[back to articles]
|Trueman v. Health Canada, CBSA & CFIA|
|Nov 14, 2007||Another Prime Minister, The Hon. Stephen Harper is noted in default in a Libel action, as well as the Hon. Tony Clement, Governor General Michaelle Jean, Morris Rosenberg, the Deputy Minister of Health, three of his staff and others|
Attention News Editors:
Another Prime Minister, The Hon. Stephen Harper is noted in default in a Libel action, as well as the Hon. Tony Clement, Governor General Michaelle Jean, Morris Rosenberg, the Deputy Minister of Health, three of his staff and others BELLEVILLE, ON, Nov. 14 /CNW Telbec/ - Trueman Tuck and his company,
Freedom of Choice in Health Care Inc., sued the above noted parties
November 15, 2006 for $1,050,000 and the Department of Justice lawyers
handling the matter failed to file a defense.
Citizens of Canada are getting used to this type of above the Rule of Law
arrogance by the Prime Ministers of Canada.
Trueman Tuck filed the lawsuit to stop what he alleges are false
allegations of e-coli contamination of a product that Trueman Tuck and his
company sell. Trueman Tuck alleges that the criminal investigative federal
officials working in the Health Canada Inspectorate regularly create bogus
allegations of harm that have no probable scientific cause.
|Nov 9, 2007||June 7th, 2006 - Freedom of Choice in Health Care vs. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada|
June 7th, 2006 - Freedom of Choice in Health Care vs. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada - Notice of Libel - take notice that pursuant to the Libel and Slander Act R.S.O. 1990, c.L. 12, the Plaintiff complains about the publications by the Defendants and / or their agents and servants. [full story]
|Nov 9, 2007||July 25th 2006 - Freedom of choice in Health Care and Trueman Tuck vs. The Dominion of Canada|
July 25th 2006 - Freedom of choice in Health Care and Trueman Tuck vs. The Dominion of Canada, aka Canada, Her Majesty the Queen in right of Canada, The Attorney General of Canada, representing her Majesty the Queen in right of Canada [full story]
|Nov 9, 2007||June 27th 2007 - Freedom of Choice in Health Care vs. Her Majesty The Queen in Right of Canada as represented by the Attorney General of Canada and ALS - serving Stéphane Gélinas|
June 27th 2007 - Freedom of Choice in Health Care vs. Her Majesty The Queen in Right of Canada as represented by the Attorney General of Canada and ALS - serving Stéphane Gélinas for Note default against [full story]
|Nov 9, 2007||August 2nd 2007 - Freedom of Choice in Health Care vs. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, the Attorney General of Canada - Default Judgement|
August 2nd 2007 - Freedom of Choice in Health Care vs. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, the Attorney General of Canada - Default Judgement [full story]
|Nov 9, 2007||August 31st 2007 - Freedom of Choice in Health Care vs. The Dominion of Canada aka Canada, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada - Motion Record|
August 31st 2007 - Freedom of Choice in Health Care vs. The Dominion of Canada aka Canada, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada - Motion Record [full story]
|Nov 9, 2007||November 7th 2007 - Our Notice of Pending Constitutional Questions/Challenges in regards to the Quebec Law Society's indirect prosecution concerning our Ontario Superior Court Libel case Court File No. 0203/06 Picton Court and my pending new civil su|
November 7th 2007 - Our Notice of Pending Constitutional Questions/Challenges in regards to the Quebec Law Society's indirect prosecution concerning our Ontario Superior Court Libel case Court File No. 0203/06 Picton Court and my pending new civil suit [full story]
|Nov 8, 2007||May 15th 2006 - Trueman's Warning Letter to Health Canada officials|
May 15th, 2006
Attn: Mr. Stéphane Gélinas, Inspector
Re: Your ongoing criminal investigation of our client - the Clinique Naturopathique de la Cite operated by Freedom of Choice in Health Care Inc. [full story]
|Sep 7, 2007||The law suit by TrueHope against Health Canada now before the Supreme Court of Canada would never have been necessary had your government seen fit to support Dr. James Lunney's Private Members Bill C 420 (foods are not drugs!) to third reading and p|
The Right Honorable Stephen HarperPrime MinisterHouse of CommonsOttawa, ONCANADAFriday September 7, 2007
Subject: TrueHope vs Health Canada - law suit
CTV News youtube.com/watch?v=d8-Pts5OfZs&mode=related&search= Dear Prime Minister:The law suit by TrueHope against Health Canada now before the Supreme Court of Canada would never have been necessary had your government seen fit to support Dr. James Lunney's Private Members Bill C 420 (foods are not drugs!) to third reading and passed into law. Both Liberal and Conservative governments have ignored the following growing and glaring examples of Health Canada's failure to closely monitor - while at the same time having an incestuous relationship with - the pharmaceutical industry that has led to the following: Vioxx -- recently found to cause kidney problems on top of the heart attacks for which it was pulled -- but its seven deadly sisters named by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) official Dr. David Graham before the US Congress in 2004: Crestor, Meridia, Serevent, Lotronex, Arava, Accutane and Bextra. After a post-Vioxx damage control campaign -- "FDA has confidence in the safety and efficacy of Crestor" read AstraZeneca ads which the FDA pulled -- it wasn't that confident. The cholesterol drug Crestor was found in the heart journal Circulation to be eight times more likely to cause rhabdomyolysis, kidney failure or spillage of protein in the urine than other cholesterol drugs. Thirty users of Meridia, Abbott Laboratories' weight-loss drug, died of cardiovascular problems from 1997 to 2003 and 224 other experienced nonfatal strokes, heart attacks and other cardiovascular ailments according to FDA reports. And Accutane manufacturer Hoffman-La Roche Inc. goes to trial this October in Madison County, Illinois -- where the first Vioxx trial occurred -- to defend charges that its acne drug caused Jason Peipert's inflammatory bowel disease, which ruined the young soccer star's career. Then there's Sanofi-Aventis' notorious antibiotic Ketek -- blamed in the death of four and liver injury or failure of 37 since 2004 -- whose primary clinical trials doctor, Anne Kirkman Campbell, is in federal prison in Lexington, KY for forging data for money. (Test subjects included her entire staff and members of her family.) Another doctor upon whose clinical data Ketek was approved conducted trials while his medical license was on probation and was arrested for cocaine and gun possession soon after.And consider the atypical anti-psychotics whose marketing was also "atypical," with 29 percent of AstraZeneca's Seroquel sales coming from off-label Alzheimer use, even though studies say it worsens the condition. Or Eli Lilly settling 29,000 lawsuits from inadequate warnings about Zyprexa's diabetes, weight gain and pancreas infection side effects. Then there is GlaxoSmithKline's Avandia, prescribed for 1 million Americans for type 2 diabetes and now known to increase the risk of heart attack by 43 percent and cardiovascular death by 64 percent.Avandia is more expensive and dangerous than older drugs and NOT more effective, said Dr. Graham to a joint panel of experts convened to consider the drug in July -- a charge he could also level against the other suspect drugs and Big Pharma itself. But instead of pulling the purloined drugs, the Health Canada just adds warnings and subtracts uses.Ketek is no longer recommended for sinus infections; just community acquired pneumonia.Meridia is only recommended for people who have to lose 30 pounds or more who don't have poorly controlled hypertension, a history of heart disease, stroke or severe liver or kidney disease. And Accutane users are clearly warned about suicidal behavior, birth defects and inflammatory bowel disease risks to the drug on the label.Because pulling the drugs not only affects sales, company image and stock price, it feeds lawsuits. "The drug was so unsafe the company (not HC) PULLED IT FROM THE MARKET." Besides, thanks to fast-tracking and six-month approvals, no one knows if a drug is dangerous anyway until a critical mass of human guinea pigs takes/tests it. Only about 3,000 people are tested in clinical trials that are conducted premarket, and what if the drug harms one in every 3,001? Do you really think lethal tests on beagles and other mammals keep you safe? Talk about dying in vain. But finally, pulling a drug after approval just casts light on the approval process itself, which is teeming with conflicts of interest. Ninety-two percent of FDA (and very likely Health Canada which rubber stamps FDA decisions after the fact) advisory meetings in the last decade included a member with financial ties to drug companies, according to USA Today - the FDA calls them sponsors -- and U.S. federal law against using experts with financial conflicts of interest was waived 800 times. And is Canadian law regarding any better regarding financial conflicts of interest any when honest bureaucrats who whistleblow and expose the corruption at HC anad Agriculture Canada are not even protected by the Supreme Court of Canada as as in the case of Monsanto's attempt to bribe acceptance for their Bovine Growth Hormone designed to make cows give more milk on less feed?
Tylenol (acetaminophen), the analgesic most prescribed by doctors is responsible for the majority of hospital admissions for acute liver failure and the majority of liver transplants in Canada and elsewhere.
And now Canadians have witnessed Health Canada's lockstep promotion of the HPV vaccine (Gardasil) that is already reported to cause serious enough reactions among some 2000 young women to required over 400 to be hospitalized - many with paralysis (GBS) and may it may be implicated in several deaths.
By the way -Is the federal government subsidy of Gardasil a convenient way to help Merck deal with the billion$ of dollar$ that company is still facing over Vioxx induced deaths?
Now please tell me why should I ever support the Conservative Party again?
7879 Cumberland StreetBurnaby BC V3N3Y6604 395 6226
|Sep 4, 2007||Access Denied Health Canada’s future label for natural health products|
Health Canada’s future label for natural health products
Consumers who depend upon Natural Health Products (NHPs) have not figured it out yet, but they have been duped by the new Natural Health Product Regulations that many believe were implemented to protect their access to NHPs in the first place. Consumers can be forgiven for their naiveté; in the late ‘90s, Health Canada began taking action against NHPs by classifying them as “drugs” and requiring manufacturers to obtain Drug Identification Numbers for their products. The minister of health also sought to implement fees that would raise their price. Alarmed that both the availability and affordability of NHPs were under attack, consumers took action to protect their access, including initiating a national petition to stop treating NHPs as drugs. A parliamentary assistant told me that it was either the largest or second largest petition drive in Canadian history. In addition to the petition, there were rallies, letter writing campaigns, and a law suit to strike down the proposed fee regulations. On the eve of the law suit, former Health Minister Allan Rock agreed to drop the fee regulations. He referred the issue to the Standing Committee on Health, which subsequently held the most comprehensive hearings in its history. The committee included input from consumers, consumer groups, manufacturers, distributors and retailers. In conclusion, the Standing Committee made 53 recommendations, hearing the message loud and clear from consumers and manufacturers alike: Canadians wanted their access to NHPs protected. Almost everyone involved in this process believed they were on their way to protecting access to NHPs. The problem, however, was that Health Canada had been squeezing the industry by imposing a chemical, pharmaceutical drug model upon NHPs. I would estimate that more than 90 percent of NHPs could not comply with this model, meaning that almost the entire NHP industry was unlicensed and illegal – not because manufacturers did not want to comply with the drug regulations, but because they could not. This left companies and their products in the position of sitting ducks should Health Canada decide to take action against them. [full story]