LONGECITY

* 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).

http://www.naturalne...ood_health.html

True or a load of BS?

2008.

So no.

They probably called it off because the Mayan calender was going to end the world anyway.
Edited by hav, 23 June 2013 - 11:40 PM.

norepinephrine:
As I understand it they purportedly did try to get this bill passed but failed and they have now gone back to the drawing board.

Hav:

Are you sure you haven't just dismissed the possibility as its too horrible to contemplate, rather than doing a little digging as you normally would when working on your stack?

What was this? Homeopathy, Hitler, and Monsanto teaming up to rule the world?

I imagine it was a test of our elected officials to see how much they actually knew about this stuff.

What was this? Homeopathy, Hitler, and Monsanto teaming up to rule the world?

I imagine it was a test of our elected officials to see how much they actually knew about this stuff.

Yes there are obviously a number of crazies that have gotten hold of this story, but where there is smoke there may be fire.
The problem is sorting through all the BS in search of some truth may take months and one cannot get away from the fact that the time would probably be better spent elsewhere.
I was hoping someone here may already have done some digging rather than dismissing this out of hand.

The thing that worries me is that all the wisps of smoke seem to be interconnected:
1: Genetically modify food plants so that they do not produce viable seed so that all seed has to be bought from 1 source and all food is less healthy.
2: Kill off bees so that all natural plant species die out, wiping out the supps we use making us more dependant in Big Pharma, less healthy and see 1 again.
3: Control vitamins and minerals so that they are only available via prescription and only in sub therapeutic doses again as a means of having an unhealthy population dependant on Big Pharma for 'cures'.

Nothing will get the whole world saying 'yes sir, no sir, three bags full sir' to you better than being the person standing between the survival or starvation of everyone.
We can and have survived without electricity and fuel, but not without food.

The verifiable info on seed banks capable of withstanding nuclear war and asteroid strikes ties into this.
It also begs the question: What is the point of protecting seed from every species if no one will be around to benefit from it??
ie: There is no point in building bunkers for seed to survive in unless there are also bunkers for humans to survive in. Unless said seed is simply a means of having a stock of genes to play with when all other plants besides GMOs have died out..?

Joining the dots has me a little worried..?
Edited by Logic, 24 June 2013 - 10:22 AM.

Yes this is true (not sure about lowering the RDA of vitamins to ridiculous amounts) but the rest about banning supplements and making them Rx medicine is true.
There's a good article about that here : http://www.guardian....h.lifeandhealth
Hopefully it was rejected but I'm afraid they will soon come back with their ultimate evil plan, imagine a world where they could control all your food and supplements, this would mean unlimited profits for them as they would be able to create chronic diseases.

This is what they're able to do with GMOs :


Hopefully GMOs are still forbidden in the EU on the human consumption market though certain varieties of GMOs are allowed to be used for animal feeding (which isn't very reassuring), GMOs must be labelled if their content exceeds 0,9% of the product and in France there's a biological agriculture label which guarrantees no GMOs were used for animal feeding (at least not more than 0,9%).
But I'm scared that with that transatlantic agreement between the EU and the US, GMOs might be soon allowed on our soil, plus this agreement will kill European market because american products are much cheaper, cheaper yes but not healthy at all.

You're right to be worried about that, GMOs seeds can spread all around the world very easily and contaminate other crops, North and South America crops are already screwed up, hope this doesn't happen here.

The best thing for Europe to do is band together to produce cheaper food themselves. Make cheaper food with higher yield that's more healthy. It's possible and good competition from ethical companies could crush the evil intent of companies seeking to use food for epic birth control/eugenics. Though last I heard there were still countries in Europe that thought highly of eugenics despite WWII.

It's hard not to subscribe to some conspiracy seeing the way our government votes...

Probably the best info on this is from the Alliance for Natural Health.
It seems the plan is to make it too expensive and difficult to get clearance for herbal products and eliminate access to them in a slow, methodical, one by one way, so there wont be an uproar.
This really is worrying if all true.

Alliance for Natural Health:
http://www.anh-europe.org/

EU herb law challenge:
http://www.anh-europe.org/node/3113

Frequently asked questions about EU herbal registrations and bans:
http://www.anh-europ...ations-and-bans

Codex Alimentarius: government and corporate control of our food supply:
http://www.anh-europ...campaigns/codex

ENDANGERED EU HERB' LIST:
http://www.anh-europ...ist-Feb2011.pdf

Not entirely out of bounds. The FDA banned pyridoxamine because a drug manufacturer wanted to use it in a drug, despite the fact that trials hadn't even started yet. Even though that manufacturer canceled its trials, pyridoxamine is still banned. Apparently, the FDA considers anything researched as a drug to be a drug, forever. Easily done to the rest of your supplements. Like statins and CoQ10.

The other alternative is making supplements available only by prescription. I believe Canada tried to pass a law doing that. Adding a $50 or $75 doctor bill on top of the $10 for the supplement itself is a great way to make supplements economically unviable. You ban supplements by putting their manufacturers out of business.

Lots of supplements seem to be banned in Canada, including numerous amino acids, vitamin K over a small amount, etc.
Edited by randian, 30 June 2013 - 10:07 PM.

I think at that point, you'd be going to your doc to get a stack of supplements at a time and having the benefit of the advise would be worth it. That's sort of what it's like being a member over at Life Extension (LEF). You get to talk to doctors for free, but they don't prescribe anything, they just make recommendations and go over your regimen. I imagine that insurance would start covering "supplement" visits to your doctor a few times a year... though I still don't like that model... sometimes it take 10-20 visits to find something that works. I suppose, rather than prescribing one supplement for something, your doc would clear you for a list of supplements that you could now try for efficacy. That would be a good model. Hopefully insurance will cover personal spectrometers for everyone so we all know as much as possible about what's going on in our bodies.

I think at that point, you'd be going to your doc to get a stack of supplements at a time and having the benefit of the advise would be worth it.

Is the benefit worth the cost? Now you have the problem of finding a doctor that

a) won't be churning visits to generate fees and waste your time, and
b) will prescribe > RDA doses (RDA being notoriously low in many cases), and
c) will prescribe as broad a spectrum of supplements as you want

Not exactly easy, given the conventional medical wisdom that supplements are at best mostly useless, perhaps outright dangerous. I've certainly read plenty of posts here regarding the negative reaction of doctors to supplementation.

I'm saying to prevent the things you listed, that doc will have to prescribe a group of supplements that do the same things. This wouldn't have to be a doctor per say, but rather a certified nutritionist that would work along side a pharmacy or in their own practice. The fees for a nutritionist would obviously be lower given that their degree would be a BS or BA rather than an MD.

Gee, perhaps a black market in vitamins will start happening... If there are consumers there will always be dealers.

Gee, perhaps a black market in vitamins will start happening... If there are consumers there will always be dealers.

Yeah, but then we'll really have to worry about what goes into our supplements... Who knows what crap dealers will be "cutting" their supplements with and how would we know we weren't taking capsules of sand or flour?

Gee, perhaps a black market in vitamins will start happening... If there are consumers there will always be dealers.

Yeah, but then we'll really have to worry about what goes into our supplements... Who knows what crap dealers will be "cutting" their supplements with and how would we know we weren't taking capsules of sand or flour?

How do we know we aren't taking capsules of sand or flour now? Those are actually the least of my concerns. I really don't want to be taking heavy metals or organic toxins. The supplement industry is largely unregulated, so we're all on our own.

Senator Durbin wants to outlaw supplements!
http://www.longecity...aw-supplements/

Eek! I have been downvoted by 3 whole points.
I am so very worried about my reputation that I will now stop posting this sort of thing. NOT!!!

How about posting your objections here..?

How do we know we aren't taking capsules of sand or flour now? Those are actually the least of my concerns. I really don't want to be taking heavy metals or organic toxins. The supplement industry is largely unregulated, so we're all on our own.

How likely is it that the supplements we buy are manufactured by subsidiaries of drug companies? Which supplement company does Phizer own, for example? Or Reckitt? Or P&G? Bayer owns what? Does anyone benefit more from the clinical and marketing success of resveratrol than GlaxoSmithKline?

And as much as we may not want to hear it, the reason most nutritional interventions, like high dose vitamins, are not marketed as medicines is because the evidence does not support their pharmacological claims.

And as much as we may not want to hear it, the reason most nutritional interventions, like high dose vitamins, are not marketed as medicines is because the evidence does not support their pharmacological claims.

How did Aspirin come about sthira?
Did Pharma ignore Willow Bark extract because there were no studies on it, or did they follow the Anecdotal Evidence, do studies on it, and then change the active ingredient/molecule to make it patentable..?

A similar thing has happened to Curcumin just recently:
http://www.longecity...umin-published/
and I am certain many other drugs coming from Pharma are based on natural substances with the molecule changed to make it patentable.

While I agree that vitamins in general, taken in excess do more harm than good, Vitamin C seems to be an exception, with yet more anecdotal evidence (and possibly some studies) that High Dose IV Vitamin C can cure Poleo, Hepatitis, Viral Encephalitis, Rheumatic Fever, etc.

http://www.tomlevymd...Z.Sept.2010.pdf

I suggest adding an atom of some sort to Vit C and patenting it to get any further studies done on it. I do hope that the added atom doesn't cause to many unhideable side effects...

http://www.thedcasit...commentary.html
Edited by Logic, 09 July 2013 - 06:07 PM.

How do we know we aren't taking capsules of sand or flour now? Those are actually the least of my concerns. I really don't want to be taking heavy metals or organic toxins. The supplement industry is largely unregulated, so we're all on our own.

How likely is it that the supplements we buy are manufactured by subsidiaries of drug companies? Which supplement company does Phizer own, for example? Or Reckitt? Or P&G? Bayer owns what? Does anyone benefit more from the clinical and marketing success of resveratrol than GlaxoSmithKline?

And as much as we may not want to hear it, the reason most nutritional interventions, like high dose vitamins, are not marketed as medicines is because the evidence does not support their pharmacological claims.

The supplements we take are almost exclusively manufactured by companies that are not connected to Big Pharma, and in some cases (e.g. LEF, Sardi, etc) are openly hostile to them. GSK lost their ass on resveratrol (Sirtris).

The problem with these conspiracy theories is that there is precious little evidence to support them. Just because something makes sense to you doesn't make it true. Now we're talking about a multi-lifetime conspiracy theory to sicken all humans, except (presumably) the elite. Why does that sound like something Dan Brown might write?

The supplements we take are almost exclusively manufactured by companies that are not connected to Big Pharma, and in some cases (e.g. LEF, Sardi, etc) are openly hostile to them.

They should be openly hostile. Look at what happened to pyridoxamine, for example.

Gee, perhaps a black market in vitamins will start happening... If there are consumers there will always be dealers.

Yeah, but then we'll really have to worry about what goes into our supplements... Who knows what crap dealers will be "cutting" their supplements with and how would we know we weren't taking capsules of sand or flour?

How do we know we aren't taking capsules of sand or flour now? Those are actually the least of my concerns. I really don't want to be taking heavy metals or organic toxins.

Yet the history of the supplement industry shows that such problems are not prevalent. And logically it doesn't make sense that companies would knowingly poison their customers.

The supplement industry is largely unregulated, so we're all on our own.

This is often claimed, but is incorrect. "Regulated" has a legal definition and a "common" definition. Supplement companies ARE regulated by the FDA, just not under the same requirements of pharmaceuticals. But medical devices don't have the same regulations as pharmaceuticals. And thank God, because we would have no supplement industry to discuss if supplements were required to be "approved" like drugs. The common definition of "regulated" is roughly equivalent to "FDA approved".

How do we know we aren't taking capsules of sand or flour now? Those are actually the least of my concerns. I really don't want to be taking heavy metals or organic toxins.

Yet the history of the supplement industry shows that such problems are not prevalent. And logically it doesn't make sense that companies would knowingly poison their customers.

How do you know this? Because people aren't dropping like flies? Fly-by-night supplement companies can quickly fold up and resurface with a new name. Of course they won't knowingly poison their customers, but some of them would be happy to cut corners and trust their dodgy Chinese suppliers' CoA. Some of them simply lack the technical expertise to do it right, even if their heart is in the right place.

The supplement industry is largely unregulated, so we're all on our own.

This is often claimed, but is incorrect. "Regulated" has a legal definition and a "common" definition. Supplement companies ARE regulated by the FDA, just not under the same requirements of pharmaceuticals. But medical devices don't have the same regulations as pharmaceuticals. And thank God, because we would have no supplement industry to discuss if supplements were required to be "approved" like drugs. The common definition of "regulated" is roughly equivalent to "FDA approved".

There is a huge chasm that lies between FDA-style efficacy/safety requirements that entail human trials, which is what the pharmaceutical industry faces, and the sort of regulation that some people would appreciate in the supplement world. Specifically, a lot of people would like to know that their supplements are what they claim to be, in the quantity claimed, and that they don't contain significant levels of toxins. That is trivial compared to what is required of Pharma. In theory, there is some level of regulation of supplements, but in practice, it seems like all they care about is that the supplement vendors aren't making health claims.

The supplements we take are almost exclusively manufactured by companies that are not connected to Big Pharma, and in some cases (e.g. LEF, Sardi, etc) are openly hostile to them.

I think that's changing. Recently the pharmaceutical company Reckitt outbid Bayer to purchase Schiff nutrition for $1.4 billion. This marks the third large acquisition of its type this year. In February pharmaceutical giant Pfizer (makers of the popular multivitamin Centrum) boosted their already $1 billion a year nutritional supplements pipeline by buying out the maker of the popular Emergen C brand, Alacer Corp, for $360 million. Proctor and Gamble are expanding into the nutritional supplement world with their $250 million takeover of the organic supplement makers New Chapter.

GSK lost their ass on resveratrol (Sirtris).

On the other hand, GSK is getting their money back on Lovaza. As you know, Lovaza is high concentration fish oil (ethyl ester). Annual revenues for Lovaza are around $1billion a year.

The problem with these conspiracy theories is that there is precious little evidence to support them. Just because something makes sense to you doesn't make it true. Now we're talking about a multi-lifetime conspiracy theory to sicken all humans, except (presumably) the elite. Why does that sound like something Dan Brown might write?

You're right about conspiracy theories. But this is capitalism at work, not conspiracy. With the supplement industry it's less about making people sick and more about making money by perverting science. You'll agree that unscrupulous supplement companies that give false hope to sick people is wrong. And the acquisition rate of the supplement companies by the drug industry is increasing. These companies want you to take drugs, and they also want you to take daily supplements regardless of evidence that their stuff works.

Yeah, it probably is changing now. Supplements represent a large market opportunity, not to mention a valuable alternative pharmacopeia that is almost entirely unburdened by regulation. I can see that it would represent an attractive target for Big Pharma. I think you're right that this is all just capitalism at work.

How did Aspirin come about sthira?
Did Pharma ignore Willow Bark extract because there were no studies on it, or did they follow the Anecdotal Evidence, do studies on it, and then change the active ingredient/molecule to make it patentable..?

I think something like 40-million Americans take aspirin every day? But does it provide any benefits to healthy people? We can both cite evidence one way, and then cite it the other way. It's an uncertainty whether low dose aspirin works as it's marketed. And yet baby aspirin appears to carry the risks of gastric microbleeds and renal damage. Eating more fruits and vegetables seems like a better idea.

And as much as we may not want to hear it, the reason most nutritional interventions, like high dose vitamins, are not marketed as medicines is because the evidence does not support their pharmacological claims.

How did Aspirin come about sthira?
Did Pharma ignore Willow Bark extract because there were no studies on it, or did they follow the Anecdotal Evidence, do studies on it, and then change the active ingredient/molecule to make it patentable..?

A similar thing has happened to Curcumin just recently:
http://www.longecity...umin-published/
and I am certain many other drugs coming from Pharma are based on natural substances with the molecule changed to make it patentable.

While I agree that vitamins in general, taken in excess do more harm than good, Vitamin C seems to be an exception, with yet more anecdotal evidence (and possibly some studies) that High Dose IV Vitamin C can cure Poleo, Hepatitis, Viral Encephalitis, Rheumatic Fever, etc.

http://www.tomlevymd...Z.Sept.2010.pdf

I suggest adding an atom of some sort to Vit C and patenting it to get any further studies done on it. I do hope that the added atom doesn't cause to many unhideable side effects...

http://www.thedcasit...commentary.html

!O_O! C60-VitC!

How did Aspirin come about sthira?
Did Pharma ignore Willow Bark extract because there were no studies on it, or did they follow the Anecdotal Evidence, do studies on it, and then change the active ingredient/molecule to make it patentable..?

I think something like 40-million Americans take aspirin every day? But does it provide any benefits to healthy people? We can both cite evidence one way, and then cite it the other way. It's an uncertainty whether low dose aspirin works as it's marketed. And yet baby aspirin appears to carry the risks of gastric microbleeds and renal damage. Eating more fruits and vegetables seems like a better idea.

Aspirin has been shown to prevent heart attacks in low dose IIRC. That's life extension for some.