Misplaced Pages

Health freedom movement

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Valjean (talk | contribs) at 13:22, 7 April 2007 (self-revert Undid revision 120966802 by Fyslee (talk)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 13:22, 7 April 2007 by Valjean (talk | contribs) (self-revert Undid revision 120966802 by Fyslee (talk))(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

The term health freedom movement is used to describe the loose coalition of consumers and alternative medicine providers around the world who are pushing for unhindered freedom of choice in healthcare. It uses the term "health freedom" as a catch phrase to convey its message.The health freedom movement is very critical of the pharmaceutical industry and medical regulators, whom it perceives are teaming up to protect big pharma monopoly profits and defending conventional medicine's turf at the expense of patients and public health. There are strong anti-authoritarian tendencies in the movement.

Main message and objectives

There is general agreement amongst campaigners for health freedom that the practice of medicine has become constrained by monopoly interests and profit, to the detriment of health and freedom of choice. Although the concept of health freedom does not preclude the practice of conventional medicine (allopathic medicine) per se, campaigners generally tend to have strong preferences for orthomolecular/naturopathic/alternative medicine , and a strong distrust of the pharmaceutical industry. In recent years, the movement has increasingly been expanding its focus to include opposition to water fluoridation , mandatory vaccination , and the use of pesticides , herbicides and food additives . Generally speaking, the health-freedom movement favors organic food and is against genetically modified food.

There is no formal structure to the health freedom movement, although cooperation and coordination among some of the various organizations and individuals involved in it does occur. To a certain extent, however, the development of closer links between organizations has been hampered by the belief that "controlled opposition groups" exist, (also called Front organization or Astroturfing), and that the purpose of such groups is to assist the pharmaceutical industry by recommending grass roots actions that appear plausible on the surface to the poorly informed but which, upon closer inspection, fail to hold up to careful scrutiny. Some factions of the movement believe that the lack of a formal structure is one of the movement’s strengths, however, in that this prevents it from being taken over and controlled by individuals or groups with aims that are contrary to those of the movement at large.

A key objective in the health-freedom movement is for people to have unrestricted access to vitamins and other food supplements. The basis for this objective is the large and growing amount of scientific evidence that chronic diseases can be largely prevented, and even cured, using micronutrients , and that regular ingestion of above-RDA levels of some vitamins and minerals confers optimum health and increased longevity. Because of this, the health-freedom movement has close links to the life-extension movement.

Political roots of the health freedom movement

The health freedom movement is a broad movement and does not easily fall into traditional political categories. The loose coalition of health freedom activists come from a variety of backgrounds. For example, the demands for a radical deregulation of the medical profession and health care sector could be construed as right-wing libertarian . The criticism of big companies in the pharmaceutical industry could at the same time be viewed as a left wing position. Outside the movement there are politicians, governments and opinion leaders who would probably not identify themselves with the health freedom movement but who sometimes support the same causes. All this gives the movement a broad scope.

The British activist Martin Walker is politically left-wing, while the Republican congressman Ron Paul is a free market libertarian and introduced the Health Freedom Protection Act in the US Congress in 2005. Other examples of people with polar opposite political views who sometimes share the HFM's views are Prince Charles and Cherie Blair (the anti-royalist wife of British Prime Minister Tony Blair) who has publicly criticized the EU Food Supplements Directive. The British right wing Tory Party has supported the Save Our Supplements campaign as part of its campaign against the EU Food Supplements Directive. The Swedish conservative Moderate Party is also opposed to the EU imposed vitamin restrictions. Many of the Green Parties in Europe are opposed to the EU Food Supplements Directive and are also in favor of alternative medicine.

India is opposed to biopiracy by Western pharmaceutical firms of traditional herbal remedies and will also oppose trade barriers towards traditional ayurvedic herbal remedies. China will defend the rights of Chinese people living abroad to practice traditional Chinese medicine. As the HFM is so diverse in its appeal, it is impossible to characterise it as motivated from any one political stance.

Interest groups and stakeholders

In addition to the diverse ideological arguments in favour of health freedom, there are several interest groups that have material interest to gain from the health freedom agenda.

Consumers

Consumers who advocate the concept seek unhindered freedom to use whatever products or therapies they wish. These consumers believe they will benefit from new therapies that are cheaper (and which they see as safer) than conventional medicine. They also seek increased insurance coverage of their treatment choices and/or increased provision of such therapies by the State.

Providers

The providers include large and powerful producers, many professions, related organizations, and myriad practitioners. They primarily identify themselves with alternative medicine, as opposed to mainstream medicine, and see themselves as its competitors. They seek unhindered access to consumers and seek increased insurance coverage of their products and services.

They form a loose alliance in their efforts to lobby politicians, influence legislation, and influence consumers, and use professional lobbying, organized media campaigns, and mass marketing methods to achieve their goals.

Limiting factors

The limiting factors influencing the degree to which this freedom of choice exists are many and varied, and include consumer protection legislation, lobbying of politicians and legislators by powerful corporations in competing industries (such as pharmaceutical companies) as well as by associated or allied trade organizations, media bias, and resistance by the mainstream medical establishment.

Legislation

The near-unanimous enactment into law of the widely-supported Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA) in the United States (US) in 1994 is perhaps the most prominent example of a piece of pro-health-freedom legislation, and is often cited by health-freedom campaigners as being a key event in the history of health freedom. DSHEA defines supplements as foods, and puts the onus on the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to prove that a supplement poses significant or unreasonable risk of harm rather than on the manufacturer to prove the supplement’s safety.

Following concerns about numerous commando-style raids, censorship issues, pharmaceutical conflicts of interest, product bans, and more proposed FDA restrictions, what became the DSHEA in 1994 was the subject of the largest grassroots letter writing campaign to Congress as well as personal lobbying efforts by the manufacturers of dietary supplements. As such, the true level of popular support for the deregulation of the supplement industry can at times seem unclear. A large survey by the AARP, for example, found that 77% of respondents (including both users and non-users of supplements) believed that the federal government should review the safety of dietary supplements and approve them before they can be marketed to consumers.

Similar confusion about the implications of DSHEA was noted in an October 2002 nationwide Harris poll. Here, 59% of respondents believed that supplements had to be approved by a government agency before they could be marketed; 68% believed that supplements had to list potential side effects on their labels; and 55% believed that supplement labels could not make claims of safety without scientific evidence. All of these beliefs are incorrect as a result of provisions of the DSHEA.

Nevertheless, the passage of DSHEA received strong support from consumer grassroots organizations, and Members of Congress received more than 1 million letters supporting the legislation. In fact, the campaign to pass DSHEA is generally credited as having generated more mail and phone calls to legislators than any other topic since the Vietnam War. In recognition of this, President Bill Clinton, on signing DSHEA into law, specifically stated that "After several years of intense efforts, manufacturers, experts in nutrition, and legislators, acting in a conscientious alliance with consumers at the grassroots level, have moved successfully to bring common sense to the treatment of dietary supplements under regulation and law." He also noted that the passage of DSHEA "speaks to the diligence with which an unofficial army of nutritionally conscious people worked democratically to change the laws in an area deeply important to them" and that "In an era of greater consciousness among people about the impact of what they eat on how they live, indeed, how long they live, it is appropriate that we have finally reformed the way Government treats consumers and these supplements in a way that encourages good health."

In recent years, however, the legislative trend worldwide has been toward increased regulation of supplements. Restrictive European Union (EU) laws such as the Food Supplements Directive , the Human Medicinal Products (Pharmaceuticals)Directive , the Traditional Herbal Medicinal Products Directive , the Fortified Foods Directive and the Nutrition and Health Claims Regulation , for example, currently seem increasingly likely to reduce access to higher-dose food supplements and natural health information throughout the entire EU population, now comprised of 492 million people in 27 countries.

The influence of the pharmaceutical industry on health freedom

Naturally occurring forms of nutrients and herbs cannot be patented. As such, because they believe that nutritional supplements are safe and effective in the prevention and treatment of disease, health freedom campaigners see them as threatening the multi-billion dollar pharmaceutical industry, the profitability of which depends upon the sale of patented synthetic drugs. This is essentially why many health-freedom campaigners perceive the pharmaceutical industry as having a clear and vested interest in supplements being regulated as restrictively as possible. Matthias Rath goes even further than this, however, and believes that the pharmaceutical industry has a vested interest in the continuation and expansion of diseases, rather than their cure, in that without the current widespread existence of diseases the industry would cease to exist in its current form.

The belief that the pharmaceutical industry is actively attempting to suppress the truth about alternative medical therapies and/or nutritional supplementation is widespread in the health freedom movement. The key ways in which the movement perceives drug companies to be suppressing these modalities are through influencing the Codex Alimentarius Commission , food and drug regulatory bodies, medical journals and the media. As such, some campaigners argue that if nutritional supplements are to be evaluated, controlled and taken off the market at the first hint of trouble, they would like to see the same treatment be applied to pharmaceutical drugs.

The influence of Codex on health freedom

A key focus of the health-freedom movement in recent years has been the activities of the Codex Alimentarius Commission , which it perceives to be acting in the interests of the pharmaceutical industry. Sponsored by the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations, the Codex Alimentarius Commission develops standards and guidelines for foods, including food supplements.

Whilst the adoption by countries of the various standards and guidelines developed by Codex is theoretically optional, the creation of the World Trade Organization (WTO) on 1 January 1995 essentially changed their international status, in that they are now increasingly used as the benchmark in the adjudication of international trade disputes. As such, the potential threat of becoming involved in, and losing, such a dispute now effectively makes the adoption of Codex guidelines and standards mandatory, in that it leaves countries little or no option but to harmonize to Codex standards.

The Guidelines for Vitamin and Mineral Food Supplements , for example, were adopted by the Codex Alimentarius Commission as a new global standard at its meeting in Rome in July 2005, with the pro-health-freedom nonprofit organization the National Health Federation as the sole voice raised in opposition at that meeting. Drafted using the restrictive EU Food Supplements as a blueprint, many health-freedom organizations believe that the eventual effect of these Guidelines will be to remove large numbers of the most effective forms of nutrients from the global market, set restrictive upper limits on the dosages of all permitted nutrients, and prevent the sale of all supplements for curative, preventative or therapeutic purposes without a doctor’s prescription. As a result, there is a general belief in the health-freedom movement that Codex is seeking to ensure that the sale of curative, preventative, and therapeutic health products remains the exclusive province of the pharmaceutical industry. Other Codex texts, such as those affecting health claims, organic foods, genetically modified foods, labeling, and advertising are similarly opposed by health-freedom organizations , who argue that the Commission puts trade interests before human health.

The influence of regional trade harmonization on health freedom

A number of health-freedom organizations are currently concerned that the increasing tendency for countries to form large, so-called free trade areas and trade blocs threatens their freedom of choice in healthcare, in that these further increase the pressure upon countries to harmonize their food and supplement laws to the standards and guidelines set by Codex. As such, there has been a certain degree of convergence between the health-freedom movement and the anti-globalization movement in recent years in that some health-freedom organizations and campaigners now openly oppose regional free trade agreements and trade-governing bodies such as the World Trade Organization, and include such opposition as a major part of their campaigning activities.

Campaigners, organizations, and newsfeeds

The core of the health freedom movement consists of a loose coalition of activists, campaigners, bloggers, and newsfeeds. Some of the more notable ones are mentioned in the section below.

USA and the Americas

The American Association for Health Freedom (AAHF) was founded in 1992. The AAHF is the politically active voice at the federal and state level for the right of the consumer to choose and the practitioner to practice. AAHF is affiliated with the European organization, Alliance for Natural Health.

The American Holistic Health Association (AHHA) was founded in 1989. The mission of AHHA is to promote holistic principles where mind, body, and spirit are working together and individuals actively participate in their own health and healthcare. Its role is educational and the AHHA does not run campaigns by itself.

The Institute for Health Freedom (IHF) was founded in 1996 as a Washington based think-tank with a leaning towards free market liberalism. The focus of IHF is more directed towards conventional medicine than the other health freedom organizations. Some of the issues IHF are working with are: patient rights and increased choice in Medicare/Medicaid

The Life Extension Foundation was founded in 1980. The original goal of the LEF was to find methods to extend the human life-span. Over time, LEF has developed an extensive business selling discounted supplements to their paying members. During this process, it has been involved in a number of legal battles with the FDA. Today, LEF is vocal in the health freedom movement and has initiated a number of campaigns over the years. It has an extensive campaign editorial in each issue of its monthly member magazine, Life Extension Magazine.

The National Health Freedom Coalition was founded in 2002. Since 2004, it has organized an annual Health Freedom Conference.

The National Health Federation was established in 1955 and has observer status as a Non-governmental organization (NGO) at the offical Codex Alimentarius meetings.

The Nutritional Health Alliance (NHA) was founded in 1992 as a campaign and lobby organization to persuade Congress to enact the DHSEA. The NHA was recently revived to lobby against what they perceive as new threats towards the DHSEA. As of Feb. 2007, the NHA has 520,000 members.

Freedom in Canadian Health Care is a Canadian health freedom organization.

Europe

The Alliance for Natural Health is a UK based pan-European campaign organization that was founded in 2003 to launch a legal challenge against the EU Vitamin Directive. ANH managed to take the case all the way to the European Court of Justice. The Court upheld the directive, but its ruling made the directive much less restrictive than the original regulation. ANH’s main focus is on lobbying and influencing the legislative process.

The Dr. Rath Health Foundation is founded by the German doctor, Matthias Rath. The foundation is financed by the profits from a supplement manufacturer owned by Dr Rath.

The Campaign for Truth in Medicine is a consumer advocacy group based in the United Kingdom.

Rest of the World

The Alliance for Health Freedom Australia (AHFA) is an Australian non-profit campaign organization.

Individual campaigners

An integral part of the health freedom movement is comprised of a number of individual campaigners, newsfeeds, and opinion makers. Some of the more notable ones are: the US based Gary Null, Dr Joseph Mercola, the British Martin Walker, Eve Hillary, and the newsfeeds News Target based in the US, Health Supreme from Europe, Share The Wealth from Canada, and the US based Zeus Information Service. Examples of US based talk radio stations are HealthRadioNetwork.com, The Deborah Ray Show, and Joyce Riley's talk radio show The Power Hour.

Health freedom films

The film medium has been used to convey the message of the health freedom movement to a broader audience. The most notable are mentioned below. The two documentaries We Become Silent and Prescription For Disaster are produced by core activists in the movement while the other films convey a message that is similar to the positions held by the movement but produced by people that don’t identify themselves with the health freedom movement.

Documentary

Feature films

  • Side Effects (film) from 2005. A satire about a woman making a career in the US pharmaceutial industry.

See also

For further reading

References

  1. http://www4.dr-rath-foundation.org/NHC/researcharchive.html
  2. http://www.garynull.com/Documents/Codex/CodexIntro.htm
  3. http://www.newstarget.com/019497.html
  4. http://www4.dr-rath-foundation.org/PHARMACEUTICAL_BUSINESS/laws_of_the_pharmaceutical_industry.htm
  5. http://www.thenhf.com/fluoridation.html
  6. http://www.thenhf.com/vaccinations.html
  7. http://www.newstarget.com/pesticides.html
  8. http://www.newstarget.com/herbicides.html
  9. http://www.newstarget.com/food_additives.html
  10. http://www.newstarget.com/016668.html
  11. http://www.newstarget.com/001408.html
  12. http://www.laleva.org/eng/2005/11/new_evidence_of_harm_from_gm_food_triggers_call_for_immediate_ban.html
  13. 'National Health Federation Press Release: When It Comes to GM Food, Some Say Ignorance is Bliss - A Report on the February 2007 Oslo Codex Working Group on GM Labelling Published 15 Feb 2007. Accessed 17 Feb 2007.
  14. 'Health Freedom Advocates gather for first Conference', by Jerri Johnson and Linda Peterson. Published Dec 2003. Accessed 11 Feb 2007.
  15. 'Press Release: Unlicensed drug used for babies condemned by health NGOs' Published 12 Dec 2006. Accessed 11 Feb 2007.
  16. 'Grassroots vs Astroturf', by Emma Holister. National Health Federation website. Published July 26 2006. Accessed 11 Feb 2007.
  17. CONTROLLED OPPOSITION IN CANADA: A Statement from Marilyn Nelson, Founder, Freedom of Choice in Health Care. Freedom in Canadian Health Care website. Accessed 11 Feb 2007.
  18. http://www4.dr-rath-foundation.org/NHC/researcharchive.html
  19. 'The National Health Federation's Proposals for Nutrient Reference Values', by Paul Anthony Taylor. From the National Health Federation website. Published 31 March 2004. Accessed 9 Feb 2007.
  20. http://www.lef.org/anti-aging/
  21. http://www.lef.org/
  22. http://www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx?control=1547
  23. http://www.mises.org/story/1749
  24. http://www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx?control=1588
  25. http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=33525
  26. http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2005/cr111005.htm
  27. http://www.conservatives.com/vitamins/
  28. http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/sepp/2007/02/10/europe_relaxes_herbal_medicines_rule_for_ayurvedic_herbs.htm Europe Relaxes Herbal Medicines Rule for Ayurvedic Herbs
  29. http://www.aptmnet.com/business/display.jsp?id=5790 EU relaxes 15-year usage norm for Indian herbal exports, Asia-Pacific Traditional Medicine and Herbal Technology Network (APTMNET)
  30. http://www.crnusa.org/ Council for Responsible Nutrition (CRN)
  31. http://www.fda.gov/opacom/laws/dshea.html
  32. www.myopia.org/fdaraids.htm "FDA Raids", Life Extension Magazine. 15 November 1994.
  33. Jeff Elliot. Taking vitamins: the FDA's raids on promoters of dietary supplements seem designed to keep consumers in the dark - Food and Drug Administration. National Review. Nov 21, 1994.
  34. Janurary 1996 Report: The Threat To Melatonin. Life Extension Foundation. January 1996. reflects several years ongoing concerns with melatonin and l-tryptophan
  35. Manders DW. The FDA Ban of L-Tryptophan: Politics, Profits and Prozac. "Social Policy", Vol. 26, No. 2 Winter 1995.
  36. Nutritional Supplements: Your Questions Answered. From Consumer Reports magazine, published 14 June 2006. Accessed 2 Feb 2007.
  37. "Beyond Ephedra", by Leon Jaroff. Published in Time magazine 10 Feb 2004. Accessed 2 Feb 2007.
  38. Dietary Supplements and Older Consumers. From the AARP website. Published December 2001. Accessed 2 Feb 2007.
  39. "Dangerous Supplements: Still at Large, from Consumer Reports magazine. Published May 2004, accessed 7 Feb 2007.
  40. Comments of Citizens For Health on “How to Use Health Claims and Nutrient Content Claims in Food Labeling”, from Food and Drug Administration website. Published 11 May 1999. Accessed 9 Feb 2007.
  41. Leaders in Dietary Supplement Industry Join Together to Form The Coalition to Preserve DSHEA, from the Coalition to Preserve DSHEA website. Published May 6 2004, accessed 9 Feb 2007.
  42. Living Up To Our Reputation as a Political Powerhouse, from the Natural Products Insider website. Published January 15 2007, accessed 9 Feb 2007.
  43. The American Presidency Project, University of California, Santa Barbara. William J. Clinton: Statement on Signing the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994; October 25th, 1994. From the website of The American Presidency Project, University of California, Santa Barbara. Accessed 9 Feb 2007.
  44. http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/pri/en/oj/dat/2002/l_183/l_18320020712en00510057.pdf
  45. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/oj/2004/l_136/l_13620040430en00340057.pdf
  46. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/oj/2004/l_136/l_13620040430en00850090.pdf
  47. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P6-TA-2006-0199+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN&language=E N
  48. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P6-TA-2006-0198+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN&language= EN
  49. 'Vitamin Safety' by Andrew W. Saul. From the DoctorYourself.Com website. Accessed 9 Feb 2007.
  50. 23 YEARS OF DOCUMENTED VITAMIN SAFETY Orthomolecular Medicine News Service press release. Published Feb 27 2007. Accessed 6 March 2007.
  51. 'The National Health Federation's Proposals for Nutrient Reference Values', by Paul Anthony Taylor. From the National Health Federation website. Published 31 March 2004. Accessed 11 Feb 2007.
  52. 'Why organized medicine wants to outlaw nutrition and turn healers into criminals', by Mike Adams. From the News Target website. Published 6 June 2005. Accessed 9 Feb 2007.
  53. 'The Success of Supplements May Be Their Undoing', by Scott Tips. From the National Health Federation website. Published Summer 2004. Accessed 11 Feb 2007.
  54. The Influence of the Pharmaceutical Industry: A Report by the Health Committee of the UK House of Commons. (Summary & Analysis by Paul Anthony Taylor). From the website of the Dr. Rath Health Foundation, published July 2005. Accessed 9 Feb 2007.
  55. 'Why organized medicine wants to outlaw nutrition and turn healers into criminals', by Mike Adams. From the News Target website. Published 6 June 2005. Accessed 9 Feb 2007.
  56. http://www4.dr-rath-foundation.org/open_letters/open_letter_2005_01_23.htm
  57. Whitaker Health Freedom Foundation (WHFF) homepage. Accessed 12 March 2007.
  58. Freedom of Health Foundation homepage. Accessed 12 March 2007.
  59. About The Pharmacartel & Your Vitamins Article on the Friends of Freedom website. Accessed 12 March 2007.
  60. Health Freedom Under Attack! Drugmaker Seeks to Deny Access to Bioidentical Hormones Article from Life Extension Magazine. Published August 2006. Accessed 12 March 2007.
  61. The Health Movement against Codex Alimentarius Article on Dr Rath Health Foundation website. Accessed 12 March 2007.
  62. FDA's relentless assault on diet pills and nutritional supplements puts Metabolife founder in hot seat Article on News Target website. Published 24 July 2004. Accessed 12 March 2007.
  63. The big vitamin scare: American Medical Association claims vitamins may kill you (opinion) Article on News Target website. Published 28 February 2007. Accessed 12 March 2007.
  64. Article on Alliance for Natural Health website. Published 5 March 2007. Accessed 12 March 2007.
  65. Article on Alliance for Natural Health website. Published 23 May 2006. Accessed 12 March 2007.
  66. Article by Sepp Hasslberger on Health Supreme. Published 26 July 2005. Accessed 12 March 2007.
  67. http://www.codexalimentarius.net/
  68. http://www4.dr-rath-foundation.org/THE_FOUNDATION/Events/codex2004.html
  69. http://www.thenhf.com/codex_66.htm
  70. http://www.fao.org/docrep/008/y7867e/y7867e08.htm#bm08
  71. http://www.codexalimentarius.net/download/standards/10206/cxg_055e.pdf
  72. ftp://ftp.fao.org/codex/alinorm05/al28_41e.pdf
  73. http://www4.dr-rath-foundation.org/features/codex_wto.html
  74. http://www.laleva.org/eng/2004/03/codex_alimentarius_guidelines_for_vitamins_and_minerals_optional_or_mandatory.html
  75. http://www.mayday-info.dk/488.0.html
  76. http://www4.dr-rath-foundation.org/THE_FOUNDATION/Events/codex-ottawa.htm
  77. http://www.thenhf.com/codex_69.htm
  78. http://www.thenhf.com/codex_16.htm
  79. http://www.thenhf.com/articles_165.htm
  80. http://ga4.org/campaign/CAFTA_USTR
  81. National Health Federation Urgent Alert - CAFTA. Published on the website of the National Health Federation 2 July 2005. Accessed 11 Feb 2007.
  82. 'SCUTTLING BAD TRADE AGREEMENTS', by Steven Yates. Published on the website of the National Health Federation 14 January 2006. Accessed 11 Feb 2007.
  83. 'NAFTA, CAFTA, SHAFTA, NOW WHAT?', by Cheri Tips. Published on the website of the National Health Federation August 2005. Accessed 11 Feb 2007.
  84. 'Passing the Event Horizon International Charter lacks legal standing and is drawing us into a black hole', by Scott Tips. Published on the website of the National Health Federation June 2006. Accessed 11 Feb 2007.
  85. Life Extension Foundation, Consumer Alerts
  86. Life Extension Magazine
Categories: