Fiskaguld's Blog

July 28, 2010

Health freedom movement

Filed under: health freedom movement — fiskaguld @ 6:22 am

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The term health freedom movement is used to describe the loose coalition of organizations, consumers, activists, alternative medicine practitioners and producers of products around the world who are campaigning for unhindered freedom of choice in healthcare. The movement is critical of the pharmaceutical industry and medical regulators, and uses the term “health freedom” as a catch phrase to convey its message.

Contents

  • 1 Structure, ideology and objectives
  • 2 Political roots and support base
  • 3 Legislation
    • 3.1 United States
    • 3.2 Europe
    • 3.3 Australia & New Zealand
  • 4 Criticism of the pharmaceutical industry
  • 5 Criticism of the Codex Alimentarius Commission
    • 5.1 Criticism of regional trade blocs
  • 6 Organizations and campaigners
  • 7 Health freedom films
    • 7.1 Documentary
    • 7.2 Feature films
  • 8 See also
  • 9 References
  • 10 External links

Structure, ideology and objectives

There is no formal structure to the health freedom movement, but cooperation and coordination among some of the various organizations and individuals involved in it does occur. Collaborative efforts in the movement are often spontaneous and its leaders have found that these can act as a test to see to see whether or not community members can work together for a common goal. At other times, organizations and individuals opt for “going it alone” to preserve autonomy, renown, or a competitive edge on issues or fundraising efforts.

The concept of health freedom does not preclude the practice of conventional medicine, but campaigners generally tend to have strong preferences for orthomolecular, naturopathic, or alternative medicine and an overall distrust of the pharmaceutical industry. The removal from consumers of access to healthcare products that they had formerly been able to obtain and which had helped their needs for health and survival is viewed by many people in the movement as being leveraged by multinational corporations.

A key objective in the movement is for people to have unrestricted access to vitamins, minerals, herbals, botanicals, amino acids and other food supplements. The dietary supplement industry wants to see less stringent regulations than those applied to food. Campaigners believe that many chronic diseases can be largely prevented or even cured using micronutrients and that the optimal level for ingestion of these is significantly above the RDA levels. The movement has close links to the Life-extension movement.

The movement's supporters and organizations believe that there is a conspiracy by the medical establishment to undermine the advance of the nutritional route to better health and that studies showing supplements have no effect in preventing disease are designed to fail. Some of the movement's spokespeople, such as the Alliance for Natural Health, take a more moderate stance on this issue, saying that negative media publicity about nutrients such as vitamin E are a result of misinterpretations over the science. These campaigners also criticise the latest research indicating that vitamin C supplements do not protect against the common cold as having a number of fundamental flaws.

The belief that supplements and vitamins can demonstrably improve health or longevity is not backed by evidence-based medicine, nor is it widely accepted in the medical community, because there is felt to be insufficient evidence to support such beliefs. Large doses of some vitamins can lead to vitamin poisoning (hypervitaminosis).

Other issues promoted by the movement include its opposition to the sharing of genetic information without patient consent, its belief that citizens should have greater privacy and control over their health information, its belief that people should be free to choose not to participate in a national electronic health-records system. and its opposition to fluoridation of the water supply.

Some health freedom campaigners would like adults to be free to choose marijuana for personal or medical use without criminal penalty. The money currently spent on arresting people for possessing pot, they say, could be better used to go after more serious criminals or funding alternative health-care programs.

Political roots and support base

Health freedom activists come from a variety of political backgrounds. The right-wing libertarian Ludwig von Mises Institute argues in favor of deregulation of the medical profession and health care sector. The British activist Martin J. Walker is politically left-wing, whilst the Republican congressman and 2008 U.S. presidential candidate Ron Paul, who supports health freedom, calls himself a free market libertarian. A leading supporter of the movement, Paul introduced the Health Freedom Protection Act in the U.S. Congress in 2005. Other examples of people with polar opposite political views whose healthcare ideology at times appears to bear some comparison to that of the health freedom movement include Prince Charles, who has defended alternative therapies in an address to the World Health Assembly, and Cherie Blair (the wife of former British Prime Minister Tony Blair) who is believed to have influenced her husband's reported opposition to the EU Food Supplements Directive. The British right wing Conservative Party (UK) has supported the Save Our Supplements campaign as part of its campaign against the EU Food Supplements Directive, whilst the Green Party in Ireland has expressed concern that changes to this Directive will limit consumers' access to off-the-shelf vitamins and mineral supplements. The Swedish conservative Moderate Party is also opposed to the EU imposed vitamin restrictions.

Prominent celebrity supporters of the movement include the musician Sir Paul McCartney, who says that people “have a right to buy legitimate health food supplements” and that “this right is now clearly under threat,” and the pop star/actress Billie Piper, who joined a march in London in 2003 to protest planned EU legislation to ban high dosage vitamin supplements.

The term “Health freedom movement” has been used in the United States since the 1990s. Around 2003 to 2005, a campaign organization founded by the British author Lynne McTaggart and called the Health Freedom Movement existed in the United Kingdom.

Legislation

United States

The enactment into law of the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA) in the United States (US) in 1994 is an example of a piece of pro-health-freedom legislation. DSHEA defines supplements as foods, and puts the onus on the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to prove that a supplement poses significant or unreasonable risk of harm rather than on the manufacturer to prove the supplement’s safety. The act was passed by Congress after extensive lobbying by the manufacturers of dietary supplements, and received strong support from non-medically-oriented politicians such as Senator Tom Harkin and Senator Orrin Hatch, whose state of Utah is a hub for herbal manufacturers.[citation needed] The act allows natural supplements to be marketed without any proof of their purity, safety or efficacy.[citation needed] Producers of these supplements are largely exempt from regulation by the Food and Drug Administration, which can take action against them only if they make medical claims about their products or if consumers of the products become seriously ill.

Following concerns about numerous raids, censorship issues, pharmaceutical conflicts of interest, product bans, and more proposed FDA restrictions, what became the DSHEA in 1994 was the subject of a lobbying campaign that produced Congressional mail equal to that generated by the debate over the North American Free Trade Agreement. The current level of popular support for the deregulation of the supplement industry can at times seem unclear.[citation needed] A large survey by the AARP, for example, found that 77% of respondents (including both users and non-users of supplements) believed that the federal government should review the safety of dietary supplements and approve them before they can be marketed to consumers.

Similar confusion about the implications of DSHEA was found in an October 2002 nationwide Harris poll. Here, 59% of respondents believed that supplements had to be approved by a government agency before they could be marketed; 68% believed that supplements had to list potential side effects on their labels; and 55% believed that supplement labels could not make claims of safety without scientific evidence. All of these beliefs are incorrect as a result of provisions of the DSHEA.

President Bill Clinton, on signing DSHEA into law, stated that “After several years of intense efforts, manufacturers, experts in nutrition, and legislators, acting in a conscientious alliance with consumers at the grassroots level, have moved successfully to bring common sense to the treatment of dietary supplements under regulation and law.” He also stated that the passage of DSHEA “speaks to the diligence with which an unofficial army of nutritionally conscious people worked democratically to change the laws in an area deeply important to them” and that “In an era of greater consciousness among people about the impact of what they eat on how they live, indeed, how long they live, it is appropriate that we have finally reformed the way Government treats consumers and these supplements in a way that encourages good health.”

Another example of the passing of pro-health freedom legislation occurred in March 2007, when Governor Timothy M. Kaine signed a bill into law in the U.S. State of Virginia allowing teenagers 14 or older and their parents the right to refuse medical treatments for ailments such as cancer, and to seek alternative treatments so long as they have considered all other medical options. Kaine described the bill as being “significant for health freedom in Virginia.”

In addition, some U.S. states have proven willing to allow nonlicensed practitioners to diagnose and treat patients, and forms of nonlicensed practice have been approved in California, Rhode Island, Idaho, Louisiana and Oklahoma. As a result, between 2000 and 2006, 15 percent of the U.S. population gained some access to nonlicensed practitioners.

In early 2010, two U.S. states, Tennessee and Idaho, passed health freedom legislation that would result in legal challenges if the U.S. Congress passes federal health-care reforms that require their residents to buy health insurance.

Europe

In Europe, health freedom movement writers and campaigners believe that European Union (EU) laws such as the Food Supplements Directive, the Traditional Herbal Medicinal Products Directive, and the Human Medicinal Products (Pharmaceuticals) Directive, will reduce their access to food supplements and herbal medicines. European health food producers, retailers and consumers have been vocal in protesting against this legislation, with the health freedom movement inviting supporters to “Stop Brussels from killing natural medicine”. On the day that Members of the European Parliament voted for a clampdown on vitamin sales, the parliament's computer system crashed under the strain of thousands of speed-dial emails, wildly claiming that the new directive would ban 300 popular supplements and drive British health stores out of business. In Strasbourg, meanwhile, Euro-MPs were accosted by activists handing out a propaganda video accusing five European commissioners of corruptly colluding with big pharmaceutical firms in an attempt to destroy the alternative network of homoeopathic and natural medicines.

In 2004, the Alliance for Natural Health (ANH) and two British trade associations had a legal challenge to the Food Supplements Directive referred to the European Court of Justice by the High Court in London. The European Court of Justice's Advocate General subsequently said that the EU's plan to tighten rules on the sale of vitamins and food supplements should be scrapped, but was overruled by the European Court, which decided that the measures in question were necessary and appropriate for the purpose of protecting public health. ANH interpreted the ban as applying only to synthetically produced supplements – and not to vitamins and minerals normally found in or consumed as part of the diet. Nevertheless, the European judges did acknowledge the Advocate General's concerns, stating that there must be clear procedures to allow substances to be added to the permitted list based on scientific evidence. They also said that any refusal to add a product to the list must be open to challenge in the courts. Some media observers believe that, as a result of this legislation, a black market will emerge, and that controls over ingredients and quality will vanish.

Australia & New Zealand

In New Zealand, health freedom campaigners have been concerned that many supplements would be removed from the shelves under the Therapeutic Products and Medicines Bill that was introduced to the NZ Parliament in 2006 by Food Safety Minister Annette King. If passed, the Bill would have created a joint agency with Australia to regulate therapeutic products. In July 2007, King announced that the Bill would be postponed until there was more support in the New Zealand parliament for the scheme. She subsequently passed responsibility for the issue to New Zealand Health Minister Pete Hodgson, who said that “the status quo of an unregulated market for medical devices and complementary medicines cannot remain”. It is understood that officials are now planning to look at using ministerial powers to create domestic regulations to apply to such products sold in New Zealand.

More recently, in response to thousands of dollars worth of stock being confiscated by the regulatory body MedSafe, natural health practices in New Zealand have banded together under the Health Freedom banner to protest against what they claim is a Medsafe “witch hunt”, arguing that the crackdown is a response to the stalling of the Therapeutic Products and Medicines Bill. Subsequently, a petition was presented to New Zealand MPs calling for Medsafe to stop harassing natural health manufacturers and practitioners. The health freedom campaigners who organised the petition say that 7000 signatures were gathered over a three-week period.

Following the Australian Federal Government's decision to pay a record $A50 million (NZ$62.3 million) compensation to Jim Selim, the founder of complementary medicine manufacturer, Pan Pharmaceuticals, as a result of the Australian Therapeutic Goods Association (TGA) recalling all of Pan's products in 2003, Health Freedom spokeswoman Nicola Grace said that a class action suit against the TGA involving some 100 businesses that closed because of the recall was likely to ensue and that “the ticket may just include Minister Annette King”.

Criticism of the pharmaceutical industry

Health freedom-orientated writers and campaigners tend to see restrictive legislation on supplements as being designed to protect the interests of the pharmaceutical industry. If herbal medicines and supplements are removed from sale, they argue, patients will have no alternative but to use conventional pharmaceutical medicines. Matthias Rath believes that the pharmaceutical industry has a vested interest in the continuation and expansion of diseases, rather than their cure, in that without the current widespread existence of diseases the industry would cease to exist in its current form.

In addition to criticising the pharmaceutical industry, the health freedom movement is also critical of the actions of individual pharmaceutical companies. As reported in the British Medical Journal, for example, health freedom organisations have condemned Merck & Co.’s marketing methods, claiming the company hopes to use profits from Gardasil to fund the litigation costs it has had to pay over rofecoxib (Vioxx). Health freedom-orientated campaigners in the UK, meanwhile, have publicly criticised Boots, Britain's largest chemist, for “watering down” its vitamin and mineral supplements to ensure that its products complied with the European Union's Food Supplements Directive.

Criticism of the Codex Alimentarius Commission

A key focus of the health-freedom movement in recent years has been the activities of the Codex Alimentarius Commission, which it perceives to be acting in the interests of the pharmaceutical industry.

The Guidelines for Vitamin and Mineral Food Supplements were adopted by the Codex Alimentarius Commission as a voluntary standard at its meeting in Rome in July 2005. The scope of the guidelines includes requirements for the packaging and labelling of vitamin and mineral supplements. The text also specifies that “supplements should contain vitamins/provitamins and minerals whose nutritional value for human beings has been proven by scientific data and whose status as vitamins and minerals is recognised by FAO and WHO.” In addition, it states that the “sources of vitamins and minerals may be either natural or synthetic” and that “their selection should be based on considerations such as safety and bioavailability.” The National Health Federation, by virtue of its official observer status at Codex, was the only delegation present at the meeting to oppose the adoption. Drafted using the EU Food Supplements Directive as a blueprint, health-freedom orientated protagonists argue that the eventual effect of these Guidelines will be to remove large numbers of what they regard as the most effective forms of nutrients from the global market, set restrictive upper limits on the dosages of all permitted nutrients, and prevent the sale of all supplements for curative, preventative or therapeutic purposes without a doctor’s prescription.

For its part, the Commission asserts that products listed on the Codex have been accepted by the signatories as proven to be safe and thus that there is no case for any member state of the WTO to deny importation on safety grounds.[citation needed] Conversely, member states may refuse entry to products that have not achieved a listing on the Codex, without breaking their free trade agreemnents made under the World Trade Organisation Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures.[citation needed]

The United Nations' Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and World Health Organization (WHO) have stated that the guidelines are “to stop consumers overdosing on vitamin and mineral food supplements.” The Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC) has said that the guidelines call “for labelling that contains information on maximum consumption levels of vitamin and mineral food supplements.” The WHO has also said that the Guidelines “ensure that consumers receive beneficial health effects from vitamins and minerals.”

The health freedom movement is concerned about similarities between the EU's Food Supplements Directive and the Codex Alimentarius Guidelines for Vitamin and Mineral Supplements.

Criticism of regional trade blocs

A number of health-freedom organizations and their political supporters believe that the increasing tendency for countries to form free trade areas and trade blocs threatens their freedom of choice in healthcare, on the grounds that they believe these further increase the pressure upon countries to harmonize their food and supplement laws to the voluntary reference standard set by Codex. Campaigners argue that such trade agreements are about business and money and are put before the welfare of countries. Texas Republican Rep. Ron Paul has said that the Central American Free Trade Agreement “increases the possibility that Codex regulations will be imposed on the American public.”

Organizations and campaigners

The core of the health freedom movement consists of a loose coalition of organizations, consumers, activists, alternative medicine practitioners, producers of products, bloggers and newsfeeds.

USA and the Americas

The Institute for Health Freedom (IHF) is a Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit think tank. It monitors and reports on national policies that affect citizens' freedom to choose their health-care treatments and providers, and to maintain their health privacy. The president of the IHF is Sue A. Blevins.

The Life Extension Foundation (LEF) is a non-profit research-based organization headquartered in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Established in 1980 by co-founders Saul Kent and William Faloon, its primary purpose is to fund research and disseminate information on anti-aging and optimal health.

The American Academy of Anti-Aging Medicine is a non-profit alternative medicine organization headquartered in Chicago. It promotes the ideas of “anti-aging medicine” and health freedom.

The National Health Federation (NHF) is an international non-profit organization which describes its mission as protecting individuals' rights to use dietary supplements and alternative therapies without government restriction. The NHF also opposes interventions such as water fluoridation and childhood vaccines. The Federation has official observer status at meetings of the Codex Alimentarius Commission, the highest international body on food standards. Based in California, the Federation's board members include medical doctors, scientists, therapists and consumer advocates of natural health.

Europe

The Alliance for Natural Health (ANH) is an advocacy group founded in 2002 by Robert Verkerk and based in the United Kingdom. The ANH was initially founded to raise funds to finance a legal challenge of the EU Food Supplement Directive. The ANH lobbies against regulation of dietary supplements and in favor of alternative medical approaches such as homeopathy, and also advocates a healthy diet, exercise, and other lifestyle approaches to health. The Alliance also criticizes scientific research showing that megadoses of vitamins lack any health benefit.

The Dr. Rath Health Foundation was founded by a German doctor, Matthias Rath. The foundation is financed by the profits from a supplement manufacturer owned by Dr Rath.

Individual campaigners

The health freedom movement also includes a number of individual campaigners, newsfeeds, opinion makers and talk radio stations. Examples include Gary Null, Dr Joseph Mercola, Joyce Riley's talk radio show The Power Hour and Kevin Trudeau.

Health freedom films

The film medium has also been used to convey the message of the health freedom movement to a broader audience. The two documentaries “We Become Silent” and “Prescription For Disaster” are produced by core activists in the movement; the other films convey messages that are similar to the positions held by the movement but are produced by people who don’t identify themselves directly with it.

Documentary

  • We Become Silent: A film by Kevin P. Miller
  • Prescription For Disaster: A film by Gary Null, winner of: Best Documentary Feature, at the Red Bank International Film Festival 2006
  • Money Talks: Profits before Patient Safety from 2006. A documentary made by the same team that made the feature film Side Effects.

Feature films

  • Side Effects from 2005, directed by Kathleen Slattery-Moschkau. A satire about a woman making a career in the US pharmaceutical industry.

See also

  • Codex Alimentarius
  • Megavitamin therapy
  • Naturopathic Medicine
  • Orthomolecular medicine

References

  1. ^ Legal Matters: Collaboration in the Health Freedom Movement: A Source of Power and Healing. Diane M. Miller. Alternative and Complementary Therapies. 1 December 2008, 14(6): 315-320. doi:10.1089/act.2008.14610. Published 1 December 2008. Accessed 6 February 2009.
  2. ^ a b 'Why do meddling Eurocrats want to ban your vitamin pills? (Could it be anything to do with the drug giants hoping for huge profits?)', by Geoffrey Lean. Published in the Daily Mail (Good Health section) on 25 January 2005. Accessed on the Alliance for Natural Health website 7 February 2009.
  3. ^ 'Legal Matters: Impact of International Product Regulations on Consumer Access to, and the Manufacturing of, Dietary Supplements: The Need for Health Freedom Advocacy' Diane M. Miller. Alternative & Complementary Therapies. 1 February 2008, 14(1): 43-47. doi:10.1089/act.2008.14102. Published 1 February 2008. Accessed 25 May 2008.
  4. ^ a b Eating Well New York Times. Published 15 December 1993. Accessed 7 February 2009.
  5. ^ 'Do vitamin supplements do more harm than good?' Article on study published by the Cochrane Collaboration, quoting Patrick Holford. The Times. Published 27 April 2008. Accessed 10 September 2008.
  6. ^ Critics find flaws with antioxidant study Natural Foods Merchandiser magazine. Published 21 January 2009. Accessed 8 February 2009.
  7. ^ High dose vitamin E death warning BBC News, quoted from statement of Dr Rob Verkerk, Executive Director of the Alliance for Natural Health. Published 11 November 2004. Accessed 30 September 2007.
  8. ^ Vitamin C campaigners support supplements Nursing in Practice. Published 19 July 2007. Accessed 30 September 2007.
  9. ^ Counseling for Vitamin Supplementation to Prevent Cancer and Cardiovascular Disease [verification needed], from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Released June 2003; accessed 28 September 2007.
  10. ^ 'Congress Inadvertently Legalizes Sharing of Genetic Information Without Patient Consent' Fox Business. Published 6 May 2008. Accessed 25 May 2008.
  11. ^ 'State urges people to start gathering, storing medical records on the Web' Sacramento Bee. Published 20 May 2008. Accessed 25 May 2008
  12. ^ Economic Stimulus Bill Mandates Electronic Health Records For Every Citizen Without Opt Out Or Patient Consent Provisions Medical News Today. Published 24 January 2009. Accessed 7 February 2009
  13. ^ Rockland County Board of Health Facing Opposition on Fluoridation; Proposal Came Up in '75 Dental Society Supports Measure New York Times. Published 4 December 1978. Accessed 8 February 2009
  14. ^ 'About New York; A Champion Of Marijuana On the Stump', by DAVID GONZALEZ. New York Times. Published 4 October 1997. Accessed 29 September 2007.
  15. ^ How Medical Boards Nationalized Health Care – Henry Jones – Mises Institute
  16. ^ Ron Paul candidate platform, The Boston Herald Published 27 December 2007. Accessed 5 December 2008.
  17. ^ “Ron Paul 2008 Hope for America” Accessed 28 September 2007.
  18. ^ Health Freedom Protection Act Introduced in US Congress
  19. ^ Free Speech and Dietary Supplements
  20. ^ “Charles defends holistic medicine”, The Daily Telegraph. Published 24 May 2006. Accessed 12 April 2005.
  21. ^ “Blair opposes EU's directive to outlaw up to 5,000 vitamins”, The Independent. Published 30 June 2005. Accessed 12 April 2005.
  22. ^ Vitamins & Minerals Under Threat
  23. ^ 'Greens claim EU directive may limit access to vitamins' The Irish Times Published 13 June 2008. Accessed 14 June 2008.
  24. ^ European Parlament, voting record 2002, Food Supplement Directive
  25. ^ “Health food fans plan to copy alliance march”, Daily Telegraph Published 13 September 2002. Accessed 28 September 2007.
  26. ^ “Billie makes a stand”, This is Wiltshire Published June 2003. Accessed 28 September 2007.
  27. ^ ”Gallegly Is Key Foe of FDA's Vitamin Rules – Simi Valley: The GOP congressman has emerged as leader of effort to minimize new labeling requirements” Los Angeles Times, 2 January 1994
  28. ^ ”Doctor's supporters go to bat for him – Followers of alternative medicine organize to defend physicians they see as under attack” The Orange County Register, 7 February 1999
  29. ^ ”And then pop go the pills – Today a new law on supplements comes into force which has split the world of natural healthcare” The Herald, 1 August 2005
  30. ^ Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994
  31. ^ Nutritional Supplements: Your Questions Answered. From Consumer Reports magazine, published 14 June 2006. Accessed 2 February 2007.
  32. ^ “Beyond Ephedra”, by Leon Jaroff. Published in Time magazine 10 February 2004. Accessed 2 February 2007.
  33. ^ Dan Hurley (2006). Natural causes: death, lies, and politics in America's vitamin and herbal supplement industry. New York: Broadway Books. ISBN 0-7679-2042-2. 
  34. ^ “FDA Raids”, Life Extension Magazine. Published 15 November 1994. Accessed 12 April 2005.
  35. ^ F.D.A. Steps Up Effort to Control Vitamin Claims New York Times. Published Augest 9, 1992. Accessed 8 February 2009.
  36. ^ Jeff Elliot. Taking vitamins: the FDA's raids on promoters of dietary supplements seem designed to keep consumers in the dark – Food and Drug Administration. National Review. 21 November 1994.
  37. ^ January 1996 Report: The Threat To Melatonin. Life Extension Foundation. January 1996. reflects several years ongoing concerns with melatonin and l-tryptophan
  38. ^ Manders DW. The FDA Ban of L-Tryptophan: Politics, Profits and Prozac. “Social Policy”, Vol. 26, No. 2 Winter 1995.
  39. ^ Dietary Supplements and Older Consumers. From the AARP website. Published December 2001. Accessed 2 February 2007.
  40. ^ “Dangerous Supplements: Still at Large, from Consumer Reports magazine. Published May 2004, accessed 7 February 2007.
  41. ^ The American Presidency Project, University of California, Santa Barbara. William J. Clinton: Statement on Signing the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994; 25 October 1994. From the website of The American Presidency Project, University of California, Santa Barbara. Accessed 9 February 2007.
  42. ^ “Kaine Signs Tax Cut for Poor, Medical Rights for Sick Teens”. Washington Post. Published 27 March 2007. Accessed 16 April 2007.
  43. ^ “Legal Matters: The Ins and Outs, Pros and Cons of Nonlicensed Practice: Report and Commentary on the Health Freedom Movement”, Alan Dumoff, J.D., M.S.W.. Alternative & Complementary Therapies, Jun 2006, Vol. 12, No. 3 : 136 -142. Published June 2006. Accessed 29 April 2007.
  44. ^ Tenn. Senate votes to reject health care mandate. Business Week. Published 17 February 2010. Accessed 14 March 2010.
  45. ^ Idaho Senate OKs bill to sue if insurance required. Business Week. Published 10 March 2010. Accessed 14 March 2010.
  46. ^ http://eur-lex.europa.eu/pri/en/oj/dat/2002/l_183/l_18320020712en00510057.pdf
  47. ^ Directive 2004/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004
  48. ^ Directive 2004/27/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 amending Directive 2001/83/EC on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use
  49. ^ 'Nil by mouth', by Rose Shepherd. The Observer. Published 29 February 2004. Accessed 16 April 2007.
  50. ^ 'Vitamin rules jar with the herbal industry.' Financial Times. Published 23 February 2004. Accessed 18 April 2007.
  51. ^ a b 'Euro-MPs vote for clampdown on vitamin sales' The Daily Telegraph. Published 14 March 2002. Accessed 18 October 2007.
  52. ^ 'Court victory for vitamin firms' BBC News Published 30 January 2004. Accessed 29 April 2007.
  53. ^ 'EU health foods crackdown 'wrong BBC News. Published 5 April 2005. Accessed 29 April 2007.
  54. ^ 'Vitamin controls backed by Europe' BBC News. Published 12 July 2005. Accessed 29 April 2007.
  55. ^ 'EU court backs health supplements ban' The Guardian Published 12 July 2005. Accessed 30 September 2007.
  56. ^ 'Should we swallow it?' The Independent. Published 26 June 2002. Accessed 22 April 2007.
  57. ^ “Joint therapeutic agency plans shelved.” The Age. Published 16 July 2007. Accessed 29 July 2007.
  58. ^ “Government defeat on medicines spurs 'lame-duck' jibes.” New Zealand Herald. Published 17 July 2007. Accessed 29 July 2007.
  59. ^ “Natural health products confiscated.” North Shore Times.. Published 12 April 2007. Accessed 28 April 2007.
  60. ^ “Witch hunt” by Medsafe claimed by petitioners. Radio New Zealand News. Published 29 May 2008. Accessed 30 May 2008.
  61. ^ Successful lawsuit doesn't affect NZ, says Dalziel. Otago Daily Times, New Zealand. Published 27 August 2008. Accessed 20 September 2008.
  62. ^ Medical schools, journals start to fight drug industry influence USA today
  63. ^ “Euro MPs back herbal crackdown”. BBC News, quoted from statement of Dr Rob Verkerk, Executive Director of the Alliance for Natural Health. Published 22 November 2002. Accessed 29 September 2007.
  64. ^ The Dr. Rath Health Foundation | Responsibility for a healthy world
  65. ^ 'Life saving treatment or giant experiment?' by Rebecca Coombes British Medical Journal. Published 7 April 2007. Accessed 2 May 2007.
  66. ^ 'Consumers attack Boots over lower doses in its supplements' Daily Telegraph. Published 10 February 2007. Accessed 18 October 2007.
  67. ^ Codex Alimentarius
  68. ^ http://www.codexalimentarius.net/download/standards/10206/cxg_055e.pdf
  69. ^ Codex Alimentarius Commission. Report of the Twenty-Eighth Session. FAO Headquarters, Italy, 4 July-9 July 2005 Accessed 26 April 2008.
  70. ^ The Dr. Rath Health Foundation | Responsibility for a healthy world
  71. ^ UN commission adopts safety guidelines for vitamin and food supplements United Nations News Centre. Published 11 July 2005. Accessed 26 March 2009
  72. ^ Nil by mouth. The Observer newspaper, UK. Published 29 February 2004. Accessed 1 January 2009
  73. ^ 'Is cure for apple moth worse than the disease?' The Register Pajaronian. Published 19 June 2008. Accessed 21 June 2008.
  74. ^ 'The vitamin police', by ALAN BOCK, Sr. editorial writer, The Orange County Register. Published 14 August 2005. Accessed 29 April 2007.
  75. ^ Heard, Alex (28 September 1997). “Technology Makes Us Optimistic; They Want To Live”. New York Times. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C01E5D7123BF93BA1575AC0A961958260. Retrieved 2008-02-07. 
  76. ^ Rose, Steve (23 January 2004). “Stephen Valentine talks about the battle to conquer death”. London: The Guardian. http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,1129295,00.html. Retrieved 2008-02-07. 
  77. ^ “House approves mail-order purchase of drugs”. USATODAY.com. 11 July 2001. http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2001-07-11-house-drugs.htm. Retrieved 2008-02-07. 
  78. ^ Kuczynski, Alex (12 April 1998). “Anti-Aging Potion or Poison?”. New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/1998/04/12/style/anti-aging-potion-or-poison.html. 
  79. ^ We Become Silent: The Last Days of Health Freedom (2005) New York Times. Accessed 8 February 2009

External links

  • A Bibliographic History of the Health Freedom Movement by Martin J. Walker.
  • Institute for Health Freedom Washington-based “think tank.”
  • United States Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994
  • European Union Food Supplements Directive, 2002
  • Codex Guidelines for Vitamin and Mineral Food Supplements, 2005
  • “Health Freedom”, from Quackwatch.

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.