August 11, 2012
Ever since I released my book Codex Alimentarius – The End of Health Freedom and began speaking out about the coming destruction of access to vitamin and mineral supplements inside the United States and the rest of the world, I have been met with the tired response of “it won’t happen here.”
Of course, saying “it won’t happen here” is generally a guaranteed method of ensuring that whatever you are claiming can’t happen will happen.
Nevertheless, the historically naïve masses – even those who are aware enough to seek out natural supplements and healthy food – still believe that the supplement lobby and the natural health industry are too large to be brought down by restrictive laws. The people, they say, would never allow it.
Unfortunately, as much as we would like to believe in the power of the people, that power is seldom, if ever, truly harnessed. Take, for instance, the case of the European Union.
After the passage of the European Union Food Supplements Directive (EU FSD) in 2002 and its full implementation on December 31, 2009, the access of Europeans to vitamin and mineral supplements has been significantly reduced. For some supplements, access has been denied altogether.
A clear example of the expression of international guidelines at the national level, the EU FSD is a virtual carbon copy of Codex Alimentarius Guidelines. As a result of the EU FSD, it is now illegal for even moderate levels of many nutritional supplements to be sold to the public in the whole of Europe.
Available supplements are restricted to those on the positive lists provided by the EU FSD, meaning Codex Alimentarius.
In the UK, however, as is the case in much of the rest of the world, the assault on natural and alternative therapies is not confined to one front. For instance, in 1994, the Medicines (Homeopathic Medicinal Products for Human Use) Regulations 1994 was passed and amended again in 2005 which allowed for the increased licensing, regulation, and restriction of homeopathic medicines.
Guardian writer, Martin Robbins, summarized the restrictions the law placed on homeopathic practitioners in his article, “Homeopaths offer to rebrand products as ‘confectionary.’” He writes,
Under current UK law*, it is an offence for a lay homeopath to supply or sell unlicensed homeopathic medicines for which they do not hold a certificate of registration from the MHRA. Unlicensed remedies can only be supplied by those with prescribing rights – medical doctors or registered pharmacists – and then only after a face-to-face consultation with the patient. Since very few homeopathic products are licensed, this means a huge swathe of Big Sugar’s products are, in theory at least, not legal.
Robbins’ reference to “Big Sugar” is actually a clever aside regarding a possible attempt by the leading homeopathic manufacturers to get around the nanny-state regulation policies of licensing choice and healing practices by labeling their products as “confectionary.”
Robbins’ statement is ridiculous in the sense that he labels an industry “Big Sugar” that is miniscule when compared to “Big Oil,” “Big Pharma,” and “Big Agra.” Of course, Robbins is aware of this fact and is only engaging in a silly game of semantics in order to convince the average Guardian reader, who is inherently uninformed, that Big Corporations like homeopathic product manufacturers are using scam terminology for the purpose of forcing their products on the public. This rhetoric is Orwellian in the sense that this type of behavior is exactly what we see coming from major agricultural and pharmaceutical corporations on a daily basis.
Apparently, Mr. Robbins has no problem with giant monopolistic corporations cornering a market and forcing him to use their products to the detriment of his personal health and finances, so long as the individuals who wish to use homeopathic products are unable to do so.
Indeed, in yet another example of Orwellian doublespeak, Robbins even suggests that the reason it has taken so long to produce and enforce regulation of homeopathic products is because of the British government’s “fetishism of free choice.” At this point, there is really no need to go on criticizing Robbins’ conclusions.
Because the MHRA (Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency) is the agency tasked with regulating homeopathy, it is also “obliged to enforce the law if they receive complaints” regarding a homeopathic product.
Predictably, complaints were then lodged against the homeopathic manufacturers. Of course, these complaints did not come from consumers, doctors, or victims. They came from the Nightingale Collaboration, a self-proclaimed “skeptic campaign” organization.
Obviously, in place of “skeptic campaign” one can insert the phrase “smear campaign.” Indeed, organizations such as the Nightingale Collaboration largely exist only for the purpose of serving the major pharmaceutical companies who are becoming more and more discredited as time moves on. Thus, they must rely on underhanded tactics like snitching and outright lies in order to maintain their current grip on the healthcare system.
Regardless, the complaints have centered around homeopathic kits manufactured by Helios Homeopathics Ltd., which were marketed only to licensed and registered homeopathic practitioners . Out of the Basic kit, Basic Plus kit, Accident & Emergency kit, Child Birth kit, and Travellers kit, only the Basic kit was determined to be marketable according to the standards set forth by the MHRA.
The MHRA then directed Helios to “’discontinue the sale and supply’ of the rest, on the basis that the kit names are not approved by the MHRA, and ‘the kits contain remedies that are not registered or authorized.’”
A Nightingale Collaboration spokesman is quoted by Robbins as saying:
Even though they knew about the clear guidance that was issued in March last year by the MHRA, it took a complaint from a member of the public in September to finally make it clear that their kits of homeopathic products were not allowed under the regulations because some of them were unlicensed.
That is, except for the fact that it was not a “member of the public” per se who made the complaints. It was the Nightingale Collaboration.
As a result of the complaints filed by Big Pharma-friendly Nightingale Collaboration, Helios and many other homeopathic manufacturers are being forced to make a decision whether or not to attempt reclassification of their products or to cease producing them altogether. However, as an act of sheer desperation to stay in business, Helio has, at least at some point, considered a more novel approach. Namely, reclassifying their homeopathic products as confectionary.
In a correspondence cited by Robbins, Helios stated the following to the MHRA:
If necessary we could revise the manufacturing method, the labelling of the bottles and kit box to present them as non-medicines and non-homeopathic and market them as ‘confectionery’. Customers who have an interest in homeopathy would still know how to use them and would continue to purchase them despite limited labelling. There would of course be media repercussions and uncontrolled sources appearing and confusion among the public and MPs who would demand a full explanation for the change.
This is an option which our customers would support if it ensured a continuation of the supply of kits until they are fully licensed.
But while Robbins and his ilk use this suggestion as an arsenal for mockery, the truth is that it is the British government, regulatory agencies, and media that should be mocked. After all, it is these organizations that have forced and cornered legitimate healthcare manufacturers into the position of using ridiculous classifications for the purpose of selling their products to willing and ready consumers.
It should also be noted that, in conjunction with the EU FSD which separately attacks the availability of vitamin and mineral supplements, the EU also has a directive which allows for the registration of Homeopathic products.
All in all, the forced registration and licensing homeopathic products and practitioners, regardless of the level of government, is a precursor to the denial of licenses to sell and practice homeopathy. While Martin Robbins may believe that the UK government has a fetish with freedom of choice; the fact is that the English have lost almost every remnant of freedom they have ever had.
Unfortunately, the police state tyranny and nanny state control system that the British are currently living under is only a precursor to what is coming to the United States in short order unless the American people suddenly grow a backbone and fight back.
 “Guidelines for Vitamin and Mineral Food Supplements.”http://www.codexalimentarius.net/search/advanced.do?lang=en
 Directive 2002/46/EC Of The European Parliament And Of The Council of 10 June 2002 on the approximation of the laws of the member states relating to food supplements. “Codex Alimentarius: Global Food Imperialism.” Ed. Scott C. Tips. FHR. 2007. Pp. 237-243
This article was posted: Saturday, August 11, 2012 at 12:17 am