“Infant saved using Vitamin D in ER”

Vitamin D literally grasps infant from certain death
July 28, 2011

The beginning of the emergency room visit looked bad for the 16-month-old infant. He was in full cardiac arrest. His heart had stopped beating (asystole) but the Swiss hospital crew applied advanced cardiac life support and got the infant’s heart beating once again. When the child’s blood work came back, the doctor immediately noted his calcium was about one-third of what it should be (his ionized calcium was .42 instead of between 1.15 – 1.5), and so the doctor administered IV calcium.

While this was occurring, one of the team noted bowing (curving) of the child’s legs and his wrists were swollen, so the doctor included a vitamin D blood test to the additional blood tests. The child’s vitamin D level was 5.7 instead of in the normal range of 30-100 ng/ml.

On more careful exam, the doctor noted frontal bossing (front of head sticks out), a rachitic rosary (beading along the rib where bone and cartilage meet), hypotonia (muscle flabbiness) and wide wrists and ankles. These are the common signs of vitamin D deficient rickets.

The doctor gave the infant 5,000 IU/day of vitamin D for 3 months resulting in a 25(OH)D level of 65 ng/ml (the FNB/IOM committee members would not be happy). This paper, in today’s edition of the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism, has reproductions of the infants wrist x-rays before and after the vitamin D. The before x-rays look like the x-rays of the children whose parents are unjustly arrested for child abuse, but after 3 months of vitamin D, the x-rays looked perfectly normal.

Chehade et al. Acute Life-Threatening Presentation of Vitamin D Deficiency Rickets. J Clin Endo and Metab. July 27, 2011 Current Issue.

After the medical team stabilized the child, the doctor obtained a dietary history from the parents; the only group that would be satisfied is La Leche League. For the first 10 months of his life, the infant got nothing but breast milk and for the last 4 months got nothing but breast milk and a little rice water. His dark skin and lack of sunlight, combined with his mother’s belief that breast milk alone is all children need to thrive, condemned him to severe rickets and a serum calcium low enough to stop his heart from beating.

When I practiced emergency medicine in the 1970s and 80s, I saw similar cases of asystole and can tell you that the few who survive asystole often have brain damage. Not this child; he thrived once his body got what most breast milk does not have (95%) and that is vitamin D. As Professor Bruce Hollis is about to prove to the world, that simply means 95% of lactating women are vitamin D deficient. A few lucky breast-feeding infants have mothers wise enough to take 5,000 IU of vitamin D daily. Those women have plenty of vitamin D in their breast milk, enough to make this Swiss nightmare only a memory of the new FNB dark ages.

If only the recent FNB had the courage to address all the women with levels below the 20 ng/ml (the level the FNB said was adequate). They know the main way to address the 25% of women with such levels is food fortification, but they chose not to make any food fortification recommendations. Rather, they dispensed advice they know most of these women will not follow. May God and the souls of the lost children forgive them.

-John J. Cannell, M.D.

Article provided by vitamindcouncil.org  and Dr. Cannell author

“Vitamin D + Autism symptoms

Vitamin D is not really a vitamin at all – it is a pre-hormone that’s produced in your skin in response to sunlight exposure. As such, it is an integral part of human health and longevity.

Dr. Cannell answers reader’s questions and sheds light on some of the latest papers on

vitamin D. 

On Autism

Dear Dr. Cannell:
My son James weighs 48lb, he is 7 yrs old. He had autistic symptoms for almost 5 years (first noticed when he was 2 yrs old). I initially started him on 2,000 IU last November after he caught the flu. Two weeks later, I noticed improvements in areas of social interaction, verbalization. I then increased his dosage to 5,000 IU per your recommendation, and he got better.

His progress has been so great that his kindergarten teacher and Speech Therapist have recommended that he exit the Early Intervention Program.

He is more social, making friends easily, participating in cooperative play, and soon to be in a regular classroom. I think it might be bad luck to say he is cured. Is that possible in a genetic disease? A friend told me he must never have had autism but whatever it was, I don’t want it back. I remember what he was like, and me, too. No thanks.

I’m writing because my son’s pediatrician just called and told me James’s 25(OH) level was 122. He believes he must be toxic because of that level and wants me to stop giving him all vitamin D supplements and recheck his vitamin D level next month. James feels great and shows no signs of toxicity.

What should I do?
Mary, New York

Dear Mary:
That is wonderful news about your son. He is not toxic. However, he should reduce his vitamin D to 2,000 IU/day and recheck his blood level in a month. Some of his symptoms may come back; I don’t know but do not fear, if the symptoms return the vitamin D will take care of them. It appears to me that high dose vitamin D controls, rather than “cures,” some cases of autism. If his level in a month is below 100 ng/ml, the pediatrician will be happy as that is the upper range of normal vitamin D levels.

Yes, autism is a genetic disease, so how can vitamin D treat it? I suspect that one of vitamin D’s many duties in the body is to protect your genome from mutations, organizing the correction of random and point mutations when they occur. Think of your son as having DNA that is unlikely to function properly with lower levels of vitamin D. How long his DNA will be sensitive to low vitamin D, I don’t know.

An immediate question is how much vitamin D to give him now. You want to give him the lowest dose that controls his symptoms. I suspect that he will end up needing 3,000 to 4,000 IU per day to maintain his 25(OH)D around 80-90 ng/ml.

Article courtesy of Dr. John Cannell, MD and VitaminD Council

“Last antibiotic standing-losing to Gonorrhea”

The last line of defense for treating gonorrhea is crumbling, according to an article published in the July 8 issue of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC’s) Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

Cephalosporins, the last class of antibiotics that treat gonorrhea, seem to be losing their effectiveness as the pathogen quickly evolves to bypass the antibiotic.

After 10 years of study, the CDC researchers studying gonorrhea cultures show that higher doses of antibiotics are needed to inhibit growth in the lab The gonorrhea samples collected through the CDC’s Gonococcal Isolate Surveillance Project from male patients in 30 US cities. Close to 6000 isolates were collected each year.

A pattern of emerging resistance is developing says Gail Bolan, MD, director of CDC’s Division of Sexually Transmitted Disease Prevention.

Although no treatment failures have been reported yet in the United States, there have been reports from Asia and other parts of the world suggesting gonorrhea’s declining susceptibility to cephalosporin, said Hillard Weinstock, MD, MPH, from the same division.

At an Impasse

Historically, since the 1930s and 1940s, antibiotics have treated gonorrhea. However, during the past 40 years, the bacteria Neisseria gonorrhoeae has developed resistance to several drugs, including sulfonamides, penicillin, and tetracycline. As recently as 2007, the CDC stopped recommending any fluoroquinolone regimens to treat gonorrhea, leaving cephalosporins the last class of antibiotics standing.

The CDC is down to recommending a cephalosporin (cefixime or ceftriaxone), along with a macrolide antibiotic, preferably azithromycin. Ceftriaxone is the most effective cephalosporin for treating gonorrhea, and azithromycin is better than doxycycline for dual therapy with ceftriaxone, the CDC notes. (Dosing recommendations are available in the article.)

Gonorrhea is one of the most common sexually transmitted diseases. Among serious health consequences, it can lead to infertility in women and increase a person’s risk of acquiring HIV.

Given the possibility of rising resistance, clinicians should be on the lookout for treatment failures, Dr. Bolan said, which will show up as persistent symptoms or a positive follow-up test despite treatment with CDC-recommended antibiotics. Clinicians should also obtain specimens for gonococcal culture from patients whose treatments may have failed. “You need to find labs that are still doing the [gonococcal] culture,” she said.

CDC Recommendations

The CDC recommends that individual providers:

  • promptly treat all patients diagnosed with gonorrhea according to CDC Treatment Guidelines,
  • obtain cultures to test for decreased susceptibility from any patients with suspected or documented gonorrhea treatment failures, and
  • report any suspected treatment failure to local or state public health officials within 24 hours, helping to ensure that any future resistance is recognized early.

Clinicians who care for patients with gonorrhea, especially men who have sex with men in the western United States, should consider having patients return 1 week after treatment for test-of-cure with culture, preferably, or with nucleic acid amplification tests. The CDC report notes that the pattern of cephalosporin susceptibility in the West and among men who have sex with men during 2009 to 2010 resembles the drop in effectiveness observed earlier when a fluoroquinolone-resistant N gonorrhoeae emerged in the United States.

Although Dr. Bolan said she was not aware of any new drug development in the pipeline, the CDC and the National Institutes of Health are running a treatment trial on existing drugs: gentamicin, azithromycin, and gemifloxacin. The trial is expected to yield results by late 2012, said Bob Kirkcaldy, MD, MPH, from the CDC’s Office of Workforce Development and Division of STD Prevention.

“We really do want to have more treatment trials so that we have more treatment options down the pike,” Dr. Bolan said.

However, the development of new antibiotics is unlikely, according to Brad Spellberg, MD, author of Rising Plague: The Global Threat from Deadly Bacteria and Our Dwindling Arsenal to Fight Them. A fellow of the Infectious Diseases Society of America who sits on its antimicrobial availability taskforce, Dr. Spellberg characterized the next several decades as “a very barren period of time” in terms of antibiotics development.

Dr. Spellberg offered 3 reasons to explain his outlook: First, there is a significant scientific challenge. After 60 years of antibiotic discovery, all the low-hanging fruit has been plucked, and developing new antibiotics would be difficult. Second, pharmaceutical companies have found that they make much more money off drugs that target chronic illnesses, not ones consumers will take for only 14 days. Third, “nobody even knows how to do drug trials for antibiotics anymore,” Dr. Spellberg said, and the US Food and Drug Administration’s requirements, he explained, are unclear, infeasible, and/or unreasonable.

“There’s never going to be an endgame to this,” he said. Industry, he predicted, will exit antibiotic development. “It doesn’t make enough money for them, and the regulatory morass exacerbates the problem.” Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2011:60;873-877. Full text

What are the signs and symptoms of gonorrhea?

Some men with gonorrhea may have no symptoms at all. However, some men have signs or symptoms that appear one to fourteen days after infection. Symptoms and signs include a burning sensation when urinating, or a white, yellow, or green discharge from the penis. Sometimes men with gonorrhea get painful or swollen testicles.

In women, the symptoms of gonorrhea are often mild, but most women who are infected have no symptoms. Even when a woman has symptoms, they can be so non-specific as to be mistaken for a bladder or vaginal infection. The initial symptoms and signs in women include a painful or burning sensation when urinating, increased vaginal discharge, or vaginal bleeding between periods. Women with gonorrhea are at risk of developing serious complications from the infection, regardless of the presence or severity of symptoms.

Symptoms of rectal infection in both men and women may include discharge, anal itching, soreness, bleeding, or painful bowel movements. Rectal infection also may cause no symptoms. Infections in the throat may cause a sore throat, but usually causes no symptoms.

What are the complications of gonorrhea?

Untreated gonorrhea can cause serious and permanent health problems in both women and men.

In women, gonorrhea is a common cause of pelvic inflammatory disease (PID). About 750,000 women each year in the United States develop PID. The symptoms may be quite mild or can be very severe and can include abdominal pain and fever. PID can lead to internal abscesses (pus-filled “pockets” that are hard to cure) and long-lasting, chronic pelvic pain. PID can damage the fallopian tubes enough to cause infertility or increase the risk of ectopic pregnancy. Ectopic pregnancy is a life-threatening condition in which a fertilized egg grows outside the uterus, usually in a fallopian tube.

In men, gonorrhea can cause epididymitis, a painful condition of the ducts attached to the testicles that may lead to infertility if left untreated.

Gonorrhea can spread to the blood or joints. This condition can be life threatening. In addition, people with gonorrhea can more easily contract HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. HIV-infected people with gonorrhea can transmit HIV more easily to someone else than if they did not have gonorrhea.

How does gonorrhea affect a pregnant woman and her baby?

If a pregnant woman has gonorrhea, she may give the infection to her baby as the baby passes through the birth canal during delivery. This can cause blindness, joint infection, or a life-threatening blood infection in the baby. Treatment of gonorrhea as soon as it is detected in pregnant women will reduce the risk of these complications. Pregnant women should consult a health care provider for appropriate examination, testing, and treatment, as necessary.

Alternative Health Care

Natural medicine’s approach to treating all diseases is to look at the whole person and provide treatment that is specific to that person. Through individualized care in classical homeopathy, nutrition, herbal,oriental and Ayurvedic medicines and stress management care, possibly coupled with tradition drugs a person has the best opportunity to heal, because the body is not simply overwhelmed with a chemical antibiotic in hopes of repeatedly and blindly trying to drive the invader out of the body. Overwhelming the delicate systems of the body with chemicals only surpresses the symptoms of the disease and creates deeper pathology. (For more information-Mary Wolken-editor CMA)

Resources

Excerpts courtesy of  http://goo.gl/D6iqt

"Save your change and use your pen to stop malnutrition"

Starvation kills. Malnutrition and dehydration can eliminated an individuals chance at developing a strong healthy body and mind and can cause death. 200 million children under 5 years of age are affected by malnutrition, with 90 percent living in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia. And at any moment, at least 20 million children suffer from thedeadliest form of severe malnutrition. Malnutrition plays a huge role in child mortality because the immune systems of these children are less resistant to common childhood diseases. In fact, malnutrition contributes to at least one third of the eight million annual deaths of children under five of five.

Most of the damage caused by malnutrition occurs in children before they reach their second birthday.

This is the critical window of opportunity when the quality of a child’s diet has a profound, sustained impact on his or her health, physical and mental development. Breast milk is the only food babies need for the first six months. After this time, breastfeeding alone is not sufficient and the types of foods introduced into the diet are of paramount importance. Diets that do not provide the right blend of energy including high-quality protein, essential fats, and carbohydrates as well as vitamins and minerals can impair growth and development, increase the risk of death from common childhood illness, or result in life-long health consequences.

More clean water, protein, fruit and vegetables and less flour will eradicate malnutrition.

Tested strategies to address malnutrition are effective and are showing promising results in Mexico, Thailand, and Brazil, have reduced early childhood malnutrition through direct nutrition programs that ensure infants and young children from even the poorest families have access to quality foods, such as milk and eggs.

Although in Asian and African countries they want to tackle this problem by replicating successful complete food programs, the aid they are sent consists of fortified cereal blend of corn and soy only.  This GMO “food” will fill th ebelly of a starving child, but young child’s hunger, but does not provide proper nourishment.

International donor countries including the USA must end must support programs that don’t supply  the minimal nutritional needs of infants and young children.

Take action today to help Doctors Without Borders to change this food starvation policy,

Give all children a chance to grow up healthy.


Please sign the petition to help change the US policy and give what you can to help.

Resources

Excerpts courtesy of http://www.starvedforattention.org

Image 1. courtesy of   http://bit.ly/cnz18k

Image 2. courtesy of   http://bit.ly/aQkswQ

"Natural product companies score -1 FDA-0 "

The United States District Court for the District of Columbia has ruled that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) violated the First Amendment rights of a nutritional supplement company when it censored truthful, scientifically-backed claims about how selenium can help reduce the risk of cancer.

In this case,  the FDA tried to censor a company’s selenium supplements saying that the claims about the health benefits of the dietary supplements could not be justified.

In this court case, Alliance for Natural Health, the plaintiffs—including Durk Pearson, Sandy Shaw and the Coalition to End FDA and FTC Censorship sued FDA, based on precedent cases, over the denial of a petition for several qualified health claims for selenium and the risk of certain cancers., the judge ruled that the FDA violated the First Amendment rights of the plaintiffs by restricting their free speech about the anti-cancer benefits of their selenium supplements.

The FDA harasses legitimate nutritional supplement companies by

  • sending letters threatening to arrest the owners
  • imprisoning them
  • destroying their business
  • seizing their customer records
  • confiscating their inventory for non compliance. To learn more

These terror tactics have been extremely effective, because most U.S. companies lack the financial resources to battle the FDA in court.

This victory by the Alliance for Natural Health is landmark: It provides a legal wedge by which other companies can now begin to stand up for their own First Amendment rights. there were better and more appropriately designed studies assessing the effects of nutrients on chronic disease risk reduction, the need to extensively qualify claims would be lessened.  NIH seems to be moving in this direction, with both ODS and NCCAM focusing future research dollars on smaller, more rigorous  Phase-2 trials that will invest heavily in the use of biomarkers of exposure and surrogates for disease.  However, any results are years away.

An example of the FDA’s harrassment of the natural food producers target the health claims about cherries and walnuts.

Both the FDA and FTC have been attempting to suppress the truth about cherries and walnuts for many years, intimidating cherry and walnut product companies with all sorts of threats to try to force them to remove any links to scientific information about the health benefits of cherries and walnuts. To learn more, click here.

Support the Organic Consumers Association and the Natural Health News.

Resources

Excerpts courtesy of  http://bit.ly/bh673T
Excerpts courtesy of  naturalnews.com

Image 1. courtesy of  http://bit.ly/bHGy1n

Image 2. courtesy of   http://bit.ly/aiOEc2

"McCain's supplement bill"

Congress will likely pass around 500 bills in 2010 that will impact the lives of every-day Americans like you and I.

One of Senator McCain’s latest bills shouldn’t be among them, and you can help make certain his bill doesn’t see the light of day.

He introduced a misguided bill that threatens access to dietary and health supplements many Americans depend on.

The stated aim of his so-called Dietary Supplement Safety Act (DSSA) is to curb doping in major league sports. But in reality, the bill will do more harm than good. The FDA already has power to do more to stop illegal steroids. What’s most troubling is that if Senator McCain’s bill passes, it would repeal key protections in the 1994 Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA) and give the FDA sweeping new powers.

What would this mean for us? It would likely lead to drastically fewer supplements available and higher prices.

The public outcry has gotten Senator McCain’s attention, but time is running out. A final big push could change McCain’s mind.

Please take a moment and urge your Senator to oppose Senator McCain’s harmful anti-supplement legislation.

It is critical that we keep the pressure on, and with your help, we can ensure the final defeat of this bad bill. The following are the four parts of the bill.


1. Requires all dietary supplement manufacturing, processing and holding facilities to register with the Secretary of Health and Human Services;

2. Gives the Food and Drug Administration authority to issue a mandatory recall order if a dietary supplement is adulterated or misbranded or “the use of such supplement could cause serious adverse health consequences such as death;”

3. Requires the FDA commissioner to publish guidelines on new dietary ingredients “as soon as possible;”

4. Mandates the FDA notify the Drug Enforcement Administration when a new product contains a synthetic anabolic steroid.

Athletes from various sports have blamed positive drug tests on substances that turn up in dietary supplements even though they aren’t listed as ingredients on the label.

McCain has said his bill would protect professional and Olympic athletes — along with casual sports participants who use supplements.

Please contact your senators today and tell them not to co-sponsor or support Senator McCain’s bill.

Clues to preventing cancers

For many years Integrated Medicine has known that many factors play into creating cancerous conditions in the body. Some of

Vitamin D3
Vitamin D3

these include, but are not limited to eating foods that create an acidic condition in the body like meats, milk products, processed foods and sugar. Anything that changes the pH to acidic from the normal alkaline can create a breeding grounds for cell/DNA changes including long lasting deep seated repressed emotions.

Now Cedric Garland, DrPH, professor of family and preventive medicine at the UC San Diego School of Medicine, and his research team explain that with enough vitamin D and calcium present, cells adhere to one another in tissue and act as normal, mature epithelial cells. If there is a deficiency of vitamin D, cells can lose their sticking ability as well as their identity as differentiated cells. When this happens, they may revert to a dangerous stem cell-like state and become cancerous.

In 2008, Dr. Garland and his colleagues found an association between a lack of sunlight exposure, low vitamin D and breast cancer. In earlier work, they showed linkages between increased levels of vitamin D3 or markers of vitamin D and a lower risk for breast, colon, ovarian and kidney cancers, too

Resources

Excerpts courtesy of Naturalnews.com/026447_Vitamin_D_cancer_NaturalNews

Image courtesy of  Wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/Cholecalciferol

Canada's Bill C-51 Will it Outlaw Vit C OTC?

Vitamin C About to be Made Illegal in Canada!

by Joseph Mercola MD

C-51, C51, Canada, the Trilateral Union, the North American Union, NAU, laws, supplements, natural health products, illegal.  What if, just for taking vitamin C, you could be thrown in jail for up to 2 years and fined up to $5,000,000?

For many, this sounds inconceivable.  Surely someone is misinterpreting the proposed law?

After hours of cross-checking, I must admit, I’m still a bit confused about its true potential ramifications.

In reading the proposed law itself, the statements above appear to be potentially accurate interpretations. Ditto on the dire predictions made by www.Stop51.com.

And although the Canadian government’s site, Healthy Canadians, claims that none of the above statements are true, it offers very little in terms of guidance on just how and why the law doesn’t mean what it says.

Why Should Americans Care?

If you’re one of the millions of people in Canada, the United States or Mexico, who has never heard of the Trilateral Union, the North American Union (NAU), or Codex, I’m afraid you may be in for a quite a surprise. But don’t feel bad, neither of our respective governments or major media outlets are speaking publicly or frankly about these plans.

These issues are far too broad and deep to go into in this article, but they are the reasons why you should care about this law passing in Canada, even if you don’t live there now – because in the foreseeable future the borders between our three countries might disappear.

If you’re reading this newsletter you obviously have access to the internet, so just Google “North American Union” or “Codex” and you’ll get more than 74.6 million and 13 million hits respectively on these two topics.

You can also search my website for previous articles on Codex and what these international food and supplement standards may mean for the future of nutritional supplements.

If being an informed citizen matters to you, don’t let these topics slip under your radar – they have the power to change our respective countries and our ways of life in more ways than you could imagine.

What Does Codex Have to Do With C-51?

To answer that question we have to back up a couple of paces and start with a quick explanation of what Codex is.

The Codex Alimentarius Commission, conceived by the United Nations in 1962, was birthed through a series of relationships between The World Health Organization (WHO), the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the World Trade Organization (WTO) as well as the American FDA and USDA.

The Codex Alimentarius itself is a compilation of food standards, codes of practice and guidelines that specify all requirements related to foods (whether processed, semi-processed, genetically engineered, or raw). Their purpose is to protect consumers’ health, ensure fair business practices within the food trade, and eliminate international food trade barriers by standardizing food quality.

Sounds good in theory, right?

However, the two most potentially dangerous prospects of Codex are: 1) these standards are being devised as international rules intended for world-wide adoption, and 2) Codex has classified nutrients as toxins.

Yes, toxins. That’s not a misprint.

The Codex Commission decided—with the support of the United States—to use something called Risk Assessment, which assesses the maximum level of a substance – in this case a nutrient — that may be ingested without causing any discernable biological effect.

Did you get that one? Let me explain further.

Risk Assessment is a branch of Toxicology, a.k.a. the science of toxins (as opposed to the science of nutrition). In a sane world, it is used to assess how much of a toxic substance you can safely eat without noticing any physical effects or problems. As soon as there is a biological effect, you have hit the upper, maximum limit for that substance.

Codex is slowly but surely shimmying into position to mandate the universal maximum “safe” level of every vitamin, mineral, supplement and herb that may legally be manufactured, used or sold — with “safe” being a level that has no physical effect.

So, what does this have to do with Canada’s potential adoption of C-51?

Well, C-51 also amends the Canadian law to allow trade agreements to become law without Parliamentary approval, and for the regulation to incorporate documents produced by a foreign state or subdivision of a foreign state.

What that means is that the Codex treaty could become Canadian law without Parliamentary approval simply by passing a regulation saying it is now part of the Canadian regulations.

If the Codex rules become the law of the land in Canada, the safety of supplements might become judged on the toxicology scale, and if Canada has these laws in place when the NAU becomes reality – guess what? The U.S. and Mexico may have little choice but to fall under the same umbrella of laws and standards.

And, even if you refuse to believe that the North American Union will ever take place, passing similar, potentially restricting natural health laws in the U.S. will be a whole lot easier if Canada sets the precedent.

The Fine Art of Double-Speak

The Canadian law, known as C-51, was introduced by the Canadian Minister of Health on April 8th, 2008, proposing far-reaching changes to Canada’s Food and Drug Act. The question on everyone’s mind is whether or not it might have devastating consequences on the health products industry.

According to the government website Healthy Canadians, Canadians will continue to have access to natural health products that are safe, effective and of high quality, and claims that:

*
Natural health products will not be regulated as pharmaceutical drugs; they will continue to be regulated under their own regulations – separate from drugs and foods.
*
Bill C-51 will not increase the costs of natural health products.
*
Bill C-51 does not regulate growing an herb garden.
*
Bill C-51 does not target practitioners who compound products for their patients.
*
Bill C-51 does not target Canadians’ personal use of natural health products.
*
Health food stores will not require a special license to sell natural health products.
*
Canadians will not require a prescription from a doctor for natural health products.

However, the site also makes somewhat confusing statements like:

“Under Bill C-51 the term ‘therapeutic products’ encompasses a range of products sold for therapeutic purposes, including drugs, medical devices, biologics, and natural health products. This does not change the classification of a natural health product nor impose additional requirements.”

Personally, I’ve not been able to sort out why or how a natural health product — if now lumped together with drugs under the term ‘therapeutic products’ — would not change its classification, and why they would not have to abide by the same rules as all other ‘therapeutic products.’

The Power of Words

One of the most opposed changes is this radical alteration to key terminology, including replacing the word “drug” with “therapeutic product,” which is the same term used for all natural products as well.

To get a better idea of the many questions and confusing pitfalls this law change brings to fore, I recommend reading the NHPPA Draft Discussion Paper on Bill C-51.

Clearly, I’m not the only one who can’t make heads or tails out of this legislative doublespeak, and the paper (written by a defense attorney specializing in the Food and Drugs Act) succinctly points out the power of language and key words in legislative debate.

For example, the old definition of “sell” is:

“includes the offer for sale, expose for sale, have in possession for sale and distribute, whether or not the distribution is made for consideration.”

That’s clear. In fact, I think most of us have a decent idea of what “selling” means. The NEW definition of “sell,” however, opens the door for a very broad interpretation:

“includes offer for sale, expose for sale or have in possession for sale, or distribute to one or more persons, whether or not the distribution is made for consideration and in relation to a device, includes lease, offer for lease, expose for lease or have in possession for lease.”

Now, what’s the reason for redefining the meaning of the word “sell” to include the simple act of “distributing to one or more persons”? Who does this new meaning benefit? Who does this now include that was not included before? Why the need for such a broad definition?

In plain English, it appears the law now applies if I were to simply give something to another person for free, whether it’s a stranger or a family member.

More Questionable Interpretations

Another interesting rebuttal by the Canadian government is the issue of whether or not an inspector would be allowed to enter private property without permission or a warrant.

The Healthy Canadian site states, “Inspectors will not be able to enter a private home without permission or a warrant.”

And yet the law, Section 23 (4), clearly reads: An inspector who is carrying out their functions may enter on or pass through or over private property without being liable for doing so and without the owner of the property having the right to object to that use of the property.

Since when does “without the right to object” mean that they have to ask for permission or present a warrant?

What Can You Do?

I don’t pretend to know or understand the full potential implications of this proposed law.  However, if — after reading through the many source links I’ve included in this comment — you believe that C-51 is a law that is not in your and your family’s best interest, you can make your voice heard by signing the StopC51 petition”.  -Dr. Mercola

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2008/06/19/vitamin-c-about-to-be-made-illegal-in-canada.aspx?source=nl