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