http://www.fda.gov/OHRMS/DOCKETS/98f...80-gld0001.pdf

And written into it is this:

"Second, neither the Act nor the PHs Act exempts CAM products from
regulation. This means, for example, if a person decides to produce and
sell raw vegetable juice for use in juice therapy to promote optimal health,
that product is a food subject to the requirements for foods in the Act and
FDA regulations, including the hazard analysis and critical control point
(HACCP) system requirements for juices in 21 CFR part 120. If -the juice
therapy is intended for use as part of a disease treatment regimen instead
of for the general wellness, the vegetable juice would also be subject to
regulation as a drug under the Act."


They want to regulate basically anything you can put in your mouth that can
be digested. And that even includes fresh juices. It sounds bizarre, but
it is actually on the FDA docket looking for approval. Juice bars would be
treated like crack houses. They even are including any herb or spice that
you can grow in a garden. So if you grow peppermint to brew tea that helps
clear head congestion, you are guilty of practicing medicine without a
license.

I am not making this up and I am not exaggerating. It's written into the
proposal.

We have until April 30 to file comments. This proposal is a clear attempt
by drug companies to shut down any and all natural health remedies and
health supplements. Are you taking probiotics like I am? Do you find they
really, really help? Well kiss them goodbye without a doctors prescription
and I do not even have to tell you what the price of things like cranberry
tablets will cost once "regulated" as a drug.

CAM by definition:

The term "complementary and alternative medicine" (CAM) encompasses a wide
array of health care practices, products, and therapies that are distinct
from practices,
products, and therapies used in "conventional" or "allopathic" medicine.
Some forms of
CAM, such as traditional Chinese medicine and Ayurvedic medicine, have been
practiced
for centuries, whereas others, such as electrotherapy, are more recent in
origin.

So that means mud baths, mineral baths, acupuncture, tea therapy and yes,
even aroma therapy.

All of it is lumped together.

Call or write your congressman, today. Read the PDF file, quote the docket
number. If this passes, even vitamin C tablets will be regulated as drugs.

Paul

On Apr 26, 4:28 pm, "Paul M. Cook" >
wrote:
> http://www.fda.gov/OHRMS/DOCKETS/98f...80-gld0001.pdf
>
> And written into it is this:
>
> "Second, neither the Act nor the PHs Act exempts CAM products from
> regulation. This means, for example, if a person decides to produce and
> sell raw vegetable juice for use in juice therapy to promote optimal health,
> that product is a food subject to the requirements for foods in the Act and
> FDA regulations, including the hazard analysis and critical control point
> (HACCP) system requirements for juices in 21 CFR part 120. If -the juice
> therapy is intended for use as part of a disease treatment regimen instead
> of for the general wellness, the vegetable juice would also be subject to
> regulation as a drug under the Act."
>

So, if you sell raw juice because it's yummy and good for
people, it's regulated under HACCP to make sure you don't get
E. coli from it. If you sell raw juice to cure cancer (for
example), it's regulated because things that are supposed to cure
cancer should perhaps actually do so, and those who sell
bogus cancer cures are somewhere between misguided and
evil and need to be prosecuted for fraud.

I'm just not seeing a problem here. Better the FDA should
do its job than just hang around collecting their paychecks,
says I.

Cindy Hamilton

"Cindy Hamilton" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> On Apr 26, 4:28 pm, "Paul M. Cook" >
> wrote:
> > http://www.fda.gov/OHRMS/DOCKETS/98f...80-gld0001.pdf
> >
> > And written into it is this:
> >
> > "Second, neither the Act nor the PHs Act exempts CAM products from
> > regulation. This means, for example, if a person decides to produce and
> > sell raw vegetable juice for use in juice therapy to promote optimal
health,
> > that product is a food subject to the requirements for foods in the Act
and
> > FDA regulations, including the hazard analysis and critical control
point
> > (HACCP) system requirements for juices in 21 CFR part 120. If -the juice
> > therapy is intended for use as part of a disease treatment regimen
instead
> > of for the general wellness, the vegetable juice would also be subject
to
> > regulation as a drug under the Act."
> >
>
> So, if you sell raw juice because it's yummy and good for
> people, it's regulated under HACCP to make sure you don't get
> E. coli from it. If you sell raw juice to cure cancer (for
> example), it's regulated because things that are supposed to cure
> cancer should perhaps actually do so, and those who sell
> bogus cancer cures are somewhere between misguided and
> evil and need to be prosecuted for fraud.
>
> I'm just not seeing a problem here. Better the FDA should
> do its job than just hang around collecting their paychecks,
> says I.


What you're missing is the fact that if enacted the changes would mean that
if you wanted to acquire supplements for your health, say an herb for liver
health, you'd have to go to a doctor and good luck getting most doctors to
go along with natural "medicines" like green tea. Nowhere does it say
anything about food safety at all. If you can make a health claim, like
"orange juice is good for a cold" it clearly states that you are practicing
medicine.

What it is is the drug companies targeting a multi-billion dollar industry
which competes with them. It is all about how the FDA is owned by
pharmaceuticals and dopes there bidding to maintain monopoly control along
with monopoly pricing.

Paul

On Apr 27, 2:13 pm, "Paul M. Cook" >
wrote:
> "Cindy Hamilton" > wrote in message
>
> oups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 26, 4:28 pm, "Paul M. Cook" >
> > wrote:
> > >http://www.fda.gov/OHRMS/DOCKETS/98f...80-gld0001.pdf
>
> > > And written into it is this:
>
> > > "Second, neither the Act nor the PHs Act exempts CAM products from
> > > regulation. This means, for example, if a person decides to produce and
> > > sell raw vegetable juice for use in juice therapy to promote optimal
> health,
> > > that product is a food subject to the requirements for foods in the Act
> and
> > > FDA regulations, including the hazard analysis and critical control
> point
> > > (HACCP) system requirements for juices in 21 CFR part 120. If -the juice
> > > therapy is intended for use as part of a disease treatment regimen
> instead
> > > of for the general wellness, the vegetable juice would also be subject
> to
> > > regulation as a drug under the Act."
>
> > So, if you sell raw juice because it's yummy and good for
> > people, it's regulated under HACCP to make sure you don't get
> > E. coli from it. If you sell raw juice to cure cancer (for
> > example), it's regulated because things that are supposed to cure
> > cancer should perhaps actually do so, and those who sell
> > bogus cancer cures are somewhere between misguided and
> > evil and need to be prosecuted for fraud.
>
> > I'm just not seeing a problem here. Better the FDA should
> > do its job than just hang around collecting their paychecks,
> > says I.
>
> What you're missing is the fact that if enacted the changes would mean that
> if you wanted to acquire supplements for your health, say an herb for liver
> health, you'd have to go to a doctor and good luck getting most doctors to
> go along with natural "medicines" like green tea.

If I have something wrong with my liver, I WANT to see a doctor.
If I have nothing wrong with my liver, I don't need any kind of
supplement. You still haven't convinced me there's a problem.

>Nowhere does it say
> anything about food safety at all.

Yes, it does. You quoted it yourself:

"This means, for example, if a person decides to produce and
sell raw vegetable juice for use in juice therapy to promote
optimal
health,
that product is a food subject to the requirements for foods in
the Act
and
FDA regulations, including the hazard analysis and critical
control
point
(HACCP) system requirements for juices in 21 CFR part 120"

HACCP is a food safety system. Oh, and if it isn't about
food, why did you post to rec.food.cooking?

>If you can make a health claim, like
> "orange juice is good for a cold" it clearly states that you are practicing
> medicine.

In fact, orange juice has no effect on a cold. There has been
no proven clinical correlation between ingestion of orange
juice and relief from the symptoms of a cold. (Except that
it falls under the "drink plenty of fluids" recommendation.)

Now, chicken soup--that's another story.


> What it is is the drug companies targeting a multi-billion dollar industry
> which competes with them. It is all about how the FDA is owned by
> pharmaceuticals and dopes there bidding to maintain monopoly control along
> with monopoly pricing.

For me, it's about protecting the American public from
snake-oil salesmen.

Cindy Hamilton

> For me, it's about protecting the American public from
> snake-oil salesmen.


That supposedly is the job of the FTC which is n t supposed to allow all
those penis pill commercials without some form of scientific analysis. It's
pretty apparent you have not been following the "new" FDA of late. You must
have missed the part of the proposal where massage oil was to be included as
a medicine and massage stones as medical devices. How about green tea?
That is "snake oil? If all they want to do is protect against snake oil
then why do they include absolutely every damn think imaginable?

The FDA now protects drug companies, their profits and sometimes their
deadly products, not the American public.

Keep in mind that the FDA is the same agency that:

* Wants to label irradiated foods as "pasteurized."

* Voted to put the deadly drug Vioxx back on the market after tens of
thousands of deaths, even after its own manufacurer pulled it from
pharmacies.

* Raided a church at gunpoint, confiscating biofeedback machines and
charging that they were "practicing medicine" by counseling church members
on issues like depression.

* Openly allows corrupt, "on the take" experts to vote on new drug
approvals, even when those experts are taking money from the same companies
impacted by their votes.

* Allows drug companies to perform their own trials and accepts the
findings without review.

* Aggressively passed legislation that removed requirements for
genetically modified foods to be so labelled

* Refuses to legalize stevia, the safe, natural herbal sweetener that's
used virtually everywhere else in the world. The agenda? Protect the profits
of aspartame and other chemical sweeteners.

* Openly allows the mass poisoning of the public with cancer-causing food
additives such as sodium nitrite.

* Has proposed legislation that shields all drug manufacturers from ALL
liability if the FDA approves a drug. that later turns out to be deadly

* Refuses to enforce its own laws regarding unsafe chemical toxins in
personal care products, allowing perfume and lotion companies to continue
poisoning the public with cancer-causing chemicals that don't even have to
be listed on the label, nor proven safe.

* Ordered the destruction of recipe books that mentioned stevia. (A
campaign to keep the public ignorant of the herb.)

* Does everything in its power to protect drug company profits, including
discrediting herbs, supplements and alternative medicine.

* Knew about the pet food disaster months ago and circled the wagons
around the manufacturers until word got around.

So I rather think you, and everybody else should read that proposal a little
more closely.

Paul

On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 18:13:58 GMT, "Paul M. Cook"
> wrote:

>
>"Cindy Hamilton" > wrote in message
roups.com...
>> On Apr 26, 4:28 pm, "Paul M. Cook" >
>> wrote:
>> > http://www.fda.gov/OHRMS/DOCKETS/98f...80-gld0001.pdf
>> >
>> > And written into it is this:
>> >
>> > "Second, neither the Act nor the PHs Act exempts CAM products from
>> > regulation. This means, for example, if a person decides to produce and
>> > sell raw vegetable juice for use in juice therapy to promote optimal
>health,
>> > that product is a food subject to the requirements for foods in the Act
>and
>> > FDA regulations, including the hazard analysis and critical control
>point
>> > (HACCP) system requirements for juices in 21 CFR part 120. If -the juice
>> > therapy is intended for use as part of a disease treatment regimen
>instead
>> > of for the general wellness, the vegetable juice would also be subject
>to
>> > regulation as a drug under the Act."
>> >
>>
>> So, if you sell raw juice because it's yummy and good for
>> people, it's regulated under HACCP to make sure you don't get
>> E. coli from it. If you sell raw juice to cure cancer (for
>> example), it's regulated because things that are supposed to cure
>> cancer should perhaps actually do so, and those who sell
>> bogus cancer cures are somewhere between misguided and
>> evil and need to be prosecuted for fraud.
>>
>> I'm just not seeing a problem here. Better the FDA should
>> do its job than just hang around collecting their paychecks,
>> says I.
>
>
>What you're missing is the fact that if enacted the changes would mean that
>if you wanted to acquire supplements for your health, say an herb for liver
>health, you'd have to go to a doctor and good luck getting most doctors to
>go along with natural "medicines" like green tea. Nowhere does it say
>anything about food safety at all. If you can make a health claim, like
>"orange juice is good for a cold" it clearly states that you are practicing
>medicine.
>
>What it is is the drug companies targeting a multi-billion dollar industry
>which competes with them. It is all about how the FDA is owned by
>pharmaceuticals and dopes there bidding to maintain monopoly control along
>with monopoly pricing.
>
>Paul
>

i seriously doubt that putting these items under f.d.a. regs means
green tea becomes a prescription item. the f.d.a. already has
jurisdiction over food items.

prove me wrong if you can - preferably not by pointing to a .pdf
document.

your pal,
blake

"blake murphy" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 18:13:58 GMT, "Paul M. Cook"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Cindy Hamilton" > wrote in message
> roups.com...
> >> On Apr 26, 4:28 pm, "Paul M. Cook" >
> >> wrote:
> >> > http://www.fda.gov/OHRMS/DOCKETS/98f...80-gld0001.pdf
> >> >
> >> > And written into it is this:
> >> >
> >> > "Second, neither the Act nor the PHs Act exempts CAM products from
> >> > regulation. This means, for example, if a person decides to produce
and
> >> > sell raw vegetable juice for use in juice therapy to promote optimal
> >health,
> >> > that product is a food subject to the requirements for foods in the
Act
> >and
> >> > FDA regulations, including the hazard analysis and critical control
> >point
> >> > (HACCP) system requirements for juices in 21 CFR part 120. If -the
juice
> >> > therapy is intended for use as part of a disease treatment regimen
> >instead
> >> > of for the general wellness, the vegetable juice would also be
subject
> >to
> >> > regulation as a drug under the Act."
> >> >
> >>
> >> So, if you sell raw juice because it's yummy and good for
> >> people, it's regulated under HACCP to make sure you don't get
> >> E. coli from it. If you sell raw juice to cure cancer (for
> >> example), it's regulated because things that are supposed to cure
> >> cancer should perhaps actually do so, and those who sell
> >> bogus cancer cures are somewhere between misguided and
> >> evil and need to be prosecuted for fraud.
> >>
> >> I'm just not seeing a problem here. Better the FDA should
> >> do its job than just hang around collecting their paychecks,
> >> says I.
> >
> >
> >What you're missing is the fact that if enacted the changes would mean
that
> >if you wanted to acquire supplements for your health, say an herb for
liver
> >health, you'd have to go to a doctor and good luck getting most doctors
to
> >go along with natural "medicines" like green tea. Nowhere does it say
> >anything about food safety at all. If you can make a health claim, like
> >"orange juice is good for a cold" it clearly states that you are
practicing
> >medicine.
> >
> >What it is is the drug companies targeting a multi-billion dollar
industry
> >which competes with them. It is all about how the FDA is owned by
> >pharmaceuticals and dopes there bidding to maintain monopoly control
along
> >with monopoly pricing.
> >
> >Paul
> >
>
> i seriously doubt that putting these items under f.d.a. regs means
> green tea becomes a prescription item. the f.d.a. already has
> jurisdiction over food items.
>
> prove me wrong if you can - preferably not by pointing to a .pdf
> document.

I can very easily prove you wrong, however you're going to have to do some
reading on your own.

What the proposal aims to do is to remove any and all alternative therapies
as an available option. They would label *any* therapy, say juices for
weight loss, as being a medical practice and requiring complete supervision
by a doctor. We all know that most doctors simply do not do alternative
anything - it is a drug made by a pharmaceutical or it is nothing at all. I
treat my bowel condition with effective and safe probiotics. My doctor
literally laughs at the very idea. He says "waste your money all you want"
I ask him what he suggests. He wants me to be on an anti-spasmodic for the
*rest of my life.* It's 60 bucks for a 2 week supply of the stuff and it
does no good at all. Screw that. The probiotics work and work very well
for about 40 bucks a month so can you imagine what people like me will have
to do? I'll have to smuggle the damn things in from Mexico or someplace
else.

The FDA is once again partnering with pharma to restrict choices you have,
safe choices, simply because it cuts into their profit margins. That is THE
only reason they want to extend their control. This is not about lessening
control, it is about vastly expanding the control they already have. As far
as the example of keeping bacteria out of fresh juices, well they already
have complete authority to do just that.

This proposal eliminates your choices and further locks you into the profit
model of drug companies.

Here is the site where you can read the dockets.

http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/default.htm

Now if you want, you can simply Google "fda regulates supplements" That
will give you a huge number of independently written evaluations.

I might add that the proposal period was only offered after the FDA got
caught trying to back door the whole thing in the dead of night.

Paul

On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 19:30:15 GMT, "Paul M. Cook"
> wrote:

>
>"blake murphy" > wrote in message
.. .
>> On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 18:13:58 GMT, "Paul M. Cook"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Cindy Hamilton" > wrote in message
>> roups.com...
>> >> On Apr 26, 4:28 pm, "Paul M. Cook" >
>> >> wrote:
>> >> > http://www.fda.gov/OHRMS/DOCKETS/98f...80-gld0001.pdf
>> >> >
>> >> > And written into it is this:
>> >> >
>> >> > "Second, neither the Act nor the PHs Act exempts CAM products from
>> >> > regulation. This means, for example, if a person decides to produce
>and
>> >> > sell raw vegetable juice for use in juice therapy to promote optimal
>> >health,
>> >> > that product is a food subject to the requirements for foods in the
>Act
>> >and
>> >> > FDA regulations, including the hazard analysis and critical control
>> >point
>> >> > (HACCP) system requirements for juices in 21 CFR part 120. If -the
>juice
>> >> > therapy is intended for use as part of a disease treatment regimen
>> >instead
>> >> > of for the general wellness, the vegetable juice would also be
>subject
>> >to
>> >> > regulation as a drug under the Act."
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> So, if you sell raw juice because it's yummy and good for
>> >> people, it's regulated under HACCP to make sure you don't get
>> >> E. coli from it. If you sell raw juice to cure cancer (for
>> >> example), it's regulated because things that are supposed to cure
>> >> cancer should perhaps actually do so, and those who sell
>> >> bogus cancer cures are somewhere between misguided and
>> >> evil and need to be prosecuted for fraud.
>> >>
>> >> I'm just not seeing a problem here. Better the FDA should
>> >> do its job than just hang around collecting their paychecks,
>> >> says I.
>> >
>> >
>> >What you're missing is the fact that if enacted the changes would mean
>that
>> >if you wanted to acquire supplements for your health, say an herb for
>liver
>> >health, you'd have to go to a doctor and good luck getting most doctors
>to
>> >go along with natural "medicines" like green tea. Nowhere does it say
>> >anything about food safety at all. If you can make a health claim, like
>> >"orange juice is good for a cold" it clearly states that you are
>practicing
>> >medicine.
>> >
>> >What it is is the drug companies targeting a multi-billion dollar
>industry
>> >which competes with them. It is all about how the FDA is owned by
>> >pharmaceuticals and dopes there bidding to maintain monopoly control
>along
>> >with monopoly pricing.
>> >
>> >Paul
>> >
>>
>> i seriously doubt that putting these items under f.d.a. regs means
>> green tea becomes a prescription item. the f.d.a. already has
>> jurisdiction over food items.
>>
>> prove me wrong if you can - preferably not by pointing to a .pdf
>> document.
>
>I can very easily prove you wrong, however you're going to have to do some
>reading on your own.
>
>What the proposal aims to do is to remove any and all alternative therapies
>as an available option. They would label *any* therapy, say juices for
>weight loss, as being a medical practice and requiring complete supervision
>by a doctor. We all know that most doctors simply do not do alternative
>anything - it is a drug made by a pharmaceutical or it is nothing at all. I
>treat my bowel condition with effective and safe probiotics. My doctor
>literally laughs at the very idea. He says "waste your money all you want"
>I ask him what he suggests. He wants me to be on an anti-spasmodic for the
>*rest of my life.* It's 60 bucks for a 2 week supply of the stuff and it
>does no good at all. Screw that. The probiotics work and work very well
>for about 40 bucks a month so can you imagine what people like me will have
>to do? I'll have to smuggle the damn things in from Mexico or someplace
>else.
>
>The FDA is once again partnering with pharma to restrict choices you have,
>safe choices, simply because it cuts into their profit margins. That is THE
>only reason they want to extend their control. This is not about lessening
>control, it is about vastly expanding the control they already have. As far
>as the example of keeping bacteria out of fresh juices, well they already
>have complete authority to do just that.
>
>This proposal eliminates your choices and further locks you into the profit
>model of drug companies.
>
>Here is the site where you can read the dockets.
>
>http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/default.htm
>

i'm not going to search through .pdf's to refute your ridiculous
claim.

>Now if you want, you can simply Google "fda regulates supplements" That
>will give you a huge number of independently written evaluations.
>

from the second hit on google:

From Center for Science in the Public Interest:
By Bruce Silverglade Center for Science in the Public Interest

I would like to clear up some confusion regarding CSPI's position on
dietary supplements. CSPI supports the right of consumers to purchase
safe, high quality, and appropriately labeled dietary supplements
without a prescription. As we all know, more and more scientific
studies point to the potential benefits of many supplements and
consumers should certainly have the right to purchase such products
without government interference.

[for what it's worth, the fourth hit was your post here.]

so what are you going on about? some poor ****er bottling carrot
juice in his basement as a cancer cure will get his toes stepped on by
the jackboots at the f.d.a.? boo-hoo.

>I might add that the proposal period was only offered after the FDA got
>caught trying to back door the whole thing in the dead of night.
>
>Paul
>

cite, please. most proposed federal regs require some kind of comment
period. or is this in the super-secret black helicopter realm?

your pal,
blake

In article >,
says...
> From Center for Science in the Public Interest:
> By Bruce Silverglade Center for Science in the Public Interest
>
> I would like to clear up some confusion regarding CSPI's position on
> dietary supplements. CSPI supports the right of consumers to purchase
> safe, high quality, and appropriately labeled dietary supplements
> without a prescription. As we all know, more and more scientific
> studies point to the potential benefits of many supplements and
> consumers should certainly have the right to purchase such products
> without government interference.
>
>

There are two aspects to FDA regulation, and this thread seems to be
unaware of one of them.

One is truth in labeling. If a product claims to contain a certain
amount of a certain substance, then the buyer should be able to have
confidence that it does indeed contain what is claimed. A lot of
supplements do not. Basically, this is fraud committed by the supplement
manufacturers because there is no regulation. There are some reputable
companies that strive to ensure their products actually contain what is
claimed, but how is the average consumer to know which products are
accurately labeled and which are not?

The other aspect is the claims as to the effects of supplements. As
things stand now, a supplement manufacturer can make pretty much any
claim as to the beneficial effects of their product without needing to
have a shred of evidence.

Yes, people should be able to buy these supplements without a
prescription, but they should get what they think they are buying and
not be exposed to unsupported claims for benefits. Only regulation can
accomplish these ends.



--
Peter Aitken

On Apr 26, 2007 at 1:28�pm, Paul M. Cook wrote:

> They want to regulate basically anything you can put
> in your mouth that can be digested. *And that even includes fresh juices. It sounds bizarre, ...

Point me to a Federal Register date and page and I'll
read it.

"Peter A" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> says...
> > From Center for Science in the Public Interest:
> > By Bruce Silverglade Center for Science in the Public Interest
> >
> > I would like to clear up some confusion regarding CSPI's position on
> > dietary supplements. CSPI supports the right of consumers to purchase
> > safe, high quality, and appropriately labeled dietary supplements
> > without a prescription. As we all know, more and more scientific
> > studies point to the potential benefits of many supplements and
> > consumers should certainly have the right to purchase such products
> > without government interference.
> >
> >
>
> There are two aspects to FDA regulation, and this thread seems to be
> unaware of one of them.
>
> One is truth in labeling. If a product claims to contain a certain
> amount of a certain substance, then the buyer should be able to have
> confidence that it does indeed contain what is claimed. A lot of
> supplements do not. Basically, this is fraud committed by the supplement
> manufacturers because there is no regulation. There are some reputable
> companies that strive to ensure their products actually contain what is
> claimed, but how is the average consumer to know which products are
> accurately labeled and which are not?
>
> The other aspect is the claims as to the effects of supplements. As
> things stand now, a supplement manufacturer can make pretty much any
> claim as to the beneficial effects of their product without needing to
> have a shred of evidence.
>
> Yes, people should be able to buy these supplements without a
> prescription, but they should get what they think they are buying and
> not be exposed to unsupported claims for benefits. Only regulation can
> accomplish these ends.


Since nobody will actually read the document, it is impossible for you to
make any statements whatsoever about what the issue is about. None of you
have even grasped the point, and you are assuming it is just an issue of
product labeling. Which it is not.

Paul

> cite, please. most proposed federal regs require some kind of comment
> period. or is this in the super-secret black helicopter realm?

You've already demonstrated your complete unwillingness to even so much as
read the FDA's own document. Here you are refuting a claim which you have
no knowledge of whatsoever. That's quite a trick. UNtil you actually know
what it is your are refuting, perhaps you could either keep an open mind, or
shut up?

Have a nice glass of kool-aid, pal.

Paul

"KevinS" > wrote in message
oups.com...
On Apr 26, 2007 at 1:28?pm, Paul M. Cook wrote:

> They want to regulate basically anything you can put
> in your mouth that can be digested. And that even includes fresh juices.
It sounds bizarre, ...

Point me to a Federal Register date and page and I'll
read it.


I pointed you to the actual government web site complete with FDA document.
If that isn't good enough, nothing is.

Paul

> I pointed you to the actual government web site complete
> with FDA document. If that isn't good enough, nothing is.

So be it.

"KevinS" > wrote in message
ps.com...
> > I pointed you to the actual government web site complete
> > with FDA document. If that isn't good enough, nothing is.
>
> So be it.
>

Perhaps you could do a Vulcan mind meld with Google? It would sure spare
you the rereading time.

Paul

On Apr 30, 2007 at 12:51�pm, Paul M. Cook wrote:

> Perhaps you could do a Vulcan mind meld with Google? *
> would sure spare you the rereading time.

Hey, Paul! Knock yourself out with your ****iniess. Always
got your high class on display, as usual.

I'm staggered by the number of people here who share
your distress over this issue. What are we up to now -
Zero??

"KevinS" > wrote in message
ups.com...
On Apr 30, 2007 at 12:51?pm, Paul M. Cook wrote:

> Perhaps you could do a Vulcan mind meld with Google?
> would sure spare you the rereading time.

Hey, Paul! Knock yourself out with your ****iniess. Always
got your high class on display, as usual.

I'm staggered by the number of people here who share
your distress over this issue. What are we up to now -
Zero??


Hey, you asked for a federal register date. It never occurred to you that
proposals don't get into the register until the proposals have been enacted.
So you want something that cannot be provided as proof to satisfy yourself.
That's not me being prissy, that is me making fun of a fool.

And I'm not entirely surprised with the turnout, no. It was worth a shot.
But it probably explains a lot of why this country is as ****ed up as it is.

"All it takes for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing"

Paul

On Apr 30, 2:59�pm, Paul M. Cook wrote:

> Hey, you asked for a federal register date. *It never occurred
> to you that proposals don't get into the register until the proposals
> have been enacted. So you want something that cannot be provided
> as proof to satisfy yourself. That's not me being prissy, that is me
> making fun of a fool.

Paul,

Let's have a look at the Federal Register main page on
GPO Access. From the introductory paragraph:

"Published by the Office of the Federal Register, National Archives
and Records Administration (NARA), the Federal Register is the
official daily publication for rules, proposed rules, and notices
of Federal agencies and organizations, as well as executive orders
and other presidential documents."

Look in the third line. Do you see the word "proposed"?

Paul, I review the Federal Register on every business
day. It's part of what I do. I know what it includes.

Next insult, please.

"KevinS" > wrote in message
ups.com...
On Apr 30, 2:59?pm, Paul M. Cook wrote:

> Hey, you asked for a federal register date. It never occurred
> to you that proposals don't get into the register until the proposals
> have been enacted. So you want something that cannot be provided
> as proof to satisfy yourself. That's not me being prissy, that is me
> making fun of a fool.

Paul,

Let's have a look at the Federal Register main page on
GPO Access. From the introductory paragraph:

"Published by the Office of the Federal Register, National Archives
and Records Administration (NARA), the Federal Register is the
official daily publication for rules, proposed rules, and notices
of Federal agencies and organizations, as well as executive orders
and other presidential documents."

Look in the third line. Do you see the word "proposed"?

Paul, I review the Federal Register on every business
day. It's part of what I do. I know what it includes.

Next insult, please.


So look it up by it's docket number.

http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/doc...80/06d0480.htm

Paul

"KevinS" > wrote in message
ups.com...
On Apr 30, 2:59?pm, Paul M. Cook wrote:

> Hey, you asked for a federal register date. It never occurred
> to you that proposals don't get into the register until the proposals
> have been enacted. So you want something that cannot be provided
> as proof to satisfy yourself. That's not me being prissy, that is me
> making fun of a fool.

Paul,

Let's have a look at the Federal Register main page on
GPO Access. From the introductory paragraph:

"Published by the Office of the Federal Register, National Archives
and Records Administration (NARA), the Federal Register is the
official daily publication for rules, proposed rules, and notices
of Federal agencies and organizations, as well as executive orders
and other presidential documents."

Look in the third line. Do you see the word "proposed"?

Paul, I review the Federal Register on every business
day. It's part of what I do. I know what it includes.

Next insult, please.



Federal register date was 2-27-07. In my defense I was thinking the
Congressional record.

http://www.newstarget.com/z021811.html
NewsTarget.com printable article
Originally published April 25 2007
FDA's attempts to slip its CAM Guidelines under the radar fail; deadline for
public comment extended to May 29
by Mike Adams

Following widespread criticism by the public over proposed CAM Guidelines
that the agency tried to slip under the radar (see below), the Food and Drug
Administration has now extended the deadline for public comment to May 29.
(It was previously April 30). The CAM Guidelines (click here to read them
yourself) represent a new era of thinking at the FDA and describe the
agency's intentions to regulate herbs, functional foods, therapeutic oils,
nutritional supplements and even physical devices such as massage rocks as
either "drugs" or "medical devices." Click here to read our previous story
describing the CAM Guidlines. These guidelines have been widely described as
a brazen FDA attempt to destroy naturopathy and alternative medicine.


The FDA was petitioned on April 22 by health freedom attorney Ralph
Fucetola, a trustee of the non-profit National Solutions Foundation
(www.HealthFreedomUSA.com), to extend its deadline for public comment. The
petition also specifically requested that the FDA hold public hearings on
the issue, but no decision has apparently been made on that issue.


It now seems that the FDA attempted to sneak the new CAM Guidelines under
the radar, hoping the public would never notice the guidelines until they
had already been adopted and approved. The original CAM Guidelines document
was quietly posted by the FDA on the day after Christmas, 2006, yet did not
appear in the Federal Register until several months later. By the time the
document was able to be found and commented on by the natural health
community, only about thirty days remained in the public comment period.
Thanks to public pressure and the National Solutions Foundation petition,
the public comment period has now been extended by an additional thirty days
to May 29th.


To date, more than 108,000 comments have been received by the FDA on their
CAM Guidelines. The issue has received widespread coverage in the natural
health community, including articles on NewsTarget.com. The National
Solutions Foundation says that an additional 267,000 people attempted to
post comments but were unable to do so. NewsTarget previously suggested that
comments posted to the FDA might be intentionally ignored or deleted, and
according to the NSF, letters that are written to the FDA about this docket
are routinely ignored.


Your comments are still needed to protect health freedom
The most effective way to make your voice heard on this topic is to either
post your comments electronically, or write your representative in
Washington to apply pressure on the FDA from the legislative side.


Click here to post your comments directly to the FDA on the FDA Docket
Management Comment Form. Keep in mind that all comments become part of the
official FDA record, so write your comments carefully.


The National Solutions Foundation also has a web comment form posted here,
which uses the "Democracy In Action" engine to send comments to the FDA and
adds your name to a petition asserting our collective right to health
freedom. This petition needs approximately another 90,000 electronic
signatures to be taken seriously by the FDA, so please consider signing this
petition as well.


"My middle name is not Darth Vader" claims FDA official
Late last week, John Weeks from The Integrator Blog (click here for the full
interview) published an interview with Philip Chao, the only FDA official
referenced in the CAM Guidelines document.


That interview asks the important question: Why was the CAM Guidelines
document posted in the Federal Register on February 27, with a comment
deadline of April 30, when the document itself says there will be a 90 day
comment period? The Integrator asks, "Can't you see how, with a suspicious
public out there and all this hoopla that just extending to 90 days from
February 27 makes some sense."


Later in that interview, Philip Chao is asked if his middle name is Darth
Vader. His response? "No it is not." This is the first time, to my
knowledge, that an FDA employee has officially denied his name is Darth
Vader.


The campaign to keep you uninformed
Interestingly, opinions are split in the health freedom communities over the
interpretation of the CAM Guidelines and the involvement of those trying to
stop it. NewsTarget has been strongly pressured by certain health freedom
individuals to censor its reporting on this topic and remove any mention of
the National Solutions Foundation or its website.


We have also been told by some health freedom activists that the CAM
Guidelines can be safely ignored and pose no threat whatsoever to health
freedom. Common sense, however, dictates otherwise. Any document in which
the FDA openly states its intention to regulate vegetable juice as a drug is
clearly and unquestionably a threat to health freedom, regardless of the
noise level in the current health freedom debate.


It is my belief that those individuals and organizations attempting to
silence the reporting on these CAM Guidelines are, in fact, working in
opposition to health freedom, regardless of their self-proclaimed stance on
the issue. Actions speak louder than words. Anyone can claim they're in
favor of health freedom, but unless they're actually fighting for it where
the rubber meets the road, so to speak, they're only standing in the way of
those of us who actually are making a difference. Stopping these CAM
Guidelines from becoming official FDA policy is, in my view, one very
important action item that deserves our effort right now. There are many
more, but this is one that we cannot ignore.


If you believe in your right to purchase herbs, supplements, homeopathic
remedies or other naturopathic or "alternative" health items, please
consider posting your comments using one (or both) of the links listed
above.


The petition to extend the deadline
The April 22nd petition letter to extend the FDA deadline is reprinted, in
part, below:


April 22, 2007


FDA Docket No. 2006D-0480
Request to Extend Time Period for Comments


Reference is made to the Federal Register, February 27, 2007 (Volume 72,
Number 38, Page 8756-8757),
http://www.fda.gov/OHRMS/DOCKETS/98fr/E7-3259.htm, entitled: Draft Guidance
for Industry on Complementary and Alternative Medicine Products and Their
Regulation by the Food and Drug Administration.


In the filed comments NSF submitted to the FDA, the organization emphasized
what we see as the important distinction between "treatment of disease" and
its non-medical alternative, under AMA Ethics Code Opinion 3.04, "therapies
that may benefit." The comments raised three demands:


1. That FDA hold public hearings before finalization of the draft guidance.


2. That FDA change the title of the guidance to use the phrase
"Complementary and Alternative Modalities" and not the prejudicial
"Complementary and Alternative Medicine" as in the draft.


3. That FDA recognize "therapies that may benefit" as not the same as
"treatment of disease" and therefore not to be regulated as "medicine."


The organization also alerted its supporters, in keeping with its
educational purposes. Many of theses individuals filed their own or
supporting comments. As of the date of this request, over 108,822 have done
so, by one count. This does not include about 267,063 people who tried to
post comments but did not succeed, yet. Many of these remaining people may
still want to submit comments, but may not be able to do so by April 30,
2007, a stated deadline for comments. While the Federal Register Notice
states such a time limit for the filing of comments, there is other
indication of a 90 day comment period, after the date of publication in the
Register. This would extend to period until May 28, 2007.


Therefore, we are unsure of the effective end of comment period date, and as
many more people want to comment, we must now request a clarification of the
final date for the filing of comments and, if that date is April 30, 2007,
Natural Solutions Foundation and the undersigned hereby request a 180 day
extension of the period to comment, or such other extension as the Agency
may consider reasonable. This issue is of such evident concern and
importance to so many Americans that a substantial extension is required.


Kindly inform me by return email or facsimile of the Agency's decision in
this regard. The Foundation reserves all rights.


Thank you,
Ralph Fucetola JD, Trustee


Assert your right to health freedom, or you'll lose it
Understand that we, the members of the natural health community, are at war
with the FDA. Even though we are peaceful people who would not initiate such
a war, that war has been declared upon us. We must fight this effort to
regulate our natural medicines out of existence, and we must do so through
every peaceful means at our disposal: Signing petitions, writing letters,
even perhaps marching in the streets with protest signs if it comes to that.


Do not stand by idly and let the Food and Drug Administration turn America
into a medical police state, funded by Big Pharma and enforced by armed FDA
agents. (See the true history of armed FDA raids here.) Preserving your
access to alternative medicine products is something worth fighting for. We
must meet the FDA's attempts at medical tyranny head on, with overwhelming
public outrage, and we must keep at it until we restore the freedoms we have
been promised by the founding father of our nation.


Today, America is neither a free democracy, nor a totalitarian police state.
But it could go either way. And the direction it heads from this day forward
is up to people like you. Will you demand your freedom? Or will you let it
be slowly, secretly slipped away, one federal document at a time, until you
wake up one day and find yourself standing alone in a world or medical
tyranny where all the healers have been imprisoned, the herbs have all been
banned and the public is chemically controlled under a system of lifetime
medical treatment that keeps the drug corporations wealthy?


Think about where this is all headed. The CAM Guidelines spell out the path
the FDA wants to take us down. It's up to people like you to stop that
effort and help restore genuine health freedom in our world.

On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 22:37:17 GMT, "Paul M. Cook"
> wrote:

>
>> cite, please. most proposed federal regs require some kind of comment
>> period. or is this in the super-secret black helicopter realm?
>
>You've already demonstrated your complete unwillingness to even so much as
>read the FDA's own document. Here you are refuting a claim which you have
>no knowledge of whatsoever. That's quite a trick. UNtil you actually know
>what it is your are refuting, perhaps you could either keep an open mind, or
>shut up?
>
>Have a nice glass of kool-aid, pal.
>
>Paul
>

that's right, i'm not going to wade through a .pdf from the f.d.a.
guess i'll be laughing out of the other side of my mouth when they
lock me up for drinking unauthorized green tea, huh?

your pal,
blake

"blake murphy" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 22:37:17 GMT, "Paul M. Cook"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >> cite, please. most proposed federal regs require some kind of comment
> >> period. or is this in the super-secret black helicopter realm?
> >
> >You've already demonstrated your complete unwillingness to even so much
as
> >read the FDA's own document. Here you are refuting a claim which you
have
> >no knowledge of whatsoever. That's quite a trick. UNtil you actually
know
> >what it is your are refuting, perhaps you could either keep an open mind,
or
> >shut up?
> >
> >Have a nice glass of kool-aid, pal.
> >
> >Paul
> >
>
> that's right, i'm not going to wade through a .pdf from the f.d.a.
> guess i'll be laughing out of the other side of my mouth when they
> lock me up for drinking unauthorized green tea, huh?


There's not a lot of "wading" as most of the PDF is typical white space or
footnotes. You can actually read the pertinent part in about 10 minutes.
That's less than 20 pages.

And no, you won't be arrested for drinking green tea. That's simply not
what its about but the patronizing reframing is not unexpected from those
who simply prefer ignorance over knowledge. But to be fair, I can see why
you'd be skeptical. After all, the FDA is trying to prevent so many of
those illnesses caused from juices. We here about them every day, thousands
sickened by juices and massage oil. It's not like melamine for example,
which probably will soon be listed as a "nutritional supplement."

But since you've divined the content and intent what's the point?

Paul

On Apr 30, 2007, at 3:54�pm, Paul M. Cook wrote:

> Federal register date was 2-27-07. *In my defense I was thinking the
> Congressional record.

That's a start, even if it took a while. Thank you. I'll read it
tomorrow. I forewarn you that I'm a skeptic, but I'll read
it in best open-minded mode.

On Apr 30, 3:54�pm, Paul M. Cook wrote:

> Federalregisterdate was 2-27-07. *In my defense I was thinking the
> Congressional record.

In your defense??? You insult strangers and say this or that
is "in your defense". Your explanation is appalling.

There's a word in use in common English discourse that
describes your comments - let's see, it's coming to me -
it's on the tip of my tongue - here it is, the word is
WRONG.