Brazilians will be forced to use RFID chips and GPS trackers in their cars | New World Order in Brazil
Big-Brother Brazil?
Brazil‘s government, behind the facade of open democracy, continues to advance its way as one of the most autoritarian police states in the world.
Brazilian population will be forced very soon to have in their cars identification chips (RFID), as well as GPS locators and blockers.
According to several news , the brazilian government hurries to show until november of 2010 the GPS tracker that will be legally required to be in all new cars from February of 2011.
It is unclear how this will work but in this article of the Folha de Sao Paulo says the Denatran (Transit National Department) will oversee the center, and that it will be operated by Serpro (organ of government for data processing). This means that the brazilian government can access the location of any car registered in the country!
The article in the Folha de Sao Paulo also says:
To circumvent the criticisms of those who claim lack of privacy, which has led the discussion to the judicial arena, the Minister Marcio Fortes says there will be two options: the tracker and blocker. This will make the car stop in a given situation, for example if the thief stops at traffic lights, and will be mandatory. In the other hand, the GPS tracker will be contracted or not by the user.
The implications of this? Imagine this in the hands of a corrupt and totalitarian government, which decides to label as terrorists those who disagree with its actions? Brazilian should unite and reject this law, modeled on the American war on terror, using security as pretext for the removal of our freedoms and privacy.
Chip Identification RFID in Cars
I had read some time ago in Portugal that the cars would be required to have RFID chip (radio frequency) identification and was stunned by that. What was my surprise to learn that since 2006 we have a law that creates the Siniav, or National System for Automatic Vehicle Identification, which will require the installation of identification chips in all cars and maintain a network of reading antennas, which will identify every vehicle.
Resolution of No 212 of 13 November 2006, says:
SINIAV consists of electronic boards installed in the vehicle, antennas, readers, data processing centers and computer systems.
And goes on saing that militar vehicles are not required to use but all other motor vehicles will have to be equipped with the chip:
§ 2 The use of military vehicles are exempt from this requirement.
Article 2 No motor vehicle, electrical, trailer and semi-trailer can be licensed on roads open to traffic without being equipped with the electronic board of this resolution.
The full resolution can be downloaded here.
According to the engineer Dario Thorbe, data is encrypted and confidential, and will be accessible only the traffic department and eventually the police. Ahhhhh, ok then, now I feel so safe!
Again the state using the pretext of security for the people to accept totalitarian measures. Gradually we are seeing around us the government, putting in place tools that will allow a micro-managing the lives of all citizens. Close to what we have at some time in Brazil, 1984 will be pretty easy.
Sunday, October 31, 2010
Saturday, October 30, 2010
Pancreatic cancer takes 20 years to grow into detectable tumors – here’s how to halt it today
Pancreatic cancer takes 20 years to grow into detectable tumors – here’s how to halt it today
Mike Adams
Natural News
Oct 29, 2010
New research published in the journal Nature reveals that pancreatic cancer takes 20 years to grow to the point where it is diagnosed by conventional medical doctors. This was determined by sequencing the DNA of cancer tumor cells from deceased patients. Because cancer mutations occur in growing tumors at a known rate, scientists were able to map the timing of the development of full-blown pancreatic cancer tumors.
Here’s what the scientists at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute found (and here’s why this matters in a huge way to people interested in healthy living):
• It takes 11.7 years for one mutation in a pancreas cell to grow into a “mature” pancreatic tumor (which might show up on a medical scan).
• It takes another 6.8 years for the pancreatic tumor to spread and cause tumors to appear in other organs of the body.
In all, it takes about 20 years for a person to grow a cancer tumor and see it spread to the point where their doctor will diagnose them with pancreatic cancer.
In other words, by the time doctors diagnose you with cancer, you’ve already been growing it for two decades.
Here’s why this matters
This is a huge story for five very important reasons:
Reason #1) The idea thrown around by cancer doctors that cancer is a “spontaneous disease” that strikes randomly and without warning is pure bunk. In order to “get” cancer, you actually have to GROW cancer for two decades! It doesn’t just suddenly appear like magic.
Reason #2) When cancer doctors diagnose you with pancreatic cancer and say things like, “Good thing we caught it early!” they are full of bunk yet again. They didn’t catch it early — they caught it late! Almost 20 years too late.
Reason #3) If it takes 20 years to grow cancer tumors to the point where you get diagnosed with aggressive pancreatic cancer, then that means you have 20 years to change your lifestyle and stop the cancer!
That’s the most important point of all, of course. In order to grow cancer tumors for 20 years, you have to feed the cancer for 20 years while keeping it alive. And how do you do that?
How to grow and feed a cancer tumor
First of all, to grow a cancer tumor, you need to eat lots of sugar. Liquid sugars are the best (soda, anyone?), but any form of refined sugar will do. You have to eat sugar daily if you really want to support cancer cell division and growth.
Next, you have to be vitamin D deficient for the entire 20 years. That’s because vitamin D halts 77 percent of all cancers (including pancreatic cancer), and when combined with other nutrients like selenium, you can halt even more cancers. (http://www.naturalnews.com/021892.html)
If you combine vitamin D and selenium nutrition with other anti-cancer nutrients such as fresh vegetable juice (on a daily basis), omega-3 fatty acids, a wide variety of fresh fruits (including citrus and berries), and even red wine (rich with resveratrol), you will create an internal biological environment in which cancer tumors just can’t grow at all. (http://www.naturalnews.com/023655_I…)
This is especially true if you pursue a more alkaline diet that’s rich in vegetables and green foods rather than acidic substances such as sugar, fried foods and caffeine.
Combine all this with some regular exercise, good sleep, stress reduction habits and strict avoidance of cancer-causing chemicals, and you’ve got a recipe for blocking virtually all tumor growth in your body.
Cancer tumors simply cannot grow in an environment that’s rich in plant-based nutrients and based on healthy, natural living.
So even if you have a wayward pancreatic cell that decides to mutate and try to become cancerous on its own, that cell will not have any long-term success in replicating inside your body because it’s surrounded by healthy cells and bathed in anti-cancer nutrients carried to it each day in your blood!
Remember, your cells rely entirely on nutrients delivered by your blood, and if your blood is delivering anti-cancer nutrients each day, then “bad” cells will never be allowed to replicate and become cancer tumors.
Obviously, the composition of your blood is determined by what you eat. If you eat junk food, your blood will be junk blood, and it will deliver junk to your cells (cancer cells love junk!). If you eat healthy foods, you will have healthy blood, and cancer tumors will shrivel up and actually lose their blood supply then die. (Antiangiogenesis.) (http://www.naturalnews.com/001261_m…)
This is what this new research actually reveals: That pancreatic cancer takes two decades to develop inside your body, which naturally means you have two decades to change your health habits and stop growing cancer tumors in your body.
You may be growing cancer tumors right now… (but here’s how to stop it)
If you’ve been pursuing a lifestyle of junk foods, processed foods, fried foods, excessive animal products and sun avoidance (you’re not seriously still slapping sunscreen on your skin, are you?), then you are probably growing cancer tumors in your body right now. Almost as if you were trying to!
So you might be on year 10 of the 20-year cancer diagnosis plan. There’s no way to know because cancer tumors don’t show up diagnostic tests when they’re only 10 years old (usually). But if you’ve been following a cancer-promoting lifestyle, you can rest assured you have micro tumors in your body that are just waiting for more sugar and less vitamin D in your blood in order to divide and grow even more.
So why not stop growing cancer tumors today? Start juicing! If you want to stop cancer in its tracks, buy yourself a high-end countertop juicing machine, go out and buy some organic produce on a regular basis, and start juicing away your cancer. (No kidding!)
Start consuming anti-cancer nutrients on a daily basis. Even a small amount of fresh kale, cabbage or broccoli juice (just one ounce) taken every day will have a powerful anti-cancer effect and may halt tumor growth in your body.
But just to be sure, blend and drink fresh citrus fruits, organic berries, and microalgae supplements on a regular basis. Read NaturalNews and learn about the latest breaking news on anti-cancer foods and supplements. Changing what you eat will dramatically alter what your body grows inside. Instead of growing cancer tumors, you can start growing healthy cells that will quickly overpower any diseased cells.
Steer clear of all synthetic chemicals
Of course, for all this to work, it is VITAL that you avoid all synthetic chemicals: Do not take pharmaceuticals; do not use conventional perfumes, skin lotions, shampoos or other personal care products; do not use conventional laundry detergents (they’re filled with cancer-causing fragrance chemicals); do not use anti-bacterial soaps; do not cook on nonstick cookware; do not drink fluoride in your water… basically just get all the toxic chemicals out of your house and out of your life.
Keep reading NaturalNews if you want to learn more about how to do that. We cover these topics on a regular basis. Better yet, subscribe to our free email newsletter and we’ll bring you these news headlines each day (the subscribe box is at the top left of this article).
The bottom line to all this is the GREAT NEWS that you don’t have to grow cancer tumors anymore! You can simply decide to stop growing cancer by changing the biochemical environment in which your cells live. Change the environment and you change the results. It’s a simple matter of cause and effect.
So remember: Cancer is not random, nor is it genetic. It doesn’t appear spontaneously, and in the case of pancreatic cancer, it actually takes two decades to grow it to the point where it gets noticed by cancer doctors!
That means you’ve got 20 years to make a change in your life. Why not start right now? (If you haven’t already…)
Fact: Pancreatic survival rates have not changed in the last 40 years. Do you know why? Because conventional medical doctors wait until you’ve been growing cancer for 20 years to tell you that you have cancer. (Seriously. And they think they’re running the most “advanced” medical system in the world.)
Wouldn’t it make more sense to teach patients how to prevent cancer two decades earlier and thereby avoid growing it in the first place?
Mike Adams
Natural News
Oct 29, 2010
New research published in the journal Nature reveals that pancreatic cancer takes 20 years to grow to the point where it is diagnosed by conventional medical doctors. This was determined by sequencing the DNA of cancer tumor cells from deceased patients. Because cancer mutations occur in growing tumors at a known rate, scientists were able to map the timing of the development of full-blown pancreatic cancer tumors.
Here’s what the scientists at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute found (and here’s why this matters in a huge way to people interested in healthy living):
• It takes 11.7 years for one mutation in a pancreas cell to grow into a “mature” pancreatic tumor (which might show up on a medical scan).
• It takes another 6.8 years for the pancreatic tumor to spread and cause tumors to appear in other organs of the body.
In all, it takes about 20 years for a person to grow a cancer tumor and see it spread to the point where their doctor will diagnose them with pancreatic cancer.
In other words, by the time doctors diagnose you with cancer, you’ve already been growing it for two decades.
Here’s why this matters
This is a huge story for five very important reasons:
Reason #1) The idea thrown around by cancer doctors that cancer is a “spontaneous disease” that strikes randomly and without warning is pure bunk. In order to “get” cancer, you actually have to GROW cancer for two decades! It doesn’t just suddenly appear like magic.
Reason #2) When cancer doctors diagnose you with pancreatic cancer and say things like, “Good thing we caught it early!” they are full of bunk yet again. They didn’t catch it early — they caught it late! Almost 20 years too late.
Reason #3) If it takes 20 years to grow cancer tumors to the point where you get diagnosed with aggressive pancreatic cancer, then that means you have 20 years to change your lifestyle and stop the cancer!
That’s the most important point of all, of course. In order to grow cancer tumors for 20 years, you have to feed the cancer for 20 years while keeping it alive. And how do you do that?
How to grow and feed a cancer tumor
First of all, to grow a cancer tumor, you need to eat lots of sugar. Liquid sugars are the best (soda, anyone?), but any form of refined sugar will do. You have to eat sugar daily if you really want to support cancer cell division and growth.
Next, you have to be vitamin D deficient for the entire 20 years. That’s because vitamin D halts 77 percent of all cancers (including pancreatic cancer), and when combined with other nutrients like selenium, you can halt even more cancers. (http://www.naturalnews.com/021892.html)
If you combine vitamin D and selenium nutrition with other anti-cancer nutrients such as fresh vegetable juice (on a daily basis), omega-3 fatty acids, a wide variety of fresh fruits (including citrus and berries), and even red wine (rich with resveratrol), you will create an internal biological environment in which cancer tumors just can’t grow at all. (http://www.naturalnews.com/023655_I…)
This is especially true if you pursue a more alkaline diet that’s rich in vegetables and green foods rather than acidic substances such as sugar, fried foods and caffeine.
Combine all this with some regular exercise, good sleep, stress reduction habits and strict avoidance of cancer-causing chemicals, and you’ve got a recipe for blocking virtually all tumor growth in your body.
Cancer tumors simply cannot grow in an environment that’s rich in plant-based nutrients and based on healthy, natural living.
So even if you have a wayward pancreatic cell that decides to mutate and try to become cancerous on its own, that cell will not have any long-term success in replicating inside your body because it’s surrounded by healthy cells and bathed in anti-cancer nutrients carried to it each day in your blood!
Remember, your cells rely entirely on nutrients delivered by your blood, and if your blood is delivering anti-cancer nutrients each day, then “bad” cells will never be allowed to replicate and become cancer tumors.
Obviously, the composition of your blood is determined by what you eat. If you eat junk food, your blood will be junk blood, and it will deliver junk to your cells (cancer cells love junk!). If you eat healthy foods, you will have healthy blood, and cancer tumors will shrivel up and actually lose their blood supply then die. (Antiangiogenesis.) (http://www.naturalnews.com/001261_m…)
This is what this new research actually reveals: That pancreatic cancer takes two decades to develop inside your body, which naturally means you have two decades to change your health habits and stop growing cancer tumors in your body.
You may be growing cancer tumors right now… (but here’s how to stop it)
If you’ve been pursuing a lifestyle of junk foods, processed foods, fried foods, excessive animal products and sun avoidance (you’re not seriously still slapping sunscreen on your skin, are you?), then you are probably growing cancer tumors in your body right now. Almost as if you were trying to!
So you might be on year 10 of the 20-year cancer diagnosis plan. There’s no way to know because cancer tumors don’t show up diagnostic tests when they’re only 10 years old (usually). But if you’ve been following a cancer-promoting lifestyle, you can rest assured you have micro tumors in your body that are just waiting for more sugar and less vitamin D in your blood in order to divide and grow even more.
So why not stop growing cancer tumors today? Start juicing! If you want to stop cancer in its tracks, buy yourself a high-end countertop juicing machine, go out and buy some organic produce on a regular basis, and start juicing away your cancer. (No kidding!)
Start consuming anti-cancer nutrients on a daily basis. Even a small amount of fresh kale, cabbage or broccoli juice (just one ounce) taken every day will have a powerful anti-cancer effect and may halt tumor growth in your body.
But just to be sure, blend and drink fresh citrus fruits, organic berries, and microalgae supplements on a regular basis. Read NaturalNews and learn about the latest breaking news on anti-cancer foods and supplements. Changing what you eat will dramatically alter what your body grows inside. Instead of growing cancer tumors, you can start growing healthy cells that will quickly overpower any diseased cells.
Steer clear of all synthetic chemicals
Of course, for all this to work, it is VITAL that you avoid all synthetic chemicals: Do not take pharmaceuticals; do not use conventional perfumes, skin lotions, shampoos or other personal care products; do not use conventional laundry detergents (they’re filled with cancer-causing fragrance chemicals); do not use anti-bacterial soaps; do not cook on nonstick cookware; do not drink fluoride in your water… basically just get all the toxic chemicals out of your house and out of your life.
Keep reading NaturalNews if you want to learn more about how to do that. We cover these topics on a regular basis. Better yet, subscribe to our free email newsletter and we’ll bring you these news headlines each day (the subscribe box is at the top left of this article).
The bottom line to all this is the GREAT NEWS that you don’t have to grow cancer tumors anymore! You can simply decide to stop growing cancer by changing the biochemical environment in which your cells live. Change the environment and you change the results. It’s a simple matter of cause and effect.
So remember: Cancer is not random, nor is it genetic. It doesn’t appear spontaneously, and in the case of pancreatic cancer, it actually takes two decades to grow it to the point where it gets noticed by cancer doctors!
That means you’ve got 20 years to make a change in your life. Why not start right now? (If you haven’t already…)
Fact: Pancreatic survival rates have not changed in the last 40 years. Do you know why? Because conventional medical doctors wait until you’ve been growing cancer for 20 years to tell you that you have cancer. (Seriously. And they think they’re running the most “advanced” medical system in the world.)
Wouldn’t it make more sense to teach patients how to prevent cancer two decades earlier and thereby avoid growing it in the first place?
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Is asthma just a symptom of vitamin D deficiency?
Is asthma just a symptom of vitamin D deficiency?
Is asthma just a symptom of vitamin D deficiency?
(NaturalNews) Low vitamin D levels may make asthmatic children significantly more likely to suffer from severe attacks, according to a study conducted by researchers from Harvard Medical School and published in the Journal of Allergy & Clinical Immunology.
The researchers took blood samples from 1,024 children with mild-to-moderate asthma who were enrolled in a study of two inhaled asthma drugs, budesonide and nedocromil. The children were then followed for four years.
For the purposes of the study, vitamin D insufficiency was defined as a blood level less than or equal to 30 nanograms per milliliter. Although it currently takes levels lower than 11 nanograms per milliliter to be classified as a deficiency, doctors increasingly believe that levels of 30 nanograms per milliliter or higher are required for optimal health.
The researchers found that children with vitamin D insufficiency were significantly more likely to suffer from severe asthma attacks than children with higher levels of the vitamin. During the course of the study, 38 percent of vitamin D-insufficient children had to be hospitalized at least once due to an asthma attack, compared with only 32 percent of vitamin-sufficient children.
Vitamin D did not appear to protect children from moderate asthma symptoms; in fact, lower vitamin levels appeared to be correlated with a slightly lower risk of moderate symptoms. The researchers were unable to explain this effect.
Scientists have long known that vitamin D plays a crucial role in the development and maintenance of healthy teeth and bones. More recently, they have discovered that the vitamin plays a vital role in regulating the immune system, and that low levels may increase the risk of allergies, infection, autoimmune diseases, cancer, and heart disease.
The researchers in the current study suggested that the vitamin may help regulate the body's inflammatory response, perhaps even by enhancing the potency of anti-inflammatory hormones. They found that vitamin D appeared to be more protective among participants who were taking budesonide, a synthetic anti-inflammatory hormone.
Sources for this story include: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUS....
http://www.naturalnews.com/030097
_asthma_vitamin_D.html
Is asthma just a symptom of vitamin D deficiency?
(NaturalNews) Low vitamin D levels may make asthmatic children significantly more likely to suffer from severe attacks, according to a study conducted by researchers from Harvard Medical School and published in the Journal of Allergy & Clinical Immunology.
The researchers took blood samples from 1,024 children with mild-to-moderate asthma who were enrolled in a study of two inhaled asthma drugs, budesonide and nedocromil. The children were then followed for four years.
For the purposes of the study, vitamin D insufficiency was defined as a blood level less than or equal to 30 nanograms per milliliter. Although it currently takes levels lower than 11 nanograms per milliliter to be classified as a deficiency, doctors increasingly believe that levels of 30 nanograms per milliliter or higher are required for optimal health.
The researchers found that children with vitamin D insufficiency were significantly more likely to suffer from severe asthma attacks than children with higher levels of the vitamin. During the course of the study, 38 percent of vitamin D-insufficient children had to be hospitalized at least once due to an asthma attack, compared with only 32 percent of vitamin-sufficient children.
Vitamin D did not appear to protect children from moderate asthma symptoms; in fact, lower vitamin levels appeared to be correlated with a slightly lower risk of moderate symptoms. The researchers were unable to explain this effect.
Scientists have long known that vitamin D plays a crucial role in the development and maintenance of healthy teeth and bones. More recently, they have discovered that the vitamin plays a vital role in regulating the immune system, and that low levels may increase the risk of allergies, infection, autoimmune diseases, cancer, and heart disease.
The researchers in the current study suggested that the vitamin may help regulate the body's inflammatory response, perhaps even by enhancing the potency of anti-inflammatory hormones. They found that vitamin D appeared to be more protective among participants who were taking budesonide, a synthetic anti-inflammatory hormone.
Sources for this story include: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUS....
http://www.naturalnews.com/030097
_asthma_vitamin_D.html
Pueblo Politics: Court overturns Arizona's proof of citizenship requirement for voter registration
Pueblo Politics: Court overturns Arizona's proof of citizenship requirement for voter registration
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has overturned Arizona’s requirement that people show proof of citizenship to register to vote.
The split decision by a three-judge panel determined that the requirement to show proof of citizenship — passed by voters in 2004 — is not consistent with the National Voter Registration Act.
Associate Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, temporarily sitting by designation, and Circuit Judge Sandra Ikuta, with chief judge Alex Kozinski dissenting, said Prop. 200 creates an additional hurdle, while the national act is intended to reduce “state-imposed obstacles” to registration.
The majority noted that Congress was well aware of the problem of voter fraud when it passed the voter act, and built in sufficient protections, including applying perjury penalties to applicants who lie about their eligibilty.
The court determined Arizona’s polling place photo identification requirement, however, is a minimal burden and does not violate the Equal Protection Clause in the 14th Amendment.
Attorney General Terry Goddard’s office is still reviewing the decision and was unavailable for comment.
Secretary of State Ken Bennett said he does not anticipate that the ruling will make any difference in voting next week, since it wasn’t in place when registration closed Oct. 4.
Bennett said the state plans to appeal the ruling, adding he disagrees the documentation sets up a barrier for registration. “I think it’s an outrage and a slap in the face of Arizonans who are concerned about the integrity of elections,” he said.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has overturned Arizona’s requirement that people show proof of citizenship to register to vote.
The split decision by a three-judge panel determined that the requirement to show proof of citizenship — passed by voters in 2004 — is not consistent with the National Voter Registration Act.
Associate Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, temporarily sitting by designation, and Circuit Judge Sandra Ikuta, with chief judge Alex Kozinski dissenting, said Prop. 200 creates an additional hurdle, while the national act is intended to reduce “state-imposed obstacles” to registration.
The majority noted that Congress was well aware of the problem of voter fraud when it passed the voter act, and built in sufficient protections, including applying perjury penalties to applicants who lie about their eligibilty.
The court determined Arizona’s polling place photo identification requirement, however, is a minimal burden and does not violate the Equal Protection Clause in the 14th Amendment.
Attorney General Terry Goddard’s office is still reviewing the decision and was unavailable for comment.
Secretary of State Ken Bennett said he does not anticipate that the ruling will make any difference in voting next week, since it wasn’t in place when registration closed Oct. 4.
Bennett said the state plans to appeal the ruling, adding he disagrees the documentation sets up a barrier for registration. “I think it’s an outrage and a slap in the face of Arizonans who are concerned about the integrity of elections,” he said.
PressTV - Karzai: Blackwater behind terrorism
PressTV - Karzai: Blackwater behind terrorism
At a press conference in Kabul, Karzai said that US security companies have been behind explosions that have claimed the lives of women and children.
The Afghan president added that they have caused "blasts and terrorism" in different parts of Afghanistan over the past months.
The Afghan president said his administration cannot even distinguish between the bomb blasts carried out by US security firms and those of the Taliban militants.
"In fact we don't yet know how many of these blasts are by Taliban and how many are carried out by them (US security companies)."
Blackwater has been involved in the murder of several Afghan citizens over the past years. The company has also been struggling with a trail of legal cases and civil lawsuits, including one for killing 17 Iraqi civilians during a Baghdad shootout in 2007.
Earlier in June, the CIA reportedly admitted that Blackwater had been loading bombs on US drones that target suspected militants in neighboring Pakistan.
The Afghan president has also pointed out that American private security firms are corrupt and have fueled nine years of war.
"Deals under the name of private security companies are cut in the hallways of American government buildings. It involves 1.5 billion dollars," he said.
Karzai has accused security companies of running what he called an economic mafia based on crooked contracts.
"The money, 1.5 billion dollars, is being distributed there (in the United States) on Blackwater [sic] and this and that."
The developments come as the notorious Blackwater has been awarded a five-year State Department contract worth up to USD 10 billion for operations in Afghanistan.
In August, Karzai ordered all security firms to disband before the end of the year.
Some diplomats and military officials say Karzai has been under intense pressure to reconsider his decision.
However, Karzai says he is steadfast in his decision to dissolve foreign security firms in the country despite US pressure to reconsider the decision.
The private companies are said to be in charge of providing security for foreign officials and embassies as well as development projects in Afghanistan.
Karzai has blamed mercenaries for civilian deaths and corruption in the troubled region.
At a press conference in Kabul, Karzai said that US security companies have been behind explosions that have claimed the lives of women and children.
The Afghan president added that they have caused "blasts and terrorism" in different parts of Afghanistan over the past months.
The Afghan president said his administration cannot even distinguish between the bomb blasts carried out by US security firms and those of the Taliban militants.
"In fact we don't yet know how many of these blasts are by Taliban and how many are carried out by them (US security companies)."
Blackwater has been involved in the murder of several Afghan citizens over the past years. The company has also been struggling with a trail of legal cases and civil lawsuits, including one for killing 17 Iraqi civilians during a Baghdad shootout in 2007.
Earlier in June, the CIA reportedly admitted that Blackwater had been loading bombs on US drones that target suspected militants in neighboring Pakistan.
The Afghan president has also pointed out that American private security firms are corrupt and have fueled nine years of war.
"Deals under the name of private security companies are cut in the hallways of American government buildings. It involves 1.5 billion dollars," he said.
Karzai has accused security companies of running what he called an economic mafia based on crooked contracts.
"The money, 1.5 billion dollars, is being distributed there (in the United States) on Blackwater [sic] and this and that."
The developments come as the notorious Blackwater has been awarded a five-year State Department contract worth up to USD 10 billion for operations in Afghanistan.
In August, Karzai ordered all security firms to disband before the end of the year.
Some diplomats and military officials say Karzai has been under intense pressure to reconsider his decision.
However, Karzai says he is steadfast in his decision to dissolve foreign security firms in the country despite US pressure to reconsider the decision.
The private companies are said to be in charge of providing security for foreign officials and embassies as well as development projects in Afghanistan.
Karzai has blamed mercenaries for civilian deaths and corruption in the troubled region.
Thursday, October 21, 2010
Why McDonald's Happy Meal hamburgers won't decompose - the real story behind the story
Why McDonald's Happy Meal hamburgers won't decompose - the real story behind the story
(NaturalNews) It's always entertaining when the mainstream media "discovers" something they think is new even though the natural health community has been talking about for years. The New York Times, for example, recently ran a story entitled When Drugs Cause Problems They Are Supposed to Prevent (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/17/h...). We've been covering the same topic for years, reporting on how chemotherapy causes cancer, osteoporosis drugs cause bone fractures and antidepressant drugs cause suicidal behavior.
The latest "new" discovery by the mainstream media is that McDonald's Happy Meal hamburgers and fries won't decompose, even if you leave them out for six months. This story has been picked up by CNN, the Washington Post and many other MSM outlets which appear startled that junk food from fast food chains won't decompose.
The funny thing about this is that the natural health industry already covered this topic years ago. Remember Len Foley's Bionic Burger video? It was posted in 2007 and eventually racked up a whopping 2 million views on YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mYyD...). And this video shows a guy who bought his McDonald's hamburgers in 1989 -- burgers that still haven't decomposed in over two decades!
Now, he has an entire museum of non-decomposed burgers in his basement.
Did the mainstream media pick up on this story? Nope. Not a word. The story was completely ignored. It was only in 2010 when an artist posted a story about a non-decomposing McDonald's hamburger from six months ago that the news networks ran with the story.
Check out the video link above and you'll see an entire museum of Big Macs and hamburgers spanning the years -- none of which have decomposed.
This is especially interesting because the more recent "Happy Meal Project" which only tracks a burger for six months has drawn quite a lot of criticism from a few critics who say the burgers will decompose if you give them enough time. They obviously don't know about the mummified burger museum going all the way back to 1989. This stuff never seems to decompose!
Why don't McDonald's hamburgers decompose?
So why don't fast food burgers and fries decompose in the first place? The knee-jerk answer is often thought to be, "Well they must be made with so many chemicals that even mold won't eat them." While that's part of the answer, it's not the whole story.
The truth is many processed foods don't decompose and won't be eaten by molds, insects or even rodents. Try leaving a tub of margarine outside in your yard and see if anything bothers to eat it. You'll find that the margarine stays seems immortal, too!
Potato chips can last for decades. Frozen pizzas are remarkably resistant to decomposition. And you know those processed Christmas sausages and meats sold around the holiday season? You can keep them for years and they'll never rot.
With meats, the primary reason why they don't decompose is their high sodium content. Salt is a great preservative, as early humans have known for thousands of years. McDonald's meat patties are absolutely loaded with sodium -- so much so that they qualify as "preserved" meat, not even counting the chemicals you might find in the meat.
To me, there's not much mystery about the meat not decomposing. The real question in my mind is why don't the buns mold? That's the really scary part, since healthy bread begins to mold within days. What could possibly be in McDonald's hamburger buns that would ward off microscopic life for more than two decades?
As it turns out, unless you're a chemist you probably can't even read the ingredients list out loud. Here's what McDonald's own website says you'll find in their buns:
Enriched flour (bleached wheat flour, malted barley flour, niacin, reduced iron, thiamin mononitrate, riboflavin, folic acid, enzymes), water, high fructose corn syrup, sugar, yeast, soybean oil and/or partially hydrogenated soybean oil, contains 2% or less of the following: salt, calcium sulfate, calcium carbonate, wheat gluten, ammonium sulfate, ammonium chloride, dough conditioners (sodium stearoyl lactylate, datem, ascorbic acid, azodicarbonamide, mono- and diglycerides, ethoxylated monoglycerides, monocalcium phosphate, enzymes, guar gum, calcium peroxide, soy flour), calcium propionate and sodium propionate (preservatives), soy lecithin.
Great stuff, huh? You gotta especially love the HFCS (diabetes, anyone?), partially-hydrogenated soybean oil (anybody want heart disease?) and the long list of chemicals such as ammonium sulfate and sodium proprionate. Yum. I'm drooling just thinking about it.
Now here's the truly shocking part about all this: In my estimation, the reason nothing will eat a McDonald's hamburger bun (except a human) is because it's not food!
No normal animal will perceive a McDonald's hamburger bun as food, and as it turns out, neither will bacteria or fungi. To their senses, it's just not edible stuff. That's why these bionic burger buns just won't decompose.
Which brings me to my final point about this whole laughable distraction: There is only one species on planet Earth that's stupid enough to think a McDonald's hamburger is food. This species is suffering from skyrocketing rates of diabetes, cancer, heart disease, dementia and obesity. This species claims to be the most intelligent species on the planet, and yet it behaves in such a moronic way that it feeds its own children poisonous chemicals and such atrocious non-foods that even fungi won't eat it (and fungi will eat cow manure, just FYI).
Care to guess which species I'm talking about?
That's the real story here. It's not that McDonald's hamburgers won't decompose; it's that people are stupid enough to eat them. But you won't find CNN reporting that story any time soon.
(NaturalNews) It's always entertaining when the mainstream media "discovers" something they think is new even though the natural health community has been talking about for years. The New York Times, for example, recently ran a story entitled When Drugs Cause Problems They Are Supposed to Prevent (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/17/h...). We've been covering the same topic for years, reporting on how chemotherapy causes cancer, osteoporosis drugs cause bone fractures and antidepressant drugs cause suicidal behavior.
The latest "new" discovery by the mainstream media is that McDonald's Happy Meal hamburgers and fries won't decompose, even if you leave them out for six months. This story has been picked up by CNN, the Washington Post and many other MSM outlets which appear startled that junk food from fast food chains won't decompose.
The funny thing about this is that the natural health industry already covered this topic years ago. Remember Len Foley's Bionic Burger video? It was posted in 2007 and eventually racked up a whopping 2 million views on YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mYyD...). And this video shows a guy who bought his McDonald's hamburgers in 1989 -- burgers that still haven't decomposed in over two decades!
Now, he has an entire museum of non-decomposed burgers in his basement.
Did the mainstream media pick up on this story? Nope. Not a word. The story was completely ignored. It was only in 2010 when an artist posted a story about a non-decomposing McDonald's hamburger from six months ago that the news networks ran with the story.
Check out the video link above and you'll see an entire museum of Big Macs and hamburgers spanning the years -- none of which have decomposed.
This is especially interesting because the more recent "Happy Meal Project" which only tracks a burger for six months has drawn quite a lot of criticism from a few critics who say the burgers will decompose if you give them enough time. They obviously don't know about the mummified burger museum going all the way back to 1989. This stuff never seems to decompose!
Why don't McDonald's hamburgers decompose?
So why don't fast food burgers and fries decompose in the first place? The knee-jerk answer is often thought to be, "Well they must be made with so many chemicals that even mold won't eat them." While that's part of the answer, it's not the whole story.
The truth is many processed foods don't decompose and won't be eaten by molds, insects or even rodents. Try leaving a tub of margarine outside in your yard and see if anything bothers to eat it. You'll find that the margarine stays seems immortal, too!
Potato chips can last for decades. Frozen pizzas are remarkably resistant to decomposition. And you know those processed Christmas sausages and meats sold around the holiday season? You can keep them for years and they'll never rot.
With meats, the primary reason why they don't decompose is their high sodium content. Salt is a great preservative, as early humans have known for thousands of years. McDonald's meat patties are absolutely loaded with sodium -- so much so that they qualify as "preserved" meat, not even counting the chemicals you might find in the meat.
To me, there's not much mystery about the meat not decomposing. The real question in my mind is why don't the buns mold? That's the really scary part, since healthy bread begins to mold within days. What could possibly be in McDonald's hamburger buns that would ward off microscopic life for more than two decades?
As it turns out, unless you're a chemist you probably can't even read the ingredients list out loud. Here's what McDonald's own website says you'll find in their buns:
Enriched flour (bleached wheat flour, malted barley flour, niacin, reduced iron, thiamin mononitrate, riboflavin, folic acid, enzymes), water, high fructose corn syrup, sugar, yeast, soybean oil and/or partially hydrogenated soybean oil, contains 2% or less of the following: salt, calcium sulfate, calcium carbonate, wheat gluten, ammonium sulfate, ammonium chloride, dough conditioners (sodium stearoyl lactylate, datem, ascorbic acid, azodicarbonamide, mono- and diglycerides, ethoxylated monoglycerides, monocalcium phosphate, enzymes, guar gum, calcium peroxide, soy flour), calcium propionate and sodium propionate (preservatives), soy lecithin.
Great stuff, huh? You gotta especially love the HFCS (diabetes, anyone?), partially-hydrogenated soybean oil (anybody want heart disease?) and the long list of chemicals such as ammonium sulfate and sodium proprionate. Yum. I'm drooling just thinking about it.
Now here's the truly shocking part about all this: In my estimation, the reason nothing will eat a McDonald's hamburger bun (except a human) is because it's not food!
No normal animal will perceive a McDonald's hamburger bun as food, and as it turns out, neither will bacteria or fungi. To their senses, it's just not edible stuff. That's why these bionic burger buns just won't decompose.
Which brings me to my final point about this whole laughable distraction: There is only one species on planet Earth that's stupid enough to think a McDonald's hamburger is food. This species is suffering from skyrocketing rates of diabetes, cancer, heart disease, dementia and obesity. This species claims to be the most intelligent species on the planet, and yet it behaves in such a moronic way that it feeds its own children poisonous chemicals and such atrocious non-foods that even fungi won't eat it (and fungi will eat cow manure, just FYI).
Care to guess which species I'm talking about?
That's the real story here. It's not that McDonald's hamburgers won't decompose; it's that people are stupid enough to eat them. But you won't find CNN reporting that story any time soon.
End of the Earth Postponed - Yahoo! News
End of the Earth Postponed - Yahoo! News
It's a good news/bad news situation for believers in the 2012 Mayan apocalypse. The good news is that the Mayan "Long Count" calendar may not end on Dec. 21, 2012 (and, by extension, the world may not end along with it). The bad news for prophecy believers? If the calendar doesn't end in December 2012, no one knows when it actually will - or if it has already.
A new critique, published as a chapter in the new textbook "Calendars and Years II: Astronomy and Time in the Ancient and Medieval World" (Oxbow Books, 2010), argues that the accepted conversions of dates from Mayan to the modern calendar may be off by as much as 50 or 100 years. That would throw the supposed and overhyped 2012 apocalypse off by decades and cast into doubt the dates of historical Mayan events. (The doomsday worries are based on the fact that the Mayan calendar ends in 2012, much as our year ends on Dec. 31.)
The Mayan calendar was converted to today's Gregorian calendar using a calculation called the GMT constant, named for the last initials of three early Mayanist researchers. Much of the work emphasized dates recovered from colonial documents that were written in the Mayan language in the Latin alphabet, according to the chapter's author, Gerardo Aldana, University of California, Santa Barbara professor of Chicana and Chicano Studies.
[Related: More details on the Mayan Calendar and 2012 prophecy]
Later, the GMT constant was bolstered by American linguist and anthropologist Floyd Lounsbury, who used data in the Dresden Codex Venus Table, a Mayan calendar and almanac that charts dates relative to the movements of Venus.
"He took the position that his work removed the last obstacle to fully accepting the GMT constant," Aldana said in a statement. "Others took his work even further, suggesting that he had proven the GMT constant to be correct."
But according to Aldana, Lounsbury's evidence is far from irrefutable.
"If the Venus Table cannot be used to prove the FMT as Lounsbury suggests, its acceptance depends on the reliability of the corroborating data," he said. That historical data, he said, is less reliable than the Table itself, causing the argument for the GMT constant to fall "like a stack of cards."
Aldana doesn't have any answers as to what the correct calendar conversion might be, preferring to focus on why the current interpretation may be wrong. Looks like end-of-the-world theorists may need to find another ancient calendar on which to pin their apocalyptic hopes.
It's a good news/bad news situation for believers in the 2012 Mayan apocalypse. The good news is that the Mayan "Long Count" calendar may not end on Dec. 21, 2012 (and, by extension, the world may not end along with it). The bad news for prophecy believers? If the calendar doesn't end in December 2012, no one knows when it actually will - or if it has already.
A new critique, published as a chapter in the new textbook "Calendars and Years II: Astronomy and Time in the Ancient and Medieval World" (Oxbow Books, 2010), argues that the accepted conversions of dates from Mayan to the modern calendar may be off by as much as 50 or 100 years. That would throw the supposed and overhyped 2012 apocalypse off by decades and cast into doubt the dates of historical Mayan events. (The doomsday worries are based on the fact that the Mayan calendar ends in 2012, much as our year ends on Dec. 31.)
The Mayan calendar was converted to today's Gregorian calendar using a calculation called the GMT constant, named for the last initials of three early Mayanist researchers. Much of the work emphasized dates recovered from colonial documents that were written in the Mayan language in the Latin alphabet, according to the chapter's author, Gerardo Aldana, University of California, Santa Barbara professor of Chicana and Chicano Studies.
[Related: More details on the Mayan Calendar and 2012 prophecy]
Later, the GMT constant was bolstered by American linguist and anthropologist Floyd Lounsbury, who used data in the Dresden Codex Venus Table, a Mayan calendar and almanac that charts dates relative to the movements of Venus.
"He took the position that his work removed the last obstacle to fully accepting the GMT constant," Aldana said in a statement. "Others took his work even further, suggesting that he had proven the GMT constant to be correct."
But according to Aldana, Lounsbury's evidence is far from irrefutable.
"If the Venus Table cannot be used to prove the FMT as Lounsbury suggests, its acceptance depends on the reliability of the corroborating data," he said. That historical data, he said, is less reliable than the Table itself, causing the argument for the GMT constant to fall "like a stack of cards."
Aldana doesn't have any answers as to what the correct calendar conversion might be, preferring to focus on why the current interpretation may be wrong. Looks like end-of-the-world theorists may need to find another ancient calendar on which to pin their apocalyptic hopes.
Epigenetic Engineering
Epigenetic Engineering
Michael Nield, 12th October 2010
Introduction
The effects of synthetic chemicals on fertility in animals has been extensively studied and the implications have been considered at political level for several decades. In the last five years, scientists have published studies showing that such chemicals can cause obesity. This article considers whether human exposure to these chemical endocrine disruptors has occurred purely by accident. By the 1940s, the scientists knew how to alter the expression of mammalian DNA in utero and in vivo using endocrine disruptors.
Those unfamiliar with endocrine disruptors might first look at www.ourstolenfuture.org.
Acknowledgements and sources: Many of the books cited are those recommended by Alan Watt of CuttingThroughthematrix.com. OldthinkerNews.com provided a useful article on stilbesterol (DES). Original hard copies of the books were obtained and quotes come directly from the editions cited in the endnotes. Scans of some of the pages have been uploaded below. Where an internet source was used, a link is provided.
Legal Notice
Nothing in this article is intended as harrassment or incitement to hatred or harrassment under the UK 2010 Equality Act ,which came in to force on 1st October 2010, or the UK 2008 Criminal Justice Act.
The following characteristics are now protected under UK law: age, disability, gender reassignment, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation.
The purpose of this article is to suggest that certain factions within governments, corporations and charitable foundations have been implementing a population control agenda. Endocrine distruptors serve to decrease the birth rate by reducing fertility. They increase the death rate by causing morbid obesity - 'the metabolic syndrome'. The author offers no opinion on whether particular studies on animals are relevant to any legally protected human characteristic but considers the evidence as a whole for its implications on the general population with regard to declining fertility and increasing obesity.
Contents
1. Early twentieth century views on population control –Reproduction and 'human engineering'
2. American charitable foundations funded gender equality
3. How many people have reduced fertility due to diethylstilbestrol?
4. A medical doctor's opinion
5. Increasing the death rate with obesogenic endocrine disruptors
6. Endocrine disruptors in pregnancy or early life can condition the expression of DNA -the science of epigenetics
7. Endocrine disruptors permanently alter the germ line of future generations through epigenetic inheritance
8. Use of these chemicals suggests design more than accident
9. Regulatory action – or lack of it
10. Simultaneous exposure to oestrogenic soy and obesogenic flavour enhancers
11. Corporations are aware of serious problems with processed foods but sell it anyway
1. Early twentieth century views on population control – reproduction and 'human engineering'
Dr Russell Blaylock is an expert on toxic food additives and has published several books on the subject. He recommends reading the following history of eugenic-oriented scientific research: The Molecular Vision of Life: Caltech, The Rockefeller Foundation, and the Rise of The New Biology by Lily E. Kay.[1]
Lily details the transformation of America's Davenport-style race eugenics into a corporate multi-displicinary scientific enterprise for the purpose of 'human engineering'. The end goal never changed for the private businessmen and technocrats who paid for and organized it. However, throughout the first half of the twentieth century, the aims were often obscured in the scientific complexities, both in the social sciences and physical sciences. After the Second World War, the stigma of the Nazi experiment required that henceforth, all the annual reports of the Rockefeller Foundation 'were sanitized of all rhetorical traces of eugenic goals' [p220]. The terms 'social control', 'human engineering', 'rationalization of human behaviour' had to be replaced with terms like 'understanding' and 'international cooperation'.
By the 1960s the movement's leading scientists felt able to reaffirm the original intent publicly. Caltech's Linus Pauling said in 1968 'There should be tattooed on the forehead of every young person a symbol showing possession of the sickle -cell gene or whatever other similar gene.... It is my opinion that legislation along this line, compulsory testing for defective gene before marriage, and some form of semi-public display of this possession, should be adopted.'[p276]
In 1963 there was a conference of two score distinguished scholars sponsored by the Ciba Foundation. Speculating on the role of molecular biology in shaping man's destiny, Joshua Lederberg stated, 'the ultimate application of molecular biology would be the direct control of nucleotide sequences in human chromosomes...'[p275]
From 1900, the end goal had always been expressed as 'improvement' or 'betterment' of the human race – positive eugenics. Robert Sinsheimer at Caltech prophesied in 1969 that 'The new eugenics would permit in principle the conversion of all the unfit to the highest genetic level'.[p276]
There were other eugenically minded scientists at Caltech in other disciplines whom the book doesn't cover, such as the nuclear physicist Harrison Brown. Brown worked on the Manhattan Project and authored The Challenge of Man's Future (1954). It was a detailed consideration of world population and natural resources and also had a few pages in favour of eugenics. It was very influential and has an endorsement from Einstein on the back cover.[2] Interestingly Brown was mentor to John P Holdren who is currently President Obama's 'Science Tsar'. Brown helped Bertrand Russell and Einstein set up the post-War Pugwash conferences from 1955, and John P Holdren became chairman of the International Pugwash Council.[3]
The Challenge of Man's Future was based on a book published two years earlier entitled The Next Million Years by Charles Galton Darwin of Cambridge University, England. Galton Darwin was the grandson of Charles Darwin, a senior nuclear physicst and President of The Eugenics Society 1953-59. In 1922 he was a visiting professor at Caltech.[4,5]
Darwin concluded that man should attempt to trump the laws of natural selection:
Attempts at improving the lot of mankind have all hitherto been directed towards improving his conditions, but not his nature, and as soon as the conditions lapse all is lost. The only hope is to use our knowledge of biology in such a way that all would not be lost with the lapse of the conditions. The principles of heredity offer an anchor which will permanently fix any gains that there may be in the quality of mankind.[p208]
On the other hand some scientists and philosophers, including Darwin, recognized the possibilities of eugenics for governmental purposes. Governmental eugenics was given detailed consideration in part three of Bertand Russell's book The Scientific Outlook (1931).[6] It was evidently the basis for Aldous Huxley's Brave New World, and according to the current Wikipedia entry, Russell considered suing Huxley for plagiarism.
Russell warned:
Manipulation and exploitation are the ruling passions of the typical scientific industrialist. The average man may not share this narrow concentration, but for that very reason he fails to acquire a hold on the sources of power, and leaves the practical government of the world to the fanatics of mechanism. The power of producing changes in the world which is possessed by the leaders of big business in the present age far exceeds the power ever possessed by individuals in the past.... Fortunately, the modern holders of power are not yet quite aware how much they could do if they chose, but when this knowledge dawns upon them a new era in human tyranny is to be expected.[p157]
Utilizing 'scientific technique in biology', only millionaires would be served real meat; everyone else would eat synthetic beefsteaks. In the main, food would be manufactured in 'vast chemical factories'. 'Men will acquire power to alter themselves, and will inevitably use this power. What they make of the species I do not venture to predict'.[pp167-169]
He outlines the 'scientific society' in part three. Education would be different for rulers and ruled:
...the scientific rulers will provide one kind of education for ordinary men and women, and another for those who are to become holders of scientific power. Ordinary men and women will be expected to be docile, industrious, punctual, thoughtless, and contented. Of these qualities probably contentment will be considered the most important. In order to produce it, all the researches of psycho-analysis, behaviourism, and biochemistry will be brought into play.... Their diet will not be left to the caprices of their parents, but will be such as the best biochemists recommend.[pp251-252]
As for the governing class,
Eugenics, chemical and thermal treatment of the embryo, and diet in early years will be used with a view to the production of the highest possible ultimate ability.[p253]
The two classes would over time, become more distinct in character and heredity:
I think it may be assumed, however, that there would be a very strong tendency for the governing class to become hereditary, and that after a few generations not many children would be moved from either class into the other. This is especially likely to be the case if embryological methods of improving the breed are applied to the governing class, but not to the others. In this way the gulf between the two classes as regards native intelligence may become continually wider and wider. This will not lead to the abolition of the less intelligent class, since the rulers will not wish to undertake uninteresting manual work, or to be deprived of the opportunity for exercising benevolence and public spirit which they derive from the management of manual workers.[p258]
Russell said that, as with animals, only a small percentage males would be required for breeding. 5% of males and 25% of females would be selected to breed and the rest would be sterilized. Sexual activity amongst the sterile would still be generously permitted.[pp260-261]. However paternity goes out of the window completely:
Fathers would, of course, have nothing to do with their own children. There would be in general only one father to every five mothers, and it is quite likely that he would never have even seen the mothers of his children.[p263]
Unfortunately, he foresaw that a truly scientific society would necessarily become sadistic.
The advancement of knowledge will be held to justify much torture of individuals by surgeons, biochemists, and experimental psychologists. As time goes on the amount of added knowledge required to justify a given amount of pain will diminish, and the number of governors attracted to the kinds of research necessitating cruel experiments will increase. Just as the sun worship of the Aztecs demanded the painful death of thousands of human beings annually, so the new scientific religion will demand its holocausts of sacred victims.... Perhaps by means of injections and drugs and chemicals the population could be induced to bear whatever its scientific masters may decide to be for its good. New forms of drunkenness involving no subsequent headache may be discovered, and new forms of intoxication may be invented so delicious that for their sakes men are willing to pass their sober hours in misery.[pp267-268]
In The Impact of Science on Society (1952), Russell reiterated the possibility of governmental eugenics in a scientific society:
Diet, injections, and injunctions will combine, from a very early age, to produce the sort of character and the sort of beliefs that the authorities consider desirable, and any serious criticism of the powers that be will become psychologically impossible. Even if all are miserable, all will believe themselves happy, because the government will tell them that they are so.[p66][7]
In same pages he said that the pacification of males would be required in a scientific dictatorship:
Sires will be chosen for various qualities, some for muscle, other for brains. All will have to be healthy, and unless they are to be the fathers of oligarchs they will have to be of a submissive and docile disposition.[p67]
Bertrand Russell was an eminent academic at Trinity College, Cambridge. The possibility of using synthetic chemicals to alter peoples' hormones and fertility was foreseen Charles Galton Darwin -also at Cambridge - in The Next Million Years:
Looking a little deeper there is the possibility of substantially altering the intellectual and moral natures of individuals by some sort of hormonal injections; already great effects have been produced on animals.[p76]
And again:
Why cannot man set up a community like an ants' nest? This would be the ideal of the anarchist, and hitherto it has held no promise at all of success, but with the help of recent and probable future biological discoveries, some sort of imitation by man of the ants' nest cannot be quite excluded from consideration. Thus the control of the numbers of the two sexes may become possible, and with the knowledge of the various sexual hormones it might also become possible to free the majority of mankind from the urgency of sexual impulse, so that they could live contented celibate lives, instead of the unsatisfied celibate lives that are the compulsory lot of such a large fraction of the present population of the world. If these discoveries should be made – and this is really by no means impossible – man would be able to carry out the sex revolution which is the typical characteristic of the insect civilizations.[p124]
And for a third time:
Another type of discovery may be connected with hormones, those internal secretions which so largely regulate the operations of the human body. The artificial use of hormones has already been shown to have profound effects on the behaviour of animals, and it seems quite possible that hormones, or perhaps drugs, might have similar effects on man. For example, there might be a drug, which, without other harmful effects, removed the urgency of sexual desire, and so reproduced in humanity the status of workers in a beehive.[p183]
2. American charitable foundations funded gender equality
The large American tax exempt foundations have been proud promoters of gender equality. Female empowerment is often cited as a method for reducing birth rates, especially in third world countries. How did this quest for female empowerment manifest in early twentieth century American education? Georgetown University historian, Professor Carroll Quigley observed the following in his book Tragedy and Hope (1966)[8]:
Closely related to this confusion, or even reversal, of the social roles of the sexes was decreasing sexual differentiation in child-rearing practices. As recently as the 1920's girl babies were reared differently from boys. They were dressed differently, treated differently, permitted to do different things, and admonished about different dangers. By 1960, children, regardless of sex, were all being brought up the same. Indeed, with short cropped hair and play suits on both, it became impossible to be sure which was which. This led to a decrease in the personality differences of men and women, with males becoming more submissive and females more aggressive.
This tendency was accelerated by new techniques of education, especially in the first twelve years of life.... New methods, such as whole-word method of teaching reading or the use of true-and-false or multiple-choice examinations, were also better adapted to female than to masculine talents. Less and less emphasis was placed on critical judgement, while more and more was placed on intuitive or subjective decisions. In this environment girls did better, and boys felt inferior or decided that school was a place for girls and not for boys. The growing aggressiveness of girls pushed these hesitant boys aside and intensified the problem. As consequences of this, boys had twice as many “non readers” as girls, several times as many stutterers, and many times as many "teen-age bedwetters.”[p1259].
Quigley does not identify the cause of this trend. However, the tax-exempt foundations must be considered one of the prime influences because they dominated the financing of American education in the early 20th Century. In 1954 the Congressional Special Committee to Investigate Tax-Exempt Foundations (the 'Reece' committee) was set up to find out what the real goals of these foundations were. In 1982 the staff director of the committee, Norman Dodd, stated in an interview that America's large tax-exempt foundations were working together towards a common goal: The Carnegie Endowment, the Ford Foundation, the Guggenheim Foundation, and the Rockefeller Foundation, 'all working in harmony toward the control of education in the United States'.[9]
However the Reece committee was shut down and the Foundations continued their work. Lily Kay noted that in the early 1950s the Ford Foundation launched an enormous program in the behavioural sciences especially psychology, anthropology, and sociology. By 1957 it had granted nearly $24 million to such research, $13 million to the mental health program. [p274]
More evidence has come to light recently. Hollywood producer Aaron Russo was a former friend of one of the Rockellers. In an interview with Alex Jones shortly before he died, Russo said that Nick Rockefeller had bragged that the Rockefeller Foundation was behind the Women's Liberation movement. “We funded Women's lib'... We're the ones who got it all over the newspapers and television”.[10] He said that their goal was to get women into work to increase tax revenues and at the same time hand over their childrens' education to the schools which they controlled.
The websites of the Rockefeller, Ford, and Bill and Melinda Gates Foundations disclose the millions of dollars annually being used to promote gender equality all around the world.
3. How many people have reduced fertility due to diethylstilbestrol exposure?
In the American Journal of Public Health, Sarah Vogel provides some of the history of DES:
While in pursuit of a synthetic estrogen, Edward Charles Dodds, a British medical researcher at the University of London, identified the estrogenic properties of BPA in the mid-1930s. For the next several years, Dodds continued testing chemical compounds in search of what he later referred to as the "mother substance", a powerful estrogenic substance that he identified as diethylstilbestrol (DES).
DES was commercialized in the 1940s for the purported therapeutic treatment of numerous female "problems" related to menstruation, menopause, nausea during pregnancy, and for the prevention of miscarriages. Meat producers injected animals with the synthetic estrogen to increase meat production. For 30 years, DES was prescribed to millions of pregnant women and injected into millions of animals despite persistent concerns about its carcinogenicity. In 1971, the drug was finally banned for use in pregnant women after the first epidemiological studies reported rare vaginal cancers in young women exposed to DES while in their mothers' wombs. After considerable debate and controversy, the FDA finally banned all forms of DES use in meat production in 1979.[11]
Following the research by Dodds in London, DES was proposed as a prostate cancer drug in 1941 by Charles Huggins and Clarence Hodges at the University of Chicago.[12] This university was founded by J D Rockefeller in the 1890s.[13] In 1947 the FDA granted a licence to prescribe the drug to prevent miscarriage and other problems in pregnant women. The one of the first drug companies to obtain a licence was Squibb. According to Maurice Beale's Drug Story, this was one of several Rockefeller-controlled drug companies.[14] Gillam and Bernstein investigated the dubious process of FDA approval in their 1987 article Doing Harm: The DES Tragedy and Modern American Medicine:
In the United States a dozen drug companies banded together in 1941, mounted an unusual collaborative effort, overcame some medical dissent, and gained FDA approval for use of the drug in four specific conditions including those of menopause.
…...More tellingly, Karnaky had reported such transplacental DES effects on infants as discoloration of the breasts and genitals. In line with this last finding, an animal researcher had warned, in 1944 that sex hormones known (as DES was) to alter the in utero development of animal embryos probably did so in humans too [emphasis added]. Several experts, when contacted by the FDA, opposed any endorsement of prenatal DES on safety grounds. Thus, the FDA could easily have rejected these 1947 applications for a variety of reasons, including weak (almost non-existent) data, potential fetal and maternal risks, and expert doubts. Instead, the agency swept past all difficulties and quickly approved DES for use in habitual and threatened miscarriages, premature labor, and pregnancy problems complicated by diabetes... Curiously, the agency also advised the manufacturer of a non-prenatal DES preparation to delete a proposed literature statement warning against its use in pregnancy.[15]
The effects of DES on the sons and daughters of those millions of pregnant women prescribed DES has been considered recently. In 2005 the results of a five year study were published by Scott P. Kerlin, Ph.D of DES Sons International Network, Vancouver[16]. Infertility was one of a wide range of suspected reproductive side effects:
Nations of Origin
Approximately 85% of network members were born in the U.S., while 5% each indicated they were born in Canada, Europe (chiefly UK) or Australia.
• Core Health Concerns of DES Sons
Based on preliminary analysis of critical health issues reported by individual DES sons in the network, the three topics most frequently listed among the sample of 500 individuals with confirmed or suspected prenatal DES exposure are (a) gender identity concerns (at least 150 reports); (b) psychological/mental health issues, especially depression and anxiety disorders (at least 100 reports); and (c) hormonal/endocrine health issues (at least 75 reports) (see Appendix, Part II).
• Additional Reported Adverse Health Effects
Though identified less frequently in overall health reports provided by study participants, several participants listed histories of infertility, reproductive tract abnormalities (including reports of ambiguous or underdeveloped genitalia), epididymal cysts, cryptorchidism, hypospadias, gynecomastia, and erectile dysfunction. Statistics on the full extent of reporting of these concerns are still undergoing analysis. [emphasis added]
One of the most ubiquitous and controversial endocrine disruptors is bisphenol A. It is strongly suspected of impairing fertility especially in males. Although it was first discovered in 1891, it was suggested for use as a synthetic estrogen by Charles Dodds in 1936, the scientist that created DES. Dodds received a knighthood in 1954 and was made a Commander of the Order of St. John of Jerusalem in 1958. He also received an honorary degree from the University of Chicago in 1959, the same year it awarded honary degrees to Sir Julian Huxley and Sir Charles Galton Darwin.[17]
[Dodds]own research covered many aspects of endocrinology. It was prolific and of sustained high quality, perhaps the greatest achievement being the discovery and synthesis, in association with Wilfrid Lawson, of stilboestrol. - The Royal College of Physicians website[18]
4. A medical doctor's opinion
In 1958 Dr R Swynburne Clymer discussed DES in book, Your Health and Sanity in the Age of Treason. See the article at Daniel Taylor's www.OldThinkerNews.com
The employment of stilbestrol by the laity with absolutely no knowledge of the dangerous agent they are employing, in conditioning chickens and meats, is mass medication without license, with a dangerous toxic drug that may have universal disastrous results on all who eat such adulterated foods. This is especially true as it concerns children, youths, young women and men, resulting as it may, in their sterilization or cancer - something fervently hoped for by the enemies of mankind.
The influence of big money in medicine had encouraged most doctors to be less opinionated about anything which might upset the apple cart. In 1966, Carroll Quigley wrote:
Many of these eager workers headed for medicine, because to them medicine, despite the ten years of necessary preparation, meant up to $40,000 a year income by age fifty. As a consequence, the medical profession in the United States ceased, very largely, to be a profession of fatherly confessors and unprofessing humanitarians and became one of the largest groups of hard headed petty-bourgeois hustlers in the United States, and their professional association became the most ruthless materialistic lobbying association of any professional group.[p 1273]
5. Increasing the death rate with obesogenic endocrine disruptors
Research published in the last five years suggests that endocrine disruptors may be increasing the death rate by causing morbid obesity. The epidemic of 'metabolic syndrome' or 'syndrome X' has been making some interesting headlines in Britain lately.
Mayor calls Adsa shoppers 'mutants': A town mayor is under fire for labelling Asda shoppers 'mutants' in a video posted on YouTube
In July earlier this year, the mayor of Ellesmere Port in Cheshire caused outrage when he said he went to the supermarket in the evening “to avoid the mutants who go in during the day”. He offered a strange explanation and apology later, but many had suspected that he was really referring to fat people.[19]
'Fat, tattooed britons are not ship shape', reported The Daily Telegraph in September. British Ferry chief Pim de Lange, Stena Line's director for the North Sea, said that he had to recruit foreign workers because the “British are quite fat and covered in tattoos... not fit for the job...”[20]
Grun and Blumberg of the University of California, Irvine, coined the term 'obesogen' in the Journal of Endocrinology in 2006.[21] They have published several studies showing that plastic could be making us fat:
The modern world is plagued with expanding epidemics of diseases related to metabolic dysfunction. The factors that are driving obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, hypertension, and dyslipidemias (collectively termed metabolic syndrome) are usually ascribed to a mismatch between the body's homeostatic nutrient requirements and dietary excess, coupled with insufficient exercise. The environmental obesogen hypothesis proposes that exposure to a toxic chemical burden is superimposed on these conditions to initiate or exacerbate the development of obesity and its associated health consequences.Recent studies have proposed a first set of candidate obesogens (diethylstilbestrol, bisphenol A, phthalates and organotins among others) that target nuclear hormone receptor signaling pathways (sex steroid, RXR-PPARgamma and GR) with relevance to adipocyte biology and the developmental origins of health and disease (DOHaD). Perturbed nuclear receptor signaling can alter adipocyte proliferation, differentiation or modulate systemic homeostatic controls, leading to long-term consequences that may be magnified if disruption occurs during sensitive periods during fetal or early childhood development.[22]
The Breakspear Medical Group's newsletters reported the research at Harvard which suggested the impact of obesogens on babies:
In 2006, scientists at the Harvard School of Public Health reported that the prevalence of obesity ininfants under 6 months had risen 73% since 1980. Since the babies were given only formula or breast milk and did not get a lot of exercise, the explanation has to be related to a different factor in the environment. In general, the standard view is that the calories consumed have to equal the calories used. Therefore if more calories are consumed than are burned, weight is gained. However, exposure to environmental obesogens during development and early life may be contributing to the obesity epidemic which is occurring now in babies. The various obesogens, which can cause a predisposition to obesity, are:
bisphenol A: a component in hard polycarbonate plastic, including that found in babies bottles
tributyltin: a pesticide used as a biocide especially in marine anti-fouling paints
phthalates: chemicals that are present in some plastic food wraps, plastic bottles and vinyl plastics
perfluoroalkyl compounds: substances used in stain repellents and non-stick cooking surfaces [23]
6. Endocrine disruptors in pregnancy or early life can condition the expression of DNA -the science of epigenetics
Synthetic chemicals cause epigenetic changes in mammals. This means that although the underlying DNA sequence is not changed, the way the gene functions or expresses does change. These epigentic shifts are particularly significant if the chemical is introduced early in life. Scientists at Cambridge University's physiology department write:
In mammals, including man, epidemiological and experimental studies have shown that arange of environmental factors acting during critical periods of early development can alter adult phenotype. Hormones have an important role in these epigenetic modifications and can signal the type, severity and duration of the environmental cue to the developing feto- placental tissues. They act to alter gene expression, hence the protein abundance in a wide ange of different tissues, which has functional consequences for many physiological systems both before and after birth. By producing an epigenome specific to the prevailing condition in utero, hormones act as epigenetic signals in developmental programming, withimportant implications for adult health and disease. … Recent studies have also shown that inappropriate exposure to glucocorticoids during intrauterine development affects the ensuing adult phenotype and leads to abnormalities in a wide range of physiological systems much later in life.[24]
The science of epigentics was pioneered by Conrad Hal Waddington of Cambridge University from the 1930s onward. Later he became Director of The Institute of Genetics in Edinburgh. Waddington's early work on embryology and steroid 'inducing factors' was funded by the Rockefeller Foundation. His book Organisers and Genes 1940 was published after he went to the United States to work on fruit flies at Caltech in 1939. In it he described how cells and tissues reacted to an inducing signal.[25]
His chemistry teacher at school, E J Holmyard, had introduced him to Arabic Alchemy and Alexandrian Gnosticism. In later life, he maintained that this interest in metaphysics had been seminal for his later scientific work. The source cited in the notes below provides a detailed biography.
7. Endocrine disruptors permanently alter the germ line of future generations through epigenetic inheritance
A landmark study published in Science in 2005 by Matthew Anway et al found that epigenetic changes induced by the fungicide vinclozolin, were heritable in mammals. This was confirmed by the authors in later studies.
Transgenerational effects of environmental toxins require either a chromosomal or epigenetic alteration in the germ line. Transient exposure of a gestating female rat during the period of gonadal sex determination to the endocrine disruptors vinclozolin (an antiandrogenic compound) or methoxychlor (an estrogenic compound) induced an adult phenotype in the F1 generation of decreased spermatogenic capacity (cell number and viability) and increased incidence of male infertility. These effects were transferred through the male germ line to nearly all males of all subsequent generations examined (that is, F1 to F4). The effects on reproduction correlate with altered DNA methylation patterns in the germ line. The ability of an environmental factor (for example, endocrine disruptor) to reprogram the germ line and to promote a transgenerational disease state has significant implications for evolutionary biology and disease etiology.[26]
The pesticide used in the experiment, vinclozolin, is a fungicide introduced in Germany in 1976 by BASF. It is used on vines, fruit, and vegetables worldwide. Other studies have confirmed its potential to affect fertility in animals:
Our morphological results indicated that vinclozolin has morphological effects similar to those of MPA, feminizing males (hypospadias) and masculinizing females (longer urethras).[27]
8. Use of these chemicals suggests design more than accident
Phthalates
OurStolenFuture.org comments on a study on phthalates published in year 2000:
They found widespread exposure at troubling levels. Most problematic, the subgroup with the highest level of exposure was women of child-bearing age, just the people public health efforts should keep out of the path of reproductive toxicants.
What did they find? They found that the phthalate monoesters with the highest urinary levels were monoethyl phthalate (MEP), monobutyl phthalate (MBP) and monobenzyl phthalate (MBzP). The presence of these monester metabolites reflects exposure to diethyl phthalate (DEP), dibutyl phthalate (DBP), and benzyl butyl phthalate (BBP). Likely sources of these exposures are through cosmetics, including hair sprays, nail polishes and perfumes.
The exposure of women of child-bearing age is especially troubling, as these compounds are particularly known for their ability to interfere with fetal development, especially in males. There may be a tragic irony in the fact that one of the pathways of exposure, cosmetics, is targeted especially toward women of reproductive age. By using phthalate-containing compounds in the battle of the sexes, they could be undermining the future sexuality of their male offspring.[28]
Making babies' bottles out of BPA
It is interesting that, given that the effects of endocrine disruptors on the development of infant mammals was considered in the mid 1930s, babies bottles have been mass produced in BPA polycarbonate.
Warming the bottle for the baby accelerates the leaching of BPA into the milk. According to a 2008 study published in the medical journal Toxicology Letters,
A team at the University of Cincinnati filled new and used bottles with water at room temperature for a week and then measured the concentration of BPA in the liquid. The bottles were then cleaned and filled with hot water. After 24 hours, the heated bottles were releasing BPA far more quickly - at a rate of 8 to 32 nanograms per hour, compared with just 0.2 to 0.8 nanograms per hour before heating.[29]
Significant proportion of exposure to endocrine disruptors is through food and drink packaging
The August 2009 edition of Science of The Total Environment identified 50 known endocrine disruptors in food packaging that contaminate the product inside. There are many other such contaminants yet to be indentified. Food contact materials were found to be a major source of food contaminants and at levels and combinations which were toxicologically relevant.[30]
In the last few years supermarkets started selling meat and fish that is vacuum suck-wrapped in plastic, increasing the surface area of plastic in contact with the food. Olive oil companies such as have recently started selling olive oil in plastic instead of glass bottles.
The chemical PFOA has been associated with signifcant decrease in sperm count in humans. These chemicals are widespread in the environment but also happen to be in pizza boxes, popcorn bags, candy wrappers, and fast food bags.
Considerable levels of perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS), perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), and perfluorohexane sulfonic acid were found in all young men (medians of 24.5, 4.9, and 6.6 ng/mL, respectively). Men with high combined levels of PFOS and PFOA had a median of 6.2 million normal spermatozoa in their ejaculate in contrast to 15.5 million among men with low PFOS–PFOA (p = 0.030). In addition, we found nonsignificant trends with regard to lower sperm concentration, lower total sperm counts, and altered pituitary– gonadal hormones among men with high PFOS–PFOA levels.[31]
9. Regulatory action – or lack of it
The United Nations food regulatory body The Codex Alimentarius Commission allows the use of hundreds of pesticides, herbicides and fungicides including vinclozolin.[32]
Codex also permits genetically modified foods. GM crops are designed to tolerate higher doses of of such chemicals.
In 1999, the European Commission set up a working group on endocrine disruptors. To date it has drawn up lists of chemicals to 'monitor' and 'evaluate' but hasn't removed such chemicals from food packaging or placed signifcant restrictions on many implicated pesticides. The European Food Standards Agency recently confirmed that it would not ban BPA from food contact materials.[33]
The US Food and Drug Administration is under considerable pressure to ban BPA but has yet to do so.
FDA is not recommending that families change the use of infant formula or foods, as the benefit of a stable source of good nutrition outweighs the potential risk from BPA exposure.[34]
In 1992 scientists at Health and Welfare Canada published a study on foil laminate wrappers used to package butter and margarine.[35] They discovered that the plastic layer of the laminate leached phthalates into the food inside. A similar study in Britain was carried out in 1994 by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.[36] It found extremely high levels of phthalates in some cheese samples and concluded that these could not have originated in the fat concentration process.
10. Simultaneous exposure to oestrogenic soy and obesogenic flavour enhancers
The mantra from the sustainable development movement is that meat is very resource intensive so eating soy protein instead is much more environmentally friendly. This oestrogenic food has also been promoted by governments. In 1990 the The USDA Soybean Promotion and Research Program was established.
See http://www.soyonlineservice.co.nz/03summary.htm
for information about the oestrogenic effects of soy and its impact on fertility.
Is it a coincidence of no consequence that some infant formula is made out of soy, and might be served warmed up in bottles made of BPA?
What happens when soy is mixed with, for example, the fungicide vinclozolin?
The low-dose mixture and high-dose vinclozolin produced the most significant alterations in adults: decreased sperm counts, reduced sperm motion parameters, decreased litter sizes, and increased post implantation loss. Testicular mRNA expression profiles for these exposure conditions were strongly correlated.
Our study shows that chronic exposure to a mixture of a dose of a phytoestrogen equivalent to that in the human diet and a low dose—albeit not environmental—of a common anti- androgenic food contaminant may seriously affect the male reproductive tract and fertility.[37]
Dr Russell Blaylock is author of Excitotoxins: The Taste that Kills. He has examined the medical literature on food flavour enhancers such as monosodium glutamate and aspartame. One of the many serious health problems they are both linked to is gross obesity. Aspartame was licenced by the Food and Drug Administration in the 1970s and nearly every government food regulatory agency in the world now approves its use. It is difficult to find any processed food that does not contain at least one type of artificial flavour enhancer. What is the combined effect of obesogens in the form of endocrine disruptors in the food packaging and the pesticide residues, and obesogenic excitotoxins added to the food?
11. Corporations are aware of serious problems with processed foods but sell it anyway
In the mid 1990s, there was a TV cooking programme in Britain called The Two Fat Ladies. One of the presenters was Clarrisa Dickson Wright. Her god father was the founder of the company that would become Unilever, the pioneer of hydrogenated fats and one of the biggest processed food and chemical companies in the world. The Daily Mail recently reported:
On my 18th birthday, my godfather made me make him a solemn vow. 'Please, Clarissa,' he said, 'promise me that you will never, ever, ever eat margarine.'
I was a dutiful girl and fond of my godfather so was happy to oblige, but I did want to know why.
'Clarissa, my dear,' he replied solemnly, 'you have no idea what goes into it.'
What's important about this rather eccentric anecdote is that he did. For my godfather was Rudi Jurgens, scion of the Jurgens family, which back in the Twenties joined forces with the van den Berghs to form the Dutch company, Margarine Unie, which a few years later would merge with Lever Brothers and become Unilever. His family actually made the filthy stuff.[38]
Carroll Quigley mentions Unilever in Tragedy and Hope:
It is possible that the British vegetable-oil monopoly around Unilever was as powerful as the German monopoly around I.G. Farben, but, while much has been heard about the latter, very little is heard about the former. After an effort to study the former, Fortune magazine wrote, ''No other industry, perhaps, is quite so exasperatingly secretive as the soap and shortening industries.''[p513]
The trans-fatty acids in hydrogenated oils are now considered a major risk factor for heart disease, one of the biggest killer diseases in the developed world.
Conclusion
A common Freemasonic symbol is the beehive. As the higher-ups see it, this is the model for human society: the elite live in luxury ruling over contented worker bees. Alan Watt's book Cutting Through Volume One provides some very useful and interesting information in this regard. Sir Charles Galton Darwin said that a beehive society might be created using chemicals which reduce fertility. The science of epigenetics was pioneered by Conrad Hal Waddington also of Cambridge University after research at Caltech funded by the Rockefeller Foundation. The 'mother' oestrogenic agent DES, was developed into a drug by Rockefeller-funded Chicago university and by several drug companies which included Rockefeller-controlled Squibb. In 1959 Chicago awarded honary degrees to Sir Charles Galton Darwin, Sir Julian Huxley, and Sir Charles Dodds, the discoverer of DES. The goals of the Rockefeller Foundation in the social and physical sciences was 'social control' and 'human engineering'. Will governments use legislation to block public exposure and criticism of such activities?
Endnotes
1. The Molecular Vision of Life: Caltech, The Rockefeller Foundation, and the Rise of The New Biology, Lily E Kay. Oxford University Press, 1993.
2. The Challenge of Man's Future, Harrison Brown. Viking Compass Edition 1956, twentieth printing 1971. First published by The Viking Press 1954.
3. Harrison Brown 1917—1986. A Biographical Memoir, Roger Revelle. National Academy of Sciences, 1994. http://books.nap.edu/html/biomems/hbrown65.pdf
4. Website of The Galton Institute. http://www.galtoninstitute.org.uk/Newsletters/GINL0412/chief_sea_lion.htm
5. The Next Million Years, Charles Galton Darwin. Rupert Hart-Davis, 1952.
6. The Scientific Outlook, Bertrand Russell. George Allen & Unwin, 1931.
7. The Impact of Science on Society, Bertrand Russell. George Allen & Unwin, 1952.
8. Tragedy and Hope: A History of The World in Our Time, Carroll Quigley. First published by The Macmillan Company, 1966. Reprinted by CSG & Associates.
9. Transcript of the interview of Norman Dodd by G. Edward Griffin, 1982
http://www.realityzone.com/hiddenagenda2.html
10. Reflections and Warnings: An interview with Aaron Russo , Alex Jones productions. Available on YouTube - posted on the top right of the homepage of this website.
11. The Politics of Plastics: The Making and Unmaking of Bisphenol A “Safety” , Sarah Vogel. American Journal of Public Health S559-S566 November 2009, Vol 99, No. S3. http://ajph.aphapublications.org/cgi/content/full/99/S3/S559
12. Studies on prostatic cancer. The effect of castration, of estrogen and of androgen injection on serum phosphatases in metastatic carcinoma of the prostate, Huggins C, Hodges CV (1941). Cancer Res 1 (4): 293–7. Referred to in Carcinoma of the male breast with axillary metastasis following stilbestrol therapy report of a case treated by radical mastectomy, G.Y. Graves, MD., and H S Harris, MD. Annals of Surgery, 1952.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1802330/pdf/annsurg01426-0127.pdf
13. Building for a long future: The university of Chicago and its donors, 1889-1930 , University of Chicago website. http://www.lib.uchicago.edu/e/spcl/excat/donors1.html#f
14. The Truth About the Rockefeller Drug Empire: The Drug Story, Hans Ruesch. http://www.whale.to/b/ruesch.html
15. Doing Harm: The DES Tragedy and Modern American Medicine, Richard Gillam and Barton J. Bernstein. The Public Historian Vol. 9, No. 1 (Winter, 1987), pp. 57-82. University of California Press.(Available to purchase as PDF download from website)
Also see: Worse Than the Disease, Diana B. Dutton. Cambridge University Press, 1988. 'The idea of using DES in pregnancy apparently came not from Karnaky but from scientists at E. R. Squibb and Sons, one of the original DES manufacturers.... Two Squibb researchers "came to Houston, fed me and dined me... and I started using it," Karnaky recalled.'[p47]
16. Prenatal exposure to diethylstilbestrol (DES) in males and gender-related disorders: Results from a 5-year study, Scott Kerlin. International Behavioral Development Symposium 2005.
http://www.shb-info.org/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/desexposedhbs.pdf
17. Honary Degrees 1950-60, website of The University of Chicago
http://convocation.uchicago.edu/honorary_degrees/1950.shtml
18. Munks Roll, biographical details for Sir Edward Charles Dodd, Royal College of Physicians
http://munksroll.rcplondon.ac.uk/Biography/Details/1290
19. Mayor calls ASDA shoppers 'mutants', The Daily Telegraph, 29 July 2010
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat
/7916999/Mayor-calls-Asda-shoppers-mutants.html
20. Fat, tattooed Britons are not ship shape, The Daily Telegraph, 21st September 2010.
Download article as PDF
21. Environmental oestrogens: organotins and endocrine disruption via nuclear receptor signaling. Grün F, Blumberg B.Endocrinology. 2006 Jun;147(6 Suppl):S50-5. Epub 2006 May 11. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16690801
22.Perturbed nuclear receptor signaling by environmental obesogens as emerging factors in the obesity crisis, Grün F, Blumberg B. Rev Endocr Metab Disord. 2007 Jun;8(2):161-71. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17657605
23. Breakspear medical bulletin No 23, Winter 2010. http://www.breakspearmedical.com/files/publications.html
24. Hormones as epigenetic signals in developmental programming, Abigail L. Fowden and Alison J. Forhead. Experimental Physiology 94, June 2009.
http://ep.physoc.org/content/94/6/607.full
25. Conrad Hal Waddington: the last Renaissance biologist, Jonathan Slack, Nature Reviews, November 2002, Vol 3.
http://www.cogs.susx.ac.uk/users/inmanh//easy/alife04/Seminar%20reading/slack02.pdf
26. Epigenetic Transgenerational Actions of Endocrine Disruptors and Male Fertility, Matthew D. Anway et al. Science 3 June 2005: Vol. 308. no. 5727, pp. 1466 – 1469.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/308/5727/1466
27. Embryonic exposure to the fungicide vinclozolin causes virilization of females and alteration of progesterone receptor expression in vivo: an experimental study in mice, Jill Buckley et al, Environmental Health, Vol 5, 2006 http://www.ehjournal.net/content/5/1/4
28. Levels of Seven Urinary Phthalate Metabolites in a Human Reference Population. Blount, BC, MJ Silva, SP Caudill, LL Needham, JL Pirkle, EJ Sampson, GW Lucier, RJ Jackson, JW Brock. Environmental Health Perspectives 2000: 108:979-982. Quoted at
http://www.ourstolenfuture.org/NewScience/oncompounds/phthalates/2000-0901blountetal.htm
29. Warming baby's bottle could release 'gender-bending' chemicals, David Derbyshire, The Daily Mail, 30 January 2008
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-511158/Warming-babys-bottle-release-gender-bending-chemicals.html
30. Exposure to endocrine disrupting compounds via the food chain: Is packaging a relevant source? Muncke J.Sci Total Environ. 2009 Aug 1;407(16):4549-59. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19482336
31. Do Perfluoroalkyl Compounds Impair Human Semen Quality?, Ulla Nordström Joensen et al, Environmental Health Perspectives, 117(6) 2009. http://ehp03.niehs.nih.gov/article/fetchArticle.action?articleURI=
info:doi/10.1289/ehp.0800517
32. The Alliance for Natural Health.
http://www.anh-europe.org/campaigns/codex
33. EU watchdog says no need to cut cap on BPA in food, Reuters, 30 Sept 2010. http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE68T4KR20100930
34. FDA web page on BisphenolA. http://www.fda.gov/newsevents/publichealthfocus/ucm064437.htm
35. Studies into the transfer and migration of phthalate esters from aluminium foil-paper laminates to butter and margarine, B. Denis Page; Gladys M. Lacroixa, Health and Welfare Canada, Health Protection Branch, Ottawa Ontario. Food Addit Contam. 1992 May-Jun;9(3):197-212. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1397395
36. Levels of di-(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate and total phthalate esters in milk, cream, butter and cheese, Matthew Sharmana et al, Food Science Laboratory, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Norwich, UK, Food Additives & Contaminants: Part A, Volume 11, Issue 3 May 1994 , pages 375 – 385.
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=
a907627819~frm=titlelink
37. Chronic Dietary Exposure to a Low-Dose Mixture of Genistein and Vinclozolin Modifies the Reproductive Axis, Testis Transcriptome, and Fertility, Florence Eustache, et al. Environ Health Perspect v.117(8); Aug 2009. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2721872/
38. Stop spreading lies and trying to ban butter, says TV's fat lady, The Daily Mail, 19th Jan 2010.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1244313/CLARISSA-DICKSON-WRIGHT-Stop-spreading-lies-trying-ban-butter-says-TVs-Fat-Lady.html#ixzz10fJYO7Ln
Scans of selected pages (PDF files)
The Next Million Years p1, p2
The Scientific Outlook p1, p2
The Impact of Science on Society p1
The Challenge of Man's Future p1
Tragedy and Hope p1, p2
Further information
Dr Mercola, 13th October 2010
The hazards of eating soy - soy infant formula should be illegal
Dr Mercola, 15th October 2010
Flu shot ingredient may cause infertility
Dr Mercola, 18th October 2010
Warning: Please Avoid Feeding This to Your Child - more compelling reasons to avoid soy infant formula
Michael Nield, 12th October 2010
Introduction
The effects of synthetic chemicals on fertility in animals has been extensively studied and the implications have been considered at political level for several decades. In the last five years, scientists have published studies showing that such chemicals can cause obesity. This article considers whether human exposure to these chemical endocrine disruptors has occurred purely by accident. By the 1940s, the scientists knew how to alter the expression of mammalian DNA in utero and in vivo using endocrine disruptors.
Those unfamiliar with endocrine disruptors might first look at www.ourstolenfuture.org.
Acknowledgements and sources: Many of the books cited are those recommended by Alan Watt of CuttingThroughthematrix.com. OldthinkerNews.com provided a useful article on stilbesterol (DES). Original hard copies of the books were obtained and quotes come directly from the editions cited in the endnotes. Scans of some of the pages have been uploaded below. Where an internet source was used, a link is provided.
Legal Notice
Nothing in this article is intended as harrassment or incitement to hatred or harrassment under the UK 2010 Equality Act ,which came in to force on 1st October 2010, or the UK 2008 Criminal Justice Act.
The following characteristics are now protected under UK law: age, disability, gender reassignment, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation.
The purpose of this article is to suggest that certain factions within governments, corporations and charitable foundations have been implementing a population control agenda. Endocrine distruptors serve to decrease the birth rate by reducing fertility. They increase the death rate by causing morbid obesity - 'the metabolic syndrome'. The author offers no opinion on whether particular studies on animals are relevant to any legally protected human characteristic but considers the evidence as a whole for its implications on the general population with regard to declining fertility and increasing obesity.
Contents
1. Early twentieth century views on population control –Reproduction and 'human engineering'
2. American charitable foundations funded gender equality
3. How many people have reduced fertility due to diethylstilbestrol?
4. A medical doctor's opinion
5. Increasing the death rate with obesogenic endocrine disruptors
6. Endocrine disruptors in pregnancy or early life can condition the expression of DNA -the science of epigenetics
7. Endocrine disruptors permanently alter the germ line of future generations through epigenetic inheritance
8. Use of these chemicals suggests design more than accident
9. Regulatory action – or lack of it
10. Simultaneous exposure to oestrogenic soy and obesogenic flavour enhancers
11. Corporations are aware of serious problems with processed foods but sell it anyway
1. Early twentieth century views on population control – reproduction and 'human engineering'
Dr Russell Blaylock is an expert on toxic food additives and has published several books on the subject. He recommends reading the following history of eugenic-oriented scientific research: The Molecular Vision of Life: Caltech, The Rockefeller Foundation, and the Rise of The New Biology by Lily E. Kay.[1]
Lily details the transformation of America's Davenport-style race eugenics into a corporate multi-displicinary scientific enterprise for the purpose of 'human engineering'. The end goal never changed for the private businessmen and technocrats who paid for and organized it. However, throughout the first half of the twentieth century, the aims were often obscured in the scientific complexities, both in the social sciences and physical sciences. After the Second World War, the stigma of the Nazi experiment required that henceforth, all the annual reports of the Rockefeller Foundation 'were sanitized of all rhetorical traces of eugenic goals' [p220]. The terms 'social control', 'human engineering', 'rationalization of human behaviour' had to be replaced with terms like 'understanding' and 'international cooperation'.
By the 1960s the movement's leading scientists felt able to reaffirm the original intent publicly. Caltech's Linus Pauling said in 1968 'There should be tattooed on the forehead of every young person a symbol showing possession of the sickle -cell gene or whatever other similar gene.... It is my opinion that legislation along this line, compulsory testing for defective gene before marriage, and some form of semi-public display of this possession, should be adopted.'[p276]
In 1963 there was a conference of two score distinguished scholars sponsored by the Ciba Foundation. Speculating on the role of molecular biology in shaping man's destiny, Joshua Lederberg stated, 'the ultimate application of molecular biology would be the direct control of nucleotide sequences in human chromosomes...'[p275]
From 1900, the end goal had always been expressed as 'improvement' or 'betterment' of the human race – positive eugenics. Robert Sinsheimer at Caltech prophesied in 1969 that 'The new eugenics would permit in principle the conversion of all the unfit to the highest genetic level'.[p276]
There were other eugenically minded scientists at Caltech in other disciplines whom the book doesn't cover, such as the nuclear physicist Harrison Brown. Brown worked on the Manhattan Project and authored The Challenge of Man's Future (1954). It was a detailed consideration of world population and natural resources and also had a few pages in favour of eugenics. It was very influential and has an endorsement from Einstein on the back cover.[2] Interestingly Brown was mentor to John P Holdren who is currently President Obama's 'Science Tsar'. Brown helped Bertrand Russell and Einstein set up the post-War Pugwash conferences from 1955, and John P Holdren became chairman of the International Pugwash Council.[3]
The Challenge of Man's Future was based on a book published two years earlier entitled The Next Million Years by Charles Galton Darwin of Cambridge University, England. Galton Darwin was the grandson of Charles Darwin, a senior nuclear physicst and President of The Eugenics Society 1953-59. In 1922 he was a visiting professor at Caltech.[4,5]
Darwin concluded that man should attempt to trump the laws of natural selection:
Attempts at improving the lot of mankind have all hitherto been directed towards improving his conditions, but not his nature, and as soon as the conditions lapse all is lost. The only hope is to use our knowledge of biology in such a way that all would not be lost with the lapse of the conditions. The principles of heredity offer an anchor which will permanently fix any gains that there may be in the quality of mankind.[p208]
On the other hand some scientists and philosophers, including Darwin, recognized the possibilities of eugenics for governmental purposes. Governmental eugenics was given detailed consideration in part three of Bertand Russell's book The Scientific Outlook (1931).[6] It was evidently the basis for Aldous Huxley's Brave New World, and according to the current Wikipedia entry, Russell considered suing Huxley for plagiarism.
Russell warned:
Manipulation and exploitation are the ruling passions of the typical scientific industrialist. The average man may not share this narrow concentration, but for that very reason he fails to acquire a hold on the sources of power, and leaves the practical government of the world to the fanatics of mechanism. The power of producing changes in the world which is possessed by the leaders of big business in the present age far exceeds the power ever possessed by individuals in the past.... Fortunately, the modern holders of power are not yet quite aware how much they could do if they chose, but when this knowledge dawns upon them a new era in human tyranny is to be expected.[p157]
Utilizing 'scientific technique in biology', only millionaires would be served real meat; everyone else would eat synthetic beefsteaks. In the main, food would be manufactured in 'vast chemical factories'. 'Men will acquire power to alter themselves, and will inevitably use this power. What they make of the species I do not venture to predict'.[pp167-169]
He outlines the 'scientific society' in part three. Education would be different for rulers and ruled:
...the scientific rulers will provide one kind of education for ordinary men and women, and another for those who are to become holders of scientific power. Ordinary men and women will be expected to be docile, industrious, punctual, thoughtless, and contented. Of these qualities probably contentment will be considered the most important. In order to produce it, all the researches of psycho-analysis, behaviourism, and biochemistry will be brought into play.... Their diet will not be left to the caprices of their parents, but will be such as the best biochemists recommend.[pp251-252]
As for the governing class,
Eugenics, chemical and thermal treatment of the embryo, and diet in early years will be used with a view to the production of the highest possible ultimate ability.[p253]
The two classes would over time, become more distinct in character and heredity:
I think it may be assumed, however, that there would be a very strong tendency for the governing class to become hereditary, and that after a few generations not many children would be moved from either class into the other. This is especially likely to be the case if embryological methods of improving the breed are applied to the governing class, but not to the others. In this way the gulf between the two classes as regards native intelligence may become continually wider and wider. This will not lead to the abolition of the less intelligent class, since the rulers will not wish to undertake uninteresting manual work, or to be deprived of the opportunity for exercising benevolence and public spirit which they derive from the management of manual workers.[p258]
Russell said that, as with animals, only a small percentage males would be required for breeding. 5% of males and 25% of females would be selected to breed and the rest would be sterilized. Sexual activity amongst the sterile would still be generously permitted.[pp260-261]. However paternity goes out of the window completely:
Fathers would, of course, have nothing to do with their own children. There would be in general only one father to every five mothers, and it is quite likely that he would never have even seen the mothers of his children.[p263]
Unfortunately, he foresaw that a truly scientific society would necessarily become sadistic.
The advancement of knowledge will be held to justify much torture of individuals by surgeons, biochemists, and experimental psychologists. As time goes on the amount of added knowledge required to justify a given amount of pain will diminish, and the number of governors attracted to the kinds of research necessitating cruel experiments will increase. Just as the sun worship of the Aztecs demanded the painful death of thousands of human beings annually, so the new scientific religion will demand its holocausts of sacred victims.... Perhaps by means of injections and drugs and chemicals the population could be induced to bear whatever its scientific masters may decide to be for its good. New forms of drunkenness involving no subsequent headache may be discovered, and new forms of intoxication may be invented so delicious that for their sakes men are willing to pass their sober hours in misery.[pp267-268]
In The Impact of Science on Society (1952), Russell reiterated the possibility of governmental eugenics in a scientific society:
Diet, injections, and injunctions will combine, from a very early age, to produce the sort of character and the sort of beliefs that the authorities consider desirable, and any serious criticism of the powers that be will become psychologically impossible. Even if all are miserable, all will believe themselves happy, because the government will tell them that they are so.[p66][7]
In same pages he said that the pacification of males would be required in a scientific dictatorship:
Sires will be chosen for various qualities, some for muscle, other for brains. All will have to be healthy, and unless they are to be the fathers of oligarchs they will have to be of a submissive and docile disposition.[p67]
Bertrand Russell was an eminent academic at Trinity College, Cambridge. The possibility of using synthetic chemicals to alter peoples' hormones and fertility was foreseen Charles Galton Darwin -also at Cambridge - in The Next Million Years:
Looking a little deeper there is the possibility of substantially altering the intellectual and moral natures of individuals by some sort of hormonal injections; already great effects have been produced on animals.[p76]
And again:
Why cannot man set up a community like an ants' nest? This would be the ideal of the anarchist, and hitherto it has held no promise at all of success, but with the help of recent and probable future biological discoveries, some sort of imitation by man of the ants' nest cannot be quite excluded from consideration. Thus the control of the numbers of the two sexes may become possible, and with the knowledge of the various sexual hormones it might also become possible to free the majority of mankind from the urgency of sexual impulse, so that they could live contented celibate lives, instead of the unsatisfied celibate lives that are the compulsory lot of such a large fraction of the present population of the world. If these discoveries should be made – and this is really by no means impossible – man would be able to carry out the sex revolution which is the typical characteristic of the insect civilizations.[p124]
And for a third time:
Another type of discovery may be connected with hormones, those internal secretions which so largely regulate the operations of the human body. The artificial use of hormones has already been shown to have profound effects on the behaviour of animals, and it seems quite possible that hormones, or perhaps drugs, might have similar effects on man. For example, there might be a drug, which, without other harmful effects, removed the urgency of sexual desire, and so reproduced in humanity the status of workers in a beehive.[p183]
2. American charitable foundations funded gender equality
The large American tax exempt foundations have been proud promoters of gender equality. Female empowerment is often cited as a method for reducing birth rates, especially in third world countries. How did this quest for female empowerment manifest in early twentieth century American education? Georgetown University historian, Professor Carroll Quigley observed the following in his book Tragedy and Hope (1966)[8]:
Closely related to this confusion, or even reversal, of the social roles of the sexes was decreasing sexual differentiation in child-rearing practices. As recently as the 1920's girl babies were reared differently from boys. They were dressed differently, treated differently, permitted to do different things, and admonished about different dangers. By 1960, children, regardless of sex, were all being brought up the same. Indeed, with short cropped hair and play suits on both, it became impossible to be sure which was which. This led to a decrease in the personality differences of men and women, with males becoming more submissive and females more aggressive.
This tendency was accelerated by new techniques of education, especially in the first twelve years of life.... New methods, such as whole-word method of teaching reading or the use of true-and-false or multiple-choice examinations, were also better adapted to female than to masculine talents. Less and less emphasis was placed on critical judgement, while more and more was placed on intuitive or subjective decisions. In this environment girls did better, and boys felt inferior or decided that school was a place for girls and not for boys. The growing aggressiveness of girls pushed these hesitant boys aside and intensified the problem. As consequences of this, boys had twice as many “non readers” as girls, several times as many stutterers, and many times as many "teen-age bedwetters.”[p1259].
Quigley does not identify the cause of this trend. However, the tax-exempt foundations must be considered one of the prime influences because they dominated the financing of American education in the early 20th Century. In 1954 the Congressional Special Committee to Investigate Tax-Exempt Foundations (the 'Reece' committee) was set up to find out what the real goals of these foundations were. In 1982 the staff director of the committee, Norman Dodd, stated in an interview that America's large tax-exempt foundations were working together towards a common goal: The Carnegie Endowment, the Ford Foundation, the Guggenheim Foundation, and the Rockefeller Foundation, 'all working in harmony toward the control of education in the United States'.[9]
However the Reece committee was shut down and the Foundations continued their work. Lily Kay noted that in the early 1950s the Ford Foundation launched an enormous program in the behavioural sciences especially psychology, anthropology, and sociology. By 1957 it had granted nearly $24 million to such research, $13 million to the mental health program. [p274]
More evidence has come to light recently. Hollywood producer Aaron Russo was a former friend of one of the Rockellers. In an interview with Alex Jones shortly before he died, Russo said that Nick Rockefeller had bragged that the Rockefeller Foundation was behind the Women's Liberation movement. “We funded Women's lib'... We're the ones who got it all over the newspapers and television”.[10] He said that their goal was to get women into work to increase tax revenues and at the same time hand over their childrens' education to the schools which they controlled.
The websites of the Rockefeller, Ford, and Bill and Melinda Gates Foundations disclose the millions of dollars annually being used to promote gender equality all around the world.
3. How many people have reduced fertility due to diethylstilbestrol exposure?
In the American Journal of Public Health, Sarah Vogel provides some of the history of DES:
While in pursuit of a synthetic estrogen, Edward Charles Dodds, a British medical researcher at the University of London, identified the estrogenic properties of BPA in the mid-1930s. For the next several years, Dodds continued testing chemical compounds in search of what he later referred to as the "mother substance", a powerful estrogenic substance that he identified as diethylstilbestrol (DES).
DES was commercialized in the 1940s for the purported therapeutic treatment of numerous female "problems" related to menstruation, menopause, nausea during pregnancy, and for the prevention of miscarriages. Meat producers injected animals with the synthetic estrogen to increase meat production. For 30 years, DES was prescribed to millions of pregnant women and injected into millions of animals despite persistent concerns about its carcinogenicity. In 1971, the drug was finally banned for use in pregnant women after the first epidemiological studies reported rare vaginal cancers in young women exposed to DES while in their mothers' wombs. After considerable debate and controversy, the FDA finally banned all forms of DES use in meat production in 1979.[11]
Following the research by Dodds in London, DES was proposed as a prostate cancer drug in 1941 by Charles Huggins and Clarence Hodges at the University of Chicago.[12] This university was founded by J D Rockefeller in the 1890s.[13] In 1947 the FDA granted a licence to prescribe the drug to prevent miscarriage and other problems in pregnant women. The one of the first drug companies to obtain a licence was Squibb. According to Maurice Beale's Drug Story, this was one of several Rockefeller-controlled drug companies.[14] Gillam and Bernstein investigated the dubious process of FDA approval in their 1987 article Doing Harm: The DES Tragedy and Modern American Medicine:
In the United States a dozen drug companies banded together in 1941, mounted an unusual collaborative effort, overcame some medical dissent, and gained FDA approval for use of the drug in four specific conditions including those of menopause.
…...More tellingly, Karnaky had reported such transplacental DES effects on infants as discoloration of the breasts and genitals. In line with this last finding, an animal researcher had warned, in 1944 that sex hormones known (as DES was) to alter the in utero development of animal embryos probably did so in humans too [emphasis added]. Several experts, when contacted by the FDA, opposed any endorsement of prenatal DES on safety grounds. Thus, the FDA could easily have rejected these 1947 applications for a variety of reasons, including weak (almost non-existent) data, potential fetal and maternal risks, and expert doubts. Instead, the agency swept past all difficulties and quickly approved DES for use in habitual and threatened miscarriages, premature labor, and pregnancy problems complicated by diabetes... Curiously, the agency also advised the manufacturer of a non-prenatal DES preparation to delete a proposed literature statement warning against its use in pregnancy.[15]
The effects of DES on the sons and daughters of those millions of pregnant women prescribed DES has been considered recently. In 2005 the results of a five year study were published by Scott P. Kerlin, Ph.D of DES Sons International Network, Vancouver[16]. Infertility was one of a wide range of suspected reproductive side effects:
Nations of Origin
Approximately 85% of network members were born in the U.S., while 5% each indicated they were born in Canada, Europe (chiefly UK) or Australia.
• Core Health Concerns of DES Sons
Based on preliminary analysis of critical health issues reported by individual DES sons in the network, the three topics most frequently listed among the sample of 500 individuals with confirmed or suspected prenatal DES exposure are (a) gender identity concerns (at least 150 reports); (b) psychological/mental health issues, especially depression and anxiety disorders (at least 100 reports); and (c) hormonal/endocrine health issues (at least 75 reports) (see Appendix, Part II).
• Additional Reported Adverse Health Effects
Though identified less frequently in overall health reports provided by study participants, several participants listed histories of infertility, reproductive tract abnormalities (including reports of ambiguous or underdeveloped genitalia), epididymal cysts, cryptorchidism, hypospadias, gynecomastia, and erectile dysfunction. Statistics on the full extent of reporting of these concerns are still undergoing analysis. [emphasis added]
One of the most ubiquitous and controversial endocrine disruptors is bisphenol A. It is strongly suspected of impairing fertility especially in males. Although it was first discovered in 1891, it was suggested for use as a synthetic estrogen by Charles Dodds in 1936, the scientist that created DES. Dodds received a knighthood in 1954 and was made a Commander of the Order of St. John of Jerusalem in 1958. He also received an honorary degree from the University of Chicago in 1959, the same year it awarded honary degrees to Sir Julian Huxley and Sir Charles Galton Darwin.[17]
[Dodds]own research covered many aspects of endocrinology. It was prolific and of sustained high quality, perhaps the greatest achievement being the discovery and synthesis, in association with Wilfrid Lawson, of stilboestrol. - The Royal College of Physicians website[18]
4. A medical doctor's opinion
In 1958 Dr R Swynburne Clymer discussed DES in book, Your Health and Sanity in the Age of Treason. See the article at Daniel Taylor's www.OldThinkerNews.com
The employment of stilbestrol by the laity with absolutely no knowledge of the dangerous agent they are employing, in conditioning chickens and meats, is mass medication without license, with a dangerous toxic drug that may have universal disastrous results on all who eat such adulterated foods. This is especially true as it concerns children, youths, young women and men, resulting as it may, in their sterilization or cancer - something fervently hoped for by the enemies of mankind.
The influence of big money in medicine had encouraged most doctors to be less opinionated about anything which might upset the apple cart. In 1966, Carroll Quigley wrote:
Many of these eager workers headed for medicine, because to them medicine, despite the ten years of necessary preparation, meant up to $40,000 a year income by age fifty. As a consequence, the medical profession in the United States ceased, very largely, to be a profession of fatherly confessors and unprofessing humanitarians and became one of the largest groups of hard headed petty-bourgeois hustlers in the United States, and their professional association became the most ruthless materialistic lobbying association of any professional group.[p 1273]
5. Increasing the death rate with obesogenic endocrine disruptors
Research published in the last five years suggests that endocrine disruptors may be increasing the death rate by causing morbid obesity. The epidemic of 'metabolic syndrome' or 'syndrome X' has been making some interesting headlines in Britain lately.
Mayor calls Adsa shoppers 'mutants': A town mayor is under fire for labelling Asda shoppers 'mutants' in a video posted on YouTube
In July earlier this year, the mayor of Ellesmere Port in Cheshire caused outrage when he said he went to the supermarket in the evening “to avoid the mutants who go in during the day”. He offered a strange explanation and apology later, but many had suspected that he was really referring to fat people.[19]
'Fat, tattooed britons are not ship shape', reported The Daily Telegraph in September. British Ferry chief Pim de Lange, Stena Line's director for the North Sea, said that he had to recruit foreign workers because the “British are quite fat and covered in tattoos... not fit for the job...”[20]
Grun and Blumberg of the University of California, Irvine, coined the term 'obesogen' in the Journal of Endocrinology in 2006.[21] They have published several studies showing that plastic could be making us fat:
The modern world is plagued with expanding epidemics of diseases related to metabolic dysfunction. The factors that are driving obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, hypertension, and dyslipidemias (collectively termed metabolic syndrome) are usually ascribed to a mismatch between the body's homeostatic nutrient requirements and dietary excess, coupled with insufficient exercise. The environmental obesogen hypothesis proposes that exposure to a toxic chemical burden is superimposed on these conditions to initiate or exacerbate the development of obesity and its associated health consequences.Recent studies have proposed a first set of candidate obesogens (diethylstilbestrol, bisphenol A, phthalates and organotins among others) that target nuclear hormone receptor signaling pathways (sex steroid, RXR-PPARgamma and GR) with relevance to adipocyte biology and the developmental origins of health and disease (DOHaD). Perturbed nuclear receptor signaling can alter adipocyte proliferation, differentiation or modulate systemic homeostatic controls, leading to long-term consequences that may be magnified if disruption occurs during sensitive periods during fetal or early childhood development.[22]
The Breakspear Medical Group's newsletters reported the research at Harvard which suggested the impact of obesogens on babies:
In 2006, scientists at the Harvard School of Public Health reported that the prevalence of obesity ininfants under 6 months had risen 73% since 1980. Since the babies were given only formula or breast milk and did not get a lot of exercise, the explanation has to be related to a different factor in the environment. In general, the standard view is that the calories consumed have to equal the calories used. Therefore if more calories are consumed than are burned, weight is gained. However, exposure to environmental obesogens during development and early life may be contributing to the obesity epidemic which is occurring now in babies. The various obesogens, which can cause a predisposition to obesity, are:
bisphenol A: a component in hard polycarbonate plastic, including that found in babies bottles
tributyltin: a pesticide used as a biocide especially in marine anti-fouling paints
phthalates: chemicals that are present in some plastic food wraps, plastic bottles and vinyl plastics
perfluoroalkyl compounds: substances used in stain repellents and non-stick cooking surfaces [23]
6. Endocrine disruptors in pregnancy or early life can condition the expression of DNA -the science of epigenetics
Synthetic chemicals cause epigenetic changes in mammals. This means that although the underlying DNA sequence is not changed, the way the gene functions or expresses does change. These epigentic shifts are particularly significant if the chemical is introduced early in life. Scientists at Cambridge University's physiology department write:
In mammals, including man, epidemiological and experimental studies have shown that arange of environmental factors acting during critical periods of early development can alter adult phenotype. Hormones have an important role in these epigenetic modifications and can signal the type, severity and duration of the environmental cue to the developing feto- placental tissues. They act to alter gene expression, hence the protein abundance in a wide ange of different tissues, which has functional consequences for many physiological systems both before and after birth. By producing an epigenome specific to the prevailing condition in utero, hormones act as epigenetic signals in developmental programming, withimportant implications for adult health and disease. … Recent studies have also shown that inappropriate exposure to glucocorticoids during intrauterine development affects the ensuing adult phenotype and leads to abnormalities in a wide range of physiological systems much later in life.[24]
The science of epigentics was pioneered by Conrad Hal Waddington of Cambridge University from the 1930s onward. Later he became Director of The Institute of Genetics in Edinburgh. Waddington's early work on embryology and steroid 'inducing factors' was funded by the Rockefeller Foundation. His book Organisers and Genes 1940 was published after he went to the United States to work on fruit flies at Caltech in 1939. In it he described how cells and tissues reacted to an inducing signal.[25]
His chemistry teacher at school, E J Holmyard, had introduced him to Arabic Alchemy and Alexandrian Gnosticism. In later life, he maintained that this interest in metaphysics had been seminal for his later scientific work. The source cited in the notes below provides a detailed biography.
7. Endocrine disruptors permanently alter the germ line of future generations through epigenetic inheritance
A landmark study published in Science in 2005 by Matthew Anway et al found that epigenetic changes induced by the fungicide vinclozolin, were heritable in mammals. This was confirmed by the authors in later studies.
Transgenerational effects of environmental toxins require either a chromosomal or epigenetic alteration in the germ line. Transient exposure of a gestating female rat during the period of gonadal sex determination to the endocrine disruptors vinclozolin (an antiandrogenic compound) or methoxychlor (an estrogenic compound) induced an adult phenotype in the F1 generation of decreased spermatogenic capacity (cell number and viability) and increased incidence of male infertility. These effects were transferred through the male germ line to nearly all males of all subsequent generations examined (that is, F1 to F4). The effects on reproduction correlate with altered DNA methylation patterns in the germ line. The ability of an environmental factor (for example, endocrine disruptor) to reprogram the germ line and to promote a transgenerational disease state has significant implications for evolutionary biology and disease etiology.[26]
The pesticide used in the experiment, vinclozolin, is a fungicide introduced in Germany in 1976 by BASF. It is used on vines, fruit, and vegetables worldwide. Other studies have confirmed its potential to affect fertility in animals:
Our morphological results indicated that vinclozolin has morphological effects similar to those of MPA, feminizing males (hypospadias) and masculinizing females (longer urethras).[27]
8. Use of these chemicals suggests design more than accident
Phthalates
OurStolenFuture.org comments on a study on phthalates published in year 2000:
They found widespread exposure at troubling levels. Most problematic, the subgroup with the highest level of exposure was women of child-bearing age, just the people public health efforts should keep out of the path of reproductive toxicants.
What did they find? They found that the phthalate monoesters with the highest urinary levels were monoethyl phthalate (MEP), monobutyl phthalate (MBP) and monobenzyl phthalate (MBzP). The presence of these monester metabolites reflects exposure to diethyl phthalate (DEP), dibutyl phthalate (DBP), and benzyl butyl phthalate (BBP). Likely sources of these exposures are through cosmetics, including hair sprays, nail polishes and perfumes.
The exposure of women of child-bearing age is especially troubling, as these compounds are particularly known for their ability to interfere with fetal development, especially in males. There may be a tragic irony in the fact that one of the pathways of exposure, cosmetics, is targeted especially toward women of reproductive age. By using phthalate-containing compounds in the battle of the sexes, they could be undermining the future sexuality of their male offspring.[28]
Making babies' bottles out of BPA
It is interesting that, given that the effects of endocrine disruptors on the development of infant mammals was considered in the mid 1930s, babies bottles have been mass produced in BPA polycarbonate.
Warming the bottle for the baby accelerates the leaching of BPA into the milk. According to a 2008 study published in the medical journal Toxicology Letters,
A team at the University of Cincinnati filled new and used bottles with water at room temperature for a week and then measured the concentration of BPA in the liquid. The bottles were then cleaned and filled with hot water. After 24 hours, the heated bottles were releasing BPA far more quickly - at a rate of 8 to 32 nanograms per hour, compared with just 0.2 to 0.8 nanograms per hour before heating.[29]
Significant proportion of exposure to endocrine disruptors is through food and drink packaging
The August 2009 edition of Science of The Total Environment identified 50 known endocrine disruptors in food packaging that contaminate the product inside. There are many other such contaminants yet to be indentified. Food contact materials were found to be a major source of food contaminants and at levels and combinations which were toxicologically relevant.[30]
In the last few years supermarkets started selling meat and fish that is vacuum suck-wrapped in plastic, increasing the surface area of plastic in contact with the food. Olive oil companies such as have recently started selling olive oil in plastic instead of glass bottles.
The chemical PFOA has been associated with signifcant decrease in sperm count in humans. These chemicals are widespread in the environment but also happen to be in pizza boxes, popcorn bags, candy wrappers, and fast food bags.
Considerable levels of perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS), perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), and perfluorohexane sulfonic acid were found in all young men (medians of 24.5, 4.9, and 6.6 ng/mL, respectively). Men with high combined levels of PFOS and PFOA had a median of 6.2 million normal spermatozoa in their ejaculate in contrast to 15.5 million among men with low PFOS–PFOA (p = 0.030). In addition, we found nonsignificant trends with regard to lower sperm concentration, lower total sperm counts, and altered pituitary– gonadal hormones among men with high PFOS–PFOA levels.[31]
9. Regulatory action – or lack of it
The United Nations food regulatory body The Codex Alimentarius Commission allows the use of hundreds of pesticides, herbicides and fungicides including vinclozolin.[32]
Codex also permits genetically modified foods. GM crops are designed to tolerate higher doses of of such chemicals.
In 1999, the European Commission set up a working group on endocrine disruptors. To date it has drawn up lists of chemicals to 'monitor' and 'evaluate' but hasn't removed such chemicals from food packaging or placed signifcant restrictions on many implicated pesticides. The European Food Standards Agency recently confirmed that it would not ban BPA from food contact materials.[33]
The US Food and Drug Administration is under considerable pressure to ban BPA but has yet to do so.
FDA is not recommending that families change the use of infant formula or foods, as the benefit of a stable source of good nutrition outweighs the potential risk from BPA exposure.[34]
In 1992 scientists at Health and Welfare Canada published a study on foil laminate wrappers used to package butter and margarine.[35] They discovered that the plastic layer of the laminate leached phthalates into the food inside. A similar study in Britain was carried out in 1994 by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.[36] It found extremely high levels of phthalates in some cheese samples and concluded that these could not have originated in the fat concentration process.
10. Simultaneous exposure to oestrogenic soy and obesogenic flavour enhancers
The mantra from the sustainable development movement is that meat is very resource intensive so eating soy protein instead is much more environmentally friendly. This oestrogenic food has also been promoted by governments. In 1990 the The USDA Soybean Promotion and Research Program was established.
See http://www.soyonlineservice.co.nz/03summary.htm
for information about the oestrogenic effects of soy and its impact on fertility.
Is it a coincidence of no consequence that some infant formula is made out of soy, and might be served warmed up in bottles made of BPA?
What happens when soy is mixed with, for example, the fungicide vinclozolin?
The low-dose mixture and high-dose vinclozolin produced the most significant alterations in adults: decreased sperm counts, reduced sperm motion parameters, decreased litter sizes, and increased post implantation loss. Testicular mRNA expression profiles for these exposure conditions were strongly correlated.
Our study shows that chronic exposure to a mixture of a dose of a phytoestrogen equivalent to that in the human diet and a low dose—albeit not environmental—of a common anti- androgenic food contaminant may seriously affect the male reproductive tract and fertility.[37]
Dr Russell Blaylock is author of Excitotoxins: The Taste that Kills. He has examined the medical literature on food flavour enhancers such as monosodium glutamate and aspartame. One of the many serious health problems they are both linked to is gross obesity. Aspartame was licenced by the Food and Drug Administration in the 1970s and nearly every government food regulatory agency in the world now approves its use. It is difficult to find any processed food that does not contain at least one type of artificial flavour enhancer. What is the combined effect of obesogens in the form of endocrine disruptors in the food packaging and the pesticide residues, and obesogenic excitotoxins added to the food?
11. Corporations are aware of serious problems with processed foods but sell it anyway
In the mid 1990s, there was a TV cooking programme in Britain called The Two Fat Ladies. One of the presenters was Clarrisa Dickson Wright. Her god father was the founder of the company that would become Unilever, the pioneer of hydrogenated fats and one of the biggest processed food and chemical companies in the world. The Daily Mail recently reported:
On my 18th birthday, my godfather made me make him a solemn vow. 'Please, Clarissa,' he said, 'promise me that you will never, ever, ever eat margarine.'
I was a dutiful girl and fond of my godfather so was happy to oblige, but I did want to know why.
'Clarissa, my dear,' he replied solemnly, 'you have no idea what goes into it.'
What's important about this rather eccentric anecdote is that he did. For my godfather was Rudi Jurgens, scion of the Jurgens family, which back in the Twenties joined forces with the van den Berghs to form the Dutch company, Margarine Unie, which a few years later would merge with Lever Brothers and become Unilever. His family actually made the filthy stuff.[38]
Carroll Quigley mentions Unilever in Tragedy and Hope:
It is possible that the British vegetable-oil monopoly around Unilever was as powerful as the German monopoly around I.G. Farben, but, while much has been heard about the latter, very little is heard about the former. After an effort to study the former, Fortune magazine wrote, ''No other industry, perhaps, is quite so exasperatingly secretive as the soap and shortening industries.''[p513]
The trans-fatty acids in hydrogenated oils are now considered a major risk factor for heart disease, one of the biggest killer diseases in the developed world.
Conclusion
A common Freemasonic symbol is the beehive. As the higher-ups see it, this is the model for human society: the elite live in luxury ruling over contented worker bees. Alan Watt's book Cutting Through Volume One provides some very useful and interesting information in this regard. Sir Charles Galton Darwin said that a beehive society might be created using chemicals which reduce fertility. The science of epigenetics was pioneered by Conrad Hal Waddington also of Cambridge University after research at Caltech funded by the Rockefeller Foundation. The 'mother' oestrogenic agent DES, was developed into a drug by Rockefeller-funded Chicago university and by several drug companies which included Rockefeller-controlled Squibb. In 1959 Chicago awarded honary degrees to Sir Charles Galton Darwin, Sir Julian Huxley, and Sir Charles Dodds, the discoverer of DES. The goals of the Rockefeller Foundation in the social and physical sciences was 'social control' and 'human engineering'. Will governments use legislation to block public exposure and criticism of such activities?
Endnotes
1. The Molecular Vision of Life: Caltech, The Rockefeller Foundation, and the Rise of The New Biology, Lily E Kay. Oxford University Press, 1993.
2. The Challenge of Man's Future, Harrison Brown. Viking Compass Edition 1956, twentieth printing 1971. First published by The Viking Press 1954.
3. Harrison Brown 1917—1986. A Biographical Memoir, Roger Revelle. National Academy of Sciences, 1994. http://books.nap.edu/html/biomems/hbrown65.pdf
4. Website of The Galton Institute. http://www.galtoninstitute.org.uk/Newsletters/GINL0412/chief_sea_lion.htm
5. The Next Million Years, Charles Galton Darwin. Rupert Hart-Davis, 1952.
6. The Scientific Outlook, Bertrand Russell. George Allen & Unwin, 1931.
7. The Impact of Science on Society, Bertrand Russell. George Allen & Unwin, 1952.
8. Tragedy and Hope: A History of The World in Our Time, Carroll Quigley. First published by The Macmillan Company, 1966. Reprinted by CSG & Associates.
9. Transcript of the interview of Norman Dodd by G. Edward Griffin, 1982
http://www.realityzone.com/hiddenagenda2.html
10. Reflections and Warnings: An interview with Aaron Russo , Alex Jones productions. Available on YouTube - posted on the top right of the homepage of this website.
11. The Politics of Plastics: The Making and Unmaking of Bisphenol A “Safety” , Sarah Vogel. American Journal of Public Health S559-S566 November 2009, Vol 99, No. S3. http://ajph.aphapublications.org/cgi/content/full/99/S3/S559
12. Studies on prostatic cancer. The effect of castration, of estrogen and of androgen injection on serum phosphatases in metastatic carcinoma of the prostate, Huggins C, Hodges CV (1941). Cancer Res 1 (4): 293–7. Referred to in Carcinoma of the male breast with axillary metastasis following stilbestrol therapy report of a case treated by radical mastectomy, G.Y. Graves, MD., and H S Harris, MD. Annals of Surgery, 1952.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1802330/pdf/annsurg01426-0127.pdf
13. Building for a long future: The university of Chicago and its donors, 1889-1930 , University of Chicago website. http://www.lib.uchicago.edu/e/spcl/excat/donors1.html#f
14. The Truth About the Rockefeller Drug Empire: The Drug Story, Hans Ruesch. http://www.whale.to/b/ruesch.html
15. Doing Harm: The DES Tragedy and Modern American Medicine, Richard Gillam and Barton J. Bernstein. The Public Historian Vol. 9, No. 1 (Winter, 1987), pp. 57-82. University of California Press.(Available to purchase as PDF download from website)
Also see: Worse Than the Disease, Diana B. Dutton. Cambridge University Press, 1988. 'The idea of using DES in pregnancy apparently came not from Karnaky but from scientists at E. R. Squibb and Sons, one of the original DES manufacturers.... Two Squibb researchers "came to Houston, fed me and dined me... and I started using it," Karnaky recalled.'[p47]
16. Prenatal exposure to diethylstilbestrol (DES) in males and gender-related disorders: Results from a 5-year study, Scott Kerlin. International Behavioral Development Symposium 2005.
http://www.shb-info.org/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/desexposedhbs.pdf
17. Honary Degrees 1950-60, website of The University of Chicago
http://convocation.uchicago.edu/honorary_degrees/1950.shtml
18. Munks Roll, biographical details for Sir Edward Charles Dodd, Royal College of Physicians
http://munksroll.rcplondon.ac.uk/Biography/Details/1290
19. Mayor calls ASDA shoppers 'mutants', The Daily Telegraph, 29 July 2010
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat
/7916999/Mayor-calls-Asda-shoppers-mutants.html
20. Fat, tattooed Britons are not ship shape, The Daily Telegraph, 21st September 2010.
Download article as PDF
21. Environmental oestrogens: organotins and endocrine disruption via nuclear receptor signaling. Grün F, Blumberg B.Endocrinology. 2006 Jun;147(6 Suppl):S50-5. Epub 2006 May 11. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16690801
22.Perturbed nuclear receptor signaling by environmental obesogens as emerging factors in the obesity crisis, Grün F, Blumberg B. Rev Endocr Metab Disord. 2007 Jun;8(2):161-71. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17657605
23. Breakspear medical bulletin No 23, Winter 2010. http://www.breakspearmedical.com/files/publications.html
24. Hormones as epigenetic signals in developmental programming, Abigail L. Fowden and Alison J. Forhead. Experimental Physiology 94, June 2009.
http://ep.physoc.org/content/94/6/607.full
25. Conrad Hal Waddington: the last Renaissance biologist, Jonathan Slack, Nature Reviews, November 2002, Vol 3.
http://www.cogs.susx.ac.uk/users/inmanh//easy/alife04/Seminar%20reading/slack02.pdf
26. Epigenetic Transgenerational Actions of Endocrine Disruptors and Male Fertility, Matthew D. Anway et al. Science 3 June 2005: Vol. 308. no. 5727, pp. 1466 – 1469.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/308/5727/1466
27. Embryonic exposure to the fungicide vinclozolin causes virilization of females and alteration of progesterone receptor expression in vivo: an experimental study in mice, Jill Buckley et al, Environmental Health, Vol 5, 2006 http://www.ehjournal.net/content/5/1/4
28. Levels of Seven Urinary Phthalate Metabolites in a Human Reference Population. Blount, BC, MJ Silva, SP Caudill, LL Needham, JL Pirkle, EJ Sampson, GW Lucier, RJ Jackson, JW Brock. Environmental Health Perspectives 2000: 108:979-982. Quoted at
http://www.ourstolenfuture.org/NewScience/oncompounds/phthalates/2000-0901blountetal.htm
29. Warming baby's bottle could release 'gender-bending' chemicals, David Derbyshire, The Daily Mail, 30 January 2008
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-511158/Warming-babys-bottle-release-gender-bending-chemicals.html
30. Exposure to endocrine disrupting compounds via the food chain: Is packaging a relevant source? Muncke J.Sci Total Environ. 2009 Aug 1;407(16):4549-59. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19482336
31. Do Perfluoroalkyl Compounds Impair Human Semen Quality?, Ulla Nordström Joensen et al, Environmental Health Perspectives, 117(6) 2009. http://ehp03.niehs.nih.gov/article/fetchArticle.action?articleURI=
info:doi/10.1289/ehp.0800517
32. The Alliance for Natural Health.
http://www.anh-europe.org/campaigns/codex
33. EU watchdog says no need to cut cap on BPA in food, Reuters, 30 Sept 2010. http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE68T4KR20100930
34. FDA web page on BisphenolA. http://www.fda.gov/newsevents/publichealthfocus/ucm064437.htm
35. Studies into the transfer and migration of phthalate esters from aluminium foil-paper laminates to butter and margarine, B. Denis Page; Gladys M. Lacroixa, Health and Welfare Canada, Health Protection Branch, Ottawa Ontario. Food Addit Contam. 1992 May-Jun;9(3):197-212. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1397395
36. Levels of di-(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate and total phthalate esters in milk, cream, butter and cheese, Matthew Sharmana et al, Food Science Laboratory, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Norwich, UK, Food Additives & Contaminants: Part A, Volume 11, Issue 3 May 1994 , pages 375 – 385.
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=
a907627819~frm=titlelink
37. Chronic Dietary Exposure to a Low-Dose Mixture of Genistein and Vinclozolin Modifies the Reproductive Axis, Testis Transcriptome, and Fertility, Florence Eustache, et al. Environ Health Perspect v.117(8); Aug 2009. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2721872/
38. Stop spreading lies and trying to ban butter, says TV's fat lady, The Daily Mail, 19th Jan 2010.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1244313/CLARISSA-DICKSON-WRIGHT-Stop-spreading-lies-trying-ban-butter-says-TVs-Fat-Lady.html#ixzz10fJYO7Ln
Scans of selected pages (PDF files)
The Next Million Years p1, p2
The Scientific Outlook p1, p2
The Impact of Science on Society p1
The Challenge of Man's Future p1
Tragedy and Hope p1, p2
Further information
Dr Mercola, 13th October 2010
The hazards of eating soy - soy infant formula should be illegal
Dr Mercola, 15th October 2010
Flu shot ingredient may cause infertility
Dr Mercola, 18th October 2010
Warning: Please Avoid Feeding This to Your Child - more compelling reasons to avoid soy infant formula
ADA study confirms dangers of fluoridated water, especially for babies
ADA study confirms dangers of fluoridated water, especially for babies
Ethan A. Huff
Natural News
Oct 21, 2010
Advocates of fluoridated water insist that the chemical additive is good for teeth, but actual science routinely shows otherwise, including a new study published in the Journal of the American Dental Association confirming fluoride as a toxic substance that actually destroys teeth, particularly those of developing young children and babies.
When people are exposed to excessive levels of fluoride through sources like drinking water, foods and beverages and even swallowed toothpaste, it often results in a condition known as dental fluorosis. The internal uptake of fluoride into teeth over time causes their enamel to become mottled and discolored, the end result being damaged teeth that have essentially rotted from the inside out.
Dr. Steven Levy, D.D.S., and his team found during their study that “fluoride intakes during each of the first four years (of a child’s life) were individually significantly related to fluorosis on maxillary central incisors, with the first year more important.” They went on to warn that “infant formulas reconstituted with higher fluoride water can provide 100 to 200 times more fluoride than breast milk, or cow’s milk.”
In other words, young children have the highest risk of severe tooth damage from fluoride, especially those that are six months of age or younger, a time during which children’s blood-brain barriers have not fully formed. Even low ingestion levels cause the direct depositing of fluoride into the teeth, brain and other bodily tissues and organs which, besides causing fluorosis, also causes disorders of the brain and nervous system, kidneys and bones.
And the American Dental Association (ADA) has known that fluoride exposure causes dental fluorosis since at least 2006, but the group has done nothing to warn the 200 million Americans that live in communities with fluoridated water to avoid its use in babies and infants. Many dentists still recommend that children and adults not only drink fluoridated water, but even advise parents to add fluoride drops to their children’s drinking water if the family lives in unfluoridated areas or drinks private well water.
Fluoride causes serious health problems
In 2006, a study published in The Lancet identified fluoride as “an emerging neurotoxic substance” that causes severe brain damage. The National Research Council (NRC) wrote that “it is apparent that fluorides have the ability to interfere with the functions of the brain and the body by direct and indirect means.”
About a month later, another study published in Environmental Health Perspectives found a definitive link between fluoride intake and reduce IQ levels, indicating once again that fluoride intake causes cognitive damage.
At Harvard University, researchers identified a link between fluoride and bone cancer. Published 14 years after it began, the study found that the highest rates of osteosarcoma, a fatal form of bone cancer, were occurring most in populations drinking fluoridated water. The findings confirmed those of a prior government study back in 1990 that involved fluoride-treated rats.
Kidney disease is another hallmark of fluoride poisoning. Multiple animal studies have found that fluoride levels as low as 1 part per million (ppm) — which is the amount added to most fluoridated water systems — cause kidney damage. And a Chinese study found that children exposed to slightly higher fluoride levels had biological markers in their blood indicative of kidney damage.
The NRC has also found that fluoride impairs proper thyroid function and debilitates the endocrine system. Up until the 1970s, fluoride was used in Europe as a thyroid-suppressing medication because it lowers thyroid function. Many experts believe that widespread hypothyroidism today is a result of overexposure to fluoride.
Since fluoride is present in most municipal water supplies in North America, it is absurd to even suggest that parents avoid giving it to their young children. How are parents supposed to avoid it unless they install a whole-house reverse osmosis water filtration system? And even if families install such a system, fluoride is found in all sorts of food and beverages, not to mention that it is absorbed through the skin every time people wash their hands with or take a shower in fluoridated water. Perhaps these are some of the reasons why the ADA has said nothing about the issue despite the findings.
There simply is no legitimate reason to fluoridate water. Doing so forcibly medicates an entire population with a carcinogenic, chemical drug. There really is no effective way to avoid it entirely, and nobody really knows how much is ingested or absorbed on a daily basis because exposure is too widespread to calculate. But political pressure and bad science have continued to justify water fluoridation in most major cities, despite growing mountains of evidence showing its dangers.
Ending water fluoridation is a difficult task, but concerted efforts by citizens, local authorities, and even dentists, have resulted in some significant victories. To learn more about fluoride, check out the Fluoride Action Network (FAN):
http://www.fluoridealert.org
Sources for this story include:
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-rele…
http://jada.ada.org/cgi/content/abs…
http://www.fluoridealert.org/health…
Ethan A. Huff
Natural News
Oct 21, 2010
Advocates of fluoridated water insist that the chemical additive is good for teeth, but actual science routinely shows otherwise, including a new study published in the Journal of the American Dental Association confirming fluoride as a toxic substance that actually destroys teeth, particularly those of developing young children and babies.
When people are exposed to excessive levels of fluoride through sources like drinking water, foods and beverages and even swallowed toothpaste, it often results in a condition known as dental fluorosis. The internal uptake of fluoride into teeth over time causes their enamel to become mottled and discolored, the end result being damaged teeth that have essentially rotted from the inside out.
Dr. Steven Levy, D.D.S., and his team found during their study that “fluoride intakes during each of the first four years (of a child’s life) were individually significantly related to fluorosis on maxillary central incisors, with the first year more important.” They went on to warn that “infant formulas reconstituted with higher fluoride water can provide 100 to 200 times more fluoride than breast milk, or cow’s milk.”
In other words, young children have the highest risk of severe tooth damage from fluoride, especially those that are six months of age or younger, a time during which children’s blood-brain barriers have not fully formed. Even low ingestion levels cause the direct depositing of fluoride into the teeth, brain and other bodily tissues and organs which, besides causing fluorosis, also causes disorders of the brain and nervous system, kidneys and bones.
And the American Dental Association (ADA) has known that fluoride exposure causes dental fluorosis since at least 2006, but the group has done nothing to warn the 200 million Americans that live in communities with fluoridated water to avoid its use in babies and infants. Many dentists still recommend that children and adults not only drink fluoridated water, but even advise parents to add fluoride drops to their children’s drinking water if the family lives in unfluoridated areas or drinks private well water.
Fluoride causes serious health problems
In 2006, a study published in The Lancet identified fluoride as “an emerging neurotoxic substance” that causes severe brain damage. The National Research Council (NRC) wrote that “it is apparent that fluorides have the ability to interfere with the functions of the brain and the body by direct and indirect means.”
About a month later, another study published in Environmental Health Perspectives found a definitive link between fluoride intake and reduce IQ levels, indicating once again that fluoride intake causes cognitive damage.
At Harvard University, researchers identified a link between fluoride and bone cancer. Published 14 years after it began, the study found that the highest rates of osteosarcoma, a fatal form of bone cancer, were occurring most in populations drinking fluoridated water. The findings confirmed those of a prior government study back in 1990 that involved fluoride-treated rats.
Kidney disease is another hallmark of fluoride poisoning. Multiple animal studies have found that fluoride levels as low as 1 part per million (ppm) — which is the amount added to most fluoridated water systems — cause kidney damage. And a Chinese study found that children exposed to slightly higher fluoride levels had biological markers in their blood indicative of kidney damage.
The NRC has also found that fluoride impairs proper thyroid function and debilitates the endocrine system. Up until the 1970s, fluoride was used in Europe as a thyroid-suppressing medication because it lowers thyroid function. Many experts believe that widespread hypothyroidism today is a result of overexposure to fluoride.
Since fluoride is present in most municipal water supplies in North America, it is absurd to even suggest that parents avoid giving it to their young children. How are parents supposed to avoid it unless they install a whole-house reverse osmosis water filtration system? And even if families install such a system, fluoride is found in all sorts of food and beverages, not to mention that it is absorbed through the skin every time people wash their hands with or take a shower in fluoridated water. Perhaps these are some of the reasons why the ADA has said nothing about the issue despite the findings.
There simply is no legitimate reason to fluoridate water. Doing so forcibly medicates an entire population with a carcinogenic, chemical drug. There really is no effective way to avoid it entirely, and nobody really knows how much is ingested or absorbed on a daily basis because exposure is too widespread to calculate. But political pressure and bad science have continued to justify water fluoridation in most major cities, despite growing mountains of evidence showing its dangers.
Ending water fluoridation is a difficult task, but concerted efforts by citizens, local authorities, and even dentists, have resulted in some significant victories. To learn more about fluoride, check out the Fluoride Action Network (FAN):
http://www.fluoridealert.org
Sources for this story include:
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-rele…
http://jada.ada.org/cgi/content/abs…
http://www.fluoridealert.org/health…
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
Misinformation About Heart Attacks From AMA
Misinformation About Heart Attacks From AMA
Misinformation About Heart Attacks From AMA
By Dr. Arthur Evangelista
10-19-10
Friends and colleagues
The latest information about Basic Cardiac Life Support, and doing CPR
is in grave error, and should be ignored, just like the last time they changed CPR to "just compressions" about two years ago, which is also, virtually ineffective.
Why do you think the DHHS/PHS, AMA and AHA are trying to save face from an insufficientlyresearched idea about life support and physiology. This "mistake" is so profound, it is my belief that these new CPR applications are purposefully inappropriate and will cost lives.
The intention of this scenario is depraved negligence or voluntary manslaughter - maybe even murder, considering that this CPR changed is deliberate (and useless), and will cause people to expire from the combined DHHS/PHS (public health service) and medical misinformation.
As a former Paramedic working on a mobile intensive care units, and my long background in emergency medicine, it would appear, that the assumption of these "medical experts" also underestimates the intelligence of the American public - that's just for starters, and many of you already know this. That is one of their 'reasons' to change CPR into an ineffective exercise.
Physiologically, the body requires oxygen, WHILE the heart is pumpimg. Without oxygen, the body will quicky become acidic, and tissue damage will ensue, whether you are doing compressions, or not. Whether the heart is pumping or not.
The ORIGINAL ABC'S of CPR is the most accurate and uselful hands-on application that be performed by the general public to keep someone alive. I have done it numerous times as an EMS specialist.
The first and correct action is to always ascertain the "victim's" current status. How do you do that? Start pumping on the chest? NO !! How do you know their heart has stopped without first checking? - see where this is going?
Second, Checking airway, and placing clean air into the lungs is critical Then assess the cardiac function by checking the pulse and circulation (carotid, color of skin, lips, nailbeds) then, IF there is no pulse, begin CPR compressions, and have someone breath for the patient, while performing the compressions. Folks, this is simply common sense. You can kill a person by doing chest compressions when the heart is still beating.
Common Sense Example: If you were to stop breathing, your blood would quickly become acidic, affecting the heart, brain, and other organs, sending the patient deeper into circulatory shock. This makes any lifesaving effort much more difficult, if not impossible. That's why paramedics often give patients ampules of Sodium Bicarbonate injections, to reverse the aciditythe other cardiac drugs do not work unless the acidosis can be mitigated or reduced. It's a law of nature.
As such, if you hold your breath, are held underwater, or someone pinches your nose and covers your mouth, you will not be able to receive oxygen. How long do you think your heart (brain, and other organs) will remain intact and functional without oxygen ? If you're over 30 yrs. old, you may have about 3 mins. If you're over 50 yrs. old, you may have about 2 mins. (realistically).
A beating heart requires oxygen to function. This is a scientific, non-refutable fact.
I know many of you asked if the new CPR technique that was recently "invented" made any sense ? Of course not.
My answer (and probably the reason why you felt this way) is because deep down,
we KNOW the new CPR that our American medical criminal enterprise is trying to sell the public, is in fact, fatally flawed, serves to confuse people, and to my way of thinking, is exactly what these NeoCons intended - increase mortality and death (population reduction scenario - Georgia Guidestones, etc.) Because this whole issue is insane and depraved.
The ORIGINAL CPR along with its ABC (in that order) is the only way to save a life
If there are any more erroneous changes to CPR, you may have to bring your own leeches !!
Stay safe, don't believe the government (for anything), and be aware,
Arthur Evangelista
Public Health and Medical Fraud
Research Cooperative
DirOPs@wispwest.net
A group of professional investigators and researchers dedicated to accurate health education, and to exposing corporate corruption or regulatory malfeasance, which may adversely affect the public health.
www.qualityassurance.synthasite.com
Here are the terribly flawed new guidelines -
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39715696/ns/health-heart_health
http://www.rense.com/general92/heart.htm
Misinformation About Heart Attacks From AMA
By Dr. Arthur Evangelista
10-19-10
Friends and colleagues
The latest information about Basic Cardiac Life Support, and doing CPR
is in grave error, and should be ignored, just like the last time they changed CPR to "just compressions" about two years ago, which is also, virtually ineffective.
Why do you think the DHHS/PHS, AMA and AHA are trying to save face from an insufficientlyresearched idea about life support and physiology. This "mistake" is so profound, it is my belief that these new CPR applications are purposefully inappropriate and will cost lives.
The intention of this scenario is depraved negligence or voluntary manslaughter - maybe even murder, considering that this CPR changed is deliberate (and useless), and will cause people to expire from the combined DHHS/PHS (public health service) and medical misinformation.
As a former Paramedic working on a mobile intensive care units, and my long background in emergency medicine, it would appear, that the assumption of these "medical experts" also underestimates the intelligence of the American public - that's just for starters, and many of you already know this. That is one of their 'reasons' to change CPR into an ineffective exercise.
Physiologically, the body requires oxygen, WHILE the heart is pumpimg. Without oxygen, the body will quicky become acidic, and tissue damage will ensue, whether you are doing compressions, or not. Whether the heart is pumping or not.
The ORIGINAL ABC'S of CPR is the most accurate and uselful hands-on application that be performed by the general public to keep someone alive. I have done it numerous times as an EMS specialist.
The first and correct action is to always ascertain the "victim's" current status. How do you do that? Start pumping on the chest? NO !! How do you know their heart has stopped without first checking? - see where this is going?
Second, Checking airway, and placing clean air into the lungs is critical Then assess the cardiac function by checking the pulse and circulation (carotid, color of skin, lips, nailbeds) then, IF there is no pulse, begin CPR compressions, and have someone breath for the patient, while performing the compressions. Folks, this is simply common sense. You can kill a person by doing chest compressions when the heart is still beating.
Common Sense Example: If you were to stop breathing, your blood would quickly become acidic, affecting the heart, brain, and other organs, sending the patient deeper into circulatory shock. This makes any lifesaving effort much more difficult, if not impossible. That's why paramedics often give patients ampules of Sodium Bicarbonate injections, to reverse the aciditythe other cardiac drugs do not work unless the acidosis can be mitigated or reduced. It's a law of nature.
As such, if you hold your breath, are held underwater, or someone pinches your nose and covers your mouth, you will not be able to receive oxygen. How long do you think your heart (brain, and other organs) will remain intact and functional without oxygen ? If you're over 30 yrs. old, you may have about 3 mins. If you're over 50 yrs. old, you may have about 2 mins. (realistically).
A beating heart requires oxygen to function. This is a scientific, non-refutable fact.
I know many of you asked if the new CPR technique that was recently "invented" made any sense ? Of course not.
My answer (and probably the reason why you felt this way) is because deep down,
we KNOW the new CPR that our American medical criminal enterprise is trying to sell the public, is in fact, fatally flawed, serves to confuse people, and to my way of thinking, is exactly what these NeoCons intended - increase mortality and death (population reduction scenario - Georgia Guidestones, etc.) Because this whole issue is insane and depraved.
The ORIGINAL CPR along with its ABC (in that order) is the only way to save a life
If there are any more erroneous changes to CPR, you may have to bring your own leeches !!
Stay safe, don't believe the government (for anything), and be aware,
Arthur Evangelista
Public Health and Medical Fraud
Research Cooperative
DirOPs@wispwest.net
A group of professional investigators and researchers dedicated to accurate health education, and to exposing corporate corruption or regulatory malfeasance, which may adversely affect the public health.
www.qualityassurance.synthasite.com
Here are the terribly flawed new guidelines -
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39715696/ns/health-heart_health
http://www.rense.com/general92/heart.htm
Study Proves Aspartame Lung And Liver Cancer
Study Proves Aspartame Lung And Liver Cancer
By Dr Betty Martini, D.Hum
10-19-10
A new study by Dr. Morando Soffritti at the Ramazzini Institute, demonstrated that aspartame administered in feed to Swiss mice induces significant dose-related increases of hepatocellular carcinomas and of alveolar/bronchiolar carcinoma in males. Dosages were 32,000, 8,000, 2000 or zero ppm, beginning on day 12 of gestation and lasting until death. See this new study at http://www.mpwhi.com/soffritti_2010_20896_fta.pdf
While the new study is breaking, the history of aspartame being a carcinogen has always been known. Aspartame was known to cause cancer from the beginning. On August 1, 1985 FDA toxicologist, Dr. Adrian Gross, told Congress that at least one of Searle's studies "has established beyond ANY REASONABLE DOUBT that aspartame is capable of inducing brain tumors in experimental animals and that this predisposition of it is of extremely high significance. ... In view of these indications that the cancer causing potential of aspartame is a matter that had been established WAY BEYOND ANY REASONABLE DOUBT, one can ask: What is the reason for the apparent refusal by the FDA to invoke for this food additive the so-called Delaney Amendment to the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act?"
The Delaney Amendment makes it illegal to allow ANY residue of cancer causing chemicals in foods. Dr Gross concluded by asking, "Given the cancer causing potential of aspartame how would the FDA justify its position that it views a certain amount of aspartame as constituting an allowable daily intake or 'safe' level of it? Is that position in effect not equivalent to setting a 'tolerance' for this food additive and thus a violation of that law? And if the FDA itself elects to violate the law, who is left to protect the health of the public?" Congressional Record SID835:131 (8/1/85)
FDA then revoked the petition for aspartame approval because it could not be proven safe and causes brain tumors. http://www.wnho.net/fda_petition1.doc The FDA audit known as the Bressler Report details how Searle excised brain tumors from rats, put them back in the study, and when they died resurrected them on paper. http://www.rense.com/general88/hid.htmIt (Note adenocarcinoma in this report) Searle filtered out what they didn't want the FDA to see.
Aspartame was never proven safe but was marketed through the political chicanery of Donald Rumsfeld. Dr. Jacqueline Verrett, another on site FDA toxicologist reported to Congress that all studies on aspartame should be thrown out, that they were built on a foundation of sand. Attorney Jim Turner in "Sweet Misery: A Poisoned World" explains how it happened: http://www.soundandfury.tv/pages/rumsfeld.html Dr. Jere Goyan, FDA Commissioner at the time would have signed the revoking petition into law. and that would have closed the book on this deadly chemical toxin. Goyan was fired at 3:00 AM the day after President Reagan took office. Reagam then appointed Arthur Hull Hayes as Commissioner to over-rule the Board of Inquiry.
Dr. Gross then asked for an indictment of the G. D. Searle company: http://www.wnho.net/letter_2.pdf but the defense team hired both US prosecutors. Dr. John Olney with Attorney James Turner tried to prevent approval and had Searle do studies in his laboratory so he could oversee them, because of the fraud discussed in the Bressler Report. These studies showed brain damage but Searle never gave that damning data to the FDA.
In 2005 the Cancer Research Center at the European Foundation of Oncology and Environmental Sciences in Bologna, Italy reported that a 3-year study evaluating the potential carcinogenic effects of aspartame demonstrated that it "induces an increase in lymphomas and leukemias in female rats."
At that time neurosurgeon Russell Blaylock, M.D. announced: "The new study released in the European Journal of oncology by Morando Soffritti and co-workers should terrify mothers and all those consuming aspartame sweetened products. This was a carefully done study which clearly demonstrated a statistically significant increase in several types of lymphomas and leukemias in rats. Both of these malignancies have increased significantly in this country since the widespread use of aspartame.
"This study confirmed the previous study by Dr. Trocho and co-workers, which also found the formaldehyde breakdown product of aspartame to be damaging to cellular DNA and that this damage was accumulative. The type of damage was a duplicate of that associated with cancers. Along with this most recent study, this means that drinking a single diet cola sweetened with aspartame every day could increase one's risk of developing a lymphoma or leukemia.
"They also found an increased incidence of malignant brain tumors, even though it was not statistically significant. This does not mean there is no association to brain tumors, since only the animals exposed to aspartame developed the tumors. With children and pregnant women drinking the largest amount of diet colas, this puts their children at the greatest risk of developing one of these horrible diseases. Their study found that even low doses of aspartame could cause these malignancies; yet, the higher the dose, the more cancers that were seen.
"Since aspartame can increase obesity and may even cause the metabolic syndrome that affects 48 million Americans, there is no reason to ever consume this product. At the least it should be immediately banned from all schools." Dr. Russell Blaylock is author of Excitotoxins: The Taste That Kills, and other books, www.russellblaylockmd.com
A second study by Dr. Morando Soffritti in 2007 proved that low dosage of aspartame causes cancer.
Dr. Blaylock reviewed this study too, and said: "My review of the first Ramazzini Study concluded that the study was one of the best designed, comprehensive and conclusive studies done to date on the multipotent carcinogenic potential of aspartame. This second study is even more conclusive, in that it shows a dose-dependent statistically significant increase in lymphomas/leukemia in both male and female rats exposed to aspartame. These two cancers are the fastest growing cancers in people under age 30.
"Also, of major concern is their finding of statistically significant increases in breast cancer in animals exposed to aspartame. With newer studies clearly indicating that toxic exposures during fetal development can dramatically increase the cancer risk of the offspring, this study takes on a very important meaning to all pregnant women consuming aspartame products. Likewise, small children are at considerable risk of the later development of these highly fatal cancers.
"It should be appreciated that the doses used in these studies fall within the range of doses seen in everyday users of aspartame. This study, along with the first study, should convince any reasonable scientific mind, as well as the public at large, that this product should be removed from the market."
At New York's Mt Sinai School of Medicine DR. MORANDO SOFFRITTI was honored in April, 2007 with the Irving J Selikoff Award for Outstanding contributions to the identification of environmental and industrial carcinogens, and his promotion of independent scientific research.
The prestigious Selikoff Award is only granted for ground-breaking cancer research. It was created in 1993 by the Collegium Ramazzini, an academy of 180 internationally renowned experts in occupational and environmental health from over 30 nations. It was awarded only twice before it was presented to Dr. Soffritti.
His research was conducted for 36 months using 1,800 rats. It forced the conclusion that aspartame is a multipotential carcinogen. Cancers aspartame produced included leukemia, lymphoma, kidney, and cranial peripheral nerves among others. Only the rats fed aspartame got malignant brain tumors. This prodigious work was peer reviewed by 7 world experts.
This work confirms studies presented to the FDA 25 years ago documenting a catalogue of brain, uterine, ovarian, testicular, mammary, pancreatic and thyroid tumors. It was also known from the beginning that aspartame causes liver damage. http://www.wnho.net/aspartame_and_liver_damage.htm Now Dr. Soffritti's studies prove it.
Attorney James Turner, a former Nader Raider, the author of the Chemical Feast, stated today: "Once again Dr. Soffritti shows aspartame causes cancer in animals. Only a fool would use NutraSweet in light of this mounting evidence. The indictment of NutraSweet long ago passed the threshold demanding a full review by the FDA, but don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen. "
Ralph Walton, M.D., psychiatrist did a study on aspartame some years ago. The reactions were so severe that the study was stopped. The Administrator of the hospital took part in it and lost his vision in one eye. Dr. Walton researched for 60 Minutes who was funding aspartame studies. Bottom line, nearly 100% of independent studies which were not controlled or paid for by industry showed the problems aspartame causes.
Dr. Walton said, "Dr. Soffritti's latest study, demonstrating that aspartame induces cancers of the liver and lung in mice, adds significantly to the growing body of evidence that aspartame is a highly toxic, carcinogenic agent. I agree wholeheartedly with his conclusion that a re-evaluation of the current regulations on aspartame is urgent, and would urge both the FDA and EFSA to seriously evaluate this and similar independently funded research, and rescind the approval which was based on flawed industry sponsored research."
Pauline Harding, M.D. of the Chicago Aspartame Detoxification Center said: "Dr. Morando Soffritti and his colleagues have demonstrated in animal studies that the artificial sweetener aspartame can induce malignancies of the liver, lungs, skin and lymph nodes. Breakdown products of aspartame have previously been demonstrated to induce headaches, blindness, and seizures. A wide range of children's' foods and beverages from bread and cereal to candy and soft drinks contain this toxin. Aspartame should not be allowed in our food or drugs and should be banned the world over."
Former FDA investigator Arthur Evangelista reports: "While previously working with FDA Investigations Branch, I inadvertently began uncovering various patterns of corruption and cover up. It was these same corrupted patterns which allowed Aspartame's approval, as well as continued approval for other toxic substances masquerading as healthy or beneficial. The revolving door of corporate and political infiltration has essentially rendered the Food & Drug Administration useless, misused (as an agency), and malfeasant, while the FDA exhibits a serious moral vacuum within the agency's management.
"In our current situation, the FDA obviously and routinely (unconstitutionally and unlawfully) silences, subdues, misinforms, and suppresses most of the useful information about natural health, vitamins, or herbs, not to mention silencing their own scientists. This corruption is primarily due to the FDA's (and governments) alliance with the Petro-Pharmaceutical and Chem-Agricultural cartels, along with continuing directives from corrupted Administrations with a devious agenda, of which all regulatory or enforcement agencies will participate and public health is NOT part of this agenda. ~ Arthur Evangelista, PhD, former FDA Investigator
Attorney James Turner warns that the so called Food Safety Bill, S510, must be stopped as it will give the FDA even greater power. FDA refuses to even answer Citizens Petitions which law says must be answered in 180 days. My petition for ban of aspartame has been ignored since 2002. The imminent health hazard amendment was sent in 2007 and the law requires it be answered in a week or ten days. FDA gets over half their funds from the industry they regulate and you can't serve two masters. So we, the American public, have lost protection from dangerous food and drugs. Nearly three decades ago Dr. H. J. Roberts told the FDA for years aspartame is an imminent health hazard. His inquiries about FDA allowing free methyl alcohol have never been answered. Were FDA on the side of public safety, aspartame would have been banned long ago.
Jim Turner also said of this bill, "It will enhance FDA's authority so that the agency will be more able to attack small, organic and local food growers and producers while doing noting about unsafe additives like aspartame, GMOs, factory farming with their growth enhancing disease spreading antibiotic drugs
and hormones, or food irradiation. It does nothing to allow food sellers to identify their products as drug, GMOS or irradiation free. In short it puts great pressure on the only things helping to make a safer, healthier cleaner, environmentally sound food supply while reinforcing and bolstering the industrial food and farming practices that run up the cost to of food per nutrient and lower it quality. It is a bad bill it must be stopped."
Will FDA ever rescind the approval after 30 years of complaints and with full knowledge from the beginning that aspartame is a deadly carcinogen? What is their excuse now? It's time for governments worldwide to revoke their approvals of this deadly addictive, excitoneurotoxic, genetically engineered drug and adjuvant, especially since other nations base their approvals on the FDA which possessed full knowledge aspartame is poison.
Consider Oncogene studies. This has to do with a gene that causes the transformation of normal cells into cancerous tumor cells. The International Institute of Anticancer Research in Hungary did a study on the effect of aspartame administration on Oncogene and Suppressor Gene Expressions in 2006. Their abstract is as follows:
INCLUDEPICTURE "http://iv.iiarjournals.org/content/21/1/local/img/journal_logo.gif" \*MERGEFORMATINET
"Background: Aspartame (L-phenylalanine N-L- -aspartyl-1-methyl ester) is an artificial sweetener with widespread applications. Previously published results have shown that among rats receiving aspartame a significant increase of lymphoreticular neoplasms, brain tumours and transitional cell tumours occurred. The aim of our short-term experiment was to investigate the biological effect of aspartame consumption by determining the expressions of key oncogenes and a tumour suppressor gene. Materials and Methods: After one week per os administration of various doses of aspartame to CBA/CA female mice, p53, c-myc, Ha-ras gene expression alterations were determined in individual organs. Results: The results showed an increase in gene expressions concerning all the investigated genes especially in organs with a high proliferation rate: lymphoreticular organs, bone-marrow and kidney. Conclusion: Aspartame has a biological effect even at the recommended daily maximum dose. "
Samuel S. Epstein, M.D., is Professor emeritus of Environmental & Occupational Medicine at the University of Illinois at Chicago School of Public Health; Chairman of the Cancer Prevention Coalition; and author of over 200 scientific articles and 15 books on cancer. Dr. Epstein wrote for an overdue ban on aspartame, that it violates Delaney.
Twelve toxicologists petitioned the FDA to ban aspartame: http://www.mpwhi.com/aspartame_letter_to_fda.pdf There have been efforts to ban aspartame from states, first in New Mexico twice, through the efforts of Stephen Fox, Mission Possible New Mexico, and Senator Gerald Ortiz y Pino. Also in Hawaii by Jade Bruhjell, Mission Possible Hawaii. Flacks and front groups rush in to defend the aspartame manufacturers. In the Philippines, efforts to ban were made by Numero Lim, Counselor. Also, efforts have been made in New Zealand and in the UK.
World expert on aspartame H. J. Roberts, M.D., published a 1,000 page medical text on the aspartame plague, "Aspartame Disease: An Ignored Epidemic", (www.sunsentpress.com) He discusses carcinogenic mechanisms such as the diketopiperazine derivative of aspartame which is a tumor-causing chemical. He states the formaldehyde released from the breakdown of methyl alcohol is a known carcinogen. Indeed, California's Proposition 65 states that no product with methanol or formaldehyde may come into that state without a cancer warning. So this poison is illegal in California. Since it's adulterated it's illegally on the market to begin with as it is against the law to ship an adulterated product for sale, violating Interstate Commerce Laws.
So why are pharmaceutical/chemical manufacturers permitted to exist regardless of how many laws they break? Because the FDA makes its living off drug companies who really call the shots at the Fatal Drugs Allowed office. In this case aspartame is in violation of adulteration laws, Interstate Commerce laws and the Delaney Amendment. Ajinomoto recently changed the name of aspartame to AminoSweet to duck the curse informed public outcry has
brought on their poison. Other names are NutraSweet, Equal, Spoonful, E951, Canderel and Benevia, for starters.
This deceit can cause aspartame-sensitized victims to have severe reactions such as the one an unwarned young woman had in the movie Sweet Misery: A Poisoned World. She became a Code Blue and resuscitated. Ajinomoto is now trying for approval of another aspartame product,, Advantame. Further a petition by industry is asking that aspartame not be labeled in dairy products and yogurt. http://www.rense.com/general92/foia.htm
The public also must be alerted not to use Splenda, a chlorocarbon poison, or Acesulfame potassium that caused cancer and leukemia in original studies. Just Like Sugar is a safe sweetener, HYPERLINK "http://www.justlikesugarinc.com" www.justlikesugarinc.com James Bowen, M.D. says if you go from aspartame to Splenda you will maintain the reactions from aspartame and pick up those from Splenda. Dr. Bowen who has ALS from aspartame told the FDA over 20 years ago that aspartame is mass poisoning of the American public and more than 70+ countries (today over 100).
Dr. Betty Martini, D.Hum, Founder
Mission Possible International
9270 River Club Parkway
Duluth, Georgia 30097
www.mpwhi.com, www.dorway.copm and www.wnho.net
Aspartame Toxicity Center, HYPERLINK www.holisticmed.com/aspartame
Aspartame Information List, www.mpwhi.com scroll down to banners
By Dr Betty Martini, D.Hum
10-19-10
A new study by Dr. Morando Soffritti at the Ramazzini Institute, demonstrated that aspartame administered in feed to Swiss mice induces significant dose-related increases of hepatocellular carcinomas and of alveolar/bronchiolar carcinoma in males. Dosages were 32,000, 8,000, 2000 or zero ppm, beginning on day 12 of gestation and lasting until death. See this new study at http://www.mpwhi.com/soffritti_2010_20896_fta.pdf
While the new study is breaking, the history of aspartame being a carcinogen has always been known. Aspartame was known to cause cancer from the beginning. On August 1, 1985 FDA toxicologist, Dr. Adrian Gross, told Congress that at least one of Searle's studies "has established beyond ANY REASONABLE DOUBT that aspartame is capable of inducing brain tumors in experimental animals and that this predisposition of it is of extremely high significance. ... In view of these indications that the cancer causing potential of aspartame is a matter that had been established WAY BEYOND ANY REASONABLE DOUBT, one can ask: What is the reason for the apparent refusal by the FDA to invoke for this food additive the so-called Delaney Amendment to the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act?"
The Delaney Amendment makes it illegal to allow ANY residue of cancer causing chemicals in foods. Dr Gross concluded by asking, "Given the cancer causing potential of aspartame how would the FDA justify its position that it views a certain amount of aspartame as constituting an allowable daily intake or 'safe' level of it? Is that position in effect not equivalent to setting a 'tolerance' for this food additive and thus a violation of that law? And if the FDA itself elects to violate the law, who is left to protect the health of the public?" Congressional Record SID835:131 (8/1/85)
FDA then revoked the petition for aspartame approval because it could not be proven safe and causes brain tumors. http://www.wnho.net/fda_petition1.doc The FDA audit known as the Bressler Report details how Searle excised brain tumors from rats, put them back in the study, and when they died resurrected them on paper. http://www.rense.com/general88/hid.htmIt (Note adenocarcinoma in this report) Searle filtered out what they didn't want the FDA to see.
Aspartame was never proven safe but was marketed through the political chicanery of Donald Rumsfeld. Dr. Jacqueline Verrett, another on site FDA toxicologist reported to Congress that all studies on aspartame should be thrown out, that they were built on a foundation of sand. Attorney Jim Turner in "Sweet Misery: A Poisoned World" explains how it happened: http://www.soundandfury.tv/pages/rumsfeld.html Dr. Jere Goyan, FDA Commissioner at the time would have signed the revoking petition into law. and that would have closed the book on this deadly chemical toxin. Goyan was fired at 3:00 AM the day after President Reagan took office. Reagam then appointed Arthur Hull Hayes as Commissioner to over-rule the Board of Inquiry.
Dr. Gross then asked for an indictment of the G. D. Searle company: http://www.wnho.net/letter_2.pdf but the defense team hired both US prosecutors. Dr. John Olney with Attorney James Turner tried to prevent approval and had Searle do studies in his laboratory so he could oversee them, because of the fraud discussed in the Bressler Report. These studies showed brain damage but Searle never gave that damning data to the FDA.
In 2005 the Cancer Research Center at the European Foundation of Oncology and Environmental Sciences in Bologna, Italy reported that a 3-year study evaluating the potential carcinogenic effects of aspartame demonstrated that it "induces an increase in lymphomas and leukemias in female rats."
At that time neurosurgeon Russell Blaylock, M.D. announced: "The new study released in the European Journal of oncology by Morando Soffritti and co-workers should terrify mothers and all those consuming aspartame sweetened products. This was a carefully done study which clearly demonstrated a statistically significant increase in several types of lymphomas and leukemias in rats. Both of these malignancies have increased significantly in this country since the widespread use of aspartame.
"This study confirmed the previous study by Dr. Trocho and co-workers, which also found the formaldehyde breakdown product of aspartame to be damaging to cellular DNA and that this damage was accumulative. The type of damage was a duplicate of that associated with cancers. Along with this most recent study, this means that drinking a single diet cola sweetened with aspartame every day could increase one's risk of developing a lymphoma or leukemia.
"They also found an increased incidence of malignant brain tumors, even though it was not statistically significant. This does not mean there is no association to brain tumors, since only the animals exposed to aspartame developed the tumors. With children and pregnant women drinking the largest amount of diet colas, this puts their children at the greatest risk of developing one of these horrible diseases. Their study found that even low doses of aspartame could cause these malignancies; yet, the higher the dose, the more cancers that were seen.
"Since aspartame can increase obesity and may even cause the metabolic syndrome that affects 48 million Americans, there is no reason to ever consume this product. At the least it should be immediately banned from all schools." Dr. Russell Blaylock is author of Excitotoxins: The Taste That Kills, and other books, www.russellblaylockmd.com
A second study by Dr. Morando Soffritti in 2007 proved that low dosage of aspartame causes cancer.
Dr. Blaylock reviewed this study too, and said: "My review of the first Ramazzini Study concluded that the study was one of the best designed, comprehensive and conclusive studies done to date on the multipotent carcinogenic potential of aspartame. This second study is even more conclusive, in that it shows a dose-dependent statistically significant increase in lymphomas/leukemia in both male and female rats exposed to aspartame. These two cancers are the fastest growing cancers in people under age 30.
"Also, of major concern is their finding of statistically significant increases in breast cancer in animals exposed to aspartame. With newer studies clearly indicating that toxic exposures during fetal development can dramatically increase the cancer risk of the offspring, this study takes on a very important meaning to all pregnant women consuming aspartame products. Likewise, small children are at considerable risk of the later development of these highly fatal cancers.
"It should be appreciated that the doses used in these studies fall within the range of doses seen in everyday users of aspartame. This study, along with the first study, should convince any reasonable scientific mind, as well as the public at large, that this product should be removed from the market."
At New York's Mt Sinai School of Medicine DR. MORANDO SOFFRITTI was honored in April, 2007 with the Irving J Selikoff Award for Outstanding contributions to the identification of environmental and industrial carcinogens, and his promotion of independent scientific research.
The prestigious Selikoff Award is only granted for ground-breaking cancer research. It was created in 1993 by the Collegium Ramazzini, an academy of 180 internationally renowned experts in occupational and environmental health from over 30 nations. It was awarded only twice before it was presented to Dr. Soffritti.
His research was conducted for 36 months using 1,800 rats. It forced the conclusion that aspartame is a multipotential carcinogen. Cancers aspartame produced included leukemia, lymphoma, kidney, and cranial peripheral nerves among others. Only the rats fed aspartame got malignant brain tumors. This prodigious work was peer reviewed by 7 world experts.
This work confirms studies presented to the FDA 25 years ago documenting a catalogue of brain, uterine, ovarian, testicular, mammary, pancreatic and thyroid tumors. It was also known from the beginning that aspartame causes liver damage. http://www.wnho.net/aspartame_and_liver_damage.htm Now Dr. Soffritti's studies prove it.
Attorney James Turner, a former Nader Raider, the author of the Chemical Feast, stated today: "Once again Dr. Soffritti shows aspartame causes cancer in animals. Only a fool would use NutraSweet in light of this mounting evidence. The indictment of NutraSweet long ago passed the threshold demanding a full review by the FDA, but don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen. "
Ralph Walton, M.D., psychiatrist did a study on aspartame some years ago. The reactions were so severe that the study was stopped. The Administrator of the hospital took part in it and lost his vision in one eye. Dr. Walton researched for 60 Minutes who was funding aspartame studies. Bottom line, nearly 100% of independent studies which were not controlled or paid for by industry showed the problems aspartame causes.
Dr. Walton said, "Dr. Soffritti's latest study, demonstrating that aspartame induces cancers of the liver and lung in mice, adds significantly to the growing body of evidence that aspartame is a highly toxic, carcinogenic agent. I agree wholeheartedly with his conclusion that a re-evaluation of the current regulations on aspartame is urgent, and would urge both the FDA and EFSA to seriously evaluate this and similar independently funded research, and rescind the approval which was based on flawed industry sponsored research."
Pauline Harding, M.D. of the Chicago Aspartame Detoxification Center said: "Dr. Morando Soffritti and his colleagues have demonstrated in animal studies that the artificial sweetener aspartame can induce malignancies of the liver, lungs, skin and lymph nodes. Breakdown products of aspartame have previously been demonstrated to induce headaches, blindness, and seizures. A wide range of children's' foods and beverages from bread and cereal to candy and soft drinks contain this toxin. Aspartame should not be allowed in our food or drugs and should be banned the world over."
Former FDA investigator Arthur Evangelista reports: "While previously working with FDA Investigations Branch, I inadvertently began uncovering various patterns of corruption and cover up. It was these same corrupted patterns which allowed Aspartame's approval, as well as continued approval for other toxic substances masquerading as healthy or beneficial. The revolving door of corporate and political infiltration has essentially rendered the Food & Drug Administration useless, misused (as an agency), and malfeasant, while the FDA exhibits a serious moral vacuum within the agency's management.
"In our current situation, the FDA obviously and routinely (unconstitutionally and unlawfully) silences, subdues, misinforms, and suppresses most of the useful information about natural health, vitamins, or herbs, not to mention silencing their own scientists. This corruption is primarily due to the FDA's (and governments) alliance with the Petro-Pharmaceutical and Chem-Agricultural cartels, along with continuing directives from corrupted Administrations with a devious agenda, of which all regulatory or enforcement agencies will participate and public health is NOT part of this agenda. ~ Arthur Evangelista, PhD, former FDA Investigator
Attorney James Turner warns that the so called Food Safety Bill, S510, must be stopped as it will give the FDA even greater power. FDA refuses to even answer Citizens Petitions which law says must be answered in 180 days. My petition for ban of aspartame has been ignored since 2002. The imminent health hazard amendment was sent in 2007 and the law requires it be answered in a week or ten days. FDA gets over half their funds from the industry they regulate and you can't serve two masters. So we, the American public, have lost protection from dangerous food and drugs. Nearly three decades ago Dr. H. J. Roberts told the FDA for years aspartame is an imminent health hazard. His inquiries about FDA allowing free methyl alcohol have never been answered. Were FDA on the side of public safety, aspartame would have been banned long ago.
Jim Turner also said of this bill, "It will enhance FDA's authority so that the agency will be more able to attack small, organic and local food growers and producers while doing noting about unsafe additives like aspartame, GMOs, factory farming with their growth enhancing disease spreading antibiotic drugs
and hormones, or food irradiation. It does nothing to allow food sellers to identify their products as drug, GMOS or irradiation free. In short it puts great pressure on the only things helping to make a safer, healthier cleaner, environmentally sound food supply while reinforcing and bolstering the industrial food and farming practices that run up the cost to of food per nutrient and lower it quality. It is a bad bill it must be stopped."
Will FDA ever rescind the approval after 30 years of complaints and with full knowledge from the beginning that aspartame is a deadly carcinogen? What is their excuse now? It's time for governments worldwide to revoke their approvals of this deadly addictive, excitoneurotoxic, genetically engineered drug and adjuvant, especially since other nations base their approvals on the FDA which possessed full knowledge aspartame is poison.
Consider Oncogene studies. This has to do with a gene that causes the transformation of normal cells into cancerous tumor cells. The International Institute of Anticancer Research in Hungary did a study on the effect of aspartame administration on Oncogene and Suppressor Gene Expressions in 2006. Their abstract is as follows:
INCLUDEPICTURE "http://iv.iiarjournals.org/content/21/1/local/img/journal_logo.gif" \*MERGEFORMATINET
"Background: Aspartame (L-phenylalanine N-L- -aspartyl-1-methyl ester) is an artificial sweetener with widespread applications. Previously published results have shown that among rats receiving aspartame a significant increase of lymphoreticular neoplasms, brain tumours and transitional cell tumours occurred. The aim of our short-term experiment was to investigate the biological effect of aspartame consumption by determining the expressions of key oncogenes and a tumour suppressor gene. Materials and Methods: After one week per os administration of various doses of aspartame to CBA/CA female mice, p53, c-myc, Ha-ras gene expression alterations were determined in individual organs. Results: The results showed an increase in gene expressions concerning all the investigated genes especially in organs with a high proliferation rate: lymphoreticular organs, bone-marrow and kidney. Conclusion: Aspartame has a biological effect even at the recommended daily maximum dose. "
Samuel S. Epstein, M.D., is Professor emeritus of Environmental & Occupational Medicine at the University of Illinois at Chicago School of Public Health; Chairman of the Cancer Prevention Coalition; and author of over 200 scientific articles and 15 books on cancer. Dr. Epstein wrote for an overdue ban on aspartame, that it violates Delaney.
Twelve toxicologists petitioned the FDA to ban aspartame: http://www.mpwhi.com/aspartame_letter_to_fda.pdf There have been efforts to ban aspartame from states, first in New Mexico twice, through the efforts of Stephen Fox, Mission Possible New Mexico, and Senator Gerald Ortiz y Pino. Also in Hawaii by Jade Bruhjell, Mission Possible Hawaii. Flacks and front groups rush in to defend the aspartame manufacturers. In the Philippines, efforts to ban were made by Numero Lim, Counselor. Also, efforts have been made in New Zealand and in the UK.
World expert on aspartame H. J. Roberts, M.D., published a 1,000 page medical text on the aspartame plague, "Aspartame Disease: An Ignored Epidemic", (www.sunsentpress.com) He discusses carcinogenic mechanisms such as the diketopiperazine derivative of aspartame which is a tumor-causing chemical. He states the formaldehyde released from the breakdown of methyl alcohol is a known carcinogen. Indeed, California's Proposition 65 states that no product with methanol or formaldehyde may come into that state without a cancer warning. So this poison is illegal in California. Since it's adulterated it's illegally on the market to begin with as it is against the law to ship an adulterated product for sale, violating Interstate Commerce Laws.
So why are pharmaceutical/chemical manufacturers permitted to exist regardless of how many laws they break? Because the FDA makes its living off drug companies who really call the shots at the Fatal Drugs Allowed office. In this case aspartame is in violation of adulteration laws, Interstate Commerce laws and the Delaney Amendment. Ajinomoto recently changed the name of aspartame to AminoSweet to duck the curse informed public outcry has
brought on their poison. Other names are NutraSweet, Equal, Spoonful, E951, Canderel and Benevia, for starters.
This deceit can cause aspartame-sensitized victims to have severe reactions such as the one an unwarned young woman had in the movie Sweet Misery: A Poisoned World. She became a Code Blue and resuscitated. Ajinomoto is now trying for approval of another aspartame product,, Advantame. Further a petition by industry is asking that aspartame not be labeled in dairy products and yogurt. http://www.rense.com/general92/foia.htm
The public also must be alerted not to use Splenda, a chlorocarbon poison, or Acesulfame potassium that caused cancer and leukemia in original studies. Just Like Sugar is a safe sweetener, HYPERLINK "http://www.justlikesugarinc.com" www.justlikesugarinc.com James Bowen, M.D. says if you go from aspartame to Splenda you will maintain the reactions from aspartame and pick up those from Splenda. Dr. Bowen who has ALS from aspartame told the FDA over 20 years ago that aspartame is mass poisoning of the American public and more than 70+ countries (today over 100).
Dr. Betty Martini, D.Hum, Founder
Mission Possible International
9270 River Club Parkway
Duluth, Georgia 30097
www.mpwhi.com, www.dorway.copm and www.wnho.net
Aspartame Toxicity Center, HYPERLINK www.holisticmed.com/aspartame
Aspartame Information List, www.mpwhi.com scroll down to banners
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)