I have had a good look through the forum and couldn't find anything on the Codex rulings anywhere so please for give me and possibly direct me towards the links if there are allready here.
However, has anyone given a thought to the whole subject of alternatives and substitutes if this bill actually gets the go ahead, it could be devastating for the whole spectrum of alternative medicine if implemented.
For a better understanding for those who haven't seen or read anything to do with it, check out the leading experts views here, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_isdBSrBihk
DK.
So, you're saying it is a good thing.Originally Posted by Dale Kendrick
You've confused "expert" with "raving loony". That woman is Rima Laibow "Medical Director of the Natural Solutions Foundation" and wife of Major Stubblebine a weirdo who featured heavily in Jon Ronson's Men Who Stare At Goats (he was the bloke who thought he could walk through walls).
I know who she is, I hope that Codex" Doesn't" get through, didn't know about the goats and walls thing, got any links to that one.So, you're saying it is a good thing.
You've confused "expert" with "raving loony". That woman is Rima Laibow "Medical Director of the Natural Solutions Foundation" and wife of Major Stubblebine a weirdo who featured heavily in Jon Ronson's Men Who Stare At Goats (he was the bloke who thought he could walk through walls).
The whole Codex thing has gone very quiet, what have you got new about it ?
DK.
Wasn't the Codex thing meant to be in place by 31st December 2009?
It's all just conspiracy nonsense. It's not worth taking seriously or worrying about it.
.
I don't know because I have only just been directed towards it, someone said she has now gone into hiding so its still on going, could be total rubbish ? I'm not worried about it but a friend of mine who makes and sells alternatives seems to be fighting it for all he is worth, Rima Laibow is an alternative expert who also thinks so, I suppose if she is as good as she says, she will sort it out.Wasn't the Codex thing meant to be in place by 31st December 2009?
It's all just conspiracy nonsense. It's not worth taking seriously or worrying about it.
If it is all nonscense the Icke forum who have a huge following is going to look rather stupid, not I am not a member of that site.
Erm....
It already does!
.
So, if I understand correctly, the World Health Organization has developed a food standards code which might have a negative impact on CAM.
How is this bad in any respect?
Its not all just about food, even Henry Kissenger said, if you control oil your control nations, if you control food you control people, we have to look back into history for the links to it all, codex isn't a new idea it was started back in the 1800's.
In the tube video Raibow says that all things that are natural herbal products and vitamins are to be classed as toxins and going to be further regulated, but all man made chemicals and big pharma are not included, this stinks of a monopoly if there ever was one, I would suggest that you go an do some of your own research for the bigger picture.
It is a know fact that many natural remedies actually work better where as other modern treatments don't, this is why they don't want to legalise Cannabis which was always know as a cure all, if you have a copy of Culpeppers complete herbal which is one of the bibles as far as natural medicines go, one will see the evindence which was laid down millenia ago,
To legaliose cannabis alone would decimate cancer treatments today worth billions, you see cannabis cannot be patented like modern sinthesized pharma can, there is a whole lot more to this than we imagine, I don't think its a theory at all, there is more to it all than meet the eye.
DK.
Icke yes, but I was pointing towards the Codex links on there.Erm....
It already does!
And your evidence from your own research is, what? This youtube video? If you have further evidence what and where is it?
Old and ancient treatments continue to be improved on in terms of efficacy and safety. Do you think that "modern treatments" somehow do not contain natural ingredients, or reproductions of them? What people often call "chemical" medicines have their entire basis in "natural" active ingredients, but regulated and moderated for safety and effectiveness. Cannabis, for its part, has not always been known as a "cure-all". If you claim it has been, then perhaps you'd produce your evidence?
Culpeper, (only two ps by the way) was active around 400 years ago, rather than thousands, and forms part of the great chain of medical advances, which are now thankfully even more improved.
This is sick. Are you suggesting that people are being allowed to die when cannabis could cure cancer?
I do know what many modern treatments and drugs were synthisised from yes, what I'm saying is the naturals cannot be patented, where as the synthisised version can which is wrong, I'm not saying that all modern drugs don't and are of no benefit, stop trying to put words into my mouth,
I personally have used many natural treatments and would rather have a natural treatments than chemo for cancer, that is my choice isn't it, chemo kills more people than it saves this is a fact, and you would live much longer without having it in many cases, this is also fact, are you a real doctor ?.
Natural healing goes back to a well know Nazerean, do you not believe in that too ?, tell us all something, when did most cancers evolve and why.
New cancers due to the ways we live are found every day, caused by modern chemicals, where is your argument coming from, we know this to be true but are not being told about it in the intrest of money, are you totally blind sir.
I like to have a good old debate, and have already been dropped on from a great height by quoting/stating tube videos to which I have done considerable research upon, I suggest the rest of you do the same before you point the finger,
Canabis does indeed cure cancers of many kinds, I would put another link to the tube which was made by the people on the ground themselves, but I might get told off for this, it looks like to me that this forum is full of quietness and tranquility and some don't like to hear the truth now and then, if that's the way you all feel then do your worst, if I'm not allowed to spread a word of truth then this is not the place for me.
Last edited by Dale Kendrick; 7th January 2010 at 03:01 PM.
Re: Codex Alimentarius 2010
If you seriously believe that then if you should be unfortunate enough to ever get cancer, your false belief is highly likely to cost you your life.
I understand the attraction of thinking you have acquired some arcane knowledge on a 'factual' (read conspiracy theory) website or two; but these claims and beliefs are just plain false. And if you buy into them: dangerous.
Sadly, it's an all too frequent occurrence that we see stories of people, or their children, dying because of their belief or faith in alternatives to real medicine.
I strongly suggest that you do the 'research' that you're telling others to do! And I mean research, not cherry-picking what you want to believe from dodgy websites.
Think about it. What are the consequences for you or someone dependent on you in a time of crisis (such as ill health) if your beliefs are false? Because your beliefs are false; and if acted upon could well have serious consequences.
.
Why would anyone believe that? Sounds like complete bollocks to me.
No. You're the idiot who thinks that they know everything. You tell us. It's not up to us to start answering things at the whim of some half-witted loony.
I'm not a loony sir, pray tell me, who was Jesus and his kind well know for, its not a religious question before you ask, it is fact not fiction, unless you don't believe in the bible, a Jesus was a man,Why would anyone believe that? Sounds like complete bollocks to me.
No. You're the idiot who thinks that they know everything. You tell us. It's not up to us to start answering things at the whim of some half-witted loony.
Then don't get angry, get even, stay in with a suitable answer if one chooses or sustain altogether, its a free world, at least it was when I looked last
Yes. This is, however, the wrong question.
Predates 2000 years ago, in fact. Try doubling it. At least.
No, it does not. Your claim is worth nothing. Where is your evidence.
If it is fact, not fiction, then belief doesn't come into it. Are you claiming Jesus existed? If so, what is the relevance here?
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks