Re: ZICAM COLD REMEDY NASAL GEL-----bad stuff

[Guest guest]

Snopes? http://www.snopes.com/medical/drugs/zicam.asphttp://swacgirl.blogspot.com/2009/06/was-politics-involved-in-recall-of.htmlI don't know...JeffFrom: healinghope <mfrreman@...> Sent: Wed, January 20, 2010 11:05:28 AMSubject: [ ] ZICAM COLD REMEDY NASAL GEL-----bad stuff

SOMEONE SENT THIS TO ME:

[Guest guest]

On 2010-01-20, healinghope (mfrreman@...) wrote:

> SOMEONE SENT THIS TO ME:

>

> I want my friends and loved ones to know what has happened to me in hopes that

> it will never happen to you or anybody you care about. About 10 days ago, I

> felt a cold coming on; so before I went to bed I used Zicam Cold Remedy Nasal

> Gel.

This is way old news... lawsuit settled years ago, and this product is

no longer being sold for some time, so the warning is no longer relevant.

[Guest guest]

Sorry Tans your right sent from a friend and the first I had heard of the

recall. My Bad Forgive Me

> > SOMEONE SENT THIS TO ME:

> >

> > I want my friends and loved ones to know what has happened to me in hopes

that

> > it will never happen to you or anybody you care about. About 10 days ago, I

> > felt a cold coming on; so before I went to bed I used Zicam Cold Remedy

Nasal

> > Gel.

>

> This is way old news... lawsuit settled years ago, and this product is

> no longer being sold for some time, so the warning is no longer relevant.

>

[Guest guest]

Tans Zicam cold is still marketed? Wonder why.

> > SOMEONE SENT THIS TO ME:

> >

> > I want my friends and loved ones to know what has happened to me in hopes

that

> > it will never happen to you or anybody you care about. About 10 days ago, I

> > felt a cold coming on; so before I went to bed I used Zicam Cold Remedy

Nasal

> > Gel.

>

> This is way old news... lawsuit settled years ago, and this product is

> no longer being sold for some time, so the warning is no longer relevant.

>

[Guest guest]

I've heard this is just another attack on alternative medicine (I'm smelling the blue man all over again).Zicam is a great product - you need to follow instructions - just like colloidal silver.Please don't pass this along.  Ummmm, anyone notice who the reference was at the bottom?

http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm167065.htm

Since when do we trust the FDA?  hmmmmm:-)

..

[Guest guest]

You think politics are involved now we ain't seen nothing yet. Just passed at

7pm by the supreme court.

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2010/01/us_supreme_court_ruling_on_cam.html

New Jersey News

New Jersey Real-Time News

Breaking Local News from New Jersey

Court news, Election, Labor, News, Politics, Statehouse, Supreme Court »

U.S. Supreme Court ruling on campaign spending may undermine elections

By Ted Sherman/The Star-Ledger

January 21, 2010, 7:02PM

A 63-year-old law limiting political spending by labor and big business was

overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court today in a landmark decision that called

any ban a restraint of free speech.

The ruling by a sharply divided court lifted restrictions on what corporations

and labor organizations may invest to sway voters in federal elections, meaning

both groups now have free rein to pour money in support of races for Senate and

the House of Representatives in all 50 states.

us-supreme-court.jpgMark /Getty ImagesMembers of the US Supreme Court pose

for a group photograph at the Supreme Court building on September 29, 2009 in

Washington, DC. Front row (L-R): Associate Justice M. Kennedy, Associate

Justice s, Chief Justice G. , Associate Justice

Antonin Scalia, and Associate Justice Clarence . Back Row (L-R), Associate

Justice Alito Jr., Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Associate

Justice Breyer, and Associate Justice Sotomayor.

" The First Amendment protects more than just the individual on a soapbox and the

lonely pamphleteer, " wrote the court in its 5-4 decision.

But those who have worked to limit campaign spending warned of a huge influx of

corporate money that would undermine the integrity of elections large and small.

" With a stroke of the pen, five justices wiped out a century of American history

devoted to preventing corporate corruption of our democracy, " declared Fred

Wertheimer, president of the Washington-based government-watchdog group

Democracy 21.

The decision, which now also threatens similar limits imposed by 24 states on

state and local races, will change the rules of engagement for congressional

races this fall, allowing corporations and unions to target individual races in

an effort to influence policy.

The ruling covers the money corporations and unions may spend from their own

profits on independent ads and other advocacy efforts on behalf of candidates or

issues. It does not change restrictions on direct contributions to candidates

for federal office, which remain prohibited under federal law, but are allowed

in New Jersey state races.

However, the closely watched case could end New Jersey's own long-time ban on

political contributions from casinos and regulated industries — such as banks

and utility companies — which may now be unconstitutional in light of the high

court ruling.

" Somewhere, D. Rockefeller is smiling. This goes back to the robber baron

days, " said state Sen. Bill Baroni (R-Mercer). " This is a rollback of decades of

campaign finance law. It's going to affect every campaign from fire commissioner

to President of the United States. "

The Supreme Court decision comes one day after Gov. Christie signed an

executive order limiting political donations by labor unions with state

contracts, widening New Jersey's pay-to-play restrictions. But the high-court

ruling has no affect on that edict.

Baroni called for a bipartisan legislative commission to review all of New

Jersey's own campaign finance laws, before a court does it first.

" If banks and casinos have no restriction on what they may spend, well that just

changes the face of New Jersey politics, " he said.

Conservatives, though, hailed the ruling. Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the

Senate Republican leader, praised the court for " restoring the First Amendment

rights " of corporations and unions.

" By previously denying this right, the government was picking winners and

losers, " McConnell said.

The ruling by the court's conservative majority found that any limits on

independent expenditures by corporations violate First Amendment free-speech

rights.

" The government may regulate corporate political speech through disclaimer and

disclosure requirements, but it may not suppress that speech altogether, "

Justice Kennedy wrote for the majority. Chief Justice G.

Jr. and Justices A. Alito Jr., Antonin Scalia and Clarence all

supported Kennedy's opinion.

The decision essentially means that if a corporation wanted to spend millions of

dollars of its own money on its own issues ads in support of a candidate, it may

do so. The ruling does not change spending rules covering the thousands of

political action committees by corporations and special interest groups.

In his dissent, Justice s, calling the decision a " radical

change " in the law, said, " The court's ruling threatens to undermine the

integrity of elected institutions around the nation. "

Justices Sotomayor, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and G. Breyer, all joined

his 90-page dissent.

The case grew out of a lawsuit against the Federal Election Commission by

Citizens United, a conservative group that made a 90-minute movie that targeted

Hillary Rodham Clinton during the 2008 Democratic presidential primary.

Related coverage:

• Political fundraising is down for N.J. campaign committees

• U.S. Supreme Court overturns decades-old restrictions on corporate campaign

spending

• N.J. Gov. Christie issues order curbing political donations by unions

January 21, 2010, 7:14PM

> Snopes? http://www.snopes.com/medical/drugs/zicam.asp

>

> http://swacgirl.blogspot.com/2009/06/was-politics-involved-in-recall-of.html

>

> I don't know...

>

> Jeff

>

>

>

>

>

> ________________________________

> From: healinghope <mfrreman@...>

>

> Sent: Wed, January 20, 2010 11:05:28 AM

> Subject: [ ] ZICAM COLD REMEDY NASAL GEL-----bad

stuff

>

>

> SOMEONE SENT THIS TO ME:

>

[Guest guest]

Jeff Sorry new news with old. You think the supreme court ruling is good???

--- In , Jeff Maahs <j_maahs@...>

wrote:

>

> Yes, that is great news!

>

> I don't know what is up with mail. I sent the Zicam reply 2 days ago.

>

> Jeff

>

>

>

>

>

> ________________________________

> From: healinghope <mfrreman@...>

>

> Sent: Thu, January 21, 2010 11:17:40 PM

> Subject: [ ] Re: ZICAM COLD REMEDY NASAL GEL-----bad

stuff

>

>

> You think politics are involved now we ain't seen nothing yet. Just passed at

7pm by the supreme court.

> http://www.nj. com/news/ index.ssf/ 2010/01/us_ supreme_court_ ruling_on_

cam.html

>

> New Jersey News

> New Jersey Real-Time News

> Breaking Local News from New Jersey

> Court news, Election, Labor, News, Politics, Statehouse, Supreme Court »

> U.S. Supreme Court ruling on campaign spending may undermine elections

> By Ted Sherman/The Star-Ledger

> January 21, 2010, 7:02PM

>

> A 63-year-old law limiting political spending by labor and big business was

overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court today in a landmark decision that called

any ban a restraint of free speech.

>

> The ruling by a sharply divided court lifted restrictions on what corporations

and labor organizations may invest to sway voters in federal elections, meaning

both groups now have free rein to pour money in support of races for Senate and

the House of Representatives in all 50 states.

> us-supreme-court. jpgMark /Getty ImagesMembers of the US Supreme Court

pose for a group photograph at the Supreme Court building on September 29, 2009

in Washington, DC. Front row (L-R): Associate Justice M. Kennedy,

Associate Justice s, Chief Justice G. , Associate

Justice Antonin Scalia, and Associate Justice Clarence . Back Row (L-R),

Associate Justice Alito Jr., Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg,

Associate Justice Breyer, and Associate Justice Sotomayor.

> " The First Amendment protects more than just the individual on a soapbox and

the lonely pamphleteer, " wrote the court in its 5-4 decision.

>

> But those who have worked to limit campaign spending warned of a huge influx

of corporate money that would undermine the integrity of elections large and

small.

>

> " With a stroke of the pen, five justices wiped out a century of American

history devoted to preventing corporate corruption of our democracy, " declared

Fred Wertheimer, president of the Washington-based government-watchdog group

Democracy 21.

>

> The decision, which now also threatens similar limits imposed by 24 states on

state and local races, will change the rules of engagement for congressional

races this fall, allowing corporations and unions to target individual races in

an effort to influence policy.

>

> The ruling covers the money corporations and unions may spend from their own

profits on independent ads and other advocacy efforts on behalf of candidates or

issues. It does not change restrictions on direct contributions to candidates

for federal office, which remain prohibited under federal law, but are allowed

in New Jersey state races.

>

> However, the closely watched case could end New Jersey's own long-time ban on

political contributions from casinos and regulated industries †" such as banks

and utility companies †" which may now be unconstitutional in light of the high

court ruling.

>

> " Somewhere, D. Rockefeller is smiling. This goes back to the robber baron

days, " said state Sen. Bill Baroni (R-Mercer). " This is a rollback of decades of

campaign finance law. It's going to affect every campaign from fire commissioner

to President of the United States. "

>

> The Supreme Court decision comes one day after Gov. Christie signed an

executive order limiting political donations by labor unions with state

contracts, widening New Jersey's pay-to-play restrictions. But the high-court

ruling has no affect on that edict.

>

> Baroni called for a bipartisan legislative commission to review all of New

Jersey's own campaign finance laws, before a court does it first.

>

> " If banks and casinos have no restriction on what they may spend, well that

just changes the face of New Jersey politics, " he said.

>

> Conservatives, though, hailed the ruling. Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky,

the Senate Republican leader, praised the court for " restoring the First

Amendment rights " of corporations and unions.

>

> " By previously denying this right, the government was picking winners and

losers, " McConnell said.

>

> The ruling by the court's conservative majority found that any limits on

independent expenditures by corporations violate First Amendment free-speech

rights.

>

> " The government may regulate corporate political speech through disclaimer and

disclosure requirements, but it may not suppress that speech altogether, "

Justice Kennedy wrote for the majority. Chief Justice G.

Jr. and Justices A. Alito Jr., Antonin Scalia and Clarence all

supported Kennedy's opinion.

>

> The decision essentially means that if a corporation wanted to spend millions

of dollars of its own money on its own issues ads in support of a candidate, it

may do so. The ruling does not change spending rules covering the thousands of

political action committees by corporations and special interest groups.

>

> In his dissent, Justice s, calling the decision a " radical

change " in the law, said, " The court's ruling threatens to undermine the

integrity of elected institutions around the nation. "

>

> Justices Sotomayor, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and G. Breyer, all

joined his 90-page dissent.

>

> The case grew out of a lawsuit against the Federal Election Commission by

Citizens United, a conservative group that made a 90-minute movie that targeted

Hillary Rodham Clinton during the 2008 Democratic presidential primary.

> Related coverage:

>

> • Political fundraising is down for N.J. campaign committees

>

> • U.S. Supreme Court overturns decades-old restrictions on corporate

campaign spending

>

> • N.J. Gov. Christie issues order curbing political donations by

unions

>

> January 21, 2010, 7:14PM

>

> > Snopes? http://www.snopes. com/medical/ drugs/zicam. asp

> >

> > http://swacgirl. blogspot. com/2009/ 06/was-politics- involved- in-recall-

of.html

> >

> > I don't know...

> >

> > Jeff

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > ____________ _________ _________ __

> > From: healinghope <mfrreman@ .>

> > miracle_mineral_ supplement

> > Sent: Wed, January 20, 2010 11:05:28 AM

> > Subject: [miracle_mineral_ supplement] ZICAM COLD REMEDY NASAL GEL-----bad

stuff

> >

> >

> > SOMEONE SENT THIS TO ME:

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Curious I have read several opinions supporting yours. I fear anymore

influential monies supporting OUR election process, the lobbyist, insurance

companies, oil companies, ect should not be allowed to influence either. Free

speech is one thing big money is another. What you and I are doing now is free

speech, me paying big money to advertise or influence each other is

manipulation, probably for a favor in return. Write me back I enjoy the

exchange of thoughts.

--- In , Jeff Maahs <j_maahs@...>

wrote:

>

> I don't know how political this list can be so I'll just say yes. Protecting

free speech is very important. It allows allows for exchange of information such

as this list.

>

> Jeff

>

>

>

>

>

> ________________________________

> From: healinghope <mfrreman@...>

>

> Sent: Fri, January 22, 2010 11:50:50 AM

> Subject: [ ] Re: ZICAM COLD REMEDY NASAL GEL-----bad

stuff

>

>

> Jeff Sorry new news with old. You think the supreme court ruling is good???

>

> --- In miracle_mineral_ supplement, Jeff Maahs <j_maahs@ >

wrote:

> >

> > Yes, that is great news!

> >

> > I don't know what is up with mail. I sent the Zicam reply 2 days ago.

> >

> > Jeff

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > ____________ _________ _________ __

> > From: healinghope <mfrreman@ .>

> > miracle_mineral_ supplement

> > Sent: Thu, January 21, 2010 11:17:40 PM

> > Subject: [miracle_mineral_ supplement] Re: ZICAM COLD REMEDY NASAL

GEL-----bad stuff

> >

> >

> > You think politics are involved now we ain't seen nothing yet. Just passed

at 7pm by the supreme court.

> > http://www.nj. com/news/ index.ssf/ 2010/01/us_ supreme_court_ ruling_on_

cam.html

> >

> > New Jersey News

> > New Jersey Real-Time News

> > Breaking Local News from New Jersey

> > Court news, Election, Labor, News, Politics, Statehouse, Supreme Court »

> > U.S. Supreme Court ruling on campaign spending may undermine elections

> > By Ted Sherman/The Star-Ledger

> > January 21, 2010, 7:02PM

> >

> > A 63-year-old law limiting political spending by labor and big business was

overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court today in a landmark decision that called

any ban a restraint of free speech.

> >

> > The ruling by a sharply divided court lifted restrictions on what

corporations and labor organizations may invest to sway voters in federal

elections, meaning both groups now have free rein to pour money in support of

races for Senate and the House of Representatives in all 50 states.

> > us-supreme-court. jpgMark /Getty ImagesMembers of the US Supreme Court

pose for a group photograph at the Supreme Court building on September 29, 2009

in Washington, DC. Front row (L-R): Associate Justice M. Kennedy,

Associate Justice s, Chief Justice G. , Associate

Justice Antonin Scalia, and Associate Justice Clarence . Back Row (L-R),

Associate Justice Alito Jr., Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg,

Associate Justice Breyer, and Associate Justice Sotomayor.

> > " The First Amendment protects more than just the individual on a soapbox and

the lonely pamphleteer, " wrote the court in its 5-4 decision.

> >

> > But those who have worked to limit campaign spending warned of a huge influx

of corporate money that would undermine the integrity of elections large and

small.

> >

> > " With a stroke of the pen, five justices wiped out a century of American

history devoted to preventing corporate corruption of our democracy, " declared

Fred Wertheimer, president of the Washington-based government-watchdog group

Democracy 21.

> >

> > The decision, which now also threatens similar limits imposed by 24 states

on state and local races, will change the rules of engagement for congressional

races this fall, allowing corporations and unions to target individual races in

an effort to influence policy.

> >

> > The ruling covers the money corporations and unions may spend from their own

profits on independent ads and other advocacy efforts on behalf of candidates or

issues. It does not change restrictions on direct contributions to candidates

for federal office, which remain prohibited under federal law, but are allowed

in New Jersey state races.

> >

> > However, the closely watched case could end New Jersey's own long-time ban

on political contributions from casinos and regulated industries †" such as

banks and utility companies †" which may now be unconstitutional in light of

the high court ruling.

> >

> > " Somewhere, D. Rockefeller is smiling. This goes back to the robber

baron days, " said state Sen. Bill Baroni (R-Mercer). " This is a rollback of

decades of campaign finance law. It's going to affect every campaign from fire

commissioner to President of the United States. "

> >

> > The Supreme Court decision comes one day after Gov. Christie signed an

executive order limiting political donations by labor unions with state

contracts, widening New Jersey's pay-to-play restrictions. But the high-court

ruling has no affect on that edict.

> >

> > Baroni called for a bipartisan legislative commission to review all of New

Jersey's own campaign finance laws, before a court does it first.

> >

> > " If banks and casinos have no restriction on what they may spend, well that

just changes the face of New Jersey politics, " he said.

> >

> > Conservatives, though, hailed the ruling. Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky,

the Senate Republican leader, praised the court for " restoring the First

Amendment rights " of corporations and unions.

> >

> > " By previously denying this right, the government was picking winners and

losers, " McConnell said.

> >

> > The ruling by the court's conservative majority found that any limits on

independent expenditures by corporations violate First Amendment free-speech

rights.

> >

> > " The government may regulate corporate political speech through disclaimer

and disclosure requirements, but it may not suppress that speech altogether, "

Justice Kennedy wrote for the majority. Chief Justice G.

Jr. and Justices A. Alito Jr.., Antonin Scalia and Clarence all

supported Kennedy's opinion.

> >

> > The decision essentially means that if a corporation wanted to spend

millions of dollars of its own money on its own issues ads in support of a

candidate, it may do so. The ruling does not change spending rules covering the

thousands of political action committees by corporations and special interest

groups.

> >

> > In his dissent, Justice s, calling the decision a " radical

change " in the law, said, " The court's ruling threatens to undermine the

integrity of elected institutions around the nation. "

> >

> > Justices Sotomayor, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and G. Breyer, all

joined his 90-page dissent.

> >

> > The case grew out of a lawsuit against the Federal Election Commission by

Citizens United, a conservative group that made a 90-minute movie that targeted

Hillary Rodham Clinton during the 2008 Democratic presidential primary.

> > Related coverage:

> >

> > • Political fundraising is down for N.J. campaign committees

> >

> > • U.S. Supreme Court overturns decades-old restrictions on corporate

campaign spending

> >

> > • N.J. Gov. Christie issues order curbing political donations by

unions

> >

> > January 21, 2010, 7:14PM

> >

> > > Snopes? http://www.snopes. com/medical/ drugs/zicam. asp

> > >

> > > http://swacgirl. blogspot. com/2009/ 06/was-politics- involved- in-recall-

of.html

> > >

> > > I don't know...

> > >

> > > Jeff

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > ____________ _________ _________ __

> > > From: healinghope <mfrreman@ .>

> > > miracle_mineral_ supplement

> > > Sent: Wed, January 20, 2010 11:05:28 AM

> > > Subject: [miracle_mineral_ supplement] ZICAM COLD REMEDY NASAL GEL-----bad

stuff

> > >

> > >

> > > SOMEONE SENT THIS TO ME:

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

As usual we'll have to rely on our brains to sift through any messages. I'd rather rely on myself than depend on some government bureaucrat tell me what is good for me. Same reason I'm here learning instead of listening to doctors say it's a bunch of hokum. Besides, we could use corporations passing large sums of money through our economy if that's what they wish to do. :)From: healinghope <mfrreman@...> Sent: Fri, January 22, 2010 5:33:31 PMSubject: [ ] Re: ZICAM COLD REMEDY NASAL GEL-----bad stuff

Curious I have read several opinions supporting yours. I fear anymore influential monies supporting OUR election process, the lobbyist, insurance companies, oil companies, ect should not be allowed to influence either. Free speech is one thing big money is another. What you and I are doing now is free speech, me paying big money to advertise or influence each other is manipulation, probably for a favor in return. Write me back I enjoy the exchange of thoughts.

[Guest guest]

Please remember this applies to both (all) political parties.  One doesn't benefit more than another. Protecting free speech is crucial.  We just need to remove the corruption from WA. How 'bout campaign finance limits? IMHO

On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 3:41 PM, Jeff Maahs <j_maahs@...> wrote:

 

As usual we'll have to rely on our brains to sift through any messages. I'd rather rely on myself than depend on some government bureaucrat tell me what is good for me. Same reason I'm here learning instead of listening to doctors say it's a bunch of hokum.

Besides, we could use corporations passing large sums of money through our economy if that's what they wish to do.

From: healinghope <mfrreman@...>

Sent: Fri, January 22, 2010 5:33:31 PM

Subject: [ ] Re: ZICAM COLD REMEDY NASAL GEL-----bad stuff

 

Curious I have read several opinions supporting yours. I fear anymore influential monies supporting OUR election process, the lobbyist, insurance companies, oil companies, ect should not be allowed to influence either. Free speech is one thing big money is another. What you and I are doing now is free speech, me paying big money to advertise or influence each other is manipulation, probably for a favor in return. Write me back I enjoy the exchange of thoughts.