OT - CONTROLLED OPPOSITION IN CANADA:

[Guest guest]

I have checked this out with a few people whom would 'know' and it is

all unfortunately too true.

best wishes

Shan

Controlled Opposition

 

CONTROLLED OPPOSITION IN CANADA:

A Statement from Marilyn Nelson,

Founder, Freedom of Choice in Health Care

(how Marilyn Nelson's health freedom organisation was hijacked as well as the

fact that the real enemy of health freedom is our own governments, whose

loyalty to multinational interests, including Big Pharma,

exceeds its loyalty to its citizens.)

http://www.freedomincanadianhealthcare.com/page/page/3873086.htm

 

Controlled opposition is when a group or organization purports to represent

the true best interest of the public, but is misdirected into activities that

cannot possibly attain the goals of the organization, in order to serve vested

interests. For a full explanation of how this works, and some specific

examples, please see John Hammell’s expose of the “Natural Solutions

Foundationâ€

http://www.nocodexgenocide.com/page/page/3312735.htm which shows how this

group and others have misled many American health activists and natural health

product trade associations into useless and non-productive projects, and the

pointless spending of many thousands of dollars meant to preserve American

access

to natural health products against the threat of Codex Alimentarius.

According to IAHF Founder and President Hammell, this is what they’re up to:

 

“We believe these groups are attempting to intentionally divert grass roots

attention from the strategy of IAHF and allied organizations. In a nutshell,

their mission is to:

 

A) Con people into believing that we can change Codex AT Codex (despite the

fact that we have zero political influence over the unelected bureaucrats from

the FDA and its international equivalents that serve as delegates at these

highly rigged meetings.) and

 

B) Con people into believing that countries which adopt " Model Legislation "

patterned after the US Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act would be

" protected " in the event of a WTO Trade Dispute Ruling against them. (James

Turner, esq., who originated this plan has failed to explain any viable legal

mechanism to support his contention that this could work. * See IAHF's detailed

analysis of CFH and NSF's " LEGAL SUMMARY " below.

 

C) Con people into believing that they're " fighting back " by signing a

petition to US Codex Manager Ed Scarbrough (an unelected bureaucrat at the USDA

who

has never attempted to rein in FDA officials who've served as US Delegates at

CODEX (even when their actions have gone directly against US law.)†Until

recently, I never would have believed that such subterfuge was being used in

Canada, against those who have fought long and hard to protect our rights. Now,

I

am forced to think the unthinkable: controlled opposition is alive and well

and living in Canada.

 

More than a decade ago, I founded what became the largest grassroots health

freedom advocacy organization in Canada, Freedom of Choice in Health Care. Our

exploits became famous across the country as we faced down Health Canada in

court and won protection for many natural health products from the ravages of a

“third categoryâ€. I participated in the drafting of the late, great Bill

C-420, which would have allowed producers of natural health products the right

to state their true curative nature, and established firmly that “Foods are

not

Drugsâ€.

 

Bill C-420 was modelled after the Dietary Supplements Health and Education

Act (DSHEA) in the USA, which offered American consumers free access to the

supplements of their choice. But a change in government just when the bill was

about to receive third reading in Parliament, following its resounding passage

through two votes by a majority of Members of Parliament, meant the death of

C-420.

 

C-420 was reintroduced in the next Parliament, under the same number, and

again breezed through two readings, appearing to be a shoe-in for passage of

third reading, when out of the blue came an announcement through Peter Helgason

of

“Friends of Freedom†and the “Canadian Coalition for Health Freedomâ€,

stating that C-420 was dead in committee but it meant a “huge win†for

health

freedom in Canada.

 

In his press release, Helgason stated that offending sections of the Canada

Health Act had been removed, allowing curative claims to be made for natural

health products against Schedule 1 diseases, this in exchange for dropping Bill

C-420 completely. But an examination of the communiqué from Health Canada’s

website showed that such claims could only be made for products whose

manufacturers had provided “adequate scientific proof†of efficacy and

safety. This

means, of course, that those producers would have submitted their products for

DIN testing, the costs of which eliminated a large number of companies from

the possibility of making any claims at all. It also means that although the

syntax of the Act was changed, the substance of it was not.

 

This whole scenario left many people scratching their heads, even as Tim

Bolen printed an article congratulating Peter Helgason and his colleague,

Trueman

Tuck (then a Director of FCHC as well as heading up Friends of Freedom and

other groups he founded). The two bragged that they had accomplished this “

victory†by ongoing negotiations with health bureaucrats over a period of

months.

Helgason said that the negotiations were very friendly, without rancour, and

oh, so expertly handled. The only trouble was, nobody, but nobody, knew that

these negotiations were going on; Tuck and Helgason had not mentioned them to

anyone, not even their own council. Now, here they were boasting of their

accomplishment! Personally, I was stunned. When confronted, Helgason conceded

that it might only be “a small winâ€; in actuality, it was a monumental loss

for

health freedom in Canada, and a betrayal of everything that FCHC stood for

from its inception.

 

The death of C-420 meant the death of any sovereign legislation which would

have had the least chance of protecting Canadians from the draconian Codex

Alimentarius guidelines that we have all heard about and despise. But the truth

is, the Bill never offered safe haven from Big Pharma interests, because

international trade agreements http://www4.dr

-rath-foundation.org/THE_FOUNDATION/thebigpicture.php , including and

especially our membership in the WTO and

NAFTA, together with the Security and Prosperity Partnership agreement and the

Trilateral Cooperation Charter http://www.spp.gov/ , meld three nations into

one

trade zone, eliminating sovereignty and the right to make and maintain

sovereign laws.

 

A few years ago, at a health freedom forum held at the OISE Building in

Toronto, my colleague Dee Nicholson demanded of Dr. James Lunney, author of Bill

C-420, and Trueman Tuck, what exactly protected the Bill from repealment, if it

conflicted with what the trade groups wanted. The audience burst into

applause; they too, wanted to know the answer to that one. Lunney leaned over

to

Tuck and they whispered for a moment, then he announced that “we feel the bill

is

adequately protectedâ€. The truth was, it would have been vulnerable from

attacks by any number of trade sources, and could have easily have been ordered

to be repealed by these unelected foreign authorities. But it would definitely

have been a fly in the ointment to have to explain to the public why Canada

could no longer enforce it, so the global vested interests were done a huge

favour by Tuck and crew, when they negotiated it out of existence, just before

it

became law.

 

What I could never understand was the fierce opposition to an examination of

our trade obligations that Tuck registered every time I tried to focus the

attention of our health advocacy council on that issue. It seemed very strange

to me, that while Tuck was extolling the virtues of his anti-Codex activities

to everyone who would listen, he was at the same time completely leading us

down the garden path, by ignoring the real threat against our sovereignty and

our

ability to pass, and enforce, any real health freedom bill whatsoever. It

left me in a quandary of epic proportions, having placed all my trust in Tuck as

a litigator and health freedom fighter, a member, and a valued one, of my own

team.

 

Last year, however, I received confirmation of the worst kind that Tuck’s

actions behind the scenes were anything but loyal to health freedom, or to the

wonderful company, Freedom of Choice in Health Care, which I had so lovingly

founded many years before. Without my knowledge, without any authority, without

telling anyone, Trueman Tuck literally stole FCHC out from under me. He had

me removed as a Director and President of the company, and made many other

substantive changes to the nature of the corporation; this he did over the

course

of about eighteen months. I only found out because a complete stranger

contacted me and asked if I knew about a default judgment that had been issued

against FCHC by his company for a debt owed by a trucking company owned by

Tuck’s

brother, and that said judgment was enforceable against me personally as a!

 

The complete story of how this was done, which laws were apparently broken by

Tuck, and the damages inflicted upon FCHC and its work for health freedom,

are outlined in the text of the filed court documents attached. These are sworn

statements with a great deal of physical evidence to back the allegations and

claims made in them. I invite you to read them all, and draw your own

conclusions as to what might motivate anyone to do such things, and who might

benefit. There is little point in going into detail here, because the documents

explain it rather well. I wish I could say that there is a chance I was

mistaken, but the evidence is self-explanatory.

 

I want to emphasize that although a great deal of damage has been done to the

health freedom movement by what can only be described as controlled

opposition, we have in hand a great opportunity to clear the air, to identify

what

truly works to preserve health freedom and what does not, and to ensure that

only

those completely dedicated to our mutual cause are allowed leadership roles

within it. This has been a painful and disappointing time, this exposure of

betrayal by those I trusted. But it has served to clarify the fact that the

real

enemy of health freedom is our own government, whose loyalty to multinational

interests, including Big Pharma, exceeds its loyalty to Canadians. It has

also served to identify courses of action that we may take that offer real

promise in the life-or-death battle for freedom of choice in health care. In

that

sense, we have grown from our suffering, and for that, I can be grateful.

 

Please take the time to read the documents, and also to investigate the

supplied links. It is critical that anyone interested in furthering the cause

of

health freedom be fully apprised of the sort of tactics used by those whose

interests are not served by national sovereignty, in order to defend against

them. It is also important to know that the only way in which we will ever

guarantee that the efforts we make will be successful is to unite in purpose

against

real enemies instead of paper tigers, and to identify those who would

sacrifice our right to health in favour of vested interests.

 

Rest assured that we will report to you any developments in the case against

Trueman Tuck as they occur. In the meantime, remember that I have sworn that

these allegations are true to the best of my knowledge, review the information

in the Application and Affidavit, as well as the links above, and judge for

yourself.

 

1) Notice of Application to Superior Court

http://www.respect.citymaker.com/f/MN-20061017112831489[1].pdf

 

2) Affidavit of Marilyn Nelson and Schedule of Evidence in Support

http://www.respect.citymaker.com/f/MN-20061019134609874[1].pdf

 

A Modern Major General Exposed?

by the Dr. Rath Health Foundation

 

http://www4.dr-rath-foundation.org/THE_FOUNDATION/Events/codex-moderngeneral.htm\

l