The OWNERSHIP of ALL LIFE
Notes on Scandals, Conspiracies and Cover ups
by JON RAPPOPORT
1995. General Sani Abacha, the dictator of Nigeria, executes nine human rights activists, including Ken Saro-Wiwa. “Washington rang with calls for tough action against ... Abacha.” Clinton backed off, just as he backed off in China.
US oil companies are firmly entrenched in Nigeria. Mobil, Amoco, Chevron. Mobil puts together a report which announces that “US companies have a substantial and long-term interest in the stability” of Nigeria.
Translation. If human rights gain a foothold over and against tyranny, it would be bad for business. Abacha might kick out the US companies. Or a new ruler who really cared about his people might suddenly change labor laws and environmental laws in Nigeria and lessen corporate profits.
May 28, 1998.
Nigerian protestors take over the Chevron oil platform in the Niger Delta. They want Chevron to “contribute more to the development of the impoverished oil region where they live.” Chevron helps the government’s kill-and-go Mobile Police by transporting them by helicopter, at government request, to the platform. Violence breaks out. The Police kill two Nigerian activists and wound others. Oh yes. Governments usually do well when they let multinationals operate in their countries free and unhindered. In this case, “The [Nigerian] government owns 60 percent of the oil operation, while Chevron holds a 40 percent stake.” But the people of Nigeria don’t see much of that 60 percent.
In July 1997, the World Health Organization published papers on asbestos and safety which shocked several experts. These papers sounded like they had been written by representatives of asbestos companies.
Asbestos? Cancer? No problem.
The kicker is this. The World Trade Organization (WTO), the operating arm of the global “free trade agreement” called GATT, can consult this junk science on asbestos and use it to force countries—like France—who have completely banned the use of asbestos, to knuckle under. Canada, a major producer of asbestos, plans to challenge France’s ban as an unfair trade practice. That means Canada, before the WTO in Geneva, will argue that recent studies reveal asbestos to be safe. If the WTO agrees, France’s position is overridden. If France then refuses to import asbestos from Canada (“violating free trade”) they would be forced to pay annual gigantic fines or face serious international trade sanctions, in which member nations of GATT would boycott commerce with them. This is one way in which GATT was formulated to serve corporations over and against safety as defined by nations. GATT was yet another cornerstone in building a global economy run by and for the transnationals.
At the time of its passage by the US, GATT was debated by the Congress with barely a mention of the overriding corporate essence involved. The entire Congress is not that stupid.
That is the modern imperative emerging from large tyrannies. Introduce fake science whenever necessary and dress it up with the convincing imprimatur of established authority. Of course one corporate concern around the world is violence stemming from severe hunger and poverty. Whether some corporation in a given area was a primary cause of bringing on those conditions, or simply took advantage of them to dominate a nation, the corps worry is that business as usual could be disrupted. So “solve” violence. Governments, by and large, agree. Solve rebellion against injustice. Good for business, good for government.
In that light: Boston. Early 1970s. The Boston Violence Center. Two neurosurgeons: Vernon Mark and William Sweet. And a psychiatrist, a former student of Robert Heath, Frank Ervin. Heath, at Tulane University, was famous for sticking electrodes into people’s brains and measuring reactions.
Sweet told the New York state legislature that a brain disease he called psychomotor epilepsy was the cause of violence in American inner cities during the riots and protests of the 60s.
Three years later, Sweet, Mark, and Ervin obtained $500,000 from the National Institute of Mental Health, plus an attached grant from the US Justice Department. Until public exposure cancelled the grant monies, these three doctors were planning to look for areas of the brain that could be surgically removed to prevent ANY violent behavior.
In the early 70s, Louis West of the UCLA Neuropsychiatric Institute tried to obtain a million dollar grant from the state of California and the US Law Enforcement Assistance Administration. He would establish, north of LA, a Center for the Study and Reduction of Violence. West was interested in mind-altering drugs, brain surgery and chemical castration (cyproterone acetate) as potential cures for violent behavior. The target for testing? Inner-city youth, mostly black and Latino. West was also discussing the implantation of homing receivers in the brain.
The whole West proposal was publicly exposed and the funds were cancelled in 1974.
On February 11, 1992, Frederick Goodwin, the highest ranking psychiatrist in the federal government, head of the US Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health Administration, gave a speech to the National Health Advisory Council on his National Violence Initiative.
He compared inner city youth to monkeys and the inner city itself he characterized as a jungle. (“If you look, for example, at male monkeys, especially in the wild, roughly half of them survive to adulthood. The other half die by violence ... Now, one could say that ... maybe it isn’t just the careless use of the word when people call certain areas of certain cities jungles...”)
He advocated a program—which he said would be the prime priority for funding in 1994 for the National Institute of Mental Health. Medical personnel would go into inner city schools and measure children for biological markers predictive of future violent behavior.
Never mind that such markers have never been found. Goodwin was mainly implying that levels of a neurotransmitter in the brain called serotonin were very significant. Too little serotonin and more crime.
This hypothesis has never been proven.
However, there are drugs, such as Prozac, which have the capacity to raise levels of serotonin. So ... test young children and give them Prozac and other similar drugs. Toxic drugs which have garnered public reports of suicidal and murderous behavior.
Once again, public exposure has put this program on the shelf. But the pressure for this madness doesn’t stop.
Let me ask a simple question.
Why is it that certain drugs cause the symptoms they are supposed to cure?
Why can chemotherapy be carcinogenic?
Why does AZT attack the bone marrow, where certain cells of the immune system are manufactured, for a condition, AIDS, whose hallmark is supposed to be immune suppression? Why are the neuroleptic drugs able to create brain damage as they “treat,” for example, schizoid conditions in which the brain is said to be already impaired?
And why would any sane person suggest the possibility of (1) diagnosing children as “violence prone” and then (2) giving them drugs which have brought on violent behavior in people? Consider the Physician’s Desk Reference (PDR) statement on the Marion Merrell Dow antidepressant called Norpramin: “It is important that this drug be dispensed in the least possible quantities [whatever that might be in a specific case] to depressed outpatients since suicide has been accomplished with this class of drug.”
Some of the effects reported from Norpramin are: both elevating and lowering blood sugar levels, heart block, myocardial infarction, stroke, hallucinations, delusions, tremors, ataxia, peripheral neuropathy, seizures, dilation of urinary tract, bone marrow depression, vomiting, black tongue, hepatitis, impotence, painful ejaculation, testicular swelling, weight gain or loss. Does it occur to you that the addition of any one of these “side-effects” might cause an already depressed person to go over the edge and commit suicide?
Ritalin, the Ciba-Geigy speed-drug prescribed for over a million children in the US—for a mixed-bag “condition” called Attention Deficit Disorder—is said to have a paradoxical effect among the young. That is, although it causes hyperactivity among adults, for already hyperactive children it has a calming action.
The truth is, long-term use of this drug by children can bring back the hyperactivity in spades, along with other symptoms that are simply the results of speed use of any kind. Insomnia, rage, confusion, despair.
Diethylstilbestrol, an Eli Lilly drug, is a synthetic estrogenic substance used for breast cancer and prostate cancer as a palliative (despite the disastrous effects of its prior history with pregnant mothers).
The PDR states, under the heading of this drug, in bold letters, “WARNING: USE OF ESTROGENS HAS BEEN REPORTED TO INCREASE THE RISK OF ENDOMETRIAL CARCINOMA...”
Additionally, the January 28, 1994 Congressional Quarterly in its report, “Regulating Pesticides,” points out that pollutants in the environment are being found to contain estrogenic substances. And several researchers have linked exposure to estrogens with cancer, including breast cancer.
Yet, incredibly, diethylstilbestrol is used as a palliative treatment for breast cancer. The Du Pont Pharma Company makes a drug called Revia, which is used to treat alcohol dependence. Nevertheless, the PDR states, “Its use in patients with active liver disease must be carefully considered in light of its hepatotoxic effects ... Patients should be warned of the risk of hepatic injury and advised to stop the use of Revia and seek medical attention if they experience symptoms of acute hepatitis.”
Let’s see. Alcoholism. Liver disease? Sure. Isn’t that often a side-effect? So we’ll use a drug to treat that person which is very toxic to the liver. Good idea. Excellent idea. And while we’re at it, let’s use that drug which can bring on breast cancer to treat breast cancer. Sure. Why not? And the drug that mangles the bone marrow and creates immune suppression? Don’t tell me. Let me guess. We’ll use it for AIDS. Right. And the antidepressant that poses a risk of suicide? For depressed people who are thinking about suicide. Exactly. I see.
This has another spinoff.
The promotion of a myth that destruction caused by a chemical (or toxin) is really being caused by a germ. The germ, of course, must be treated with other chemicals. This was the case with the condition called SMON in Japan I described earlier. When people began to go blind and die and develop various nerve problems, this was called a disease, and the best of the Japanese medical establishment went after the problem—in order to find the germ that was causing the disease. It was only because of a courageous lawyer and certain medical rebels that the attention was pulled to a drug, clioquinol, and a corporation that made that drug, CibaGeigy. The chemical and company were the cause of SMON.
When a drug is given for symptoms, and the drug causes some of those symptoms, then overwhelmingly the physician tells the patient that he is simply suffering from the disease for which he is being treated. It’s a bind.
I know of cases in which perfectly healthy men were diagnosed as HIV positive, given AZT immediately, and then developed symptoms of “AIDS.” They went to their doctors, who told them they were just at a more advanced stage of HIV disease. Some believed this, continued to take AZT, and died.
Politically, a chemical is not as good as a germ—if a government or other group is in the business of causing terror and destruction of human life. First of all, with a chemical—like a pesticide which is causing nerve afflictions—when you publicly discover that it is the problem, a corporation will suffer instead of the victims. Furthermore, no doctor, as a cover, will be able to come on the scene and talk about disease and germs and med drugs. The cure for a chemical is to stop spreading the chemical and to prosecute the perpetrator.
Let us suppose that someone designs a terrorizing outbreak of “disease” which will suddenly overwhelm a community. It will make national news. Doctors will be brought in as ultimate authorities. We will have curfews and quarantines, and people will not be allowed to assemble, for fear of contagion.
The perfect repressive event, staged as a biological tragedy.
Human rights can be stripped away in a second, under the cover of medical necessity. The worshipped almighty doctor gets to play the hero, as he tells Dan Rather about death tolls and makeshift hospital tents and researchers bravely working around the clock to come up with a vaccine.
But there is no germ. There is no disease. A chemical was let loose and it is poisoning people. The chemical has a limited range. It runs its course. In the case of a germ, the results are much more iffy. People with strong immune systems often don’t get sick at all. The sci-fi idea that germ-perpetrators have an antidote (vaccine) ahead of time is a myth. Immunization is famous for failing to work, and for causing the very condition it is supposed to prevent. The literature is full of such situations. No—a chemical hiding behind the cover story about a germ is much more convincing.
Updated figures from the consumer organization, The Pure Food Campaign www.purefood.org): Presently there are 51.3 million acres in the US planted with genetically engineered crops. In the world? 69.5 million acres. In the US there are 34 different commercial crops that are genetically engineered. 500,000 to 600,000 cows are being injected every week in the US with the genetically engineered BGH (bovine growth hormone).
Virtually every processed food in the supermarket that is not organic and contains corn or soy has at least traces of genetically engineered corn or soy. How can I tell what is what? the consumer wails.
You can’t in 99.9999 percent of the cases, because, despite all sorts of federal rules about mandatory labeling of foods, the genetically engineered label is not mandatory. At the moment, because of heavy insistence from the private community of organic growers and consumers, the “organic” label on food still means among other things that the food is not genetically engineered.
As of December 1998, the following genetically engineered crops have been approved by the US government for commercial use:
Four versions of canola, radicchio, 12 versions of corn, 5 versions of cotton, papaya, 2 versions of potato, 3 versions of soybean, 2 versions of squash, 5 versions of tomato.
Then there are five genetically engineered microorganisms which have been approved for use as insect pest control in crop fields.
Here is a 1998 statement from Val Giddings, vice president of the Biotechnology Industry Organization, the trade group for biotech companies: for biotech companies:
"95% of plant-derived food material in the United States will come from genetically engineered techniques [which means that these complexes of altered natural plant materials will be OWNED by corporations]. It’ll take a little bit longer for these technologies to penetrate into the organic market, but it will.”
December 10, 1998.
A press release from NORML, the National Organization to Reform Marijuana Laws. “Legislation approved by Congress last month allocates $23 million toward developing a new [genetically engineered] fungus aimed at destroying drug-producing plants like marijuana..." Professor Paul Arriola, an expert in plant genetics at Elmhurst College in Illinois [stated], “It’s frightening to think that in the search for a quick fix, we might cause ourselves more long-term ecological and social problems...”
Like the genes that drift out of the plants in which they’ve been inserted, the fungus moves this way and that across the land.
Coming to your home.
An astonishing journal paper. November, 1993. FASEB Journal, volume 7, pp.1381-1385. Authors—Stephan Dirnhofer et al. Dirnhofer is from the Institute for Biomedical Aging Research of the Austrian Academy of Sciences.
A quote from the paper: “Our study provides insights into possible modes of action of the birth control vaccine promoted by the Task Force on Birth Control Vaccines of the WHO (World Health Organization).”
A birth control vaccine?
A vaccine whose purpose is to achieve non-pregnancy where it ordinarily could occur. Sterilization? This particular vaccine is apparently just one of several anti-fertility vaccines the Task Force is promoting. Yes. There is a Task Force on Birth Control Vaccines at WHO. This journal paper focuses on a hormone called human chorionic gonadotropin B (hCG). There is a heading in the paper (p.1382) called “Ability of antibodies to neutralize the biological activity of hCG.” The authors are trying to discover whether a state of no fertility can be achieved by blocking the normal activity of hCG. They state, “We conclude from our results that both the efficacy and safety of the WHO vaccine are not yet ensured.”
Another journal paper. The British Medical Bulletin, volume 49, 1993. “Contraceptive Vaccines” is the title of the paper. The authors—RJ Aitken et al. From the MRC Reproductive Biology Unit, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK. “Three major approaches to contraceptive vaccine development are being pursued at the present time. The most advanced approach, which has already reached the stage of phase 2 clinical trials [human trials testing efficacy], involves the induction of immunity against human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG). Vaccines are being engineered ... incorporating tetanus or diphtheria toxoid linked to a variety of hCG-based peptides ... Clinical trials have revealed that such preparations are capable of stimulating the production of anti-hCG antibodies. However, the long-term consequences of such immunity in terms of safety or efficacy are, as yet, unknown...” The authors are talking about creating an immune response against a female hormone. Training a woman’s body to react against one of its own secreted hormones. The authors state, “The fundamental principle behind this approach to contraceptive vaccine development is to prevent the maternal recognition of pregnancy by inducing a state of immunity against hGC, the hormone that signals the presence of the embryo to the maternal endocrine system.”
Stop the female body from recognizing a state of pregnancy. Get the body to treat the natural hormone hCG as an intruder, a disease agent, and mobilize the forces of the immune system against it. Create a synthetic effect, an engineered effect, by which the mother’s “maternal endocrine system” does not swing into gear when pregnancy occurs. The result? The embryo in the mother is swept away by her next period—since hGC, which signals the existence of the pregnancy and halts menstruation cycles, is now treated as a disease entity. The authors put it this way: “In principle, the induction of immunity against hGC should lead to a sequence of normal, or slightly extended, menstrual cycles during which any pregnancies would be terminated...”
Miscarriage would then be the “normal” state of affairs. These authors leave no doubt about who the target of this vaccine would be. They do not discuss women in Boston or Los Angeles. They do not talk about a woman here or there in America who wants to prevent pregnancy over the long term. The authors begin this paper with these words: “During the next decade the world’s population is set to rise by around 500 million. Moreover, because the rates of population growth in the developing countries of Africa, South America, and Asia will be so much greater than the rest of the world, the distribution of this dramatic population growth will be uneven...”
Two other vaccine methods are described. They “aim to prevent conception by interfering with the intricate cascade of interactive events that characterize the union of male and female gametes at fertilization.” There is one other point. Why is the hCG component of the contraceptive vaccine linked, as the authors say, to tetanus or diphtheria toxoid? Those are two vaccines already in use.
Apparently they function as necessary and indispensable carriers of the hCG component, so that the body will be fooled into making antibodies against, say, both the tetanus and the hCG. But of course the diphtheria and tetanus would also function as a social and political mask—to hide the sterilizing intent as millions of women in the Third World receive vaccines they are told will protect them against infections and disease.
A letter to a medical journal. The Lancet. p.1222. Volume 339. May 16, 1992. “Cameroon: Vaccination and politics.” Peter Ndumbe and Emmanuel Yenshu, the authors of this letter, report on their efforts to analyze widespread popular resistance to a tetanus vaccine given in the northwest province of Cameroon.
Two of the reasons people rejected the vaccine: it was given only to “females of childbearing age,” and people heard that a “sterilizing agent” was present in the vaccine.
Well-known journalist Alexander Cockburn, on the op ed page of the LA Times on September 8, 1994, reviews the infamous Kissinger-commissioned 1974 National Security Study Memorandum 200, “which addressed population issues.”
“... the true concern of Kissinger analysts [in Memorandum 200] was maintenance of US access to Third World resources. They worried that the ‘political consequences’ of population growth [in the Third World] could produce internal instability ... With famine and food riots and the breakdown of social order in such countries, [the Kissinger memo warns that] ‘the smooth flow of needed materials will be jeopardized.’”
In other words, too many people equals disruption for the transnational corporations who have stolen nations from those very people.
Cockburn notes that the writers of the Kissinger memo “favored sterilization over food aid.” He goes on to say that “By 1977, Reimart Ravenholt, the director of AID’s [US Agency for International Development] population program, was saying that his agency’s goal was to sterilize one-quarter of the world’s women.”
I have not confirmed reports from the Philippines and Mexico that their 1993 tetanus vaccination programs—which were supposedly administered only to women of childbearing age—involved multiple injections.
Tetanus vaccine protocols indicate that one injection is good for ten years. Therefore, multiple injections would indicate another motive for the vaccinations—such as the anti-fertility effect of hCG planted in the vaccine.
Inquiries to Philippine officials have gone unanswered.
The organization Population Research Institute (www.pop.org), in the November/December 1996 issue of its Review, published a report by David Morrison. Morrison states, “Philippine women may have been unwittingly vaccinated against their own children, a recent study conducted by the Philippine Medical Association (PMA) has indicated.
“The study tested random samples of a tetanus vaccine for the presence of human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG), a hormone essential to the establishment and maintenance of pregnancy ... The PMA’s positive test results indicate that just such an abortifacient may have been administered to Philippine women [how many?] without their consent.
“The PMA notified the Philippine Department of Health (PDOH) of these findings in a 16 September letter signed by the researchers and certified by its President. Using an immunological assay developed by the Food and Drug Administration in the United States, a three-doctor research panel tested forty-seven vials of tetanus vaccine collected at random from various health centers in Luzon and Mindanao. Nine were found to contain hCG in levels ranging from 0.191680 mIU/ml to 3.046061 mIU/ml. These vaccines, most of which were labeled as of Canadian origin, were supplied by the World Health Organization as part of a WHO-sponsored vaccination program.”
Morrison’s article would seem to indicate that the vials of vaccine tested came from a widespread immunization campaign rather than from a small pilot study of a few women So far, I have not been able to get a copy of this letter sent by the PMA to the Philippine Dept. of Health.
Stan Freni is a researcher who, in 1994, wrote a paper about fluorides, the substances in many toothpastes also pumped intentionally into the drinking water of many communities and cities.
America had been told many times, over decades, that anyone who thought fluorides were dangerous was a right wing nut with delusions about “the purity of bodily fluids.” That was a very successful PR campaign. Funny thing is, Stan Freni wrote his paper as an employee for the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
The title of the paper is “Exposure to High Fluoride Concentrations in Drinking Water is Associated With Decreased Birth Rates.”
It was published in the Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health (v.42, pp.109-121, 1994). Freni writes, “A US database of drinking water systems was used to identify index counties with water systems reporting fluoride levels of at least 3ppm (parts per million).” “... the annual total fertility rate (TFR) for women in the age range 10-49 yr. was calculated for the period 1970-1988,” Freni continues. He concludes, “Most regions showed an association of decreasing TFR with increasing fluoride levels.”
The FDA approves genetically engineered food for sale. Its policy is to allow food, with few exceptions, into the market WITH NO LABELS, NO IDENTIFICATION. Then if complaints ensue and people drop like flies, it will consider a recall.
This means that the FDA relies on the companies which engineer the food to succeed in making safe foods.
The soybeans, corn, canola, papaya, potatoes, tomatoes, squash, radicchio, and dairy products which are GE are “spliced with genes of bacteria or viruses.”
Genes from soil bacteria are used to produce the Bt toxin. These genes are implanted in crops which then make their own Bt toxin to kill pests.
Some foods also contain genes from a rabies vaccine.
“The following products may also be genetically altered or originate from genetically engineered organisms: enzymes used in the processing of cheese, candies, cookies, breads, cereals, corn syrups, oils, juices, detergents, dough conditioners, yeast, sugar, animal feed and vitamins.”
Putting genes into plants is not an exact science, in terms of where the gene is finally located every time or what the long-term effects will be. New proteins could be produced that are toxic, for example. The plant could mutate over time and become something else.
Roundup Ready soy is a patented name. A Monsanto property, it indicates soy beans which have been GEed to tolerate the Monsanto herbicide, Roundup.
The theory is, we will make a soybean which doesn’t fall down in the fields and die when we spray higher levels of Roundup on it. The higher levels of Roundup kill the weeds and that’s good.
However, in tests that have been done on the similar Vica faba bean, and on cows who eat GE soy, there is an indication that the GE soy reacts to the Roundup by developing more estrogenic substances within itself. Much has been written about the possible health effects of estrogenic materials. See earlier section on diethylstilbestrol and the accompanying warning about estrogens in the PDR.
Alfalfa, apple, broccoli, corn, rice, tobacco, walnut, grapes et al have been GEed with genes from the Bt bacterium.
This means these crops will produce their own pesticide, their own toxin, which will kill pests. But one problem is: these GEed plants will allow super survival for pests that are naturally resistant to Bt and THOSE pests will thrive and take over the scene.
Bt—not the genes—but the bacterium itself is used as a natural pesticide in organic farming, the only kind of farming that currently guarantees that GE is not used. So here is a very possible outcome.
The GE crops which contain Bt genes allow the rise of huge numbers of thriving pests which are resistant to Bt, and those pests then attack the organic crops in such numbers that organic farming is dealt a crippling blow.
A year or two ago, a website on The Great Boycott, a boycott against the eight largest pesticide companies in the world, received a note from a representative of Monsanto. He said we were saying Roundup was a bad thing, but in truth it breaks down into harmless elements. (I had started The Great Boycott in early 1996.)
I have now discovered a reference I would point this gentleman to. It occurs on page 49 of the excellent, compressed book, Genetically Engineered Foods (see end notes). The reference mentions that The Manchester Guardian, the well-known British newspaper, on December 15, 1997, reported that “the New York attorney general’s office forced Monsanto to withdraw advertisements claiming that Roundup is biodegradable and environmentally friendly. According to the school of health at the University of California, glyphosate [the active ingredient of Roundup] is the third most commonly reported cause of pesticide illness among farm workers.”
“Let’s go to Chile. We’ll take the corporate jet.”
“Why?” “I hear they have an ancient grain that no one has discovered.”
“We bring back samples and patent it.”
“We can do that?”
“Sure. The political climate is good for it. A few people did it with a type of quinoa grain in ’94.”
“The Clinton administration loves GE food.” “If we patent this grain from Chile in the US, and a company in Chile decides to export it here, we might be able to deny it entry with our patent, unless they pay us a royalty.”
“It looks pretty good for us. As time goes by, better and better.”
“Own the world.”
“Every bacteria, butterfly and lion.”
AIDS is a perfect cover story, a smokescreen behind which depopulation events and strategies can be staged.
“Well, they all got AIDS and died. It was HIV. Nothing could be done.”
I will not argue the complete case on AIDS here; I have done that in my 1988 book AIDS INC., which shows why HIV has never been proved to cause any disease, why the HIV test is a very wide net that catches all sorts of irrelevant body-conditions and falsely registers them as HIV positive, and why AIDS is not an It but a collection of various kinds of devastating immune suppressing conditions around the world. Caused by multiple factors.
That said, in the coming century, we may see HIV used in an accelerated way as a cover for depopulation in the Third World.
It is in fact already being used, steadily, as a cover for the generation to generation hunger and dirty water that plague Africa, that bring on various infections and widespread death.
Third World countries are viewed by elites as “colonies.” It is understood that the indigenous people are very angry at the incursion and corporate takeover of their lands.
Depopulation is considered a “strategy” that would keep the disruption of revolutions to a minimum in those places— and keep open corporate access to land and strategic minerals.
Too many people in this world, about 4 billion, cannot afford the products of massive companies. Multinationals sometimes think:
Our whole future lies in China. In which case, anything would justify the effort to open up that nation as a consumer base. In addition, certain elites—echoing Nazi plans—could be thinking: “We must eventually wipe off the map a number of ‘Third World peoples’ and repopulate those fertile lands with people who are primed and prepared and programmed and indoctrinated to join our global marketplace and become good citizens of the good life as we define it.”
Let us suppose that there is another force somewhat apart from the transnational corporations, and that is an aristocracy which is not particularly enamored of the global marketplace and “the gross cheapness” it implies. This breed wants very few people, perhaps under a billion on the face of the Earth.
This breed wants ecology in pristine form.
This breed might want, say, automation underground to provide all the blessings of technology. No smoke, no noise, few people.
Just gentility, and the modulated presence of artisans who, at the bottom of the hill, down from the estate, produce lovely things for the ruling class.
When a liver transplant would be needed by one of the ruling class, the doctors would go to a file drawer in a freezer lab, and they would remove a brand new liver which had been cloned years earlier from that person’s own flesh, and they would implant it.
This group of aristocrats would be very interested in depopulation, and they would be happy to sweep a number of loud corporations off the map too.
The following statement is from Global Dreams: “Over the past two decades images of consumption have been transmitted across the planet, but for most of the world the dreams are unrealizable for both economic and psychological reasons. About two-thirds of the people on earth cannot connect most of the glamorous products they see on billboards and on television with their own lives of poverty and struggle. The expanding cornucopia of globally distributed goods is largely irrelevant to the basic needs of most people in the world.
“New islands of affluence—in China and in a few other countries—are appearing on the horizon, but whether these enclaves are big enough to absorb the already huge but expanding global capacity for producing goods and services is dubious.”
Another summing up of the current paradigm by Barnet and Cavanaugh in Global Dreams: “The surplus of gifted, skilled, undervalued, and unwanted human beings is the Achilles heel of this emerging global [economic] system. The problem is starkly simple: An astonishingly large and increasing number of people are not needed or wanted to make the goods or to provide the services that the paying customers of the world can afford. The gathering pressures of global competition to cut costs [by laying off huge numbers of workers] threaten the vast majority of the 8 billion human beings expected to be living on earth in the first quarter of the next century with the prospect that they will be neither producers or consumers.”
(See Biotechnology and Development Monitor, No. 25, December 1995, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, p.1, “The Development of Anti-Fertility Vaccines, Challenging the Immune System,” by Ute Sprenger.)
In 1989, the World Health Organization held a symposium on its anti-fertility vaccine programs. The chairman gave his overview:
“Foremost in my mind during these discussions was our difficulty in assessing the urgency of the demographic crisis. To the extent that the impact of that crisis increases, the need for more effective family planning technologies must increase. At the very least, failure to develop something that may provide a more effective technology would be to take a grave and unnecessary risk.”
Of course by ‘demographic’ he meant the distribution of population globally.
The Task Force on Vaccines for Fertility Regulation was created at WHO in 1973. Ute Sprenger, writing in Biotechnology and Development Monitor (December 1995) describes this Task Force as a “global coordinating body for anti-fertility vaccine R&D ... such as antisperm and anti-ovum vaccines and vaccines designed to neutralize the biological functions of hCG.”
Sprenger indicates that, globally, as of 1995, there were 5 large and many small groups researching these vaccines.
1. WHO/HRP. HRP is the Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction. WHO/HRP is located in Switzerland. It is funded by “the governments of Sweden, United Kingdom, Norway, Denmark, Germany and Canada, as well as the UNFPA and the World Bank.”
2. The Population Council is a US group funded by “the Rockefeller Foundation, the National Institutes of Health [a US government agency, the largest single medical research facility in the world] and the US Agency for International Development [a federal agency notorious for its ongoing collaborations with the CIA].
3. National Institute of Immunology. Located in India, “Major financiers are the Indian government, the Canadian International Development Research Centre and the Rockefeller Foundation.”
4. The Contraceptive Development Program. This is US based, and is run on taxpayer monies.
5. The Center for Population Research. This is located at the National Institute of Child Health and Development, which is part of the US National Institutes of Health. This effort too is funded by taxpayer monies.
Sprenger mentions that universities in France, Germany, and Kenya, and the Medical Research Council in England are undertaking research and clinical trials with anti-fertility vaccines. Two European pharmaceutical firms, Schering in Germany and Organon in the Netherlands fund research in these vaccines.
One can see that this global research program is widespread and involves a consensus about the goal of anti-fertility or sterilization on a mass level.
To show how far researchers will go in this direction, and at what cost to what we would call a natural human being, the anti-fertility vaccine researched by The Population Council, already in clinical trials, targets a hormone called GnRH. This hormone, responsible for releasing hCG, is itself made inside the hypothalamus, in the brain. GnRH has a range of functions. It fine-tunes steroid hormones, Sprenger writes. So this antifertility vaccine “brings the hormonal cascade to a total standstill [and therefore] both male and female recipients need synthetic steroid hormone replacement...”
Journal paper. Pediatrics, January 1996, pp.53 and 58, “Changing Levels of Measles Antibody Titers [concentrations] in Women and Children...” Authored by Laurie E. Markowitz et al. First this: “An increasing proportion of children in the United States will respond to the measles vaccine at younger ages because of lower levels of passively acquired maternal measles antibodies.”
And this: “The major reason that children fail to respond to the measles vaccine is the presence of passively acquired maternal antibodies.”
In other words, a mother has developed natural antibodies [immune defense] against measles from her own childhood experience of the disease. She passes these antibodies on to her new baby, thus protecting for a time the baby against measles. This is all very clear and natural and easy to understand. However, from the vaccine manufacturer’s point of view, it’s a problem. Why? Because the mother’s powerful antibodies against measles, in being passed to her baby, render useless the measle vaccine that could be given to the baby.
However, the vaccine makers are optimistic: “Because of widespread use of the [measles] vaccine in the United States and high immunization levels after entry into school, most women of childbearing age in the United States now acquire measles immunity from vaccination, not wild measles virus infection. Because vaccination results in lower antibody titers [concentrations] than does natural infection, these women are likely to pass lower levels of the measles antibody to their infants.”
More and more mothers, as a result of their own vaccinations against measles when they were children, now get their immunity against the disease from the vaccine, not from naturally experiencing measles and building up immune defenses that way. Vaccine-acquired immunity in the mothers is weaker than natural immunity. Therefore, these vaccinated mothers will pass fewer antibodies against measles on to their babies—and their babies will be able to respond to the measles vaccine.
If this seems absurd, it is. From several angles. Most important, in the absence of vaccines, a child gets measles and experiences a full inflammatory response. This makes him stronger, this makes his immune system more capable. When health officials mention that more very young children and babies are coming down with measles these days and therefore need the protection of the vaccine, they ignore the obvious fact that measles are visiting younger babies because their mothers are passing fewer antibodies on to them to protect them—and THIS is because their mothers were vaccinated and are not giving them the more powerful natural antibodies. There are even more absurd and more basic problems, but we will leave them for another time. Here is another quote from the Pediatrics paper: “Our data indicate that, in the future, when virtually all women of child-bearing age will have vaccine-induced immunity, the recommended age for vaccination may be able to be lowered without diminishing vaccine efficacy.”
This is a perfect example of introducing a synthetic replacement-version of natural events— when the natural events are without difficulties.
Add into this the very frequent bad vaccine reactions that occur with all immunizations, and you have a prescription for disaster. But the drive to make synthetic life processes and $ increases among the corporate generals.
Of course, whether anyone is actually helped by such a vaccine is beside the point. The vaccine makers are looking for clinical signs that their vaccine is causing the body to make antibodies.
Antibodies, however, are just part of the surveillance system of the whole immune system, and many people who are vaccinated and then show antibodies are not, in fact, protected. They go on to get the disease.
We are now in a shadow world, in a charade of “clinical markers” and “positive signs” and “expected reactions,” all of which have been assembled to show that a medicine or a treatment or a vaccine is working ... but in truth such indications may be irrelevant.
Which makes up what a court would call depraved indifference to life.
To flesh out US population-control policy a little further: President Richard Nixon, in a classified National Security Council Memorandum, number 970, on “The New US Foreign Assistance Program,” moved the whole issue of population control to major status in US foreign policy.
Following up, his Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger, on April 24, 1974, sent a memorandum to the secretary of agriculture, the secretary of defense, the director of the CIA, the deputy secretary of state and the director of AID (the Agency for International Development).
Kissinger asked for a study to be done concerning “the impact of world population growth on US security and overseas interests.”
The study was done. It was issued—confidentially, of course—on December 10, 1974. In late 1975, the National Security Council wrote a directive which essentially made the conclusions of the study into US foreign policy.
The study said that a power shift could soon occur because Third World nations were expanding their populations. Two prominent examples mentioned were Brazil and Nigeria. (Their currencies and economies are now in shambles.)
It discussed the US military/industrial need for minerals in the Third World, and the possibility that “[local] revolutionary actions” there could bring about “expropriation of foreign [US] interests.”
The study recommended that the US government link its foreign aid to proof from key nations that they were lowering their birth rates. It also recommended major media efforts in these countries aimed at getting people to have fewer children. 92
Suppose that one day in the not too distant future, scientists find a reliable way to clone a liver or a heart or a leg. How likely is it that this technology will be exported to the slums of Calcutta? It is one thing to say that a man drives around Beverly Hills in a Rolls and stops in for lunch at the Polo Lounge, while another man in Kampala who is starving drinks water that has been pumped in directly from sewage without processing.
It is another thing to say that a man in Beverly Hills who reaches 60 can have, as a matter of course, a clone of his own heart transplanted in two hours, while a man with a diseased heart in the slums of Sao Paulo cannot, under any circumstances, obtain the same favor.
Perhaps these two examples are actually almost the same. But because we still retain a vague residual feeling that healing should be available to all, we see, in the second case, a sign that the world of the rich and the world of the poor would be irretrievably split.
How can a world like that survive?
And, therefore, how far a leap is it for certain influential and very rich people, fearful of their position, to want to eliminate the have-nots altogether?
Proponents of GE food say that the corporations are Jesus Christs who will feed the world, that the world cannot be fed any other way.
This is clearly false.
Many systems of agriculture exist which, if practiced well and widely, would alleviate hunger in every country.
Food does not have to be GE to work. Questions about the effects of GE food on humans, which of course have never been answered, are well illustrated by the authors of the book, Genetically Engineered Foods. They use the 1989 story of the tryptophan scandal. This amino acid, sold widely as a food supplement, was produced by many companies, but one company chose to manufacture it by GE. Bacteria were engineered to produce tryptophan, but when the bacteria did they made such large amounts it caused a reaction within themselves, and a new toxin was secreted in tiny, tiny amounts.
Apparently that toxin caused the syndrome named eosinophilia-myalgia. It killed 37 people. 1500 had partial paralysis. 5000 became ill. If minute toxic changes like this occurred within GE crops, it would be very difficult to trace.
In the major report, Excessive Force: Power, Politics, and Population Control, by the Washington DC group, Information Project for Africa, Inc., the authors discuss what may become a widespread form of sterilization in the world: the quinacrine pellet.
“When inserted into a woman’s uterus, quinacrine inflicts burn-like injuries, causing sufficient damage to bring about permanent infertility. Thus it promises to be the long-sought non-surgical technique for permanent sterilization, a fact which was not overlooked by the authors of a [May 29] 1989 commentary in the International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics who asserted that the drug could potentially increase female sterilizations in India by about a million a year. Quinacrine has several known side effects—among them ‘toxic psychosis,’ which means chemically- induced insanity.” (See “Delivery Systems for Applying Quinacrine as a Tubal Closing Agent” by Robert G. Wheeler, in Female Transcervical Sterilization, Hagerstown, Maryland, Harper and Row, 1983)
An AP story, “Birth-Control Vaccine is Reported in India,” appeared in the Boston Globe on October 10, 1992.
New Delhi: “Scientists said yesterday they have created the first birth-control shot for women, effective for an entire year ... [after which] a booster shot is needed.
“The main element of the injection is beta-hCG, which triggers the production of antibodies to hCG, or human chorionic gonadotropin, a hormone essential in sustaining pregnancy, scientists said.”
On January 6, 1998, National Public Radio, on its All Things Considered, had reporter Joe Palca interview a physicist and fertility researcher from Chicago, Richard Seed. Seed said he was raising money to start a human clone clinic in the Chicago area.
Author of a 1983 article in the Journal of the American Medical Association on egg transference from a fertile woman to an infertile woman, Seed said that he and his colleagues were prepared to start a human cloning attempt within 90 days.
This method involves the removal of DNA from a woman’s egg and the replacement of it with the DNA of the person to be cloned.
There are unknowns in this method.
“Look at these regions on the globe marked in blue.”
“Very unproductive countries.”
“Not only do they have almost non-existent GNPs, they don’t have a lot of natural resources. So we accelerate our depopulation efforts there.”
“Repopulate the areas with companies ready to go, ready to set up towns of employees run according to company rules.”
“Create economies out of nothing.”
“Exactly. And eventually, we may be able to synthesize part of the population.”
“In what way?”
“By cloning. Create workers according to specs.”
“Sounds technologically difficult.”
“Even if it takes a hundred years.”
“Yes. Imagine it.”
“So we would have a two-level research effort.”
“On the one hand, we talk about cloning babies as an option, as a reproductive right for a woman. Couch it all in terms of freedom and choice. With all the research that comes out of this, we use the best methods for what you’re suggesting. Mass cloning according to specs.”
“Of course we’d have secret research projects going on at the same time.”
“Under Pentagon contracts.”
“Eventually we could replace populations in nations that don’t seem to respond to the consumer economy as a paradigm.”
“Depopulate and repopulate.”
“There are now only 800 million people in the global marketplace. This would be a way to jumpstart that. The biggest corporations are on permanent slowdown in their assembly lines. They can actually produce products for the planet two times over.”
“Yes. We would also depopulate the areas where indigenous peoples could cause too much disruption to the corporations that have taken over their lands. I mean, it’s all an experiment, right?”
In 1987, journalist Robert Lederer wrote about a vaccine against hog cholera. The serum was developed from pig blood which turned out to be tainted with African Swine Fever (ASF).
“Thus,” Lederer suggests, “during mass [pig] vaccination programs, the tainted vaccine prevented hog cholera but also induced ASF on a mass scale.”
Ben Dupuy, editor of New York’s Haiti Progress, told Lederer he believed the hog cholera vaccine was intentionally introduced into Haiti to blast the poor-peasant infrastructure. With the death of their pigs during the ensuing ASF epidemic of 1979, Dupuy maintains peasants were forced to pay $100 apiece for new pigs brought in from the US. Of course, they couldn’t afford this. The idea was to drive peasants off their land into low-paying urban jobs and, from the outside, establish a new Haitian economy (US controlled) of huge farms and factories.
In this regard, Lederer also cites an article from the New York Native, December 17, 1984, in which Jane Teas (Harvard School of Public Health) remarks that ASF first broke out in Haiti in a well-populated valley that was due to be flooded, as part of a hydroelectric dam project.
Lederer, in a 1987 article in Covert Action (Number 28, “Precedents for AIDS?”), summarizes a series of tests on prisoners which could rightly be called chemical warfare:
“From 1965 to 1968, 70 prisoners, mostly black, at Holmesburg State Prison in Philadelphia, were the subjects of tests by Dow Chemical Company of the effects of dioxin, the highly toxic chemical contaminant of Agent Orange. Their skins were deliberately exposed to large doses and then monitored to watch the results. According to the doctor in charge, Albert Kligman, a University of Pennsylvania dermatologist, several subjects developed lesions which ‘lasted for four to seven months, since no effort was made to speed healing by active treatment.’ At a 1980 federal Environmental Protection Agency hearing where the experiments came to light, Kligman testified that no follow-up was done on subjects for possible development of cancer. This was the second such experiment commissioned by Dow, the previous one carried out on 51 ‘volunteers,’ believed also to have been prisoners.”
NA Mitchison, writing in the journal Current Opinion in Immunology (“Gonadotropic Vaccines”), 1990, volume 2, p.725:
“At present, the most advanced birth control vaccines are based on human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) ... [after] 2 decades of development... ”
“I have been told that India’s next 5-year plan makes provision for their introduction [the hCG vaccines] as part of the national birth control program.”
From The Lancet, June 11, 1988, pp.1295-1298, “Clinical Trials of a WHO Birth Control Vaccine,” by WR Jones, et al: “Thirty surgically sterilised female workers, divided into five equal groups for different vaccine doses, received two intramuscular injections six weeks apart. Over a six-month follow-up there were no important adverse reactions, and potentially contraception levels of antibodies to hCG developed in all subjects.”“Since 1974, the Task Force on Birth Control Vaccines of the World Health Organization (WHO) ... has promoted the development of a contraceptive vaccine directed against the pregnancy hormone human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG).”
Again, WHO does not develop a vaccine like this for the independent woman in Shaker Heights who doesn’t want to get pregnant. We are talking about mass injections over wide populations.
The Lancet, 4 June 1988, p.1272: “During the recent National Immunisation Campaign (vaccination for childhood diseases and tetanus toxoid for pregnant women), in some villages [of Thailand] the women escaped and hid in the bushes thinking that they were going to be given injections to stop them having children.”
From the LA Times, February 18, 1999, by Times legal writer Henry Weinstein: “In the latest front of Holocaust-related litigation, a federal class-action suit was filed Wednesday on behalf of survivors of Nazi death camps, alleging that Bayer AG, the giant German owned chemical and pharmaceutical company, participated in cruel medical experiments by the infamous Dr. Josef Mengele.
“The suit ... alleges that Bayer ‘monitored and supervised those experiments, and used them as a form of research and development for its corporate benefit.’
“... On Tuesday, Bayer AG was among a group of a dozen German companies that said they would participate in a $1.7 billion fund to compensate individuals who had been used as slave labor and forced labor during World War II.
“The plan was announced by German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, who said a primary role of the fund was ‘to counter lawsuits, particularly class-action lawsuits, and to remove the basis of the campaign being led against German industry and our country.’
“... The named plaintiff in the new suit ... is Eva Mozes Kor, one of 1,500 sets of twins subjected to grotesque experiments at the Auschwitz concentration camp during the Holocaust. The research on twins, which Mengele directed, was designed to investigate the effect of numerous bacteria, chemicals and viruses on the human body ... Frequently, the Nazis decided that to complete the research it was necessary to kill both twins so that doctors could conduct autopsies...”
“... According to the suit, ‘Bayer provided toxic chemicals to the Nazis ... Some of those experiments involved injecting concentration camp inmates with toxic chemicals and germs known to cause diseases in order to test the effectiveness of various drugs manufactured by Bayer.’
“... According to the suit, post-World War II publications reported that Bayer participated in the experiments, ‘giving orders to [Nazi] SS Major Dr. Helmuth Vetter, who was associated with Bayer and who was stationed in several concentration camps. Dr. Vetter experimented in Auschwitz with medications ... that were administered to healthy inmates who had first been rendered ill from infections that were intentionally administered through pills, powders, injections or enemas.’
“Vetter was sentenced to death by an American military court in 1947 and executed in 1949.”
Force and deception are foundation-stones of tyrannies. Around the world these tyrannies compete and also join together to form great secret empires. Secret? Only because their publics in the industrial nations do not believe that governments and transnational corporations are One. The governments are the enforcers; the corporations are the profit makers. In other circles this is called organized crime.
Here are several more examples of boggling stories which somehow do not make it on to the nightly news.
These stories would be “bad for corporate business,” and therefore bad for the careers of the anchors, editors and producers who permitted them to be aired and repeated.
1. On July 2, 1997, an extraordinary letter was sent to Jeff Green, head of Citizens for Safe Drinking Water, in San Diego.
It came from a union, the National Federation of Federal Employees, local 2050, based in Washington DC.
The subject is fluoridation of community and city drinking water. Here is the letter in full. It contains explosive points:
“I am pleased to report that our union, Local 2050, National Federation of Federal Employees, has voted to co-sponsor the California citizens’ petition to prohibit fluoridation of which your organization is the sponsor. Our union represents, and is comprised of, the scientists, lawyers, engineers and other professionals at the headquarters of the US Environmental Protection Agency here in Washington, D.C.
“A vote of the membership was taken at a meeting during which Professor Paul Connett and Dr. Robert Carton made presentations, respectively, on the recent toxicological and epidemiological evidence developed on fluoride and past actions (and their bases) of Local 2050 with respect to fluoride in drinking water. The membership vote was unanimous in favor of co-sponsorship.
“It is our hope that our so-sponsorship will have a beneficial effect on the health and welfare of all Californians by helping to keep their drinking water free of a chemical substance for which there is substantial evidence of adverse health effects and, contrary to public perception, virtually no evidence of significant benefits.
“These judgements are based, in part, on animal studies of the toxicity of fluoride coupled with the human epidemiology studies which corroborate them, and the studies of rates of decayed, missing, and filled teeth in the United States (fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities) versus non-fluoridated European countries.
“Our members’ review of the body of evidence over the last eleven years, including animal and human epidemiology studies, indicate a causal link between fluoride/fluoridation and cancer, genetic damage, neurological impairment and bone pathology. Of particular concern are recent epidemiology studies linking fluoride exposures to lower IQ in children.
“As professionals who are charged with assessing the safety of drinking water, we conclude that the health and welfare of the public is not served by the addition of this substance to the public water supply.
“Best wishes to you and your organization for success in keeping what would otherwise be a hazardous waste of the fertilizer industry from being disposed of in California’s drinking water supplies.
J. William Hirzy, Ph.D.,
Note that fluorides are called a hazardous waste from a non-related corporate activity. And if that hazardous waste results in “cancer, genetic damage, neurological impairment, and bone pathology,” there are ready medical labels and sub-labels for these conditions which serve to confuse and divert public attention from the real cause—and there are medical “treatments,” which themselves are toxic and create even more distance between the original corporate cause and public awareness. That is the way the game is often played, and we have to realize it.
2. On the Monsanto corporation website for the UK (www.monsanto.co.uk), there is a menu item called Biotech Primer. The question listed under that item is: “What about consumer information?” Here is Monsanto’s answer:
“Labelling helps consumers decide what they buy. Decisions about the labelling of foods containing ingredients from genetically modified crops are made by the European Union and the UK food industry labels many of these foods.
“In order to help improve public understanding of modern biotechnology and genetic modification, the food industry in this country is working to keep consumers better informed. Public information is a priority and we at Monsanto are working to achieve this through a variety of different approaches.”
Presumably there is some intrinsic difference between American and British humans, because in America Monsanto has done everything it can to prevent mandatory labels which would tell consumers whether they are buying GE food. Maybe the Brits have a gene which makes it necessary for them to know, and the Americans don’t, so they can live in the dark.
3. In Los Angeles, the Foundation for Advancements in Science and Education released an astounding report (spring 1998): “Pesticide Exports from US Ports, 1995-1996.” The report noted that, “Despite a quarter century on the verge of export reform, American policy makers have not acted to stop the export of pesticides forbidden in the US.”
Here is the abstract of the report:
“Analyzing data from US Customs shipping records, researchers at the Foundation for Advancements in Science and Education found that more than 338 million pounds of hazardous pesticides were exported from US ports during 1995 and 1996. The majority went to destinations in the developing world. During this period, at least 21 million pounds of pesticides which are forbidden to be used in the United States were exported. These estimates must be regarded as conservative in view of the fact that specific names were omitted from the shipping records for nearly two-thirds of the pesticides exported. In fact, between 1992 and 1996, more than 2 billion pounds of pesticides left US ports with their specific chemical names omitted from publicly accessible shipping records—a rate well over 500 tons per day.”
4. Ronnie Cummins, in issue #17 of Food Bytes, writing on “Global Resistance Against Monsanto and GE,” reports that February 12, 1999 page-one stories in the British press exposed the health dangers of genetically engineered potatoes. Dr. Arpad Pustazi — and a backup panel of “20 international scientists” — have come forward with a series of animal studies which show the potatoes caused immune system damage, and damage to “thymuses, kidneys, spleens, and guts.”
This is just the sort of research that could set off a public panic. Just after Dr. Pustazi announced his first set of findings in August, 1999, he was fired from his job at a government research facility, the Rowett Institute in Scotland.
A Final Note on AIDS
Looking back on AIDS INC., a book I wrote in 1987-88, I now see that AIDS is the best example I have found of the perverse depicting of human misery by large interests for their own protection and $.
Start with this. When Rachel Carson wrote her book, Silent Spring, she provoked outrage at the underlying idea that major American companies could poison the water, ground, and air of this world and then lie through their teeth about it. [ I guess I should finish Carson's book dc ]
Eventually, however, people began to see that corporations were not models of civilized behavior. The same evolution of public opinion is occurring in the field of mainstream medicine. It is now more widely known that huge segments of the medical profession—see Peter Breggin’s Toxic Psychiatry, for example—are entirely grounded in arbitrary descriptions of illnesses which do not even exist. People are suffering and dying, but not because of the fancy-named conditions which they are said to have.
Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD) has never been found to be a disease with a physical cause. Instead, it turns out to be a grab-bag of behaviors which teachers and parents find objectionable in children. Add to that actual nutritional deficiencies and toxic conditions caused by allergies, serious reactions to food additives and to vaccines and medical drugs, to pesticides, to excessive amounts of refined sugar, and you have what ADD actually is. A group of conditions stemming from various causes and combinations of causes which have been falsely welded together under one name with one treatment, Ritalin, a cheap speed-type drug.
This absurd ADD diagnosis and this treatment achieves several ends, if we stop looking at the world through rose colored glasses. It brings in lots of dollars to Novartis, which makes Ritalin, and it protects food corporations from giant liability in causing illness in children. It also lets teachers and parents off the hook ... they no longer need to feel challenged or responsible for the way their children are acting. Leave it to the doctor—who, frankly, doesn’t know what hell he is doing.
A rather disgusting picture, all in all. Small amounts of dexedrine or cocaine or possibly procaine could, for a short time, improve a child’s concentration. That’s the initial effect of many drugs. But we aren’t rushing to buy cocaine for children. We know better. No, instead, we’re worshipping at the fount of the white coats, the doctors, with their obfuscating language and their backups of huge pharmaceutical firms who sell programs of treatment which are harmful. Which include Ritalin, pharmacologically the same as the amphetamines [ any parent who allows a doctor to put his or her child on Ritalin is anything but a parent dc ]
In the case of AIDS, it turns out that many interests are served by welding together huge and diverse kinds of immune suppression around the planet, tying them all to a germ called HIV and calling “it” AIDS. Money is made for Glaxo Wellcome, the British firm that makes and sells AZT. Manufacturers of immune suppression—everything from toxic medical drugs to pesticides to disgusting public opinion rallied against gay men—benefit from the smokescreen called AIDS.
And worst of all, by hypnotizing and terrifying people all over the world about HIV, and by failing to diagnose what, in any given case, really is causing the depression of a person’s immune system, you close to the door to a cure and you sentence that person to a life of pain, or to death.
That’s how “advantageous theories” can cause death, and that’s how forms of poisoning which could bring legal liability down on certain elite corporations is diverted into other channels, where exalted experts hold sway, let the real perpetrators off the hook, befuddle everyone with their so-called expertise, and wave their syringes and prescription pads as societies fall apart.
Like it or not, that’s the story.
Is your solution to what is in these pages simply casting a vote for a Republican or a Democrat and then going home? Do you really think so?
notes and source