bills, with the addition of one very original part – martial law.

When it was a draft, it was Waxman’s bill.  But once given a number, it became Dingel’s who already had a “food safety” bill, HR 759.  So Waxman got none and Dingel got two.  (Was this because Waxman, being Jewish, was a hideous choice to introduce a bill with Codex in it – designed by the Nazi pharmaceutical companies that funded Hitler, provided the gas for the gas chambers, experimented on prisoners with vaccines – and is expected to kill millions?)

* HR 2749 would give FDA the power to order a quarantine of a geographic area, including “prohibiting or restricting the movement of food or of any vehicle being used or that has been used to transport or hold such food within the geographic area.”

[This – “that has been used to transport or hold such food” – would mean all cars that have ever brought groceries home or any pickup someone has eaten take-out in, so this means ALL TRANSPORTATION can be shut down under this.  This is using food as a cover for martial law.]

Under this provision, farmers markets and local food sources could be shut down, even if they are not the source of the contamination.  The agency can halt all movement of all food in a geographic area.

[This is also a means of total control over the population under the cover of food, and at any time.] See this DailyKos entry.

The bill is unusual, too, because slow as it was to appear. The little bugger of bill has made up for it since.  It got a number on June 10, went to committee on June 17, passed instantly, and is headed for a vote on the floor of the House.

The first Patriot Act was passed using fear of terrorism. This Patriot Act is more coy, hiding under a cloak of “food safety” and but also using fear – fear of food contamination.  Evidently, Americans are supposed to be so frightened by the slightest possibility of a terrorist or of E-coli, they would trade away all their precious, hard fought freedoms for the promise of safety.  Or at least, that is what the trade-off has become.  “Terrorism” and “contamination” are great bugaboos used to open doors to an end to the US Constitution.  That is exactly what we are left with after those who wrote HR 2749 are done.

Who did write these bills?  It seems Monsanto had not only a hand, but a “defining” influence. http://farmwars.info/?p=594

This redefining of reality is what seems to be underlying all the loss of freedom.  Normal and free are disappearing into the maw of corporate definitions of reality. See this Yup Farming piece.

So, we begin with contaminated food from filthy corporate processors and concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs).  And what do we end up with after that reality is ground up by corporate legal hands?  Changes in the definition of risk so that natural things are treated as dangerous and toxic things are untouched, such that:

• Healthy, normal farms are taken over by government as though they were run by criminals and contaminated corporate slaughterhouses are untouched;
• The necessary freedom of individuals to live and grow food and be left alone are somehow suddenly destroyed, though they were never the source of any food contamination issue; and such that
• The profit and control and power of corporations which were absolutely the source of the increasingly terrible food, is somehow suddenly vastly increased.

Thanks to corporate control over reality, our wanting to clean up corporate processors and feedlots and CAFOS and end up with farmers’ markets and local farms and organic food has become the industrialization and potential destruction of every healthy part of the food system and the triumph of the most contaminated and toxic part.  And in the non-bargain, we lost all freedoms and they took all control.  And “all” is not a hyperbole here, for one need only look at another provision of HR 2749 to feel how insane, how distant from all we ever wanted.

* HR 2749 would empower FDA to regulate how crops are raised and harvested.  It puts the federal government right on the farm, dictating to our farmers.

[What is missing in pointing out this astounding control, is that it opens the door to CODEX and WTO “good farming practices” will include the elimination of organic farming by eliminating manure, mandating GMO animal feed, imposing animal drugs, and ordering applications of petrochemical fertilizers and pesticides.  Farmers, thus, will be locked not only into the industrialization of once normal and organic farms but into the forced purchase of industry’s products.  They will be slaves on the land, doing the work they are ordered to do – against their own best wisdom – and paying out to industry against their will.  There will be no way to be frugal, to grow one’s own grain to feed the animals, to raise healthy animals without GMO grains or drugs, to work with nature at all.  Grassfed cattle and poultry and hogs will be finished.  So, it needs to be made clear where control will take us.  And weren’t these the “rumors on the internet” that were dismissed but are clearly the case?]  See this DailyKos entry.

When we wanted not to get E-coli in processed meat, did we intend to put our farmers into corporate servitude?  Did we plan to have our own lives straight-jacketed by a million new controls over our own gardens, our own desire to grow food, our own plans to start small businesses, our own dreams to have a small piece of land and farm ourselves?  Who has the audacity to take our needs and grotesquely bastardize them in these ways, while giving the destruction and totalitarian control the sham name of “food safety”?

We wanted good food.  We never wanted to trap our farmers into an industrial prison on their own land, afraid moment to moment of not fulfilling some monstrous set of instructions that never end – rules the farmers loathe, rules that have not only nothing to do with real farming but which are antithetical to it.  Why have we ended up with HR 2749, an intense corporate nightmare around the most central and necessary aspects of a free country and of free human beings – farming and food?

American farming needs to be relieved of the burdens it has been under, not finished off by its corporate competition.  It needs freedom to flourish again.  Obviously – and Congress people who would think to vote for such absurdities, take note – the imposition of surveillance, monitoring, warrantless entry, taking of all records, licensing, fees, Codex and NAIS, in addition to massive penalties and prison terms (all without judicial review over even appropriateness and validity), are not how one thanks American farmers for holding together the only working part of our food system.  See Literal Enslavement by Linn Cohen-Cole.

HR 2749 is the most vicious and insane bill one could imagine.  Who treats our farmers in this way?  Who believes that such police measures can provide for the rebirth of farming and the return of healthy food?  Who wrote this bill that trashes the freedom of all our lives?  HR 2749 was not what we ordered and it should be sent back the bowels of hell it came from.

HR 2749 is both insane and cruel.  And the deceptiveness of hiding a Patriot Act in it and the brutal rush to slip it through Congress are ANTI-democratic.

Go here to tell Congress, “No.” http://www.ftcldf.org/petitions/pnum993.php


FDA Threatens to Seize All Natural Products that Dare to Mention H1N1 Swine Flu

June 19, 2009

Mike Adams
Natural News
June 18, 2009

In an effort to censor any online text that might inform consumers of the ability of natural products to protect consumers from H1N1 influenza A, the FDA is now sending out a round of warning letters, threatening to “take enforcement action… such as seizure or injunction for violations of the FFDC Act without further notice.”

“Firms that fail to take correction action,” the FDA warns, “may also be referred to the FDA’s Office of Criminal Investigations for possible criminal prosecution for violations of the FFDC Act and other federal laws.”

The message is crystal clear: No product may be described as protecting against or preventing H1N1 infections unless it is approved by the FDA. And which products has the FDA approved? Tamiflu (the anti-viral drug that most people will never have access to), and soon the new H1N1 vaccine that’s being manufactured at a cost of one billion dollars (paid to Big Pharma by the taxpayers). This vaccine, of course, will be utterly useless because H1N1 will undoubtedly mutate between now and the time the vaccine is ready, rendering the vaccine useless.

In other words, according to the tyrants at the FDA, the only products that may be marketed alongside the term “H1N1″ are those products that either don’t work or aren’t available to most people. Anything that really works to prevent influenza infections — such as natural anti-virals, medicinal herbs, etc. — is banned from even mentioning H1N1 without the threat of being criminally prosecuted.

Note: I reveal the five most powerful natural anti-viral remedies in a free report you can read here: http://www.naturalnews.com/RR-FiveB…

Such are the operations of our U.S. Food and Drug Administration — a criminal organization that’s working hard to do what every criminal organization does: Eliminate the competition! As the defender of Big Pharma, the FDA is also the destroyer of knowledge that seeks to remove educational statements from the internet. Truth has nothing to do with it — it is verifiably true that anti-viral herbs, probiotics and other natural products help protect consumers from influenza — but the FDA cannot allow such statements to remain online for the simple fact that people might become informed. And that, it seems, would be a dangerous precedent.

If people were informed about the healing and protective powers of herbs, they would no longer remain enslaved by the medical establishment. Profits would be lost. Power would evaporate. This is why people can never be allowed to attain any real knowledge about herbs, superfoods or nutritional supplements. And the FDA will threaten people with imprisonment just to make sure they don’t dare publish knowledge that the FDA does not want the people to see.

Targeted by the FDA

Who is being attacked and threatened by the FDA? Lots of companies offering highly-effective natural remedies. You can see a list of some of the companies being targeted right here: http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scrip…


Lilly Sold Drug for Dementia Knowing It Didn’t Help, Files Show

June 14, 2009

Margaret Cronin Fisk, Elizabeth Lopatto and Jef Feeley
Bloomberg
June 12, 2009

Eli Lilly & Co. urged doctors to prescribe Zyprexa for elderly patients with dementia, an unapproved use for the antipsychotic, even though the drugmaker had evidence the medicine didn’t work for such patients, according to unsealed internal company documents.

In 1999, four years after Lilly sent study results to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration showing Zyprexa didn’t alleviate dementia symptoms in older patients, it began marketing the drug to those very people, according to documents unsealed in insurer suits against the company for overpayment.

Regulators required Lilly and other antipsychotic drug- makers in April 2005 to warn that the products posed an increased risk to elderly patients with dementia. The documents show the health dangers in marketing a drug for an unapproved use, called off-label promotion, said Sidney Wolfe, head of the health research group at Public Citizen in Washington.

“By definition, off-label means there is no clear evidence that the benefits of a drug outweigh the risks,” Wolfe said. “The reason why off-label promotion is illegal is that you can greatly magnify the number of people who will be harmed.”

In 1999, when Lilly began its marketing push, Zyprexa’s only approved use was for patients suffering from schizophrenia, according to the FDA. In 2008, Zyprexa was Lilly’s best-selling drug, with $4.7 billion in sales, while antipsychotics as a group topped U.S. drug sales last year, with $14.6 billion.

Seven Studies

In a request for a December 2003 meeting over a proposed label change, Lilly told the FDA that data from seven studies showed Zyprexa didn’t alleviate symptoms of Alzheimer’s or other dementia.

The studies found death rates among older dementia patients taking Zyprexa were “significantly greater” than those who didn’t get the medicine, the company said, according to the unsealed documents.

“Plaintiffs are releasing one-sided, cherry-picked documents obtained in discovery to selected news media in an effort to try their cases in the media,” said Lilly spokeswoman Marni Lemons, who added that the company will fight the lawsuit. She declined to answer specific questions about the studies.

Lilly pleaded guilty in January to a federal misdemeanor charge of illegally marketing Zyprexa for off-label uses to elderly consumers. The company admitted illegal promotions from September 1999 through March 2001, while denying such practices beyond that date.

Medical Journals

The documents also revealed Lilly officials wrote medical journal studies about Zyprexa and then asked doctors to put their names on the articles, a practice called “ghostwriting.”

Lilly employees compiled a guide to hiring scientists to write favorable articles, complained to journal editors when publication was delayed and submitted rejected articles to other outlets, according to the documents.

Lilly’s internal documents, which number about 10,000 pages, were unsealed as part of suits against the drugmaker by health insurers and pension plans seeking to recoup monies spent on Zyprexa. The insurance plans contend the papers indicate that Lilly promoted the antipsychotic to doctors treating elderly patients even after March 2001.

The plaintiffs cite documents including a 2002 business plan calling for expanding prescriptions in off-label use. They also point to notes from Lilly sales representatives through 2003 recording efforts to press doctors to prescribe elderly patients Zyprexa for mood symptoms, irritability and insomnia.

$6.8 Billion in Damages

Insurers and other so-called third-party payers contend Lilly should pay as much as $6.8 billion in damages for downplaying Zyprexa’s health risks, including excessive weight gain and the risk of contracting diabetes, and marketing the drug for unapproved uses to pump up profits.

Bloomberg News obtained copies of the documents after U.S. District Judge Jack Weinstein in Brooklyn, New York, ordered their release on May 1. In September, Weinstein allowed insurers and other payers to sue Lilly as a group after finding “sufficient evidence of fraud” to let the case go to trial. Lilly appealed that ruling.

The Indianapolis-based drugmaker agreed in January to pay $1.42 billion to the U.S. government and more than 30 states to settle off-label marketing allegations over Zyprexa. The agreement included a $615 million penalty for the federal criminal charge.

Lilly has paid $1.2 billion so far to settle more than 32,000 individual claims by patients, the company said in an April 30 securities filing. About 140 claims remain, Lilly reported.

12 States

The company also faces suits from 12 states over its Zyprexa marketing practices. Cases brought by South Carolina and Connecticut officials are set for trial later this year.

The unsealed documents support the claims of the insurers suing Lilly, said lawyer Thomas Sobol, of Seattle-based Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP. His firm represents the plaintiffs suing the drugmaker for overcharging on Zyprexa and provided Bloomberg News with copies of the documents.

Bloomberg News filed a letter brief asking the court to unseal the documents.

Zyprexa was initially approved in 1996 for use with schizophrenia sufferers. In 2000, Lilly received the FDA’s approval to sell it to those dealing with the mania stage of bipolar disorder.

The drug has never been approved for use with dementia patients, according to the FDA’s Web site.

Even before the drug was on the market, Lilly researchers were eyeing whether elderly dementia patients could benefit from taking the antipsychotic, according to the unsealed documents.

Company Study

A 1995 company study of users taking between 1 to 8 milligrams of Zyprexa “did not show efficacy in alleviating the psychotic symptoms and behavioral disturbances in elderly” patients suffering from “primary degenerative dementia of the Alzheimer’s type,” according to a study summary that was unsealed.

The company also noted that three patients taking Zyprexa died during a study or within 30 days of its completion, while only one control-group patient expired, according to the unsealed documents.

J. Alan Webber, a Lilly executive, acknowledged in a Feb. 16, 1995, note that FDA official Paul Leber wasn’t impressed with study results in connection with Zyprexa’s effectiveness in treating older dementia patients.

“Dr. Leber was not enthusiastic about study HGAO (psychotic demented elderly) with respect to the indication for use, and extensive discussion did not resolve the disagreement,” Webber said, according to the documents.

Back to the FDA

In 1998, Lilly went back to the FDA seeking approval to market Zyprexa to those battling Alzheimer’s, the most common form of dementia, the company said in its 2003 request for a meeting on a proposed label change. Lilly withdrew its bid to promote Zyprexa for Alzheimer’s cases in 1999, according to the document.

In a November 2000 memo to Lilly salespeople, company executives said the dementia marketing initiative was abandoned because the FDA questioned Zyprexa’s effectiveness in treating the ailment.

“It was withdrawn due to vagueness on the FDA’s part regarding a definition of efficacy,” Lilly officials said in the document.

In a 2003 memo to FDA regulators citing the clinical studies, Lilly researchers acknowledged the death rates among older dementia patients on Zyprexa in the reviews were two times higher than their counterparts taking placebos.

Patient Deaths

Deaths among the patients taking Zyprexa in the studies were “significantly greater than placebo-treated patients (3.5 percent v. 1.5 percent, respectively),” Lilly officials said, according to the unsealed documents.

The studies didn’t find Zyprexa was effective in treating dementia, the company acknowledged in this document.

Lilly recognized this earlier, according to a 2002 document entitled “Zyprexa in serious mental illness (65 plus years) — A Strategy Review.”

“The treatment of serious mental illness for people over the age of 65 has been identified as a growing opportunity for Zyprexa,” the authors wrote. “Unfortunately, attempts to gain the data to support an application for an indication in the treatment of dementia have to date been unsuccessful.”

Lilly, which first marketed Zyprexa to psychiatrists, sought to expand its customer base in 1999 by focusing on long term-care facilities, particularly nursing homes, according to the unsealed documents.

Primary Care Physicians

It later began targeting primary care physicians, known as PCPs, as another potentially lucrative Zyprexa market. Such physicians frequently deal with dementia patients, according to the unsealed files.

Another benefit to the strategy was that many of those practitioners were “unaware of Zyprexa weight gain issue,” according to a December 1999 Lilly sales memo, referring to one of the drug’s possible side-effects.

Read entire article


FDA Trying to Censor Claims of Omega-3 Oils by Prohibiting Legal Content Claim

June 14, 2009

David Gutierrez
Natural News
June 12, 2009

The FDA has proposed a rule that would prohibit food manufacturers from marketing any product as an “excellent source” of the omega-3 fatty acids eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA).

Since 2004, the FDA has allowed “excellent source” claims on any foods containing at least 32 milligrams of DHA and EPA per serving. Under FDA guidelines, any food that supplies at least 20 percent of the recommended daily value of a nutrient may contain such a claim.

In late 2007, however, the FDA proposed a ban on such claims. According to the agency, there is no authoritative U.S. Institute of Medicine (IOM) recommended daily allowance for EPA and DHA, making “excellent source” claims misleading. The agency also says that because most omega-3 research has focused on doses producing specific results rather than those leading to overall nutritional well-being, there is little data on how much EPA and DHA people should actually be consuming.

The 32 milligram threshold is based on the IOM’s “adequate intake” estimate of 160 milligrams per day. Most researchers recommend that the recommended daily intake be set significantly higher, at 500 milligrams.

Because FDA rules say that labeling changes can only be implemented on Jan. 1 every two years, however, and also require that companies be given at least one year’s advance notice, no changes to omega-3 nutritional claims could be implemented until Jan. 1, 2012.

According to omega-3 trade association the Global Organization for EPA and DHA (GOED), manufacturers are hoping that the FDA will issue an omega-3 nutritional recommendation before 2012, thereby bypassing the issue entirely. The GOEM already plans to petition the IOM to set an official recommended daily allowance for EPA and DHA.

“We’re hoping that within three years we can convince them to revise reference intakes for EPA/DHA, which would then make this whole issue a mute point,” said GOED’s executive director, Adam Ismail.

Read entire article


FDA Approval of Antipsychotics for Children Mirrors Bayer, AMA Approvals of Heroin as Cough Medicine for Children

June 11, 2009

Mike Adams
Natural News
June 11, 2009

Today an FDA advisory panel approved the prescribing of powerful mind-altering chemicals for children. Seroquel, Zyprexa and Goedon have now been approved by the advisory panel to be prescribed to children as young as 10 years old to treat a fictitious disease invented by psychiatrists and given the name “bipolar disorder.” (There is no such thing as a bipolar disorder disease. It is merely a name assigned to children demonstrating the predictable side effects of correctable dietary imbalances.)

In light of this disturbing decision, it is instructive to remember the history of pharmaceutical medicine and children. One hundred and ten years ago, Bayer marketed heroin to children as a non-addictive alternative to morphine. Did I say “non-addictive?” Yes, it’s right from the company’s own marketing materials. It just goes to show you that drug companies have been lying to the public (and poisoning the children) for well over one hundred years.

Much like the FDA’s present-day endorsement of antipsychotic drugs for children, the American Medical Association endorsed Bayer Heroin for kids, touting its ability to ease coughs. Heroin definitely eases coughs. And so does smoking meth! In offering this endorsement, the AMA apparently borrowed some of the FDA’s screwy logic, which claims “The benefits outweigh the risks.”

This means, of course, that the benefits to the drug companies outweigh the risks to the children!

During all this, of course, the AMA utterly failed to inform parents that heroin was a highly addictive narcotic drug. So parents were dosing their babies with heroin — all with the full approval of the American Medical Association!

Today, the FDA spearheads the promotion of drugs to children, doing its best to promote toxic synthetic chemicals that artificially alter brain chemistry while outlawing any mention of natural remedies that work much better (like omega-3 oils, which are natural brain chemistry stabilizers). The FDA also utterly fails to ban toxic chemical food ingredients known to destroy healthy brain chemistry (like MSG and artificial food coloring).

Read entire article


FDA Panel Weighs Antipsychotic Drug Use in Kids

June 9, 2009

Reuters
June 9, 2009

Editors Note: Even though the FDA says antipsychotic drugs are effective, this site and many other sources have chronicled the very dangerous side effects like depression, hallucination, and heart disease, just to name a few. Also, the FDA’s credibility is non existent after it came out that directors were paid millions to cover up the BPA scandal.

ADELPHI, Maryland (Reuters) – U.S. advisers began considering on Tuesday whether the makers of three blockbuster antipsychotic drugs should be allowed to promote them for children and teens with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder.

Eli Lilly and Co’s Zyprexa, AstraZeneca’s Seroquel and Pfizer’s Geodon are approved for adults and already used to treat children. But the companies need Food and Drug Administration approval before they can advertise them specifically for youths as young as 10.

Winning FDA clearance for wider use may boost sales, which already top a combined $10 billion annually.

Reviewers at the FDA agree the medicines appear effective for treating symptoms, Dr. Thomas Laughren, director of its psychiatry drugs division, told a panel of outside experts. The agency wants the advisers to consider the risks of weight gain, sleepiness and other reactions before deciding whether to recommend approval in younger patients, he said.

Side effects “are of particular concern in pediatric patients primarily because these are lifelong disorders, and these children would face many decades of taking these drugs,” Laughren said.

The drugs are members of a family called atypical antipsychotics. Two similar medicines, Johnson & Johnson’s Risperdal and Bristol-Myers Squibb Co’s Abilify, already are approved to treat youths with bipolar disorder or schizophrenia.

The medicines under review already are widely used. Zyprexa is Lilly’s top-selling drug, with sales of $4.7 billion. Seroquel is the second-best-selling product for AstraZeneca, with 2008 sales of $4.5 billion. Sales of Pfizer’s Geodon topped $1 billion in 2008.

Laughren said it was “important to acknowledge that both schizophrenia and bipolar disorder are serious illnesses in pediatric patients” and place burdens on families. Schizophrenia causes hallucinations, delusions and disorganized thoughts, while bipolar disorder causes dramatic mood swings from manic episodes to depression.

AstraZeneca data showed children “are susceptible to the same risks seen of (Seroquel) for adults,” Liza O’Dowd, a vice president of the company, told the panel. The risks “can be monitored and managed” and are described in the drug’s prescribing instructions, she said.

Lilly and Pfizer were scheduled to speak to the panel later on Tuesday. In summaries released before the meeting, both companies said their drugs’ risks were acceptable, given their benefits for treating serious mental illnesses.

The FDA advisers were expected to vote Wednesday on whether the medicines were effective and acceptably safe for various age groups. The agency will make the final decision, but usually follows panel recommendations.

AstraZeneca and Lilly are seeking approval for treating acute episodes of both schizophrenia and bipolar mania. Pfizer’s application asks for approval only in bipolar disorder.