The Durk Pearson & Sandy Shaw®
Life Extension NewsTM
Volume 17 No. 9 • October 2014

FDA = First Amendment Destroying Agency
FDA = Freedom Destroying Agency
FDA = Federal Death Agency

Official FDA Dictionary Announcement

The word “anti-inflammatory” is hereby CANCELLED. No one can use the scientific word “anti-inflammatory” in a label or an advertisement for a dietary supplement. “Anti-inflammatory” is now OFFICIALLY a term reserved for the use of pharmaceutical companies in relation to FDA-approved drugs. (NOTE: This is an example of a Government preferred speaker, in violation of the First Amendment per numerous U.S. Supreme Court decisions.*) We have indicated the word “anti-inflammatory” as “[CENSORED BY THE FDA]” in all labels or adverts for supplement ingredients described in the scientific literature as “anti-inflammatory” along with links to the National Library of Medicine.

The government choice of only certain speakers to be allowed to use the scientific word “anti-inflammatory” is another example of the same exact transgression. It goes on and on, folks. These people pay no attention to anybody’s Constitutional rights or to the Constitutional limits on their own powers. Oh, yes, they can be stopped but it will require more members of Congress willing to take the necessary steps to withdraw power and money from the FDA and face the loss of campaign donations from pharmaceutical companies who benefit from the present system, who won’t like losing their special privileges at all.

We suggest, as a start that doesn’t require Congressional action, that disfavored speakers prohibited from using the scientific word “anti-inflammatory” make a point of indicating that their label or advertisement on a supplement supported by scientific evidence of having anti-inflammatory properties is [CENSORED BY THE FDA] in violation of the First Amendment.

* See, for example, the U.S. Supreme Court decision in U.S. v. C&P (Bell Atlantic), 830 F. Supp. 909 (E. D. Va. 1993), off’d No. 93-2340, 93-2341 (4th Cir. 1994), where the Court ruled that Section 533(b) of the Cable Act that prohibited a telephone company from providing video programming to its service area subscribers that was not prohibited to others was a violation of the First Amendment as an example of unconstitutional government favoring of certain speakers.

FREE Subscription

  • You're just getting started! We have published thousands of scientific health articles. Stay updated and maintain your health.

    It's free to your e-mail inbox and you can unsubscribe at any time.
    Loading Indicator