Scott Tips Proposed FDA Nutrition Label Changes and RDI CODEX – CHTV Episode 21


Warren: Hello everyone, welcome to Cellular
Healing TV, episode 21. We have a really special show for you today, broadcasting live from
– was it London, Scott? Scott: No, it’s Paris.
Warren: Paris. Still, in Europe. Scott Tips. Dan, I would like you to introduce Scott.
You have been talking to him and Pat Carol about what’s going on and how valuable their
foundation, federation is. We’re going to get into some really good topics on the new
FDA label law changes. Scott is on the forefront of protecting our rights in the natural health
world and protecting the rights of natural health doctors across the country. Scott is
an integral part behind the scenes, and some of the backbone of why we are able to do what
we do, and protecting our ability to do what we do. We’re really honored and blessed
to have him on the show today. Thank you Scott. Dan, I’d just like you to speak to that.
Dr. Pompa: Yeah, no, Scott’s a crusader for health freedom, hence the Health Freedom
Federation. Yeah, you really are a crusader for health freedoms, no doubt about it. We
couldn’t be more appreciative for what you do. I think that’s the purpose of having
you on the show, is because people need to know what you’re doing behind the scenes,
what’s going on behind the scenes. There’s been so much – and people talk about the
Codex bill. A lot of people don’t even know if it’s real, I think especially the public,
in what’s happening. Something new is happening now and Scott, we want you to share that with
our audience, just even in label laws. That’s all coming out of this Codex, so you might
want to spend just a few minutes explaining that and what’s going on there, and then
we’ll get to the new news. Scott: Sure, I’d be happy to. Thank you
for that, Dan. The problem that we face these days is everyone in the world wants to harmonize
to an international standard, to an international guideline. At the National Health Federation,
we’ve been attending, and actually actively participating, at Codex Alimentarius meetings
for really almost 20 years at this point. What we’ve found though is that over that
time frame, the U.S., and particularly the Food and Drug Administration, has been striving
at governmental levels, at bureaucratic levels, to take us up to, or more accurately, down
to, the lower standards of Codex, in an attempt to drive international food trade throughout
the world. Codex Alimentarius, which was founded 51 years ago in 1963, was set up for the ostensible
purposes of protecting the consumer and eliminating international barriers to trade. Here we are
51 years later, and their emphasis is really not so much on protecting the consumer, but
it’s in eliminating the barriers to trade. It’s all about trade barriers and very little
about protecting consumers. You see this in the new food labeling proposed rule making
that the FDA launched. When the FDA proposes a change in its regulations, it has to give
notice of that through the Federal Register. It launched this real glitzy thing in late
February with even Michelle Obama, and Dr. Hamburg, who’s the head commissioner of
the FDA, announcing how great these new label changes are. In doing so, they made extensive
changes, or proposing that extensive changes be made to the labels, some of which are good,
but most of which are very bad. If you look under the covers, you will see that the changes
that are bad are really far outstripping those very few ones that could ostensibly be called
good. This is what we’re facing. I don’t know if you want me to get into the nitty
gritty details of what they’re proposing, but everyone who’s listening to this program
has until August 1st this year to submit comments saying thumbs up, thumbs down, or giving suggestions
or whatever to the FDA, either online or by snail mail. You can do that. The deadline
was to have been June 2nd, but they extended it to August 1st. As you go through this discussion,
you’ll see that it’s very well worth your time to make some suggestions or comments
to the FDA. It may seem inconsequential, and in a way it probably could be, but if there
are enough of us out there throwing a thumbs down to this, then the FDA will take a second
look at it. At least they’ll feel constrained to take a second look at it. This is all very
important. Dr. Pompa: Yeah, and I think we want to hear
some of those things so people can make an opinion, right? I’m sure most people don’t
know at this point, what’s coming down the pipe.
Warren: It happens lots. These negative effects, these label laws, highly put us at risk, and
what it allows some of these companies like Monsanto to do on the GMO side. What is this
going to unravel in our lives? Scott: Those are both excellent questions,
or several questions, really. What it does is – you know how you can distract people.
You can either highlight something else while the magician is doing something over in the
other corner, or the other part of his hand is doing is hiding some event, or you can
do it by misdirection. I think what the proposed label rule-making is, and this is both for
food and for supplement labels, is it’s a lot of slight of hand, it’s a lot of misdirection,
and it’s a lot of nutritional ignorance. Going through the list as you asked, here’s
what we’re really looking at that these people have done. Keep in mind, they have
the nutritional knowledge of a ten year old, basically. They may seem smart, they may in
fact be smart, but their nutritional knowledge is way behind most of the people watching
this program. Overall, the FDA Deputy Commissioner Michael Taylor, he’s in charge of this.
In fact, I used to sit next to his wife, Christine Taylor, at the early Codex meetings in Germany,
just as a by the by. He thinks that these changes, at least the FDA thinks, that it
will help address obesity. What have they done? They want to drive attention to calories
and serving size, so they have redone the label. I don’t know if I can show it here.
Maybe I can, and this will help the listeners. This is from our magazine, the National Health
Federation magazine called Health Freedom News.
Warren: Yeah, we can see that Scott. It’s great.
Scott: In here is my article on the subject. You can see, for the audience, the label on
the left is the current way that it’s done. It’s called a Nutrition Facts Panel. I’m
peeking over the edge so I can see, too. The one on the right is what they propose. The
first thing that strikes you probably most —
Warren: Calories. Scott: That’s what they’re trying to emphasize.
The problem, as you all know, losing weight isn’t just about calories. Losing weight
is about a whole bunch of other things, including what calories are you consuming. Dr. Pompa
can speak about this for days at length, so I don’t pretend to has his level of knowledge
on it. I do know, the simple fact is, it’s not all about calories. The other thing you’ll
notice here is they will add in, and I can’t quite see it from my angle, but in there,
they will talk about added sugars. What is the importance of this? With added sugars,
the importance is – I’m going to put this down to save my hand from —
Dr. Pompa: Scott, one thing I noticed right off the top was – okay, calories was the
first thing. The next thing was total fat, and the next thing was cholesterol. We always
say it’s always 180° opposite of what the government tells us. There’s proof positive,
right there. Calories, fat, and cholesterol, top three things, top useless information.
Oh, and the top best things for you is fat and cholesterol, to make you normal. People
try to reduce it to that. Scott: You’re absolutely right. I totally
agree with you. You actually took a little bit of my surprise thunder there, but I’m
glad you did. Warren: It shows you how clear it is to someone
who watches Cellular TV, goes to its supports, and reads your magazine, that it’s on this
topic. That’s why we’re doing this. It makes so much sense, because that’s going
to drive sales of pharmaceuticals. I won’t do that, but just to show the example, they’re
saying calories up here, right? Meanwhile, they’re trying to distract you from the
truth. Calories, calories, calories – truth is down here. You never see the truth. You
never see the healthy thinks, and it drives, honestly, sales. I’m going to stop talking,
but. Scott: Right there, it talks about how many
servings per container. Dr. Pompa was right to say, and you too, to say that it’s really
about looking at the calorie count, but they also are emphasizing the number of servings
per – let’s see if I can do it there – the number of servings per container. They think
that’s important, too. To a certain extent, they are right, because the serving sizes,
before, were really undervalued. They’d have one container, a small container of ice
cream, that was considered to be two servings. In fact, everyone knows, people sit down and
they will eat it, typically, all in one serving. I’m talking about those small containers,
not the large, quart-size containers. Even then, people eat a whole container of those
They’re driving in a better direction there for the servings per container, but frankly,
people don’t pay much attention to it. I’m even one who – and here I am, I do food
and drug law, and especially with an emphasis on labels, and I don’t really pay attention
to serving sizes. I don’t think most consumers pay attention to it, either. In this case,
I think it’s a bit of a swing and a miss by the FDA, to even though it’s – I hate
to say well-intentioned, I don’t really give them good intentions, or at least think
that they’ll have good intentions in anything they do. In this case, perhaps, they did.
Let’s give them the benefit of the doubt. It’s also overshadowed by everything else.
They’ve said that they want to update the serving size requirements to reflect the amounts
that people currently eat. Given the huge sizes of Americans these days, I think that
is true. They can be commended for that particular part. The problem really comes, and you also
noticed on that label, that the new label mentions added sugars. They didn’t have
that before, so what they’re talking about, of course, is where sugar is added, but not
artificial sweeteners, believe it or not, that’s not included under added sugars because
that’s a zero-calorie thing. Under this new regime that the FDA is proposing on labeling,
they’re misdirecting people’s attentions to calories and making sugar the bad guy.
Which, of course, it is, but there’s a badder bad guy on the street these days, as we all
know, and that’s the artificial sweeteners, like aspartame and sucralose. If there was
anything that would drive me to eat sugar now, it would be aspartame and sucralose,
just out of the greater fear of what aspartame and sucralose does to you when it breaks down
into methanol in your brain and helps kill off brain cells, leads to the formation of
formaldehyde in the body, and helps promote cancer. As bad as sugar is, it’s probably
10 fold safer, 100 fold safer than aspartame or sucralose. What does this new proposed
label do? It paves over that. This is getting to your point, Warren. It paves over the bad
things about aspartame and the advantame that’s up and coming on the horizon. It’s probably
because of the influence of the industry, the influence that the industry has on the
FDA. It’ll have the public looking in the wrong direction, looking for added sugars,
instead of also looking for zero-calorie artificial sweeteners. When the typical average consumer
picks up a bottle and looks at it, they’ll pick up a bottle and they’ll look at it
and they’ll look at the label. They’ll see one that says added sugars, they’ll
see another and it’ll say zero but it’ll be full of aspartame, pick up another one
that might have sugar in it and it says 10 grams, or whatever it might be. They’ll
go, “I’m not going to do that, I’m going to take the zero one, because it’s healthier.”
It’s going to push consumers into the direction of making bad health choices. This is something
that we need to stop. The other thing that it does, the new label, is it deletes the
listing “calories from fats.” That’s okay, except for one thing. Given the FDA’s
fixation on spotlighting total calories, this deletion is a little curious. On the other
hand, the FDA thinks that polyunsaturated fats are God’s gift to mankind. We really
don’t know what to make of this, other than we need to recognize that the type of fat,
rather than the amount, is the key. Maybe we can look at this as mixed blessing. Maybe
by removing “calories from fats,” this part of the label, the FDA’s doing us a
favor. They are having fluoride to be declared on the label, but they think it’s a good
thing, not a bad thing. They aren’t doing it for those who would prefer to avoid fluoride,
they’re doing it to encourage people to consume it. Of course, those of us who know
better will go the other direction. In a way, this again is a mixed blessing. It’s good
for us who want to avoid it. Other people may be drive to do it, to consume that product,
because it has a higher amount of fluoride in it and they think, mistakenly think, that
they will be preserving their teeth, when in fact —
Warren: Oh, wow. This is scary to me. If you understand marketing and you look at – most
people don’t think like us, right? The things that they’re highlighting – calories,
cholesterol, sugar, and fluoride, most of the culture is going to buy the lowest calorie,
the lowest cholesterol, and the things that contain fluoride. What that’s going to do
to manufacturers is for them to try to sell more, they’re going to try to create lower
calorie, lower cholesterol, and products that contain fluorides, because that’s – the
masses, the 95% or 90% of the world, is going to drive that. Our food is going to become
increasingly toxic. They’re going to sell more toxic foods, really hurt the population
more, making them sicker, which the drug companies and medical monsters of this world understand.
The drug companies know that their drugs kill people. I talk to people in the industry,
and they know it, and they don’t care, honestly, because they run it like a business. In business,
you don’t care. This is massive, Scott. Scott: It is. You actually said that better
than I would’ve. It is a problem. Most consumers, when they go to a label, they don’t know,
for example, that – Vitamin A’s at 60 mg a day or 90 mg a day, as the FDA actually
would have it, is not going to really help them. They’ll see the 100%, or whatever
percent it is of the Vitamin C content, and they will think that they have made a good
choice. I love what you’re saying about – not that I love that it will happen, but
I love that you brought it out, that this will drive industry to conform to it in order
to promote products, to the larger market. That’s exactly what will happen. Another
thing that goes along with that is – and this is really the key, after all, of that,
is they’re deemphasizing some nutrients. Gone from a position of prominence on the
label will be – let me see if I can hold this up again – will be Vitamins A and C,
and instead, will be Potassium and Vitamin D. Let me see. I have to do this a certain
way so I can see this. You’ll notice the old label talks about Vitamin A, Vitamin C,
there below the heavy horizontal bar in the middle, you’ll see Vitamin A, Vitamin C.
Then on the new label, to the right of it, under the heavy horizontal bar, you see Vitamin
D and you see calcium, you see potassium, but you no longer see Vitamin C.
Warren: Oh, that’s maddening, because that’s drug companies again. They want you to get,
for bone health – and it’s just all the things that they, it has nothing to do with
it. It’s not calcium deficiency. Scott: Exactly. Magnesium is more important
than calcium in the typical American diet, as you all well know. Vitamin D’s important
and I’m glad they’re showing that, and potassium is, of course, beneficial in helping
to lower blood pressure, as even the FDA says, but is it really a good thing to dethrone
vitamins A and C? These can still be voluntarily declared by manufacturers, but the point that
you brought up, Warren, is an excellent one. That is, why do it? The labels are getting
crowded enough as it is, and some may choose to do so, but if push comes to shove and they
have to put other stuff on the label that is mandatory, then this will be the first
to be ditched. Also, the other thing they’re doing is, you know how we are all used to
thinking of Vitamin E, Vitamin A, in international units? I’m so used to thinking of taking
5,000 international units of Vitamin D3 a day. Those will be gone under this proposed
rule-making as well. What they propose to do, in some sort of Euro-trash move, is to
move it to the metric system, as is used here in Europe. To be fair to the FDA, that is
consistent with the rest of the label. You don’t declare Vitamin B1 in international
units, you do it in milligrams. Others you do in micrograms, and so on. It is a move
towards consistency. It will just require an adjustment in our thinking, like if we
had to convert to the metric system for miles per hour or something instead. To be honest,
I’m so in love with the international units that I take this as a personal attack against
me by the FDA. Of course, it isn’t. It will allow more consistency on the label, and after
we get used to the transition, it’ll probably be fine, and we’ll have forgotten the international
units. Here’s the important thing about this. The important thing is that it’s harmonizing
to the Codex standards. In fact, all throughout their 109 pages of proposed rule-making, the
FDA mentions Codex Alimentarius multiple times. You’ll notice, also – by the way, just
as a little aside, so I don’t forget it, they make no mention of GMO labeling on any
of this, or in any of this proposed rule-making. Where’s that? If they want to protect the
consumer or have them be more knowledgeable, why not have included that in the proposed
rule-making? They didn’t. Getting back to the harmonization thing, it’s important
to know, while everyone was really focused on the flurry of format changes and the replacement
of this wording and the fancy new look, there the real danger was, in microscopic detail,
was the fact that the FDA is harmonizing our vitamin-mineral levels, the nutrient reference
values, or the RDAs, the recommended daily allowance, the recommended dietary intake,
RDIs, mostly down to Codex Alimentarius levels. Not 100%, not entirely, but mostly. I call
on those dirty sneaks, because that’s what they are – they’re dirty, sneaky people.
They have all the flash and cameras on the label change – “Oh, look how much better
it’ll be. The consumer will read it better,” but there hidden in the fine print, under
the staple on the contract, is the dirty part. The dirty part is that in eight of those vitamin
and minerals, they are lowering – for example, in the case of Biotin, the B vitamin, they’re
lowering it by 90%, just so it can match the Codex level. Three of the vitamins and minerals
are already approximately at Codex levels. Not exactly, but almost. They haven’t touched
those, but eight have been lowered to Codex levels. That would include Biotin and it would
include the B vitamins, which they’re lowering down. The other thing – here’s the list.
Maybe I can go back to the camera again and you guys can see. Here’s – sorry, here’s
the list. A little harder to do. Maybe I need to do it like this. There’s a little list,
and there is a long list. They have increased certain things, like Vitamin C. Instead of
it being the 60 mg a day, very generous 60 mg a day that Codex has, they do propose raising
it to 90 mg. That’s a step in the right direction, but as we all know, 90 mg is nothing.
That’s ridiculous, actually. Concurrently, at the Codex meetings, which we’ve been
going to, as I said, for nearly 20 years, and I myself, personally, for 15 years, the
last 5 years has witnessed a big battle over the Nutrient Reference Values, which are just
basically the – there are a few differences, but basically, the Codex Alimentarius version
of RDAs or RDIs. These changes are just following in line with what the FDA announced back on
October 11, 1995, where they said that their intention was to harmonize to international
standards. That has never changed. That has been their goal, and that is what they’re
doing. If the rest of the world had higher standards than the U.S., allowed higher potencies
than we did here, then that would be a good thing. The fact is that most of the countries
of the world, most of the member states of Codex, don’t understand the benefits of
supplements, do not understand, even, basic nutrition. They certainly, if anything, have
a very high anti-supplement mentality that is pro-drug and anti natural health remedies.
That’s the problem. When we harmonized all these to these international standards, we’re
harmonizing to a lower level of health, a lower level of nutrition. We just cannot do
it. It’s just the wrong way to go. What these people are doing at FDA is trying to
sneak it in through this proposed rule-making, where most of the pages talk about, “We’re
going to declare calories in a more prominent position, we’re going to add in added sugars.
All of that’s bad, as was pointed out by Dr. Pompa and Warren, but the real kicker
is this harmonization. I guarantee you, at the Codex meetings, we will see the FDA trying
to get Codex to go to what the FDA has proposed here for the vitamin-mineral levels. If they
can’t get it, then I guarantee you you’ll see another proposed rule-making that will
say, “Oh, we need to lower these vitamins to X, Y, or Z, whatever X, Y, or Z has been
decided upon by Codex. Warren: If we’re trying to harmonize to
these international standards – and if you look at the EU, they don’t allow GMO. If
we’re harmonizing, why wouldn’t we harmonize on all fronts, and at least not allow GMO?
It’s like taking what I want, but leaving the things we don’t want.
Scott: Yeah, that’s a very good point. Monsanto has great pull at Codex meetings. You’re
right to ask those questions. It is very inconsistent, but they shrug it off at the meetings. They
have no problem with it, whether it’s pushing ractopamine-doped meat onto the European market
and the like, or GMO. As you know, the European Union pays a heavy fine because they lost
the WTO trade dispute on allowing GMO foods into the European Union’s market. They paid
– and I apologize, I forget what the amount is, but it’s clearly 150 million euros a
year to keep GMO foods out of the market, as their trade sanction. It is true. Why is
the U.S. not picking and choosing when you have 90%, probably 92% of the U.S. population
not desiring to eat GMO foods. Yet here you have the U.S. representative at the Codex
meetings pushing GMO foods, these toxic, ractopamine-laden foods and the like. It’s usually, by the
way, excluding the UK, because it’s a member of the European Union, it’s usually these
Anglo-Saxon countries that are behind all these unhealthy standards, primarily Australia.
Somewhat New Zealand, but principally, Australia, the United States, and Canada. Those are the
ones who really are opponents at the Codex meetings. I’ve even gone up to the Russian
delegate at one point, when he was opposing ractopamine-doped meat – this is sort of
the Arnold Schwarzenegger, steroid-like that’s drug given to animals to make them beefier,
meatier, and less fat, to have less fat. I went up to the Russian delegate and said,
“It’s a sad day when you speak more on behalf of the American consumer than the U.S.
delegate does.” It’s true. He laughed a little bit and said, “Thank you.” I
did that at a Codex Alimentarius commission meeting two years ago, when there was the
big fight over ractopamine. We have another one coming up, by the way, in Geneva, in mid-July,
that I will be going to. The fact of the matter is that here we are with these proposed label
changes, which I again, encourage everyone to go to the FDA’s website and to – in
fact, you can actually just go to www.regulations.gov and
then look for the comments section. Then you put in this docket number, which is FDA-2012-n-1210.
It’s almost the same as 2012, you just change the numbers around. Anyway, that’s the docket
number you want to go into and submit your comment. You have until August 1st to do that.
Will it make a difference? We don’t know, but it won’t hurt. If there’s enough of
a public outcry over this, then it’ll be a good thing. If you go to our NHF website,
www.TheNHF.com, that is T-H-E-N-H-F dot-com, and we have there, probably on the homepage
– if not it will lead you into the section where we even have a written comment that
you can cut and paste and plug into and link directly to this comments section of the FDA.
Warren: That website, Scott, your website is TheNHF?
Scott: Yes, dot-com. We couldn’t get NHF.com, so we had to put an article in front of it.
We put the. TheNHF.com. We’re in the middle of redoing our website. It’ll be a lot perkier
by the end of June 2014, but it will still do the job for this purpose.
Warren: The best website on the internet because of the content that you have, and I would
encourage the viewers to go there and make a donation. I know that many of our doctors
did. We had you speak live at our last seminar, and once they heard what you do behind the
scenes for us, they were very giving, to help support what you do. You need supported massively.
You need to be introduced on more shows like this to get the message out there. I want
to have Dan have some final comments here Scott, but I’m really fired up, because
based on what I know about again, marketing, and what doesn’t work, just from hanging
out with all these doctors, and listening to Dr. Pompa speak on these topics, even the
RDI thing – and I’m a black-and-white guy – the RDI thing is a huge issue, too.
I know that when our clients take an RDI to a physician, a medical doctor – who’s
not really trained in nutrition, they don’t get any nutritional training, so it’s to
no fault of their own – they’ll be like, “Holy Cow, this is ten times the RDI. You
shouldn’t take that!” It’s going to drive people away from taking active doses
that they need to change their body chemistry and to push their nutrient pathways in the
right way, which work in with enzyme production and brain function and cellular energy, and
all the things in Dr. Pompa’s 5R’s. This is a massive epidemic. They’re driving people
away to becoming sicker, to becoming more dependent on drugs. This is not on accident,
it is on purpose. Everything they do is with a purpose, and it’s down to driving money.
You have to remember, the government is a long-term vision. The things that they’ve
been doing, they’ve been doing for hundreds of years. Even when they give other countries
like Dubai all this access to money, long-term, they’re going to win. The government is
very slick, and they’re putting a longer-term strategy, which will benefit their pocket
book, or their JD-partnered pocket books, i.e. drug companies, Monsanto, things like
that. This is on purpose. Scott: Yes, well I agree 100% with what you
just said there, Warren. I think that’s what’s been going on here, and what will
still go on here. It’ll get worse. It’s actually snowballing. It is a problem. We
have the upcoming fight. I appreciate your mentioning donations, because that’s what
gets us to these meetings. Your people at that Atlanta conference were so gracious and
so generous. Actually, it’s probably the most generous group of people in terms of
donations to us, in terms of joining, at the highest level, our membership, joining as
a member. You can do it at $36 a year, you can do it at $200 a year. Most of your people
picked the $200 a year. They didn’t pick the easy way out. They did the way that would
support us and send us to these meetings. The next meeting where we will be arguing
on the NRBs, at the Codex level, that is, it will be in Bali, Indonesia. It’s a key,
critical, lynchpin, pivotal meeting, because this is where they will decide on a lot of
the nutrients. We have to have our ducks in order, and we need to be going in very well
educated and prepared for this. That’s what we’re doing. We’ve been preparing for
this kind of a meeting for years, and have been at it each and every year. Bali, and
that’s not a cheap flight, that’s not a cheap trip. We do need donations, so thank
you for having mentioned that. I wasn’t sure if I could mention it, so I’m glad
you did. Thank you for that. Warren: You should be flying first class,
Scott. Scott: I wish I could, but we don’t. We
always go — Warren: I know you don’t, you should, because
things like the National Cancer Society and the Breast Cancer Awareness, those CEO’s
are funding research that doesn’t get to the cause. They do some nice things for people,
but on the back end, that money is not being justly used. I know that every penny that
comes to your organization’s being justly used, and not just funding private jets, and
things like that. This is huge, Scott. I know people watching this show will go to your
website and donate at TheNHF.com. Dan, you’ve been listening to this. I know you’ve had
some thoughts stirring around a few times, and I’d like you to wrap this up and share
what’s on your hear, as Scott shared some information that really got me fired up about
what’s going on with this new label law change. Man, it’s sad.
Dr. Pompa: Scott, I just wish we had a little more time where you could talk more about
what really is going on there. This is just, as of lately, what you’ve been battling
for the last 15 years, really, is more about our freedom to hold onto supplements, to be
able to get supplements, that we don’t have to go get a script for supplements. Isn’t
that really where the bigger battle is, and really where they would love to take it? When
we hear that oh, you know, we could lose this freedom, people don’t understand how it
close it was at a few times. Literally, it was down to a few votes.
Scott: Yeah, no, you’re absolutely right. At one point, there was – not many people
know this. At one point, Representative Claude Pepper, who’s now deceased, but was the
democratic representative out of Florida, was going to pass a bill – this was in pre-internet
days, where it would be illegal to ship vitamin and mineral supplements or dietary supplements
in general through the U.S. Post Office. Absolutely illegal. He had the votes to do it. We had
our lobbyists try to lobby him. He wouldn’t budge. Finally, our former president of NHF,
Maureen Sullivan, flew to Washington, tried to meet with him personally to get him to
withdraw the bill, which had a very high chance of passing – this was in the 1980’s, early
1980’s. He refused to meet with her, but she made friends with the secretary. She found
out when he was going back to southern Florida for his spring break or recess, and she booked
a seat – these were the days when you could do this – she booked a seat right next to
him. She flew with him all the way down and his ear the whole trip. By the time he got
back to Florida, the plane landed, he had changed his mind. A week later, he withdrew
the bill. Warren: How is Maureen Sullivan doing?
Scott: She’s no longer with us, unfortunately, but her legacy lives. A lot of people either
love her or you hate her, it depends. She was a black-and-white gal. She really had
her heart in it. This wasn’t the only time that she made a difference for everyone. Does
anyone know what happened or give her credit for it? No. I didn’t even know the story
for years. That’s what happened. They’re little things like that that make a difference.
You’re absolutely right on that Dan, that there’s a lot to be done. It’s really
about the individual’s right to control his or her destiny and and his or her health.
We’ve got to take charge of ourselves, and as you teach in your seminars, and I very
much hone in on this, because I appreciate it so incredibly much, you teach personal
responsibility. The flip side of freedom, the flip side of the coin, is personal responsibility.
You can’t just sit back and wait for government to take care of you, or Big Daddy or Big Momma,
you take care of yourself. You do it through education, and one of the best places is through
your seminars. I noticed that when I was there. The other is to read widely and use a discerning
mind, and don’t just accept government propaganda, or mainstream media propaganda, that you see,
which whoever the latest doctor guest is on Dr. Oz or on Oprah Winfrey – although I
guess she’s off the air now, isn’t she? I don’t know. Anyway, I don’t watch much
mainstream television. You really have to use programs like this, your seminars, other
seminars like yours, for people to really know what’s going on and to know how to
take care of their health, especially in these challenging times, where – it’s not like
our grandparents’ time, where they weren’t as – in a way they were, but not to the
extent that we are – where we’re inundated with contaminants and toxins raining down
on us, in our water, in our food. What are they doing at the same time? They’re lowering
the nutritional content of our foods and our supplements. That’s not allowing our bodies
to protect ourselves, at the same time as we’re getting inundated with a tsunami of
bad toxins. Dr. Pompa: One final note before we have to
go. What are the chances of them succeeding, taking supplemention – we have to go through
a medical doctor and get supplements – greater control, to the point where we don’t have
that freedom anymore? Scott: The beauty of the United States, and
it’s true in South Africa as well, those two countries are the holdouts in the world.
If you go to a South African health food store, you’ll think you’re in an American one.
Maybe even better than an American one, because they never banned tryptophan there. Of those
two countries, we’re the last holdouts, Canada having sold out through Health Canada,
its FDA equivalent. I think the odds, to be honest, are really stacked against us, but
I still think we’ll prevail. It’s not going to be a slam dunk, and there may be
a period of time where things are reduced, but the beauty of America is that more than
half of the population takes supplements, so they keep having to inundate us with this
propaganda to convince us that supplements are either dangerous, worthless, or you’d
be better off with drugs, like the annual flu shot or the like. I think we’ll go through
some rough times, but I think there is light at the end of the tunnel. Ultimately, we’ll
prevail. Enough people will rebel if they conform to this. You see it happening in other
arenas of political life, with people getting increasingly discontent. Just look at what
happened with Eric Cantor, who got voted out of office on that immigration issue – or
not voted out of office, but at least he lost the primary, earlier this week, I think it
was. People are taking note. The nice thing about supplements is, in the same way that
social security is third rail politics, supplements are the fourth rail of politics, and there
are a lot of very powerful and influential people, as well as the mass of people, who
are in favor of supplements, despite the propaganda. I think they have a real tough road to hoe
here, but they’re trying to get at it through gradualism, through lowering the public’s
favorable perception of supplements. That’s why people like you Dan, you Warren, you David,
and many others, are so incredibly important. You’re educating them as to the true value
of taking charge of your health and going forward. That’s really where it’s at.
Dr. Pompa: The power’s always in the people, and their strategy is to educate people that
vitamins are dangerous. When you go into a hospital and there’s an emergency, believe
it or not, the first thing they start asking people is what supplements they’re on. It’s
true. I’ve witnessed it several times. Even the emergency, the EMS people that approach
a situation, if someone’s in an anaphylactic situation, they literally start asking if
they’ve had St. John’s Wort supplements. The strategy’s obvious. You see one more
thing out there, why supplements are dangerous. Meanwhile, drugs are in the top three killers
in America and we’re not hearing anything. Yeah, we just have to keep putting out an
opposite message, obviously, and the power is in the people. Scott, we are thankful for
you, that you are on the front lines, literally, for these causes that we’ve just mentioned,
and holding on to something that’s near and dear to us, because we got our life back
through supplements and utilizing natural health solutions. If we lost that, it would
be a different world, that’s for sure. Thank you for your efforts in fighting for the truth.
Scott: Thank you, because our efforts wouldn’t get out there and be noticed but for people
like you, especially you, and what happened at the Atlanta seminar, and what’s happening
in the future, and Warren’s good advice for us, as well, to help make us, the National
Health Federation, that is, more visible to the public and get our message out there.
I really appreciate all that you do, too. Dr. Pompa: Yeah, well, I hope people donate.
If they value what they’re putting in their mouth, supplements, food, then donate, if
you appreciate that freedom. Thank you, Scott. Scott: Thank you.
Warren: Thanks, everyone. Thanks for watching the show. Definitely go to his website, TheNHF.com,
and share this Cellular Healing TV, CellularHealing.tv, as well, for our next show, coming up next
week. Scott, we’ll bring you back on. Thank you so much for your time, broadcasting live
from Paris, not London. We love and appreciate you and what you do for us, again. Dan and
I got our lives back, like you said, with these supplements. Who are we to wipe out
the legacy and the future without fighting back, because folks that are suffering and
need real food and real nutrients that cause your body to heal itself are much need. Our
bodies have been healed this way. We need to fight so that the future can do the same.
Thank you so much. Scott: Thank you.
Warren: Take care, everyone.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *