ALLEGED HEALTH DICTATOR
"Unless we put medical freedom into the constitution, the time will come when medicine will organize itself into an undercover dictatorship...denying equal privileges. All such laws are un-American and despotic...." Benjamin Rush, Physician. Signator: Declaration of Independence
The United Nations, in a continuing effort to ostensibly protect the world's population against harm from every sector, instituted an advisory body through which controls may be established over virtually every category of material entering the human body. The Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC), according to official UN documents, "is an intergovernmental body established in 1962 by FAO (Food and Agricultural Organization) and WHO [World Health Organization] to implement the Joint FAO/WHO Food Standards Programme. It currently has 157-member governments, representing over 98% of the world's consumers. The standards, guidelines and recommendations of the Commission are used by the World Trade Organization as reference points. (June 23-28, 1997)." (emphasis supplied). "While non-compulsory," the UN claims, "the work of Codex has been widely accepted because it is based on sound scientific risk assessment."
The statements issued by the United Nation's Codex Alimentarius Commission are presented as "suggestions" or "guidelines" because the UN possesses no legal authority that is not given them by its member states (unless it is usurped at the request of other member states). When the United States adopts the UN's "suggestions" or "guidelines", does anyone familiar with the workings of that body suppose that they will be submitted to the American citizen as such? The UN makes proposals. The United States makes laws.
The document produced by the Codex Alimentarius Commission is a voluminous work totaling thirteen volumes whose table of contents, alone, fills ten pages--directing one to such minutia as the determination of standards for "Edible Ice" (aka: snowcones) and a "Code of Practice for Processing of Frog Legs." Because of its size, the entire work can be obtained from the United Nations on a CD-ROM disk for a "special introductory price: US $500".
Dr. Mathias Rath, one of the most vocal and credible of opponents to the CAC is, according to many, also among the leading American researchers in cardiovascular disease. The German-born California resident was a co-worker of Nobel prize winner Dr. Linus Pauling. Dr. Pauling, for those requiring testimony from the most heavily credentialed of scientists, won two Nobel prizes and is the only scientist to have ever done so in different, unrelated categories.
Dr. Rath, addressing a conference on alternative medicine in Chemnitz, Germany, outlined the various dangers inherent in the Codex document. Among them are the commission's recommendations that vitamins and minerals be placed, along with herbs and "botanicals", in the category of controlled prescription substances. The only purpose for this, Rath and others maintain, would be to provide a seemingly viable reason to raise the price of food supplements to prescription levels. This, Rath also claims, stems from the pharmaceutical company's unrestrained greed for profit and the elimination of the public's easy access to effectual natural remedies that would "rob" the drug companies of exorbitant profits. As an example of this he cites his research into the simple use of vitamin C, in concert with other substances, for the virtual elimination of cardiovascular disease from test subjects.
Rath claims that after his clinically-controlled therapy produced astounding results in the reduction of cardiovascular disease and, subsequently being endorsed by Linus Pauling, the Roche Corporation, anticipating an increased demand for vitamin C, artificially elevated the price of its raw materials for production of that vitamin. This action on the part of Roche, "the German Bayer Corporation and the U.S. firm Archer-Daniels-Midland (ADM)," resulted, Rath claims, in the formation of a cartel for the purpose of "criminal price fixing." This claim is strongly substantiated by the U.S. government's subsequent prosecution of ADM for that very crime.
The New York Times, January 30, 1997, reported that federal prosecutors had unearthed "the most comprehensive case of criminal price fixing in the history of the United States"--so vast in nature that it affected "literally hundreds of products and almost every consumer." During the litigation a key witness charged that the corporate policies of price fixing were established in the highest echelons of Roche, Bayer and the other pharmaceutical companies involved. They apparently even assigned to groups within the corporate structure a form of code names for their work. The upper management referred to themselves as "the masters" with subordinates being labeled as "sherpas," apparently named after the Tibetan porters that pack supplies for mountain climbing expeditions in the Himalayas. Guilty verdicts were handed down for the three companies involved.
Because of that verdict, Rath acerbically declares, "everyone can describe Roche, Bayer, and the other pharmaceutical companies publicly as what they are: criminals, those who have no scruples to profiteer at the expense of the health and lives of millions of people. If this information had been promoted instead of sabotaged," Rath claims, "more than 60 million lives could have been spared from unnecessary preventable heart attacks and strokes....At the same time [those companies] made sure that they cannibalized the process by selling the raw material at prices that have almost doubled the retail price for these vitamin products."
The ultimate result that the octopus-like grasp of the UN's Codex Commission will have upon the world health community, according to many, can be seen in Germany and other European countries.
John Hammell, Legislative Advocate for the Life Extension Foundation, an expansive organization that claims responsibility for such as the introduction of melatonin and DHEA in the U.S., relates his experience in researching availability of OTC (over-the-counter) drugs in Germany. He calculates that the quantity of vitamin C he personally consumes each year, in the United States (approximately $657 worth), would cost an astounding $24,820 if purchased over-the-counter in Germany--so ironclad is the control by the pharmaceutical giants of Europe over the health supplement market.
"In a typical German health food store," observes Hammell, "you simply don't find the shelves filled with vitamin products that you'll find in the US, Canada, the UK or Australia....COMPLETELY ABSENT," Hammell exclaims, "are the row upon row of shelves filled with supplement products!"
"So just where can you get supplements in Germany?" Hammell asks, somewhat rhetorically. "The answer is that you really can't!"
The German recommendation to the Codex Commission, entitled the "Proposed Draft Guideline for Dietary Supplements," according to Hammell, "calls for the following:
When Mathias Rath determined to go public and deal directly with the media informing them of the advances made in his research he claims that,
"The pharmaceutical companies reacted immediately through the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) of the United States. A nationwide campaign was started with the aim of prohibiting all health claims in relation to vitamins and other natural substances. This does not surprise anyone who knows that all reviewers and advisors of the FDA are essentially all paid employees of the pharmaceutical companies. (This fact became public knowledge in connection with Thomas Moore's book, Deadly Medicine, revealing the infamous role of the FDA in connection with unsafe anti-arrhythmic drugs that cost the lives of over 50,000 Americans)."
This claim was corroborated in Thomas J. Moore's book, Deadly Medicine (Simon & Schuster, March 1995) in which Moore documented the FDA's participation in the approval of certain drugs for the treatment of heart arrhythmias--drugs he claims cost the lives of 50,000 Americans, calling it "America's worst drug disaster." The result of the attempt by the drug giants to make law through the FDA to fortify their market positions resulted in what Newsweek called the "largest movement since the Vietnam war."
Rath and others exuberantly proclaimed a great defeat for the multinational pharmaceutical companies by citing the Nutritional Health and Education Act passed into law by Congress in 1994. "From a historical point of view," Rath says, "a popular movement of millions of Americans had just inflicted upon the pharmaceutical companies and their interest groups the worst defeat in their history."
If one closely scrutinizes the nature of the beast over which Dr. Rath has proclaimed victory, might they not question if his elation is severely myopic in nature? Is it ever realistic to believe that those immense corporations, whose quarterly report is their bible, will allow a gnat to tackle a bull?
The scientist/physician does, however, inject a grim note of caution into his presentation:
"Unfortunately...under the leadership of the German pharmaceutical companies and the political auspices of the German government, the international pharmaceutical consortium started its, thus far, last offensive. They activated a so-called expert commission of the United Nations with the mysterious name, 'Codex Alimentarius.' This commission met in Bonn, Germany, in October, 1996, in a clandestine meeting under German presidency and guidance."
Against the votes of the United States, Canada, the Netherlands, and representatives of other countries, the German delegation pushed through the following decisions:
Practical translation of the above: "If you, Microsoft, Volkswagen and Sony, do not support the information boycott for vitamins, we will make sure within the framework of the Codex law, that you will not be able to sell your software, cars, and electronic products, in other countries." (ibid).
When it was discovered that animals do not die of heart disease simply because their bodies, unlike humans, produce their own vitamin C, it was predicted that the research would topple a billion-dollar industry dealing in "cholesterol-lowering drugs, beta blockers, calcium antagonists, and other cardiovascular drugs....The profits of the pharmaceutical companies during the past 25 years," the doctor observes, "were on average 500% percent above [those] of all industry branches. In other words, the business with ongoing diseases is the most lucrative business in the world...."
In the continuing international attempt to control the private citizen's access to natural remedies, according to the National Health Federation, a consumer advocate group, the Codex Commission for Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Use (NFSDU) has received proposals from the Canadian delegation to:
Concurrently, the Germans placed a proposal before the NFSDU that would, as previously discussed, "eliminate the international trade in high potency vitamins and minerals by reclassifying them as drugs...not foods." (ibid).
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has expressed its position on the Codex controversy in FDA Docket No. 94D-0300, also published in the Federal Register for 1995, Volume 60, Number 196, entitled, "International Harmonization; Policy on Standards":
"It is the intent of this policy to enable FDA to: continue to participate in international standards activities that assist it in implementing statutory provisions...increase its efforts to harmonize its regulatory requirements with those of foreign governments, including setting new standards....
"The development of an international standard that achieves the agency's public health objectives is generally...given a higher priority than the development of a domestic standard....Where a relevant international standard exists or completion is imminent, it will generally be used in preference to a domestic standard....">
Notice the profuse usage of the term "standard" in the FDA's text. Though it appears to the casual observer that the enforcement of these standards may be loose and even voluntary, to those involved in the making of administrative law, compliance with an established "standard" is not optional. These agencies use carefully chosen words to insure that the legal (not common) meaning of their laws is secured.
Black's Law Dictionary, sixth edition, defines a standard as, "A type, model, or combination of elements accepted as correct or perfect. A measure or rule applicable in legal cases..." (emphasis supplied). The creation of standards comprises a large part of administrative law, one of the three main legal categories in this country--the other two being statutory and case law.
CODEX is of Latin derivation meaning a codified set of standards or laws (no "guidelines and recommendations" can survive that filter).
ALIMENTARIUS is from "aliment" according to Webster, "pertaining to aliment or food" as in the "alimentary canal, the entire channel, extending from the mouth to the anus, by which aliments are conveyed through the body, and the useless parts ejected."
That, in short, is what the United Nations wants control over; everything from one end of the human body to the other.
Should it be a surprise that the name of the UN commission should sound "mysterious"? Apparently they realized the potential consequences had they simply presented the world with a clear, truthful translation of their name: "Food Law Commission." Give it a name from a dead language- -Latin--that is native to no nation in this world today and everybody remains contentedly ignorant--and sick.
As well as making laws to bind and restrict the freedoms of the American citizens' right to determine their own health practices, the United States' involvement in the UN's Codex Alimentarius program appears to raise a very serious constitutional dilemma. Article II of the U.S. Constitution defines the powers and duties of the President. In Section 2 of that article it is stated, "He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur...."
The legal definition of "treaty", again according to Black's Law Dictionary, is "a compact made between two or more independent nations with a view to the public welfare."
No less than thirty-two times within the FDA's document outlining "International Harmonization" is reference given to public welfare worded as a concern for the public's health. Does not the FDA's creation of binding legal agreements with the foreign entities comprising the United Nations, by even the strictest definition, constitute defacto treaties? And if so, where was the "advise and consent of the Senate" to the President and a concurring vote of "two-thirds of the Senators present"?
Does it not become clear that those forging these chains of administrative law about the citizens of this nation have no intention of allowing any law, even the constitution, to place any constraints or restraints upon them? They see themselves as above and immune to them, not by authority of the constitution, but in spite of it. Their success in this endeavor appears to clearly lie in the apathy of America's people. Indeed, not in American indifference alone, as witnessed by the attitude of the German people in allowing, as has been presented, the immense multinational pharmaceutical companies to impose their will upon German citizens.
Dr. Rath encouraged those attending his presentation at Chemnitz to sign the Petition for Vitamin Freedom, talk to "friends, neighbors and colleagues about the Codex Commission." He also makes the statement, "There is no doubt in my mind that, together, we will prevent the unethical plans of the pharma-cartel."
The "creature" Dr. Rath insists can be defeated by a few signatures has, for centuries, anticipated virtually every such assault upon its agenda. It cares not for the votes of men at polling booths, or if the stroke of every pen of every working individual in every nation on earth is in opposition to it.
In a metaphorical chess game that would make Deep Blue appear no smarter than a pinball machine, those driving the globalist movement sit astride world power, patiently observing, controlling, manipulating and executing its ancient blueprint. It has never known a setback or impediment to its progress for which it did not plan or allow with malevolent purpose.
Another Force, however, a Force patient, purposeful and unstoppable has decreed, "Hitherto shalt thou come, but no further...." (Job 38:11). That same benevolent Force also foresaw and proclaimed the final disposition of the creature driving the globalist movement:
"...he shall plant the tabernacles of his palace between the seas in the glorious holy mountain; yet he shall come to his end, and none shall help him." Daniel 11:45.
Disclaimer: APFN is not responsible for the accuracy of
material on 'The Winds'
and does not necessarily endorse the views expressed within their web pages.
This site is in the public domain.