|
The information presented on this web site is not
offered as medical advice. The success stories we share were
written by people who use our products and wish to share their
experience with others. One must exercise caution in evaluating
them and it is important to realize that these experiences are not the equivalent
of scientific studies. (When evaluating scientific studies one of
course must also exercise caution.) These shared success stories
are not to suggest that you will have the same experiences as their
authors, but because we feel you have a right to make your own
evaluation and determination if perhaps these product could work for
you.
Government Agencies would rather have these success
stories withheld from the public because, allegedly, they constitute
"unapproved medical claims."
As we stated
previously the only claims we make are that these success stories are
authentic and that the people who shared them are real. Truth is
not truth unless it is the "complete" truth, and these success
stories are just as much a part of the truth as the statistics of
scientific studies. Free persons are entitled to have access to
"all" the information available so they can make an informed
and intelligent choice relating to their own health. Thus,
we are sharing these success stories as the
exercise of our right to freedom-of-speech and your right to
freedom-of-information as given per authority of F.O.I.A.
Our products are intended
solely as supplements to enhance general health and to reinforce the
body's own defense against disease. Please be informed that we are
not qualified nor do we attempt to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any
disease. You should not construe anything in this web site to be
medical advise regarding any specific disorder. Those in poor
health or on medication should consult with a physician before using
these products.
|
|
Court Rulings on Freedom of Choice in Health Care
"It is now a
well-established rule of general law, as binding upon the government as
it is upon the medics, profession at large, that it is the patient not
the physician, who ultimately decides if treatment - any treatment is to
be given at all ...; The rule has never been qualified in its application
by either the nature or purpose of the treatment, or the gravity of
acceding to or forgoing it." Tune vs. Walter Reed Army medical
Hospital, 602 Federal Supplement, p. 1455 (1985).
....; [No] right is held more
sacred, or is more carefully guarded, by the common law, than the right
of every individual to the possession and control of his own person...;
Justice Cardozo ... aptly described this doctrine: 'Every human being of
adult years and sound mind has a right to determine what shall be done
with his own body'...; US Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist,
Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Dept. of Health, 1990, pp. 5, 13.
"Fundamental Rights
are protected not only against heavy-handed frontal attacks, but also
from being stifled by more subtle government interference ...; The root
premise of informed consent is that '[Every human being of adult years
and sound mind has a right to determine what shall be done with his own
body." US Supreme Court Justice William Brennan, Cruzan v.
Director, Missouri Dept. of Health 1990, pp. 4-6.
From the Townsend Letter
for Doctors & Patients - June 1997
|
