Thread- my other was hacked away and reported. It seems some of you need a few history lessons so let's go back...
Codex Alimentarius - The FDA - TITLE 21
https://t.co/2Fjj2zYsT5
First, depending on the CAM therapy or practice, a product used in a CAM therapy or practice may be subject to REGULATION as a biological product, cosmetic, drug, device, or food (including food additives and dietary supplements)
• Cosmetic;
• Device;
• Dietary supplement;
• Drug, as well as
-"new drug" & "new animal drug;"
• Food; and
• Food additive
• This means, for example, if a person decides to produce and sell raw vegetable juice for use in juice therapy to promote optimal health,
• Biologically-based practices;
• Energy therapies;
• Manipulative and body-based methods; and
• Mind-body medicine.
NCCAM, the domain called "biologically based practices" incl, but is not limited to, botanicals, animal-derived extracts, vitamins, minerals, fatty acids, amino acids, proteins, prebiotics & probiotics, whole diets, & "functional foods".
NCCAM describes whole medical systems as involving "complete systems of theory and practice that have evolved independently from or parallel to allopathic (conventional) medicine."
Section 201(g)(1) of the Act (21 U.S.C. 321(g)(1)) defines the term "drug," in relevant part, to mean:
(1) Any drug (except a new animal drug or an animal feed bearing or containing a new animal drug) the composition of which is such that the drug is not generally recognized, among experts
https://t.co/aDfoYHj7BX
https://t.co/kBmJLFYdcw
I can post a bunch of codex docs but you prob wont read them so here.
CODEX
https://t.co/pfZwQIvV13
Volume 2 (Parts 100 - 169)
https://t.co/NwxnJGyoq4
More from TXgrlWatching💻⚔🛡
https://t.co/hRE8wDPqR9
Fact Sheet for Healthcare Providers
https://t.co/AdrrmtWp4d
Fact Sheet Recipients and Caregivers
https://t.co/1I4wpKyyLb https://t.co/TYd5jzLJpF
🔻https://t.co/xpI4Nk0mfp
Are you familiar with the Vax Act of 1986?
— TXgrlWatching\U0001f4bb\u2694\U0001f6e1 (@VeritasTXgem) February 5, 2021
Do you know you cannot sue Pharma in the event you suffer from an adverse reaction?
Do you know you pay for Injuries caused by Pharma with your Tax dollars? pic.twitter.com/nBUZ5YdLJ4
🔻https://t.co/7lorbhl4TD
WHO safety summit
— TXgrlWatching\U0001f4bb\u2694\U0001f6e1 (@VeritasTXgem) February 5, 2021
Full 9min \U0001f3a5 \U0001f39evideo here\U0001f53bhttps://t.co/d9wMNWjIK1 pic.twitter.com/AVwG0CT2kT
🔻https://t.co/duWfPhJ58q
Do you trust your Politicians?
— TXgrlWatching\U0001f4bb\u2694\U0001f6e1 (@VeritasTXgem) February 5, 2021
Did you know an ingredient used since 1929 was never tested by any gov agency.
A Congressional hearing was finally held in 2004. pic.twitter.com/d4CNskOWHA
Limited short-term data
NO long-term data avail. incl. potential impacts on fertility.
“The discovery & research phase is normally 2-to-5yrs, according to the Wellcome Trust. In total, a 💉 can take more than 10yrs to fully
You May Also Like
One of the oddest features of the Labour tax row is how raising allowances, which the media allowed the LDs to describe as progressive (in spite of evidence to contrary) through the coalition years, is now seen by everyone as very right wing
— Tom Clark (@prospect_clark) November 2, 2018
Corbyn opposes the exploitation of foreign sweatshop-workers - Labour MPs complain he's like Nigel
He speaks up in defence of migrants - Labour MPs whinge that he's not listening to the public's very real concerns about immigration:
He's wrong to prioritise Labour Party members over the public:
He's wrong to prioritise the public over Labour Party
Imagine for a moment the most obscurantist, jargon-filled, po-mo article the politically correct academy might produce. Pure SJW nonsense. Got it? Chances are you're imagining something like the infamous "Feminist Glaciology" article from a few years back.https://t.co/NRaWNREBvR pic.twitter.com/qtSFBYY80S
— Jeffrey Sachs (@JeffreyASachs) October 13, 2018
The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.
Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)
There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.
At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?