- As states line up to follow in the footsteps of New Mexico
where Stephen Fox has petitioned for the ban of aspartame,and a bill has
been written, it looks like this is an effort to prevent action to save
consumers from this toxin.
-
- Obviously, if we can get aspartame banned state by state,
millions will wake up well from afflictions they may not correlate with
the neurotoxic drug, aspartame. And then the world will know the aspartame
manufacturers have poisoned the world as Dr. James Bowen told the FDA years
ago:
-
- http://www.dorway.com/drbowen.txt
-
- In Georgia, Return to Eden, an organic food market and
health food store, gave out 16,000 Killer Kola brochures on the dangers
of aspartame. Thousands got off of it because the reports were so damning
and about 60 days later woke up well from afflictions they had suffered
for years. The cases were incredible. Two people who were blind regained
their sight, as Dr. Morgan Raiford said would happen if vision was still
in the wet stage. Many who were crippled with fibromyalgia could walk
again. Headaches, insomnia, memory loss, brain fog, and neurological
symptoms disappeared. Two people diagnosed with MS walked out of their
wheelchairs.
-
- The manufacturers are doing everything they can to stop
this from happening in New Mexico. We want it to be a precedent for the
world to follow. Already a member of Parliament, Roger Williams, has called
for a ban on aspartame.
-
- The Bill of Rights tells us they cannot take away the
rights of the people and of the states:
-
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki//wiki/Ninth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
-
- Ninth Amendment Protection of rights not specifically
enumerated in the Bill of Rights.
-
- The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights,
shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
* <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki//wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_ConstitutionTenth
-
- Amendment Powers of states and people
-
- The powers not delegated to the United States by the
Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states
respectively, or to the people. __
-
- Big Pharma would like to have a dictatorship and prevent
the rights of the people from having legal redress, and the FDA, the handmaiden
of the pharmaceutical industry would be delighted to help.
-
- They have given their loyalty to Big Pharma and betrayed
the public trust.
-
- On May 17, 2001, Ed Horton, Editor of the prestigious
Lancet wrote the FDA is compromised because it receives so much funding
from industry, and endangers the lives of the people. When those responsible
to solve the problem ARE the problem the rights of the people must be addressed
and served. Those who compromise the right of the people to life, liberty
and the pursuit of happiness should be stopped. As Ed Horton said, the
FDA actions have led to many deaths. In the case of aspartame because
it causes cancer
-
- http://www.wnho.net/new_aspartame_studies.htm
-
- triggers degenerative diseases, diabetes and other fatal
problems as well as abortions and birth defects, consider the deaths in
the millions. (Aspartame Disease: An Ignored Epidemic, H. J. Roberts,
M.D., and Excitotoxins: The Taste That Kills, Russell Blaylock, M.D.)
Aspartame interacts with all drugs and vaccines:
-
- http://www.wnho.net/aspartame_interacts.htm
-
- As long as it remains on the market no drug is safe.
-
- The FDA has proven they are not the SERVANT of the people.
Their actions show them to be more of a corporate SERPENT who slithers
and attacks the lives and rights of the population.
-
- Their hissing is aimed at removal of safe vitamins and
herbs, and the protection of Big Pharma. They rubberstamp just almost
everything that industry wants. To help in the New Mexico effort you can
go to www.wnho.net and click on aspartame to read the releases.
-
- To help ban aspartame in your state contact Stephen Fox
or myself (stephen@santafefineart.com and bettym19@mindspring.com).
-
- To prevent this FDA rule against the rights of the people
forward this on to those who can help and to your congressman.
-
- Dr. Betty Martini, D.Hum, Founder,
- Mission Possible International
- 9270 River Club Parkway
- Duluth, Georgia 30097
- 770 242-2599
- http://www.wnho.net and www.dorway.com
-
- Aspartame Toxicity Center, http://www.holisticmed.com/aspartame
-
- Subscribe to Aspartame Information List, front page banner,
www.wnho.net
-
-
- Wall St. Journal: FDA Pre-empts All State Law
-
- ALLIANCE FOR HUMAN RESEARCH PROTECTION (AHRP)
-
- Promoting Openness, Full Disclosure, and Accountability
www.ahrp.org Consumers beware!
-
- FDA political appointees have embarked on a plan to divest
the American consumer of the right to seek compensation for defective prescription
drugs. The Wall Street Journal reports that the agency's plan for revamping
drug labeling rules would carve in stone the agency's former chief counsel,
Daniel Troy''s pre-emption argument. The pre-emption argument holds that
the authority of the FDA (and other federal regulatory agencies) pre-empts
any state consumer protection laws. In the case of drugs companies like
Merck would be free from liability even as the body count from its pain
killer, Vioxx, reaches tens of thousands.
-
- The White House, pharmaceutical giants, lobbyists and
sycophants are attempting to frame the argument in terms "tort reform"
falsely creating the impression that the only ones who would lose would
be plaintiff attorneys. In truth, the FDA, whose legal mandate is to protect
the public from drugs that have not been scientifically proven safe and
effective, is proposing a rule to protect the manufacturers of hazardous
drugs instead. Indeed, FDA's plan would encourage Big Pharma to continue
to use corrupt marketing practices--including flooding the airwaves with
misleading advertisements for prescription drugs-- instead of enforcing
truth in advertising laws.
-
- Contact: Vera Hassner Sharav
212-595-8974
veracare@ahrp.org
- http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB113720623594046758-2WU_h2b
weo8Wdurc2Sbuca_2_yw_20070114.html?mod=tff_main_tff_top
-
-
- FDA Plan Would Aid Drug Makers In Liability
Suits Agency's Approved Labels Would Pre-empt
State Law; Plaintiffs' Lawyers Object
-
-
- By Anna Wilde Mathews
Wall Street Journal - Page A1
1-14-6
-
- The Food and Drug Administration is preparing to declare
that federally approved medication labels pre-empt state law, a move that
could strengthen pharmaceutical makers' defenses against lawsuits claiming
injury by the companies' products. The policy could help companies argue
they weren't required to warn consumers about a potential risk when the
FDA had determined that the safety issue didn't warrant inclusion on a
medicine's label. The new policy, which would address state liability statutes,
has been written into a broad new drug-labeling rule that is likely to
be issued shortly, according to people with knowledge of the matter, though
the rule has been repeatedly delayed.
-
- Product-liability suits have become a huge problem for
drug makers. In one of the more high-profile cases lately, Merck &
Co. faces dozens of lawsuits across the country over its withdrawn painkiller
Vioxx. Merck pulled that hugely popular drug from the market in 2004 following
a study that linked the drug to an increased risk of heart attacks and
strokes in patients taking it for 18 months or longer. Merck and other
companies have often struggled to explain the scientific nuances of their
drug-safety defenses to juries. As yet, it isn't clear whether the new
FDA policy would affect the Merck cases. Kent Jarrell, a spokesperson for
Merck, said, "We really can't get into discussing language of a proposed
rule that we have not seen."
-
- A spokesman for drug maker Pfizer Inc. declined to comment.
Plaintiffs' lawyers, however, oppose the policy. "If the proposed
changes were to be enacted, drug-product safety in the U.S. would suffer
a major setback at a time when the conduct of pharmaceutical companies
and the FDA have been called into question," said Thomas R. Kline,
a plaintiffs' attorney with Kline & Specter and a key player in Vioxx
litigation.
-
- The controversial policy has been written into the preamble
of an important FDA rule that is supposed to reform how drugs are labeled,
according to people with knowledge of the matter. It could still be toned
down or even removed before the rule becomes public, though it has already
survived years of internal debate. The FDA has asserted similar arguments
in briefs filed in legal cases, but the federal rule would be broader and
likely have more impact on individual judges' decisions. Courts may still
choose to reject the reasoning, however.
-
- The policy would mesh with the White House's focus on
tort reform. Indeed, other federal agencies have made similar moves toward
helping to shield businesses from certain forms of legal action.
-
- The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration last
August proposed a new rule on car-roof strength that would grant legal
protection to car makers that adhere to the safety standard. The U.S. Office
of the Comptroller of the Currency issued a sweeping regulation in early
2004 that said federal banking laws take precedence over a number of state
consumer-protection statutes when applied to national banks.
-
- The agency challenged an investigation of potentially
discriminatory lending practices by New York Attorney General Elliot Spitzer,
arguing that his probe impinged on federal enforcement turf. Inclusion
of the new FDA policy in the long-awaited drug-labeling rule has sparked
disagreements between FDA career officials and Bush administration appointees,
according to people with knowledge of the matter. Some FDA career staffers
have argued internally that it isn't relevant to the rule's focus on drug-labeling
reform, and may draw controversy to an important regulatory improvement
that isn't itself politically divisive.
-
- In addition, career officials believe debate over the
matter has helped delay the labeling change from taking effect. The new
rule is expected to specify circumstances under which the legal shield
would apply, though it may not limit the protections solely to those situations,
according to people with knowledge of the matter. The drug company must
have provided all its data to the FDA, these people said. The drug-labeling
rule's language pertaining to the new policy is likely to contribute to
the growing clash over the proper bounds of state and federal regulatory
authority.
-
- Big companies have long fought patchworks of laws that
differ from state to state, and federal efforts to assert authority in
various regulatory areas have drawn testy responses from state officials.
In the case of the new FDA rule, states argue that they weren't adequately
informed that it was coming. Yesterday, the National Conference of State
Legislatures protested the move in a letter to Health and Human Services
Secretary Michael Leavitt, calling it a "thinly-veiled attempt on
the part of FDA to confer upon itself authority it does not have by statute"
and an "abuse of agency process."
-
- Past FDA briefs arguing that agency guidelines pre-empt
state law haven't always been accepted by courts. Last July, a federal
judge in Minnesota turned down a Pfizer request to bar a suit over the
antidepressant Zoloft, writing that "federal labeling laws are minimum
standards; they do not necessarily shield manufacturers from state law
liability. ... state-law protections reinforce and enhance" federal
efforts to protect the public.
-
- Defenders of the FDA's pre-emption briefs have argued
that they simply articulate a stance that is implicit in federal law. If
state lawmakers and courts can second-guess the FDA, some drug-industry
officials say, it could lead to a morass of conflicting rules and undermine
the decisions of the government's most qualified experts. "You want
the FDA to have the last word if you believe in the FDA's expertise,"
said Daniel Troy, the former FDA chief counsel who filed several of the
briefs and who represents industry clients in private practice.
-
- The new drug-labeling rule, a major regulation that has
been in development for years, will update the format of the FDA-approved
documents that provide the definitive account of each medicine's uses and
risks. They can stretch for dozens of pages, and even doctors often find
them difficult to navigate. The new layout is expected to clarify the most
important information at the top of the label in a standardized "facts
box" format. It is the centerpiece of a broader FDA initiative to
make drug information more accessible.
-
- --Heather Won Tesoriero and Barbara Martinez contributed
to this article. Write to Anna Wilde Mathews at anna.mathews@wsj.com
-
-
|