Access to all articles, new health classes, discounts in our store, and more!
By Mark Bielsky and Roberta Louis
Price-Pottenger: What is the National Health Federation?
Scott Tips: The National Health Federation (NHF) is an umbrella organization for consumers, health professionals, and just about anyone who shares the belief that the individual should be able to make his or her own choices in the health and health freedom realm. We have been around since 1955 and now have many thousands of members in about 22 countries. We also have some international branches, such as NHF-Sweden, NHF-UK, and NHF-Canada.
NHF deals with many issues including food safety, dietary supplements, vaccines, water fluoridation, 5G electromagnetic fields, and so on, and we publish a magazine for our members that has a lot of cutting – edge articles. However, we are probably most known for our work at the Codex Alimentarius. We are the only health freedom organization that is accredited by the Codex Alimentarius Commission and, as such, we get to participate in Codex meetings and the discussions that take place there. We provide expert representation in all sorts of matters relating to health at those meetings. In fact, due to our advocacy there, we’re able to influence health policy that affects approximately seven billion people across the planet because the Codex Alimentarius is setting food standards worldwide.
PPNF: A lot of people don’t know what the Codex Alimentarius actually is. Would you describe its background and purpose?
ST: The Codex Alimentarius Commission was created in 1963 as an international organization under the auspices of the Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) and the World Health Organization (WHO) of the United Nations. It evolved slowly until the establishment of the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 1994, which provided for enforcement actions that actually gave some teeth to the standards and guidelines created by Codex.
Codex Alimentarius is a Latin phrase meaning “Food Code.” So, Codex doesn’t deal with drugs or medical devices. Ostensibly, it doesn’t involve medicinal herbs‚ just culinary herbs, other foods and spices, dietary supplements, and mineral waters, along with all of the processes for creating food items for humans and even for animals. Its purview even includes such things as veterinary drug residues and other contaminants in foods.
Early on, the Commission realized that it couldn’t handle all of this workload, so various committees were created. Each committee is hosted by a particular government; for example, the Codex Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses (CCNFSDU) is hosted by the German government, which provides the chairperson, the place to meet, and so on. The United States hosts the Codex Committee on Food Hygiene (CCFH) and the Codex Committee on Residues of Veterinary Drugs in Foods (CCRVDF). Thus, the US Codex Office gets to select the chairperson for these meetings and decide where they will be held. The chairpeople have a lot of power at these meetings, although they are supposed to follow the Codex Procedural Manual, and decisions are almost always made by consensus.
PPNF: Are the decisions made in the meetings binding on the participating governments?
ST: They are binding on international trade, and that’s where the WTO comes into play. Keep in mind, Codex has two noble goals: to eliminate international barriers to trade in food and to protect the health of the consumer. Of course, NHF agrees with both of these goals.
However, there are different views as to what protects the health of the consumer. For example, the US and Canada hold that eating GMO foods doesn’t harm the health of the individual, and they want to export these foods to Europe. But the European Union has a policy prohibiting the importation of GMO foods. If a Codex standard has been established for a GMO-laden or GMO-created food, the case can be made that the EU is unfairly blocking entry of that food.
Therefore, the US or any of the other countries producing GMO foods can go to the WTO, file a trade dispute, and ask for adjudication by the WTO arbitration panel. The panel will ask the question, “Is there a Codex standard that exists for this food?” These standards are published on codexalimentarius.net and elsewhere. If the arbitration panel finds that there is a standard, it will rule in favor of the country that is meeting the standard. That is why, in the mid-1990s, a lot of corporations and even some consumer groups woke up and said, “Hey, this is really a powerful thing.”
That’s when NHF first started sending reporters to Codex meetings to find out what was going on. When I saw that wasn’t enough, I asked the then-president of NHF, Maureen Kennedy Salaman, to send me to Berlin to the meeting of the CCNFSDU, the nutrition committee, and she readily agreed. That was the first meeting I went to, in June 2000.
When I went to that meeting, it was just as a member of the US delegation. If you’re in a country delegation, you generally can’t speak. The head of delegation – the person who speaks on behalf of it – tends to be an FDA- or USDA-type bureaucrat. No matter what the country is, private citizens aren’t usually allowed to speak on its behalf.
So, I couldn’t speak out, but I still made such a pain in the neck of myself that Elizabeth Yetley, the head of the US delegation, wouldn’t let me back on the delegation in 2002 when I put in my application for the third year. I then quickly applied for accredited status for NHF, but the Codex Alimentarius Commission turned us down. I appealed, was persistent, and eventually got NHF accredited.
This meant that I was no longer a bump on a log at Codex meetings and did not have to sign a contract basically saying, “I agree that I will not take a position contrary to that taken by the US government and use that position to lobby other country delegations at this meeting.” Plus, NHF got its own name placard and a microphone, as well as the right to submit written documents and to interact in real time with the other delegates. The point is that we started being able to speak almost on an equal basis with the country delegates. This really increased NHF’s impact at Codex, because we are the only health freedom organization able to speak out at the meetings.
There are four or five other consumer groups there, such as Consumers International, but they have a very mainstream perspective on health and nutrition. NHF, in contrast, is constantly advocating for healthier approaches. One example relates to saturated fats. The vast majority of country delegates to Codex buy into the myth that cholesterol and saturated fats cause heart disease. Moreover, most of the international nongovernmental organizations at Codex represent businesses, such as G.D. Searle or Bayer, or industry groups, which push mainstream “nutrition.” So, at the meetings, NHF, Malaysia, and the International Dairy Federation were the only delegations to oppose the demonization of saturated fats.
Although that was one of our losses, we’ve been educating so many people at various meetings over the years that our work has had an effect. And we’ve had a number of victories, such as with the melamine issue.
PPNF: Would you tell us about that?
ST: Melamine is a man-made substance used in the manufacture of products such as dinnerware. However, there was a scandal over 10 years ago where it was being added to cat and dog food as a protein. You see, melamine is very rich in nitrogen, the same as protein, and it will trick the spectrometers that measure protein content. Someone in China said, “Hey, wait. Instead of spending a lot of money on protein powder to be put into pet food, let’s use melamine.” So they did that, and it killed about 100,000 cats and dogs.
A few years after that practice was stopped, the same thing was done with infant formula. Although only a few babies died, many were sickened. This became a big issue at Codex, as you can imagine. Any deliberate introduction of melamine into the food supply is prohibited by Codex standards, but the Commission set maximum allowable levels of unintended melamine contamination in powdered infant formula and other foods and animal feed. You see, melamine can migrate into food from food processing equipment and from packaging materials that contain the chemical.
However, there were all sorts of exemptions being pushed by industry groups, such as the International Council of Grocery Manufacturers Associations. At one Codex Committee on Contaminants in Food (CCCF) meeting, Australia was pushing a sky-is-the-limit exemption – in other words, no limit whatsoever – for melamine in liquid infant formula. At the first CCCF meeting I went to, I spoke up against this exemption. I was the only one in the room of 200-plus delegates to speak out against it, and all the other delegates looked at me like I was from Mars.
However, there’s an eight-step process from the initial introduction of a Codex standard to its final adoption by the Commission. NHF went to work and gradually corralled the support of some of the Central American, South American, and African countries. Although we were defeated in the next couple of meetings, support kept building for our position. When the proposed standard went up to the Commission for final adoption at Step 8, the chairwoman, Karen Hulebak, wisely said, “There’s no consensus, and we’re sending it back down to the committee.”
NHF has a reputation for being a tough player, making no-nonsense comments, and putting forth ideas.
That standard went back to the CCCF meeting in the Netherlands about eight months later, in March 2012. By then, believe it or not, NHF had so turned everyone around that the committee was unanimously in favor of removing the exemption for melamine contamination in liquid infant formula. So, we stopped that.
PPNF: What have been some of your other victories?
ST: NHF has a reputation for being a tough player, making no-nonsense comments, and putting forth ideas that no one else would broach. We did that at the pesticide residue committee meetings and the food additives committee meetings in China. In fact, in 2011, we got three-quarters of the aluminum removed from the food additives in China.
Then, we had another victory in 2009 at the CCNFSDU meeting in Dusseldorf, Germany. The Australia delegation and others were trying to “dumb down” the Nutrient Reference Values (NRVs) of various vitamins and minerals. They wanted to reduce the daily doses for the B vitamins, except for folic acid, by up to 66 percent. They also wanted to reduce the NRV for vitamin C from an already abysmally low 60 mg a day to 45 mg a day, and vitamin A from 800 to 550 mcg a day. In addition, they wanted to lower the magnesium level from 300 to 240 mg a day, and increase calcium from 800 to 1000 mg a day. They were doing the exact opposite of what they needed to do to protect health. It was sheer madness.
In Codex meetings, the countries are always called upon by the chairperson to speak first, before any other delegations. Costa Rica was called on for comments on the NRVs, and its delegate basically said, “We don’t think vitamin A should be lowered from 800 mcg to 550. Thank you, Mr. Chairman,” and sat down. I thought there would be a lot of other countries commenting on this issue. Wrong. NHF was the next one to be called on, which told me there were only two delegations that were going to speak against the proposal.
So, I proceeded to lambast the committee and say, “This is going to make us a laughing stock to the world. It would be a public relations nightmare to lower these levels, when they should be going up instead of down.” Then, I went through the science. Australia tried to counter what I had said, and the argument went back and forth for almost an hour, with NHF standing alone against a large number of countries. Eventually, we got two supporting countries: Iraq and India.
At that point, the chairman could have said, “We’re going to move this forward. We’ll just note your objections, India and Iraq, in the record and in the report.” But no, he actually said, “We’re going to hold this back for further study.” I was so shocked you could have pushed me over with a feather because, for the preceding eight years, we hadn’t had much in the way of victories. This was a really major victory because, when the NRVs were held back for further study, the momentum for lowering them was killed.
We didn’t win on every vitamin and mineral discussed over the next five years, but we were able to get the level for vitamin C raised to 100 mg instead of lowered. That’s still not great, but it’s certainly a far cry better than it would have been. We also succeeded in having a number of other nutrients set higher than had been proposed. Although we didn’t win completely on the calcium-magnesium issue, the NRV for magnesium wasn’t lowered. However, calcium was raised to 1000 mg over our objections and those of the International Dairy Federation, which was concerned that if the level was set that high, the industry couldn’t make “high in calcium” claims on its dairy products. A few other countries had sided with us as well.
So, we had a good smattering of victories. That took us from 2009 until 2015, when the final NRVs were set. And, last year, we killed zilpaterol.
PPNF: Would you explain the issue surrounding zilpaterol?
ST: Zilpaterol – like its chemical cousin, ractopamine – is a veterinary drug that is given to cattle and other food animals, mainly in the Western hemisphere. It’s illegal to use it in Russia, China, and the EU. Zilpaterol beefs the animals up so they have more muscle and less fat, thus producing a leaner cut of meat, but it has serious health effects on them and can actually cause their hooves to fall off.
Unlike many other drugs, which have a required clearance period of two weeks or more before the time of slaughter, zilpaterol is administered until just three days prior to slaughter. This means that there are residues in the meat when you or I eat it. Anyone in North America who eats conventionally raised meat is probably being dosed with zilpaterol, which can cause irregular heartbeat and other problems in humans.
Unfortunately, the risk assessors at Codex look at these problems in isolation. We keep telling them they can’t do that, as people don’t just get zilpaterol as a contaminant. There are also other drugs and toxins in our food, including bisphenols, glyphosate, and antibiotics. No one that I know of has ever measured all the possible interactions among the various contaminants and toxins in our diet – and it would be very tough to do so. It simply can’t be proven that zilpaterol is safe.
Besides, a lot of the industry studies are bad science. What often happens is that the researchers conduct a study for, let’s say, 48 weeks. Then, they see that a large number of the subject animals have developed cancers, tumor growth, or other problems or have died prematurely. So, the 48-week study suddenly becomes a 12-week study, and all the animals remain healthy at the 12-week mark – and that is what they present to the Codex science officers.
This is what happened in Chicago in April 2018 when NHF argued against zilpaterol use in the industry. We were the only ones to say there was a safety issue with the drug, but we were able to stop the advancement of the proposed standard.
PPNF: One of the things that you touched on earlier was the role of Codex in setting standards for dietary supplements. How does that affect the United States?
ST: Technically, Codex standards are not binding on the individual member states. For example, the standards don’t limit what we can sell within the US. It’s just that once something is introduced into international trade, other countries can block its importation – whether or not a standard exists. However, if they block something that is covered by a Codex standard – and if the country attempting to export it is meeting that standard – they can be subjected to a trade dispute panel appearance.
The US has the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 (DSHEA), which establishes standards for dietary supplements. Even though it has a tremendous number of flaws, DSHEA is still the best thing around – certainly in comparison with other countries, which are restricting supplements right and left. A lot of countries are just adopting Codex standards, especially third-world countries that don’t have the resources to create their own standards.
In 1997, the FDA went on record in The Federal Register to say that their intent was to harmonize the regulation of all supplements in this country with international standards. So, their position at Codex and elsewhere is “damn DSHEA; we’re going to do it our way.” One of the things they are doing is using a loophole created by DSHEA that pertains to new dietary ingredients. They’re using that to try to force any supplement company with even the hint of a new dietary ingredient to have to get premarket approval from the FDA, which was not the intent of Congress in 1994 when this law was unanimously passed.
So, the FDA is actually a rogue agency, and they’re violating the law. However, the climate clearly favors globalization and harmonization, and it’s going to be increasingly tough for us to resist – specially since the US has become the only country that allows any sort of freedom for supplements. Even if there’s no legal pressure, the psychological pressure will be there for us to conform to the international standards. That’s where we’re headed unless we do something about it.
NHF is trying to influence and stop all of these things. However, we are not a Fortune 500 company. We have limited resources, and we can’t go to all the Codex meetings. We don’t have the time or the money to cover all the bases. But we did go to a meeting in Ottawa just last May, and we were able to stop – together with others who were aligned with us – adoption of the biofortification definition.
You have to consider that the overarching philosophy of NHF is the right of individuals to choose for themselves what they want to do.
PPNF: Would you explain biofortification and tell us why its definition was problematic?
ST: Biofortification is a term that a company named Harvest Plus used. Then, industry lobbyists introduced it at Codex in order to get an accepted definition. Biofortification is simply the amplification of the vitamin and mineral content in foods – yams, potatoes, apples, oranges, rice, and so forth – through conventional cross-breeding. That’s all it was meant to be. The term was first introduced at Codex in 2012, at which time the scope of its definition excluded genetic engineering techniques.
NHF was an early supporter of this. If the farming industry could increase the vitamin A content of rice or the magnesium content of a potato through conventional means, we were all for it. Although we thought, quite honestly – and we argued this at Codex – that the real problem wasn’t being addressed. Over the last 50 years, the vitamin-mineral content of foods has dropped by 50 percent, and that’s almost entirely due to farming practices that aren’t returning the nutrients to the soil, as they should. There’s a lot of erosion going on through tillage. Farmers need to switch to no-till agricultural methods so that they aren’t eroding the soil.
Somewhere along the line, however, the pro-GMO forces hijacked the definition of biofortification and inserted genetically modified foods into it. Then, NHF turned from a supporter to an opponent of the definition, unless that poison pill was removed. At the Ottawa meeting in May, we – along with some others – fought the definition to a standstill because that hadn’t been removed. It was better to just drive a stake into the heart of the definition than to let it go forward. We were successful, so that definition is dead now.
PPNF: We’ve been hearing in the news about all the lawsuits over the harmful effects of glyphosate. What is your prediction on the global phase-out of this herbicide, which appears to be in disfavor in the public eye right now?
ST: I think it will increasingly go out of favor. In fact, the companies that use it in their products are casting around for a substitute because they have seen the handwriting on the wall.
I think Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., said it best. He said that we aren’t going to get rid of glyphosate and a lot of other problem chemicals by legislation because we’ve tried that route and it hasn’t worked. It has to be done by litigation.
In fact, that’s what we’ve seen with the recent $2 billion judgment against Monsanto, now called Bayer because of the merger of the two companies. I think RFK Jr. is absolutely correct that it’s going to take litigation. That’s what he’s been doing, and that’s what we’re exploring as well for certain other issues.
Witness what happened recently with the vaccine issue here in California, where SB-276 passed in the state senate and should soon pass in the assembly. This bill would remove most of the medical exemptions for vaccinations among children in the state. Philosophical and religious exemptions have already been removed with SB-277, which was passed several years ago.
We had an NHF representative in Sacramento fighting SB-276. She was there along with one of our board members and others to fight the bill, but the senators weren’t listening. It’s a rigged game. A lot of people in the senate just abstained, after they had told us that they would vote against it.
PPNF: What is NHF doing regarding vaccine safety, and what is your position on mandatory vaccinations?
ST: Our role in this area is mainly educational. We put out information regarding our questioning of vaccine safety through our quarterly magazine. We also do it through Facebook and through news releases that are sent to our email list. In addition, we try to educate legislators directly. We also work with other groups that are involved in this issue.
You have to consider that the overarching philosophy of NHF is the right of individuals to choose for themselves what they want to do. If someone wanted to vaccinate their child, we would try to dissuade them – especially since these vaccines are often so much more dangerous than the disease they supposedly prevent – but, ultimately, it’s the parent’s choice. Later, when the child grows to adulthood, that individual can make the decision for himself or herself.
Within NHF, there’s a spectrum of views on vaccination. I think a lot of the views within our organization are becoming more hard-line as the battle goes on. Many years ago, I viewed vaccines kind of benignly. I felt that, if you were getting just a few, it was no big deal. But in today’s climate, where a six-month old child will already have had 16-plus vaccine injections, you can see what the issue is. This degree of overvaccination, with the resultant accumulation of toxins, heavy metals, viruses, and nanoparticles, can cause huge health problems, not only immediately but downstream, if it doesn’t kill the child outright, as happens way too often.
Then, you have to consider which vaccine you are talking about. Is it the flu vaccine? Forget that; it’s worthless. Just take increased doses of vitamins D and C, selenium, and so on, and you’ll weather it far better than if you took any flu vaccine. And if you’re elderly, the flu vaccine is very dangerous. I can’t begin to tell you the number of people who have died two weeks after the injection, including friends of mine. Flu vaccines can be deadly, and they don’t do any good. There are much safer alternatives.
With the measles vaccine, the whole issue has been greatly inflated. There used to be measles parties. You would take kids around so that they would get measles. They actually had a good time. The kids would stay home from school, eat ice cream, watch TV for a few days, and then go back to school.
If you have good sanitation and good nutrition, no one is going to die from measles. In earlier times where there were high death rates, that was because nutritional levels were lower than they are today, and levels of sanitation were even worse. So, there were a lot of unhealthy people being exposed to unhealthy conditions. By the 1950s, when nutrition and sanitation had become much better, we had a very safe environment for getting measles.
The vaccine manufacturers lobby the CDC, which is not difficult because the CDC is actually a drug company. It owns patents to 40 different vaccines.
Plus, you want children to get measles at around the ages of seven to nine, when their immune system is strong enough to handle it. Once children get the disease, they have lifelong immunity. However, if people get the vaccine, they only have immunity for perhaps seven to ten years. The elderly can then get measles, and they’re weaker than they were in childhood. We’re fooling with nature and making people unhealthier in the process.
Also, unlike the natural disease, the vaccine doesn’t trigger specific T cells in your body that are needed to protect you from various cancers. So, those who have gotten the vaccine are not protected against certain cancers later in life, whereas the ones who had measles are protected, to a large extent.
The dangers of unsafe, untested vaccines are profound. We could do the entire interview on this subject alone and barely scratch the surface.
PPNF: Some of the vaccine proponents we’ve spoken with claim that people who come down with measles have irreversible complications. Is there any truth to that assertion?
ST: No. The only irreversible complications are that they’re protected against cancer later in life, and they have lifelong immunity.
In terms of deaths, there hasn’t been a recorded death from wild measles in more than ten years. However, there have been many recorded deaths from measles vaccines in that time period. So, if vaccine proponents are pointing fingers, they need to be pointing them at themselves.
The problem is that the vaccine industry is very profitable, and there’s no liability. If a pharmaceutical company gets a vaccine onto the CDC’s immunization schedule, they know they’ve made a billion-dollar home run. So, the vaccine manufacturers lobby the CDC, which is not difficult because the CDC is actually a drug company. It owns patents to 40 different vaccines and has huge conflicts of interest. The CDC acts as the gatekeeper for vaccines, and of course it’s going to say yes. And it keeps saying yes.
By the time a child is 18 years old, he or she has probably gotten somewhere on the order of 70-plus doses of 16 or more different vaccines.
PPNF: Have any safety studies looked at the use of these vaccines in combination?
ST: No studies have been done on these vaccines used in combination. None whatsoever.
Furthermore, consider the studies that have been done on the individual vaccines. When the FDA approves a drug, the studies go on for about 4, maybe 4.5 years, on average. For a vaccine, the studies last less than a week, on average. In many cases, it’s only 4.5 days. So, there are actually no vaccine safety studies being conducted.
The FDA appears to be blind to all the vaccine-injured children who are out there, even though the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program has paid out over $4 billion in compensatory damages to children. Moreover, the US Supreme Court has even, in a landmark case called Bruesewitz vs. Wyeth LLC, declared that vaccines are unavoidably unsafe.
PPNF: Besides their duration, are there any other problems with how vaccine studies are being conducted?
ST: The vaccine researchers are not doing true placebo-controlled studies. Instead, they are comparing the new vaccine to an old one. If they don’t get a statistically significant rise in adverse effects – which they probably won’t get because the old vaccine was itself dangerous – they declare the new vaccine safe.
The vaccine scientists say that they want to create a reaction in the body, like kicking a hornet’s nest. So, they throw in everything but the kitchen sink. Obviously, they include the virus itself – either a live virus or an attenuated one. But they also throw in aluminum, mercury, fetal cells, glyphosate, and polysorbate 80. They even add all sorts of nonhuman DNA just to trigger an immune response at the vaccination site. When they throw all of that in, they get the response they want. It doesn’t matter if the vaccine kills off some percentage of the people who get it or injures them for life. It’s like the old saying “The operation was a success, but the patient died.” That’s their philosophy.
If you look at the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (vaers.hhs.gov), you can see that there have been a lot of vaccine-related injuries and deaths. Keep in mind that only about 1 percent of serious adverse reactions are reported for vaccines, and only 5 percent of those ever reach vaccine court—the US Court of Federal Claims, which hears the cases for the National Vaccine Injury Program. The majority of families impacted by vaccine injuries are required to carry the financial burden of caring for their injured children themselves.
PPNF: What other issues or campaigns has NHF been working on?
ST: One of our current campaigns targets the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA). That’s the FDA equivalent in the UK. MHRA has taken a highly successful injectable anticancer product called GcMAF, glycoprotein macrophage activating factor, off the market. It has a cure rate of about 70-100 percent, depending on the cancer—as opposed to chemotherapy’s miserable success rate of 1.5 to 2.3 percent, depending upon whether you believe the Australian or the American study. If we can help get something like that back onto the market to help all these people, we want to do it.
We had an antifluoridation campaign in Ireland, where the water supply is being heavily fluoridated. We didn’t have a victory on that – we encountered a lot of opposition – but we’re hoping to revive that campaign in the near future. In addition, we have one to repeal the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, which gave liability protection to vaccine makers, medical professionals, and government agencies for any deaths or injuries resulting from a vaccine. That campaign is just getting started. And, of course, we’re continuing to work on all the things that are going on at Codex.
You can learn more about our campaigns on our website, thenhf.com. We are currently looking for campaign managers for some of our campaigns.
PPNF: How can individuals become effective activists against dangerous health policies or laws that contribute to the erosion of health freedom?
ST: The key, I think, is to start by becoming informed. Then, the second step is to put that information into practice and actually become an activist. What that means is to be persistently vocal. So, on any given issue, you would write and call your senators and representatives. You would send them each a hard copy letter in the mail, not just an email. In addition, you would get your friends together who have similar views, and visit those members of Congress. Then, you’d start the process all over again. You would just keep at it until they were so incredibly sick and tired of you, they would do anything to get rid of you. If enough people do this, we can have some hope for change.
The NHF website provides a way in which you can write letters on any campaign that involves the US Congress. The letters are already written for you. The site tells you who your congresspeople are, and you just enter your information and hit the “submit” button. You can also edit the letter, if you wish. It’s an easy way to do things, and we have found it to be very effective.
Another thing you can do is write letters to the editor or even actual opinion columns, if you are a writer. If not, you’re welcome to take our material and post it wherever you can. Let the world know that there are people who oppose these viewpoints. Finally, we always need people to litigate to defend our health freedoms. That is perhaps the most promising action.
The problem is that the pharmaceutical industry hires all these shills and trolls who infest the internet. For example, Wikipedia is so heavily pharmaceutically infiltrated that you can’t trust anything that it says about alternative health or NHF. Our Wikipedia page contains a lot of negative comments. We changed it, but our changes were removed in a matter of minutes. We even hired an attorney, but to no avail.
This is the sort of opposition we have to face because these people have a lot of money. So, we’ve got to kill their sources of income. One way to do that is to get rid of the CDC’s immunization schedule. We also need to shine a light on the corruption and the revolving doors between government and industry, such as where former GlaxoSmithKline executives are working as head directors for the MHRA in London. The same type of thing is taking place within the FDA. Look at the FDA’s leadership, and you’ll see ties to the pharmaceutical and cancer industries, and the like. We’ve got to do the research that shows these agencies are corrupt, and then maybe the public will take action.
PPNF: Can people also make a difference by donating to health freedom organizations?
ST: Absolutely. For example, when I went to the Dusseldorf meeting in 2009 and stopped the “dumbing down” of the NRVs, that trip had been paid for by a gentleman in Dublin, Ireland, who gave us a thousand dollars. He was a real unsung hero because I wouldn’t have been there but for him.
The nice thing about it, at least with NHF, is that it doesn’t take much to make a big difference. Look at the thousand dollars that he gave us. That made a huge difference for billions of people in the world.
Price-Pottenger members can read hundreds of additional articles on our website.
To become a member, click here.
Scott C. Tips, JD, is a California-licensed attorney, legal columnist, and president and general counsel for the National Health Federation (NHF). He specializes in food-and-drug law and trademark law but also engages in business litigation and general business and nonprofit law, with an international clientele. Scott is editor-in-chief of NHF’s magazine, Health Freedom News, and has been a frequent speaker for the organization and for health freedom on several continents. He has compiled, edited, and published a book titled Codex Alimentarius—Global Food Imperialism, and has attended more Codex meetings than all other health freedom activists combined. For more information, see the NHF website, thenhf.com.
Published in the Price-Pottenger Journal of Health and Healing
Spring / Summer 2019 | Volume 43, Number 1
Copyright © 2019 Price-Pottenger Nutrition Foundation, Inc.®
All Rights Reserved Worldwide