I tried to find an explanation by following the links on the quackpot.org site, and found only the following assertion:
The current version of what's known as "Western Medicine" has its roots, I'm embarrassed to admit, in Nazi Germany's Death Camps. Let's not forget that Mengele, and the boys, did the so-called "basic research," and established the philosophy "Western Medicine" operates by today...
I find that, um, less than rigorous.
The documentation also contains the statement:
For the most part, I believe, Planet Earth's pharmaceutical industry (Big Pharma) is a direct descendant of Nazi Germany's I.G. Farben, a company that was forcibly split up into four parts during the "Nuremberg..." trials. Those four companies, not only still exist, but control the significant part of the world's pharmaceutical drug trade.
The four "majors" to come out of IG Farben were AGFA, Bayer, Hoechst and BASF. Of these:
Only Bayer is still in the big pharma arena, and they still haven't recovered from the Lipobay debacle of a couple of years back.
I apologize if this comes across as overly negative, and I don't mean to be destructive. I felt it was important to share my reservations about some of the documentation.
For my part, this issue illustrates what to my mind is one of the great shortcomings of the EU, that so many directives are formulated in back rooms, out of public view.
As far as the issue itself goes, I know too little to offer an opinion, but it's interesting to note that the British consumer group Which? is in favor of positive lists for supplements (their position here). (Maybe someone more UK-savvy could tell me if they're the real thing?). "Ideas or the lack of them can cause disease." - Kurt Vonnegut
I do not believe that it is a German attempt to world dominion. But I do think the German model is convenient for the pharma industries, to restrict our access to nutritional supplements. Here in Switzerland we have Roche and Novartis which both are into vitamins.
I have read some studies, have to search for them if I also can find them online, that indicate that even organic vegetables have a lower nutrition content today, than they used to.
One aspect about this topic is, that there is so much controversial information. Thus I appreciate any information that helps to clarify the topic.
The subject itself is certainly worthwhile in spite of that, but one I know too little about to comment on intelligently. "Ideas or the lack of them can cause disease." - Kurt Vonnegut
And what's the alternative? That a person has to be presribed vitamins by a health professional? This seems also like a gross limitation of trade, besides a gross limitation of nutritional freedom. With all the money in this industry, I have a hard time believing it will stand... Half the population is under the age of 18. Tanzania's future is NOW...join the 50% campaign!
Yes, the idea that you can only get vitamins and minerals on prescription has been talked about. I have not yet been able to find out if it is actually included in final draft of the Codex. The Codex would also apply to Switzerland as we are a member of the WTO.
Just the other day I stumbled across an article by the very over-rated historian Jared Diamond in which he championed the notion that the development of agriculture had been one of the worst mistakes in human history.
Instead he praises the pre-farming hunter-gatherer lifestyle. This is the sort of farking idiocy that debases modern academia.
Yes, he admits, agriculture boosted the population. And why was the population so much lower in a hunter-gatherer society? Was it because those noble savages knew the long lost ancient art of turning deer-guts into condoms? No, it was because of near universal starvation and death by wildlife.
"Natural" (whatever that is), often isn't what it's cracked up to be. Bitsofnews.com Giving you the latest bits.
Sure, the agriculturalists outbred the hunter-gatherers. But the skeletal record implies that the latter were better nourished as individuals than contemporary farmers (and probably better nourished than your average African smallholder today).
Seen from a global ecological perspective, it might have been better for the planet if we had remained within the hunter-gatherer niche (although none of us would be here today). We certainly would not have "overgrazed" the available resources to the present extent.
But we're already on this bus, so that point's moot. "Ideas or the lack of them can cause disease." - Kurt Vonnegut
http://www.drweil.com/u/QA/QA/
Short version:
The thrust of the wrong-headed information being circulated on the Internet is that the Codex guidelines will restrict the availability of vitamins and minerals in the United States. Even more fanciful is the claim that once the Codex guidelines on vitamins and minerals are adopted, supplements that exceed the RDA will be available in the U.S. only by prescription and that this "stealthy" takeover of the supplement industry has been plotted in secret by the pharmaceutical industry working underneath the radar in Europe. None of this is true.
None of this is true.
I have found Weil to be reliable and credible, so this is good news. Pogo: We have met the enemy, and he is us.
One wonders why this claim is being made. It is easy to demonize Big Pharma (I'll be first in line) but there seems to be no corresponding skepticism about the motives of supplement manufacturers - and supplements are a multi-billion dollar (euro, etc.) business.
From Snopes "It [the codex] has no power to force its will on any nation. Codex standards are voluntary, which means if the U.S. doesn't adopt them, they will not govern the regulation of vitamins, minerals, or dietary supplements in the USA."
I think that some supplement manufacturers are spreading these false rumors about the Codex because they want no regulation of their products whatsoever - not even for safety, purity, etc. It costs money to make sure your products are pure, manufactured safely, etc. There are more profits to be made by just packaging whatever into gel caplets and selling it for exorbitant amounts of money.
These are exactly the same rumors that were spread by the lobbyists (and they spent millions on the lobbying) for the supplement manufacturers that resulted in the FDA being stripped of any power to take action against disreputable supplement manufacturers - regardless of what they were packaging and selling - until after consumers have been killed or maimed by their products. And even then, it is very difficult to get dangerous products off of the market.
For those of us who want to buy safe, pure supplements made by manufacturers who take care that their products are uncontaminated and contain what they say they do - this misinformation is not the way to go.
2 votes - 33 %