Chemical Additives - Are They Slowly Killing Our Children?

by Lauralee

(NewsTarget) Let me start by saying a chemical additive doesn’t necessarily ‘appear’ to be a problem immediately after ingestion. Quite often the effects are cumulative; a gradual build-up in the body produces roller-coaster days, some good, some bad. Some children are more sensitive to food chemicals and display immediate effects soon after ingestion of additives, colours in particular. In small amounts additives are not harmful. Effects are dose related and, tragically, dose for weight, children are consuming several times more additives than the acceptable daily intake (ADI). Before we get into the details of the most common problem foods, it is necessary to understand the testing and approval process, with emphasis on those factors that may confer the level of risk of toxic additives in infants and young children’s diets.

The standard application and approval process put forward by the Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) includes a requirement that the manufacturers provide sufficient scientific evidence to support the safety of an additive. Generally, additives are tested on two species of animal. Test animals are then observed for any effects on DNA, detectable links to cancer, major vital organ damage, etc. If any signs of the aforementioned effects are observed at high doses then a non-observable effect level is established by slowly reducing the level of additive until the animal displays no ‘noticeable effect’. This reduced level is considered a ‘safe level’ for human consumption. The concept of a safe level is based on the average adult intake. At present, there is no separate ADI for children. Consequently, dose for weight our children are getting horrific amounts of these toxic additives in everyday snacks and meals (1).

What is even more disturbing about this approval process is that additives are tested in isolation. The reality is humans consume innumerable and frightening cocktails of additives in combination.
How these additives react in combination has only become of interest to scientific fields in recent years. In March 2006, the Soil Association and Organix brands presented the results of a three-year study, on the effects of combining four common food additives. The results propose that the tested combinations can have a neurotoxic effect.

The toxic effects on nerve cells were examined by using a combination of the following four common food additives: E133 Brilliant Blue with E621 monosodium glutamate (MSG) and
E104 Quinoline Yellow with E951 L-aspartyl-L-phenylalanine methyl ester.

The mixtures of the additives had a much more potent effect on nerve cells than each additive on its own. The effect on cells was up to four times greater when Brilliant Blue and MSG were combined, and up to seven times greater when Quinoline Yellow and Aspartame were combined.

The study shows that when the nerve cells were exposed to MSG and Brilliant Blue or Aspartame and Quinoline Yellow the additives stopped the nerve cells from normal growth and interfered with proper signalling systems.

The experiments were done in laboratory conditions and the additives were combined in concentrations that theoretically reflect the compound that enters the bloodstream after a typical children's snack and drink (2).

Risk of toxic additives, in isolation or in combination, is evidently most high among infants and children. Age is an important susceptibility factor, with infants and young children being most vulnerable to chemical carcinogens. Scientific risk assessment data suggests that infants (newborns) have a limited capability to detoxify due to premature development of the liver and drug-metabolising enzymes, furthermore their extremely small body weight may provoke toxicity.

The fact that young children have higher nutritional requirements, smaller body masses and their diet is less varied than those of adults suggests that they may have the greatest susceptibility to toxic effects. For example, their soft drink and dairy consumption alone may be as much as 16 times greater than that of adults (3).

There are many more factors that promote increased susceptibility of infants and young children to toxic additives, all of which have been recognised in health and science fields for well over a decade but has not been given a moment of thought when determining ADI levels for additives! To date, all additives are passed for approval without being tested for any effects they may have on children’s behaviour and learning.

Clearly, it is up to the general population of adults to be calling for stricter regulation and more caution to be taken with food additives in an effort to protect the vulnerability of future generations. Children have little control over what they eat, they are less informed than the adults around them and therefore rely mainly on adults for making informed decisions and taking precautions to protect their precious lives. As a parent/carer/teacher every effort should be made to identify toxicities that could potentially harm our children and put a stop to the plethora of toxic additives going into their tiny bodies.

References:

1. Food Additives; Food Standards Australia New Zealand; (www.foodstandards.gov.au)

2. Toxic 'cocktail additives' in children's foods. The research has been published in Volume 90, Number 1, Toxicological Sciences Magazine, March 2006, article entitled "Synergistic interactions between commonly used food additives in a developmental neurotoxicity test" contributed by Karen Lau, W. Graham McLean, Dominic P. Williams and C. Vyvyan Howard.

3. Iyaniwura Timothy. Individual and Subpopulation Variations In Response to Toxic Chemicals: Factors of Susceptibility Senior Research Fellow, 1998 – 2002 Biomedical Research Centre, Ninewells Hospital Dundee, Scotland, UK (www.riskworld.com/Nreports/2004/Iyaniwura.htm)
Full story/Permalink

Olive Oil – A Definition of Standards and Health Benefits

Olive Oil – A Definition of Standards and Health Benefits
by Eirini Manthou


Olive oil has been in use since ancient times. The Ancient Greeks used to call it 'liquid gold'; it was an essential part of their diet, athletes would rub it on their bodies, and winners of the Olympic Games would be crowned with the olive tree's leafy branches as a sign of glory.

A Mediterranean diet, where olive oil of good quality is the main source of fat, has been associated with the prevention of chronic disease. Virgin olive oil consumption can possibly exert positive outcomes in the prevention of several pathologies like cancer, cardiovascular disease and aging by inhibiting oxidative stress. These beneficial properties are mainly attributed to its composition, a high percentage of monounsaturated acids (oleic acid) and significant amounts of minor components with strong antioxidant activity postulated to be responsible for its antithrombotic, anti-inflammatory, anticarcinogenic properties.

Phenolic compounds, α-tocopherol, triterpenes, squalene, sterols and oleocanthal are some of the most important components of olive oil. It may also help relieve itching, stings and bites, burns, ulcers, gastritis and activates the secretion of bile and pancreatic hormones that consequently lowers the incidence of gallstones.

Climate, soil, variety of trees, time of harvest and production method account for the different organoleptic characteristics and the quality and quantity of nutritious elements in olive oil. Cold press and first press of the olives, which means that olives are only once pressed without the use of heat, result in a more nutritious product. Unfortunately those methods are very rare in massive production nowadays. Early harvest olive oil, meaning that olives are harvested while not fully ripened, gives higher polyphenol and antioxidant levels in the produced oil and subsequently a longer shelf life and higher nutritional value. Hand picked olives may indicate that the oil is of better quality because olives are not over-ripened and not torn, which can cause oxidation.

Virgin olive oil is characterised by a higher oxidative stability compared to other edible oils due to the high ratio of monounsaturated/polyunsaturated fatty acids. Raw consumption is preferable but even when heated, not all beneficial compounds are destroyed. Virgin olive oil subjected to heating operation at 180ºC, simulating the 'frying process', retained most of its nutritional components such as phytosterols, triterpenes and squalene at levels with nutritional significance.

Additionally, olives can be used to their cores. After the initial oil extraction, they are used to make natural soaps and soap flakes that can be used as natural moisturizing soaps or as an alternative to conventional chemical detergents. According to recent experimentation, it is also possible that olive cores can be used to produce energy, which might be more environmentally friendly and cheaper than widely used fossil energy.

Classification of olive oil

The International olive oil council (IOOC) classifies olive oil as:

* Extra virgin olive oil which comes from the first pressing of the olives, contains no more than 0.8% acidity, and is judged to have a superior taste. There can be no refined oil in it.

* Virgin olive oil has acidity less than 2% and judged to have a good taste. There can be no refined oil in it.

* Refined olive oil is usually virgin olive oil that has been refined.

* Olive oil is a blend of virgin oil and refined oil, containing no more than 1.5% acidity. It commonly lacks a strong flavour.

* Olive-pomace is a blend of refined pomace olive oil and possibly some virgin oil.

* Lampante is not used for consumption but in the industrial market.

It should be stated here that the United States is not a member of IOOC and does not legally recognise its classifications.

Related references:

Escrich E, Ramirez-Tortosa M. C, Sánchez-Rovira P, Colomer R, Solanas M, Gaforio J. J. (2006) Olive oil in cancer prevention and progression. Nutr. ReV. 64, 40–52.

Allouche Y, Jimenez A, Gaforio JJ, Uceda M, Beltran G. (2007) How Heating Affects Extra Virgin Olive Oil Quality Indexes and Chemical Composition. J Agric Food Chem.

About the author

Eirini Manthou is a researcher in the area of Exercise and Nutrition in Glasgow University- Scotland. www.freewebs.com/eirinimanthou Full story/Permalink

Draft Economic Recovery Program To Stop The Bush Depression

By Webster Tarpley

(source)

1. Stop all foreclosures immediately for at least five years and for the duration of the depression by means of a compulsory federal law carrying criminal penalties. No foreclosures on homes, family farms, factories, public utilities, hospitals, transportation and other infrastructure. Outlaw adjustable rate mortgages. 2. Raise the federal minimum wage immediately to a living wage of at least $15 per hour, with the short-term goal of attaining a federal minimum wage of at least $20 per hour. 3. Immediate enactment of a securities transfer tax (STT) or Tobin tax of 1% to be imposed on all financial turnover in all financial markets to include the New York Stock Exchange, the NASDAQ, the Amex, the Chicago Board of Trade, the Chicago Board Options Exchange, the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, the market in federal securities, the foreign exchange market, the New York Mercantile Exchange, and all other financial markets. This tax will be paid by the seller. This tax will be extended to the notional value of all derivatives, including over-the-counter derivatives, exchange traded derivatives, structured notes, designer derivatives and all other financial paper. Derivatives will become reportable under penalty of law. It is conservatively estimated that the securities transfer tax will yield approximately $5 trillion of new revenue in its first year of application. This new revenue will permit a stabilization and consolidation of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, and will permit the expansion of Head Start, the Food Stamps program, WIC, the Veterans Administration hospitals, while extending unemployment insurance up to an initial total of at least 52 weeks, to be prolonged as needed. Provide revenue sharing to deal with the looming deficits of states, counties, and municipalities. 4. Using the new revenue obtained from the securities transfer tax on Wall Street financiers, provide comprehensive tax relief for all small businesses, thus permitting them to pay the new living wage. Small business will also be aided by the provision of national single-payer health care, as described below. 5. Implement Medicare for all in the form of a single payer, universal coverage, publicly administered system to provide healthcare for all. No rationing of care will be permitted under any circumstances. Cost-cutting will be achieved through eliminating exorbitant corporate profits, through administrative reform, and above all through a federally-funded crash program, on the scale of the Manhattan Project, of biomedical research designed to discover new and more effective treatments and cures for the principal diseases currently afflicting humanity. 6. Simultaneously, enact comprehensive income tax relief for working families, raising the standard deduction for married filing jointly and the personal exemption to at least $25,000 each. This would mean that a family of four would pay no federal income tax on their first $125,000 of income. Expand the earned income tax credit (EITC) to approximately 4 times its current level, with at least $150 billion paid out. Increase EITC payments to persons living alone as well as to families with children. Make all college tuition and fees expenses deductible, and remove the limits on the Hope and Lifetime Learning tax credits. Return to the FDR-Ike-JFK 90% top marginal rate for unearned income ­ capital gains, interest, dividends, royalties, etc., not wages or self-employment -- of taxpayers with federal adjusted gross income over $25 million. Roll back the scandalous Bush tax cuts for the rich. Favor progressive taxation over proportional and regressive taxation at every level. Phase out the most regressive taxes, like the poll tax and the sales tax. 7. Nationalize the Federal Reserve System and establish it as a bureau of the United States Treasury. The current privatized status of the Federal Reserve System constitutes a violation of the United States Constitution. The size of the money supply and interest rates will henceforward be decided not by cliques of private bankers meeting in secret, but rather by public laws passed by the House and Senate, and signed by the president. Use this authority to immediately issue an initial tranche of $1 trillion of new federal credits at 1% yearly interest rates and maturities up to 30 years, to be repeated as needed. Consider credit as a public utility. Make this initial credit issue available on a priority basis to states, counties and local governments for the purpose of infrastructure modernization. Distribute credit to the private sector for high-technology re-industrialization in plant, equipment and jobs, manufacturing, mining, farming, construction, and other production of tangible physical wealth and commodities only. Aim at the creation of 5 to 7 million new productive jobs at union pay scales per year to achieve full employment for the first time in decades. 8. Federally-sponsored infrastructure projects will include a new nationwide network of magnetic levitation railways, as well as light rail systems to facilitate commuting in all urban centers. These economical and attractive light rail systems will allow a large portion of the vehicle miles by private automobile using internal combustion engines to be phased out of use in daily commuting. Launch a public works program of highway and bridge reconstruction, water management systems, electrical grids, hospitals, schools, cultural facilities, and public libraries. 9. Comprehensive re-regulation of the entire financial and banking system. Regulate the current non-bank banks. Bring all the hedge funds under the oversight of the Securities and Exchange Commission, thus effectively ending their special outlaw status as hedge funds. Begin aggressive enforcement of all applicable antitrust and securities fraud laws, as well as all existing labor legislation, including child labor, wages and hours, etc. Repeal the Taft-Hartley law with its anti-union "right to work" provisions, re-affirm the inalienable right to collective bargaining, and revive the National Labor Relations Board as an effective ally of working people. Full Davis-Bacon Act enforcement for all federal contracts, without exception. Tax leveraged buyouts and private capital deals, including all profits deriving from them, in whatever form. End corporate welfare, and establish consumer protection. Revive Glass-Steagall to prevent nationwide banking oligopolies combining commercial banking with investment banking. 10. Free college for all qualified students. Any student earning a high school diploma will be entitled to free tuition and fees at a community college or state university. High quality remedial courses to give high-school dropouts a second chance, no matter what their age. Without investment in the human capital of a highly trained work force, there can be no economic survival in the 21st century. Federal aid to raise teacher salaries through revenue sharing. 11. Announce the intention of the United States to abrogate NAFTA, WTO, and all other international free trade agreements which have destroyed employment in this country, while increasing the poverty levels of the third world. Introduce a low protective tariff, starting at 10% ad valorem on manufactured commodities to prevent reckless dumping. 12. Investment tax credit for purchase modern technology in the form of new physical tangible capital goods. Tax breaks for the creation of new jobs in physical commodity production. Severe tax penalties for the export of jobs to third world sweatshops. 13. Immediately impeach and remove from office both Bush and Cheney, since otherwise all effective measures to deal with the Bush economic depression will be crippled by presidential vetoes. Prepare the impeachment of the RATS (Roberts-Alito-Thomas-Scalia) cabal of the Supreme Court, if they should attempt to sabotage this emergency economic recovery program under the color of judicial review. 14. Protect the family farm by a program of debt moratorium for farmers, no foreclosures, 1% long-term federal credit for spring planting needs and capital improvements, Restore parity prices at 125% of parity. Rebuild farm surpluses and food stockpiles. Food for Peace for famine relief abroad. 15. Keep open the options of capital controls and exchange controls if required by further deterioration of the crisis. Prepare to freeze most categories of financial debt (debt moratorium) for the duration of the crisis. Revive Defense Production Act powers to mandate production of needed commodities by private sector, as needed. 16. Call an international economic conference of sovereign states to deal with this unprecedented world economic depression. The United States should take the lead in proposing a new world monetary system based on the alienable right of all nations and peoples to modern economic development and to the enjoyment of the fullest fruits of science, technology, industry, progress, and rising standards of living. The new monetary system should be based on fixed parities with narrow bands of fluctuation among the euro, the dollar, the yen, the ruble, and other world currencies, including emerging Latin American and Middle East regional currencies, with periodic settlement of balance of payments discrepancies in gold among national authorities. The goal of the new system is to promote world economic recovery through large-scale export of the most modern high-technology capital goods from the US, EU, and Japan to the developing countries. Create a Multilateral Development Bank with an initial capital of 1 trillion euros from US, UK, Japan, and other exporters to finance investment in the poorest countries with 1%, revolving loans with maturities up to thirty years. Immediate, permanent, and unconditional cancellation of all international financial debts of the poorest countries. 17. Revive international humanitarian, scientific and technological cooperation for the benefit of all nations. Roll back epidemic, tropical, and endemic diseases with an international program of biomedical research. Join with all interested nations in a joint international effort to develop new energy resources in the field of high-energy physics. Fund and expand an international cooperative commitment to the exploration, permanent colonization, and economic development of the moon and nearby planets. The spin-offs from these three science drivers will provide the new technologies for the next wave of economic modernization. 18. Revive the Franklin D. Roosevelt "freedom from want" provision of the Atlantic Charter as elaborated in the Economic Bill of Rights from the State of the Union Address of January 1944 and incorporate these economic rights of all persons as amendments to the US Constitution: "The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation; the right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation; the right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living; the right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad; the right of every family to a decent home; the right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health; the right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment; the right to a good education." Webster G. Tarpley 21 January 2008 Washington DC, USA

Full story/Permalink

How World War II Came About

By Kenneth McKilliam

Above photo shows a young German girl using German currency as fuel in the family's furnace, such was the value of German money after the "bankers" had run the German economy into the ground and intentionally bankrupted the nation. Americans have had very little sympathy for the Germans historically, but this soon will change.

THE POWERS that emerged victorious from World War I made a second war almost inevitable by the peace conditions they imposed upon Germany. That second war was later made certain, not by the intentions of Hitler but by the determination of his eternal enemies to destroy the new Germany that he had created.

By the Treaty of Versailles on 28 June 1919 and the Treaty of St. Germain on 20 September of the same year, the German people were thoroughly humiliated. The British Prime Minister, Lloyd George, wrote:

'The international bankers swept statesmen, politicians, journalists and jurists all to one side and issued their orders with the imperiousness of absolute monarchs.'

The old Austrian Empire was balkanised without respect to its various cultures and nationalities. East Prussia was separated from Germany by a large area ceded to Poland. The Sudeten Germans were placed under Czech control. The coal mining area of the Saar Valley was to be administered for fifteen years by the League of Nations and then a plebiscite held. The corrupt Weimar Republic was forced upon the German nation and the middle classes were robbed of their savings by corrupt finance. There were millions of unemployed and the Sparticist Jewish revolutionary leaders Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxemburg were stirring up red revolution.

ALIEN CONTROL

The Daily Mail reported on 10 July 1933:

'The German nation, moreover, was rapidly falling under the control of its alien elements. In the last days of the pre-Hitler regime there were twenty times as many Jewish government officials in Germany as had existed before the war. Israelites of international attachments were insinuating themselves into key positions in the German administrative machine.'

Dr. Manfred Reifer, a well known leader of the Jews of Bukovina, wrote in the Jewish magazine Czernowitzer Allegemeine Zeitung (September 1933):

'Whilst large sections of the German nation were struggling for the preservation of their race, we Jews filled the streets of Germany with our vociferations. We supplied the press with articles on the subject of its Christmas and Easter and administered to its religious beliefs in the manner we considered suitable. We ridiculed the highest ideals of the German nation and profaned the matters which it
holds sacred.'

Resentment and resistance began to build up against the alien horde and in the year before Adolf Hitler came to power Bernard Lecache, President of the World Jewish League, stated:

'Germany is our public enemy number one. It is our object to declare war without mercy against her.'

The National Socialist Party of Adolf Hitler gained 17,300,000 votes in the election and gained 288 seats in the Reichstag. On 30 January 1933 Hitler was legally appointed Chancellor of the German Reich by President Von Hindenberg. On 24 March 1933 the Reichstag elected by 441 votes to 94 to give full emergency powers to the new Reich Chancellor and the corrupt Weimar Republic ceased to exist.

On that same day, 24 March 1933, on the front page of the London Daily Express appeared the main headlines: "Judaea declares war on Germany: Jews of all the world unite", and followed with:

'The Israelite people of the entire world declare economic and financial war on Germany. The appearance of the Swastika as the symbol of the new Germany revives the old war symbol of the Jews. Fourteen million Jews stand as one body to declare war on Germany. The Jewish wholesale dealer leaves his business, the banker his bank,
the shopkeeper his shop, the beggar his miserable hut in order to combine forces in the holy war against Hitler's people.'

The German government was removing Jews from influential positions and transferring power back to the German people. This declaration of war by the Jews on Germany was repeated throughout the world. The first boycott of Jewish business concerns came after this Jewish declaration of war in April 1933.

TOTAL DESTRUCTION DEMANDED

Vladimir Jabotinsky, founder of the Irgun Zvai Leumi terrorist organisation, wrote in the January 1934 issue of Mascha Rjetach:

'For months now the struggle against Germany is waged by each Jewish community at each conference in all our syndicates and by each Jew all over the world. There is reason to believe that our part in this struggle has general value. We will start a spiritual and material war of all the world against Germany's ambitions to become once again a great nation, to recover lost territories and colonies. But our Jewish interests demand Germany's total destruction, collectively and individually.

The German nation is a threat to us Jews.'

Emil Ludwig Cohen wrote in his book The New Holy Alliance, Strasburg, 1938:

'Even if Hitler at the last moment would want to avoid war which would destroy him he will, in spite of his wishes, be compelled to wage war.'

Bernard Lechache wrote in The Right to Live (December 1938):

'It is our task to organise the moral and cultural blockade of Germany and disperse this nation. It is up to us to start a merciless war.'

The Jewish newspaper Central Blad Voor Israeliten in Nederlands printed on 13 September 1939:

'The millions of Jews living in America, England, France, North Africa and South, not forgetting Palestine, have decided to carry on the war in Germany to the very end. It is to be a war of extermination.'

The Toronto Star (26 February 1940) printed a declaration of a Rabbi Perlberg, Director of the British section of the Jewish World Congress:

'The Jewish World Congress is in a state of war with Germany for seven years.'

The Jewish magazine Sentinel of Chicago printed in its issue of 8 October 1940:

'When the National Socialists and their friends cry or whisper that this [the war] is brought about by Jews, they are perfectly right.'

Hitler now put into operation the plan of getting all German areas into one state and all Germans under one German Government. The Germans in the Rhineland, the Germans in Austria and the Sudeten Germans responded willingly. In January 1935 the Saar Valley voted to return to Germany with a 90 per-cent poll in favour. There were also Germans in East Prussia and in Danzig now divided by land ceded to Poland by the Treaty of Versailles. It is interesting to note that between 1933 and 1937 10,000 Jews migrated to Hitler's Germany, 97 of them from Palestine.

THE MUNICH AGREEMENT

An agreement was signed between Germany (Hitler) and Great Britain (Neville Chamberlain) which suggested a peaceful revision of the wrongs committed by the Treaty of Versailles. A four-power conference was suggested which would preserve the peace. The four powers were Great Britain, Germany, France and Italy.

The paper Truth of 5 January 1952 stated that Mr. Oswald Pirow, South African Minister of Defence, was sent on a mission to Germany in 1938 by General Smuts to ease the tension on the Jewish issue. The British Prime Minister told Pirow that pressure of International Jewry was one of the principal obstacles to an Anglo-German accommodation and that it would greatly help him resist that pressure if Hitler could be induced to moderate his policy towards the German Jews. Pirow stated that Hitler viewed this idea with favour and an Anglo-German agreement was in sight; the effect would have been, in the event of war, to limit the conflict to Germany and Russia, with the other great powers intervening to enforce their own terms when the combatants were exhausted.

However, the Four Nations Pact was not to be. The Jews put an end to this, for on 7 November 1938, a few weeks after the Munich Agreement and shortly before the journey to Paris of the German Foreign Minister, Von Ribbentrop, the Polish Jew, Herschel Feibel Grynszpan murdered the German Third Secretary of State, Ernst von Rath, in the German Embassy in Paris. The five bullets fired were the logical result of the Jews' declaration of war on Germany of March 1933 and put an end to the effort being made to explain and extend the importance of the Munich Agreement and the revision of the Treaty of Versailles.

This assassination provoked anti-Jewish riots in Germany, with the burning of synagogues and the looting and burning of Jewish shops. The anti-Jewish riots inflamed public opinion in Great Britain and the USA against Chamberlain's efforts to relieve Anglo-German tension. In the United States Germans were assaulted and persecuted. The Jews began leaving Germany.

The Paris magazine L'Ami du Peuple wrote about them:

'These people fled from Germany because they attempted to set up a rule of fire and blood and to let loose the horrors of civil war and universal chaos.'

The American Secretary of State, James Forrestal, who later died in mysterious circumstances, wrote in his Forrestal Diaries (Cassel and Co., London 1952):

'Have played golf with Joe Kennedy [US Ambassador in Britain, father of President John Kennedy]. According to him, Chamberlain declared that Zionism and world Jewry have obliged England to enter the war.'

The Jew, Schlomo Asch, in a pep talk to French troops in the line in Le Nouvelles Litteraires (10 February 1940) wrote:

'This is our war and you are fighting it for us. Even if we Jews are not bodily in the trenches we are nevertheless morally with you.'

On 8 October 1942 Sentinel magazine stated unequivocally:

'The Second World War is being fought for the defence and fundamentals of Judaism.'

TERROR BOMBING

Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain had given an assurance that:

'The British Government would never resort to the deliberate attack on women and children and other civilians for the purpose of mere terrorism.'

However, his successor Winston Churchill appointed as his personal adviser the Jew Professor Lindemann. Lindemann, later Lord Cherwell, suggested the bombing of German cities and that working class areas were legitimate targets, and from then onwards the last vestiges of civilised decency in warfare were abandoned. These bombings began on 10 August 1940 with the bombing of the small open town of Freiburg on the Swiss frontier. Fifty-three civilians were killed, including twenty children playing in the park. It was reported by Mr. Taylor of the American Red Cross in the New York Times of 3 May 1940. This was before the Germans began bombing British cities. Mr. J. M. Speight, CBE, Principal Secretary to the Air Ministry, wrote in his book The Splendid Decision:

'Adolf Hitler only undertook the bombing of British civilian targets reluctantly after the RAF had commenced bombing German civilian targets... It gave Coventry, Birmingham, Sheffield and Southampton the right to look Kiev, Kharkov, Stalingrad and Sebastopol in the face. Our Soviet allies would have been less critical of our inactivity if they had understood what we had done... Hitler would have been willing at any time to stop the slaughter. Hitler was genuinely anxious to reach with Britain an agreement confining the action of aircraft to battle zones.'

VENGEANCE

In 1941, long before there was any assembling of Jews for the supposed extermination camps, a Jew, Theodor N. Kaufman, wrote Germany Must Perish. Kaufman set out a plan for the total destruction of the German population by a very simple method: the mass sterilisation of all German men and women between the age of puberty and sixty years. He described the construction of the organisation for doing this. This book was the basis of the Morgenthau Plan for the total destruction of German industry and the enslavement of the German race. Naturally these intentions of Germany's enemy got into the hands of the German propaganda minister Goebbels, and it stiffened the resistance of the German nation to avoid defeat. The Morgenthau Plan formed the basis of discussions between President Roosevelt and Soviet leader Stalin acting through his liaison officer, the Soviet Jew Zabrousky, and also formed the basis of the Yalta Agreement.

From a pre-1993 edition of John Tyndall's Spearhead magazine Full story/Permalink

Immunization Programs Under Scrutiny

By Andreas Moritz

(source) Vaccination no longer makes any sense. Or did it ever? The much-acclaimed benefits of the latest vaccine against Hib meningitis also seem to be unfounded. In a pro-vaccine study published in 1993 in the Journal of the American Medical Association, the children in the control group who didn't receive the vaccine also experienced a drastic reduction in the cases of Hib infection - from 99.3 to 68.5 per 100,000.

The latest problem arising from the use of vaccines is that they can cause the body to develop viral "mutants" and even spread the newly created disease to the population at large. Since viral mutants are rarely detected in blood donor screening, they can easily be transmitted through donated blood. This way, the original vaccines may be able to wipe out the strains of virus that are known to cause these various diseases, but in the same stroke they cause other mutant strains of virus to thrive.

Research also showed that a single injection of any kind could increase the risk of paralysis fivefold. Polio, for example, is more common in developing countries where children receive more injections than in developed countries. A study published in 1995 by the New England Journal of Medicine showed that injection of the polio vaccine actually caused outbreaks of the disease.

A 1993 report released by the American National Academy of Science Institute of Medicine concluded that virtually all nine vaccines given to children have at some time been proved to cause damage, including such complications as shock, convulsions, or paralysis. The problem is that a child's body is expected to cope with not just one type of poison contained in one vaccine, but with several different ones contained in as many as nine vaccines. Many children have died or become permanently and severely brain damaged within days after immunization. In many cases, however, the adverse effects from vaccination are less devastating but still serious enough to take a good look at the reasons why parents haven't been informed. In many countries, parents are actually forced by law to immunize their children.

Unfounded Vaccination Hysteria

It has long been known that, in some illnesses such as measles, chicken pox and scarlet fever, one bout of the illness usually provides lifelong immunity. A second experience with measles or scarlet fever is extremely rare.

The concepts of medicine formulated in the 19th century were partially based on the understanding by the ancient Greek physician Hippocrates, who observed that an illness manifests signs and symptoms that travel from the inner vital organs and blood circulation to the outer surface of the body. These symptoms would often be visible as a rash or as a discharge of blood, mucus or pus. This "throwing off" of an illness was considered a natural healing response expected to return the body to a state of balance or equilibrium. Hippocrates perceived this labor as a cooking and digesting (pepsis) of our inner poisons during an inflammatory illness. It was also observed that immunity to or protection from an illness arose when a person had that illness before. Today we consider a disease as being an enemy that we need to battle against.

Contrary to common understanding, an inflammatory-infectious illness does not begin when we become exposed to and are infected with a virus or bacterium, but when our body starts its response. The magnitude of our body's response (severity of illness) is not only influenced by the magnitude of the infection, but also by the stamina and inherent strength in us. The healing force employed by the body depends on multiple factors, such as emotions, spiritual foundation, diet, lifestyle, environment, etc. Our immunity certainly does not depend on whether we have been vaccinated against infectious agents.

The crucial factor of strong immunity is due to our immune system's ability to keep the germs at bay or fight them. If the vigor of our immune response is weak, germs are likely to infect us. But normally, the majority of germ "invasions" occur silently, without ever disturbing us. Symptoms of disease occur only at the time the immune system decides it is necessary to aggressively defend itself against harmful influences.

Louis Pasteur (1822-1895) was the first researcher to postulate that diseases are caused by germs. Pasteur's germ theory proposed that disease germs are after us because they need to prey on us for their own survival while contributing nothing to us in return. He initially believed that infectious/inflammatory diseases are a direct result of germs feasting on us. In microscopic studies of host tissues in such diseases, Pasteur, Koch and their colleagues repeatedly observed that germs proliferated while many host cells were dying. These researchers concluded that germs attack and destroy healthy cells, and thereby start a disease process in the body. Although this assumption turned out to be wrong, it had already made its debut in the world of science, and the erroneous idea that germs cause infections became an undisputed reality. Today, this idea continues to prevail as a fundamental "scientific truth" in the modern medical system.

Pasteur could have just as easily concluded that bacteria are naturally attracted to the sites of increased cell death, just like they are attracted to decaying organic matter elsewhere in nature. Flies, ants, crows, vultures and, of course, bacteria are drawn towards death. Why would this be different in the body? Weak, damaged or dead cells in the body are just as prone to germ infection as an overripe piece of fruit. Pasteur and all the researchers that followed in his footsteps made the choice of thinking of germs either as predators or scavengers. Had they assumed that cells die for non-apparent biochemical reasons (such as toxicity buildup), our current thinking about illness and health would have been completely different than it is today. We would all have grown up with the knowledge that the occurrence of inflammatory/infectious illnesses can ultimately not be attributed to germs, but must be located in the various human frailties that necessitate the forces of decay and death.

Germs only become poisonous to us when confronted with the poisons we create; our body does not battle germs because they are the enemy. An immune system reaction such as high fever or depletion of energy is meant to cleanse the body of harmful substances that otherwise could lead to the eventual demise of the entire body.

In situations of extreme toxicity, the immune system may be so overwhelmed with the poisons it tries to eliminate that it may or may not be able to save the person. In the third scenario, the immune system doesn't respond to the poisons and germs at all, and no acute disease symptoms appear (no fever, inflammations, pain). The result then is chronic, debilitating illness known as allergic or autoimmune disorders.

In the scenario where the immune system has successfully restored the body's functions, the body has acquired immunity to the germs that initiated the rescue mission. Vaccine science has pursued the question of how we can bring about lifelong immunity to an infectious-inflammatory illness without having to experience the illness first. Their assumption is that, by having antibodies in the blood for certain illness-causing germs, you are automatically protected against them. However, no proof has shown whether protection from the germs is due to the presence of antibodies or to a normal healthy immune response. It is actually much more likely that the latter is true, unless vaccine poisons have damaged or even paralyzed the immune system.

Only when the germs number or rate of growth exceeds a certain threshold are they then recognized by the immune system, resulting in the formation of antibodies specific to the particular provocative bug. A large presence of germs indicates that the cell tissue has become damaged or weak due to the accumulation of acid waste. At that level of infection, things get seriously out of control and a tribe of germs proliferates wildly and provokes the full defensive reaction of our immune system. This is what doctors call an "acute inflammatory response." Symptoms usually include fever, release of stress hormones by the adrenal glands, increased flow of blood, lymph, and mucus, and a streaming of white blood cells to the inflamed area. The afflicted person feels sick and may experience pain, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, weakness and chills. The sweating out and throwing off of the illness is a natural response by the body that reflects a healthy immune system. A really sick person would no longer be able to come up with such healing responses.

Once we have successfully passed the challenge of a particular illness, it is less likely that we will experience it again. Somehow the illness and our response to it have made us immune to its recurrence. It is more than doubtful, though, that vaccination can do the same for us by forcing the body to make antibodies for some germs that appear to be causing an infection. It has been shown over and over again that, despite the vaccination of a person against a particular illness, the person may just develop that very illness he is supposed to be protected against, or even more so. The mere presence of specific antibodies cannot protect anyone against any illness, only the cellular immune system can. Although it is true that science knows how to bestow antibodies through vaccination, it mistakenly assumes that it is bestowing the immune strength that can only be developed through the experience of a particular illness.

Antibodies alone are not sufficient to produce immunity. It is well known that several diseases, such as herpes outbreaks, may recur repeatedly despite high antibody levels. Whether or not antibodies are present, immunity to these infectious diseases can only be conferred by our cellular immune system. The theory that exposing the body to disease germs will trigger an immune response similar to the one generated during an actual disease experience is seriously flawed. More in the author's book, Timeless Secrets of Health and Rejuvenation.

Full story/Permalink

Why the CIA is the World's Number One Terrorist Organization

By Len Hart

(The Existentialist Cowboy) -- The CIA. itself a ruthless, terrorist organization inspires terrorism in response. In some cases, notably the CIA and al Qaeda, the relationship between the CIA and terrorism is symbiotic. The CIA has perpetrated an "American Holocaust", the deaths of some 6 million people from its inception to the year 1987. As Long as the CIA Exists, the US will never be safe from terrorism.

CIA operations follow the same recurring scri pt. First, American business interests abroad are threatened by a popular or democratically elected leader. The people support their leader because he intends to conduct land reform, strengthen unions, redistribute wealth, nationalize foreign-owned industry, and regulate business to protect workers, consumers and the environment. So, on behalf of American business, and often with their help, the CIA mobilizes the opposition. First it identifies right-wing groups within the country (usually the military), and offers them a deal: "We'll put you in power if you maintain a favorable business climate for us." The Agency then hires, trains and works with them to overthrow the existing government (usually a democracy).

--Steve Kangas, A Timeline of CIA Atrocities

Pakistan is a case in point.

Since 9/11, the Bush administration has been propping up Musharraf's military regime with $3.6 billion in economic aid from the US and a US-sponsored consortium, not to mention $900 million in military aid and the postponement of overdue debt repayments totaling $13.5 billion. But now the administration is debating whether Musharraf has become too dependent on Islamic extremist political parties in Pakistan to further US interests, and whether he should be pressured to permit the return of two exiled former prime ministers, Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif, who have formed an electoral alliance to challenge him in presidential elections scheduled for next year.

--Pakistan: Friend or Foe? The US shouldn't prop up President Musharraf's military regime, Selig S. Harrison

The late Benazir Bhutto revealed the truth before she was brutally gunned down in the streets of Karachi: US policy causes world terrorism. She died before she could tell the rest of the story.

When the United States aligns with dictatorships and totalitarian regimes, it compromises the basic democratic principles of its foundation -- namely, life, liberty and justice for all. Dictatorships such as Musharraf's suppress individual rights and freedoms and empower the most extreme elements of society. Oppressed citizens, unable to represent themselves through other means, often turn to extremism and religious fundamentalism.

Benazir Bhutto, A False Choice for Pakistan

A favorite CIA tactic is the CIA "front".

The May 12 terrorist attacks on the al Hamra, Jadawal and Vinnell compounds in the Saudi Arabian capital, Riyadh, which killed more than 90 people, were not merely assaults on "symbols" of the imperialist West. The bombers were also intent on weakening the rule of Saudi royal family. While the timing of the bombings in Saudi Arabia and in other countries - just hours before US Secretary of State Colin Powell arrived in Saudi Arabia - suggested a coordinated assault on US targets, the bombings in Riyadh were targeted at key props of the reactionary regime. All three Saudi Arabian targets were associated with Saudi Arabia's role as a US client state: residential compounds housing mainly expatriates working in the country, the offices of the Vinnell Corporation and the residences of its employees. Vinnell, founded in California in 1931, first gained a foothold in Saudi Arabia in 1975. An article by Matt Gaul in the June 1998 Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review, revealed that it was the culmination of a close relationship between the corporation, the US military and Washington's intelligence agencies. This relationship stretched back to the end of World War II, when the US government used the company to ship supplies to the China's counter-revolutionary party, the Kuomintang. During the 1950s and '60s, Vinnell constructed US military airfields in Japan, Okinawa, Taiwan, Thailand and southern Vietnam. According to Gaul, it was during this period that Albert Vinnell, the corporation's founder, "offered his staff's services to the [CIA], and several CIA agents used employment with Vinnell as cover for operations in Africa and the Middle East".

-- Rohan Pearce, CIA front targeted in terrorist attacks, 28 May 2003

How does the CIA do it?

It uses every trick in the book: propaganda, stuffed ballot boxes, purchased elections, extortion, blackmail, sexual intrigue, false stories about opponents in the local media, infiltration and disruption of opposing political parties, kidnapping, beating, torture, intimidation, economic sabotage, death squads and even assassination. These efforts culminate in a military coup, which installs a right-wing dictator. The CIA trains the dictator's security apparatus to crack down on the traditional enemies of big business, using interrogation, torture and murder. The victims are said to be "communists," but almost always they are just peasants, liberals, moderates, labor union leaders, political opponents and advocates of free speech and democracy. Widespread human rights abuses follow.

--Steve Kangas, A Timeline of CIA Atrocities

The CIA uses all those methods to install dictators like Musharraf, whom it most certainly trained. The CIA is ruthless in its on-going efforts to eliminate with torture and murder, if necessary, all opposition to the interests of American imperialists. Saddam Hussein was among the dictators propped up by the US, the CIA specifically. Saddam ran afoul of Bush Sr by opposing efforts by the Bush regime to keep the price of oil high. The tran scri pt of US Ambassador April Glaspie's interview with Hussein on the eve of his invasion of Kuwait proves conclusively that Hussein had been set up by the master spy --George Bush Sr. The CIAs allegiance to the US oil industry is overt and is most certainly at the very heart of well-founded suspicions about the CIA, Texas oil barons, and JFK. Dealy Plaza is said to have been the nexus of all three! The origins of Bush's war in Iraq may be found in the Arab Oil embargo of the 1970s.

Three decades ago, in the throes of the energy crisis, Washington's hawks conceived of a strategy for US control of the Persian Gulf's oil. Now, with the same strategists firmly in control of the White House, the Bush administration is playing out their scri pt for global dominance. In the geopolitical vision driving current US policy toward Iraq, the key to national security is global hegemony -- dominance over any and all potential rivals. To that end, the United States must not only be able to project its military forces anywhere, at any time. It must also control key resources, chief among them oil -- and especially Gulf oil.

--Robert Dreyfuss, Mother Jones

JFK promised to "smash the CIA into a thousand pieces". Bill Clinton, on the 50th anniversary of "the company", defended it with an absurdity that one might have expected from the GOP! Americans, Clinton said, don't know or understand what the CIA does and should, therefore, lay off! Our not knowing what the CIA is up to is precisely the problem. Bill Clinton is as dead wrong on this issue as Barack Obama is dead wrong about Ronald Reagan. Both positions are premised upon the idea that the American people are stupid and those that are not ought to be! The fact is: the CIA is out of control and they will continue to get away with it as long as the American people are either ignorant, kept in the dark, or both! Because the CIA is unaccountable. it remains a cancerous source of unchecked corruption and most certainly the inspiration for generations of American hating terrorists who will fight back in kind! Much has been written about the CIA's operations, [The Modus Operandi of the CIA] by insiders and outsiders. One insider who has chronicled what he witnessed in the CIA is Ralph McGehee. He worked for the CIA from 1952 until 1977 and now writes about intelligence matters, notably the book Deadly Deceits -- My 25 years in the CIA (New York: Sheridan Square Press, 1983). He has compiled a computer data base on CIA activities. Persons interested may write to him at: 422 Arkansas Ave., Herndon, VA 22070. (See http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/CIA/CIA_SOP.html .) Here are some excerpts of what he has written:

"...it is essential to provide background on the scope and nature of its worldwide operations. Between 1961 and 1975 the Agency conducted 900 major or sensitive operations, and thousands of lesser covert actions. The majority of its operations were propaganda, election or paramilitary. Countries of major concern, such as Indonesia in the early 1960s, were usually subjected to the CIA's most concerted attention. Critics of the CIA have aptly described the mainstays of such attention: "discrediting political groups... by forged documents that may be attributed to them. . . ," faking "communist weapon shipments,'' capturing communist documents and then inserting forgeries prepared by the Agency's Technical Services Division.

--Ralph McGehee

Much of the rest of the world knows the truth about the CIA; Americans are kept in the dark. The media dare not tell the truth about the CIA and the Bush administration, in particular, is complicit. Rare media outlets that dare tell the truth are demonized. "Liberal" activist Steve Kangas, for example, turned up dead just outside the office of Richard Mellon Scaife, the multi-billionaire about whom it is no stretch to say he coordinated and bankrolled the "vast right wing conspiracy" to impeach, remove and, in other ways, smear Bill Clinton. As more documents are declassified and the hidden history is made painfully clear, the CIA's predictable response is compared to the Medieval Church's oppressive response to the Scientific Revolution. Indeed, there are many things about the CIAs relationship to the world around it that are medieval: intolerance, fear, repression, secrecy and torture. Initially, the CIA would merely harass American writers but foreign writers were tortured and/or murdered. With the death of Steve Kangas, one wonders if the CIA now operates against the domestic media. What's next? An inquisition? The CIA, whose very is name is enough to inspire generations of "terrorists", has outlived its usefulness. The time has come to abolish the CIA --to smash it into a thousand pieces! Its leadership should be dismissed and investigated. Where there is probable cause, CIA members should be investigated and tried for crimes against humanity.

Full story/Permalink

Russian scientist says Earth could soon face new Ice Age

(RIA Novosti) - Temperatures on Earth have stabilized in the past decade, and the planet should brace itself for a new Ice Age rather than global warming, a Russian scientist said in an interview with RIA Novosti Tuesday.

"Russian and foreign research data confirm that global temperatures in 2007 were practically similar to those in 2006, and, in general, identical to 1998-2006 temperatures, which, basically, means that the Earth passed the peak of global warming in 1998-2005," said Khabibullo Abdusamatov, head of a space research lab at the Pulkovo observatory in St. Petersburg.

According to the scientist, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere has risen more than 4% in the past decade, but global warming has practically stopped. It confirms the theory of "solar" impact on changes in the Earth's climate, because the amount of solar energy reaching the planet has drastically decreased during the same period, the scientist said.

Had global temperatures directly responded to concentrations of "greenhouse" gases in the atmosphere, they would have risen by at least 0.1 Celsius in the past ten years, however, it never happened, he said.

"A year ago, many meteorologists predicted that higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would make the year 2007 the hottest in the last decade, but, fortunately, these predictions did not become reality," Abdusamatov said.

He also said that in 2008, global temperatures would drop slightly, rather than rise, due to unprecedentedly low solar radiation in the past 30 years, and would continue decreasing even if industrial emissions of carbon dioxide reach record levels.

By 2041, solar activity will reach its minimum according to a 200-year cycle, and a deep cooling period will hit the Earth approximately in 2055-2060. It will last for about 45-65 years, the scientist added.

"By the mid-21st century the planet will face another Little Ice Age, similar to the Maunder Minimum, because the amount of solar radiation hitting the Earth has been constantly decreasing since the 1990s and will reach its minimum approximately in 2041," he said.

The Maunder Minimum occurred between 1645 and 1715, when only about 50 spots appeared on the Sun, as opposed to the typical 40,000-50,000 spots.

It coincided with the middle and coldest part of the so called Little Ice Age, during which Europe and North America were subjected to bitterly cold winters.

"However, the thermal inertia of the world's oceans and seas will delay a 'deep cooling' of the planet, and the new Ice Age will begin sometime during 2055-2060, probably lasting for several decades," Abdusamatov said.

Therefore, the Earth must brace itself for a growing ice cap, rather than rising waters in global oceans caused by ice melting.

Mankind will face serious economic, social, and demographic consequences of the coming Ice Age because it will directly affect more than 80% of the earth's population, the scientist concluded.

Full story/Permalink

The American War Upon the World

By Peter Chamberlin

(OpEdNews)-- In researching the events leading to America’s downfall, I have had to continually readjust my understanding of the situation as new information surfaced. Throughout the entire learning process it has proven especially difficult to determine whether the CIA determines the secret policies it carries out, or if the agency merely serve as a loyal tool to the moneymen who control the world from behind the scenes. It is very difficult to sort out the facts from the fabrication about an ongoing disinformation campaign while immersed in it.

I used to think that the “new right” was simply a merger between militarist corporate interests and right wing militant groups, and that the CIA was merely a servant to whoever was in power. But I have come to realize that the spy agency was instrumental in creating the “Reagan revolution” and the “neoconservatives” who were spawned by it. At first it seemed that the confluence of CIA dirty tricks with the Republican national politics was limited to agents helping-out their former boss. But it became apparent that there had been a strategic merger between the CIA, the Republican Party and corporate America.

Names like Nelson Rockefeller and Nelson Bunker Hunt (of the infamous Hunt brothers) show up as major financiers in the new right “conservative movement.” Researcher Steve Kangas reported (shortly before his murder) on the connections between radical Republican billionaires and the early neocons, most of whom had previous CIA experience. Kangas was found shot to death outside the Pittsburgh offices of right-wing benefactor Richard Mellon Scaife, who gave millions to right wing groups trying to destroy President Clinton, including the Heritage Foundation and New Gingrich’s Free Congress Foundation. http://msnoh.tripod.com/kang.html Before Kangas died, he produced a lengthy report titled, “How the CIA Created a Ruling, Corporate Overclass in America” that may have gotten him killed.

click here

“From 1973 to 1975, Scaife ran Forum World Features, a foreign news service used as a front to disseminate CIA propaganda around the world. Shortly afterwards he began donating millions to fund the New Right. The political machine they built is broad and comprehensive, covering every aspect of the political fight. It includes right-wing departments and chairs in the nation’s top universities, think tanks, public relations firms, media companies, fake grassroots organizations that pressure Congress... The CIA also helped create the conservative think tank movement... The Heritage Foundation opened its doors in 1973, the recipient of $250,000 in seed money from the Coors Foundation. A flood of conservative think tanks followed shortly thereafter, and by 1980 they overwhelmed the scene. The new think tanks turned out to be little more than propaganda mills, rigging studies to ‘prove’ that their corporate sponsors needed tax breaks, deregulation and other favors from government... Using propaganda techniques it had perfected at the Voice of America and Radio Free Europe, the CIA and its allies turned American AM radio into a haven for conservative talk shows...The origins of this machine, interestingly enough, can be traced back to the CIA...Its principle creators were [neoconservatives] Irving Kristol, Paul Weyrich, William Simon, Richard Mellon Scaife, Frank Shakespeare, William F. Buckley, Jr., the Rockefeller family... these men would take the propaganda and operational techniques they had learned in the Cold War and apply them to the Class War. Therefore it is no surprise that the American version of the machine bears an uncanny resemblance to the foreign versions designed to fight communism...”

The radical neocon attack machine was constructed under CIA guidance to incorporate the political strategies that they had perfected while waging covert political warfare against our European allies, as well as other friends and enemies throughout the world. The politics of fear that underlie the “war on terrorism,” derive from the “strategy of tension” that the agency developed in Italy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategy_of_tension

“A strategy of tension (Italian: strategia della tensione) is a way to control and manipulate public opinion using fear, propaganda, disinformation, psychological warfare, agents provocateurs, as well as false flag terrorist actions (including bombings). According to historian Daniele Ganser, "It is a tactic which consists in committing bombings and attributing them to others. By the term 'tension' one refers to emotional tension, to what creates a sentiment of fear. By the term 'strategy' one refers to what feeds the fear of the people towards one particular group" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategy_of_tension

This terror-based political strategy was called “Operation Gladio.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gladio Neocons like Michael Ledeen were recruited from these actual covert operations to serve as spokesmen and political “hit men” for the united neocon front. Gladio was just a more recent manifestation of recurring secret CIA plans to overthrow the government of the United States that eventually leak out, stemming back to at least the era of “Operation North Woods” (another “false flag” terror attack by CIA/military agents upon Americans, for the purpose of causing war with Cuba). http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/northwoods.pdf The recently released “Family Jewels” documents CIA crimes before 1975, including the involuntary MK-ULTRA LSD experiments upon the American people, which even included experiments upon children. click here

Kangas documented the astonishing gains reaped by the corporate ruling class from the benefits accrued to them by their merger with CIA interests.

“In 1975, the richest 1 percent owned 22 percent of America’s wealth. By 1992, they would nearly double that, to 42 percent — the highest level of inequality in the 20th century... The CIA has always recruited the nation’s elite: millionaire businessmen, Wall Street brokers, members of the national news media, and Ivy League scholars... By the 1950s, the CIA had riddled the nation’s businesses, media and universities with tens of thousands of part-time, on-call operatives... Historically, the CIA and society’s elite have been one and the same people. This means that their interests and goals are one and the same as well...

‘The CIA is the President's secret army,’ Noam Chomksy correctly points out that its real mission was ‘deterring democracy.’ From corrupting elections to overthrowing democratic governments, from assassinating elected leaders to installing murderous dictators, the CIA has virtually always replaced democracy with dictatorship. It didn’t help that the CIA was run by businessmen, whose hostility towards democracy is legendary. The reason they overthrew so many democracies is because the people usually voted for policies that multi-national corporations didn't like: land reform, strong labor unions, nationalization of their industries, and greater regulation protecting workers, consumers and the environment... Even when the communist threat was real, the CIA first and foremost took care of the elite...Since the end of the Cold War, Washington has been abuzz with talk about using the CIA for economic espionage... Remember, the CIA is an instrument of the President; it only carries out policy...

The CIA’s contacts with big business quickly spread. The agency showed a preference for international companies, public relations firms, media companies, law offices, banks, financiers and stockbrokers. The CIA didn’t limit its activities to recruiting businessmen; sometimes the CIA bought or created entire companies outright... By allying itself with the business community, the CIA received the funds and ability it needed to remove itself from democratic control... the CIA began a mission in the late 1940s to recruit American journalists on a wide scale,.. The agency wanted these journalists not only to relay any sensitive information they discovered, but also to write anti-communist, pro-capitalist propaganda when needed... By the early 50s, CIA Director Allen Dulles had staffed the CIA almost exclusively with Ivy League graduates, especially from Yale. (A disproportionate number of CIA figures, like George Bush, come from Yale’s “Skull and Crossbones’ Society).”

Today, after thirty years running roughshod over America, this unholy alliance of ruthless businessmen and cold-blooded spies has brought the world to the very edge of the precipice. Their policy has amounted to waging economic warfare against the American people, the purposeful de-industrialization and off-shoring of American vital industries and jobs has drained the life from our economy into their off-shore bank accounts. The foolish anti-tax policies enacted by the Bush Administration to accelerate that transfer of wealth has accelerated the collapse of the global economy, as well as our own. The shaky status of our bankrupted economy can best be seen in the desperate measures now being prepared to stave-off the certain economic collapse that we have caused. The $100+ economic boost represents a complete break with Bush economic doctrine, giving every American $250 and Republicans giving-up the hotly contested Bush tax cuts.

“The stimulus plan taking shape in Congress is likely to include targeted tax cuts and rebates for middle- and low-income Americans, tax breaks for business, and spending for unemployment insurance and food stamps...GOP leaders said they would not insist on an extension of Mr. Bush's tax cuts, set to expire in 2010... " click here

The dire military straits, in which the unholy neocon alliance have trapped us, can best be demonstrated by the news that Congress is now debating legislation to reinstate the national draft. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-393

H.R. 393: Universal National Service Act of 2007

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, January 10, 2007

“To require all persons in the United States between the ages of 18 and 42 to perform national service, either as a member of the uniformed services or in civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, to authorize the induction of persons in the uniformed services during wartime to meet end-strength requirements of the uniformed services...”

This comes after six years spent fighting a war without end that is as much a war against American democracy as it is against Islamic extremism. The truth about our alleged enemy, “al Qaida,” is that there is no international terrorist conspiracy by that name, killing Americans and our friends by the hundreds. click here “Al Qaida” is a CIA fabricated enemy, created as an opponent for the CIA-created “neocon” supermen, intended to embed an invisible terror army amongst the people, in order to perpetually justify waging war upon the people. 9/11 was a declaration of war by the CIA conspirators upon the people of the United States and the military forces that defend us. The US Army should be hunting the real CIA terrorists.

The CIA National Intelligence Estimate on Iran is disinformation, intended to both throw the people off the trail of their crimes and to provide a backdoor confirmation of an Iranian nuclear weapons program. The upcoming Iran war should be seen as the CIA opening another front in its war against the Pentagon. They will not relinquish control of America’s foreign policy to anyone, even if they have to destroy America in the process. What does the internationalist agency care, if the “homeland” gets toasted, as long as they hold the rest of the world in their hands?

The war on Iran is too important to the plotters’ time sensitive grand design; if the war cannot be started over the nuclear issue, then another pathway will open (a backdoor approach to starting the war through Pakistan will serve just as well). The neocon Congress and their President have fully submerged American sovereignty in their dual-allegiance to the state of Israel, as demonstrated by yesterday’s news that Congress has followed Bush’s lead and rejected the American NIE in favor of intelligence provided by the Israeli Mossad. http://mparent7777-2.blogspot.com/2008/01/congress-dismisses-nie-declares-iran.html With the recently-announced joining of US/Israeli missile defenses http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=1277 and discussions on a possible military pact with Israel, http://www.mortyscabin.net/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1916 comes word that Bush and Olmert have been making plans to blockade the Syrian coast, click here as a means to counter growing Russian influence in the region, setting up a US/Russian confrontation, for the sake of reassuring Israel.

According to reports coming out of Israel, the Republican Party is even more supportive of the “Jewish state” than are its own leaders. click here

“The President this week explicitly called Israel a Jewish state and that any agreement between Israel and the Palestinians must establish Palestine as a homeland for the Palestinian people, just as Israel is a homeland for the Jewish people. This signals a complete rejection of the Palestinian right of return that derailed the Clinton Camp David talks in 2000...”

With Bush busily destroying all the groundwork from past peace negotiations, it becomes more than obvious that he is just as determined as ever to strike Iran for Israel, before he leaves office. It is also obvious that the full Congress has turned their backs on the will of the American people in this determination. The false sense of jubilation expressed by many on the left and the right was premature. The war with Iran is still on, it will just be a little more difficult to instigate, than before. But the war gremlins are working overtime to provide the needed justification for a wider war. Israeli officials are now claiming that a rocket fired into Israel by Palestinians originated in Iran.

http://wiredispatch.com/news/?id=5958 Hamas is but an appetizer. The Revolutionary Guard will be the main course.

Anyone who saw the pictures of Bush (the man who believes that he is the hand of God in restoring “God’s people” to the Holy Land) begins to understand – Bush is on a “mission from God.” Did you see him tear-up, when he said that he wished that he had been there to “bomb Auschwitz?” He shed no tears for the poor Palestinians when he told them to stop hoping that Israel will pull back to the 1967 borders, which Israelis have dubbed the “Auschwitz borders.” He has wedded himself to Israel’s idea of the “two-state solution,” which will one day be revealed to mean a Palestinian state in Jordan and a “Jewish state” from the Jordan River to the sea.

Bush the alcoholic former party animal, who credits Billy Graham with “saving” him from himself, has no choice but to do God’s will. Remember, Bush once admitted that God had told him to strike Afghanistan and Iraq. Now God has ordered him to make peace in the Holy Land. Bush’s idea of “peace” is the peace of the grave.

The Bush push to force “peace” upon the Palestinians requires that every party be bound to the terms of his road map for peace, which is clearly slanted in Israel’s favor. It will take many years to implement the major restructuring of Mideastern society to one that is favorable to the will of Bush. This means that he doesn’t intend to leave office. His role as messiah will require that he remain in power for a long time. He is convinced that God wants him to start Armageddon.

The US war on terror has been, in reality, a machine for sowing terror, intended to force the people who are inclined to self-defense, to become terrorists. Kidnappings, targeted assassinations, military attacks, and the making of entire populations into refugees, are tactics intended to alienate individuals and drive them to vigilantism. Terrorists are defined as those who take up arms to defend against US attacks and occupation. The driving purpose of the war on terrorism has been to uncover would-be terrorists (those who would resist America), by forcing radicalized men to violently act upon their beliefs. The use of “death squads” and militias to instigate conflicts is a plot to flush-out the hidden commitments to family and country that would drive angry young men to oppose America’s violent designs upon their property.

It is the same wherever this covert foreign policy of fomenting civil war is being implemented. This plan that has been hatched by our “leaders” is pure evil. It cannot be allowed to proceed. That is exactly what the GWOT (global war on terrorism) does, it requires that those governments who join with the US in its offensive attack upon the world, agree to wage low-level war against their own people, until the people rise-up in a true civil war. Whether it is a straight-out insurgency that is ignited, or a religious conflict, it doesn’t matter. The only thing that matters is that the government agrees to oppress its own people in the name of “fighting terrorism.”

This sorry state of affairs is the brainchild of new world order geniuses like Zbigniew Brzezenski, who hatched the idea of reviving Islamic jihadism and turning it into a political weapon, inspiring a generation of Islamic insurgents armed and trained with modern weaponry and demolition skills. The idea was to indoctrinate millions of devout Muslims with militant Wahabi doctrine, dispensed in Saudi madrassas in the mountains of Afghanistan and Pakistan’s badlands (utilizing radical Islamist textbooks printed for the CIA in the USA), is bearing fruit today. The new generation of thirty-something Taliban leaders, like 34 year-old Baitullah Mehsud (accused of assassinating Benazir Bhutto), are products of the madrassa indoctrination. The University of Nebraska-Omaha jihadi textbooks began arriving in the Saudi/Pakistani madrassas when Mehsud and his pals were about ten years old.

It is little wonder that there are so many Islamists wanting revenge upon America, considering the suffering we have inflicted upon the families of the war dead, the refugees and the “disappeared.” The US campaign to save its economy by waging war upon the world will clearly succeed in raising a large portion of the earth’s people in opposition to us. When conditions deteriorate to that point, American survival will depend upon our leaders’ willingness to liquidate that very large protesting portion or the earth’s people.

The crimes of the corporate state are rapidly catching up to them. There will be “hell to pay,” when the people realize the true face of the organization of thieves and murderers that calls itself the “American government.” The takeover of democracy and the initiation of world war through the commission of the largest terrorist attack in history on US soil, are crimes beyond measure. We the people will destroy the terrorist government that has taken us over from within. The world waits with baited breath to learn whether we will bring this government down before or after the real conflagration begins.

Authors Bio: antiwar activist/writer thirty years. Op-ed writer The Herald-Dispatch, Huntington, WV

Full story/Permalink

World not running out of oil, say experts

Carl Mortished, World Business Editor

Doom-laden forecasts that world oil supplies are poised to fall off the edge of a cliff are wide of the mark, according to leading oil industry experts who gave warning that human factors, not geology, will drive the oil market.

A landmark study of more than 800 oilfields by Cambridge Energy Research Associates (Cera) has concluded that rates of decline are only 4.5 per cent a year, almost half the rate previously believed, leading the consultancy to conclude that oil output will continue to rise over the next decade.

Peter Jackson, the report's author, said: “We will be able to grow supply to well over 100million barrels per day by 2017.” Current world oil output is in the region of 85million barrels a day.

The optimistic view of the world's oil resource was also given support by BP's chief economist, Peter Davies, who dismissed theories of “Peak Oil” as fallacious. Instead, he gave warning that world oil production would peak as demand weakened, because of political constraints, including taxation and government efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Speaking to the All Party Parliamentary Group on Peak Oil, Mr Davies said that peaks in world production had been wrongly predicted throughout history but he agreed that oil might peak within a generation “as a result of a peaking of demand rather than supply”.

He said it was inconceivable that oil consumption would be unaffected by government policies to reduce carbon emissions. “There is a distinct possibilty that global oil consumption could peak as a result of such climate policies,” Mr Davies said.

The BP economist's remarks were echoed yesterday by Mr Jackson. “It is the above-ground risks that will influence the rate [of oil output],” he said.

Cera analysed the output of 811 oilfields, which produce 19 billion barrels a year, out of total world output of 32 billion. These included many of the giants, including Saudi Arabia's Ghawar, the largest known oilfield, which has been at the centre of the debate between peak oil analysts and their detractors.

In his book Twilight in the Desert, Matthew Simmons of Simmons & Co, the consultancy, said the big Saudi fields reached their peak output in 1981 but Cera yesterday said that Ghawar was not failing. “There is no technical evidence that Ghawar is about to decline,” said Mr Jackson.

Cera reckons that oil output, including unconventional oil, such as tar sands, could allow oil to peak at much higher levels of as much as 112 million barrels per day, with average rates of more than 100million bpd.

The Cera analysis targeted oilfields producing more than 10,000 barrels a day of conventional oil and concluded that overall output was declining at a rate of 4.5 per cent a year and that field decline rates were not increasing.

This is much lower than the 7 to 8percent average rate that is generally assumed in the industry. Typically, Peak Oil theorists believe that the output of oil reserves can be plotted on a graph as a bell curve, rising to a peak and then falling rapidly.

It was proposed in 1950 by M King Hubbert, a US geologist, who successfully predicted the peak of onshore oil production in the United States.

His analysis is disputed by many geologists today, who argue that technology has changed the equation, allowing oil companies to produce more oil from reservoirs than was previously possible.

Meanwhile, increases in the price of oil has made the extraction of difficult reserves economically viable.

Full story/Permalink

Wars for African Oil

Wars for African Oil

By Bruce K. Gagnon

The lead story on the Pentagon's new AFRICOM web site is entitled "U.S. Sailor Helps Save Drowning Woman in Gabon."

Here come the good white guys to the rescue.

In another place on the web site, Frequently Asked Questions, one finds this:

"What is U.S. Africa Command designed to do? U.S. Africa Command will better enable the Department of Defense and other elements of the U.S. government to work in concert and with partners to achieve a more stable environment in which political and economic growth can take place."

In February of 2007, the site continues, George W. Bush created U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM). "The decision was the culmination of a 10-year thought process within the Department of Defense acknowledging the emerging strategic importance of Africa, and recognizing that peace and stability on the continent impacts not only Africans, but the interests of the U.S. and international community as well."

But critics maintain the command’s creation was motivated by China and oil. With Soviet influence gone and France’s traditional presence much diminished, China has poured money into the continent in recent years as its growing economy needs great access to natural resources. And the United States is projected to import at least 25 percent of its oil from Africa by 2015.

According to Black Agenda Report editor Bruce Dixon, "From oil rich northern Angola up to Nigeria, from the Gulf of Guinea to Morocco and Algeria, from the Horn of Africa down to Kenya and Uganda, and over the pipeline routes from Chad to Cameroon in the west, and from Sudan to the Red Sea in the east, U.S. admirals and generals have been landing and taking off, meeting with local officials. They've conducted feasibility studies, concluded secret agreements, and spent billions from their secret budgets."

"Their new bases are not bases at all, according to U.S. military officials. They are instead 'forward staging depots', and 'seaborne truck stops' for the equipment which American land forces need to operate on the African continent. They are protected anchorages' and offshore 'lily pads' from which they intend to fight the next round of oil and resource wars, and lock down Africa's oil and mineral wealth for decades to come."

A couple years ago I saw two different items on C-SPAN that put all this in perspective for me. One was a presentation by a high-level National Guard military officer before the right-wing Heritage Foundation. He had a large map of the entire African continent on an easel and was pointing out how every state National Guard unit in the U.S. would be assigned a different African country. Each unit would create a relationship with a particular African nation and then establish a small U.S. military outpost, or as Dixon says above, lily pad base. These would be used as jumping off points in order for the Pentagon to have the ability to rapidly deploy forces in order to squash any effort to stand against U.S. corporate control.

A second C-SPAN experience was when I watched a three-hour presentation by then Naval War College futurist Thomas Barnett say, "We will be fighting in Africa in 20 years for their oil." He went on to say in his talk that the U.S. would no longer do international treaties because they would limit our ability to attack other nations - preemptively. Barnett said, on that occassion, "Adolph Hitler never had to ask permission to invade another country and neither will we."

So as I watch events in Africa today on American corporate TV, I filter it all through these previous moments of clarity.

About a year or so ago I attended a panel discussion in Brunswick where we heard from African activists who live nearby. Maine, because it is so white, has been a major federal relocation state for Africans who have been allowed into this country after escaping the chaos in Somalia, Congo, or Sudan. I will never forget one of the men asking the white audience where we thought the Africans were getting their weapons to kill one another. He said, "We don't make weapons in Africa." They largely come from the U.S. and other European countries.

The U.S. sells military equipment to African nations via the Defense Security Cooperation Agency. Top recipients of these arms sales are Botswana, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guinea, Mali, Nigeria, Senegal, South Africa, Zimbabwe.

Just like in the Middle East, the sale of weapons and U.S. support for dictators in these countries, helps create more instability and chaos. So much so that now the American people are told that we need AFRICOM to go into the region to bring "stability."

AFRICOM will serve as coordinator of U.S. covert operations in Africa. Civilian assistance funds will be funneled through AFRICOM. The funding mechanisms for AFRICOM will also permit private military contractors like Blackwater USA, Dyncorp, and Triple Canopy to extend their operations on the continent.

It is all about the "privatization" of foreign and military policy these days. The more you privatize the more deadly the game becomes because no one is responsible anymore. It's all about what the corporations want and in the case of Africa the corporate globalists want their resources - and it doesn't matter how many people have to be killed to get them.

It's a deadly shell game and one that we've seen play out time and again. Sadly the African people will be made to suffer.

Nothing will change here until the American people figure out that our democracy is dead. Our current presidential election horse race is nothing but a distraction and political entertainment to keep our eyes off the ball.
Full story/Permalink

Does Your Skin Care Product Contain These Chemicals?

Why don’t you run and get a bottle of any of the skin moisturizers that you are currently using. You might find that your personal care products contain one or probably more of many possibly dangerous ingredients.

Here are a few of the most common suspicious ingredients:

• Mineral Oil, Paraffin, and Petrolatum – Petroleum products that coat the skin like plastic, clogging pores and creating a build-up of toxins, which in turn accumulate and can lead to dermatologic issues. Slows cellular development, which can cause you to show earlier signs of aging. Suspected cause of cancer. Disruptive of hormonal activity. By the way, when there’s an oil spill in the ocean, don’t they rush to clean it up – fast? Why put that stuff on your skin?
• Parabens – Widely used as preservatives in the cosmetic industry (including moisturizers). An estimated 13,200 cosmetic and skin care products contain parabens. Studies implicate their connection with cancer. They have hormone-disrupting qualities – mimicking estrogen – and interfere with the body’s endocrine system.
• Phenol carbolic acid– Found in many lotions and skin creams. Can cause circulatory collapse, paralysis, convulsions, coma and even death from respiratory failure.
• Propylene glycol – Used as a moisturizer in cosmetics and as a carrier in fragrance oils. Shown to cause dermatitis, kidney or liver abnormalities, and may inhibit skin cell growth or cause skin irritation.
• Acrylamide– Found in many hand and face creams. Linked to mammary tumors in lab research.
• Sodium laurel or lauryl sulfate (SLS), also known as sodium laureth sulfate (SLES)– Found in car washes, engine degreasers, garage floor cleaners… and in over 90% of personal care products! SLS breaks down the skin’s moisture barrier, easily penetrates the skin, and allows other chemicals to easily penetrate. Combined with other chemicals, SLS becomes a “nitrosamine”, a potent class of carcinogen. It can also cause hair loss. SLES is sometimes disguised with the labeling “comes from coconut” or “coconut-derived”.
• Toluene – Poison! Danger! Harmful or fatal if swallowed! Harmful if inhaled or absorbed through the skin. Made from petroleum or coal tar, and found in most synthetic fragrances. Chronic exposure linked to anemia, lowered blood cell count, liver or kidney damage, and may affect a developing fetus. Butylated hydroxytoluene (BHT) contains toluene. Other names may include benzoic and benzyl.
• Dioxane– Found in compounds known as PEG, Polysorbates, Laureth, ethoxylated alcohols. Common in a wide range of personal care products. The compounds are usually contaminated with high concentrations of highly volatile 1,4-dioxane, easily absorbed through the skin.
  
  Dioxane’s carcinogenicity was first reported in 1965 and later confirmed in studies including one from the National Cancer Institute in 1978. Nasal passages and liver are the most vulnerable. Dioxane is easily removed during the manufacturing process by “vacuum stripping”. Warning: It is a synthetic derivative of coconut. Watch for hidden language on labels, such as “comes from coconut”.

So, do you want to put these chemicals on your skin? Hopefully not...

You’d be better served by switching to skin care products made of plant names you recognize, can pronounce, and could even eat (if you had to).

(more)

Full story/Permalink

Recreational Drugs FAR Less Likely to Kill You than Prescribed Drugs!

Recreational Drugs FAR Less Likely to Kill You than Prescribed Drugs!

By Christopher Kent, D.C., J.D.

Recreational drugs, including cocaine and heroin, are responsible for an estimated 10,000-20,000 American deaths per year [1,2]. While this represents a serious public health problem, it is a "smokescreen" for America's real drug problem. America's "war on drugs" is directed at the wrong enemy. It is obvious that interdiction, stiff mandatory sentences, and more vigorous enforcement of drug laws have failed.

The reason is simple. Cause and effect have been reversed.

The desire to solve problems by taking drugs is a product of our culture. When a child is taught by loving parents that the appropriate response to pain or discomfort is taking a pill, it is obvious that such a child, when faced with the challenges of adolescence, will seek comfort by taking drugs.

Drugs are Dangerous Whether Pushed or Prescribed

While approximately 10,000 per year die from the effects of illegal drugs, an article in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) reported that an estimated 106,000 hospitalized patients die each year from drugs which, by medical standards, are properly prescribed and properly administered. More than two million suffer serious side effects. [3]

An article in Newsweek [4] put this into perspective. Adverse drug reactions, from "properly" prescribed drugs, are the fourth leading cause of death in the United States. According to this article, only heart disease, cancer, and stroke kill more Americans than drugs prescribed by medical doctors. Reactions to prescription drugs kill more than twice as many Americans as HIV/AIDS or suicide. Fewer die from accidents or diabetes than adverse drug reactions. It is important to point out the limitations of this study. It did not include outpatients, cases of malpractice, or instances where the drugs were not taken as directed.

According to another AMA publication, drug related "problems" kill as many as 198,815 people, put 8.8 million in hospitals, and account for up to 28% of hospital admissions. [5] If these figures are accurate, only cancer and heart disease kill more patients than drugs. Has the situation improved since the publication of this information? Hardly. Null [6] et al have published the most comprehensive and well-documented study I have seen of deaths associated with medical practice. In this report, their research revealed some shocking facts. The findings are summarized in the abstract:

"A definitive review and close reading of medical peer-review journals, and government health statistics shows that American medicine frequently causes more harm than good. The number of people having in-hospital, adverse drug reactions (ADR) to prescribed medicine is 2.2 million. Dr. Richard Besser, of the CDC, in 1995, said the number of unnecessary antibiotics prescribed annually for viral infections was 20 million. Dr. Besser, in 2003, now refers to tens of millions of unnecessary antibiotics.

The number of unnecessary medical and surgical procedures performed annually is 7.5 million. The number of people exposed to unnecessary hospitalization annually is 8.9 million. The total number of iatrogenic deaths shown in the following table is 783,936. It is evident that the American medical system is the leading cause of death and injury in the United States. The 2001 heart disease annual death rate is 699,697; the annual cancer death rate, 553,251."

Drugs Number One Killer

The authors conclude: "When the number one killer in a society is the healthcare system, then, that system has no excuse except to address its own urgent shortcomings. It's a failed system in need of immediate attention. What we have outlined in this paper are insupportable aspects of our contemporary medical system that need to be changed -- beginning at its very foundations."

A recent article in Archives of Internal Medicine [7] stated that in the seven year period from 1998 through 2005, reported serious adverse drug events increased 2.6-fold, and fatal adverse drug events increased 2.7-fold. The authors noted that reported serious events increased 4 times faster than the total number of outpatient prescriptions during the period. Another study concluded that the majority(86%) of the adverse drug reactions for which patients were admitted to a medical intensive care unit were preventable. [8]

One proposed solution to the illegal drug problem was encouraging potential users to ignore peer pressure and "just say no." Interestingly, this strategy is not being recommended for prescription drugs. Bruce Pomeranz, MD , one of the authors of the JAMA paper, said he is not warning people to stay away from drugs. "That would be a terrible message," he said. Lucian Leape, MD, of the Harvard School of Public Health said, "When you realize how many drugs we use, maybe those numbers aren't so bad after all." [4]

Does that mean that the number of deaths due to illegal drugs, suicide, HIV/AIDS, diabetes, accidents, and drunk driving "aren't so bad" either? Does it mean that we shouldn't discourage drunk driving or unsafe sex?

The folly of such double standards should be obvious to all. It is time to address the real drug problem -- the cultural notion that the first solution to seek for relief of life's problems is a drug. That's the drug culture we need to address.

References

1. "Drug deaths." Globe & Mail (Canada). February 27, 1998.

2. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. CDC. 2007;56(05):93-96.

3. Lazarou J, Pomeranz BH, Corey PN: "Incidence of adverse drug reactions in hospitalized patients." JAMA 1998;279:1200.

4. Kalb C: "When drugs do harm." Newsweek. April 27, 1998. Page 61.

5. "Reaction." American Medical News. January 15, 1996. Page 11.

6. 1. Null G, Dean C, Feldman, M, Rasio, D, Smith D: "Death by Medicine." Life Extension. March, 2004. www.lef.org/magazine/mag2004/mar2004_awsi_death_01.htm

7. Moore TJ, Cohen MR, Furberg CD: Serious adverse drug events reported to the Food and Drug Administration, 1998-2005. Archives of Internal Medicine 2007;167:1752-1759.

8. Rivkin A: Admissions to a medical intensive care unit related to adverse drug reactions. American Journal of Health-System Pharmacy 2007;64(17):1840-1843. Full story/Permalink

What if Bad Fat is Actually Good for You?

For decades, Americans have been told that saturated fat clogs arteries and causes heart disease. But there's just one problem: No one's ever proved it

By: Nina Teicholz

(Mens Health) Suppose you were forced to live on a diet of red meat and whole milk. A diet that, all told, was at least 60 percent fat -- about half of it saturated. If your first thoughts are of statins and stents, you may want to consider the curious case of the Masai, a nomadic tribe in Kenya and Tanzania.

In the 1960s, a Vanderbilt University scientist named George Mann, M.D., found that Masai men consumed this very diet (supplemented with blood from the cattle they herded). Yet these nomads, who were also very lean, had some of the lowest levels of cholesterol ever measured and were virtually free of heart disease.

Scientists, confused by the finding, argued that the tribe must have certain genetic protections against developing high cholesterol. But when British researchers monitored a group of Masai men who moved to Nairobi and began consuming a more modern diet, they discovered that the men's cholesterol subsequently skyrocketed.

Similar observations were made of the Samburu -- another Kenyan tribe -- as well as the Fulani of Nigeria. While the findings from these cultures seem to contradict the fact that eating saturated fat leads to heart disease, it may surprise you to know that this "fact" isn't a fact at all. It is, more accurately, a hypothesis from the 1950s that's never been proved.

The first scientific indictment of saturated fat came in 1953. That's the year a physiologist named Ancel Keys, Ph.D., published a highly influential paper titled "Atherosclerosis, a Problem in Newer Public Health." Keys wrote that while the total death rate in the United States was declining, the number of deaths due to heart disease was steadily climbing. And to explain why, he presented a comparison of fat intake and heart disease mortality in six countries: the United States, Canada, Australia, England, Italy, and Japan.

The Americans ate the most fat and had the greatest number of deaths from heart disease; the Japanese ate the least fat and had the fewest deaths from heart disease. The other countries fell neatly in between. The higher the fat intake, according to national diet surveys, the higher the rate of heart disease. And vice versa. Keys called this correlation a "remarkable relationship" and began to publicly hypothesize that consumption of fat- causes heart disease. This became known as the diet-heart hypothesis.

At the time, plenty of scientists were skeptical of Keys's assertions. One such critic was Jacob Yerushalmy, Ph.D., founder of the biostatistics graduate program at the University of California at Berkeley. In a 1957 paper, Yerushalmy pointed out that while data from the six countries Keys examined seemed to support the diet-heart hypothesis, statistics were actually available for 22 countries. And when all 22 were analyzed, the apparent link between fat consumption and heart disease disappeared. For example, the death rate from heart disease in Finland was 24 times that of Mexico, even though fat-consumption rates in the two nations were similar.

The other salient criticism of Keys's study was that he had observed only a correlation between two phenomena, not a clear causative link. So this left open the possibility that something else -- unmeasured or unimagined -- was leading to heart disease. After all, Americans did eat more fat than the Japanese, but perhaps they also consumed more sugar and white bread, and watched more television.

Despite the apparent flaws in Keys's argument, the diet-heart hypothesis was compelling, and it was soon heavily promoted by the American Heart Association (AHA) and the media. It offered the worried public a highly educated guess as to why the country was in the midst of a heart-disease epidemic. "People should know the facts," Keys said in a 1961 interview with Time magazine, for which he appeared on the cover. "Then if they want to eat themselves to death, let them."

The seven-countries study, published in 1970, is considered Ancel Keys's landmark achievement. It seemed to lend further credence to the diet-heart hypothesis. In this study, Keys reported that in the seven countries he selected -- the United States, Japan, Italy, Greece, Yugoslavia, Finland, and the Netherlands -- animal-fat intake was a strong predictor of heart attacks over a 5-year period. Just as important, he noted an association between total cholesterol and heart-disease mortality. This prompted him to conclude that the saturated fats in animal foods -- and not other types of fat -- raise cholesterol and ultimately lead to heart disease.

Naturally, proponents of the diet-heart hypothesis hailed the study as proof that eating saturated fat leads to heart attacks. But the data was far from rock solid. That's because in three countries (Finland, Greece, and Yugoslavia), the correlation wasn't seen. For example, eastern Finland had five times as many heart-attack fatalities and twice as much heart disease as western Finland, despite only small differences between the two regions in animal-fat intake and cholesterol levels. And while Keys provided that raw data in his report, he glossed over it as a finding. Perhaps a larger problem, though, was his assumption that saturated fat has an unhealthy effect on cholesterol levels.

Although more than a dozen types of saturated fat exist, humans predominantly consume three: stearic acid, palmitic acid, and lauric acid. This trio comprises almost 95 percent of the saturated fat in a hunk of prime rib, a slice of bacon, or a piece of chicken skin, and nearly 70 percent of that in butter and whole milk.

Today, it's well established that stearic acid has no effect on cholesterol levels. In fact, stearic acid -- which is found in high amounts in cocoa as well as animal fat --i s converted to a monounsaturated fat called oleic acid in your liver. This is the same heart-healthy fat found in olive oil. As a result, scientists generally regard this saturated fatty acid as either benign or potentially beneficial to your health.

Palmitic and lauric acid, however, are known to raise total cholesterol. But here's what's rarely reported: Research shows that although both of these saturated fatty acids increase LDL ("bad") cholesterol, they raise HDL ("good") cholesterol just as much, if not more. And this lowers your risk of heart disease. That's because it's commonly believed that LDL cholesterol lays down plaque on your artery walls, while HDL removes it. So increasing both actually reduces the proportion of bad cholesterol in your blood to the good kind. This may explain why numerous studies have reported that this HDL/LDL ratio is a better predictor of future heart disease than LDL alone.

All of this muddies Keys's claim of a clear connection between saturated-fat intake, cholesterol, and heart disease. If saturated fat doesn't raise cholesterol in such a way that it increases heart-disease risk, then according to the scientific method, the diet-heart hypothesis must be rejected. However, in 1977 it was still a promising idea.

That was the year Congress made it government policy to recommend a low-fat diet, based primarily on the opinions of health experts who supported the diet-heart hypothesis. It was a decision met with much criticism from the scientific community, including the American Medical Association. After all, officially endorsing a low-fat diet could change the eating habits of millions of Americans, and the potential effects of this strategy were widely debated and certainly unproved.

We've spent billions of our tax dollars trying to prove the diet-heart hypothesis. Yet study after study has failed to provide definitive evidence that saturated-fat intake leads to heart disease. The most recent example is the Women's Health Initiative, the government's largest and most expensive ($725 million) diet study yet. The results, published last year, show that a diet low in total fat and saturated fat had no impact in reducing heart-disease and stroke rates in some 20,000 women who had adhered to the regimen for an average of 8 years.

But this paper, like many others, plays down its own findings and instead points to four studies that, many years ago, apparently did find a link between saturated fat and heart disease. Because of this, it's worth taking a closer look at each.

The Los Angeles VA Hospital Study (1969) This UCLA study of 850 men reported that those who replaced saturated fats with polyunsaturated fats were less likely to die of heart disease and stroke over a 5-year period than were men who didn't alter their diets. However, more of those who changed their diets died of cancer, and the average age of death was the same in both groups. What's more, "through an oversight," the study authors neglected to collect crucial data on smoking habits from about 100 men. They also reported that the men successfully adhered to the diet only half the time.

The Oslo Diet-Heart Study (1970) Two hundred men followed a diet low in saturated fat for 5 years while another group ate as they pleased. The dieters had fewer heart attacks, but there was no difference in total deaths between the two groups.

The Finnish Mental Hospital Study (1979) This trial took place from 1959 to 1971 and appeared to document a reduction in heart disease in psychiatric patients following a "cholesterol-lowering" diet. But the experiment was poorly controlled: Almost half of the 700 participants joined or left the study over its 12-year duration.

The St. Thomas' Atherosclerosis Regression Study (1992) Only 74 men completed this 3-year study conducted at St. Thomas' Hospital, in London. It found a reduction in cardiac events among men with heart disease who adopted a low-fat diet. There's a major caveat, though: Their prescribed diets were also low in sugar.

These four studies, even though they have serious flaws and are tiny compared with the Women's Health Initiative, are often cited as definitive proof that saturated fats cause heart disease. Many other more recent trials cast doubt on the diet-heart hypothesis. These studies should be considered in the context of all the other research.

In 2000, a respected international group of scientists called the Cochrane Collaboration conducted a "meta-analysis" of the scientific literature on cholesterol-lowering diets. After applying rigorous selection criteria (219 trials were excluded), the group examined 27 studies involving more than 18,000 participants. Although the authors concluded that cutting back on dietary fat may help reduce heart disease, their published data actually shows that diets low in saturated fats have no significant effect on mortality, or even on deaths due to heart attacks.

"I was disappointed that we didn't find something more definitive," says Lee Hooper, Ph.D., who led the Cochrane review. If this exhaustive analysis didn't provide evidence of the dangers of saturated fat, says Hooper, it was probably because the studies reviewed didn't last long enough, or perhaps because the participants didn't lower their saturated-fat intake enough. Of course, there is a third possibility, which Hooper doesn't mention: The diet-heart hypothesis is incorrect.

Ronald Krauss, M.D., won't say saturated fats are good for you. "But," he concedes, "we don't have convincing evidence that they're bad, either."

For 30 years, Dr. Krauss -- an adjunct professor of nutritional sciences at the University of California at Berkeley -- has been studying the effect of diet and blood lipids on cardiovascular disease. He points out that while some studies show that replacing saturated fats with unsaturated fats lowers heart-disease risk, this doesn't mean that saturated fats lead to clogged arteries. "It may simply suggest that unsaturated fats are an even healthier option," he says.

But there's more to this story: In 1980, Dr. Krauss and his colleagues discovered that LDL cholesterol is far from the simple "bad" particle it's commonly thought to be. It actually comes in a series of different sizes, known as subfractions. Some LDL subfractions are large and fluffy. Others are small and dense. This distinction is important.

A decade ago, Canadian researchers reported that men with the highest number of small, dense LDL subfractions had four times the risk of developing clogged arteries than those with the fewest. Yet they found no such association for the large, fluffy particles. These findings were confirmed in subsequent studies.

Now here's the saturated-fat connection: Dr. Krauss found that when people replace the carbohydrates in their diet with fat--saturated or unsaturated -- the number of small, dense LDL particles decreases. This leads to the highly counterintuitive notion that replacing your breakfast cereal with eggs and bacon could actually reduce your risk of heart disease.

Men, more than women, are predisposed to having small, dense LDL. However, the propensity is highly flexible and, according to Dr. Krauss, can be switched on when people eat high-carb, low-fat diets or switched off when they reduce carbs and eat diets high in fat, including the saturated variety. "There's a subgroup of people at high risk of heart disease who may respond well to diets low in fat," says Dr. Krauss. "But the majority of healthy people seem to derive very little benefit from these low-fat diets, in terms of heart-disease risk factors, unless they also lose weight and exercise. And if a low-fat diet is also loaded with carbs, it can actually result in adverse changes in blood lipids."

While Dr. Krauss is much published and highly respected -- he has served twice as chairman of the writing committee of the AHA's dietary guidelines -- the far-reaching implications of his work have not been generally acknowledged. "Academic scientists believe saturated fat is bad for you," says Penny Kris-Etherton, Ph.D., a distinguished professor of nutritional studies at Penn State University, citing as evidence the "many studies" she believes show it to be true. But not everyone accepts those studies, and their proponents find it hard to be heard. Kris-Etherton acknowledges that "there's a good deal of reluctance toward accepting evidence suggesting the contrary."

Take, for example, a 2004 Harvard University study of older women with heart disease. Researchers found that the more saturated fat these women consumed, the less likely it was their condition would worsen. Lead study author Dariush Mozaffarian, Ph.D., an assistant professor at Harvard's school of public health, recalls that before the paper was published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, he encountered formidable politics from other journals.

"In the nutrition field, it's very difficult to get something published that goes against established dogma," says Mozaffarian. "The dogma says that saturated fat is harmful, but that is not based, to me, on unequivocal evidence." Mozaffarian says he believes it's critical that scientists remain open minded. "Our finding was surprising to us. And when there's a discovery that goes against what's established, it shouldn't be suppressed but rather disseminated and explored as much as possible."

Perhaps the apparent bias against saturated fat is most evident in studies on low-carbohydrate diets. Many versions of this approach are controversial because they place no limitations on saturated-fat intake. As a result, supporters of the diet-heart hypothesis have argued that low-carb diets will increase the risk of heart disease. But published research doesn't show this to be the case. When people on low-carb diets have been compared head-to-head with those on low-fat diets, the low-carb dieters typically scored significantly better on markers of heart disease, including small, dense LDL cholesterol, HDL/LDL ratio, and triglycerides, which are a measure of the amount of fat circulating in your blood.

For example, in a new 12-week study, University of Connecticut scientists placed overweight men and women on either a low-carb or low-fat diet. Those who followed the low-carb diet consumed 36 grams of saturated fat per day (22 percent of total calories), which represented more than three times the amount in the low-fat diet. Yet despite this considerably greater intake of saturated fat, the low-carb dieters reduced both their number of small, dense LDL cholesterol and their HDL/LDL ratio to a greater degree than those who ate a low-fat diet. In addition, triglycerides decreased by 51 percent in the low-carb group--compared with 19 percent in the low-fat group.

This finding is worth noting, because even though cholesterol is the most commonly cited risk factor for heart disease, triglyceride levels may be equally relevant. In a 40-year study at the University of Hawaii, scientists found that low triglyceride levels at middle age best predicted "exceptional survival" -- defined as living until age 85 without suffering from a major disease.

According to lead study author Jeff Volek, Ph.D., R.D., two factors influence the amount of fat coursing through your veins. The first, of course, is the amount of fat you eat. But the more important factor is less obvious. Turns out, your body makes fat from carbohydrates. It works like this: The carbs you eat (particularly starches and sugar) are absorbed into your bloodstream as sugar. As your carb intake rises, so does your blood sugar. This causes your body to release the hormone insulin. Insulin's job is to return your blood sugar to normal, but it also signals your body to store fat. As a result, your liver starts converting excess blood sugar to triglycerides, or fat.

All of which helps explain why the low-carb dieters in Volek's study had a greater loss of fat in their blood. Restricting carbs keeps insulin levels low, which lowers your internal production of fat and allows more of the fat you do eat to be burned for energy.

Yet even with this emerging data and the lack of scientific support for the diet-heart hypothesis, the latest AHA dietary guidelines have reduced the recommended amount of saturated fat from 10 percent of daily calories to 7 percent or less. "The idea was to encourage people to decrease their saturated-fat intake even further, because there's a linear relationship between saturated-fat intake and LDL cholesterol," says Alice H. Lichtenstein, Ph.D., Sc.D., who led the AHA nutrition committee that wrote the recommendation.

What about Krauss's findings that not all LDL is equal? Lichtenstein says that her committee didn't address them, but that it might in the future.

It could be that it's not bad foods that cause heart disease, it's bad habits. After all, in Volek's study, participants who followed the low-fat diet -- which was high in carbs -- also decreased their triglycerides. "The key factor is that they weren't overeating," says Volek. "This allowed the carbohydrates to be used for energy rather than converted to fat." Perhaps this is the most important point of all. If you consistently consume more calories than you burn, and you gain weight, your risk of heart disease will increase -- whether you favor eating saturated fats, carbs, or both.

But if you're living a healthy lifestyle -- you aren't overweight, you don't smoke, you exercise regularly -- then the composition of your diet may matter much less. And, based on the research of Volek and Dr. Krauss, a weight-loss or maintenance diet in which some carbohydrates are replaced with fat -- even if it's saturated -- will reduce markers of heart-disease risk more than if you followed a low-fat, high-carb diet.

"The message isn't that you should gorge on butter, bacon, and cheese," says Volek. "It's that there's no scientific reason that natural foods containing saturated fat can't, or shouldn't, be part of a healthy diet."

Full story/Permalink

The European Central Bank is being Cagey

The European Central Bank is being Cagey

Posted by Bill Bonner on Jan 17th, 2008

The European Central Bank is being cagey. Recently, Jean-Claude Trichet tried to explain himself. We do not have the same mandate as the U.S. Fed, he put forth. The Fed is meant to do two things at once - protect the value of the dollar…and maintain a healthy, prosperous economy. Our mission at the ECB, he went on, is merely to protect the value of the currency.

Accordingly, the ECB has been reluctant to cut rates in order to help the economy. And consequently, the euro (EUR) has gone up against the dollar…and the pound.

In today’s news, the ECB warns that the U.S. Fed may not be able to continue cutting rates: “crashing dollar may stop Fed cuts,” says the headline.

Against gold and oil, the dollar has already crashed. You could buy an ounce of gold for just over $260 when George W. Bush first began using the White House toilet on a regular basis. That was not quite seven years ago. As of yesterday, you’d pay $902 for an ounce. Against gold, the buck has lost 60% of its value in less than two presidential terms. Against oil, it has taken a similar shellacking. Even against the euro - Europe’s Esperanto money - the greenback has been cut in half, more or less, over the same period of time.

And now the whole world is wise to America’s game. When the voters feel pinched, the feds give them more money. But the money they give them competes for value directly with the dollars the foreigners have saved. The Asians, for example, sweat and save…and stick the dollars in their vaults. Now, they have trillions of them. But they wake up every morning and find their dollars are losing value. One day, a dollar buys one 800th of an ounce of gold. A few days later, it will only bring one 900th. One week, a dollar will buy one 90th of a barrel of oil. The next week, a barrel of oil costs $100.

So the ECB feels it is only fair to give warning. ‘Don’t expect us to keep protecting the quality of your money. If you keep putting it out, we’re going to sell it.’

Trichet is right about the theory. But he is probably wrong about the practice. Property prices on the fringe of Europe - in Ireland and Spain, notably - are falling faster than those in the United States. It won’t be long before the squeals of pain - in various foreign languages - reach the ECB too.

Spain and Ireland benefited hugely from the European Union. Suddenly, the Irish and the Spanish were able to borrow money at rates set by the Germans. They were low rates - the kind of rates the Germans, with the financial discipline and economic rigor, deserved. When such rates were on tap in Ireland, it set the whole country into major boom. Everyone wanted to buy property. And after a decade, Irish property was the most expensive in Europe…and the Irish, improbably, were Europe’s richest people. In Spain, the circumstances were different. But the effect was the same - Spain enjoyed a boom of the sort not seen in Iberia since the galleons came back from the New World with Inca gold.

But now what? Irish houses fell about 10% last year. We don’t have figures on Spanish property prices, but word on the Costa del Sol is that they are falling…and so are the shares of the large builders who have been putting up apartments at a furious pace for the last 10 years. And the editors of International Living magazine tell me that they’re preparing a special feature article on Spanish real estate prices in the next issue. “If you’re looking for bargains,” they say, “that’s the place to look.”

What will Trichet do in the face of such America-like problems? Will he hold fast to his principles and refuse to cut rates? Or will he take a page of the Alan Greenspan Manual of Successful Central Banking and fall into line with his counterparts in Washington and London? Like them, will he favor the quantity side of the balance…and let the quality go to Hell?

We don’t know. And we’d still rather hold euros than dollars…but the rate of increase in the European money supply is not much different from that of the dollar - about three or four times GDP increases. We prefer the yen to the euro…and the euro to the dollar…and the dollar to the pound…but we’d rather hold gold than any of them.

Bill Bonner
for The Daily Reckoning Australia

Full story/Permalink

Industrial by-product consumed by millions of Americans lowers IQ, causes cancer

Scientific Study Finds Fluoride Horror Stories Factual
Industrial by-product consumed by millions of Americans lowers IQ, causes cancer

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet

The establishment media will have to find a new tactic with which to ridicule those who oppose the fluoridation of water after a major new Scientific American report concluded that "Scientific attitudes toward fluoridation may be starting to shift" as new evidence emerges of the poison's link to disorders affecting teeth, bones, the brain and the thyroid gland, as well as lowering IQ.

"Today almost 60 percent of the U.S. population drinks fluoridated water, including residents of 46 of the nation’s 50 largest cities," reports Scientific American's Dan Fagin.

Fagin is an award-wining environmental reporter and Director of New York University's Science, Health and Environmental Reporting Program.

"Outside the U.S., fluoridation has spread to Canada, the U.K., Australia, New Zealand and a few other countries. Critics of the practice have generally been dismissed as gadflies or zealots by mainstream researchers and public health agencies in those countries as well as the U.S. (In other nations, however, water fluoridation is rare and controversial.)"

(Article continues below)

Indeed, the zeitgeist for scoffing at those who spoke of the dangers of mass medicating the public against their will with fluoride was the deranged and paranoid character of General Ripper in the hit 1964 Peter Selllers movie Dr. Strangelove.

But that stereotype is quickly fading as serious scientific research uncovers proof that all the horror stories about sodium fluoride told down the decades are essentially true.

The Scientific American study "Concluded that fluoride can subtly alter endocrine function, especially in the thyroid -- the gland that produces hormones regulating growth and metabolism."

The report also notes that "a series of epidemiological studies in China have associated high fluoride exposures with lower IQ."

"Epidemiological studies and tests on lab animals suggest that high fluoride exposure increases the risk of bone fracture, especially in vulnerable populations such as the elderly and diabetics," writes Fagin.

Fagin interviewed Steven Levy, director of the Iowa Fluoride Study which tracked about 700 Iowa children for sixteen years. Nine-year-old "Iowa children who lived in communities where the water was fluoridated were 50 percent more likely to have mild fluorosis... than [nine-year-old] children living in nonfluoridated areas of the state," writes Fagin.

The study adds to a growing literature of shocking scientific studies proving fluoride's link with all manner of health defects, even as governments in the west, including recently the UK, make plans to mass medicate the population against their will with this deadly toxin.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRISON PLANET.TV NEW YEARS SPECIAL - IT'S BACK!
Subscribe today for just $39.95 and get the equivalent of 5 months free!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In 2005, a study conducted at the Harvard School of Dental Health found that fluoride in tap water directly contributes to causing bone cancer in young boys.

"New American research suggests that boys exposed to fluoride between the ages of five and 10 will suffer an increased rate of osteosarcoma - bone cancer - between the ages of 10 and 19," according to a London Observer article about the study.

Based on the findings of the study, the respected Environmental Working Group lobbied to have fluoride in tap water be added to the US government's classified list of substances known or anticipated to cause cancer in humans.

Cancer rates in the U.S. have skyrocketed with one in three people now contracting the disease at some stage in their life.

The link to bone cancer has also been discovered by other scientists, but a controversy ensued after it emerged that Harvard Professor Chester Douglass, who downplayed the connection in his final report, was in fact editor-in-chief of The Colgate Oral Health Report, a quarterly newsletter funded by Colgate-Palmolive Co., which makes fluoridated toothpaste.

An August 2006 Chinese study found that fluoride in drinking water damages children's liver and kidney functions.

FACTS ABOUT FLUORIDE

- Fluoride is a waste by-product of the fertilizer and aluminum industry and it's also a Part II Poison under the UK Poisons Act 1972.

- Fluoride is one of the basic ingredients in both PROZAC (FLUoxetene Hydrochloride) and Sarin nerve gas (Isopropyl-Methyl-Phosphoryl FLUoride).

- USAF Major George R. Jordan testified before Un-American Activity committees of Congress in the 1950's that in his post as U.S.-Soviet liaison officer, the Soviets openly admitted to "Using the fluoride in the water supplies in their concentration camps, to make the prisoners stupid, docile, and subservient."

- The first occurrence of fluoridated drinking water on Earth was found in Germany's Nazi prison camps. The Gestapo had little concern about fluoride's supposed effect on children's teeth; their alleged reason for mass-medicating water with sodium fluoride was to sterilize humans and force the people in their concentration camps into calm submission. (Ref. book: "The Crime and Punishment of I.G. Farben" by Joseph Borkin.)

- 97% of western Europe has rejected fluoridated water due to the known health risks, however 10% of Britons drink it and the UK government is trying to fast track the fluoridation of the entire country's water supply.

- In Germany, Belgium and Luxembourg fluoridation of water was rejected because it was classified as compulsive medication against the subject's will and therefore violated fundamental human rights.

- In November of 2006, the American Dental Association (ADA) advised that parents should avoid giving babies fluoridated water.

- Sources of fluoride include: fluoride dental products, fluoride pesticides, fluoridated pharmaceuticals, processed foods made with fluoridated water, and tea.

Full story/Permalink

The polio vaccine, AIDS, and their US-made viruses

By Jerry Mazza

(online journal)

When I was a teenager growing up in Brooklyn, my parents warned me every summer to stay away from public pools or taking any chances running under opened fire hydrants to cools us from the brick-and-tar baking heat. Their fear was the epidemic of polio that haunted the US -- 52,000 cases in 1952 alone. My parents worried that polio “germs” could be carried in the highly used and abused public waters.

Yet in April 1955, in my 17th year, lo and behold Dr. Jonas Salk, a funny looking guy from Pittsburgh, announced from the University of Michigan that he had developed a polio vaccine for distribution. Eureka. Thousands of families like mine flooded to the local doctors, clinics, and hospitals. It seemed all those rosaries my friends’ mothers and mine gave up to the Holy Mother paid off. But did they?

As William Carlsen reports in his SFGATE article “Rogue virus in the vaccine:” Salk’s vaccine was produced by actually growing live polio virus on kidney tissue from the Asian rhesus monkey. The virus was then killed with formaldehyde. Thus, when the vaccine was injected in humans, the dead virus generated antibodies that could fend off live polio. What a simple, beautiful idea. Or so it seemed.

What the millions of people who were injected didn’t know, nor would they until 1959, when Bernice Eddy, looking in her microscope at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), found that monkey kidney cells, the very same kind used to make the vaccine, were dying with no known cause. So she experimented.

She prepared extracts from kidneys from eight to 10 rhesus monkeys. She then injected tiny amounts beneath the skin of 23 newborn hamsters. In nine months, “large, malignant, subcutaneous tumors” showed up on 20 of the animals -- and the world shook. Or did it?

Eddy tried to spread the word

Horrified that a monkey virus could be contaminating the famous polio vaccine, on July 6, 1960, Eddy shared her findings with Dr. Joseph Smadel, chief of NIH’s biologics division, who summarily dismissed the tumors as harmless “lumps.” Meanwhile at a Pennsylvania Merck lab, Dr. Maurice Hilleman and Dr. Ben Sweet isolated the virus. They named it Simian Virus 40 or SV40 for being the 40th virus found in rhesus kidney tissue. So much for miracle drugs.

Nevertheless, by then we seemed to be winning the polio war. Sixty percent of the population, some 98 million Americans, had gotten at least one shot of the Salk vaccine and the number of cases was diving downwards.

Concurrently, an oral polio vaccine developed by virologist Albert Sabin was in its final trials in Russia and Eastern Europe. Tens of millions of people had been given it, and it was ready to be licensed in the US. Its big difference was that unlike the Salk vaccine, Sabin’s version contained a live but weakened form of polio virus that “promised” lifelong immunity.

Fortunately, US Public Health Service (PHS) officials had conducted tests and found SV40 in both the Sabin and Salk vaccines. The US PHS estimated that a third of the Salk vaccine was tainted, and that SV40 was causing cancer in lab animals. Picture the corporate and government panic at this news, which was less than mildly shared with the public.

Early in 1961, PHS officials met quietly with the agency’s top vaccine advisers. Strangely, the agency found no evidence the virus had been harmful to humans. Yet in March, officials ordered manufacturers to eliminate SV40 from all future vaccine. New plans to neutralize the tainted polio virus seed stock were adopted and SV40-free African green monkeys were used to make the bulk vaccine instead of rhesus monkeys. More monkey business.

Amazingly, officials didn’t recall the contaminated Salk vaccine, that is, more than a year’s supply. It stayed in the hands of the country’s doctors. And they didn’t notify the public of the contamination and SV40’s effect on new born hamsters. Their strange reasoning was that any negative information could start a panic and put the vaccination campaign in danger. What about the millions of people who took the vaccines? Weren’t they being put in danger?

The first disclosure

The Salk vaccine contamination story crept on cat’s feet on July 26, 1961, onto page 33 of the New York Times. It reported Merck and other manufacturers had halted production until they could get “monkey virus” out of the vaccine. Asked for comments, the US PHS said there was no evidence the virus was dangerous. Except, of course, to the 20 baby hamsters it blew away.

In 1962, a Harvard epidemiologist, Dr. Joseph Fraumeni, joined the National Cancer Institute and was assigned to find out if there was any cancer increase among those injected with the Salk vaccine. With two Colleagues, Fraumeni tested vaccine samples from May and June of 1955, the first months of the national immunization campaign. Then they ranked the samples according to “no,” “low” or “high” amounts of SV40 they contained.

It was the only time US health officials would measure such level in the 55-62 vaccine. Stored samples were later dumped. Fraumeni pinpointed states where contaminated vaccines were distributed during the key months. California received a vaccine with a low level of the virus. The study also looked at cancer death rates for 6-to-8-year olds vaccinated during that narrow time frame and tracked the group for four years.

Findings, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, showed no significant difference in cancer deaths in states with high or low levels of SV40 in the vaccine when compared with cancer deaths in states with no SV40 in the vaccine.

Yet some 14 years later, after “isolated reports” linking the virus to human cancers, Fraumeni deemed another group should be looked at that had received contaminated vaccine. This group was the subject of trials conducted in the early '60s at Cleveland Metropolitan general Hospital. To see the effect of different amounts of SV40 in vaccines, hospital researchers inoculated newborns from mostly lower-income black families. Noticeably, doses ranged up to more than 100 times the dose recommended for adults, not a nice thing to do to those black kids.

The experiments spanned three years, involving 1,073 infants. The majority were given Sabin oral, which later was shown to contain SV40. A 1982 report in the New England Journal of Medicine hedged the study’s limitations: that a majority of the kids had not responded; but SV40-realted cancers could take longer than 17 to 19 years to appear; and SV40 appeared less likely to infect humans through the oral vaccine.

Despite these critical caveats, the whitewash called the findings “reassuring and consistent with the prevailing view that SV40 is not carcinogenic in human beings.” Then they called a halt to the studies, claiming “mountains of complexities and obstacles in tracing this particular group and the negative results to date.” This is not to mention their destructive racism, which would remain part of the government’s position for years.

BOOM, 1988

In Boston, Dr. Robert Garcea and assistant, Dr. John Bergsagel, used a new tool, a polymerase chain reaction, PCR, to look for a pair of common human viruses in kids’ brain tumors. A different DNA footprint popped up in more than half the tumors. It finally hit them that they were seeing SV40.

The PCR was capable of amplifying the smallest fragments of DNA, making detections far more credible than earlier more primitive tests for SV40-like proteins in human tumors. The findings were disturbing, indicating that the children were too young to have received the contaminated vaccine, yet somehow the virus infected them and embedded itself in their tumors.

In that same year, Dr. Michele Carbone found a milky, rind-like tumor in a laboratory at the National Insitutes of Health in Bethesda, Md. Carbone performed a variety of experiments showing that sixty percent of hamsters, after having SV40 injected into their hearts, contracted the fatal cancer, mesothelioma. Something awful was happening.

Carbone finally used PCR to test 48 human mesotheliomas stored at the NIH. He was stunned when 28 of them contained SV40. PCR went on to unleash a wave of SV40 discoveries. By the end of 1996, dozens of scientists reported SV40 in a variety of bone cancers and a wide range of brain cancers, a rise of 30 percent over the previous 20 years.

At the National Cancer Institute in Bethesda, officials were growing increasingly concerned about the SV40 discoveries. And these findings were of particular interest to Fraumeni, who had been promoted to director of the NCI (National Cancer Institute)’s Division on Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics. His early studies concluding that SV40 posed little or no health risk were now under challenge . . .

More about the NCI, National Cancer Institute

The deadly truth is that the National Cancer Institute (NCI-Frederick) and 37 mission partners are located at Fort Detrick, about 20 minutes from Bethesda, Maryland. The Fort is home to the United States Army Medical Research and Materiel Command (ISAMRMC). The primary missions include biomedical research and development. This is where the AIDS virus was developed, but not from monkeys.

In my 2005 Online Journal article, The AIDS virus: Made in the USA?, I reported that “Dr. Robert Strecker indicated that the AIDS virus was in fact developed by the National Cancer Institute, in cooperation with the World Health Organization (WHO), in a laboratory at Ft. Detrick in Maryland. From 1970–74, this laboratory facility was part of the U.S. Army’s germ warfare unit, known as the Army Infectious Disease Unit, or Special Operations Division, also referred to as the Army’s Chemical and Biological Warfare Laboratory. Post 1974, the facility was renamed the National Cancer Institute (NCI). According to researcher William Cooper (former Navy Intelligence officer), noted in Larry Jamison’s article Is The AIDS Virus Man Made?, this work was supervised by the CIA under a project called MK-NAOMI. [To get to this site click link, then “All News,” then “Next page”].

“Dr. Strecker has also traced some of the research and researchers at Ft. Detrick/NCI to a group of Japanese scientists captured at WW II’s end and given amnesty in exchange for information on racial and ethnic bio-weaponry, their research dating back to 1930. What’s more, expatriated Russian scientists were brought in to help as well.

“Dr. Strecker, one of the original and foremost authorities on the AIDS virus, found that the virus creation was conducted under the leadership of Dr. Robert Gallo, who later claimed to discover the virus. Dr. Gallo and his team created the AIDS virus by combining the bovine (cattle) leukemia virus and visna (sheep) virus, and injecting them into human tissue cultures.

“They discovered, as Strecker did, that bovine leukemia virus is lethal to cattle, but not to humans. And the visna virus is deadly to sheep, but not to man. However, when combined, they produce a retro-virus that can change the genetic composition of the cells they enter. In fact, as Larry Jamison points out, early field tests on prison convicts led to sickness then death, which inspired Gallo and friends to bigger and more terrible things, including injecting brothers and sisters with the tainted vaccine to see who died first. This was done to study HLA (human leukocyte antigen processing), to see how related people reacted. Frighteningly, whole families got sick at once! And there was worse to come.

“The AIDS retro-virus works, as Dr. Strecker states, by causing the destruction of the immune system, fundamentally the body's white blood or T-cells essential to the effectiveness of the immune system particularly against opportunistic infections diseases. The B-cells deal with more benign, bacterial infections. AZT, the drug which is a kind of junk food that starves the AIDS virus, often kills the patient as well. It provides dubious consolation. . . ."

As an updating underscore, I quote from Dr. Alan Cantwell’s 11/4/04 article at Rense.com, The Man-Made Origin Of AIDS -- Important Notes . . . in which he unqualifiedly states: “VISNA VIRUS WAS MOVED INTO PORCINE, BOVINE, AND HUMAN CELLS CAUSING PRODUCTIVE INFECTION PRIOR TO ANY ADVENT OF HIV ANYWHERE.

“ . . . The capital-lettered statement above is uncontestable. It is a fact.”

The polio virus was monkey-derived, but AIDS was not . . .

I repeat the above so that the idea of a monkey biting an African’s butt or of Simian Virus 40 being the culprit for HIV-AIDS is not the case. There is a desire to surrender to this idea because it seems convenient. African populations live in jungle areas and are largely black and may be in contact with monkeys. Unfortunately, to a lesser degree AIDS has struck white communities in America as well, either white and/or gay in addition to black and/or Latino, i.e. minorities, ergo expendable to the elites. The question is, was the CIA/NCI behind the polio virus as well? It’s timeline flows into and parallels the AIDS virus.

Again, the AIDS virus was weaponized at Fort Detrick. As Cantwell reports, “I believe, based on now some 16 years of investigation of this whole thing that HIV is a strategic biological weapon designed to kill billions of people in a slow-unfolding relentless holocaust which was released in two different vaccination programs: a) the smallpox vaccination program in Africa commencing in the late 1960s, b) the hepatitis-B vaccination program in the United States in the mid-to-late 1970s.

“Moreover, so it is perfectly clear, this contamination was no accident. It was done on purpose with the goal of ‘thinning the herd’ in a Nazi-like mindset that has covertly governed population control politics since the 1870s. These same politics had pervaded the WHO [World Health Organization] and most of western medical experimental science throughout the 20th century. And, to be very pointed: the same political ideology is still there. Non-whites [and gay whites] are detrimental to the gene pool's evolution so says the political philosophy. To see a bit of this in history, go here:

“http://members.aol.com/Pantheism0/haekrace.htm

http://www.islamdenouncesantisemitism.com/thesocial.htm

http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/hsneg.htm

http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/biology/b103/f00/web1/hossain.html

http://womenshistory.about.com/library/bio/blbio_margaret_sanger.htm

http://blackgenocide.org/sanger04.html

http://www.cwfa.org/library/life/2001-05_pp_n-project.shtml

http://www.scils.rutgers.edu/~lyonsm/tuskegee.html

http://www.press.uillinois.edu/f02/tucker.html

http://www.ferris.edu/isar/Institut/pioneer/forbes.htm

http://www.pioneerfund.org/speak2.html

http://www.pioneerfund.org/

http://www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/stalkers/jpr_rghrs.html

http://www.beloit.edu/~biology/genethics/eugenics.html

http://www.interactivist.net/housing/war_2.html

http://directory.google.com/Top/Society/Philosophy/Ethics/Applied/Bioethics/Eugenics/

http://www.jhu.edu/~jhumag/0997web/tenure.html

http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/lillithsrealm/myhomepage/Eugenics/HistoryEugenics.htm

http://www.breggin.com/Mehlerart.html

http://www.zmag.org/ZMag/articles/sferiosjune98.htm

“This belief system is pervasive in the molecular sciences as it is at the heart of eugenics, cloning, evolution, and heritability.”

Yet, little did my Brooklyn family, friends, myself and America know what darker forces were lurking about us in the 50s and 60s, especially in the post WW-ll surge in our economy, military strength, intelligence community and the confidence that America was the best, safest, the most noble place to grow up in and ultimately defend.

In fact, was the polio vaccine weaponized from the get-go with SV40 the way the World Health Organization laced a smallpox vaccine for millions of Africans with the AIDS virus? Or was the polio virus a Pandora’s box opened by a well-meaning Salk? If so, why did it take so long to unearth and never really correct it? And how many millions of Americans have paid with their lives via the SV40 cancer-link? Here is one doctor’s answer, again from my article . . .

“Also, concerning green monkeys, Dr. William Campbell Douglass, MD, writes in 1987 in W.H.O. Murdered Africa: “This is the origin of the green monkey theory. The polio vaccine was grown on green monkey kidney cells and the geniuses who brought us polio vaccine said: ‘We got away with it once so let's use it again.’ But they didn't get away with it and in spite of the fact that polio was rapidly disappearing without any medical intervention, 64 million Americans were vaccinated with SV-40 contaminated vaccine in the 60s. An increase in cancer of the brain, possibly multiple sclerosis and God only knows what else is the tragic result. The delay between vaccination and the onset of cancer with this virus is as long as 20–30 years. Nineteen sixty-five plus 20 equals 1985. Get the picture?”

Unfortunately, it’s a rather grim picture, but as close as the truth as I can get on this awful subject. I suggest you read the entirety of my first AIDS article, including all links. Knowledge is power as they say. And even back in 2005, I reported Bilderberger involvement in all this, the power beyond the powers that rule, going about its deadly business.

Jerry Mazza is a freelance writer living in New York. Reach him at gvmaz@verizon.net. Full story/Permalink

World's First Air-Powered Car: Zero Emissions by Next Summer

ndia’s largest automaker is set to start producing the world’s first commercial air-powered vehicle. The Air Car, developed by ex-Formula One engineer Guy Nègre for Luxembourg-based MDI, uses compressed air, as opposed to the gas-and-oxygen explosions of internal-combustion models, to push its engine’s pistons. Some 6000 zero-emissions Air Cars are scheduled to hit Indian streets in August of 2008.

Barring any last-minute design changes on the way to production, the Air Car should be surprisingly practical. The $12,700 CityCAT, one of a handful of planned Air Car models, can hit 68 mph and has a range of 125 miles. It will take only a few minutes for the CityCAT to refuel at gas stations equipped with custom air compressor units; MDI says it should cost around $2 to fill the car’s carbon-fiber tanks with 340 liters of air at 4350 psi. Drivers also will be able to plug into the electrical grid and use the car’s built-in compressor to refill the tanks in about 4 hours.

Of course, the Air Car will likely never hit American shores, especially considering its all-glue construction. But that doesn’t mean the major automakers can write it off as a bizarre Indian experiment — MDI has signed deals to bring its design to 12 more countries, including Germany, Israel and South Africa.

Full story/Permalink

Intrigue Uncovered in Bhutto’s Murder

Once again an all-too-familiar hand is caught stirring the pot in Pakistan

By Mark Glenn

(source)

Is the assassination of former Pakistani Prime Minster Benazhir Bhutto—whose Pakistan People’s Party was considered a shoe-in during the upcoming elections—yet another piece in the neocon puzzle aimed at further de-stabilizing the Islamic world and furthering the goal of perpetual war in the Middle East for Israel’s benefit?

Pakistan was immediately thrown into turmoil over the news of her death. The people were already incensed with President Pervez Musharraf, who was seen as a puppet for American and Zionist interests. They blamed him
for her death and named him the prime suspect.

Bhutto returned from an eight-year, self-imposed exile at the insistence of American operatives including Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. The bait in bringing her back to her native Pakistan was the elimination of corruption charges she was facing as well as assuring her a prominent place in an upcoming new Pakistani government.

With Musharraf’s unpopularity and the risk that the West would lose control over Pakistan, Bhutto’s return could douse the fires of a popular revolution as occurred in 1979 Iran. The main theme of her platform was “bringing democracy” and “fighting Islamic extremism” and in general making Pakistan a country cooperative with Western demands through her Pakistan People’s Party.

It is too early to assume this assassination is yet another false flag operation. But there are several items that can lead people to conclude her death at the hands of yet another “lone gunman” is all part of a bigger plan in furthering the neocon agenda in the Middle East.

De-stabilization of Islamic countries is the name of the game when it comes to the neocon agenda. Israeli oriented think tanks, groups and papers written such as “Clean-Break” and The New American Century speak openly of creating chaos in the region for the purpose of keeping Islamic countries divided and weak.

Pakistan, the lone Islamic country possessing nuclear weapons, is no exception. Like Iran and other Middle Eastern nations, Pakistan has remained recalcitrant toward normalizing relations with Israel and despite the relatively cooperative disposition of President Pervez Musharraf towards America, Pakistan still holds tight to the notion of her own sovereignty.

In addition, Pakistan—like Iraq—shares a long border with Iran that can be used as a forward base in any military attack on Iran, which has definitely not been taken off the neocon schedule.

Other items associated with the assassination raise suspicions among individuals aware of Zionism’s aims in the Middle East, not the least of which is the immediate pinning of this act on Osama bin Laden’s al Qaeda.

Before the ambulance sirens had even died down, the sirens of the Zionist-dominated Western media were screeching out the standard mantra as if no other possibilities existed.

Next in terms of suspicious timing are the various news stories and op-eds preceding the assassination itself. Exactly one day before her death, a story appearing in the Washington Post entitled “U.S. Troops to Head
to Pakistan” reads in part:

“Beginning early next year, U.S. Special Forces are expected to vastly expand their presence in Pakistan as part of an effort to train and support indigenous counterinsurgency forces and clandestine counter-terrorism units, according to defense officials involved with the planning.”

Other stories appearing—interestingly enough—during the period of Bhutto’s campaigning and mega-media coverage, raised questions about the “safety” of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons, said to number at least 70. In an op-ed piece appearing in the New York Times entitled “Pakistan’s Collapse, Our Problem” arch neocons Frederick Kagan of the American Enterprise Institute and Michael O’Hanlon of the Brookings Institute engage in the usual business of Zionist fear-mongering by warning that Pakistan’s security situation is dangerously precarious and that without a substantial presence of American troops there Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal will inevitably fall into the hands of “Islamists.”

Not trusting Pakistan’s security services, Bhutto sought protection from Israel’s Mossad and the CIA and warned that were she ever assassinated President Musharraf would be the “prime suspect.” In a recent interview with British television, she said Osama bin Laden is dead. The day after her assassination, SITE, a “monitoring service” run by two individuals closely tied with Israel’s Mossad (one of whom, Rita Katz, was herself an Israeli intelligence officer whose father was executed decades ago in Iraq for being an “Israeli spy”) released a new “bin Laden” video that somehow the best intelligence agencies in America could not seem to acquire with as much ease.

Bush & Co. would face problems if bin Laden’s death became common knowledge. The reason for the war would be lost and all those videos would be exposed as fraud.

Bhutto made statements just prior to her death that no doubt the powers-that-be found unacceptable in terms of the problems they portended in the future. In a recent piece she authored entitled “A False Choice for Pakistan,” Bhutto blamed terrorism on the policies of the United States, saying “When the United States aligns with dictatorships and totalitarian regimes, it compromises the basic democratic principles of its foundation—namely, life, liberty and justice for all.… Oppressed citizens, unable to represent themselves through other means, often turn to extremism and religious fundamentalism.”

In the last speech before her death, she said the insertion of NATO troops into Pakistan was unacceptable.

“Why should foreign troops come in? We can take care of this, I can take care of this, you can take care of this.”

People arguing that she was murdered because of her intransigence to American and Israeli interests have plenty of circumstantial evidence. Full story/Permalink

Theo Jansen - Modern Day DaVinci

Full story/Permalink