Cannabis Legalization on Missouri Ballot: Two Paths from Which to Choose…Freedom, or Feudalism?

Cannabis Legalization on Missouri Ballot:

Two Paths from Which to Choose…Freedom, or Feudalism?

©Doreen Hannes

(((Look, I want to be very clear here. I don’t even use cannabis, because it IS illegal, and the seizure aspects are waaaay too high of a price to consider for something I would only rarely do if it were indeed legal….so I am not trying to get protections for my habit in position.)))

Over the course of the past few months I’ve been doing a fair amount of investigation on the issue of cannabis and various efforts to legalize the plant for the general benefit of humanity. Initially, I looked at the issue of legalizing cannabis as a simple matter of civil liberties with a massive pseudo criminal front propped up by drug court fees, seizure laws, probation and the expenses paid to the system in that, cheap prison labor and increased family court revenues due to foster care and custody issues…And yes, it also incidentally had benefits for people with serious medical issues.

Honestly, I have had a complete paradigm shift. Complete.

Not that the prison industry complex and costs to society associated with those issues are irrelevant, but there is a much larger, and much more evil truth about the control of cannabis that absolutely must become common knowledge. It’s particularly important that those who largely identify with conservative and Christian principles, or strong Constitutionalist ideologies become fully aware of the collusion between government and corporations to remove a beneficial plant from our access. Cannabis actually heals. And it restores life to people who are very ill. Hundreds of studies show this to be true, and also that cannabis is tremendously beneficial for our overall health.

The reason this has come to the forefront for many of us is that it is becoming increasingly difficult to hold to the idea that “Reefer Madness” has any basis in fact. It simply isn’t factual. Sometimes there are people that use cannabis that are just literally criminals and have no regard for their fellow man. These same criminals may also consume carrots, but the carrots are not the cause of their deficient characters. With or without cannabis, these people would be violent. Cannabis does not cause crime. Violent cartels exist because of cannabis being illegal. So in effect, the only violence that can truly be attributed to cannabis is state sanctioned violence through unjust laws. Simply put, the controls on this plant are the reason for violence associated with the plant or it’s distribution.

The tipping point on the truth around cannabis being put into the status of a Schedule One controlled substance (the Schedule One designation means it has NO medicinal value) has been achieved among the people. For those who have some qualms about whether or not this plant needs to be flatly legalized, please watch this video about Rick Simpson oil. This man has given people -as in freely given- cannabis oil, and they have been cured of all manners of disease including multiple types of cancer and terminal cancer. If you watch that video and still have any uncertainty left in you, watch this video, and forgive the one instance of yelling at the very beginning. The facts are that corporate interests paid to have cannabis categorized as a Schedule One controlled substance. Corporate interests, violent cartels, the prison industry and tyrannical seizure laws fattening the wallets of a few, have been the only beneficiaries of cannabis control.

Multitudes of people have died from being denied the best thing on earth to beat cancer. And the people in the corporations, the politicians that continue to be bought off from taking right action, and the pharmaceutical companies, are complicit in their deaths. Yes, I said complicit. The facts are in. Cannabis prohibition must end and will end very soon. Just look at this list of the plethora of studies that show the benefits of cannabis in treating human ailments. There are hundreds of studies on the effectiveness of cannabis, not just in treating symptoms of disease, but actually curing the disease in many instances. It can’t be covered up any longer. However, we do have some questions that we need to answer for ourselves as we move forward on cannabis.

The first question is whether or not we are happy with the current state of controlled and declining health and access to alternative/natural treatments? Currently, the FDA -who took 30 years to admit that vitamin C is helpful in thwarting the common cold- is in control of our food and our medicine. On average, FDA approved medications kill 100,000 people per year. Those are their own reports on the FDA’s website. The FDA has stated they are justified in exercising authority to control what we consume because the Almighty gave commands on dietary laws in Scripture. They think they have as much authority as the Creator of the Universe. Seriously. Check it out here. (page 26 of 30)The FDA also holds the position that “raw milk is inherently dangerous and should never be consumed by any one for any reason.” Never mind the fact that if that were a true statement, there would never have been a second generation of human beings.

Honestly, I could go on for a full-length book about the criminal behavior of the FDA in relation to our food and medicines, but I’ll restrain myself. Just watch network tv for one night, count up the recalls and suits being advertised along with all the new medications you should talk to your doctor about, then ask yourself if you think they are doing work that is truly beneficial for humanity. If you can truthfully say that you are pleased with the quality of our nutrition, not knowing whether or not you are consuming genetically modified organisms, and the health care system in this country, then you need do nothing. If you are not satisfied with the status quo of chronic pain, disease and debilitation, and lack of personal control, then it’s time to do things differently.

The next series of questions we must answer is what kind of business model “We the People” want to follow as we end prohibition on this plant? Do we want to stick with the controlled access, medical industrial cartel dialectic, where production, distribution, and access are licensed and heavily regulated, and keep fascism growing? Or do we want to seek free market enterprise and let everyone who is interested put their own money on the line and succeed or fail on their own merits? Have layers of bureaucrats proven themselves to be beneficial to our literal wellbeing? Do we think we personally should have the ability and choice to make decisions about what we consume? Or do we believe the bureaucrats, paper pushers and corporations have proven themselves to have a legitimate and beneficial hand in securing our health?

Once we’ve answered these questions to our satisfaction, then we must decide how we move forward on the issue of cannabis legalization and access. In Missouri, we will have two very different initiatives on the ballot in 2016 for a proposed Constitutional amendment.

Since I’m from the Show Me state, and these two initiatives are responsible for bringing me to the paradigm shift I mentioned above, I bring you “The Tale of Two Initiatives”. One is very short and flatly legalizes it. The other is 4 pages of small print and proposes to regulate cannabis within the Constitution of the state.

From that short overview, it is very likely that those who know me have already determined which initiative has won my support. But it’s necessary for everyone to make up their own minds about this, so the remainder of this rather lengthy article is going to focus on the nuts and bolts of these two initiatives. Other states have similar proposals in position.

Let’s deal with the short one first. This initiative, identified as 2016-013, was written by Mark Pedersen formerly of the Kansas City NORML group. Even many major proponents of legalizing cannabis have said it was too radical. Notably, the national level of the KC group that worked with Pedersen, NORML (the National Organization for Reform of Marijuana Laws) is reported to be the biggest opponent of this initiative. We’ll have to deal with the reasons behind NORML opposing this amendment in a subsequent article. For now, we’ll just look at the “radical” amendment first and talk about possible pros and cons related to it.

2016-013 is currently being circulated for the collection of signatures to get onto the 2016 November ballot. It proposes to remove cannabis from the controlled substances list. It doesn’t place limits on the amount one person may possess or grow. It also doesn’t have any age limits set within the confines of the proposed amendment to the Constitution. It secures the right of people to grow enough for their personal use and prevents extra regulatory controls on farmers and processors of all cannabis products, including all strains, cannabis sativa, cannabis indica, cannabis ruderalis, and crosses of these cannabis strains. It prohibits the mere presence of cannabis and cannabis products from serving as cause to charge with impaired driving. And I do admit that it does indeed seem radical on its face. But let’s examine the issues so we can make determinations with solid information.

First up, let’s look at the “radical” idea of not limiting the amount that an individual may grow. This is terrifically important. If you watched the Rick Simpson “Run From the Cure” video I linked earlier, you are aware that a single full treatment for cancer or serious health issues requires a pound of cannabis. The oil from the plant is extracted and a pound will render about 2 ounces of oil. It’s a lot of cannabis. What’s more, if a person has received chemo or radiation, they will need at least 2 full protocols of the cannabis oil to fully heal. It can take a lot of plants to get those amounts of cannabis. The street value of a single treatment amount bought by the ounce is about $4800.00 right now. If you can get the entire pound and buy it all at once you might be able to get a discount and get it as low as $3400. Is that too high of a price to cure cancer? Certainly not, but what if you don’t have $3400 to $4800? Does your ability to pay for a treatment make you worthy of having it? Conversely, does the inability to pay make you a less valuable human being? If there aren’t limits placed on the number of plants one may have, it opens the door for people to be better able to heal themselves and to take personal responsibility for their own well being.

Next let’s look at the thing that really struck me personally about the 2016-013 initiative. There is no age limit set forth for possessing or using cannabis. I thought that was pretty over the top, and I told the people who contacted me about the initiative that it was my opinion that it needed an age limit. They made some pretty good arguments against it. One of those arguments was very basic from a freedom advocate’s point of view. The age of majority isn’t stipulated in the Bill of Rights. Also, it isn’t a static thing. It is 21 for some things and 18 for other things and it isn’t something that should be ensconced in our Constitution to secure a right. Even more importantly, in light of the healing potential of cannabis oil, would anyone with any compassion in them want to prohibit a parent faced with a seriously ill child from being able to help that child? I wouldn’t. It would be unconscionable to put anyone in that position, and instead run them through a bureaucratic and medical industrial complex maze to do what every parent must do to be right in the eyes of their Creator and provide for the child help in a time of trouble. Also, it is emphatically evident that parents have a duty to protect their children from ingesting things that they shouldn’t be ingesting. If you are going to have cannabis in the house, you have to be responsible and not allow your children to use it on their own. In other words, BE A PARENT!

Next let’s take an actual look at the issue of THC in the system and driving under the influence. THC being present in the system is simply not at all equal to impairment. Yes, THC is the psychoactive chemical in cannabis, but its presence within a person’s system doesn’t mean that the person is impaired. It isn’t like blood alcohol content, in that a person could have high levels of THC in their system, but still not be impaired. If someone is using cannabis to treat themselves for health reasons, THC will be high, but they are not likely to be impaired if they have been following a protocol for any length of time at all. There is a lot of science behind this fact, and it is important to look at the science and make logical decisions about THC as opposed to emotional decisions predicated on a faulty basis. In no way shape or form am I saying that you cannot be impaired by cannabis consumption. You certainly can be impaired. That impairment would be evident in a motor skills test that was video taped and witnessed by at least two witnesses. Whether people like it or not, that would be evidence of impairment, but THC levels are not a credible assessment of impairment.

Here is an excerpt from a paper on this issue:

A study using coordination testing showed inevitable failure on field sobriety testing if blood THC levels were 25 to 30 ng/ml. But, many failed testing at 90 and 150 minutes after smoking even though plasma concentrations were rather low. The researchers had the foresight to conclude that “establishing a clear relation between THC plasma concentrations and clinical impairment will be much more difficult than for alcohol”. This is because alcohol and THC are chemically different and are metabolized differently inside the body.

Now we are ready to take a look at the “Show Me Cannabis” (aka Mo NORML) initiative proposition.

First off, this initiative, 2016-009, isn’t being circulated for signatures yet because the proponents of the initiative have reportedly “gone back to the drawing board”. However, it is available from the Missouri Secretary of State’s office at this link. I have put in a couple of emails asking for a conversation with the gentleman heading up this initiative and have received no replies, so I cannot relate any responses to questions I have regarding this initiative.

In the first sentence, this initiative is providing for regulatory control of cannabis to Missourians over the age of 21. It stipulates that regulations are to be promulgated for many purposes. Here are a few of those. Promulgate regulations to allow for state licensed producers, retailers, and distributors of cannabis. It states that revenue generated by cannabis will be used to fund police and firefighter pensions and retirement plans as well as elementary and secondary schools. That the revenue will be used to prevent: the establishment of cartels, under age 21 use, and to prevent advertising cannabis to those under the age of 21. It allows for households to grow up to six plants, have up to 16 ounces of dried cannabis, or 20 ounces of liquid cannabis. It proposes to expunge nonviolent cannabis convictions. Also to require a person to get a license to purchase, sell, manufacture, deliver or process cannabis. It requires the labeling of the THC content on all cannabis products, and provides for limitation on the level of THC allowed in cannabis that may be sold. It provides for a 25% excise tax on the first “fair market sale” of all marijuana….And more. Lots more, actually.

Let’s start with the 25% excise tax on the first “fair market sale” of any cannabis. Well, right there we have a problem. “Fair market sale” is defined in this proposed amendment as “means with respect to the sale of a product, a sale in which the purchase price of the product is not less than the price that a willing seller would accept and a willing buyer would pay in the open market and in competition with other similar products.” Hmmm.

If this is absolutely constrained to the FINAL sale of the product to the consumer of the product, that means that if you are buying from a “licensed retail establishment” that you will be paying approximately 33% in taxes to the State. (The 25% excise and the 8% sales tax) It doesn’t state that it is on the final sale though. It says it is on the “first sale in an open market”. So…does that mean when the grower sells to someone for either distribution or manufacturing that the grower has to collect the 25% for the state? Here is the definition of an excise tax. (It’s rather complex, and this article is already very long, so please read the link) It certainly sounds to me as though the tax is something that is supposed to be collected on the sale by the grower after he pays the license fee to be able to sell the product at all.

He must then increase the down line cost of the product by adding an additional 25% cost to the next in line. Then when you get to the retail portion, the cost of goods is further increased by the state sales tax. So, let’s say the licensed grower sells an ounce for $100 for his labor and upkeep, and has to collect $125 from the licensed wholesaler/distributor or manufacturer to whom he sells. The distributor or wholesaler then has to mark up the product by whatever percentage will allow him to pay his license fee and make a living wage to the retailer, who then must again mark up what he sells the product for in order to cover his own living wage. Presume you do typical mark up of 30% for the distributor/wholesaler (more for the manufacturer as there are additional processes involved) as the distributor/wholesaler is supposed to be moving volumes. Now you’re looking at $125 + $37.50= $162.50. Then the retailer usually has to double as they have more insurance liability by having people come in and out of their location, and they have to deal with displays and such. Now you’re looking at $325 per ounce before the typical 8% sales tax ,which is another $26, so the cannabis consumer pays $351 per ounce and the state makes $51 plus licensing fees every step of the way. Mind you, $100 an ounce as a starting price is terrifically low. But is this really going to help out the average person a whole lot? I’m all for the State making money on the retail, but my rule of thumb is what did Yahweh ask for a tithe? Only 10%. Why does the State deserve more than 2 and half times what He requests? Maybe I’m the only one who thinks this way…I kind of doubt it though.

Someone will say, “But you can grow up to six plants, and that surely is enough for a household!” Well, let’s look at the six plant limit. Below you’ll find a little scenario that is not at all unreasonable. Just ask anyone who has ever gardened.

So you decide you like to garden and you’ll grow your own cannabis and therefore bring down the cost of making cannabis available for your household. You order seeds and spend $90 for ten seeds. Really. That’s a pretty good price, too. So you very carefully germinate your seeds and 9 out of ten germinate. Now you have to throw three down the toilet or you’ll be over your six plant limit. You carefully place these in small pots. They begin to put on leaves and now you have your six plants! You’re all legal and looking forward to excellent yields…Then you come home from work and two of your seedlings wilted on you. You mist them and hope they’ll recover. Well, they don’t. So now you have four plants and no more seeds to germinate. You figure that’s all fine because the advertisement said this was a high yielding variety and you can only have 16 ounces of dried product anyway. So when they get to be about 15 inches tall you put them outside into the best area of your backyard for good sun, but not too much, and you check on them daily. You patiently wait for September when you should be able to harvest. In the end of June, you and your family go away for the weekend and when you come home, one of your plants has simply disappeared. And the Japanese beetles picked that weekend to hatch out and eat your remaining plants up like crazy. So you set about making a protective enclosure for them and that involves shade cloth and posts and a gate and it takes you the rest of the week to get that done. You only have a couple of hours to work on it every night because this endeavor isn’t one that actually pays the bills. At this point you’re thinking it’s probably a lot easier to just buy the stuff, but you’re stubborn and keep after it until September. They’re looking okay, but the yields in the advertisement don’t look attainable…Harvest time comes and you get a total of three ounces from your three plants. Probably because the Japanese beetles hit right at flowering time…So you have three ounces after 6 months of tending and you’re scratching your head to figure out if it’s even worth trying again.

Imagine going through that when you are ever so hopeful that you will get a good yield on a strain that will help your child with epilepsy, or a parent with debilitating arthritis, diabetes, or cancer. Six plants? At what stage of maturity? And what happens if you are over that level and get caught by Code Enforcers or the police? Well, we can’t answer that other than to say the legislature will authorize fines and penalties for going over the “Household Exemption” level. It does limit it to up to $1000 or a year in jail. Does that sound good? Does it count toward the retirement funds and school funds prescribed in this amendment proposal? The proposed amendment says “revenue”. Do the enforcement fines and penalties count toward revenue?

Let’s consider the issue of using the amendment to aid law enforcement and firefighters pensions and retirements, and helping out the public school system with additional funds. While I am pro-education and pro-firefighter and all for peace officers, don’t we already spend a fair amount of tax money on these things? Are these funds being managed well? Isn’t this what various lottery proceeds are supposed to enhance as well? If we throw more money at them, do the actual students and the actual public servants ever really benefit? With the seizure laws that have been so onerously used, I have a really hard time thinking the public needs to give more money to police so that they can get more money by citing more people for regulatory violations as promoted in this proposed amendment.

There are some good things that are done in this proposed amendment. One is expunging of nonviolent cannabis offenses. But when you compare these two initiatives that, on their face, are supposed to legalize cannabis in Missouri, one flatly does so, and the other creates a plethora of bureaucracies and potential regulatory abuses along with continued legal system fines and penalties.

Let me be very clear here, while there is no part of me that wants to tolerate minors “getting stoned” or people driving while impaired, it is apparent that the ability to control those things still exist within our legal construct. Minors do NOT have the same rights as adults. Nor do they have the same responsibilities. People who drive while they are chemically/physically impaired by cannabis to the point that they cannot properly react to the hazards on the road are not being responsible, and should be charged with driving under the influence. Video evidence should be sufficient for the enforcement of driving while impaired.

Please check out all the links I posted in this incredibly long article. It’s very important that when we have amendments to consider on the ballot that we are wise in our decisions about them. We cannot be reactive and responsible at the same time. Study it out and be certain of your decisions.

I encourage you to read these amendments again, and if you have concerns, please feel free to voice them and let’s see if we the people can positively, and responsibly, disentangle ourselves from the corporately controlled nanny state on this issue.

The FDA….Food Destruction Agency

To me, the Federal level agencies would best serve the citizens of this country by being completely gutted. They have “charges” under specific legislation, and they routinely expand their authority and “boot on the face” approach on people who hurt no one, and they completely fail to do the tasks they were created to accomplish. Yes, this is a broad brush, but we would be better served doing everything ourselves….Case in point below:


Consumers count on the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to keep food safe, but the agency tests very little of the produce sold in the United States for pesticides and some of its methods were deemed incomplete, according to a recent report.

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) found the FDA “takes relatively few targeted samples to test for pesticide residue and detects what is likely to be a small percentage of the foods that have violative levels of residue. Moreover, FDA does not disclose in its annual monitoring reports that it does not test for some commonly used pesticides that have established tolerances for many commodities.”

The FDA tests only one-tenth of 1% of the food imported for use on U.S. dinner tables, and that’s actually far more testing than happens to domestic food. The GAO said the FDA tests only about a quarter as many domestic products as imported. “According to its recent annual reports, FDA has placed a greater emphasis on testing imported foods because it has found a higher percentage of imported samples with violations,” according to the report.

This is startling considering that “from 1970 to 2007, hundreds of millions of pounds of pesticides were applied annually to U.S. food crops to protect them from pests,” the GAO wrote.

The lack of testing includes pesticides that another federal agency, the Environmental Protection Agency, considers dangerous enough for which to have tolerance levels, Common Dreams noted.

“FDA takes relatively few targeted domestic and imported samples to test for pesticide residues. Additionally, FDA does not test for several widely used pesticides that have established tolerances for many commodities, meaning that it is unable to detect violations of those tolerances,” the GAO reported.

Food safety advocates at the Center for Biological Diversity, a nonprofit conservation organization, criticized the lack of pesticide inspections at the FDA.

“The FDA is supposed to be protecting the American people from dangers in their food and it’s clear they’ve dropped the ball when it comes to pesticides,” Lori Ann Burd, endangered species campaign director for the organization, said in a statement.

-Noel Brinkerhoff, Steve Straehley


Help Against Ebola

The following is a VERY lengthy post. It contains some specific protocols regarding protecting yourself against Ebola.

I know there are several people who I generally have high respect for that are saying the entire Ebola issue is a false flag. Frankly, I wish I believed that about this one. If it is, I will be really happy! However, the bottom line is that there has been a definite interest in reducing the population for years. What better way to do it and save those bullets for when you really need them? The governments can just claim incompetence and negligence as their cover story. After all, that is largely truthful.

Again, this is lengthy, but maybe really important info. And of course, the FDA doesn’t recognize any of this as helpful or potentially effective. You’ll have to wait for Bill Gate’s vaccine if you want their stamp of approval on anything.

Be well!


Essential Oils:

 FOR EBOLA, a direct quote:
Single Oils of:  Rosemary with Geranium and Lemon

10 drops rosemary
10 drops geranium
10 drops lemon
1/2 raw lemon
1 Tablespoon honey

Mix in 8 ounces of warm water. DRINK EVERY 2 hours.  Every hour take 2 JuvaTone.  Do a rectal implant of 2 tablespoons of Protec.  Drink a mixture of 1/2 cup sauerkraut juice, 1/2 cup tomato juice, a Tbsp. olive oil.



Thanks to Dr. Richard Alan Miller for sending this report.

~~ EBOLA Whitepaper

08-15-14 – Ebola Africa has cure
In the recent WA Post a clue to the cure was mentioned

“Re-hydration and nutrition can only help keep patients alive long
enough for their body to develop antibodies to fight the virus back.”
(Ya think?)

Confirming what we have been working on, but of course that was
not the focus of the article, instead it was the SHUNNING.

people who live even reasonably healthy lives and avoid most well
known transmission risky behaviors are DOING FINE

Now with the new HEALTH TREATMENT LIST  we know that it may
be very close to curing even the afflicted and not just preventative.
I contacted a group in Sierra Leone today and also toured the Hospital
its like two differnt worlds !   One helps people and keeps them well,
the other operates in the most scary secretive fashion beyond Sci FI

And has been suspected now of …. Well from the situation one’s mind
races to conclusions but lets just say it scary beyond belief.  The nice
folks I contacted are hopefully going to tell me their programs and we
can share info etc.   Stay tuned !

I also hope to post a list of news links as a briefing and how this
developed and continues to spread due to all sorts of  factors, which
COULD BE FIXED.  There is simply no need for this to continue now
that we know the score.  but you can bet its not over yet by a long
shot the good guys are not running things ya know


There is a radical treatment rather recently attempted to save the
life of a rabies virus patient (it worked).  Previously, before this last
ditch attempt called the “Milwaukee Protocol” was employed, rabies was
100% deadly with or without treatment once it crossed the blood brain
barrier – no known survivors.

They basically put the patient in an induced coma and pumped her full
of antivirals, namely, Ketamine (yes it seems to also have anti-viral
properties which is interesting) and Amantadine derived from the Queen
of the Mushrooms – (Amanita muscaria).

Treatment schedule for Ebola
1.  an extensive list spanning from standard support (O2, hydration,
nutrition, anti-pain, antibiotics to fight off bacterial supra-infections, etc)
2.  exotic enema concoctions
3. the utilization of more standard treatments such as anti-virals and
monoclonal antibodies
4.  last ditch options such as blood transfusions (which like the previously
mentioned ergotamine in your link, might worsen the condition of the
5.  also insist that the doctors and nurses treating would also be
quarantined and would concomitantly be on a prophylactic regimens of
at least clomiphine and amiodarone – both of which have side effects.

Specifically disconcerting about this virus – definitely in the category of
civilization destroyer.
1.  It seems undeniable that it has recently mutated into a more
transmissible/virulent form.
2.  It takes up to 3 weeks for symptoms to show up.
3.  The worst strain (zaire) has a high (90%) death rate that mere
herbs alone can do little for.
4.  It is transmissible through sperm by male patients (convalescent)
that have had it and have successfully fought it off.
5.  This virus seems to have a cruel mechanism of action/pathological
progression wherein the patients might start looking and feeling better
a few days right before they die.

The American doctors currently being treated, although feeling better,
are still not out of the woods yet.

08-20-14 – Ebola Treatment: How Big Tobacco and the Military Came
Together – NBC News

EBOLA release

Orthomolecular Medicine News Service–

OMNS archive link–

*Orthomolecular Medicine News Service, August 20, 2014*

Can Vitamin C Cure Ebola?Commentary
by Steve Hickey PhD, Hilary Roberts PhD, and Damien Downing

(OMNS Aug 20, 2014) If there were a drug that worked on Ebola you
should use it. There isn’t. There is only vitamin C. But you must be
extremely careful what you believe, because, as it ever was, the
Internet is full of dangerous loonies. For coming up to a decade now
the OMNS has reported on nutritional therapies; we leave the medical
politics to one side and work from the facts. Here are the facts about
vitamin C and Ebola.

1. Taking a gram or so of day of vitamin C won’t protect you against
anything except acute scurvy; it doesn’t matter whether the vitamin
is liposomal, nano-particles, or even gold-plated. Beware of websites,
companies, and Youtube clips making wild and unsubstantiated claims
about the efficacy of vitamin C.

2. Clinical reports suggest that taking vitamin C almost to bowel
tolerance every day (in divided doses) will help to protect you against
all viruses. Reports by independent physicians have been consistent for
decades. However, the doctors also stipulated most emphatically that
the dose and the way you take it must be right – or it will not work.
There is no direct placebo controlled “evidence” that massive doses of
vitamin C will work on Ebola, and nobody would volunteer to take part
in that study.

But massive doses are reported to have helped against every virus it
has been pitched against. This includes Polio, Dengue and AIDS, and it
even makes vaccination work better. In the 1980s when no other
treatment was available it was reported that full blown AIDS could be
reversed and the patient brought back to reasonable health.[i,ii]

At risk or worried about Ebola?
This is what you should do.  Vitamin C

Vitamin C is the primary antioxidant in the diet. Most people do not
take enough to be healthy. While this is true of many nutrients, vitamin
C is a special case. Ignore governments telling you that you only need
about 100 mg a day and can get this amount from food. The required
amount of vitamin C varies your state of health. A normal adult in
perfect health may need only a small intake, say 500 mg per day, but
more is needed when someone is even slightly under the weather.
Similarly, to prevent illness, the intake needs to be increased.

The intake for an otherwise healthy person to have a reasonable
chance of avoiding a common cold is in the region of 8-10 grams
(8,000-10,000 mg) a day. This is about ten times what corporate
medicine has tested in their trials on vitamin C and the common cold.
Ten grams (10,000 mg) is the minimum pharmacological intake; it may
help if you have a slight sore throat but more (much more) may be

To get rid of a common cold, you may need anything from 20 to 60
grams (60,000 mg) a day. With influenza the need might be for 100
grams (100,000 mg) a day. Since it varies from person to person, and
from illness to illness, the only way to find out is to experiment for

Dynamic flow
The problem with oral intakes is that healthy people do not absorb
vitamin C well due to something Dr Robert Cathcart called bowel
tolerance. [iii]  Take too much of the vitamin in a single dose and it will
cause loose stools. In good health, a person might be able to take a
couple of grams at a time without this problem. Strangely, when a
person becomes sick they can take far more without this side effect: as
much as 20-100+ grams a day, in divided doses. [iv]

High dose vitamin C has a short half-life in the body. The half-life is
the time for the level in the blood plasma to fall back to half its
concentration. Until recently, some people claimed that the half-life of
vitamin C was several weeks. We have shown that this long half-life
applies only to very low doses.[v] By contrast, the half-life for high blood
levels is only half an hour. This short half-life means that for high dose
vitamin C the period between doses needs to be short – a few hours at

The aim is to achieve dynamic flow, to get vitamin C flowing continuously
through the body. Dynamic flow requires multiple high doses taken
throughout the day. When separated in time, each dose is absorbed
independently. Two doses of 3 grams, taken 12 hours apart, are absorbed
better than 6 grams taken all at once. Multiple large doses, say 3 grams
four times a day, produce a steady flow of the vitamin from the gut, into
the bloodstream and out, via the urine. Some of the intake is not
absorbed into the blood and stays in the gut, as a reserve against the
early onset of illness. As illness begins, the body pulls in this “excess”
to help fight the virus.

The idea behind dynamic flow is that the body is kept in a reduced
(antioxidant) state, using high doses. There is always vitamin C available,
to refresh the body and other antioxidants. Each vitamin C molecule
(ascorbic acid) has two antioxidant electrons, which it can donate to
protect the body. It then becomes oxidised to dehydroascorbate (DHA).
This oxidized molecule is then excreted, so the body has gained two
antioxidant electrons. The kidneys reabsorb vitamin C, but not DHA; the
vitamin C molecule is absorbed, used up, and then the oxidized form is
thrown out with the rubbish.

The effectiveness of vitamin C is not directly proportional to the dose;
it is non-linear. There is a threshold above which vitamin C becomes
highly effective. Below this level, the effect is small; above it, the effect
is dramatic. The problem is that no-one can tell you in advance what
intake of vitamin C you need. The solution is to take more – more than
you think necessary, more than you consider reasonable. The mantra is
dose, dose, dose.

Types of Vitamin C
Straightforward, low cost ascorbic acid is the preferred form of s
upplement. Vendors may try to sell you “better absorbed” forms with
minerals or salts such as sodium, potassium or calcium ascorbate, and
so on. These are irrelevant, if not counterproductive, for high intakes.
It is worth noting the following:

1. Timing is more important than form. Two large doses of ascorbic
acid taken a little time apart are better absorbed than a single dose
of mineral ascorbate.

2. Mineral ascorbates are salts and do not carry the same number of
antioxidant electrons. Ascorbic acid has two electrons to donate while
a salt typically has only one. With high doses, the “improved” forms
are thus only about half as effective. This is consistent with reports
that mineral forms are correspondingly ineffective in combating illness.

3. Ascorbic acid is a weak acid, much weaker than the hydrochloric acid
in the stomach. Mineral ascorbates may be better tolerated, as they
make the stomach more alkaline than ascorbic acid. However, an
alkaline stomach is not a good idea – there are reasons the body
secretes hydrochloric acid into the stomach, including preventing

Furthermore, if you are coming down with a haemorrhagic viral infection,
mild discomfort will not be something of great concern.

4. For high intakes, capsules of ascorbic acid are preferable to tablets.
This is because tablets are packed with fillers and it is not wise to take
massive doses of these chemicals. Check the ingredients – you want to
take ascorbic acid and very little else. Bioflavonoids are alright, and
the capsules may be made with gelatine or a vegetarian equivalent.

5. The cheapest way to take ascorbic acid is as powder, dissolved in
water. If you do this, use a straw to avoid it getting on the tooth
enamel, as it is slightly acidic. You will need a set of accurate
electronic scales to monitor the dose. If you do not weigh it carefully,
it will be difficult to keep close to bowel tolerance.

Intravenous Vitamin C
Ideally, infected people would be given a continuous intravenous (IV)
infusion of massive doses of vitamin C (sodium ascorbate is preferred
as ascorbic acid is irritant to veins).

1. People who are sufficiently ill will not be able to take vitamin C by

2. IV provides the highest possible blood levels

3. IV means continuous drip, not an injection (short half-life)

Unless you are a medical professional who can treat yourself and your
family, or are exceptionally rich, IV ascorbate will not be an option in
an Ebola outbreak.

Rectal Vitamin C
Rectal administration of sodium ascorbate is a method that can be
used in emergencies, and in developing world circumstances, when IV
is unavailable or unsuitable. Nurses can quickly be trained to mix 15-30
grams of sodium ascorbate in 250-500 ml clean water, and give it by
enema. It can be safely and effectively used in children. An enema also
removes from the bowel material that may be challenging. This has been
done successfully with aboriginal people in the Australian outback.

In healthy people, liposomes help the absorption of oral vitamin C; in
some circumstances this is also true for sick people. However, we need
to dispel some popular myths.

In a healthy person, higher blood levels (about 600 microM/L) can be
achieved using liposomal vitamin C compared with standard ascorbic
acid (about 250 microM/L). We were the first to demonstrate this fact
experimentally.[vi] However, the two absorption methods are different
and if both are used together the resultant plasma levels are additive
(something like 600 + 250 = 850 microM/L). Since ascorbic acid is
much cheaper than liposomal vitamin C, it is cost effective for a
healthy person to start with ascorbic acid and top up with liposomes
as required.

When a person becomes ill they can absorb massive doses of standard
ascorbic acid, using the dynamic flow approach. So if you are sick,
taking a gram of liposomal vitamin C instead of a gram of cheap
ascorbic acid will provide little extra benefit. Both will be well
absorbed, and the liposome contains sodium ascorbate which is less
effective. Liposomes only provide added benefit once the sick person
has approached bowel tolerance levels, using standard ascorbic acid.

Liposomal vitamin C is NOT more effective than IV for fighting acute
infections. This suggestion is unscientific and unsupported by data.
We prefer liposomes for chronic infections and cancer, but this does
not extend to acute illness. There is also a lot of hype around the fact
that liposomes can be absorbed directly into cells. Many liposomes
are absorbed from the gut and pass into the liver, where they are
stored and the vitamin C released. Liposomes may also float around
in the bloodstream, lymph nodes, and so on, waiting to release their
contents or be taken up by cells. But the cells that take up the
liposomes are not necessarily those that are most in need of vitamin
C. Moreover cells may suffer side effects; liposomes are basically
nanotechnology and have additional theoretical issues.

To have a reasonable chance of avoiding a major viral infection, a
daily intake of at least 10 grams of ascorbic acid is needed. The idea
is to start low, taking say 500 -1,000 mg four times a day. Build up the
intake to close to bowel tolerance; increased wind and large soft stools
will  occur before diarrhea signals that bowel tolerance has been
exceeded. At this stage, back off the dose a little, to a reasonably
comfortable level.

At the first hint of an infection – feeling unwell, itchy throat, fatigue,
and so on – take more ascorbic acid. If the hint of impending sickness
is mild, take perhaps 5 grams every half hour or even more frequently.

Anything more than a hint of infection, take as large a dose as you
feel could be tolerated and follow this by taking 5 grams every half
hour. The rule is to take as much as you can without going over the
tolerated level:  you will probably be taking too little, even though you
are trying hard to take a massive dose.

If you are already in dynamic flow and want extra protection, then
add liposomal vitamin C. Take it at the same intervals as the ascorbic
acid; that is several times a day. The limit is once again bowel
tolerance – take too much and it will give you loose stools. This will
provide the maximum preventive effect, for the lowest cost.

We assume that you are not a medical professional and do not have
access to IV ascorbate. However, if IV sodium ascorbate is available,
it should be given slowly and as continuously as possible. For children,
enemas may be the most practical method (we hope to publish
practical instructions for this soon). Medical professionals can deal
with such things with little difficulty, but others may do more harm
than good.

The first important thing is to start the treatment early. The longer a
person waits after the initial symptoms, the less effective the
treatment will be. Also if the illness is allowed to develop the sick
person may become unable to take anything orally.

Once again, the idea is to get dynamic flow going with as much
ascorbic acid as can be tolerated. In this case, the doses are massive.
Five to ten grams every half hour, through the day, will provide 120
to 240 grams a day. Even at this high intake, the blood plasma levels
may be low or undetectable; at most 250 microM/L will be achieved.
So the question then becomes how much additional liposomal vitamin
C the patient can tolerate.

A practical approach would be to start with 5 grams of ascorbic acid
and a similar amount of liposomal vitamin C in very frequent doses.
Remember the key is dose, dose, dose. More vitamin C!

How it Works
The mechanism of action of high dose vitamin C is known and
understood. In normal healthy tissues it acts as an antioxidant.
In other tissues, it generates hydrogen peroxide, the chemical that
platinum blondes use to bleach their hair. This happens in sick and
inflamed tissues, for example in a malignant tumour. The process is
typically a form of Fenton reaction, generating free radicals. The
oxidation and free radicals arising from the hydrogen peroxide kill
bacteria and inactivate viruses. In other words, vitamin C acts as a
targeted bleach and antiseptic.

Vitamin C is unique, because it has low toxicity and can be taken
safely in massive amounts. Other antioxidants and supplements will not
have a similar effect. Do not be confused and think that Echinacea, for
example, will help. Yes, there may be supplements and herbs that
provide a little immune system support, but this is Ebola we are talking
about – get real!

Note, vitamin C is not some magical antitoxin; this idea is a metaphor.
A disease such as Ebola is not caused by toxins that are inactivated by
vitamin C. Free radicals are not toxins. Oxidants are not toxins. Vitamin
C nearly always acts by transferring electrons, as an oxidant or
antioxidant. It is just basic chemistry. Also, it does not matter if you
have poor dental hygiene, this will hardly affect how massive intakes
of vitamin C tackle an acute viral infection.

Sugar interferes with the uptake of vitamin C. If you are using vitamin
C to combat a viral infection do not eat any sugar or carbohydrates
(long chain sugars) or the vitamin C will not be absorbed properly. We
stress that this means no sugar and no carbs, at all.

Smoking releases enormous amounts of oxidants and free radicals
into the bloodstream. The vitamin C will expend itself, trying to mop
up the chemicals from the smoking. We have no moral objections to
people smoking: it is a personal choice. However, smoking will hinder
even massive doses of vitamin C from preventing infection. Once
infected with Ebola, smoking will stop the vitamin C from keeping you

It is sensible also to supplement with a little chelated magnesium,
such as magnesium citrate, which helps overcome the (largely
theoretical) risk of kidney stones.

The reaction that generates hydrogen peroxide in sick tissues can be
enhanced a little by taking selenium with the vitamin C. A little caution
is needed as too much selenium will cause diarrhoea, fatigue, garlic
breath, and hair and nail loss; severe toxicity can have more severe
effects but is hard to achieve. Methylselenocysteine is a less toxic form
and this would be our choice. The normal intake is perhaps 100-200
micrograms (0.1-0.2 mg) a day; we would take 400 micrograms a day
during an epidemic and up this to 1,000 micrograms
(one milligram) a day, at the initial onset of symptoms. It is possible
to go up to 3 mg for short periods, with medical supervision.

Other supplements may be synergistic with vitamin C. Alpha-lipoic
acid can be taken at reasonably high levels reasonably safely. We
would take up to a gram or two a day (1,000-2,000 mg) in the short
term. Vitamin K also helps with blood clotting and is safe in the
recommended amounts – we would get the highest dose vitamin K2
supplement available. Note vitamin K is contraindicated in those with
clotting disease or those on blood thinners such as warfarin.

The only established side effects of ascorbate therapy are wind, loose
bowels and chronic good health. There are some contraindications;
people with kidney disease, iron overload disease, or
glucose-6-phosphatase deficiency should not immediately take high
doses of vitamin C. In the setting of an epidemic they can start as
we recommend but should increase more cautiously, with appropriate
medical monitoring.

Why Put This Out?
People need to know that vitamin C is an option for fighting Ebola, and
how it works. There is a great deal of misinformation, particularly on
the internet, both from vested interests and from “loonies”. Moreover,
in an Ebola epidemic vitamin C supplements may be hard to source.

This account is intended for intelligent adults, who can make their
own rational decisions and take responsibility for their health. We
strongly promote the idea that medicine should be based on rational
patients, rather than authoritarian doctors. Doctors are there to provide
the information for patients, to help them choose between available
options. This is information only – what you decide to do with it is up
to you.

In our opinion the use of vitamin C in Ebola is a no-brainer. Get the
illness and, it is said, you have at best a 50-50 chance of surviving
without vitamin C-based therapy. Corporate medicine has no effective
treatment. Furthermore, if a drug were available, it would be untested
and almost certainly unavailable to you, dear reader. Vitamin C is
considered safe and should do no harm. The cost of treatment is low.
The clinical reports of vitamin C in viral infection are that if you get
the dose right, you will survive. Vitamin C is known experimentally to
inactivate viruses.

In the event, we hope people make rational decisions.

For further reading:
There are lots of other sources but these make a good fast start for
a person beginning an investigation into the antiviral properties of
vitamin C.

Hickey S., Saul A. (2008) *Vitamin C: The Real Story, the Remarkable
and Controversial Healing Factor*, Basic Health. The book gives an
easy readable account of the story of vitamin C.

Archive of the *Journal or Orthomolecular Medicine*. Decades worth of
clinical observations and reports on vitamin C are available.–

Pubmed contains mostly abstracts of medical research papers.
Unfortunately, most of these have been selected to exclude
observations on high doses of vitamin C.–

i Cathcart R. (1984) Vitamin C in the treatment of Acquired Immune
Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS), *Medical Hypothesis*, 14(4), 423-433.–

ii Brighthope I, Fitzgerald P. (1988) *The AIDS Fighters*, Keats.

iii Cathcart R. (1981) Vitamin C, Titration to Bowel Tolerance,
Anascorbemia, and Acute Induced Scurvy, * Medical Hypothesis*, 7, 1359-1376.–

iv Cathcart R. (1985) Vitamin C, the nontoxic, nonrate-limited antioxidant
free radical scavenger, *Medical Hypothesis*, 18, 61-77.––

v Hickey D.S. Roberts H.J. Cathcart R.F. (2005) Dynamic Flow: A New
Model for Ascorbate, *J Orthomolecular Med*, 20(4), 237.

vi Hickey S. Roberts H. and Miller N.J. (2008) Pharmacokinetics of oral
ascorbate liposomes, *J Nutritional Environmental Med*, July, 10. 1080/13590840802305423.

Nutritional Medicine is Orthomolecular Medicine.  Orthomolecular
medicine uses safe, effective nutritional therapy to fight illness. For
more information:–

Find a Doctor
To locate an orthomolecular physician near you:–

The peer-reviewed Orthomolecular Medicine News Service is a
non-profit and non-commercial informational resource.

Editorial Review Board:

Ian Brighthope, M.D. (Australia)
Ralph K. Campbell, M.D. (USA)
Carolyn Dean, M.D., N.D. (USA)
Damien Downing, M.D. (United Kingdom)
Dean Elledge, D.D.S., M.S. (USA)
Michael Ellis, M.D. (Australia)
Martin P. Gallagher, M.D., D.C. (USA)
Michael Gonzalez, D.Sc., Ph.D. (Puerto Rico)
William B. Grant, Ph.D. (USA)
Michael Janson, M.D. (USA)
Robert E. Jenkins, D.C. (USA)
Bo H. Jonsson, M.D., Ph.D. (Sweden)
Peter H. Lauda, M.D. (Austria)
Thomas Levy, M.D., J.D. (USA)
Stuart Lindsey, Pharm.D. (USA)
Jorge R. Miranda-Massari, Pharm.D. (Puerto Rico)
Karin Munsterhjelm-Ahumada, M.D. (Finland)
Erik Paterson, M.D. (Canada)
W. Todd Penberthy, Ph.D. (USA)
Gert E. Schuitemaker, Ph.D. (Netherlands)
Robert G. Smith, Ph.D. (USA)
Jagan Nathan Vamanan, M.D. (India)
Atsuo Yanagisawa, M.D., Ph.D. (Japan)

*Andrew W. Saul, Ph.D. (USA), Editor and contact person.
This is a comments-only address; OMNS is unable to respond to
individual reader emails. However, readers are encouraged to write
in with their viewpoints. Reader comments become the property of
OMNS and may or may not be used for publication.

*To Subscribe at no charge:*–

*To Unsubscribe from this list:*–

This article may be reprinted free of charge provided 1) that there is
clear attribution to the Orthomolecular Medicine News Service, and
2) that both the OMNS free subscription link–
and also the OMNS archive link–
are included. | 3100 N. Hillside Ave | Wichita, KS 67219 | USA

FDA Warns Companies Against Things that Help Fight Ebola

This is perhaps the best advertising money can’t buy. If you don’t already get these companies products, you might want to.

Remember it took the FDA 30 years to admit that vitamin C was helpful in combatting another virus…the common cold. BTW, I just started with doTerra. So if you want to get into that, please feel free to email me about it. Young Living has the MOST phenomenal product for helping with eye issues, it’s called Ningxia Juice and it has been tremendously helpful in halting ocular migraines. I can also help get you into that line, although I am not a member. Dr. Rima has been fighting the FDA longer than many of us have been alive. While I haven’t used their products, I think I am going to get some.

I guess I take the contrarian position to the US Federal Government’s agencies. If they are against it, there might very well be good reason to use it. If they recommend it, probably best to stay away from it. Also, my opinions, experiences, thoughts and existence have not been tested, approved, proven effective, nor sanctioned by the FDA.

Here’s the article:

FDA warns three companies against marketing their products as Ebola treatments or cures

 September 24 at 4:21 PM

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration sent letters to three companies this week, warning them against marketing their products as possible treatments or cures for Ebola. The letters, posted online on Wednesday, document multiple claims from the companies or their paid representatives that essential oils and other natural remedies can “help prevent your contracting the Ebola virus” and in at least one instance, “effectively kill the Ebola virus.”

There are currently no approved treatments, cures or vaccines for Ebola.

Natural Solutions FoundationYoung Living, and dōTERRA International LLC all produce products that were promoted on the Web as cures for a variety of ailments, all without FDA approval. The products in question, the letters note, are not FDA-approved drugs, yet their marketing makes the sort of claims that only approved drugs may make — that they can be used to treat, mitigate, prevent and cure diseases.

According to the three letters, those promotions — either on Web sites owned by the companies or on sites and accounts used by paid “consultants” promoting and selling the products — included Pinterest messages, Facebook postings and blog posts claiming products such as “CBD Organic Dark Chocolate Bars,” “Clary Sage” essential oils and the “Family Protection Pack” can do what has not yet been done: Treat, cure or prevent the deadly Ebola virus.

In one letter, to doTERRA, the FDA outlined the extent of those claims:

“Your consultants promote your above mentioned dōTERRA Essential Oil products for conditions including, but not limited to, viral infections (including ebola), bacterial infections, cancer, brain injury, autism, endometriosis, Grave’s Disease, Alzheimer’s Disease, tumor reduction, ADD/ADHD, and other conditions that are not amenable to self-diagnosis and treatment by individuals who are not medical practitioners. Moreover, your consultants redirect consumers to your website,, to register as a customer or member (i.e., consultant), and to purchase your dōTERRA Essential Oil products.”

According to the FDA, these promotions — especially ones related to Ebola — are inaccurate but not unexpected. “Oftentimes with public health incidences, like Ebola or even during H1n1, we see products that are marketed, often online, that claim to treat or cure the disease…without FDA approval,” FDA spokeswoman Stephanie Yao said in an interview, adding that “these sorts of things pop up” in almost any public health crisis.

In August, as the Ebola outbreak was accelerating in West Africa, the agency issued a preemptive warning to consumers, emphasizing that there is no FDA-approved vaccine or drug for the prevention or treatment of Ebola. The letters issued this week are something of a follow-up to that concern, Yao said, based on the results of online monitoring from the agency’s health fraud unit. The FDA will continue to monitor for similar claims.

Here is a sample of one such post, which was at the time this article was published available here:

Written by a paid consultant (referred to as a “member”) for Young Living, the post goes on to tout the possible benefits of a few oils sold by the company: “The Higley Essential Oil Reference guide mentions that the Ebola Virus can not live in the presence of cinnamon bark (this is in Thieves) nor Oregano. I would definitely add those two oils to whatever I was using.”

It adds: “I pray we don’t have to hear about this virus coming to the U.S. but if you travel outside of our country or know someone who goes to Africa or lives in Africa, maybe you could send them a care package of Young Living essential oils!”

In a statement provided to The Washington Post, a spokesman for Young Living said that the company was “cooperating fully with the FDA regarding its inquiry.” Young Living “members,” the statement continued, “are provided specific instructions on how to promote our products to their customers. In the coming days we will be contacting all our membership to ensure that they understand how to best use our products and remain compliant with regulatory directives.

“We have already contacted each of the Members cited in the FDA letter to help get them into compliance.”

One company targeted by the FDA, Natural Solutions Foundation, had materials on related Web sites promoting the company’s products as cures to several serious diseases and viruses, including Ebola.

On one YouTube video posted to the Natural Solutions Foundation account, the written text complains that the “WHO, FDA, the New York Times, etc., have gone on a rampage of disonformation [sic] to keep you in the dark about natural ways to dispose of dangerous microbes without damaging your beneficial bacteria.”

The video features Rima Laibow, the company’s medical director, claiming that the Natural Solutions product, Nano Silver, can “inactivate viruses like the HIV Virus, the Hepatitis B and C virus, Influenza viruses like H1N1, and Ebola virus.”

According to the FDA, all three companies have 15 days to respond to the documented violations and notify the agency of any corrective actions. If the companies are unable to correct those violations within 15 days, they’re required to explain why and provide a timeline for completion.

If they don’t take corrective action, the FDA could take any number of enforcement actions against the companies. Those include seizure, or possible criminal charges.

We’ve reached out to all three FDA-warned companies for comment.

The agency’s three letters are available here.

Abby Ohlheiser is a general assignment reporter for The Washington Post.



No More Artisan Cheese for Americans

The FDA, Food Destruction Agency, has “clarified” their stance on cheese aged on wood. Short take, not allowed any longer in the US; and because of the lovely take over of all food granted them by the Corporate Board Members referred to as “Congress” under the Food Safety Modernization Act, no cheese imported to the US will be allowed to have been aged on wood either.

If you have thus far failed to see what is happening in this nation and across the world, I’ll sum it up for you. There will be no innovation and no creativity allowed. Our Heavenly Father’s creative attributes that He instills in us as we are created in His image is to be annihilated by rule, regulation, insurance premiums, or other “safety” measure.

This is an excellent article on the issue of cheese and the FDA. Don’t worry, whatever you desire to create/produce will be similarly regulated and destroyed…if it hasn’t already been regulated to death.

Game Changer: FDA Rules No Wooden Boards in Cheese Aging

A sense of disbelief and distress is quickly rippling through the U.S. artisan cheese community, as the federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) this week announced it will not permit American cheesemakers to age cheese on wooden boards.

Recently, the FDA inspected several New York state cheesemakers and cited them for using wooden surfaces to age their cheeses. The New York State Department of Agriculture & Markets’ Division of Milk Control and Dairy Services, which (like most every state in the U.S., including Wisconsin), has allowed this practice, reached out to FDA for clarification on the issue. A response was provided by Monica Metz, Branch Chief of FDA’s Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition’s (CFSAN) Dairy and Egg Branch.

In the response, Metz stated that the use of wood for cheese ripening or aging is considered an unsanitary practice by FDA, and a violation of FDA’s current Current Good Manufacturing Practice (cGMP) regulations. Here’s an excerpt:

“Microbial pathogens can be controlled if food facilities engage in good manufacturing practice. Proper cleaning and sanitation of equipment and facilities are absolutely necessary to ensure that pathogens do not find niches to reside and proliferate. Adequate cleaning and sanitation procedures are particularly important in facilities where persistent strains of pathogenic microorganisms like Listeria monocytogenes could be found. The use of wooden shelves, rough or otherwise, for cheese ripening does not conform to cGMP requirements, which require that “all plant equipment and utensils shall be so designed and of such material and workmanship as to be adequately cleanable, and shall be properly maintained.” 21 CFR 110.40(a). Wooden shelves or boards cannot be adequately cleaned and sanitized. The porous structure of wood enables it to absorb and retain bacteria, therefore bacteria generally colonize not only the surface but also the inside layers of wood. The shelves or boards used for aging make direct contact with finished products; hence they could be a potential source of pathogenic microorganisms in the finished products.”

The most interesting part of the FDA’s statement it that it does not consider this to be a new policy, but rather an enforcement of an existing policy. And worse yet, FDA has reiterated that it does not intend to change this policy.

In an email to industry professionals, Rob Ralyea, Senior Extension Associate in the Department of Food Science and the Pilot Plant Manager at Cornell University in New York, says: “According to the FDA this is merely proper enforcement of the policy that was already in place. While the FDA has had jurisdiction in all food plants, it deferred cheese inspections almost exclusively to the states. This has all obviously changed under FSMA.”

Ah, FSMA. For those of you not in the know, the Food Safety Modernization Act is the most sweeping reform of American food safety laws in generations. It was signed into law by President Obama on January 4, 2011 and aims to ensure the U.S. food supply is safe by shifting the focus from responding to contamination to preventing it.

While most cheesemakers have, perhaps, begrudgingly accepted most of what has been coming down the FSMA pike, including the requirement of HACCP plans and increased federal regulations and inspections, no one expected this giant regulation behemoth to virtually put a stop to innovation in the American artisanal cheese movement.

Many of the most awarded and well-respected American artisan cheeses are currently aged on wooden boards. American Cheese Society triple Best in Show winner Pleasant Ridge Reserve from Uplands Cheese in Wisconsin is cured on wooden boards. Likewise for award-winners Cabot Clothbound in Vermont, current U.S. Champion cheese Marieke Feonegreek, and 2013 Best in Show Runner-Up Bleu Mont Bandaged Cheddar.

Wisconsin cheesemaker Chris Roelli says the FDA’s “clarified” stance on using wooden boards is a “potentially devastating development” for American cheesemakers. He and his family have spent the past eight years re-building Roelli Cheese into a next-generation American artisanal cheese factory. Just last year, he built what most would consider to be a state-of-the-art aging facility into the hillside behind his cheese plant. And Roelli, like hundreds of American artisanal cheesemaekrs, has developed his cheese recipes specifically to be aged on wooden boards.

“The very pillar that we built our niche business on is the ability to age our cheese on wood planks, an art that has been practiced in Europe for thousands of years,” Roelli says. Not allowing American cheesemakers to use this practice puts them “at a global disadvantage because the flavor produced by aging on wood can not be duplicated. This is a major game changer for the dairy industry in Wisconsin, and many other states.”

As if this weren’t all bad enough, the FDA has also “clarified” – I’m really beginning to dislike that word – that in accordance with FSMA, a cheesemaker importing cheese to the United States is subject to the same rules and inspection procedures as American cheesemakers.

Therefore, Cornell University’s Ralyea says, “It stands to reason that if an importer is using wood boards, the FDA would keep these cheeses from reaching our borders until the cheese maker is in compliance. The European Union authorizes and allows the use of wood boards. Further, the great majority of cheeses imported to this country are in fact aged on wooden boards and some are required to be aged on wood by their standard of identity (Comte, Beaufort and Reblochon, to name a few). Therefore, it will be interesting to see how these specific cheeses will be dealt with when it comes to importation into the United States.”

Ralyea continues: “While most everyone agrees that Listeria is a major concern to the dairy industry, it appears that some food safety agencies interpret the science to show that wood boards can be maintained in a sanitary fashion to allow for their use for cheese aging, while others (e.g., the US FDA) believe that a general ban of any wooden materials in food processing facilities is the better approach to assure food safety. At this point, it seems highly unlikely that any new research data or interpretations will change the FDA policies in place.”

In fact, many research papers do in fact conclude that wooden boards are safe. In 2013, the Wisconsin Center for Dairy Research published a paper on the subject, concluding: “Considering the beneficial effects of wood boards on cheese ripening and rind formation, the use of wood boards does not seem to present any danger of contamination by pathogenic bacteria as long as a thorough cleaning procedure is followed.” You can read the whole report on pages 8-9 by clicking on this link.

Interesting side note: Health Canada does not currently have any regulations prohibiting aging and ripening cheese on wood, so apparently if we want to eat most American or European artisan cheeses, we’ll need to drive across the border to do so.

So what’s next? The American Cheese Society has mobilized its Regulatory & Academic Committee to learn more about this issue, and to ensure its members’ interests are represented. The ACS promises to keep us apprised of developments. In the meantime, if you are a cheesemaker, and your operation is inspected and cited for the use of wooden surfaces, please contact the ACS office (720-328-2788 or


Corruption in Science? You’re Kidding!

As anyone who follows the approval of FDA and USDA “science” knows, we no longer have much at all in the way of actual science. Instead we have black balling of those who don’t tote the corporate line, and science based studies that have nothing to do with legitimate science and the scientific method we are supposed to learn in school.

The following interview by Democracy Now! has clearly exposed the issue. Check it out:

GRAS Being Challenged

Most of the time, I find Food Safety News to be off target and terrified of real food and personal choice in nourishment. The following article is an exception, but probably because it doesn’t actually have anything to do with Food Safety News and their fear mongering owner Bill Marler. At any rate, the article clearly demonstrates how corrupt FDA processes are, and hopefully the lawsuit will actually change an aspect of that corruption.


Lawsuit Brought Against FDA Regarding Food Additives

By Lydia Zuraw | February 21, 2014

After settling a dispute about final rule deadlines for the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) earlier this week, the Center for Food Safety (CFS) has filed another lawsuit against the U.S. Food and Drug Administration – this time over food additives.

The suit seeks to vacate FDA’s 1997 proposed rule on substances generally recognized as safe (GRAS). The rule replaces the traditional petitioning process for a manufacturer seeking GRAS status for an additive with a “procedure whereby any person may notify FDA of a determination that a particular use of a substance is GRAS.”

CFS wants the agency to return to the traditional process by which manufacturers formally petition FDA to approve a new food additive as GRAS based on published studies.

FDA’s website acknowledges that the agency began accepting GRAS notices in 1998 even though the procedure was not yet final (and has yet to be finalized) and states that “the agency is evaluating whether each submitted notice provides a sufficient basis for a GRAS determination and whether information in the notice or otherwise available to FDA raises issues that lead the agency to question whether use of the substance is GRAS.”

But CFS claims that “FDA no longer conducts its own detailed analysis to evaluate the data” and “no longer affirms whether or not a substance’s use is GRAS at all.”

A 2010 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report on the subject passed similar judgment by stating, “Currently, companies may determine a substance is GRAS without FDA’s approval or knowledge.”

CFS is particularly concerned that this notification process has allowed for potentially hazardous additives to enter the food supply. Three examples named in the lawsuit are a potential human carcinogen called Volatile Oil of Mustard, an indigestible compound called Olestra that can cause adverse reactions, and a fungus-based meat substitute mycoprotein (also know as Quorn) that can cause dangerous allergic reactions.

“It has been 15 years since FDA handed authority to determine GRAS status over to the corporations it is meant to regulate,” said Andrew Kimbrell, CFS executive director. “FDA has an obligation to provide the regulatory scrutiny the public deserves.”

© Food Safety News

Previous Older Entries Next Newer Entries