From John C. Hammell <jham@iahf.com>
http://educate-yourself.org/cn/codexnightmareclosing15nov04.shtml
November 15, 2004

Forward courtesy of Slim Spurling <Acuvacset@aol.com >

Slim I know that youve been on this for years. Its getting close enough that more of us are jumping aboard. What's the status where you are now? Cheers Merlin

----- Original Message -----
From: Geoff Woods
To: Merlin Beltain
Sent: Monday, November 15, 2004 7:57 AM
Subject: [Fwd: WHO + FAO GO THRU MOTIONS OF "SOLICITING PUBLIC INPUT" FOR "DEVELOPMENT" OF "SAFE UPPER LEVELS FOR NUTRIENTS"]

Merlin -- I think I mentioned this guy to you as a potential speaker when we had an executive meeting at Harrison last May. This Codex thing is a very real issue -- natural supplements will no longer be available unless the challenge by the Alliance for Natural Health (UK) succeeds in overturning the EU directive which is due to become law next August. If it's a European law how can it affect us here in Canada and the USA? Through the vehicle of the World Trade Organization, which ensures trade laws are "harmonised" in all its member countries. There is no appeal, except to a WTO tribunal which is set up to ensure the appeal fails.

Note that John Hammell, of the IAHF, lives in Point Roberts.

-------- Original Message --------

Subject:

WHO + FAO GO THRU MOTIONS OF "SOLICITING PUBLIC INPUT" FOR "DEVELOPMENT" OF "SAFE UPPER LEVELS FOR NUTRIENTS"
Date: 13 Nov 2004 21:35:09 -0000

In pushing the Codex vitamin standard through to completion at step 8, Codex just passed a framework, intending to "fill in the blanks" on allowable potency levels for vitamins "later." (One of the sleazy NWO tactics of incrementalism used to sidestep a public backlash.)

They've convened a "working group on Risk Analysis" chaired by Australia for that purpose.
This working group will be interracting with a WHO panel described below which is currently pretending to solicit input from us til December 10th

(See details below, but first read the information from two key health freedom fighters, Brian Leibovitz, PhD and Alan Gaby, MD who expose the scientific fraudulence of what WHO and CODEX are attempting to foist off on us.)

WHY THIS IS HAPPENING:

Please realize WHY this is happening: its an intentional effort to cull our numbers. Social Security (and similar entitlement programs world wide) are bankrupt. A Washington Times article dated November 6th http://www.citizen.org/documents/Final2JulyOctoberHarm.PDF indicates that Social Security has $11 Trillion in long term debt. With 77 million baby boomers on the verge of retiring, massive social upheaval could occur unless our numbers are culled, and the government amps up its level of control considerably.

This is why we're seeing a flood of legislation being enacted in the aftermath of the fraudulent 911 Commission Report to put biometric identifiers into our drivers licenses, passports, and to increase surveillance of citizens via data mining- its part of a carefully orchestrated Eugenics Agenda- an intention to control us completely from Tit- to Tomb. The world's ruling elite think they own us.

Their attitude is that they've monetized our birth certificates which are being held as collateral by the International Monetary Fund against an unpayable debt, a debt made unpayable by the fractional reserve banking system foisted off on us by the Federal Reserve.

I will be discussing this at the emergency Anti Codex meeting at ACAM on November 19th in the hope of generating more widespread awareness of this threat and what to do about it, and after I return from that trip I'll be starting my own weekly radio show. Please continue to donate to IAHF via 556 Boundary Bay Rd. Point Roberts WA 98281 USA and via paypal at http://www.iahf.com Please read this carefully and forward it widely:

WHAT PEOPLE IN THE US, CANADA, MEXICO, CENTRAL and SOUTH AMERICA CAN DO TO STOP HARM-ONIZATION

One thing is clear to me: Americans and others in our hemisphere must work very hard in opposition to the FTAA (Free Trade Area of the Americas)- see http://www.stoptheftaa.org because that will be the primary weapon used to try to harmonize our dietary supplement laws to this mindless emerging international "standard."

Yesterday I read a commentary about the FTAA and the Sanitary Phytosanitary Measures Agreement- which is how the USA is roped into harmonizing its vitamin laws to an international standard. If you'd like to you can read that in this HARMONIZATION ALERT http://www.citizen.org/documents/Final2JulyOctoberHarm.PDF

Before you examine the mindless message below from our would be masters at the so called "World Health Organization" whose intention is clearly to limit our access high potency vitamins, minerals, and other dietary supplements for eugenics purposes while going through the motions of "being fair" as they go about screwing us, read these article from people on OUR SIDE who have EXPOSED this insanity:

1) The ABC's of Confustion as a Weapon: by Brian Leibovitz, PhD former editor of the Journal of Applied Nutrition, former editor of the Journal of Optimal Nutrition
committed suicide in part due to extreme depression over the coming global genocide via CODEX blocking consumer access to nutrients:
http://www.iahf.com/leibovitz/jon.html#CONFUSE

Leibovitz gives Dr.John Hathcock (then of the FDA) a "BS" or "Bad Science" Award in his editorial in which he criticizes Hathcock for stringing together the largest number of inane acronyms ever strung together in a supposedly "scientific" article as Leibovitz creates such confusing and worthless concepts as "NOAEL" (No Observable Adverse Effect Level) and "LOAEL" (Lowest Observable Adverse Effect Level) and others. Leibovitz criticizes Hathcock for misextrapolating from a toxicology risk assessment formula originally intended to be used in the assessment of toxic chemical substances and misapplying them to SAFE NUTRIENTS.

The problem vitamin consumers world wide face today is that Hathcock's bad science, (originally developed when he worked at FDA), is now being used as the "basis" to establish "one size fits all" allowable potencies that totally IGNORE biochemical individuality. Hathcock as moved from the FDA to the Council for Responsible Nutrition, the pharma dominated vitamin trade association that has done such a good job of pulling the wool over the eyes of its vitamin company members vis a vis CODEX.

2) Safe Upper Levels for Nutritional Supplements: One Giant Step Backward- by Alan Gaby, MD http://www.iahf.com/20040127.html
In this article, which was published in the Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine Volume 18 Third & Fourth Quarters, 2003 Numbers 3 & 4, Gaby exposes the scientific fraudulence of a report generated by the UK's "Expert Group on Vitamins and Minerals" (one of the groups cited by the WHO as being directly involved in their deliberations for creating global allowable "Safe Upper Levels")

THE MAIN SUBJECT OF THIS EMAIL:

WHO + FAO ANNOUNCE "NUTRIENT RISK ASSESSMENT PROJECT TO DEFINE SCIENCE BASED- INTERNATIONALLY APPLICABLE STANDARD"
http://www.who.int/ipcs/highlights/nutrientraproject/en/

Background Paper Including Questions They're Pretending to Solicit Public Input On (To Attempt to Give the Public Appearance of "Fairness" and "Transparency")
http://www.who.int/ipcs/highlights/en/nutrient_background.pdf

Nonsensical Questions they're pretending to ask for "input" on: (Deadline of December 10th, '2004)

QUESTIONS: REQUEST FOR COMMENT

As a result of the considerations in this Background Paper and in anticipation of convening a technical workshop on nutrient risk assessment, FAO/WHO are seeking input on several key issues related to the development of an international approach for nutrient risk assessment.

Response to the questions below are being accepted electronically through 10 December 2004.

(1) The Background Paper discusses the possibility that hazard identification and hazard characterization have global relevance, while exposure assessment and risk characterization are relevant to populations. If such a conceptual framework for the four steps is appropriate, then scientific principals could be organized and considered along these same lines.

Question (1)(a) Is the distinction between global relevanace and population relevance for the 4 risk assessment steps a meaningful distincition for the purposes of developing an international risk nutrient risk assessment approach? (Please indicate why or why not.)

Question (1) (b) If so, please provide specific suggestions about how best to further articulate and made good use of the differences in identifying the scientific principles for nutrient risk assessment.

(2) Hazard identification and characterization involve a number of decision points that require scientific judgement in order to derive a UL. Please provide input as to how guidelines for these judgements can be developed for the following decision points:

Question (2)(a) Criteria for the evaluation of the quality and utility of relevant scientific evidence.

Question (2)(b) Extrapolation to various age, gender groups

Question (2) (c) Determination and use of uncertainty factors.

Question (2) (d) Other

(3) The conduct of exposure assessment and risk characterization also requires sound scientific principles that can be applied to the various decision points, including but not limited to compilation and collection of intake data and decision making for summarizing the potential for harm.

Question (3) (a) Please provide input on general scientific principals relevant to the process of determining exposure for a nutrient or related substance.

Question (3) (b) Please provide input on general scientific principles for the charictarization of the severity and degree to which intakes exceed the UL or other aspects of risk characterization.

(4) The Background Paper reflects a "thought process" and is intended to inform the longer process for the development of a technical expert workshop. Clearly the process will benefit from additional input.

Question (4) (a) Please provide comments on other general factors or considerations that could be taken into account during the process of identifying principles for nutrient risk assessment.

Question (4) (b) Please provide other comments on the content of the Background Paper.

If you wish to respond to these questions, please access the Nutrient Risk Assessment Project web page available on the International Programme on Chemical Safety (IPCS) website http://www.who.int/icps/en

CALL FOR INFORMATION

If you are aware of other resources, information or documents that would be useful, we would appreciate your providing them or calling them to our attention. The Call for Information is included on the Nutrient Risk Assessment web page. Persons who wish to submit information are informed that they can forward such submissions to the following address:

ATTN: Nutrient Risk Assessment Project
International Programme on Chemical Safety
World Health Organization
20 Avenue Appia
CH-1211 Geneva 27 Switzerland
or nrproject@who.int

--
For Health Freedom,
John C. Hammell, President
International Advocates for Health Freedom
556 Boundary Bay Road
Point Roberts, WA 98281-8702 USA
http://www.iahf.com
jham@iahf.com
800-333-2553 N.America
360-945-0352 World