Author: Health Freedom Idaho

Response to Another Misguided Attempt of State Agency to Ban Or Over-Regulate Hemp

Last week, the hemp industry was confronted by the latest misguided attempt of a state agency to ban or over-regulate hemp and hemp-derived products. The Texas Department of State Health Services put out this notice which suggested, incorrectly, that hemp-derived cannabidiol (CBD) is a controlled substance, and outlined a strategy on how to regulate it.

Fortunately, the agency has asked for public comments, and the Roundtable submitted this comprehensive letter that addresses the state’s misconceptions, and makes the clear case for the legality of hemp and hemp products.

Dear Dr. Hellerstedt and Mr. Ressler:

The U.S. Hemp Roundtable is grateful for the opportunity to comment on the Texas Department of State Health Services’ (“DSHS”) Proposed Draft Inspection Protocol for Hemp and Hemp By-Products in Food (“inspection protocol”). The Roundtable is the industry’s national business association that represents over thirty firms from across the country – at each link of the hemp supply and sales chain – and includes the ex officio membership of the industry’s major grassroots organizations. We write to strongly oppose any effort by the Texas DSHS to restrict the sale, distribution, or consumption of hemp-derived products, including conventional foods and dietary supplements containing hemp-derived cannabidiol (“CBD”). As discussed further below, hemp-derived CBD poses no safety concerns and is not a controlled substance under the Controlled Substances Act (“CSA”). In addition, hemp-derived CBD may be marketed in food, including dietary supplements, according to U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) regulations.

Safety of Hemp-Derived CBD

Current scientific research confirms that hemp-derived CBD is safe in food, supplements, beverages, and cosmetics, and has provided health benefits to millions of Americans, including thousands of Texans.
We are also not aware of any serious adverse events associated with the consumption of CBD, even at Board of Directors Alliance One International American Shaman Ananda Hemp Bluebird Botanicals CV Sciences CW Hemp Elixinol GenCanna Global Isodiol Real Hemp Williams Ranch Company Zilis Members AgTech Scientific American Herbal Products Association Anavii Market Atalo Elemental Processing General Hemp Gotham Green Partners Harrod’s Creek Farm Hempure Hemp Industries Association Hemp Today Irwin Naturals MHR Brands National Hemp Association North American Industrial Hemp Council S&H Hemp Unique Food Works Virginia Industrial Hemp Coalition Vote Hemp “enhanced” levels.
Indeed, the World Health Organization (“WHO”) recently evaluated CBD and determined that “CBD is generally well tolerated with a good safety profile,” and furthermore that “there is no evidence of recreational use of CBD or any public health-related problems associated with the use of pure CBD.”1

Because industrial hemp contains only a negligible amount of tetrahydrocannabinol (“THC”), the psychoactive component of cannabis, hemp-derived CBD products are non-psychoactive and safe. Further, hemp-derived CBD does not have the potential for abuse or addiction, and there is no potential for diversion.

Status of CBD under the Controlled Substances Act

Beyond the safety profile of CBD and hemp-derived CBD products, the agency’s draft inspection protocol includes statements that are factually inaccurate regarding the status of CBD under the CSA. First, CBD is not considered a controlled substance under the CSA. The Drug Enforcement Agency (“DEA”) has listed both “Tetrahydrocannabinol” and “Marihuana” as Schedule I controlled substances under the CSA, but not “cannabidiol” or “CBD.”

Not all parts of the Cannabis sativa L plant are considered “marihuana.” The federal definition of marihuana expressly excludes various portions of the Cannabis sativa L plant.

Under the CSA, “marihuana” is defined, as follows: [A]ll parts of the plant Cannabis sativa L., whether growing or not; the seeds thereof; the resin extracted from any part of such plant; and every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of such plant, its seeds or resin. Such term does not include the mature stalks of such plant, fiber produced from such stalks, oil or cake made from the seeds of such plant, any other compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of such mature stalks (except the resin extracted therefrom), fiber, oil, or cake, or the sterilized seed of such plant which is incapable of germination.2 (emphasis added)

As affirmed by the 9th Circuit Court in Hemp Industries Assn. v. Drug Enforcement Admin., 357 F.3d 1012 (9th Circ. 2004), the listing of “marihuana” in Schedule I excludes the mature stalks of such plant, fiber produced from such stalks, oil or cake made from the seeds of such plant, any other compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of such mature stalks (except the resin extracted therefrom), fiber, oil, or cake, or the sterilized seed of such plant which is incapable of germination.

Thus, while CBD found in marijuana would be considered a Schedule I controlled substance, CBD derived from source material other than marijuana would not fall under the CSA. Therefore, synthetic CBD, CBD derived from industrial hemp, and CBD found anywhere else in nature (i.e., flax seeds)3 are not subject to the CSA. Similarly, there is no federal law that prohibits “enhanced levels of CBD” in industrial hemp or hemp products. Section 7606 of the Agricultural Act of 20144 defines ‘‘industrial hemp’’ as the plant Cannabis sativa L. and any part of such plant, whether growing or not, with a delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol concentration of not more than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis. Section 7606 also permits the growth, cultivation, and marketing of industrial hemp by states with an Industrial Hemp Research Pilot Program or via an institution of higher education. Furthermore, industrial hemp that is grown and distributed pursuant to Section 7606 is specifically exempted from the CSA. This law permits use of any part of such plant, and therefore industrial hemp with enhanced levels of CBD has the same legal status as industrial hemp with low or no CBD. The only limitation included in the law was the 0.3 concentration limit for THC.

Regulatory Status of CBD

Additionally, the FDA’s current position regarding CBD in dietary supplements or conventional food is unsettled and unsupported by law or regulations. More importantly, the agency’s current position is not a final determination. As background, the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 (“DSHEA”)5 defines a “dietary supplement” as a product intended to supplement the diet that bears one or more of the following: (a) a vitamin; (b) a mineral; (c) an herb or other botanical; (d) an amino acid; (e) a dietary substance for use by man to supplement the diet by increasing the total dietary intake; or (f) a concentrate, metabolite, constituent, extract, or combination of any ingredient described in clause (a) through (e).6

Thus, it permits a wide range of dietary ingredients in dietary supplements, including CBD which is an extract of a botanical (Cannabis sativa L. plant). CBD also falls under clause (e) as it is a dietary substance for use by man to supplement the diet by increasing the total dietary intake. As you may be aware, the FDA has taken the position – via Warning Letters sent to hemp-CBD companies7 – that because substantial clinical trials studying CBD as a new drug were made public prior to the marketing of any food or dietary supplements containing CBD, dietary supplements or food are therefore precluded from containing this ingredient.

However, we firmly disagree that the referenced clinical trials are in fact “substantial,” as the trials were extremely limited in scope, and funding and the publication of these trials has been limited. Further, to date no drug with CBD as an active ingredient has been approved by FDA. Thus, we believe that CBD was marketed as a dietary supplement/food prior to any substantial drug investigations being authorized, undertaken, or made public, and that based on the definition of “dietary supplement” under DSHEA, CBD is in fact a permissible dietary ingredient.

Moreover, Warning Letters and “FAQ” documents are by no means final agency determinations. We note that the FDA has never taken hempCBD products off the market, and the primary motivation for the Warning Letters issued in 2015, 2016, and 2018 concerned the improper use of disease-remediation claims by hemp supplement/food companies. Finally, the draft inspection protocol notes that “CBD is also considered to be a drug by the FDA.” As a matter of clarity, it should be noted that an ingredient can fit into more than one FDA-regulated product category or subcategory. For example, vitamins are present and permitted for use in conventional foods, supplements, beverages, cosmetics, or pharmaceutical drugs. Thus, the fact that CBD can be considered a drug has no bearing on whether it is permissible in other FDA product categories. In fact, DSHEA specifically allows for an ingredient to co-exist as both a drug and a dietary supplement ingredient. Excluded from the definition of a dietary supplement is (“IND preclusion”): an article authorized for investigation as a new drug, antibiotic, or biological for which substantial clinical investigations have been instituted and for which the existence of such investigations has been made public, which was not before such approval, certification, licensing, or authorization marketed as a dietary supplement or as a food unless the Secretary, in the Secretary’s discretion, has issued a regulation, after notice and comment, finding that the article would be lawful under this Act.8

The federal statute specifically carves out dietary supplements and foods that were marketed prior to investigation of the article as a drug, for which substantial clinical investigation has been instituted and made public. CBD was marketed in food or dietary supplements prior to the institution of substantial clinical investigation and prior to such substantial clinical investigations being made public. In closing, we respectfully and emphatically urge the Texas Department of State Health Services to abandon or substantially amend its Proposed Draft Inspection Protocol for Hemp and Hemp By-Products in Food in order to permit the continued sale, distribution, and consumption of legal hemp products, such as hemp-derived CBD, in the state of Texas.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Brian Furnish President
U.S. Hemp Roundtable

Jonathan Miller Member-in-Charge
Frost Brown Todd, Lexington, KY

Rend Al-Mondhiry
Senior Counsel Amin
Talati Upadhye, Washington, DC

1 http://www.who.int/medicines/access/controlled-substances/5.2_CBD.pdf.
2 21 U.S.C. § 802(16).
3 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22706678.
4 http://www.votehemp.com/PDF/Pages_from_farm0127.pdf.

5 Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994, Pub. L. No. 104-417.

6 21 U.S.C. § 321(ff)(3)(B)(ii).

7 https://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/PublicHealthFocus/ucm484109.htm.

May 16, 2018
CDC keeps secret its mishaps with deadly germs & potential bio-terror pathogens

HFI: CDC experiments with dozens of the world’s most dangerous bacteria and viruses and potential bio-terror pathogens. CDC scientists apparently lost a box of deadly and highly-regulated influenza specimens and experienced multiple potential exposures involving viruses and bacteria, according to heavily-redacted laboratory incident reports obtained by USA TODAY. Several reports involve failures of safety equipment. In one, a scientist wearing full-body spacesuit-like gear to protect against lethal, often un-treatable viruses like Ebola, had their purified air hose suddenly disconnect — “again” — in one the world’s most advanced bio-safety level 4 labs.

USA TODAY’s “Biolabs in Your Backyard” investigation has revealed hundreds of safety incidents at public and private research facilities nationwide and highlighted how many university, government and private labs have fought to keep records secret about incidents and regulatory sanctions. The USA TODAY investigation also exposed that more than 100 labs working with potential bioterror pathogens have faced secret federal sanctions for safety violations, yet regulators allowed them to keep experimenting while failing inspections, sometimes for years.

USA TODAY also revealed details about the operations and safety records of more than 200 high-containment labs across the nation, facilities whose identities have eluded even the Government Accountability Office. More than 100 labs working with potential bio-terror pathogens have faced secret federal sanctions for safety violations, yet regulators allowed them to keep experimenting while failing inspections, sometimes for years.

In addition to being a lab operator, the CDC co-runs the Federal Select Agent Program that inspects and regulates government, university, military and private labs that works with these regulated viruses, bacteria and toxins. The U.S. Department of Agriculture is CDC’s partner in the regulatory program.

After winning a Freedom of Information Act appeal last year, USA Today revealed that the CDC is among a small group of biolab operators nationwide that have the worst regulatory histories in the country, receiving repeated sanctions under secretive federal regulations.

Incidents such as: In April 2014, a mangled box filled with biological samples – at least one of them broken – arrived without any labels that it contained infectious materials by regular United Parcel Service delivery to the desk of a CDC worker, rather than to a laboratory. The box, from the North Carolina State Laboratory of Public Health, had been shipped in a re-used box without appropriate packing materials and arrived with a “gaping hole” in one corner, according to the CDC emails. Inside the box were specimens of bacteria that cause potentially life-threatening Typhoid fever.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which has faced congressional hearings and secret government sanctions over its sloppy lab safety practices, is keeping secret large swaths of information about dozens of recent incidents involving some of the world’s most dangerous bacteria and viruses.

CDC scientists apparently lost a box of deadly and highly-regulated influenza specimens and experienced multiple potential exposures involving viruses and bacteria, according to heavily-redacted laboratory incident reports obtained by USA TODAY. Several reports involve failures of safety equipment. In one, a scientist wearing full-body spacesuit-like gear to protect against lethal, often un-treatable viruses like Ebola, had their purified air hose suddenly disconnect — “again” — in one the world’s most advanced bio-safety level 4 labs.

After taking nearly two years to release laboratory incident reports requested by USA TODAY under the Freedom of Information Act, the CDC blacked out many details including the types of viruses and bacteria involved in the mishaps and often the entire descriptions of what happened. In several cases, clues about the seriousness of incidents is revealed because CDC staff failed to consistently black out the same words repeated throughout a string of emails.

The CDC would not answer USA TODAY’s questions about specific incidents, which occurred at the agency’s laboratory facilities in Atlanta and Fort Collins, Colo., during 2013 through early 2015.

“None of the incidents described in these documents resulted in reported illness among CDC staff or the public,” the CDC said in a brief emailed statement. Where incidents involved “inventory discrepancies,” the agency said generally the problems were addressed without posing a risk to anybody. The CDC said incident reports cover a time period before the Atlanta-based agency created a new lab-safety office in the wake of three high-profile incidents during 2014 with anthrax, Ebola and a deadly strain of bird flu.

This article originally appeared at: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/01/04/cdc-secret-lab-incidents-select-agents/95972126/.

May 16, 2018
The Serious Health Effects of Toxic Paint Fumes
Nothing like a fresh coat of paint to make a room feel fresh and new. Some paints emit harmful chemicals that can cause a range of health-related issues, from dizziness and headaches to liver or nervous system damage. The problem is that VOCs from paint can cause serious health effects including skin and eye irritation, kidney damage, cancer, reproductive disruption, respiratory issues and impaired cognitive functions.

Considering that painting a single room with a “Zero VOC” product (containing five grams per liter of VOCs) will produce about the same mass of volatiles as if you sprayed out the entire contents of a can of deodorant.
(There would be ten times this amount with low VOC paints) it is something to consider.

PRECAUTIONS BEFORE PAINTING
- Consider milk paints as a healthier alternative to water-based latex or oil-based paints.
- Look for mineral- or plant-based pigments. These are less toxic to produce and have far fewer health risks compared to those used in conventional paint.
- Always work in a well-ventilated area. Even if you are using low-VOC paint, always work in a well-ventilated area and with open windows whenever possible.
Learn more about The Dirty Details of Paint Hazards.

Purchasing the perfect paint for you and your family can be difficult, especially if there’s a chemical sensitivity involved. While some paints claim to be natural, healthy, or zero VOC, a lack of ingredient labels and hazy regulations are enough to make you think twice.

Consider the dangers of paint fumes to your health what safer products have you found and used? Comment Below.
May 14, 2018
Vaccines thoroughly studied before approved? No, and here’s proof.

This is the actual vaccine approval hearing where they approved a vaccine without studies or complete information. Please pick up your voting “THINGY” and vote on whether we should give this with other vaccines. Unbelievable!

This is how brand new vaccines are approved to the immunization schedule. Basic dialogue before they voted:

Q: Is it dangerous to use this vaccine with other vaccines?

A: We have no data on that.
Once approved, it will be given along with other vaccines but we have no clue whether that’s safe or not.

Q: Do we at least have any data from other countries that used this vaccine in combination with other vaccines?

A: Nope

Sounds good to me. Lets vote yes!

Only after they vote, one guy voices concern over 16 heart attack deaths in the safety trials.

May 9, 2018
Herd Immunity: Do high rates of vaccination make us safe?
Most of us have probably heard of the “herd immunity” concept. It goes a little something like this: If 95% of the population become immune to a disease via vaccination, there will not be enough vulnerable individuals to allow the disease to spread, thus protecting the portion of the population (herd) who cannot be vaccinated (those who are too young or immunocompromised in some way).

Summary:
- Scientists developed vaccinations based on the natural herd immunity derived from pathogen exposure. The immunity derived from vaccines was theorized to be equal to natural immunity, yet superior in terms of risk of infection. For several generations this appeared to be the case. Due to new evidence, it became apparent that the vaccines had not been as effective as they thought. To cover the disparity, successively higher percentages of the population required for herd immunity to take effect have been imposed.
- New research was performed and booster shots were introduced to mimic the natural re-exposure process. In the meantime, more incidences of reported vaccine injury have led to the discovery that a much larger and unidentifiable portion of the population suffer adverse effects from vaccination in many cases equal to or much more severe than the adverse effects of the diseases they are vaccinated against.
- However, in order to maintain the high percentage of the population required to achieve herd immunity- these injuries are minimized and in many cases denied in order not to discourage the population from vaccination. All the while, they are working to usher in a “golden age” of vaccines that will be “personalized” to avoid an individual’s genetic predispositions toward certain vaccine injuries.
- Unexpected side effects of mass vaccination programs have manifested such as the “shifting” of susceptible populations (creating problems where they didn’t exist previously), absence of maternal immunity passed to infants, introduction of a “quasi-sterile” environment that is resulting in an increased susceptibility to diseases once considered “eradicated”. The latter is evidenced by the ever increasing reports of disease break outs in predominantly vaccinated populations as well as break outs in mixed populations.
Here is a nice little vaccine propaganda diagram explaining the concept of herd immunity visually, but leaving out the important bit of information there are a group of individuals who are highly susceptible to substantial vaccine injury.

This mantra is reinforced over and over and over.

We hear it on TV. You read about it online. Medical journals publish papers about it. Newspapers write articles about it. Schools teach it. Now we are worked up into a frenzy over it and the debate is HOT on both sides because we’re talking about how the actions of others effect your well-being or the well-being of your children. People who choose not to vaccinate have become public enemy #1 because they are “threatening the nation’s herd immunity” and placing everyone’s health at risk. Honestly, people are getting down right nasty.

This unfortunate attitude is rooted in the fact that we have all been indoctrinated to a large extent to believe that the science behind the benefit of vaccinations is settled. We assume since we have been given vaccines since the late 1800’s, doctors and scientists know exactly how this process works and exactly what the outcomes will be. I for one, thought on many occasions when I was younger how lucky I was to be born into a time when science had all this “stuff figured out” so that I didn’t have to suffer from horrific preventable illnesses.

In my naivete, it never occurred to me that these mass vaccination programs were instituted prior to sufficient research- in more of a “let’s implement our educated hypothesis and see how it goes” scenario.

Case in point, the approval of a new vaccine.

The US Vaccine Advisory Panel, called the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), is the group that approves vaccines for public use in the United States. Most members have connections to the pharmaceutical (aka vaccine) industry.

This 4-minute video was taken from a recent ACIP meeting discussing the approval of a new Hepatitis B vaccine for ADULTS. The vaccine uses a new ingredient that has NEVER been used before…

Pre-approval studies signaled an increase in heart attacks…but under pressure from vaccine makers, the committee unanimously APPROVES the vaccine.

Meaning…YOU ARE THE TEST SUBJECT!
But your doctor won’t tell you that…

The public has always been the under-informed guinea pig and continues to function in the same capacity today- though we are conditioned to ignore the everyday evidence of this that surfaces in the form of the massive number of reports of vaccine injury and vaccine failure. Those who are rudely awakened from the farce and begin to speak out against the status quo are ridiculed and invited to don a “tin foil” dunce cap. At this point, if you are questioning my statements regarding the “settled science” on vaccines, I hope you will read the extensive evidence I have documented in my article: 6 Things You Need to Know When Deciding Whether or Not to Vaccinate. Now, on to the topic at hand…

Does “herd immunity” exist? Absolutely!

The problem is, herd immunity through vaccination– does NOT exist. The theory of herd immunity through vaccination is based on the documented proof of the natural immunity that occurs after exposure to certain illnesses. “Safer” exposure through vaccination in place of actual exposure through natural infection, in theory, should impart the same level of immunity as the natural process affords. It’s a great theory. But have you ever heard the old saying, “If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is”? We receive a harmless vaccine, we never have to worry about getting a yucky disease. Countless lives are saved. The end. However, that’s not exactly how it has played out in the real world. Instead of “protecting the weaker members of the herd” we are merely “shifting around” the members of the herd susceptible to disease. But don’t expect to hear that in the mainstream. Let me explain.

First of all, where did we come up with the magic number of 95% vaccination as the requirement to achieve herd immunity? The idea was born in the 1930’s when Johns Hopkins University’s Arthur Hedrich discovered that after 55% of Baltimore’s population contracted measles (and subsequently became immune to measles) the rest of the population became protected. So, in November of 1966, the US Public Health Service announced a mass vaccination program aimed at vaccinating 55% of the population which would eradicate measles in the US by 1967.

The problem is- it didn’t work. Despite achieving the 55% vaccination rate, measles was not eradicated by 1967. (Our first clue that natural immunity is far superior to vaccine immunity.) So, they increased the required vaccination percentage to 70-75%. When that failed, the percentage was increased to 80%. Then 83%. Then 85%. Then 90% in 2001. Currently, we are at the number 95% and many studies are now calling for 100% required rates. (What was that about protecting those members of the herd that are not able to tolerate vaccination again?)

So was Hedrich wrong? Or is there a difference between the natural immunity derived from contracting diseases and the immunity derived from vaccinations?

Dr. Hedrich had observed that 95% of the children in cities had contracted measles by the time they reached the age of 15. Before the measles vaccine was introduced, measles outbreaks occurred cyclically every 2 to 3 years. So, 95% of the population was immune to measles by their 15th birthday. (Here’s the link to this research: https://academic.oup.com/aje/article-abstract/11/3/576/63159/THE-CORRECTED-AVERAGE-ATTACK-RATE-FROM-MEASLES)

Scientists at this time worked on the assumption that one vaccine would result in lifetime immunity. And indeed for decades we have operated under the assumption that the infectious diseases that we are vaccinated against are all but eradicated. Almost no one gets them, ergo vaccines work. Right?

Actually, for over 70 years doctors assumed that vaccine immunity was lifelong. No one vaccinated during these years received booster shots. It wasn’t until much later that it was discovered that vaccine protection only lasts from 2 to 10 years. So, the first generations to be vaccinated in childhood likely had no immunity by the time they reached adulthood. Renowned neurosurgeon, Dr. Russell Blaylock writes, “If we listen to present-day wisdom, we are all at risk of resurgent massive epidemics should the vaccination rate fall below 95%. Yet, we have all lived for at least 30 to 40 years with 50% or less of the population having vaccine protection. That is, herd immunity has not existed in this country for many decades and no resurgent epidemics have occurred.” You can read Dr. Blaylock’s vaccine herd immunity article here: http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org/2012/02/18/the-deadly-impossibility-of-herd-immunity-through-vaccination-by-dr-russell-blaylock/

Years later scientists discovered that the body is best able to defend itself due to ongoing re-exposure to pathogens. A study by A.A Navarini concluded, “The formal demonstration that both maternal antibodies and early exposure to infection are required for long term protection illustrated that constant re-infection cycles have an essential role in building a stable herd immunity.” (Here is the link to that study: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19877011)

And voila! That’s how we ended up with vaccine boosters- in order to mimic natural re-exposure. But, this hasn’t exactly fixed the problem.

Navarini has also noted that vaccination creates a “quasi- sterile” environment that actually makes the population more vulnerable to disease outbreaks. “Attempts to eradicate measles virus or poliovirus eliminates antigen exposure of infants to these pathogens. Such quasi-sterile epidemiological situations may actually increase the risk of outbreaks.”

Indeed, today, several generations after these diseases were declared to be all but eradicated, we have multiple examples of outbreaks in 100% or near 100% vaccinated populations:

CDC documented case of measles outbreak in 100% vaccinated population: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00000359.htm

Measles outbreak traced to fully vaccinated patient: http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/04/measles-outbreak-traced-fully-vaccinated-patient-first-time

Mumps: https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/47/11/1458/282575/Mumps-Outbreaks-in-Vaccinated-Populations-Are

Chicken Pox: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/113/3/455

Pertussis: http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/857368

Looks like Navarini is on to something…This leaves us with the all important question: Why are we becoming more susceptible to these diseases?

Well, one of the primary differences between natural immunity and vaccine immunity is that vaccine induced immunity cannot be passed from mother to infant. Why? Because exposure through the mucous membrane is what contributes to the production of antibodies in the mammary gland. But injected vaccines bypass the mucous membranes all together and only blood antibodies are produced. So, even if the mother does have immunity through vaccination, she can’t pass it to her infant through breastfeeding like a naturally immune mother can. On the flip side of the coin however, if a mother has natural immunity, and her infant is exposed to measles- the infant will contract an asymptomatic infection (an infection with no symptoms) that will result in lifetime immunity to measles.

A study published by M. Papania in 1999 states, “Infants whose mothers were born after 1963 had a measles attack rate of 33%, compared to 12% for infants of older mothers…Infants whose mothers were born after 1963 are more susceptible to measles than are infants of older mothers. An increasing proportion of infants born in the United States may be susceptible to measles.” (Here is the link to the study: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10545585)

In effect, while the measles vaccine reduced the expression of measles infections, it has had a detrimental effect when you recognize it has merely “swapped” the population groups susceptible to the disease. (Now infants, and non immune adults.)

As Dr. Suzanne Humphries notes, “Infants used to be protected by maternal antibodies, adults were protected by routine exposure, and infected children came through the disease normally with long term immunity.” (FYI: measles never was highly dangerous in the US. It is only dangerous in malnourished populations. As a matter of fact 30% of measles infections went undetected because they were so mild. This is at a stark contrast with the vaccine, which has a higher incidence of serious injury in the US than the disease itself.)

An example my generation will identify with is chicken pox. When I was a kid, everyone got chicken pox at some point. Though certainly annoying, most cases of chicken pox are pretty benign and when you recover there is a 95% natural immunity rate. However, the advent of the mass varicella vaccination program has resulted in members of the “herd” being unable to pass natural immunity to each other. Now shingles is on the rise. Shingles is MUCH worse than chicken pox.

This National Institutes of Health release documents the failure of the varicella vaccination program (yet it is still recommended- go figure), “Varicella vaccination is less effective than the natural immunity that existed in prevaccine communities. Universal varicella vaccination has not proven to be cost-effective as increased HZ morbidity has disproportionately offset cost savings associated with reductions in varicella disease. Universal varicella vaccination has failed to provide long-term protection from VZV disease.”

Dr. Goldman of the above varicella study, notes in this separate document (http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Goldman-SummaryofChickenpoxVaccine1.pdf) that the varicella vaccination program has had the effect of “shifting chickenpox to a more vulnerable adult population where chicken pox carries 20 times more risk of death and 15 times more risk of hospitalization compared to children. Add to this the adverse effects of both the chicken pox and shingles vaccines as well as the potential for increased risk of shingles for an estimated 30 to 50 years among adults.” In simple terms: we were better off before the vaccine.

Now, the theoretical vast good that vaccinations could do has been greatly diminished due to the fact that the vaccines in and of themselves are dangerous and in many cases carry a much higher risk of injury than the illnesses they are designed to prevent. The unexpected problem has been, however, that a far larger portion of the population are susceptible to adverse vaccine effects on a varying scale of severity. Vaccine injury encompasses a plethora of complications not currently recognized in their full scale which leads to massive under-reporting of vaccine side effects.

The medical and science fields (quietly) admit that a much larger portion of the population than originally expected are susceptible to vaccine injury.

They also confirm that currently, there is no way to reliably determine who these individuals are. Of course this is not discussed in the mainstream, but here is the link “to the next golden age in vaccinology to be ushered in by the new science of vaccinomics”: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2831634/ . The very existence of this document speaks the truth that they are aware that vaccines cannot be safely administered in their current “one size fits all” form, but they won’t let us know that until they have the new and improved product ready to fill the void. The linked document is all about the up and coming “personalized” vaccines that they tell us will be safer. (Safer than our already extremely “safe” vaccines?) Here’s another quote from the article, “In addition, newly available data suggest that some vaccine-related adverse events may also be genetically determined and, therefore, predictable.”

The medical and science communities answer by once again calling for higher vaccine rates and introducing new vaccines by the truckload.

Every Child By Two is a front group for vaccine makers, the primary source of their funding. Don’t take my word for it, the prestigious British Medical Journal ran an expose of many groups like Every Child By Two titled, “The unofficial vaccine educators: are CDC funded non-profits sufficiently independent?”

Herd Immunity the Marketing Gimmick: JB Handley

Additional sources: http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org/2012/07/05/herd-immunity-the-flawed-science-and-failures-of-mass-vaccination-suzanne-humphries-md-3/
May 6, 2018
The Promise of 5G

5G technology, which is being introduced now in some US cities. It is planned by the US government to be rolled out soon for the entire US. Many other countries are also looking into utilizing it too. 5G stands for “5th generation” of cellular technology. The RF technology has been developing quickly over the last 50 years starting with 1G back in 1970 and has progressed since then with the next experimental generation of cellular technology to where we are now seeing 5G being used. I use the word “experimental” because frequently the case has been that very little safety testing has been done to uncover what the effects these EMF frequencies have had or will have on all living organisms in their broadcast path.

5G promises to bring with it some attractive benefits such as super-fast download speeds and immense connectivity nearly everywhere on the planet while serving 100 billion devices. Initially these “improvements” are quite inviting to embrace for everyone interested in these benefits to improve their use of the devices they’ve grown to love and be dependent upon.

However, 5G is potentially quite dangerous because of many reasons. The two website links below will spell out those dangers very clearly with good overview graphics and charts to view. I highly recommend that you take a few minutes to read and view the info on these sites, as they are very interesting and informative based on existing scientific studies.

Learn More :

https://www.electricsense.com/12399/5g-radiation-dangers/

http://www.scientists4wiredtech.com

May 5, 2018
Don’t SPRAY your dandelions pick and use them

The health benefits of dandelion include relief from liver disorders, diabetes, urinary disorders, acne, jaundice, cancer, and anemia. It also helps in maintaining bone health, skin care, and weight loss. All these health benefits are currently being studied for complete validation by a number of international institutions.

Despite the health benefits of dandelions, they are traditionally more popular as ornamental flowering plants than as medicine, because the flowers look brilliant and are frequently seen in gardens and parks. There are many varieties of dandelion, but the common one is scientifically known as Taraxacum officinale. In terms of history, the plant is believed to have evolved about 30 million years ago in Eurasia.

Dandelion, which literally translates into “lion’s tooth” in French, is rich in vitamin A, vitamin C, iron, calcium, and detoxifiers, which explains its common inclusion in medicines.

Embraced throughout human history and across cultures and cuisines, the dandelion has been cast as public enemy No. 1 in postwar, suburban America. An estimated 80 million pounds of pesticides are used each year on home lawns to eradicate them. Yet each year, the scrappy plant returns, thumbing its sunny yellow nose.

For me, letting my dandelions grow wild and pesticide-free is not just about frugality and ecology, but also gastronomy. Food writers often say that the best foods are those with a sense of time and place. I love these bitter greens as much as I do because I know the ground they come from and appreciate that they only come once a year. They also serve as a useful reminder that good foods are closer than we may think, even as close as our own back yard. – Mother Earth News

Should we change our definition of weeds? The ecologists definition of “weed” is a pioneer species, one adapted to growing on disturbed ground. As such, native “weeds” are an essential part of ecological succession. It’s only the invasive that shove out natives that are a problem, and if they’re edible, well, we can eat the problem! –K. Bledsoe

Dandelion Recipes to Try

Dandelion Salad Recipe with Fresh Goat Cheese and Apples
Dandelion Mushroom Calzone Recipe
Wilted Dandelion Greens Salad Recipe
Simple Sautéed Dandelion Greens Recipe

Other Resources

https://www.healthnutnews.com/25-reasons-to-go-pick-dandelions-right-now/.

May 4, 2018

House Race: Who Stands FOR Health Freedom?

Our Survey Results regarding informed consent, parental rights, citizen rights, access to CBD oil and holistic practitioner licensing.

Health Freedom Idaho sent out candidate surveys to those running for office to see where they stand on health freedom, parental rights and informed consent. Those who responded have a link to the survey. Health Freedom Idaho does not endorse any candidate. This information is by no means exhaustive its intention to provide you a tiny bit of insight regarding those candidates who wished to participate in our surveys that pertains to health freedom or parental rights. We invite you to share quotes, resources, information on town hall meetings that may provide insight regarding the candidates in the comments below. Health Freedom Idaho wants to help educate voters as you head to the voting both. We want you to have the information that you need in order to make the best decision for you and your family. We also complied the voting records for the current Senators and Representatives on several key pieces of legislation. Not sure what district you will be voting in? Check here: https://openstates.org/id/legislators/

District 2

John Green
learn more about John at his campaign website: http://electjohngreen.com/

Regarding the rights of government and the rights of citizens:

The Government has no “rights”. All rights are inherent in citizens. The government has to keep citizens apprised as to risks dangers of anything that might adversely affect their health or safety. Citizens have a right to such information.

Regarding informed consent:

I believe we have an inalienable right to determine our own course when it comes to health care, which includes using any substance available if we determine that it will improve our health, protect us from disease, or benefit our quality of life. I believe parents have an inalienable right and an absolute duty, to make health care and education decisions on behalf of their children. Informed consent is usually the safest option, and it should be required if there is any doubt as to the safety of any procedure or conduct that affects the public. The proper role of government is to protect the lives, liberty and property of its citizens. Informed consent is a good tool for the government to exercise that duty.

District 5A

Hari Heath
learn more about Hari at his campaign website: https://hariheath.com/

Regarding informed consent:

Informed should mean honest accurate information not the usual biased or fraudulent “facts” Consent means voluntary action including the ability to effectively say no.

Regarding licensing of practitioners

The state should end licensing and move it to professional associations who regulate their members to maintain their reputations, ending state-sanctioned monopolies and opening free choice in a few markets.

District 11A

Josh Gibbons

learn more about Josh at his campaign site: www.gibbonsforidaho.com/

Regarding the licensing of holistic practitioners:

I do not believe government intrusion into the free market is the best solution. As a consumer, choosing any medical treatment, I should make an informed decision based on recommendations and credentials when I choose to seek help. I believe in free market self-policing.

Regarding informed consent and parental rights

At the end of the day, you alone are responsible for the health of your family. The government has no business intruding into how you seek to heal or maintain your health.

District 11B

Tammy Nichols
learn more about Tammy at her campaign site: http://nicholsforidaho.com/

Regarding CPS involvement when medical treatment is refused.

Parents always have the right to make medical decisions, and what is in the best interest for their children. The HD (Health Department) and CPS are not the parents and should only intervene when clear abuse and/or neglect are occurring.

Regarding holistic licensing

I believe that over licensing and regulation is occurring and that the free market will do the best job overall.

District 25A

Glenneda Zuiderveld
learn more about Glenneda at her campaign site:http://glenneda.com/

Regarding CPS involvement over treatment of a gravely ill child

Parents have the ultimate right. It is not the governments roll to regulate this.

Regarding the rights of parents and the government

I am for parental choice and health choice. The original purpose of government is to preserve liberties not to restrict and regulate our freedoms to choose.

District 25B

Lyle Johnstone

learn more about Lyle at his campaign website:

www.lylejohnstone.com

Regarding Holistic Healthcare Licensing

Does this type licensing improve quality of care? Or is it limiting quality people that would be able readily pass licensing? Is it for the Business of licensing?!

Regarding the vaccine exemption form

IN FAVOR of a bill of clarification

District 32

Chad Christensen
learn more about Chad at his campaign website: http://chadforidaho.org/

Regarding Parental Rights

I am against the intrusion of privacy by the government. The government needs to stay out of my parenting. It needs to cease trying to be a nanny and thinking they know best for my children and me. I am for absolute freedom of choice in regards to medical issues of my family. Except for blatant child abuse (physical and sexual), the government should have no authority over my children. The government should always receive permission from its people to operate and perform tasks. The government continually oversteps its boundaries year after year. A strong line in the sand needs to be drawn. I have inalienable rights whether the government recognizes them or not.

Regarding the vaccine exemption form

IN FAVOR of a bill of clarification

District

Democrat

Republican

Other

Bob Vickaryous

Heather Scott (I)

Ellen Weissman

Mike Boeck

Stephen F. Howlett

Sage Dixon (I)

Maria Andrews

Vito Barbieri (I)

Fritz Wiedenhoff

Alanna Brooks

John Green

Richard Kohles

Doug Okuniewicz

No candidate

Ron Mendive (I)

Dan Hanks

Kathy Sims

Tony Wisniewski

Janie Hansen

Jim Addis

Rebecca Schroeder

Shem Hanks

Paul Amador (I)

Roger Garlock

Margaret Gannon

Bill Goesling

Hari Heath

Terry Hardman

Caroline Nilsson Troy (I)

Laurene Sorensen

No candidate

Thyra Stevenson (I)

John Rusche

Mike Kingsley (I)

No candidate

Priscilla Giddings (I)

Ryan Lawrence

Shannon McMillan

No candidate

Paul Shepherd (I)

Phil Hart

No candidate

Terry F. Gestrin (I)

No candidate

Dorothy Moon (I)

Allen Schmid

Ryan Kerby (I)

Lorrie Richins

Chase Van Weerdhuizen

Judy Boyle (I)

10A

Sead Muradbegovic

Jarom Wagoner (I)

10B

Chelsea Gaona-Lincoln

Greg Chaney (I)

11A

No candidate

Scott Syme (I)

Josh Gibbons

11B

Brian Ertz

Kirk Adams

Scott Brock

David Lincoln

Tammy Nichols

Kathryn Ralstin

12A

Patricia Day Hartwell

Robert Anderst (I)

12B

No candidate

Rick Youngblood (I)

13A

No candidate

Brent Crane (I)

13B

Chris Ho

Gary Collins (I)

Lori Shewmaker

14A

Jane M. Rohling

Mike Moyle (I)

14B

No candidate

Gayann DeMordaunt (I)

15A

Steve Berch

Lynn Luker (I)

15B

Jake Ellis

Patrick McDonald (I)

16A

John McCrostie (I)

Graham Paterson

16B

Rob Mason

Jim Silsby

Colin Nash

Geoff Stephenson

George Tway

Barb Vanderpool

17A

John L. Gannon (I)

Anthony Dephue

Randy Johnson

17B

Susan Chew (I)

Kevin Rhoades

18A

Ilana Rubel (I)

No candidate

18B

Brooke Green

Steve Simmons

19A

Mathew Erpelding (I)

Gary Parent II

Mark Patten

19B

Melissa Wintrow (I)

No candidate

20A

No candidate

Joe Palmer (I)

Daniel S. Weston (Constitution)

20B

No candidate

James Holtzclaw (I)

21A

Joshua Robinson

Steven Harris (I)

21B

No candidate

Tom Dayley (I)

22A

No candidate

John Vander Woude (I)

22B

No candidate

Jason Monks (I)

Ronald DeBlauw

23A

No candidate

Christy Zito (I)

Oscar Evans

23B

No candidate

Megan C. Blanksma (I)

24A

No candidate

Lance Clow (I)

24B

Deborah Silver

Rocky Ferrenburg

Anthony Tomkins (Constitution)

Linda Wright Hartgen

25A

No candidate

Laurie Lickley

B. Roy Prescott

Glenneda Zuiderveld

25B

No candidate

Clark Kauffman (I)

Lyle Johnstone

26A

Muffy Davis

Steve Miller (I)

26B

Sally Toone (I)

Mike McFadyen

27A

No candidate

Scott Bedke (I)

27B

No candidate

Fred Wood (I)

Kevin Williams

28A

Steve Landon

Randy Armstrong (I)

28B

No candidate

Gary Aldous

Kevin Andrus

Kay Jenkins

Dennis Spencer

29A

Chris Abernathy

Dustin W. Manwaring (I)

Sean Fay

29B

Elaine Smith (I)

Kevin Brown

Sierra Carta (L)

Molly Swallow

30A

Pat Tucker

Jeffrey Thompson (I)

Gary Marshall

30B

No candidate

Wendy Horman (I)

Randy Neal

31A

No candidate

Neil Anderson (I)

31B

No candidate

Julie VanOrden (I)

Julianne Young

32A

No candidate

Marc Gibbs (I)

32B

No candidate

Thomas Loertscher (I)

Chad Christensen

33A

Jim De Angelis

Barbara Ehardt (I)

33B

George Morrison

Bryan N. Zollinger (I)

34A

No candidate

Ronald M. Nate (I)

Doug Ricks

34B

No candidate

Elaine King

Marshall Merrell

Britt Raybould

35A

No candidate

Daniel Davis

Jerald Raymond

35B

Jerry L. Browne

Karey Hanks (I)

Rod Furniss

April 30, 2018

Senate Race: Who stands FOR Health Freedom?

Health Freedom Idaho candidate surveys are starting to come in. Here’s what some candidates say in regards to Health Freedom.
Click the candidate name’s to read their complete survey answers:

District 1 – Scott Herndon
Regarding licensing of holistic practitioners:

“A license is a grant of permission, and I think the free market ought to be used to discern the qualification of naturopaths and other holistic practitioners. Then, leave it to the holistic healthcare industry to create their own industry standards and private industry board certifications by which they certify the qualifications of their practitioners.”

District 8 Marla Lawson
Regarding parental rights and vaccine choice:

I think there is validity to concerns over the danger of today’s vaccines. I also feel parents should have say so as to what medicines and treatments are given to their children.

District 14

Natalie Feuerstein
Regarding CPS involvement of a gravely ill child after parents decline treatment

The rights of the parents are supreme, and should only be superseded by the government in extreme circumstances AFTER a jury of peers deems the parents, grandparents, other family members to be unfit (due to criminal neglect). Going against the advice of a doctor is NOT criminal neglect. Doctors are not infallible, and parents have the right and responsibility to do what is right for their children regardless of advice from others (including doctors).

Todd Hatfield
Regarding the rights of citizens and the government

Citizens are due as much information as possible from their governmental agencies regarding any and all health and safety notification. Rights are not granted by government, government protects the inalienable rights of the individual.

District 15

Sarah Clendenon
Regarding Informed consent on carcinogenic spraying:

Not only should there be information given on anything that cities and counties release into the air, but there should be public discussion, debate, testimony from experts, and city/county votes on the issue. If it is approved after that process, there should absolutely be public notice requirements and the opportunity to opt your property completely out.

District 17

David DeHaas

Regarding licensing of holistic practitioners

I am against Licensing. Licensing always creates a favored class, limits free market competition, and limits choice.

District 23

Mark Rhatigan
Regarding informed consent and health freedom

I believe we have been given Maximum Liberty to utilize one’s own rights, whether personal or parental, as given by our creator, to use our freedom balanced with morality and all the responsibilities that are tied to that. That said, it is our responsibility not our governments to keep ourselves as completely informed with unbiased (special interest agendas withheld) information, so we can make educated decisions for our families, as issues come up.

District 28

Alan Curtis
Regarding CPS involvement when parents choose to deny treatment for a gravely ill child

Parent’s rights end when the child turns 18. Pretty simple concept. Unless the child is being sexually or physically abused the government has no
business intervening.

The Idaho Senate is comprised of 35 Senators elected for two-year terms. The state is divided into 35 legislative districts, each represented by two Representatives and one Senator. 2018 is an election year for our entire Legislature.


2018 Legislative Election SENATE

District	Democrat	Republican	Other
1	Vera Gadman	Danielle Ahrens
		Scott Herndon
		Jim Woodward
2	Dale Broadsword	Steve Vick (I)	Shon Luoma (L)
3	Patrick Lippert	Don Cheatham
4	Cory Jane English	Mary Souza (I)
		Michael Pereira
5	David Nelson	Dan Foreman (I)
		Marshall Comstock
6	No candidate	Dan Johnson (I)
7	No candidate	Carl G. Crabtree (I)
8	No candidate	Steven Thayn (I)	Kirsten Faith Richardson (Constitution)
		Marla Lawson
9	No candidate	Abby Lee (I)
10	Evangeline Beechler	Jim Rice (I)
11	Harold Coles Jr.	Patti Anne Lodge (I)
	Edward Savala	Zach Brooks
12	Chelle Gluch	Todd Lakey (I)
13	No candidate	Jeff C. Agenbroad (I)
14	Richard Boozel	Darin Driscoll
		Natalie Feuerstein
		C. Scott Grow
		Todd Hatfield
		Ted Hill
15	Jim Bratnober	Fred S. Martin (I)
		Sarah Clendenon
16	Grant Burgoyne (I)	LeeJoe Lay
		Ryan McDonald
17	Maryanne Jordan (I)	David DeHaas
18	Janie Ward-Engelking (I)	No candidate
19	Cherie Buckner-Webb (I)	Aaron Tribble
20	No candidate	Chuck Winder (I)
		Mark Johnson
21	Dawn Pierce	Clifford Bayer (I)	Joe Evans (L)
22	Mik Lose	Lori Den Hartog (I)
23	No candidate	Bert Brackett (I)
		Mark Rhatigan
24	No candidate	Lee Heider (I)
		Jay Waters III
25	No candidate	James Patrick (I)
		Terry Edwards
26	Michelle Stennett (I)	Julie Lynn
27	No candidate	Kelly Anthon (I)
28	Mike Saville	Jim Guthrie (I)
		Alan Curtis
29	Mark Nye (I)	Lance B. Kolbet
30	No candidate	Dean Mortimer (I)
31	No candidate	Steve Bair (I)
32	No candidate	Mark Harris (I)
		Noall Wolff
33	Jerry Sehlke	Tony Potts (I)
		David Lent
34	Robert Nielsen	Brent Hill (I)
35	No candidate	Van Burtenshaw
		Jud Miller

How did the current Senators vote on Health Freedom Issues?

April 30, 2018

Paleo Garlic Knots
You know those meals that just need a side of garlic bread to make them complete? We are still in transition making our way completely away from grains. I’ll be honest some meals just don’t feel right unless there’s a crispy piece of warm garlic bread next to them. Our mixed greens salad with Dr Rosie’s healing dressing is a warm weather favorite. This recipe is promising to meet our cravings for bread without the wheat. These paleo garlic knots truly do make quite an addictive snack. With their delicious garlic flavoring from not only the coating but also the garlic powder used in the dough, they can be enjoyed freshly made or reheated in a toaster oven.

Homemade Paleo Garlic Knots

Save Recipe
1. ½ cup almond meal
2. ½ cup arrowroot flour plus extra for dusting
3. ¼ tsp baking soda
4. ¼ tsp salt
5. ¼ cup almond milk
6. ½ tsp garlic powder plus extra for dusting
7. 1 ½ tbsp olive oil plus
For the garlic coating
1. 3 garlic cloves, finely chopped
2. 2 tbsp chopped fresh parsley
3. 3 tbsp olive oil
Instructions
1. Preheat the oven to 350°F. Line a baking sheet with parchment paper.
2. In a large bowl, mix together the almond flour, arrowroot flour, garlic powder, baking soda and salt.
3. Add the almond milk and 1 tablespoon of olive oil and mix to make a smooth dough.
4. Lightly dust a working board with some extra arrowroot flour.
5. Roll out the dough into a rectangle 1/3 inch thick.
6. Dust with extra garlic powder.
7. Cut the dough lengthwise into 8 strips.
8. Roll out each strip into a rope then tie it into a knot.
9. Place them on the prepared baking sheet.
10. Brush the knots with ½ tablespoon of olive oil.
11. Bake for 12 – 15 minutes or until they are just starting to turn golden.
12. Meanwhile, in a small saucepan heat 3 tablespoons of olive oil over medium heat.
13. Add the garlic and cook, stirring, until just softened, about 2 minutes.
14. Stir in parsley and season with salt.
15. Transfer the garlic mixture to a bowl and add warm knots.
16. Gently toss until coated and serve.
By Harper (PaleoGrubs.com) http://paleogrubs.com/paleo-recipes
April 29, 2018

Author: Health Freedom Idaho

Dandelion Recipes to Try