Positive Health Online

Bio Resonance Saved My Life

I received diagnosis and Bio resonance therapy in the Netherlands, a couple of years ago. I feel it saved my life. I was exhausted and ill all the time. This was only getting worse. My doctor could only treat some symptoms like migraine, stuffed sinuses etc. Even specialists couldn't find a cause and link my symptoms. The bio resonance therapist brought everything together. The therapy helped to desensitize the cells and stimulated the energy lanes. I learned what was wrong in my diet. In the beginning it was very difficult, because the diet was very restricting. The results came after 1 year. Now after 3 years I am not free of allergies and fatigue, but my energy level has been raised considerably and I am hardly ever ill. Quality of life is my bonus.

Nicolette van Binnendijk
Binnies2mail@aol.com

Outrage at EU Directive

I am outraged at the EU directives being adopted in the UK regarding vitamins and minerals. There are two opposing bodies that I have found out about. The first being the health freedom movement www.healthfreedommovement.com whose aim is to work with UK lobby groups to ensure peoples right to health freedom in law. Perhaps Positive Health readers could join and become sponsors in this important fight for our freedom of health rights. The more weight being added to the campaign to fight the EU bureaucrats, hopefully the more chance we have of being heard. An International March for Health Freedom will be taking place on 15 June 2003 in central London – come and stand up for your rights!

Another campaign organiser is Consumers for health choice – enquiries@healthchoice.org.uk. The aim of the CHC is to collect one million signatures from consumers in the UK who care about this important issue.

Susan Land
smlj1323@yahoo.co.uk

The Low Down on Low-Carb Diets

by Dr David Ross, ND CNHP

Low-carb diets can help you lose weight. But to stay healthy while you trim down, you must make sure to replenish various essential nutrients.

Otherwise, a ketogenic diet may deplete nutrients to dangerous, or even fatal levels.

Why do most people fail when on a typical low-calorie, low-fat diet? Because diets are often hard to stay on. You often don't feel full. Eventually, you start eating as much as, or more than, you did before the diet.

Replacing the fats with carbohydrates doesn't help. Your body quickly learns to use the glucose from carbohydrates as its main source of fuel. Excess glucose is stored – and carbohydrates turn to fat. This process also kicks the pancreas into gear, causing yo-yo effects with insulin.

How Does a Low-Carb Diet Work?

Our bodies use two kinds of fuel for energy production: glucose and fat. A low-carb diet eventually depletes glucose, forcing the body to get fuel from its storage area… fat. To utilize the fat as energy, the liver converts body fat into ketones. 'Ketosis' is the word used for this action.

Without addressing the nutrient loss that can accompany ketosis, physical problems can happen. Some of these pitfalls include kidney damage, nervous disorders, bone calcium depletion, heart arrhythmia, increased acid levels, nausea, headaches, heartburn, acid reflux, and oedema.

Protect Bones from Mineral Loss

Low-carb and/or high protein intake increases the acids in the body. The body's first defence against low pH (high acidity) is to buffer the acids with minerals. The primary source of minerals in the body is the skeleton.

Bones begin to dissolve to provide the bloodstream with minerals, which buffer the acids, attempting to raise the pH level back to a more neutral level.

Not only can the mineral depletion lead to osteoporosis, the loss of calcium, magnesium, potassium and phosphorus – together known as electrolyte – disrupts the body's electrical system, causing short-circuits, so-to-speak, in the nervous system and the heart.

Another function of minerals is the creation of bile salts. Without these salts, fat doesn't emulsify, or bubble-up, making its use as a fuel more difficult for the body.

Also without sufficient minerals in the system, water in the body doesn't circulate properly, eventually leading to bloating throughout the body, called oedema. Without minerals, the kidneys can't do their jobs. Holding excess water can lead to problems with the heart, lungs, liver and kidneys.

Five Servings of Fruits and Vegetables

In their exuberance over high-protein, low-carb dieting, many people avoid fruits and vegetables all together. The recommended five servings of fruits and vegetables might provide 20-100 grams of carbohydrates. Those fruits and vegetables would also provide important vitamins, antioxidants and phytonutrients that no one should be without.

Many types of meat, favourites of most low-carb dieters, are low in carbohydrates and high in protein, but they often contain little or no vitamins and minerals. Three servings a day of beef plus three servings a day of chicken would still leave a low-carb dieter deficient in vitamins A, B1, B2, folic acid, pantothenic acid, vitamin C, and vitamin E, as well as the minerals iron, calcium, magnesium, manganese, copper and potassium. Even doubling the amount of beef and chicken wouldn't provide the Recommended Daily Allowance of some of these nutrients.

Probiotics, the Beneficial Bacteria

Low-carb diets often result in people avoiding foods like yoghurt. Yoghurt contains probiotics – acidophilus and bifidophilus – that populate the colon and provide beneficial flora to help combat bad bacteria. Those beneficial organisms that do exist in the gut before the beginning of a low-carb diet often die out as well, as the low-carb diet provides no source of sugars for the probiotics to survive on.

You are What You Digest

Many people ignore digestive enzymes, yet wonder why they have indigestion, heartburn, bloating and gas. On a low-carb diet these problems can get even worse, since meat, the main food for low-carb dieters, is very difficult to digest without enzymes. Protein-digesting enzymes such as protease, bromelain (from pineapple) and papain (from papaya) are most important for meat-eaters.

Diet for Health – Not for Looks

We all want to look slim-and-trim, but we must remember to do so in a healthy manner. Dieting, especially a low-carb diet, can take a toll on your body if you're not careful. Vitamins, minerals and other nutrients must be supplemented.

Remember, the goal isn't simply to weigh less, but to be more trim and fit.

Dr David Ross is a naturopath, herbalist and natural health consultant.
He can be reached on Tel: 001-706-253-4372.
Source: Elwood Richard elwood.richard@nowfoods.com

California Appeals Court Bludgeons Quackbusters…

by Consumer Advocate Tim Bolen

A California Appeals Court bludgeoned the National Council Against Health Fraud (NCAHF), and their whole argument about what constitutes good and bad health care. The quackbuster's operating theme, the argument they use against alternative proponents, came under a major American Court's scrutiny. The Court, basically, in their decision, said the quackbuster's arguments were hogwash, and they had no business meddling in California's system.

The Court also declared that top quackbusters Stephen Barrett (quackwatch.com), and Wallace Sampson MD (Scientific Review of Alternative and Aberrant Medicine) "were found to be biased and unworthy of credibility."

The quackbusters lost in a PUBLISHED case. The quackbuster premise failed. Not some of it, not most of it – but ALL of it. The 'quackbuster' measuring stick for how to evaluate health care has been completely discredited. Official quackbuster credibility is now ZERO.

The quackbuster's flagship, the self-proclaimed National Council Against Health Fraud (NCAHF) decided, one day, to sue about 43 'Alternative Medicine proponents' in California, basically claiming that all of them were engaging in health fraud "because what they were doing wasn't scientifically proven."

Their argument was that "the defendant has to PROVE their products work, or it's health fraud."

California was the wrong place for them to try this stunt. Here, health freedom bills tend to pass through the legislature UNANIMOUSLY. We like to be healthy. It's our life style.

The very first case that came to trial was called NCAHF vs King Bio (a manufacturer of about 50 homeopathic products). The NCAHF lost badly. Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Haley Fromholz wrote a long decision, virtually battering the quackbusters for wasting the court's time with their silly case. The quackbusters had accused King Bio of false advertising. At issue was the credibility of the NCAHF's witnesses, Stephen Barrett, and Wallace Sampson MD. The Judge thrashed their arguments. You can read the Judge's words in this original case decision at www.kingbio.com

The NCAHF appealed. And, boy did it cost them. You need to read the decision. It is written in plain language, not legalese, and is clearly understandable. Read the footnotes also. Pass this around to anyone under attack by the quackbusters. Their attorneys will love this precedent setting case.

To me one of the more important statements is the last footnote in the Appeal Court's decision, for it attacks the whole quackbuster operation It says, "The trial court concluded NCAHF failed to prove a false or misleading statement. King Bio's expert testified the products were safe and effective. The products were included in the Homeopathic Pharmacopoeia and complied with FDA guidelines. NCAHF presented no evidence that King Bio's products were not safe and effective, relying instead on a general attack on homeopathy, made by witnesses who had no knowledge of, or experience with, King Bio's products, and who were found to be biased and unworthy of credibility."

But more occurred. "At trial, NCAHF proceeded on the theory that there is no scientific basis for the advertised efficacy of King Bio's products. NCAHF performed no tests to determine the efficacy of King Bio's products and presented no anecdotal evidence. NCAHF instead argued that King Bio's products were drugs, and the scientific community required representations regarding the efficacy of drugs to be supported by acceptable scientific evidence. NCAHF asserted that the burden of proof should be shifted to King Bio to prove its products' efficacy. On appeal, NCAHF acknowledges that, under current California law, a false advertising plaintiff bears the burden of proving the defendant's advertising claim is false or misleading. NCAHF contends, however, that we should shift the burden of proof to the defendant to facilitate the campaign against health fraud. NCAHF argues that federal law shifts the burden to the defendant in false advertising actions."

In response to the NCAHF's demands, the Court said: "We conclude there is no basis in California law to shift the burden of proof to a defendant in a representative false advertising and unlawful competition action. We conclude further that the Legislature has indicated an intent to place the burden of proof on the plaintiff in such cases. Finally, we conclude federal authority is not apposite."

What this means to the North American Health Freedom Movement…

This is a PUBLISHED case. It is PRECEDENT setting. It can (and should) be used in any case in the US where quackbusters are involved. The quackbusters have been court tested – and they lost. Their whole argument against alternative medicine has been thrown in the trash. Their credibility is zero.

The case was handled, on our side, by famous California litigator, Carlos Negrete. You can read his comments on the case at www.healtfreedomlaw.com

Further Information

www.savedrclark.net/by_whom2.htm. View THIS newsletter, at
www.quackpotwatch.org/default.htm

For related articles go to
http://www.bolenreport.com.
www.northamericanconsumersagainsthealthfraud.
org/cgi-bin/mojo/mojo.cgi?f=archive&l=one
Source: Millions of Health Freedom
Fighters – Newsletter <jurimed2@yahoo.com>

Sugar Industry Sour On Limiting Sugar Intake

By Lance Gay, Scripps Howard News Service, April 21, 2003

The sugar industry is pressuring the World Health Organization to scuttle a report that recommends people limit their sugar consumption to less than 10 percent of daily caloric intake to combat obesity and other serious diseases.

The Sugar Association protests that there is no scientific basis for the limitation and is concerned that any move by the international health organization to recognize a 10 percent limit would influence US policymakers, set to re-write American dietary guidelines in 2005.

The Association, based in Washington, told WHO Director Gro Harlem Brundtland in an April 14 letter that it will "exercise every avenue available to expose the dubious nature" of the report, including lobbying lawmakers on Capitol Hill to cut the $406 million in US funding for the World Health Organization.

The group attached a letter from Senators. Larry Craig, R-Idaho, and John Breaux, D-La., co-chairmen of the Senate sweetener caucus, demanding the report be shelved. The World Health Organization plans to release the final version April 23.

Andrew Briscoe, president of the Sugar Association, said the report isn't supported by scientific evidence and wasn't reviewed scientifically before a draft was posted on the World Health Organization's Internet site last month.

"It's not supported by the preponderance of science," Briscoe said. "It is a misguided report."

Michael Jacobson, executive director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, said he is mystified why the sugar industry is taking such a tough line against a report that would not have otherwise gained much public notice.

"We're shocked at the bluntness of the Sugar Association's thuggish threats," Jacobson said. "This is a ham-handed effort to influence a scientific report."

Jacobson said there is little new in the study linking increased sugar consumption to obesity, although he said other reports have avoided the politically sensitive area of specific limitations on daily sugar consumption.

The draft report by the World Health Organization says the organization realized that recommending a cut in sugar consumption to less than 10 percent of daily caloric intake is controversial, but it cited studies showing children who drink sugary soft drinks are more likely to be overweight than those who don't.

The study said lowering sugar consumption could reduce the burden of disease related to obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular, and dental diseases. Current US dietary guidelines advise only that sugar should be used in moderation, and don't set any daily limitations.

Interest groups, including Jacobson's organization, have lobbied the federal government to establish such limits and to state explicitly on labels the amount of sugar that is added to prepared foods and soft drinks. Jacobson notes there has been a 30 percent increase in consumption of sugar in the United States from 1983 to 1999, when the Department of Agriculture estimated consumption at 158 pounds a year per person – the equivalent of 50 teaspoons of sugar a day.

The Institute of Medicine, a division of the National Academy of Sciences, studied the issue of sugar in diets and also avoided the issue of daily limitations. It recommended that sugar make up a maximum of 25 percent of calories in a person's daily diet. Dr. Harvey Feinberg, one of the institute's panellists, stressed that was a maximum amount that could be consumed without affecting the intake of other nutrients, and was not recommending that much be consumed.

The Sugar Association disputes America's increased consumption of sugar is responsible for the increased obesity, and blames the problem on inactivity.

Further Information:

On the Net: www.who.int; www.sugar.org
www.cspinet.org
Lance Gay at GayL@SHNS.com Distributed by Scripps Howard News Service, www.shns.com

Further Information

John Hathcock, PhD. Vice President, Scientific and International Affairs
Council for Responsible Nutrition (CRN), 1828 L St., NW, Suite 900
Washington, DC 20036-5114 USA CRN Tel: 001-202-776-7929
John Hathcock PhD: Direct line Tel: 001-202-776-7955
Fax 001-202-204-7980 jhathcock@crnusa.org
Source: Elwood Richard: elwood.richard@nowfoods.com

Banned: Stale Food vs Fresh Food

I have just acquired a 1971 addition of the book: Stale Food vs Fresh Food which contains the result of some impressive research by an American biologists Robert Ford from Arkansas. Not surprisingly this book has been effectively banned in the US and I was unable to find the Author or Publisher to get permission to copy it.

The following is material extracted from The Medical Racket Wade Frazer's website at: http://home1.gte.net/res0k62m/medicine.htm
"That booklet saved my father's life. The mail stop order made it illegal to send it through the US mail system, effectively banning it in America. Using the US Post office is an effective tactic to wipe out alternative health practitioners. It is only one weapon in the medical establishment's arsenal, but it is an effective one.

One million people per year in America die of vascular disease, and our dietary and health habits are nearly solely responsible for it. The most obvious factors are things such as smoking tobacco and drinking alcohol, but diet may be responsible for most of it.

In short, our bodies are designed to eat live food, as are all animals. We are the only animal that eats dead food, and the diseases we fall prey to are almost unique in the animal kingdom, particularly in their frequency. Living processes provide the nutrition that we get from food. When food is killed, those life processes cease, and it begins decomposing. Enzymes, vitamins and other vital substances can rapidly decompose. When humanity ventured out of its natural range in the tropics, we eventually learned to domesticate plants and animals and preserve food in order to survive the seasons. We have done it so long that it is taken for granted, yet it is not a natural or ideal process.

We have huge industries based upon food processing, and through their wealth and power they have completely obscured the issue of how harmful dead food is to human biology. It is related to the corruption of medical science discussed in this site's fluoridation essay. In the materialistic and reductionistic way that modern science has defined nutrition, a bowl of shredded cardboard sprayed with vitamins (which is close to describing most breakfast cereals) can be more nutritious than a bowl of fresh strawberries"

Here is an excerpt form the mail stop order judgement:

"Although I found that the booklet (Stale Food vs. Fresh Food) contained some helpful suggestions and its author, Mr Robert Ford, is a knowledgeable and sincere person (i.e. no intent to defraud), I found the representations in the Respondent's booklet to be unproven and contrary to the weight of informed medical and scientific opinion. As indicated by Dr___, (the only US Post Office medical witness) a danger of this publication is that it will deceive people who have arterio-sclerotic problems into believing that they can cure these problems by diet alone instead of seeking medical (AMA) help. Because the ads and this booklet contain materially false representations, they violate the provisions of 39 US Code Section 3005. Therefore… a mail stop order… should be issued…"ES Bernstein, Administrative Law Judge, (1982)."

Read the full complaint at: http://www.usps.com/judicial/1981deci/10-123d.htm

Imagine a country which likes to think it is the standard of democracy but still can do this so blatantly. Freedom of speech can just be ignored, so why not give it to everyone and continue business as usual – what a scam!

Source: Chris Gupta mbgupta@uwo.ca

Drinking Water Levels Low in Boron

Extracted from: In Search of the World's Best Water by Bill Sardi

Boron and Arthritis

One study shows that when human consumption of boron is less than 2 milligrams per day that there is a 20 percent increased risk of arthritis. When the diet provides 5-6 milligrams of boron per day, the prevalence of arthritis is lower than average. A 9-10 milligrams per day boron intake may be able to virtually eradicate common forms of arthritis. This is evidenced by areas of Australia where boron levels are high in water supplies (seven parts per million) and no arthritis is found in animals or man. There is no arthritis in an area of the far north of New Zealand where the water boron levels are high. Israel is a land with high boron soil levels and less than 1 percent of the population has arthritis. In South Africa, only 3 percent of the Zhosa tribe, which consumes water rich in boron, have arthritis. But when members of their population move to cities, the arthritis rate increases to 20 percent, about the rate found in western nations.[1] In areas of the world where boron intake is 1 milligram or less per day, the incidence of arthritis ranges from 20-70 percent, whereas in areas of the world where boron intakes range from 3-10 milligrams per day, the arthritis incidence ranges from 0-10 percent.[2]

Upper Limit Dosage Of Boron

Researchers have calculated that an upper exposure dose of 18 milligrams of boron per day is safe. The American diet provides about 1.5 milligrams of boron, so water can provide up to 16.5 milligrams per day without toxicity. US drinking water supplies provide up to 2.44 milligrams of boron per litre, which is well within the safety level.[3] Other researchers have determined that up to 13 milligrams of boron per day are safe.[4]

Boron And Other Health Benefits

Boron may be important for brain function.[5] Boron supplementation also appears to raise hormone levels (estrogen and testosterone on females and males).[6] It is odd that we add fluoride to drinking water to prevent dental caries, iodine to salt to prevent goitre and calcium to milk to prevent rickets, yet do not fortify foods with boron, which is obviously an essential mineral.

Boron and Drinking Water

The amount of boron supplied by ground waters and bottled mineral waters varies widely. Ocean water provides a mean level of 4.6 milligrams of boron per litre. Boron in tap water in the USA is generally low (less than 1 milligram per litre), whereas some stations in Canada provide up to 2 milligrams per litre. Water supplies in Northern Chile provide a high concentration of 15.2 milligrams of boron per litre. Boron in US and European bottled water products ranges from trace amounts to 4.35 milligrams per litre.[7]

References

1. Journal Applied Nutrition 46: 81-85. 1994.
2. Environmental Health Perspectives 102: 83-85S. 1994.
3. Regulatory Toxicology Pharmacology 22: 221-30. 1995.
4. Biological Trace Element Research 66: 319-30. 1998.
5. Biological Trace Element Research 66: 299-317. 1998.
6. Environmental Health Perspectives 102: 59-63S. 1994.
7. Biological Trace Element Research 66: 87-100. 1998.
Extracted from: In Search of the World's Best Water by Bill Sardi
www.askbillsardi.com/sdm.asp?pg=worlds_best_water
Source: mbgupta@uwo.ca

FSA Report On Vitamins And Minerals Misleading

The Food Standards Agency (FSA) has released its highly controversial report by its Expert Group on Vitamins and Minerals (EVM). The report aims to provide the Government's definitive view on 'upper safe levels' of vitamins and minerals, which, along with other nutrients, have been rapidly gaining popularity as increasing numbers of people recognize the difficulty of obtaining adequate nutrition in the diet alone.

The Alliance for Natural Health (ANH), which represents a wide range of innovative supplement suppliers, complementary practitioners and consumers around Europe, has many serious concerns both about the report as well as the accompanying message. The key issues are outlined below.

Irresponsible Message

The ANH argues that the message given by the FSA that taking vitamins and minerals "may have irreversible harmful effects" and "can cause cancer" is highly irresponsible and misleading.

Coupled with this, the FSA has issued its intention to ban a number of ingredients widely available in food supplements, including all boron and silicon compounds. ANH scientists say these bans are ill informed and not based on solid science.

FSA Employ Bias and Flawed Science

The scientists in the EVM who are responsible for the report have all, except for a single case, declared interests in the pharmaceutical industry which is directly threatened by the growing use of food supplements. The basic tenet of this emerging industry is that lack of key micronutrients in our so called 'balanced diet' is having a hugely negative impact on our health. Dr Verkerk claims that much of the science used to back up the report is seriously flawed.

The EVM issued its draft report through the FSA last August and invited consultation. Feedback was received from 103 sources mainly representing individuals (40), academics (20), complementary health practitioners (12) and wholesalers/retailers (12). The ANH Expert Committee's stinging critique of the FSA report revealed the EVM's flawed approach which included misinterpretation and omission of specific and well-known research. Dr Verkerk concludes that "It is clear from today's report that the majority of this feedback has simply been ignored outright by the FSA."

FSA's Message Contradicts Recent Research

Contrary to the bald assertion of Sir John Krebs, chair of the FSA that "you can get all the nutrients you need from a balanced diet", there is a growing body of scientific research which points to the need for supplementation given that it is increasingly difficult to obtain all the nutrients required for optimum health from the diet alone. In June 2002, after a review of some 400 research studies, the Journal of the American Medical Association reversed its long standing stance against supplements stating "Most people do not consume an optimal amount of all vitamins by diet alone… it appears prudent for all adults to take vitamin supplements."

There is also clear epidemiological evidence that people with a high plasma concentration of vitamin E are less at risk from cardiovascular disease and further evidence that high intakes of beta-carotene are associated with lower incidence of lung, prostate, and other cancers

There is strong evidence that high dose Vitamin C supplementation is more effective at suppressing HIV than AZT. A nine-year study published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition showed that the mortality risk of those who supplement with higher doses of Vitamins C and E was reduced by 42% compared with those who did not.

FSA Plans to Transpose European Directive

The FSA report has been released just two months before the Food Standard Agency plans to transpose the Food Supplements Directive which was passed, despite massive opposition from vitamin consumers and other interest groups, into European law in June 2002. This Directive will effectively ban over 200 safe and effective mineral and vitamin ingredients widely available in nutritional supplements in the UK, Ireland, the Netherlands, Sweden and other countries around the world. It will also limit the amounts of nutrients allowed, using some of the same science used by the FSA's EVM group. Not only that, but it also includes a gagging Article which bans any advertising stating or implying that "a balanced and varied diet cannot provide appropriate quantities of nutrients in general". This is despite the fact there is hard scientific evidence to the contrary. The Alliance for Natural Health is proposing to challenge this Directive.

Further Information:

Dr Robert Verkerk BSc, MSc, DIC, PhD, Executive Director,
Alliance for Natural Health Tel: 01252 371275; Mob: 0771 484 7225;
robv@alliance-natural-health.org www.alliance-natural-health.org

Risks Relative to Legal Dietary Supplements

Under cover of the SARS Crisis currently saturating the western media, Australia's Therapeutic Goods Administration has suddenly moved to outlaw and remove from store shelves about 80% of all vitamin and other related alternative products. Although less than a week ago customers were happily buying everything from vitamin A to G, and enthusiastically chewing every conceivable mineral and trace element, these same customers today face empty shelves in more than 5,000 health food stores across the nation.

The extraordinary situation facing Australians today started at the beginning of this week, when the Therapeutic Goods Administration [TGA] suddenly decided to cancel the manufacturing license of Pan Pharmaceuticals, a large Australian company which not only manufactures its own line of medicines, but also provides a manufacturing service for 80% of all alternative goods providers across Australia. Basically then, by shutting down Pan Pharmaceuticals without just cause, the TGA ensured that alternative health goods purveyors and customers would be critically disadvantaged across the entire nation.

To suggest [or even think] that the TGA action was deliberately designed to shut down natural health products in favour of the huge pharmaceutical multinationals and their coal-tar synthetic drugs, at first seems ill advised, perhaps even absurd. But unfortunately for the TGA, we can and will prove in a proper step-by-step investigation, that the shutdown process was premeditated and deliberate.

Members of the Therapeutic Goods Administration are Australia's medical goods 'thought police', endowed by government with incredible powers. There are documented examples of these people shutting down retail health food businesses for daring to suggest that cheap apricot kernels might retard [not 'cure'] cancer, while at the same time other members of the TGA were busy endorsing the massive use of highly-addictive and extremely profitable amphetamines on Australian children, with alleged but unproven 'learning disorders'.

For perspective, the figures of actual damage done to health by supplements vs. other products, as compiled by Ron Law from New Zealand, (see graph – this is a pdf and over 1mb in size) make it clear that the action by the Australian TGA is more in line with a campaign to eliminate competition to pharmaceuticals than to protect 'public health.

Sources: Josef Hasselberger sepp@lastrega.com
Jon Campbell work@cqs.com
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/steveseymour/ subliminalsuggestion/vitamins.html