Xtend-Life-Questionst
22nd February 2005
Please click on the question of interest:
Question: From James. (Subject: Ericsson's Coral Calcium...)q1
I stumbled upon "coral answers.com" with questions and answers re Ericsson's Coral Calcium.
Do you have any comments re Ericsson's product and your coral calcium?
Answer: From Warren.
I am not sure which type of Coral Calcium they are using. However, there are only two types. One is the above sea type which we use and the other is the 'marine' type which is obtained from dredging the sea bottom around coral reefs.
We will not use the marine type because not only is it damaging to the environment but it is high in contaminants, particularly heavy metals. Therefore it has to be subjected to extreme heat as part of the processing system to try and reduce the contamination. In contrast the above sea type can be purified by using an ozone treatment process.
The marine versions sometimes claim a natural 2:1 ratio of Calcium/Magnesium. This is nonsense. The Magnesium is added and is an 'oxide' form.
So, in order to do a comparison, check whether the calcium is above sea or marine. With regard to the claims that are made, they like most marketers of coral calcium are right 'over the top and should not be taken seriously.
In our product Coral Calcium/Superphytonutrients the coral calcium only makes up 25% of the total ingredients. We have found that the phytonutrients not only are helpful in their own right but also seem to help improve the bio-availability of the calcium.
I should mention that the coral calcium is the cheapest component of the product. The above ground version is also more costly than the 'marine' version.
If you go to our special reports page you can download a special report I wrote on this subject.
back to top
Question: From Michael. (Subject: Is It True...)q2
I received the below email. Is this true, part truth or BS like much of the internet info? Thanks.
Here it is:
Please read this very important health message below and forward it to everyone you know.
Your right to choose your vitamin, mineral and other supplements may end in June of this year (2005). After that, U.S. supplements will be defined and controlled by the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the World Health Organization (WHO). The CODEX ALIMENTARIUS (Food Code) is setting the supplement standards for the countries in the WTO. They will be enforced by the WTO and will override U.S. laws. The U.S. President and Congress agreed to this take-over when the WTO Treaty was signed.
Violations are punished by WTO trade sanctions. CODEX drastically restricts vitamins, minerals, herbs and other supplements. CODEX met secretly in November, 2004 and finalized "Step 8 (the final stage)" to begin implementation in June 2005.
Virtually nothing about it has been in the media. What the drug corporations have failed to do through Congress they have gotten by sneak attack through CODEX with the help of a silent media. Here is what can still be done, at this late hour:
(I) Spread the word as much as possible. (Inform yourselves fully at www.ahha.org, www.iahf.org, and www.alliance-natural-health.org.)
(2) Oppose bills S.722 and H.R.3377. (These bills support the CODEX restrictions with US laws, changing the DSHEA law that we fought so hard for.)
(3) Support H.R 1146 which would restore the sovereignty of the U.S. Constitution over CODEX, etc.
(4) Express your wishes to the President, Senators and Representatives ASAP. (They got us into this!)
(5) Contact multi-level health marketing groups that can get their members to inform the government of their opposition to bills S.722 and H.R.3377.
(6) Send donations, however small, to the British Alliance for Natural Health (see web site above). This organization has succeeded in challenging the CODEX directives in World Court later this month or next. They need help financially, having carried the fight effectively for everyone.
The CODEX says, among other things:
(1) No supplements can be sold for preventative or therapeutic use.
(2}Any potency higher than RDA (minimal strength) is a drug requiring a prescription and must be produced by drug companies. Over 5000 safe items now in health stores will be banned, terminating health stores as we now know them.
(3) CODEX regulations become binding internationally.
(4) New supplements are banned unless given very expensive CODEX testing and approval.
CODEX now applies to Norway and Germany, among others, where zinc tablets rose from $4 per bottle to $52. Echinacea (an ancient immune enhancement herb) rose from $14 to $153 (both examples are now al1owed by prescription only). They are now called "drugs". Vitamin C above 200 mg; niacin above 32 mg; vitamin B6 above 4 mg are all banned over-the-counter as drugs.
No amino acids (arginine, lysine, carnitine, etc. essential amino acids!); essential fatty acids (omegas 3, 6, 9, etc.), or other essential supplements such as DMEA, DHEA, CoQlO, MSM, beta-carotene, etc, are allowed.
The CODEX rules are not based on any real science or research. They are made by a few people meeting in secret (see web sites below), not necessarily scientists. In 1993 the FDA and drug corporations tried to put all supplements under restriction and prescription. But over 4 million Americans told Congress and the President to protect their freedom of choice on health supplements. The DSHEA Law was passed in 1994, which protected our freedom. But this will be over ruled by CODEX and the World Health Organization.
CODEX and the FDA wish to protect us by controlling supplements in the same way they do prescription drugs. A study of the latter by three medical scientists was reported in the Journal of the American Medical Association, April 15, 1998, Vol. 279, No. 15, p. 1200 "Incidence of Adverse Drug Reactions (ADR's) was found to be extremely high."
Covering 30 years (1966 to 1996) it was found that in the U.S. an average of 106,000 hospitalized patients per year (290 per day) die from ADVERSE DRUG REACTIONS and TWO MILLION MORE need more hospitalization for recovery. These were FDA approved drugs properly administered by competent professionals in hospitals and none were considered malpractice!
This is the FOURTH HIGHEST cause of death in the U.S.!! When combined, these account for 7% of all hospitalized patients. This is equivalent to a 9-11 attack every ten days.
There are NO fatalities from supplements or the news would be on every front page. There is no need for more FDA control of supplements than is already in place, which is substantial. Instead of drastically restricting supplements, why doesn't the FDA better control and restrict the extremely dangerous pharmaceutical drugs which are now killing us at the rate of a major airline crash per day?
Wallace G. Heath, Ph.D.
1145 Marine Drive Bellingham, W A 98225
pulseplus@earthlink.net
Answer: From Warren.
Although parts of this may be exaggerated and the timing a little out, it is essentially true and of real concern.
As an example of what is happening! I am in Thailand at the moment where we have a regional office and we are going through the local FDA registration process for our products. We have just run into yet another obstacle because a simple popular substance called glucosamine sulfate has just been reclassified from a food supplement to a drug!
Interesting, given that after the withdrawal of VIOXX last year and the questions raised about the safety of other COX-2 inhibitor drugs that the worldwide sales of glucosamine sulfate skyrocketed, and the price almost doubled. This is because it is known to help arthritis sufferers and there are no negative side effects.
So, why has all of a sudden become classified as a drug? Would it have anything to do with the drug companies putting pressure on the authorities to reclassify it in an effort to help protect their drug markets? I don't know for sure, but it sure raises some questions given that there is no evidence of any safety concerns with glucosamine sulfate!
I can say without fear of contradiction that there is a very powerful concerted worldwide move to 'squeeze' natural supplements out of the market. It is supported by powerful money interests. Unfortunately the media refuse to get involved even though the evidence is irrefutable. Some people suggest that this is because of threats by major advertisers to withdraw support.
back to top
Question: From Ron. (Subject: CODEX...)q3
Hi Nicolien. This probably should be addressed to Warren. Do you think it is possible that the Codex Alimentarius currently expected to be imposed worldwide on August 1st, 2005, can be prevented?
Answer: From Warren.
That's a difficult one because so much of this is politically driven and influenced by big business.
For example, the sugar industry successfully manipulated the WHO and the FAO a few years ago to actually support the use of sugar in manufactured foods. Press releases were even made saying that sugar was good for you! (This has now been well proven to be an untrue statement.)
The truth of this manipulation is only starting to come out now. I mention this because it shows that by using a combination of funding, and the selection of certain scientists given personal incentives that even the largest 'independent' world body can be influenced to provide a desired result.
For this reason the final outcome of Codex and the imposition of their 'rules' is a hard one to guess. The only hope is that the public wakes up to what is going on and becomes more vocal. If not, we may find indeed that some of their rules are imposed.
Sorry I can't offer much more insight on this, but I can tell you that we are acutely aware of it and possibly need to reformulate. The positive side is that it may be possible to get similar actions for most products and still keep within the 'rules'. But... that is still a question for the future.
back to top
Important notice: All material provided is for informational and educational purposes only, and is not to be construed as medical advice or instruction. No action should be taken solely on the contents of this publication. Consult your physician or a qualified health professional on any matters regarding your health and wellbeing or on any opinions expressed within this newsletter. The information provided in this newsletter is believed to be accurate based on the best judgment of the editor but the reader is responsible for consulting with their own health professional on any matters raised within.
