Friday, August 29, 2008

The Green House Effect

The Green House Effect
What's good for the Earth is good for your health. Here is how to get an eco-friendly abode--fast

You recycle regularly, use compact fluorescent light bulbs, and try to buy organic. But we're betting there's a lot more you can do to turn your home into a healthier, safer, and greener haven. Do you know how to boost the Earth-friendly quotient of your fridge? What's the simplest way to keep the new-rug smell--and the new-rug toxins--out of your lungs? Take our eco-home quiz and find out. If you don't score in the green zone, consider some of these easy and smart switches that will make a big impact on the planet--and your health.

Our hidden water consumption (Video)

"Virtual Water" Shows Enormous Resource Cost of Producing Food, Beverages

Click to watch:
"Virtual Water" Shows Enormous Resource Cost of Producing Food, Beverages (Video)

From The concept of 'virtual water' reveals the shocking amounts contained in the products we consume. The concept can build awareness in consumers of their ''hidden'' water usage, or that contained in the whole production chain of goods and services.... more

How to Recycle Anything

How to Recycle Anything
Make your home more earth-friendly--one trash bag at a time.
By Amanda MacMillan
Full story

America has had some trashy affairs: In 1969, Ohio's garbage- and oil-laden Cuyahoga River was so polluted it caught fire. Eighteen years later, a stranded trash barge sailed the East Coast for 7 months, searching for a landfill where it could unload more than 3,000 tons of waste. Six states and three countries turned it away before the cargo was eventually incinerated.

We've cleaned up our act considerably, thanks to national recycling efforts and stricter disposal laws. And we've earned a big health payoff: For instance, in the past decade, there has been a 45% reduction in cancer risk in California, due in part to the decrease in air and water pollutants, reports the Air Resources Board. Nevertheless, there's more work to do. In 2003, the average American generated almost 4.5 pounds of garbage each day, up from nearly 3.3 pounds in 1970. And about 70% went into dumps or incinerators, not the recycling bin. But with a little research, you can recycle almost anything--last night's dinner, last season's technology, or even that fuchsia bridesmaid dress from the last millennium. Here, 21 things not to trash.

Thursday, August 28, 2008

About the FDA

About the FDA

FDA Science and Mission at Risk
An FDA Science Board report states that the nation's public health is at risk, as are the regulatory systems that oversee the nation's drug and device supplies.

Death by Medicine
The American medical system is found to be the leading cause of death and injury in the United States.

U.S. Reports of Death, Side Effects from Prescription Drugs Triple
The number of deaths and serious injuries from prescription and over-the-counter drugs climbed from 34,966 to 89,842, according to a report in a September 2007 issue of Archives of Internal Medicine.,2933,296427,00.html

Studies Show FDA-Approved Drugs Don't Work and Cause Other Health Issues
Popular cholesterol-lowering drug Vytorin does not prevent heart disease. And the drug Avandia, widely used to lower diabetics' blood sugar levels, increases the risk of heart attacks.

Drugs the FDA Says You Can't Have
Americans suffer and die even though effective drugs to treat their diseases are approved in other countries. The public is generally aware that novel drugs are sold in Europe and Japan, but intense lobbying by the pharmaceutical industry has blocked the wide-scale availability of these better medications.

FDA Relies on Drug Company Research to Determine Product Safety
The FDA claims that the drugs it approves are "safe" by merely reviewing studies conducted by the drug company requesting government approval.

FDA Decides Not to Approve Prostate Cancer Drug
Despite an approval recommendation by its own advisory panel, the FDA declines approval for Provenge, a new drug designed to extend the lives of patients with advanced prostate cancer by stimulating their immune systems.

FDA Claims Bisphenol-A in Plastic Bottles Not a Health Hazard
Although the Health and Human Services report that BPA may alter human development, the FDA has decided that BPA found in baby bottles, food can linings, and hard plastic bottles is safe. Environmental groups are critical of FDA's analysis, which they argue are based on studies funded by industry. "It's ironic FDA would choose to ignore dozens of studies funded by (the National Institutes of Health) -- this country's best scientists -- and instead rely on flawed studies from industry," Pete Myers, chief scientist for Environmental Health Sciences.

The FDA versus Folic Acid
While multiple scientific journal articles point to the health benefits from folic acid, including reducing the incidence of health attack and stroke, the FDA refuses to accept that folic acid has any benefit other than preventing a certain type of birth defect.

FDA Approves Wrong Drug Plant
The Chinese facility that supplies the active ingredient of the widely used blood thinner heparin was never inspected by the Food and Drug Administration because the agency confused its name with another just like it, agency officials said yesterday.

FDA Delays Requiring Cipro Warning
FDA waited nearly two years to call for its most urgent safety warning on Cipro and other antibiotics. In 2006 it had evidence that these drugs may lead to tendon ruptures, a serious injury that can leave patients incapacitated and needing extensive surgery, but ordered a "black box" warning in July 2008.,2933,378102,00.html

Wednesday, August 27, 2008

AMA control of what you can or cannot have

More propaganda placed in media by, who-else?

"researchers" supporting the Journal of the American Medical Association...

Oh, what a surprise... Not.

The article claims; "In three years it will be illegal to sell unlicensed herbal remedies but that still does not apply to manufacturers outside the UK."
It will only follow elsewhere, if allowed. What this covert propagandist and biased mind game is ultimately heading to is regulation followed by patenting of ALL otherwise natural substances (herbs, minerals and vitamins) with more control over your individual right to choice of health care "products" you wish to use. It is a monetary corporate greed induced scare tactic, at best. A conspiracy to control population and health through nutrition, at worst. Just like the supposed SINGLE pepper "found" with salmonella. (How do you locate a single pepper in a million dollar industry, if not PUT there?) Previous to that, the unsubstantiated scare on tomatoes, spinach, lettuce, etc... to force by frightening (and thus, get people to allow) radiation of food. Why is this action which causes physical molecular changes and phyto-nutrient depletion of those natural foods more considerable than correction of the cause?? Money and ignorance. Aside from concern for others in general... I guess what pisses me off is that I and my family have not the ready available choice to avoid these. We can not escape eating and thus, the effects of these nutritionally ruined or depleted food and herbs... other than grow it ourselves.

"...80 reported cases of lead poisoning in the world through such remedies in the past 30 years." What???
lets count how many people are killed just in ONE "developed" country over just ONE YEAR; by medical doctors, hospitals and the medicines they push. REALLY interesting to consider ... the fact is (though lied about, not told, even hidden or down-played); Pharmaceuticals are infinitely more dangerous in most every way conceivable. Hands-down, no debate.

Save it for the sheep... I do not buy it.

article from;

Indian herbal medicines queried

Herbal medicines

A fifth of Indian herbal medicines sold on the internet contain potentially lethal substances, according to a new study in the United States.

The study at Boston university analysed 193 products and found that 20% of them contained lead, mercury or arsenic.

Herbal medicine has been used in India for thousands of years and is growing in popularity in the West.

The researchers said their findings showed that there should be stronger control of herbal supplements.

Writing in the Journal of the American Medical Association, lead researcher Dr Robert Saper said there was some evidence that herbs used in ayurvedic (Indian herbal) medicines could help against diabetes, high blood pressure and high cholesterol.

"But the key thing is we need to separate out what's helpful and.... what needs to be looked at and perhaps set aside," he added.

"Our first priority must be the safety of the public. Herbs and supplements with high levels of lead, mercury, and arsenic should not be available for sale on the internet or elsewhere."

The researchers discovered the presence of toxic metals in ayurvedic medicines made both in India and the US.

Two types

Some of the tested products, they said, would result in eating toxic materials as much as 10,000 times more than acceptable levels.

According to the study, there are two types of ayurvedic medicines.

One of these combines herbs with metals, minerals and gems, and its proponents argue it is safe when properly prepared and administered.

But Dr Saper said there had been more than 80 reported cases of lead poisoning in the world through such remedies in the past 30 years.

The UK has already started a registration system for herbal medicines.

In three years it will be illegal to sell unlicensed herbal remedies but that still does not apply to manufacturers outside the UK.

In 2005, the British drug regulator said toxic materials in herbal medicines could cause severe nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain and, in extreme cases, even lead to kidney damage, convulsions and coma.

The "Experience of Being Wrong"

The "Experience of Being Wrong"
Cindy Sheehan

I did not watch Ms. Pelosi's speech at the DNC. I was actually giving a speech of my own in another part of Denver, but I have read the transcript of Ms. Pelosi's remarks and I have also read the criticisms of this speech on all of the Democratic blogs. Ms. Pelosi did not get high marks, to say the least. I have read some things I cannot repeat, but criticisms of "wooden," "boring," "uninspired," and "hypocritical," are some comments coming from committed and rabid Democrats. It does seem pretty hypocritical when such a public failure can claim that McCain has the "experience of being wrong."

With Congress at a 9% approval rating, it is amazing to me that Ms. Pelosi can stand in front of anyone and claim "success" and claim that her leadership has taken this nation on a better path. Our economy is crashing; hundreds of thousands of people have lost their homes despite the $300.00 "stimulus" check Ms. Pelosi sent them. Some Americans are being forced to choose whether to buy gas or food, despite the miniscule hike in the federal minimum wage, which affected a very small percentage of the population since most states already had minimum wages that exceeded the federal minimum wage. A true progressive "change" in that direction would be mandating a living wage, which differs from state/state and city/city; but based on the cost of living. It's easier to push people of color or poor people out of cities like San Francisco by increasing th
e cost of living, while not mandating a living wage.

Some other of Ms. Pelosi's "accomplishments" that she touted in her speech were:

Keeping toxic toys out of the hands of children.

(The toys that were put into our children's hands by the "free" trade agreements she supports and the outsourcing of jobs that pay slave wages to countries that make our consumer goods and encourage cutting back costs so we can go to Wal-mart and get "low, low" prices).

We passed legislation to keep hard working American families in their homes

(According to
Reality Trak, 1 out of every 194 homes received foreclosure notices in the first quarter of this year and Congress was more interested in bailing out Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae and predatory lenders than keeping "American Families" in their homes.)

And, we enacted a new G.I. Bill to thank our veterans from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan by sending them to college.

(Ms. Pelosi did not mention in her speech that her congress has funded the war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan to the tune of over 400 billion
dollars and since she became Speaker, over 1200 of our troops have been killed unnecessarily and hundreds of Iraqis/Afghans have been murdered or displaced from their homes. Ms. Pelosi should not be "thanking" our veterans, she should be apologizing to them for continuing to send them off to fight a war that has physically, mentally, or emotionally wounded tens of thousands of them for no reason at all).

Ms. Pelosi even said that Iraq was: "a catastrophic mistake that has cost thousands of lives of our men and women in uniform and trillions of dollars, as well as has weakened our standing in the world and our capability to protect the American people, Barack Obama is right and John McCain is wrong. Very, very wrong." Well, if John McCain has been wrong and the occupation of Iraq (she says nothing about Afghanistan, and, in fact, she supports the Obama plan of redeploying troops from Iraq to Afghanistan to fight the "real war on terror"), then Nancy Pelosi has also been "very, very wrong." One doesn't pour funds to the tune of "trillions" of dollars into a "catastrophic mistake."

Borrowing the rhetoric of the right, Ms. Pelosi wants to honor our troops that have made America the "Land of the free and the home of the brave." Collaborating with the Bush regime to foist upon us a "

Prevention of violent radicalism and homegrown terrorism law

" and working with the City of Denver and the State of Colorado and Homeland "Security" to turn Denver into a fascist police state, would have made a person of conscience choke on those words. I certainly know that my son did not join the US Military and die in a "catastrophic mistake" to turn this nation into one that is looking more like a bi-partisan repressive despotic dictatorship every day. I have a radical idea for Ms. Pelosi! How about she honors our troops by obeying her sworn oath to "uphold and defend the constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic," the same oath our troops take.

Ms. Pelosi is famous for taking our constitution "off the table" and will go down in infamy as the Vichy-enabler of the Bush regime and along with her beloved "party" will be known as the party that killed the 4th amendment to the Bill of Rights (with her support of warrantless spying on Americans and immunity from the felonious breaking of the FISA laws) and the 8th amendment as the
sanctioners of torture.

During her speech, Ms. Pelosi is giving evidence that her leadership will also further dissolve the separation between church and state that has accelerated during the Bush "catastrophic mistake" of a Presidency. She assured the convention goers and lapdog media that the Democratic path is one to the Christian heaven: "It is the path that renews our democracy by bringing us together as one nation under God." Whose god? Bush's god? Obama's god? Pelosi's god? Osama's god? Olmert's god? The god of the "two" party system: mammon? The very words, "God," or "religion" do not belong anywhere near public political discourse. Obviously, not everyone worships the same god, or any god, or gods. We must end the rhetoric of "holy wars" and remember that we do not elect a Pope of America, but a President. I also have another is democracy "renewed" by forcing us together as a "nation under God?" This was not only an un-American thing to say, but the rhetoric is as empty as the treasury of the USA.

The "successes" of Pelosi's leadership look an awful lot like failures when we know that she mostly capitulated to the Bush regime and when her failures have been so catastrophically tragic.

In September, Ms. Pelosi, will have a few weeks left of her leadership position when she will go back to lead a congress that has that abysmal approval rating and has passed the
least amount of legislation in the last 20 years. Congress will take up business for about three weeks in September and a good start will be to arrest Karl Rove on the first day for ignoring a congressional subpoena. On day two, begin to roll back the executive branch excesses of the last eight years and reclaim the separation of powers that were ensured by the founders before the next president takes over and takes the scepter of an empire and not the mantle of public service as only the "first of equals."

There's nothing more important for her to do.

Visit our website:

Volunteer to be a part of Team Cindy

Checkout our online store

Tell a Friend

Saturday, August 23, 2008

GMO as one more weapon of bio-warfare

"Doomsday Seed Vault" in the Arctic Bill Gates,
Rockefeller and the GMO giants know something
we don’t...

December 4, 2007

The Seed Conspiracy
by F. William Engdahl
Full story

One thing Microsoft founder Bill Gates can’t be accused of is sloth. He was already programming at 14, founded Microsoft at age 20 while still a student at Harvard. By 1995 he had been listed by Forbes as the world’s richest man from being the largest shareholder in his Microsoft, a company which his relentless drive built into a de facto monopoly in software systems for personal computers.

In 2006 when most people in such a situation might think of retiring to a quiet Pacific island, Bill Gates decided to devote his energies to his Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the world’s largest ‘transparent’ private foundation as it says, with a whopping $34.6 billion endowment and a legal necessity to spend $1.5 billion a year on charitable projects around the world to maintain its tax free charitable status. A gift from friend and business associate, mega-investor Warren Buffett in 2006, of some $30 billion worth of shares in Buffet’s Berkshire Hathaway put the Gates’ foundation into the league where it spends almost the amount of the entire annual budget of the United Nations’ World Health Organization.

So when Bill Gates decides through the Gates Foundation to invest some $30 million of their hard earned money in a project, it is worth looking at.

No project is more interesting at the moment than a curious project in one of the world’s most remote spots, Svalbard. Bill Gates is investing millions in a seed bank on the Barents Sea near the Arctic Ocean, some 1,100 kilometers from the North Pole. Svalbard is a barren piece of rock claimed by Norway and ceded in 1925 by international treaty (see map).

On this God-forsaken island Bill Gates is investing tens of his millions along with the Rockefeller Foundation, Monsanto Corporation, Syngenta Foundation and the Government of Norway, among others, in what is called the ‘doomsday seed bank.’ Officially the project is named the Svalbard Global Seed Vault on the Norwegian island of Spitsbergen, part of the Svalbard island group.

Doomsday Seed Vault

Time will tell whether, God Forbid, the Svalbard Doomsday Seed Bank of Bill Gates and the Rockefeller Foundation is part of another Final Solution, this involving the extinction of the Late, Great Planet Earth.1

F. William Engdahl,Seeds of Destruction, Montreal, (Global Research, 2007).


Monsanto buys 'Terminator' Seeds Company
F. William Engdahl
Full story

"The United States Government has been financing research on a genetic engineering technology which, when commercialized, will give its owners the power to control the food seed of entire nations or regions. The Government has been working quietly on this technology since 1983. Now, the little-known company that has been working in this genetic research with the Government’s US Department of Agriculture-- Delta & Pine Land-- is about to become part of the world’s largest supplier of patented genetically-modified seeds (GMO), Monsanto Corporation of St. Louis, Missouri."

One World Government

One World Government

You can learn more about the move to One World Government information on the internet. The film Endgame is a good place to start. You can watch it for free at
(( .

Alex Jones' very informative website
( .

Friday, August 22, 2008

Penny for your thoughts, or is that life imprisonment?

The New Frontier of Homeland Insecurity:
Mental Privacy

Trade in "A Penny For Your Thoughts" for
"A Shackle for Your Thoughts"

The Department of Homeland Security is moving towards implementing a provision of the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 otherwise known as the "Thought Crimes Bill" through a 3 year, $12 Million program designed to study "terrorists" and their supporters' thinking and communications. This is despite the fact that the legislation has not been signed into law. The House version of the bill HR 1955 was passed by a margin of 404-6 whereas the Senate version of the bill S 1959 is still awaiting action.

One of the bill's provisions gives the Department of Homeland Security the authority to fund a University based "Center of Excellence" to study ways to thwart what the government believes are "extremist" belief systems and "radical ideologies" of individual Americans. In other words, if the government doesn't like the way you think, they are going to have teams of social scientists and behavioral experts trying to figure out the best way to deal with you.

As it turns out, the Department of Homeland Security is already funding a Center of Excellence to study "thought criminals" in the United States at the University of Maryland. This shows that it doesn't matter if S 1959 is defeated or not, as they are moving forward with this agenda with or without Congressional approval. In reality, Congress is nothing more than a staged circus to make people falsely believe that they actually have a say in what the government does.

The Department of Homeland Security is funding research to setup an Orwellian system to deal with political dissenters under the guise of fighting terrorism and they care not if it is in accordance with what the people want or the law provides. In other words, be prepared for the possibility of a future with re-education camps as a real life "Ministry of Love" system is implemented. Read
more (Full printed article added at the bottom; Penny For Your Thoughts, or Is That Life Imprisonment?)

Is This What You Want for Yourself and Your Children? The time is growing very short. Is there an Angel out there who can help us immediately with significant funding? We have a war to fight and we need resources to do so.

Yours in health and freedom,

Dr. Rima
Rima E. Laibow, MD
Medical Director
Natural Solutions Foundation

Penny For Your Thoughts, or Is That Life Imprisonment?


Thinking people are the greatest danger to totalitarian regimes. Thinking people who share their thoughts compellingly are a danger which no totalitarian regime tolerates. Repression and suppression of independent thinking is vilified in what can be seen as the central unifying principle of all fascist states: dissent is a crime and thinking wrong thoughts is a crime as well.
The current administration is determined to increase the characteristics that make it look like a totalitarian state with our without the consent of Congress.

The Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 has not even been passed yet but the Department of Homeland Security is implementing it, at public expense, at to great public shame, despite the lack of Congressional mandate.

Passed by the House, but not even voted on by the Senate, the audacious and very likely unconstitutional acts described below should give any real patriot the “screaming meemies”. And, if they have their way untamed, you may be screaming your meemies on the inside of a solitary confinement cell in a thought reeducation camp.

Now would be a good time to get involved to make sure this atrocity never, never comes to fruition in the US, a country which at least in theory, has a Constitution to protect your rights from invasions like this one.

Yours in health and freedom,
Dr. Rima
Rima E. Laibow, MD
Medical Director
Natural Solutions Foundation

Thought Crimes Agenda Already Being Implemented

Lee Rogers

The Department of Homeland Security is moving towards implementing a provision of the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 otherwise known as the “Thought Crimes Bill”. This is despite the fact that the legislation has not been signed into law. The House version of the bill HR 1955 was passed by a margin of 404-6 where as the Senate version of the bill S 1959 is still awaiting action.

One of the bill’s provisions gives the Department of Homeland Security the authority to fund a University based Center of Excellence to study ways to thwart what the government believes are extremist belief systems and radical ideologies of individual Americans. In other words, if the government doesn’t like the way you think, they are going to have teams of social scientists and behavioral experts trying to figure out the best way to deal with you.

As it turns out, the Department of Homeland Security is already funding a Center of Excellence to study thought criminals in the United States at the University of Maryland. This shows that it doesn’t matter if S 1959 is defeated or not, as they are moving forward with this agenda with or without Congressional approval. In reality, Congress is nothing more than a staged circus to make people falsely believe that they actually have a say in what the government does.

The Department of Homeland Security is funding research to setup an Orwellian system to deal with political dissenters under the guise of fighting terrorism and they care not if it is in accordance with what the people want. Another words, be prepared for the possibility of a future with re-education camps as a real life Ministry of Love system is implemented.

The following is taken from Security Products Online detailing the Department of Homeland Security’s funding of this Center of Excellence that will study thought crimes or as they like to call it the threat of homegrown terrorism and violent radicalization:

A team of more than 50 social scientists, armed with new federal funding, will extend its research into radicalization and the formation of terrorist groups in the United States and abroad. The researchers will also study the effectiveness of counter-terror strategies, as well as efforts to build community resilience to attacks.

Now, let’s take a look at section 899D of HR 1955 and we’ll see that what’s proposed in the bill has for all intents and purposes already become a reality.


`(a) Establishment- The Secretary of Homeland Security shall establish or designate a university-based Center of Excellence for the Study of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism in the United States (hereinafter referred to as `Center’) following the merit-review processes and procedures and other limitations that have been previously established for selecting and supporting University Programs Centers of Excellence. The Center shall assist Federal, State, local and tribal homeland security officials through training, education, and research in preventing violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism in the United States. In carrying out this section, the Secretary may choose to either create a new Center designed exclusively for the purpose stated herein or identify and expand an existing Department of Homeland Security Center of Excellence so that a working group is exclusively designated within the existing Center of Excellence to achieve the purpose set forth in subsection (b).

`(b) Purpose- It shall be the purpose of the Center to study the social, criminal, political, psychological, and economic roots of violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism in the United States and methods that can be utilized by Federal, State, local, and tribal homeland security officials to mitigate violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism.

`(c) Activities- In carrying out this section, the Center shall–
`(1) contribute to the establishment of training, written materials, information, analytical assistance and professional resources to aid in combating violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism;

`(2) utilize theories, methods and data from the social and behavioral sciences to better understand the origins, dynamics, and social and psychological aspects of violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism;
(3) conduct research on the motivational factors that lead to violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism; and

`(4) coordinate with other academic institutions studying the effects of violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism where appropriate.

The Department of Homeland Security is providing roughly $12 Million over 3 years to fund this research. Among the planned research includes building a database of U.S. extremist crime, studying how social networks spread thought crime, tracking sympathy and support for terrorism in the United States among various communities, studying the phony European white Al-Qaeda threat and much more.

The government has no business funding research studying the political beliefs of people and determining who may or may not be a potential terrorist based upon a vague definition of homegrown terrorism and violent radicalization. In fact, the definitions of these terms as defined in HR 1955 and S 1959 are up to the interpretation of the government.

This means that a homegrown terrorist could potentially be anybody the government doesn’t like. Not only is it unconstitutional, but it opens up the flood gates for a tyranny only theorized in novels like George Orwell’s 1984. The social scientists that are being funded in this program could potentially suggest the implementation of programs that could include the round up of people for re-education based upon any sort of criteria even if no real crime has been committed.

Literally, the Department of Homeland Security is funding research to go after people who have political beliefs and ideologies that are contrary to the agenda of the establishment. Unfortunately for the American people, they are employing the services of some very smart people to do this. Who knows what these people will come up with but considering what they’ve already done, it won’t be in the best interest of freedom.

In the Soviet Union, political dissidents and intellectuals were labeled crazy and put in mental institutions or slave labor camps. Could the same thing happen in the United States? [The largest detention center, located outside of Fairbanks, Alaska, is said to hold an astonishing 2.5 million people, and alleged to be designated for "mentally ill people". Whether such mental illness is that which is recognized by the psychiatric profession or political dissent is an open question at this point. Dr. Rima]

After these scientists finish their research, it very well could considering what we see with the militarization of police and growing technological spy grid here in the United States. How can we assume that their recommendations will defend liberty when everything else the government has done in order to fight this phony terror threat has been contrary to the principles of freedom?

Particularly interesting is how they are concerned about activity on the Internet. Many freedom oriented radio networks and web sites have been formed over the past decade to protest what is becoming an increasingly corrupt and criminal government. The free flow of information is a real threat to the establishment and they are scrambling for ways to determine how to put the lid on it.

In closing, it is disturbing that the Department of Homeland Security would fund a program before a bill authorizing the action is signed into law. The provisions in the thought crimes bill represent the potential for total despotism and tyranny and even if a few of the provisions are implemented like this Center for Excellence funding, it marks a severe threat for liberty. These government terrorists must be defeated and there needs to be an investigation into the funding of this research which is unconstitutional on its face.

Thursday, August 21, 2008

So many topics... lets leave out the discrimination

As anyone would guess, Of the many sites I like [Ending January of 2009], I am [was] very much a fan of Mike Adams-"The Health Ranger" at; However, I must speak to anyone that might affix my personal sentiment with all the information regarding his articles. I believe there is no room for discrimination of race, gender, sexual preference, etc... when it comes to the issues related to health concerns, causes, and possibility of improvement. The underlying conditions that effect us all are basic, though there are some problems more specific, generally, to certain people in our population. Attention to all the diverse issues are included. Only one such example as: "breast cancer" is general to women, however, can be found, to lesser extent in men.

Dear Mr Adams and Gregory Kunin,

I have been reading your columns for some time. I want to say how much I find the basic foundation of various information revealing and helpful. I like the way you are able to reach so many people. I agree with most everything you have to offer, from countless hours of research conclusions of my own. Many of your articles I share with others in an attempt to help with education of people, all people. Most effort, as yours, is to counter the ignorance stemming from atrocious propaganda that seems prevalent in modern society.

In several of your articles, though well written and informative in foundation, you have seemed to be very adamant and pointed in your insistence to include that particular problems are ALL ABOUT RACE. I find this old rhetoric clumsy, sad and unfortunate because the real BIG picture is the over-ruling, greedy industries, governmental agencies, and their paid puppets misleading, out right lying, and effort to enslave masses of ALL people (on many levels; financial, experimental, or otherwise).

Key to my point is; BOTH SIDES of this criminal and unfortunate reality involve persons of ALL RACES and GENDER. There are men, women, Black, Asian, Indian, White, etc.. in all these industries and at all levels. I have NOT contributed to the sharing of many otherwise excellent articles, based on this specific (and I feel serious) problem alone. Race or sex is NOT the issue of ill health stemming from varied toxicological problems faced by ANY person. Some may be too poor to get proper water and nutrition while others may be simply ignorant of unbiased facts or "alternative" care coupled with proper current (and age old) information. I would agree that in many cases these overlap, but not conditional (as some of your writing implies) only to race/sex. We are all targeted-our pets too.

I am saddened that for someone seeming to have so much reason, capability, and influence in many areas, race (unnecessarily) has to enter ANY issue any more than looks or hair color. The issues at hand in your column are, in fact, capable of effecting any-and us all. The racism only divides total people effected, confuses core issue of innate cause and prevention with seeming race/sex alone, and possibly incites anger toward a great many "Whites" that are after all, "on your side".

My suggestion (and hope) is for the wonderful aggression that fuels your "fire" in sharing truth in information and exposing problems and possible solutions, not be tainted by any race, gender issue. That the basic issues such as health topics, toxic effects, causes and prevention be explained. That personal ego, individual, governmental and corporate entities of financial greedy and power hungry, needless criminal control of personal choice in care and availability of natural products be attacked and exposed, no matter from whom, what color or sex it stems.

Sincerely, Patrick Wood

Wednesday, August 20, 2008

Nature being stolen for pharma profit

Another Great Vitamin B Raid?

Newspapers in 1992 proclaimed it The Great B Vitamin Raid. Armed agents stormed into the office of Jonathan Wright, MD taking hostage the clinic’s supply of Vitamin B-12 and B-complex along with the clinic’s computers, books, files, mailing list, and office equipment. 

No charges were ever filed against Dr. Wright (details available in the December 17, 2007 December 17, 2007 issue of AAHF Pulse of Health Freedom). But the FDA’s action to retaliate against him was telling in three ways. First, the FDA admitted it did not have the evidence required for a search warrant. Second, the raid was clearly in retaliation for a suit filed by Wright after  an earlier raid  targeting the common amino acid  l-tryptophan at Wright’s facility. And third, the FDA’s bias against supplements and in favor of the prescription drug industry  continues to this day. This bias is what connects the dots in a variety of recent FDA actions that might otherwise seem unrelated.

Vitamin B-6 Now Under Assault

Recently, Medicure Pharma submitted a citizen’s petition to the FDA asserting the all dietary supplements containing pyridoxal 5’-phosphate (the natural bioactive form of Vitamin B6 known as P5P supplements) should be banned. As discussed in the July 7, 2008 issue of AAHF Pulse of Freedom, Medicure Pharma wanted to see this natural form of Vitamin B-6 banned from the dietary supplement industry in order to ensure the exclusivity of its drug product, MC-1.

There are prescription forms of various natural nutrients including potassium, coenzyme Q-10, and bromelain, among others. But this hasn’t been used as justification to ban the natural form.

B vitamins -- some of our most basic vitamins -- seem especially at risk at the moment. The law states clearly that natural substances may not be patented. But Merck holds a patent on a natural form of folate (vitamin B-3), the calcium salt of 5-methyl tetrahydrofolate, considered by many to be the best natural form of folate.

Dr. Steven W. Bailey, a researcher, was able to get five patents issued on the basis of his work with this form of folate. Merck Eprova acquired license to more than one patent covering the use of 5-methyl tetrahydrofolate, selling it under the trade name Metafolin.

Merck has since only sold this supplement in large bulk quantities and imposed stringent restrictions of the use of Metafolin in dietary supplements that include what formulas and dosages can and cannot be used.  Bristol Myers Squibb also obtained a patent in 1999 for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease using folate.

What This Means For All Of Us

B vitamins are essential nutrients. Dr. Kilmer McCully showed us that key B-vitamin nutrients help control the enzyme homocysteine, a known risk factor for heart disease as well as other conditions.

There is another reason why all of us need vitamins and other supplements and why it is essential to be able to buy them at normal prices, not patented drug prices. A British study by physician Dr. Dave Thomas (using The Chemical Composition of Food in the years 1940 through 1990) showed that most if not all fruits and vegetables have had declining  nutrients over  that 50-year span. Recent USDA research confirms this fact.

Factory farming has changed the nutrient composition of soil and brought unripened products to the marketplace. The emphasis now is on size, appearance, and a longer shelf-life to sell the product, not on nutritional content.

This analysis was triggered by a British physician’s curiosity. His patients had a myriad of chronic diseases yet all claimed to ‘eat well.’ Indeed, government analyses in the US continue to confirm that there is a correlation between a nutrient poor diet and chronic degenerative disease.

Americans are well fed, and in many cases overfed, yet undernourished. Arizona university research has revealed that most American children get key nutrients only from their morning breakfast cereal. Additional Arizona university research has shown that most Americans get their daily vitamin C from their morning orange juice.

Fewer than ten percent of Americans get the right amount of fruits and vegetables, key sources of nutrients. And a growing number of academia-based experts indicate it is impossible to get the nutrients we need from diet alone. Under these circumstances, supplementation is essential.

May 2005 research published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (as analyzed by Jeffrey Bland, Ph.D. in the Functional Medicine Monthly) notes the fact that 78% of our nation’s health care dollars go to the treatment of chronic diseases. A diet rich in processed foods, nutrient depleted foods, and a sedentary lifestyle are correlated with our nation’s alarming rates of type II diabetes, heart disease, asthma, allergies, and a host of other chronic diseases.

Combine this with the concept of drug-induced nutrient depletion. For example, oral contraceptives result in lower levels of vitamins that include B-6 as well as other B-vitamins. Steroids deplete the body of more nutrients than any other single classification of drugs.

Magnesium deficiency is widespread thanks to the generous use of certain heart disease related medications including diuretics for high blood pressure and congestive heart failure. According to some, we are now in the midst of a potential crisis of coenzyme Q-10 deficiency because statin drugs deplete this vital nutrient and statin drug use is at an all time high. Most recently, pediatricians have been told by medical authorities to give statins to children as young as age 8. 

The sale of statins has also led to the demonization of cholesterol, a substance that our bodies and especially our brains need, and an effort by drug companies to redefine normal levels of total cholesterol down.

At time when Americans get far too little of key nutrients such as folic acid (B-3) because of their consumption of processed grain products, we cannot afford to ignore the move by drug companies either to ban natural vitamins or to patent them. This will restrict our use of these key nutrients and raise the costs of healthcare at a time when those costs have already spiraled out of control, in part because of drug prices.  Protecting our access to key natural nutrients is good medicine, for you and me and for this nation.

Sunday, August 17, 2008

Gallo's Rotten Egg is Cracking

ReThink HIV & AIDS


The Origins of AIDS TV Film


Does Hiv cause Aids?
Lots of scientists say ‘no.’ Read more.

The Perth Group

Treatment Information Group

Immunity Resource Foundation

Alberta Reappraising Aids Society

Peter Duesberg on AIDS

Rethinking AIDS

What is AIDS?


HEAL: Alternative Health
and AIDS information

Alive & Well

Living Without HIV Drugs

AIDS Myth Exposed

"You Bet Your Life"

HEAL Toronto


HIV, AIDS & Gallo'sEgg

by Clark Baker - July 21, 2008

"I began this investigation in May and have since farmed ALL of my other investigations to other investigators. I intend to remain engaged in this until the courts and/or legislature has ended this criminal enterprise.."

"After having investigated thousands of crimes and arrested hundreds of criminal gang members and other assorted predators, I know a criminal enterprise when I see one."

"HIV/AIDS makes Enron look like a neighborhood poker game."

"I have never written about anything more important. This story changed my life, and if you have the time and patience to understand what I have written, it may change yours as well.

If Americans, our courts, and our legislature permit the continued corruption of science and medicine by our pharmaceutical industry, I fear that the 232-year experiment we call “The United States of America” will have failed."

- Clark Baker

I learned how hospitals destroy good physicians and how predatory hospital chains like Tenet, Kaiser Permanente, and Adventist pressure local physicians already in successful private practice to join their groups. Those who refuse are targeted for sham peer review by corporate administrators and MDs who accuse non-compliant physicians as dangerous, incompetent, or disruptive. While a few tenacious victims expend their life savings to preserve their clinical privileges, others aren't so lucky. Faced with the malicious and devastating loss of their medical careers, many take their own lives; which is what the health care corporations prefer anyway. To them, it's only business – nothing personal.

I was never impressed by concerns about "the evils of big pharma." I assumed that drugs are expensive because of the R & D that goes into finding cures for disease. Until now, I never imagined that some of those same drug companies would support junk science to fund researchers who would then produce expensive drugs that cause illness and disease around the world; or support junk legislation that would force healthy mothers and their children to take drugs that kill (under the threatened loss of child custody), and then use their subsequent sickness and mortality as evidence that a non-existent disease actually exists.

Such a scheme would have made Machiavelli weep with joy.

A New Investigation

I was not concerned about "big pharma" until my visit to Washington DC last May. I was there to meet with members of Semmelweis Society International (SSI). This is an impressive group of medical professionals – physicians, nurses, surgeons, medical and law school professors, and former CEOs of health care corporations. Because of my own experience with retaliation and my ongoing interest in US healthcare and sham peer review, I was interested to hear their stories directly from them.

I accompanied Gil Mileikowsky, MD, the OB/GYN who first explained sham peer to me in 2006. I spent five days with the members – all dedicated men and women who care deeply about the political corruption of healthcare and who risked their own careers to report fraud or abuse within the healthcare system. I recorded and edited their testimony, and posted this video after members testified before the US Congress and Senate. I was also honored to testify regarding my experience as an LAPD whistleblower.

Two recipients of the Semmelweis "Clean Hands Award" were reporter Celia Farber and molecular biologist Peter Duesberg, PhD. I had not heard of them before and knew nothing of their relationship to a little known controversy about HIV and AIDS.

After 28 years as an investigator, I consider myself pretty skeptical about things until I see proof. Most of my work today is pro bono, so I can pick and choose who I assist. Witnesses are expected to lie, but if I discover that a client has misrepresented facts or lied to me, I will usually drop the case. I'm fortunate to have the time, energy, and resources to help good people get out of undeservedly bad predicaments. Not all lawyers are like Mike Nifong or David Sotelo, and not all private investigators work like Anthony Pellicano. Without unbiased credibility, investigators are nothing more than a liability to their clients.

As various members interacted with Farber and Duesberg, I learned that the HIV/AIDS issue had not been entirely resolved. Like Dr. Mileikowsky's story about sham peer review, this sounded equally unbelievable.

When I returned to Los Angeles, several former members began to question the wisdom of presenting the awards to Farber and Duesberg. In response, SSI President (and neurosurgeon) Roland Chalifoux issued this press release to explain the rationale of the awards. But when two dissenters persisted, Dr. Chalifoux asked me to conduct an independent investigation of Ms. Farber and Prof. Duesberg, citing my investigative experience, independence, and almost complete lack of knowledge about HIV and AIDS.

I accepted the case.


"Gallo's Egg - Clark Baker on Robert Scott Bell Show"

You can listen to the podcast of the interview here

and an off air interview after the show here

Out of control: AIDS and the corruption of medical science

By Celia Farber

Joyce Ann Hafford was a single mother living alone with her thirteen-year-old son, Jermal, in Memphis, Tennessee, when she learned that she was pregnant with her second child. She worked as a customer service representative at a company called CMC Call Center; her son was a top student, an athlete and musician. In April 2003, Hafford, four months pregnant, was urged by her obstetrician to take an HIV test. She agreed, even though she was healthy and had no reason to think she might be HIV positive. The test result came up positive, though Hafford was tested only once, and she did not know that pregnancy itself can cause a false positive HIV test. Her first thought was of her unborn baby. Hafford was immediately referred to an HIV/AIDS specialist, Dr. Edwin Thorpe, who happened to be one of the principal investigators recruiting patients for a clinical trial at the University of Tennessee Medical Group that was sponsored by the Division of AIDS (DAIDS)—the chief branch of HIV/AIDS research within the National Institutes of Health.

The objective of the trial, PACTG 1022, was to compare the “treatment-limiting toxicities” of two anti-HIV drug regimens. The core drugs being compared were nelfinavir (trade name Viracept) and nevirapine (trade name Viramune). To that regimen, in each arm, two more drugs were added—zidovudine (AZT) and lamivudine (Epivir) in a branded combination called Combivir. PACTG 1022 was a “safety” trial as well as an efficacy trial, which means that pregnant women were being used as research subjects to investigate “safety” and yet the trial was probing the outer limits of bearable toxicity. Given the reigning beliefs about HIV's pathogenicity, such trials are fairly commonplace, especially in the post-1994 era, when AZT was hailed for cutting transmission rates from mother to child.

The goal of PACTG 1022 was to recruit at least 440 pregnant women across the nation, of which 15 were to be enrolled in the University of Tennessee Medical Group. The plan was to assign the study's participants to one of two groups, with each receiving three HIV drugs, starting as early as ten weeks of gestation. Of the four drugs in this study, three belong to the FDA's category “C,” which means that safety to either mother or fetus has not been adequately established.

Joyce Ann Hafford was thirty-three years old and had always been healthy. She showed no signs of any of the clinical markers associated with AIDS—her CD4 counts, which measure the lymphocytes that are used to indicate how strong a person's immune system is, and which HIV is believed to slowly corrode, were in the normal range, and she felt fine. In early June 2003, she was enrolled in the trial and on June 18 took her first doses of the drugs. “She felt very sick right away,” recalls her older sister, Rubbie King. “Within seventy-two hours, she had a very bad rash, welts all over her face, hands, and arms. That was the first sign that there was a problem. I told her to call her doctor and she did, but they just told her to put hydrocortisone cream on it. I later learned that a rash is a very bad sign, but they didn't seem alarmed at all.”

Hafford was on the drug regimen for thirty-eight days. “Her health started to deteriorate from the moment she went on the drugs,” says King. “She was always in pain, constantly throwing up, and finally she got to the point where all she could do was lie down.” The sisters kept the news of Hafford's HIV test and of the trial itself from their mother, and Hafford herself attributed her sickness and nausea to being pregnant. She was a cheerful person, a non-complainer, and was convinced that she was lucky to have gotten into this trial. “She said to me, ‘Nell’ —that's what she called me—‘I have got to get through this. I can't let my baby get this virus.’ I said, ‘Well, I understand that, but you're awful sick.’ But she never expressed any fear because she thought this was going to keep her baby from being HIV positive. She didn't even know she was in trouble.”

On July 16, at her scheduled exam, Hafford's doctor took note of the rash, which was “pruritic and macular-papular,” and also noted that she was suffering hyperpigmentation, as well as ongoing nausea, pain, and vomiting. By this time all she could keep down were cans of Ensure. Her blood was drawn for lab tests, but she was not taken off the study drugs, according to legal documents and internal NIH memos.

Eight days later, Hafford went to the Regional Medical Center “fully symptomatic,” with what legal documents characterize as including: “yellow eyes, thirst, darkening of her arms, tiredness, and nausea without vomiting.” She also had a rapid heartbeat and difficulty breathing. Labs were drawn, and she was sent home, still on the drugs. The next day, July 25, Hafford was summoned back to the hospital after her lab reports from nine days earlier were finally reviewed. She was admitted to the hospital's ICU with “acute and sub-acute necrosis of the liver, secondary to drug toxicity, acute renal failure, anemia, septicemia, premature separation of the placenta,” and threatened “premature labor.” She was finally taken off the drugs but was already losing consciousness. Hafford's baby, Sterling, was delivered by C-section on July 29, and she remained conscious long enough not to hold him but at least to see him and learn that she'd had a boy. “We joked about it a little, when she was still coming in and out of consciousness in ICU,” Rubbie recalls. “I said to her, ‘You talked about me so much when you were pregnant that that baby looks just like me.’” Hafford's last words were a request to be put on a breathing tube. “She said she thought a breathing tube might help her,” says Rubbie. “That was the last conversation I had with my sister.” In the early morning hours of August 1, Rubbie and her mother got a call to come to the hospital, because doctors had lost Hafford's pulse. Jermal was sleeping, and Rubbie woke her own daughter and instructed her not to tell Jermal anything yet. They went to the hospital, and had been there about ten minutes when Joyce Ann died.


Audio Interview with Celia Farber:

Exposing HIV/AIDS myths - Celia Farber


HIV is caused by a retrovirus, right? Well, no, not really. In fact, there is no evidence whatsoever for this hypothesis. How could they all be wrong, asks Anthony Brink on

His article is so well written that we will use it to begin our series of examinations of the discredited, but still widely believed, idea that there is such a thing as the AIDS or HIV virus and that it causes a disease now knows as HIV/AIDS.

Yours in health and freedom,
Dr. Rima
Rima E. Laibow, MD

Anthony Brink

I suppose one has a greater sense of intellectual degradation after an interview with a doctor than from any other human experience. –Alice James

A response sometimes heard to the expression of doubt about the integrity of the HIV-AIDS paradigm as a medical model for understanding disease incidence is, “How could all the doctors in the world be wrong?” There are many possible answers to this question.

One might point out that unanimity has never guaranteed the soundness of medical constructs, and examples of this abound. The history of medicine both ancient and modern is a wrecking-yard full of broken and abandoned ideas. In this century alone innumerable medical theses have collapsed to which nearly all doctors once subscribed, such as bacterial theories of scurvy, beriberi, and pellagra, and more recently, the immuno-surveillance and retroviral theories of cancer aetiology - for which billions of dollars funded thousands of convincing research papers during the “War on Cancer” declared by Nixon in 1971. Then there was swine flu: 1976 saw President Gerald Ford on television, at the behest of the American medical establishment, solemnly urging all Americans to get vaccinated against an imminent deadly influenza epidemic. About 50 million Americans were panicked into being immunised with useless or harmful vaccines rushed onto the market. Adverse reactions resulted in damages claims of $2.7 billion. Not a single case of swine flu appeared subsequent to the death of a sick recruit undergoing basic training in a boot camp in New Jersey (hardly an unusual event) that had ignited all the hysteria. Before HIV-AIDS, and alongside the mad cow craze in Britain and the avian flu folly in Hong Kong, the great swine flu fiasco was perhaps the most telling instance in recent times of how Medicine can lose its head.

Another answer to the question goes to the fact that most doctors have scarcely more than a layman’s grasp of the concepts that populate biology at its molecular horizon. For instance, most would gape dully if asked to define the peculiar characteristics of a retrovirus (like HIV, we’re told) as distinct from other viruses, or distinguish endogenous and exogenous retroviruses, or articulate the rival contentions advanced by molecular biologists about whether the whole of retrovirology might be a mistake, a wrong turn at a scientific road-fork, a bad inference drawn from the evidence of certain metabolic biochemical phenomena which look odd when seen against old-fashioned rules of molecular genetics, and the possibility that retroviruses might not exist as infectious agents at all - that it is rather the classical dogma that needs an overhaul. Taxed about the HIV theory of AIDS, most doctors can do little more than quote the claims of their authorities, like priests citing papal bulls and encyclicals, making obeisance to their cardinals.

A third answer would make the impudent point that it is fallacious to imagine that doctors generally have a superior capacity for reasoning than their patients. The notes given medical students speak to the scant education that doctors receive in this art. To read them is to see how flimsy medical and biological theories are dished up as fact for rote learning, making the kind of call-and-answer instruction one sees in farm schools in this country look like an adventure in lateral-thinking training. Doctors do so well at school because they’re the kind of guys who are the most easily schooled. In myths and legends to outdo the Hare Krishna people. Especially virologists, who occupy the haughtiest medical echelons, but who seem to have the dimmest bulbs in the upper storey. As revealed by what they swallow without a hiccup. And regurgitate to their students. Like the timeless French fancy (”Le Rage”) that a bite from a dog acting wild and crazy can make you go mad and die. (But not the dog; man is the ‘end-host’.) You can go the same way from eating steak. Although nobody can plausibly say why. Or some cancers are caused by viruses and are infectious. Or the most hilarious notion of them all: semen and vaginal secretions can be deadly. Mothers’ milk too. But not spit. All of a sudden. After millions of years. Thanks to a mutated virus from monkeys. Or maybe the moon. And all of this without any evidence. Not a shred. And there’s a funny part to it. You might be feeling fine. But you’re sure to go in six months time from any one of a couple of dozen diseases or malignancies. No, make that two years, well actually five; shall we say eight, or ten, or twelve, maybe fifteen; OK perhaps your life is just shortened a bit. Definitely? Yes, most certainly; no, not necessarily. Look, we don’t know. How, why? We don’t have the faintest idea. Theories zigzag like a drunk at the wheel. (”We are still confused, only we are now confused at a higher level of understanding.”) Excuse me. Is this the circus?

Nor do doctors necessarily proceed from a more rational mindset than Joe Public does. The opposite may be the case. That HIV-AIDS as a medical construct could have taken root so richly among doctors, despite its absurd fundamental tenets (which fly in the face of everything known to virology), illustrates the point. As Harvey Bialy, scholar in residence at the Biotechnology Institute at the University of Mexico and editor at large of the prestigious science journal Nature Biotechnology puts it, the HIV theory of AIDS “turns immunology upside down and inside out.” To begin with, never before was the presence of antibodies taken to be prognostic of future disease. They used to be thought of as good things – evidence, where the patient appears healthy, of a successful immune response to a pathogen defeated. Former molecular biology professor at Johns Hopkins and Harvard Universities, Charles Thomas predicts that after the balloon pops, historians will be studying the flight of common sense in the lunacy of the AIDS age, “for a 100 years, …how America gave AIDS to the world.” But since HIV-AIDS as a diagnostic construct is still hegemonically regnant in our time, the point about the way doctors as a group tend to think needs illustrating with a different example. What better than the turn Medicine took during the Third Reich.

The Nazis’ virulently irrational and barbarous doctrines of racial hygiene found huge appeal for German and Austrian doctors in that era. No other profession was as well represented on Nazi party membership lists. From an ostensibly sober, rational profession functioning as an elite caste in a culture that seemed itself to be the fruit of the Enlightenment, just under half of them were card-carrying Nazis. Of course not all engaged in the sadistic butchery of untermenschen for which the Nuremberg Doctors’ Trials were conducted, but it would be a mistake to imagine that such criminals were aberrant quacks from the fringes, flourishing like vermin on the opportunities created within the Nazi eugenics paradigm. In fact many medical practitioners and academics tried or named in testimony at the trials had enjoyed international eminence in their professional fields. Dr Edwin Katzenellenbogen, for instance, (who got life imprisonment) had served on the faculty of the Harvard Medical School.

Scholars of religious thinking have long known that the more horrible and improbable the founding superstitions of a new faith, the greater its capacity to mobilize the popular imagination and the stronger the force of its revolutionary engine. In Medicine, Religion’s first cousin, the same sometimes applies. Like an infant upstart religion with imperial designs, the HIV-AIDS paradigm calls for a vigorous rebellion against long-established models of understanding. Woe betide any conservative scientists reluctant to become conversos to the rude new creed, who point out that the new theory is absurd on its face, that the link between AIDS and sex is no stronger than its link with sleeping; they become marginalised like Jews defying the demands of medieval Christendom, not racked and burned, but ostracised - scientifically defrocked, blacklisted and delegitimated, stripped of research funding, banned from lecturing podia, kicked out of their laboratories, rendered unemployable in academia or industry, menaced with confinement in psychiatric wards, isolated from graduate students in whom they might instill similar heretic doubts, and barred from publishing in the journals that once craved their papers. But naturally; radical political dissident Noam Chomsky, Professor of Linguistics at Massachusetts Institute of Technology has pointed out that “if you serve power, power rewards you with respectability. If you work to undermine power…you are reviled, imprisoned, driven into the desert.” The AIDS phenomenon at root is a vast pumping aggregation of interests with enormous political and economic power. Doctors and scientists who challenge its sacred tenets risk attracting the wrath of the revolution’s red guards. They won’t be thrown from windows. But their careers will be over. For their reactionary intransigence these critics will be marked always with pejorative epithets, as persistent as tattoos, like ‘discredited’, ‘loony’, ‘maverick’, ‘dangerous’ and ‘irresponsible and pernicious’. Just to make sure we correctly tell the wits from the dunces. And to discourage us from asking, “Well, what are these guys actually saying?”

A fourth explanation lies in the fact that for all their social status and prestige, in truth doctors generally function close to the bottom of the food-chain in the medical-industrial complex, and serve as little more than a thoughtless delivery system for the pharmaceutical corporations – whose wares they peddle makes the medical drug industry one of the most profitable legal enterprises on the planet. Just how little room doctors are allowed for independent judgment founded on their own observations is revealed in the fact that in some places a doctor who declines to follow an approved treatment regimen such as chemotherapy for cancerous tumours, in view of his empirical assessment of its utter uselessness and lethal toxicity, risks sanctions from his controlling guild. Imagine the trouble a doctor would be in were he brazenly to announce his conclusion that having investigated the business, reactive HIV antibody test results are virtually meaningless - pointers to no more than heightened non-specific immunologic activity. And were he to refuse to diagnose negative or positive, selecting for life or death, like a Nazi doctor calling links or rechts. Or marking ‘+’ on the medical files of slow or crippled German children, to mark them for murder during the euthanasia programme.

In sum, one doesn’t have to cast about too far for answers to the question, “How could all the doctors in the world be wrong about AIDS?” Medicine’s penchant for screwing up magnificently, its characteristic intellectual sluggishness, and the appeal of “magical thinking” for its practitioners is plain to anyone who turns back a few pages.

Saturday, August 16, 2008

Discriminatory 1913 Statute Repealed

Thank goodness somewhere there is reason, logic, and fairness.... Check out this short video; "Equal means equal" - Governor of Massachusetts.

I wrote to him in thanks:

Dear Gov. Deval Patrick,

I want to send "thanks" whenever I read stories of governing officials that stand up for what is just plain "right". At 50 years now, I have grown up with the disdain and hate prevalent in society towards me just because I was born "gay-side" of the sliding scale of sexuality. Some people are born like me, some are "straight", some find themselves somewhere in between. Bigotry, discrimination, ignorance and religious zealotry have no room to dictate a gay person's rights to be "equal" in America. Though I and my partner do not live in your fine state, I wanted to applaud your decision in support of gay rights. We truly hope that someday everyone will understand that being gay is not a "choice" of who we are, but rather a choice we do not deny or hide it for the misguided beliefs of someone else. After all, no one "gay" is trying to force a "straight" person to be gay, nor or we trying to limit any one's rights to live in peace and happiness.

Patrick Wood (Texas)

Wednesday, August 13, 2008

Prince Charles:GM foods conducting a "gigantic experiment with nature and the whole of humanity..."

Charles in GM 'disaster' warning

Full story

Companies developing genetically modified crops risk creating the biggest environmental disaster "of all time", Prince Charles has warned.

GM crops were damaging Earth's soil and were an experiment "gone seriously wrong", he told the Daily Telegraph.

A future reliance on corporations to mass-produce food would drive millions of farmers off their land, he said.

Prince Charles told the newspaper that huge multi-national corporations involved in developing GM foods were conducting a "gigantic experiment with nature and the whole of humanity which has gone seriously wrong".

Relying on "gigantic corporations" for food would end in "absolute disaster", he warned.

"That would be the absolute destruction of everything... and the classic way of ensuring there is no food in the future."

What should be being debated was "food security not food production", he said.

From Dead Animals (FDA) to pet food

FDA Gives Pet Food a Loophole to By-Pass Law
The law specifically states no diseased animal or an animal which has died other than by slaughter is allowed for use in food. Enter the FDA looking out for the interest of some pet food manufacturers. Our FDA friends have provided an official loophole to allow pet food to by-pass the law.
Click Here to read

Unacceptable FDA Warning Letters
I subscribe to several FDA warning and recall email lists; the warning letters issued by the FDA have caused me some concern. The last several lists provided by the FDA of warning letters have each contained warnings issued to livestock producers - folks who provide meat producing animals for human and pet consumption.
Click Here to Read

Truth About Pet Food August 2008 Newsletter

I think the goal should NOT be to bad mouth any particular pet food manufacturer or type of pet food (kibble, can, home cooked, raw). The goal for me personally is to educate pet owners to an understanding of pet food ingredient definitions and let each decide for themselves which pet foods are right for their own pets. If you or anyone you know can help me with sharing the ‘truth' please contact me. I need all the help I can get; thanks.Wishing you and yo! ur pets the best, August2008TruthNewsletter.asp

Results from July Newsletter pole question...
Would a 'pet food ingredient information system' influence your pet food purchases?

215 Votes
Yes, it would influence my purchase - 97%
No, it would have no influence - 1%
Maybe - 2%

Discouraging News from Veterinary Medical Association Meeting
Recently the AVMA (American Veterinary Medical Association) held its annual meeting; reports of the topics discussed are discouraging. Per an article reported in several veterinary speakers clearly continue to support major pet food manufacturers.
Click Here to read.

Oh where oh where can the by-products go?
Could risky meat by-products be turned into energy?
No it's not that I have gone to reporting on energy these days. But I have discovered a possible means for the inferior garbage that gets dumped into pet food to be turned into valuable energy. Something that seems to be a far better method to discard of left over animal waste materials than becoming dog food or cat food ingredients.
Click Here to read

Do you monitor litter box or back yard deposits?
As much ‘fun' as it is to clean the litter box or pick up the ‘land mines' in the back yard, the clean up provides you with an opportunity to monitor your pet's health. The trick is to first learn what normal elimination behavior is, and then any changes in normal are an early alert to a possible problem.
Click Here to read.

Greatest American Dog Reality Show
If you haven't watched the newest reality show - The Greatest American Dog - you should. Besides the judges who seem to think acting like Simon Cowell of American Idol is cool, it's a great show. My favorite contestant team is Bill & Star. It's a joy to watch how much they love each other - they have a mutual worship.
Click Here to read.