It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Codex Alimentarius has begun, right on schedule

page: 2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 10:07 AM
Here is the point that everyone seems to be missing. It basically says that vitamins do nothing to prevent major illnesses in HEALTHY PEOPLE. I'm assuming healthy people means people who have no nutritional deficiencies.

There is a strawman argument going on here. The case probably is true. However the true role of a multivitamin is simply to act as a sort of "insurance" against deficiencies in our diets. The goal is not to soak up every single iota of vitamins and minerals provided in that pill and prevent heart attacks.

Look at our "average" American diet and tell me there are no nutritional gaps? I'm talking for optimum health, I am not referring to cases of disease being present because of a deficiency.

Coming fro a fitness professional I tell you that a good multivitamin is the most important supplement that you can take.

posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 10:12 AM

Originally posted by troubleshooter

Getting all ninety essential nutrients was one part of a successful alternative treatment.

[edit on 8/1/10 by troubleshooter]

Pray, do tell your secrets ...

I sure hope this is not a case of "I know something you don't know, na na, na na"

posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 10:17 AM
reply to post by rygi23

This thread is intimately connected to one I posted on Linus Pauling just days ago. The same study of post-menopausal women included. The premise of that thread being that the mega-vitamin regimens recommended by Pauling were being ignored and put down by the medical establishment in favor of more costly cancer treatments. The studies used to denounce the work of Pauling did not follow nearly the recommendations of Pauling. What I think happened was very early on the government and medical community considered there was not much money to be made if any of these serious health conditions could be attacked with vitamin therapies. Are there dangers inherent in the Pauling regimens, yes and I get into that a little in comparing them to the chemotherapy for instance. Thus Pauling considered first a genius was then downgraded time and again in the court of public approval.

Linus Pauling: Scientist, Quack or Both?

posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 10:21 AM
reply to post by rygi23

The best vitamins I've used is from, owned by Dr. Bob Marshall who has clinics in Torrence, CA and Red Rock, TX where you can go and they can analyze your personal needs. He has a daily radio show in major USA cities at I believe this guy knows his stuff.

His Daily Multi, Nano-Stress B, D3 Serum and Nano-DHLA work well for me. When you stop taking them, then you notice how much they were helping. They also increase the speed of my hair growth, so if you need some help in those areas, you might give it a try.

posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 10:24 AM
I guess im lucky
I have vitamin pills at home.

second line

posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 10:32 AM
Its total Bs, i can feel it when i havent taken my vitamins, i get depressed and suicidal

posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 10:36 AM
I take insane amounts of vitamins, probably enough to kill me but I still don't care, lol, complex b-100's, b-12, multivitamin, vitamin c every morning, by the time I get to work im so wound up I know the vitamins are doing here job, I dont drink coffee but the energy that comes out of taking all those b-vitamins is INSANNEEEE, I swear I don't care if its bad for me, or if its not doing anything to benefit my health atleast I can function at 100% 530am after a night of drinking, 2 hours of sleep... lol

and yes its true you wizz neon after too many vitamins...

posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 10:36 AM
reply to post by Moonsouljah

Should I say that chemo is done with chemicals and not radiation hence the name?
Make sure you know what you are saying.
Vitamins are good for you and since supplements don't pass the exaggeration point I don't see whats bad about them.

[edit on 8-1-2010 by Danna]

[edit on 8-1-2010 by Danna]

posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 10:38 AM
Just yesterday I read an article on Yahoo about vitamins being bad for you. I didn't connect the dots until I read this article. I searched for the article to share here, but could not find it. The article claimed that vitamins could actually cause cancer by speeding up cell growth (good and bad cells). It also claimed that free radicals could be good for you (can anyone confirm or deny this?) When searching for 'vitamins bad for you', however, I found plenty of articles claiming this.

[edit on 8-1-2010 by For Truth]

posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 10:58 AM
interesting read. after reading the article, but not visiting any of the studies, its clear that some if not all these studies are somewhat biased. for instance, one study was 100k+ old grandmas (whose health could already be declining as there was no indications of there current health).

another one was on cancer patients. now im not sure i agree that supplementing with vitamins and minerals actually feeds and promotes cancer cells...if anything, the supps boosts ones ability to create more blood cells, which indirectly "feeds" cancer cells. but again, these studies are not done on healthy individuals, its like saying them saying if you have cancer, vits and mins wont cure it...ya think?

and the statement that said people ingest enough vits and mins through daily food intake and that supplementing vits and mins was overkill, thats just hilarious. looks at our typical american really think we get what we need eating how we do? now sure if you eat healthy, it can be probably be achieved.

myself, along with thousands of people that workout regularly, have done our fair share of supplement research. ive found that most supps, have maybe some of the right ingredients to achieve the proposed effect, but not in the right dosage. there are also tons of fillers in these things that are not needed, but a hefty ingredient list sells products, even though there typically underdosed so the effects would be negligible. ive also found that the cheaper ingredients appear to be overdosed. im not saying the vitamin industry is the same as i havent really researched all the studies on those particular compounds, but i would imagine its just the same.

theres literally hundreds of products that come out, claiming to do this and that, based on biased studies sometimes just done on mice (since there biology is so similar to ours...), or unhealthy individuals. people then get sick then these products get pulled, same with the pharmaceutical industry. they all have lobbyists and scientists on there payroll, trying to push these things through which happens most if not all the time.

im kind of ranting now but ill leave on this. there needs to be wayyyyy more research, conducted in a proper manner, on individual compounds before any conclusion should be made. and until these companies are actually considering peoples well-being, instead of beingg profit-driven, i just dont see these studies happening.

ps. i dont see what this particular article has to do with Codex Alimentarius?

posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 11:02 AM
reply to post by Danna

"Combined modality chemotherapy is the use of drugs with other cancer treatments, such as radiation therapy or surgery. Most cancers are now treated in this way." from wikipedia

Really I'm not condemning vitamins at all. I think some might be harmful; I'm not going to start popping Chinese vitamins any time soon. But what I want addressed is the ties to Codex in this article. Yes they are related in topic but I think that is all.

And as someone who has been looking at the Codex issue for several years now, I am skeptical of the 1-1-10 RUMOR. This thread is simply perpetuating this falsity and EMBRACING IGNORANCE. But alas, as so very common on ATS, this thread will receive more and more stars and irrelevant comments instead of probing any actual issues.

posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 11:04 AM
reply to post by checkthedata

Well said

People just don't seem to get that a lot of so called 'natural' products are also BIG PHARMA. Whatever - my local vitamin shops are not yet showing any signs of panic

[edit on 8-1-2010 by unicorn1]

posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 11:07 AM

Originally posted by TheScribe
I think the article is well done. The author backs up every statement with a link to the article she is citing, which are found in reputable, scientific journals. These journals aren't normals mags; all articles are filtered through a peer reviewal process before being published. What is she saying that is so conspiratorial? I think she is making a great point questioning the effectiveness of vitamins, as many Americans include them in their everyday diet. I agree that, "we should stop treating supplements like health candy and more like prescription meds, to be used only when there's a demonstrated need." Props to her for great research.

While I do agree in most part with what you say, I will take umbrage at the statement about reputable, scientific journals. While that would add some credence to your argument, it still has to be taken with a grain of salt. Case in point is the massive hoax played upon the global community regarding man made global warming (or is it now global cooling?). There were many peer reviewed articles on that which stated we were guilty. Now it is coming out more and more that the premise of MAN-MADE climate change is simply male bovine feces under the guise of grabbing as many dollars as they can.

posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 11:09 AM
It's a sad state of affairs really. What's going on here gradually is that people are being disassociated from simple the information about what the human body needs to be healthy and function properly.

At this stage it's hard for me to blame the average person who actually believes the; National Institutes of Health, the American Medical Association, or the Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center are institutions that are there to help or assist you or your family's health in any why shape or form.

What there are there for is the exact contrary in most all circumstances. They are there to manipulate you into thinking that their efforts are for your benefit. They do this through media propaganda which tells you how sound THEIR research is. This happens all the while large groups of the population completely disassociate themselves from the truth about health.

It's sad to say that nearly 90% of all foods for sale in the common grocery store serve to work against a healthy body. This is not by accident and those responsible for the establishment of the medical industry are well aware.

All of the answers are well known as to how to prevent and fight disease and they have been for a long time. What we are seeing now, is that the population is being easily manipulated into believing that the exact opposite is the truth.

To anyone interested in where and why things went so wrong, all one has to do is look into how the medical industry became established and by who. It is NOT a body of knowledge that has been collected for our benefit. The knowledge that has been collected over the past century is systematically being used against the population - to actually promote poor health.

Then, once everyone is of poor health (nutritionally deficient is everything that is poor health) the real business begins. The medical industry can have you pay anything they want because you want to stay alive and do not want to perish from one of your many diseases or health problems.


For those who haven't dabbled in the medical industry conspiracy, it truly is one of the most impacting of all on society. It was since the late 1890's and early 1900's that the entire medical industry (medical institutions, medical schools, chemical companies ((which became pharmaceutical companies), medical research institutions, all of it, was monopolized without the public's knowledge or consent.

Don't take my word for it - look into it yourself. I'll give you a good starting point...

That's John D.

That was published well before David Rockefeller was born. If you have never heard of the Rockefeller name associated with the medical monopoly and assumed it was largely the oil monopoly that they were responsible for; you have much research to do.

Here's an old quote from the establishment way back when they understood the truth about health and disease and have since kept it from us...

"If the doctors of today do not become the nutritionists of tomorrow, then the nutritionists of today will become the doctors of tomorrow" - Rockefeller Institute of Medical Research

posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 11:13 AM
reply to post by Moonsouljah

''Combined chemotherapy'' yes it is combined with radiation therapy!

if you mean that its okay

[edit on 8-1-2010 by Danna]

[edit on 8-1-2010 by Danna]

[edit on 8-1-2010 by Danna]

posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 11:18 AM
reply to post by TheScribe

Well after climategate peer review and science don't mean much. Of course its better to get the vitamins in natural ways from food, but that is not always an option. (especially if try to eat local as we all really should)

posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 11:25 AM
I did some research on Codex Alimentarius a while back.

Other than that site with that ladies video documentary, claiming everything she said is documented (I can't find half the key points she makes).

The WHO has similar daily vitamin values as does our FDA. And Codex Alimentarius adopts WHO's principles.

Considering the Daily value is similar to the FDA's, which is already so bad... (do you really think 60mg Vit. C is enough for an adult human? )

What more damage can they do to the human diet.

I can't find any standards on the codex a. site declaring anything against nutrients or herbal supplements.

But maybe they just don't want to be obvious about it?

Interestingly though, Codex A. does have some good standards for supplement packaging and safety, and actually allows/encourages that credible/proven 'health statements' be noted.

Seriously, I too was caught up in the hype, but I'm finding the whole war on Codex A. to be a complete fab.

I can't find anything on all animals having to be injected with growth hormones.

Though the codex a. site says they support free choice in food/health.

If something is a standard, wouldn't it be publicly available to access, so everyone knows what they are supposed to abide by?

Maybe I'm wrong, but PLEASE, PLEASE show me credible proof if I'm wrong.

This is the second time I've said this, and I've been ignored.

No more you tube videos or people rambling, please show me documented evidence. That rambling lady declared it was all documented any way. I can't find it.

[edit on 8-1-2010 by Scarcer]

posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 11:30 AM

Originally posted by Chett
reply to post by TheScribe

Well after climategate peer review and science don't mean much. Of course its better to get the vitamins in natural ways from food, but that is not always an option. (especially if try to eat local as we all really should)

That's a good point. In a perfect world we wouldn't need supplements for optimal health. As we all know, our world is far from perfect and our food is even less so.

I'm willing to wager the majority of people are completely unaware that when you eat adulterated foods (meaning chemically processed) that a large number of those chemical additives actually serve to neutralize and render ineffective the little amounts of nutrients that would have been consumed along with the meal. Making the meal, on a whole, massively nutrient deficient. This is one of the main reasons that ALL instances chronic diseases are on the rise.

posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 11:32 AM
reply to post by rygi23

Very interesting article. I would like to see more studies done on the effectiveness of supplements. It is kind of disconcerting when I take Vit D every day and then have a blood test done telling me I'm D deficient. It is probably safer just to get our vitamins from organic foods instead of buying supplements.

posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 11:40 AM
reply to post by Scarcer

If you want proof you certainly need to search a little harder. Here's one example. Codex has gone through Germany. If you live there and you want a simple 50mg vitamin C tablet (completely useless by the way in that dosage), you have to go to the doctor and they must prescribe it to you. Then instead of paying $2.75 - $3.50 for a bottle, you now have to pay $75 dollars.

What's the result?

Not many will be taking vitamin C.

top topics

<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in