|
CTM
Eclub digest version, 28th November 2005
|
||||
|
Up Close and Personal
Just having returned with Samantha from touring Australia and New Zealand, I would like to extend my special thanks to all those who attended the tour everywhere, and especially to those who went to so much trouble to help organize. It was a fantastic experience and marvelous to catch up with so many old friends. As always, I owe a special debt to Marlene Stopp and her team at Credence Events Management, Kirstyn Marriott at Credence Australia, and Philip, Steve, Sheryl and Pam at Credence UK, without whom, quite simply, these tours would not be possible. Not having even cleared my throat of the last BA sandwich, I turn to a pile of articles that make up this month's EClub and see a strong confirmation of what I have spoken of throughout 2005. 75% More Oldies are Killed off by Doctors Many of you, still nervous about the 'Bird Flu', can take heart from our special section this month on the subject. Also, Steve Ransom's Sex, Death and Custard - A New Flandemic Imminent takes a lighthearted look at how easily the wool can be pulled over our eyes. Then we have thermography versus mammography. Ladies, scan by all means, but use non-toxic digital thermal imaging, not radiation - earlier detection, no harmful radiation, etc. The global company we recommend with no strings attached is Meditherm. The UK's Ministry of Defence is admitting it probably knew the dangers of the Gulf War jabs and still sat on its jacksie, no surprises there. The British health bill for bad diet has actually been quantified and now we're being told what good food really can do for us. More on the problems of drinking milk (a great site also is www.notmilk.com). On another subject, the UN responds hot-foot to the tsunami disaster by sending boxes of condoms and IUDs to the stricken areas to assist the victims' contraceptive needs (nice to know among the tragedy, the UN still reserves the right to safe sex). The EU reckons fluoridation's illegal and intends to do something about it, and it might just. On the other hand, the world's newest superpower has failed to have its accounts signed off for eleven years straight now, making them more than eligible for the Enron Corporate Achievement Award for accounting consistency. Brussels also wishes to set up a satellite network to rival America's to keep an eye on us all. Nice. It's a funny old world, isn't it? And I guess after Christmas, they'll be more of it. Can I still say Christmas? So, what's for the new year? The next tour is entitled
What's News? I'll be looking
at the con of the spectacles industry. When your eyesight's fuzzy, do
glasses help in the long run? What you can do to adjust your eyesight
naturally. The latest health news will also be covered on cancer, heart
disease, weight loss, etc. In Advanced Attitude, I will be looking at
honesty, loyalty, dignity, responsibility, self-control, confidence, hopefulness
- in other words, simple ideas to strengthen character, overcome problems,
and become more efficient. But hold that for the New Year. On the run-up
to Christmas, slow things down gradually, unwind and look forward to having
some fun. Plan things to do, projects, outings, to keep boredom away.
Try to avoid living in front of the idiot box, guzzling the Milk Tray
and brandy snaps. Going away? It helps to break behavioural patterning
to clear out of your neighbourhood for a few weeks so work patterns cannot
maintain themselves (mums, this applies to you especially, since you often
don't get the chance to change your routine and relax). This is the life that has been appointed to me,
I have a right to live and enjoy it. There's nothing like Christmas to reflect on your heading and discuss it with others. I will check back with one more bulletin before the New Year. In the meantime, don't spend too much, have a great finish to the year and walk around looking like you deserved it! With best wishes Phillip Day
Are the British Racist? A cataclysmic weapon has been deployed against Britain in the form of mass, unchecked immigration, coupled with the drafting of new legislation which will actually make it illegal to voice your opposition to EU policies of the day. But are the British who speak up about such matters 'racist' or 'xenophobic', or are they not justified in feeling apprehensive and nervous about what is going on around them? The future has now seen 'Islamic fundamentalism' take to the streets in Britain to propagate its own violence, since radical Islam, by its own admission, refuses to assimilate into Britain's new secular society, let alone the previous Christian one. This has already begun to happen. In January 2003, a make-shift chemical lab was uncovered in London which had been manufacturing the poison ricin, potentially capable of causing a horrid death on a large scale. It seems the gang responsible was comprised entirely of Algerian 'asylum seekers'. A raid a few days later by police on an address in Manchester was supposed to track down the mastermind behind the ricin operation. Police however came upon three further Algerians, including the alleged mastermind, Kamel Bourgass, who were arrested while the house was searched. Incredibly, they weren't handcuffed. In what appears to be a deadly exercise in futility, Bourgass managed to break free from his captors, grab a kitchen knife, and (I have at this point legally to say 'allegedly') went on a sticking rampage. DC Stephen Oake, a Special Branch officer, was killed instantly and three others wounded in front of their comrades. Later efforts on behalf of this author to discover why on earth the three had not been handcuffed while the house was being searched uncovered the theory that perhaps police were unwilling to handcuff ethnic suspects because it might be deemed 'inappropriate'. Frankly the British people don't know what to do. This
is a new type of warfare, and we haven't been trained to fight it. Is
extremism being allowed to flourish in our country for fear of 'not
playing fair with the immigrants'? This too plays into the hands of
the EU, which intends to draft more military-style police units implementing
more legislation, further curtailing personal freedoms. Another problem is that terrorists can gain access to Britain relatively easily in order to wreak havoc on soft targets, as we almost saw with the ricin episode in North London. Such terrorist events, while grotesque and macabre to the public, in fact greatly serve the ends of the socialist architects. Another high-profile terrorism shooting, for instance, provokes the usual round of gun-control legislation, further disarming law-abiding citizens, while at the same time ensuring that the police become more heavily armed and the serious weaponry is left in the hands of hardened criminals and troublemakers. Old Soviet The political left in Britain endorses any move that contributes towards the break-up of the state and its acceleration into their utopia of either a pan-European superstate or global federation. Reckless immigration, along the lines we are seeing today, appears to be deliberately encouraged, through inaction, by the government of the day, even as it was by previous administrations, regardless of party politics. Britain - a cultural war-zone There was once a Britain where citizens regarded themselves
as having the highest ideals of decency and justice. But the character
of today's Britons, occupying the same place on the globe as their empirical
predecessors, would be as alien to those old adversaries Gladstone and
Disraeli as the dark side of the moon. Welcome home Where there are cultural melting pots in Britain, nerves are tuned tighter than a Stradivarius. Why should that be if multiculturalism has been the success its Pollyanna architects have often boasted? White racists stalk black ones, each garbed in the predictable extremism of the other, while neither can see how alike they have actually become. White police, wearing military-style uniforms and Kevlar, learn harsh, politically correct lessons trying to arrest minorities, and now give such areas a wide detour. Others crouch in Ford Transits with their CS gas and anger-proof riot shields, waiting for trouble. Today, there are no-go areas in Britain for whites. While millions of the silent majority resent what has happened and seek a lawful, political solution from one of their major political parties, not one speaks for them. The Big Three, New Labour, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats, are all pushing for the death of Britain. New Labour waved the Union Jack at the Queen's Golden Jubilee, while chortling inwardly at its coming demise. The soft and vacillating Conservative right rubberstamps a multiculturalism it secretly hates, grinning sheepishly up at the British Tower of Babel which hideously offends it, just to appear relevant with the trendy modernizers of Blair's 'Third Way'. Britain's special relationship
with her immigrants It's not that British people are overly welcoming to their immigrants either. They're not. Rooted firmly in a culture that has celebrated personal liberty for centuries, we simply respect the desire of others to better their predicament, the same as we would try to do in their position. The liberal left has made great political capital out of the good old bloke of a Brit, who is stung when accused by them of institutional racism, because most of us don't actually see ourselves that way. What alarms Britons today are the sheer numbers of illegal and possibly criminal elements flooding in while a hopelessly politically correct parliament looks with embarrassment the other way. We are especially angry when we see erstwhile British colonials getting a kicking from tin-horn dictators like Robert Mugabe, and worse, our own government cynically ignoring white Zimbabweans' impassioned pleas for help as their farmers are butchered by machete-wielding squatters or shot. This smacks of running away from your mates in a fight and that's not what we're about. To what extent did 'not upsetting Brussels' figure in Mr Blair's decision to ignore Mugabe? Are the British institutionally racist? Well if we are, you'd be hard put to explain why British army and civilian personnel went native in India, Africa and a hundred places in between during the empire years, even as they do today. Millions of Brits over the centuries have married foreign spouses, incorporated foreign cuisine and adopted foreign ways and brought all those great foreign words into our tremendously versatile language. In general, I don't think we've had a problem with race at all. We've enjoyed trading freely with everyone who was over 16 and could fog a mirror, regardless of caste or colour. Today, the huge contributions the British have made to the world are still venerated in South Africa, India, Pakistan, Australia, Canada, America, New Zealand and a hundred other countries. Certainly not much of an indication that the British culture is at war with the natives, is it? In fact, name another empire that has EVER withdrawn from its powers and still enjoys the kind of relationship we do with most of our former colonies today? The British, racists? Hardly. Fed up with having our hospitality abused? Absolutely. So Britain is to get the destiny she deserves, Lenin is to have his day. The state is God. Multiculturalism and political correctness became the new faith and morality for Britain round about the time the nation realised it had lost God in the mud somewhere between the guilt of Passchendaele and the Anglican Lambeth Conferences. And to justify all of the upheaval and the misery and the treason and the lying, the woman in the street and the man on the Clapham omnibus were told the ultimate fib that all this change in Britain was necessary because there were serious things wrong with their country. But there weren't. (c) Excerpted from Ten Minutes to Midnight, by Phillip Day Further Resources The
Real Face of the European Union by Phillip Day, video documentary
(PAL format only) EU to Build Network of Spy Satellites
The multi-billion-pound system, known as "Global Monitoring for Environment and Security" (GMES), should be up and running by 2010, a commission spokesman said. Announcing the launch of a "pilot stage" for GMES, the commission stressed its "user-friendly" application in guiding relief work after disasters or providing real time images of forest fires or oil spills. But a commission memo also acknowledged that GMES would play a key role in the "implementation, review and monitoring of EU policies", including watching for agriculture and fisheries fraud and boosting "internal security". In addition, officials hope GMES will support the EU's first steps towards becoming a military power. It will "provide authorities with necessary elements for a European Security and Defence Policy", the commission memo said. The commission in Brussels will identify and develop possible uses for GMES. The management of the satellites will fall to the European Space Agency (ESA), which pools the space resources of 15 EU member states, including Britain, plus Norway and Switzerland. US politicians are already suspicious of the ESA's "Galileo" project, a 30-satellite global navigation system designed to improve on the Pentagon-controlled GPS system. The EU's invitation to China to become a major investor only increased US concern. GMES is intended to exploit existing assets belonging to individual EU nations. National governments would retain control over their satellites, Mr Kreuzhuber pledged. Harmonising the use of national assets in space should mean Europe does not need to launch a full set of new satellites though some EU spacecraft are expected to be needed. With the ESA, the commission has already spent
£154 million on preparatory work, and expects the whole project
to cost £1.54 billion between 2006 and 2013. Funding is to come
from the commission, national governments and private defence and space
firms. What a Riot Sir - I was interested to read (News, November 9) that the French cabinet has authorised a sweeping range of emergency powers [due to the rioting], including the issuing of curfew orders, house arrest and giving the police the ability to raid properties without a warrant. Doesn't the EU have something to say about this? I know it's not quite as drastic as trying to sell fruit in pounds and ounces, but surely the French have to be reminded that member states can't go round trying to govern themselves. Or does that only apply to Britain? EU Declares Fluoridation Illegal? Dear All According to a press release jointly released by two UK groups (North and Midlands Against Fluoridation (NAMAF) & The National Register of Children with Dental Fluorosis) fluoridation - as of 31st October 2005 - is illegal in the UK. Of course, as with all legal matters, it comes down to definitions. How do you define water? Is it a food? How do you define medicine? According to Doug Cross, current updated European legislation, which came into force on 31st October 2005, will make it illegal to add fluoridating chemicals to water. He writes: "...The key ruling is the European Court of Justice's decision that the intent to medicate renders any chemical so used a medicinal substance..." "…. the quality of drinking water is covered by the EU food and water regulations as long as it does not contain any substance added with the intent to medicate any medical condition. Therefore, the presence of calcium fluoride in drinking water, as long as it is derived from natural sources, does not alter the status of drinking water as a food whose quality is regulated under the Water Quality Regulations. However, immediately any form of fluoride, whether 'natural' or artificial, and including those fluorides that do have medicinal Marketing Authorisations, is added to water with the intent to prevent or reduce dental caries, that water ceases to be a food and becomes a medicine. Neither authorized fluorides (potassium and sodium fluoride) nor any form of silicofluoride have Marketing Authorizations under the EU or UK legislations. Their use with the intent to medicate is therefore illegal - and absolutely so - from 31st October 2005." The British groups timed their press release to coincide with a meeting of the Directors of the Board for the newly formed Consumer Council for Water (known as CCWater) which took place in Birmingham yesterday (Nov 1, 2005). Would our members with legal backgrounds scrutinize
this press release and supporting references to see if these arguments
are sound? If they are, then this is truly a bombshell and I assume it
would not only impact the UK but also Ireland, the only country in Europe
which has mandatory countrywide fluoridation. Watchdog Questions EU Accounts
The European Court of Auditors said it was unable to give a formal statement of assurance on the 2004 budget of almost £70 billion. The court acknowledged that the European Commission had made "some progress" in reducing errors and "irregularities". In particular, once-notorious farm subsidies had been reined in by a special form of monitoring, known as IACS, the Integrated Administration and Control System. David Bostock, the UK member of the court, said that for the first time, IACS had "reduced the risk of error for most agricultural expenditure to an acceptable level." But, he went on, it was still not possible to sign off EU spending on aid for poorer regions, aid and diplomacy, consumer protection and other areas, including "more complicated areas of agricultural spending". The court's report provided some ammunition for Brussels officials who point out that more than 80 per cent of EU spending is handled by national governments. But the report again singled out Spain and Greece for serious failures to monitor farm subsidies, especially in sectors such as olive production. The auditors stressed that talk of errors and unverified payments was not the same thing as fraud. Pro-European politicians, such as the Liberal Democrat leader in the European Parliament, Chris Davies, pointed out that the UK's Department of Work and Pensions has failed to have its accounts signed off by national auditors for more than a decade. EU auditors did provide some examples of apparent fraud. They cited a Greek farmer who claimed to have lost 501 sheep to disease and wolves between 2002 and 2004 and had certificates from the local veterinary office confirming his losses. Yet he was also claiming that his herd was unchanged in size - a phenomenon he could not explain, when pressed. The Conservative MEP James Elles criticised the Government for resisting a commission appeal to make national finance ministers sign off on their individual spending, year by year. The call was made last week at a meeting of EU finance
ministers chaired by Gordon Brown, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as
part of the UK's current EU presidency. Mr Elles said: "Gordon
Brown is yet again saying one thing and doing another." He wanted
others to act but would not take the lead. Another Year, Another EU Fraud It doesn't even make the newspapers any more: that's the shocking thing. We are so blasé about Brussels fraud that we no longer notice it. Yesterday, for the eleventh year in a row, the European Court of Auditors refused to approve the EU's accounts. Its 324-page report was couched in the bland language favoured by accountants everywhere, but its import was unmistakable. Chunks of the EU's £70 billion budget are being lost and stolen. The report identifies fraudulent claims, bogus invoices and other accounting failures. While the auditors are happy to vouch for the money raised by the EU, they cannot say where it goes. If a private company behaved this way, the story would dominate the front pages; indeed, the directors would be lucky to escape prison. But then, private companies use recognised accounting procedures, which allow irregularities to be spotted. Not so the EU which has still not adopted a verifiable, accrual-based method. Indeed, one of the main complaints of the former chief accountant, Marta Andreasen, was the absence of double-entry book-keeping. Many accounts, she found, were held on spreadsheets, allowing them to be retrospectively doctored. When she went public, she was suspended and then, in a final vindictive act by the outgoing Commission, fired. What makes the EU behave like this? Its employees are not inherently wickeder than anyone else. All organisations have their share of shysters. The difference is that there is no link in Brussels between taxation, representation and expenditure. The EU expects bouquets when it spends, but not brickbats when it taxes, because its revenue is handed over by national treasuries. As Milton Friedman once observed, there are only two kinds of money: your money and my money. The trouble is that, in Brussels, it's all your money. This creates an attitude to expenditure that is at best negligent, at worst corrupt. Yesterday in the European Parliament, Euro-sophists pooh-poohed the report on three grounds: that the system is improving; that critics are all xenophobes; and that the failings identified are the responsibility of the member states, not of the EU directly. These are important objections, and deserve to be considered separately. We have heard the "things are getting better" line before. Cast your mind back seven years, to the downfall of the Santer Commission. Remember a Dutch whistle-blower called Paul van Buitenen? Remember his revelations of awesome sleaze: kickbacks in return for contracts, friends and family kept on the public payroll? Remember Edith Cresson employing her dentist as a "consultant" on a handsome salary? Do you not recall being assured that such things would never happen again? That Prodi would hose the stables clean? Well, eight years on, nothing much seems to have changed. The President of the Court of Auditors told MEPs yesterday that "there has been no improvement" in how the EU runs itself. The truth is that EU fraud is, in the correct sense of the word, structural: a product of how the Brussels institutions are set up. By saying this, I open myself to the second charge, that of being motivated by hostility to the EU. And here I must plead guilty: I am against the EU. I'm not anti-European: I speak French and Spanish and have worked all over the Continent. It's just that, after seven years in Brussels, I have reached the view that the system is beyond reform. When they disparage their critics this way, the Eurocrats confuse cause and effect. We are not banging on about corruption because we dislike the EU; we dislike the EU because we see it for what it is: a racket, whose chief function is to look after its own. Finally, let us deal with the assertion that, since much of the EU's spending is disbursed by national and regional authorities, Brussels ought not to be blamed for their failings. It is certainly true that the money trickles down through many levels, like champagne through a pyramid of crystal flutes. But this is the problem: in such a system, no one has an incentive to behave properly. The applicants, knowing the cash is there to be claimed, arrange their affairs so as to qualify for it. National authorities have no interest in policing the system, since it is all EU money. And Eurocrats are happy to sign the cheques in the belief that they are buying popularity. Many British people believe that the problem is cultural: Denis Healey once spoke of "an olive belt" that divides prim Northern Europeans from naughty Mediterraneans. His Lordship would doubtless enjoy the case cited in the current report of a Greek shepherd who, in 2002, registered a herd of 470 sheep. That year, apparently, 70 of his animals were taken by wolves. The next year, 192 of them were carried away. The year after, 239. Yet, last year, he still had 470 sheep and, according to the auditors "no evidence could be produced by the farmer to justify how he restocked his herd". But here's the thing: the same kind of ruse is identified in North-East England. The EU system is turning Geordies into Greeks - or, more accurately, turning Geordies, Greeks and everyone else into subsidy-hungry Euro-supplicants. This is the worst aspect of Euro-corruption. In my own constituency, I have seen how the people most directly ruled by EU law - fishermen - have been forced to alter their behaviour to comply with the Brussels way of doing things. I have seen honest men turned, against their will, into liars and cheats by the Common Fisheries Policy. The disease is not confined to Brussels: it is contaminating
our own body politic, carried by cash handouts through our veins and arteries.
After years of looking vainly for a cure, it is time to consider amputation. Daniel Hannan is a Conservative MEP for South East England Further Resources The Real
Face of the European Union by Phillip Day, video documentary
(PAL format only) Click
here to purchase or review any of the above.
"Be not intimidated... nor suffer yourselves to be wheedled out of your liberties by any pretense of politeness, delicacy, or decency. These, as they are often used, are but three different names for hypocrisy, chicanery and cowardice." - John Adams Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death
I often write to you to alert you to important health and health freedom issues. This letter is an urgent notice about an immediate threat to your well-being and your liberty. If you do nothing else to safeguard your health freedom, I urge you to take action on this issue, pass this email to everyone you know and become a source of information and strength to everyone you know. If there ever was a time for activism, this is it. The Threat's Name? S 1873 Senator Richard Burr, http://burr.senate.gov/, of North Carolina has introduced a bill which, if passed, means the end of health freedom, possibly the end of your health and most certainly the end of your right to a trial by a jury of your peers in the all-too-likely event that you or your child have been harmed by a vaccine. The "Biodefense and Pandemic Vaccine and Drug Development Act of 2005" also takes away your right to know what you have been injected with (no disclosure, no Freedom of Information Act suits, none!) and your right to be compensated if that vaccination harms you or a loved one. I am writing to you to ask you to take all three types of action listed below: 1. Write to your Congressmen/women to let them know that both the Senate (S1873) and House (HR3970) versions of the bill must be defeated, 2. Call Congress. The Congressional Switchboard is 1-202-225-3121. The operators will connect you with your congressional delegation when you tell them your zip code. 3. Call the White House.
Their number is 1-202-456-1414. Tell the people you speak to that you are adamantly opposed to S1873 and HR3970 since vaccines are dangerous and compulsory vaccination violates your personal rights to self determination. Further, you flatly reject the creation of a secret agency which would operate without public oversight to created and compel the use of vaccines whose composition, side effects and hazards are not only unknown, but would be kept permanently hidden from the public. Let them know that you will not tolerate the loss of compensation for harm and the loss of a trial by a jury of your peers to determine the nature and extent of any such harm to you or your loved ones and that a vote for these bills -- or others like them -- is completely unacceptable if the member of Congress wants to stand for re-election. Make no mistake about it: Bird flu vaccines do not exist and cannot exist for some 6-18 months. Whatever you are vaccinated with will be experimental and therefore dangerous. With no liability to deter them, the vaccine makers can try anything they want or use any shoddy techniques they like and you cannot claim any harm has been done to you for the purposes of compensation. Not only that, the contents of these forced vaccinations for who-knows-what are secret! So whether the vaccines contain: Stealth viruses (which many now do) Not only will you never know, you can be forced to submit to vaccination and accept whatever comes next. The issue here is two fold: your health and your health
freedom. Vaccination is neither effective nor safe although we have been told that both are true for so long that their effectiveness and safety seems self-evident. The truth, however, is far more disquieting. And for untested vaccines, the story is worse. Much worse. Here are some sites to which you can go to get in-depth information about this troubling question: Educate-Yourself
Even if you believe in vaccines for you and yours,
the idea of a compulsory vaccine program administered by a secret agency
with zero accountability to you and the same legal liability for the companies
who make potentially lethal injections (zero once again) is a major threat
to your liberty and mine. I urge you to take action and ask your circle
of influence to do the same. Yours in health and freedom, PS: I testified before the FDA today on the overuse of psychoactive medications in children and adolescents. It was fascinating. I'll tell you about it in my next email to you. In the meantime, please support our work defending health and health freedom for all of us! PPS: Oh, yes, please give to the Natural Solutions Foundation and help us keep on keeping our freedoms alive! Further Resources Wake up to Health in the 21st Century by Steven Ransom Click
here to purchase or review any of the above.
The Emperor's New Clothes
"That must be wonderful cloth," thought the Emperor. "I must have this cloth woven for me without delay." Advancing a large sum of money to the swindlers, he requested they set to work immediately. The master weavers set up two looms and pretended to be very hard at work. They asked for the finest silk and the most precious gold-cloth; all they were given, they secreted away, working at the empty looms until late at night. "I should very much like to know how they are getting on with the cloth," thought the Emperor. But he felt rather uneasy when he remembered that he who was not fit for his office or unpardonably stupid could not see it. Personally, he was of the opinion that he had little to fear, yet he thought it advisable to send somebody else first to see how matters stood. So he sent one of his ministers. The good old minister went into the room where the weavers sat before the empty looms. "Heaven preserve us!" he thought, and opened his eyes wide, "I cannot see anything at all!" But he did not say so. Pointing to the empty looms, both swindlers requested the minister to come near, asking him to admire the exquisite pattern and the beautiful colours. "Oh dear," he thought, "How can I be so stupid? I cannot say that I am unable to see the cloth." The minister praised the weavers and exclaimed, "What a beautiful pattern, what brilliant colours! I shall tell the Emperor that I like the cloth very much!" The swindlers worked about in the air with big scissors, and sewed with needles without thread. "The emperor's new suit is ready now," they said at last. The Emperor and all his ministers came into the hall. The swindlers raised their arms as if they held something in their hands and said: "These are the trousers! This is the coat! And here is the cloak! They are all as light as a cobweb, and feel as if one has nothing at all upon the body; but that is just the beauty of them." "Indeed!" said all the courtiers. But they could not see anything, for there was nothing to be seen. The Emperor undressed, and the swindlers pretended to put the new suit upon him. "I am ready," said the Emperor. "Does not my suit fit me marvellously?" The Emperor marched in the procession and all who saw him exclaimed: "Indeed, the Emperor's new suit is incomparable! What a long train he has! How well it fits him!" Nobody wished to let others know that he could see nothing, for then he would have been unfit for his office or unpardonably stupid. Never were the Emperor's clothes more admired. Suddenly, amongst the gathered onlookers, a lone voice was heard. "But Father, the Emperor is naked. He has nothing on at all!" said a little child. "Good heavens! Listen to the voice of the innocent child," said the father. And very soon did the whole people cry, "He is naked! The Emperor is naked! He has nothing on at all!" This made a deep impression upon the Emperor, for it seemed to him that they were right; but he thought to himself, "Now I must bear up to the end." And so it was that the Emperor walked with still greater dignity before the crowd. And with full ceremony did his courtiers carry the train of his garments, the garments that did not exist. Bird Flu is a Hoax
But I nearly fell out of my seat in the airplane as I was flying back from a conference in Ft. Lauderdale when I read that in the BEST-case scenario, only 200,000 people might die. Then they post the frightening picture from the 1918 flu epidemic to heighten the fear. It just amazes me how they can get away with this type of reporting that is so obviously manipulated by the government and drug companies to scare you into taking the flu vaccine. The popular media continues to reinforce this un-based
fear. In the editorial section of the October 17, 2005 issue of the Wall
Street Journal, Dr. Henry Miller, former director of the Office of Biotechnology
at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), seeks to frighten the U.S.
public by telling us that the bird flu virus can jump from birds to humans
and produce, and is a fatal illness in 50 percent of those infected. Ah, there's the rub. A 50 percent fatality rate sounds pretty scary to me. What Dr. Miller and the other experts fail to explain is how these numbers were derived. Did they examine everyone who contracted the bird flu and use those numbers, or did they examine the sickest of the sick who had come down with the bird flu and determine the mortality rate from there? Of course, it was the latter, and from the 60 people who have died from this in THIRD-world countries we are being told that anywhere from 200,000, AT BEST, to 2 million people at worst will die from the bird flu. This is shoddy science at best and beyond belief that any reputable scientist could get away with such nonsense. Firms' Threat to Limit Bird Flu Vaccine
Richard Stubbins, of the UK Vaccine Industry Group, told a House of Lords select committee that it was "unreasonable" for the Government to expect the industry to build new plants to produce enough vaccine for a pandemic then mothball them. He called for the Government to vaccinate everyone aged over 50 and possibly children against common flu as a matter of routine. That would guarantee that the extra capacity would be used. The industry group represents all the companies that produce flu vaccine, including the British giant Glaxosmithkline and the French company Sanofi. A vaccine for a feared bird flu pandemic cannot be created until the strain of the virus that can pass between humans is identified. Mr Stubbins said the Government wanted 120 million doses of vaccine as soon as it was available but there was "a lot of work to do" before companies could produce enough to meet demand. "We have to work very closely with the Government to find ways of increasing the productivity of the industry in as short a time as possible," he said. One way to encourage companies to do so was to increase the use of ordinary influenza vaccines. At the moment flu vaccination is free and recommended for people over 65 and those with chronic conditions such as asthma and diabetes. Mr Stubbins said the industry was asking health officials to increase coverage until two thirds of the population was routinely vaccinated. The Lords' science and technology committee asked Mr Stubbins and Dr Kevin Bryett, the British head of the leading vaccine company Chiron, how long it would take for a vaccine to be ready if a pandemic emerged. They said that it could take between 10 and 11 weeks to modify a vaccine to a particular strain of the virus and sent it to the vaccine companies. It would then be four to six months before the vaccine was ready. Mr Stubbins said the drugs industry was trying to speed up the process by creating mock-up flu vaccines so that as much work as possible was done before a pandemic emerged and the precise strain could be activated and made into a vaccine for it. The European Commission agreed to ban the import of most live birds for a month. Britain had made an urgent call for the ban after the death of an imported parrot at a quarantine facility in Essex blamed on the H5N1 form of the bird flu virus - although Government vets yesterday admitted a mix-up over tests. Margaret Beckett, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, said she was "very pleased" at the action, while it emerged at the Brussels meeting that Britain had blocked a similar ban in March. The ban on commercial bird imports is accompanied by restrictions on imports of pet birds. The European Union Food Safety Agency will advise people today to avoid eating raw eggs and to make sure that poultry is cooked thoroughly. Herman Koeter, its deputy director, said: "We
do not have any evidence that the bird flu virus can be transmitted through
food but we can't exclude it either." New Flu Vaccine is Loaded With Mercury
Chiron's license was suspended by British regulators in October, and the FDA barred U.S. distribution of the vaccine, cutting the nation's expected supply of flu vaccine in half. GlaxoSmithKline expects to distribute 8 million doses
of Fluarix and will begin shipping immediately. Chiron, if its vaccine
is re-approved, could supply 18 million to 26 million doses of Fluvirin.
It has been six years since the American Academy of Pediatrics and the U.S. Public Health Service joined forces in requesting the removal of all mercury-containing preservative thimerosal from vaccines. A quick surf on the net easily reveals that this
new vaccine indeed contains mercury. How is it possible that they can
approve vaccines that have a preservative that has been outlawed for six
years? Last year I ran an article that documented that flu vaccines still
contain mercury. How can the US federal government justify this morally
reprehensible behavior and expose your children and you to this well documented
neurotoxic poison? The "Mad Hatter" from Alice in
Wonderland wasn't just an idle fancy. In fact, hatters in England went
insane with astonishing frequency a couple of hundred years ago, until
"mad hatter" became a cliché. Why? Mercury salts
were used to make felt for fancy hats. Mercury exposure can cause a devastating array of problems, including: Multiple Sclerosis Is this really something you want injected into yourself, and your children? Avoid mercury poisoning; don't eat fish, unless you are absolutely certain that it has been tested in a laboratory and shown not to contain detectable levels of mercury and other toxins. To get your vital omega-3 fatty acids, eat high quality fish oil instead. This will also, incidentally, help keep you from getting the flu. Other ways to avoid getting the flu without taking
dangerous shots include:
The lack of sustained human-to-human transmission suggests that this AH5N1 avian virus does not currently have the capacity to cause a human pandemic. Theoretical Speculation No Lawsuits or Compensation
Allowed Yesterday's Wired magazine does an excellent review of detailing why this plan will fail. They conclude: "...it will take at least five years to create enough manufacturing capacity to reach that goal. Then it will take another eight months to create a new vaccine that combats the specific strain that would be killing people. In other words, it would be 2011 at the earliest before every American could be vaccinated against a bird flu pandemic." The other, even more serious shortcoming of the plan is that it would protect vaccine producers and distributors except in cases of "willful misconduct," a term to be defined later. Lawsuits Not An Undue Burden British Medical Journal October 29, 2005; 331(7523):
975-976
Children Taken Out to Eat on Regular Basis
Pupils whose parents made proper meals from fresh ingredients had more "good cholesterol", lower blood pressure, and were more insulin sensitive than their peers who ate out four or more times per week. The diets of those who had more fast food and restaurant meals included more sugar, salt, fat and starch. The study was led by Dr Karen Olson, the executive director of the Cardiovascular Research and Education Foundation in Wausau, Wisconsin. She said: "We say we value physical activity and healthy eating, but in reality we're all about convenience and convenience foods because we have such busy schedules. We are seeing younger and younger patients with more aggressive cardiovascular disease and we realised we needed to take a closer look at our young people to see when risk factors emerge and why. We're concerned because we know children who have cardiovascular risks grow up to be adults with these risks." A group of 621 American pupils aged from seven to 17 completed diet and exercise surveys and underwent a series of health tests. More than 20 per cent said they ate out four times a week or more, excluding school lunches. Compared to pupils who ate out less frequently, they had higher blood pressure and lower insulin sensitivity, a risk factor for type-2 diabetes. They had lower levels of high-density lipoprotein, or "good cholesterol" that protects against heart disease, and smaller low-density lipoprotein particle size. Small LDL particles are associated with atherosclerosis, build-up of artery-clogging plaque. Those who ate out most often had significantly higher intake of starch, sugar, sodium, fat and cholesterol. "Children who ate out more frequently were not significantly more overweight than their peers who ate out less frequently," Dr Olsen added. "But this might just reflect that the dietary patterns have not yet had their full impact on body weight. However, their diets and exercise patterns differed significantly from the children eating at home more often. "In a 21-meal week, eating out four times shouldn't create the high-sugar, high-sodium, high-fat intake that we saw. It's not just the eating out but the way these children are eating all the time, with lots of frozen pizzas and packaged macaroni and cheese on the days they eat at home." Children who ate out more often also drank almost twice as much fizzy drink - about six cups a week compared to 3.7 cups a week for those who usually ate at home. Dr Olsen added: "For these children, fizzy drinks are no longer a treat. They're something you have every day or several times a day." The researchers found that children who had more home-cooked meals were also significantly more active. Not counting time spent at school, reading or doing homework, those who ate out less often spent an average of 2hrs 50mins in sedentary activities such as computer games and watching television, compared to 3hrs 35mins for those who ate out more frequently. The study was reported at the American Heart Association's Scientific Sessions. Ellen Mason, a spokesman for the British Heart Foundation said: "This appears to confirm our fears that our ever deepening love affair with convenience is causing major health problems for today's children, which could result in heart disease in later life. Unfortunately, when we eat out, we don't always know exactly what is in our food and how it was made, which makes it harder for us to have control over our diets." A study by the market researchers Mintel found
the British eating out market was worth £22 billion in 2000 and
was expected to be £27.5 billion this year, a seven per cent increase
after inflation. Women Urged to Use Contraceptive Jabs and Implants
Guidelines issued by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (Nice) will today instruct doctors and clinics to ensure women are informed about, and offered, long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) methods such as injections and implants. However, doctors' leaders warned that clinics which offer specialist contraception advice and train GPs are suffering disproportionately from cuts being introduced as a result of predicted NHS trust budget shortfalls totalling £2.4 billion for this year. A recent survey of 2,750 GPs, nurses, family planning consultants, obstetricians and gynaecologists found that almost a third said their primary care trust had been forced to restrict access to some methods of contraception because of costs. LARC methods of contraception, including implants, injections, and intra-uterine devices, were used by eight per cent of British women aged 16 to 49 in 2003-04, compared with 25 per cent on the Pill and 23 per cent using condoms. They reduce the risk of unplanned pregnancies as users do not have to think about them every day or every time they have sex. It is estimated that around 30 per cent of pregnancies are unplanned and one study has suggested that if 7.7 per cent of women moved from the Pill to LARC, unplanned pregnancies in England could be cut by 70,000 a year. In 2003, there were 39,571 conceptions among under-18s in England. The Government has a target of halving the 1998 figure of 41,089 by 2010. Nice said increased use of LARC methods would reduce the numbers of unintended pregnancies and abortions, and save the NHS money. Dr Chris Wilkinson, leader of the Nice committee that produced the guidelines, said: "There was a general view on the committee that use of LARC was fairly low and that it could play a greater role in prevention of unintended pregnancies. Healthcare professionals need guidance and training so that they can help women make an informed choice." But he added: "There are a lot of changes in the NHS happening at the moment that are going to make it difficult to implement." Some 80 per cent of women get advice on contraception from their GPs, only some of whom have received the training required to offer LARC methods. Norman Wells, director of the pressure group Family
and Youth Concern, said: "A far more effective way of achieving
cost savings to the NHS would be to spell out the positive physical and
emotional benefits of confining sexual intimacy to a faithful, lifelong
relationship between a husband and wife." PHILLIP DAY'S COMMENT: In our anything-goes world of so many rights and nary a wrong, who is surprised the proffered answer to unwanted pregnancy is pharmaceutical not behavioural? Oh, but there I go again, banging the unloved drum of restraint. In a culture where if a little is good, more must be much better, unbridled indulgence is tacitly encouraged, along with the pharmaceutical conveniences: '[Such methods] reduce the risk of unplanned pregnancies, as users do not have to think about them every day or every time they have sex.' Reasonable behaviour aside, is it any wonder the side-effects of such implants and injections also largely go uncovered? The world has been plagued with side-effects and deaths from such contraceptive medications ever since Envoid, the first 'Pill', made its disastrous debut onto the world stage over forty years ago. Such drugs still are linked to increased cancer risk, increase cardiovascular risk, and an assortment of 'menopausal' problems, for which HRT is offered, and failing that, hysterectomy. As Evel Knievel was wont to say before a particularly distressing leap, 'There must be an easier way.' Norman Wells, director of the pressure group Family and Youth Concern, remarks: "A far more effective way of achieving cost savings to the NHS would be to spell out the positive physical and emotional benefits of confining sexual intimacy to a faithful, lifelong relationship between a husband and wife." 'Gad!' the world laments. 'Is the
dinosaur serious?' 75% More Oldies are Killed off by Doctors Numbers of pensioners killed by wrongly prescribed medicine have risen by 75 per cent since Labour came to power. There were 337 deaths among the over 65s from adverse drug reactions last year compared with 194 in 1997. It has prompted calls for better checks on prescriptions and improved reporting when doctors make blunders. Commons Health Committee Lib Dem member, Paul Burstow said the official figures were "extremely alarming". He said: 'This is just the tip of the iceberg. Hundreds of bad reactions go unreported every year.' All age groups over 50 have shown an increase in bad drug reactions. It costs the NHS an extra £466 million a year - equal to filling seven 800- bed hospitals. Mr Burstow said: "People need regular medication
checks." Doctors Go on 'Strike' and Death Rates Plummet Death rates in Israel have dropped considerably since physicians in public hospitals implemented a program of sanctions three months ago, according to a survey of burial societies. The Israel Medical Association (IMA) began the action in March to protest against the government's proposed imposition of a new four-year wage contract for doctors. Since then, hundreds of thousands of visits to outpatient clinics have been canceled or postponed along with tens of thousands of elective operations. Emergency rooms, dialysis units, oncology departments, obstetric and neonatal departments, and other vital facilities have been working normally during the action. The Jerusalem Post surveyed non-profit burial societies, which perform funerals for the vast majority of Israelis, and found that the number of funerals has fallen drastically. According to one funeral parlor manager the same thing
occurred in 1983, during a similar action by the IMA, which lasted 4 and
a half months. The only area of Israel which was found to not have a reduction
in its death rate was the city of Netanya. It also just so happens that
all of the doctors at the only hospital in this city have "no-strike"
clauses in their contracts and are therefore unaffected by the action. 50% of Hospital Patients Suffer Malnutrition
Milk - Are You Prepared To Lose Your Bottle?
"Milk! Just the word itself sounds comforting. "How about a nice cup of hot milk?" The last time you heard that question, it was from someone who cared for you, and you appreciated their effort. The entire matter of food and especially that of milk is surrounded with emotional and cultural importance. Milk was our first food. If we were fortunate, it was our mother's milk. A loving link, given and taken. It was the only path to survival. If not mother's milk, it was cow's milk or soy milk 'formula' - rarely it was goat, camel or water buffalo milk. Now we are a nation of milk drinkers. Nearly all of us. Infants, the young, adolescents, adults, even the elderly. We drink dozens or even several hundred gallons a year each and add to that many pounds of 'dairy' products, such as cheese, butter and yoghurt. Can there be anything wrong with this? Actually there is plenty wrong with it. Big Milk has wooed us with its impressive campaigns of creamy moustaches and "Got Milk?" and "Milk - It Does a Body Good". There is one thing conspicuously missing in the logic of all this, however, rarely if ever mentioned. Milk is actually for baby cows. Many humans today do not consume milk because it makes them ill. Caucasians, on the other hand, lead the human pack in getting weaned off their mothers, only to spend the rest of their lives stuck under the udders of a completely different species. No animal in the creature kingdom continues milk consumption past weaning and babyhood. Milk will take a little animal from birth to weaning, and after that it's time for big-boy/big-girl food. This is a law of nature. No one drinks milk once they are up and walking. Except - humans! Harvey Diamond, author Fit For Life, sees milk as a politicised, but failing food experiment, now people are wising up to the truth: "You can be absolutely certain of one thing: Milk is the most political food in America. According to the Los Angeles Times, the dairy industry is subsidized (meaning the taxpayer foots the bill) to the tune of almost three billion dollars a year! That's 342,000 dollars every hour to buy hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of dairy products that will in all likelihood never be eaten… The demand for dairy products has declined substantially, as it is becoming more apparent that they are not the perfect foods they were once touted to be. But dairy production is continuous. Be assured that much of the publicity referring to the health benefits of dairy products is commercially motivated. In March 1984 the Los Angeles Times reported that the Department of Agriculture decided to launch a $140-million advertising campaign to "promote milk-drinking and help reduce the multibillion-dollar surplus." Although the real reason for the advertising campaign is to reduce the surplus, the ads attempt to convince you to buy milk for its many so-called health benefits." We've heard of milk lakes and butter mountains for years, demonstrating clearly that production of these dairy products completely outstrips the demand for them. And why is that? Thousands of articles exist in the scientific and medical literature with milk as the focus of these studies. The main thrust of these articles, however, far from lauding milk as the perfect food we have been deceived into believing it is, deals with a horrific litany of ills with which milk has regaled humankind. What do you find discussed in these studies? Do they tell us that milk makes strong bones, strong teeth and turns you into an Olympian athlete with the body of a Greek god? If we were to believe the piffle fed to us through the udders of the mass communications media, all the scientific journals would be telling us to go out and fill our swimming pools and baths with the stuff to ward off all those ills that milk is perfect in preventing. What complete tommyrot. What a dastardly whitewash. How could the public have been so completely creamed? The pro-milk pitch is of course not based in reality or science. It is the hype of the marketeer and the balance sheet. All you read about in these scientific journals is how milk brings on allergic reactions, asthma, intestinal irritation, intestinal bleeding, anaemia, diabetes, salmonella, and allergic reactions in children and infants. Toxicologists such as Dr Samuel Epstein have long been warning about other dangers, such as the chronic misuse of antibiotics and hormones in cattle farming, giving rise to a whole new smorgasbord of problems. Increased estrogen intake, brought on by farmers fattening their stock with estradiol, a hormonal anabolic with estrus activity, shows links in adults to breast and ovarian cancers, atherosclerosis and heart disease (Vitamin C depletion). Notice all these conditions can be termed 'survival responses' to a specific, or series of threats. Leukemias and lymphomas, along with arthritis, accelerated sexual development in children and the potential for infection with bovine leukemia virus as well as childhood diabetes, are also discussed in the medical literature in connection with milk and meat consumption. Contamination through the milk supply with pesticides and insecticides has also given rise to concerns with child health, including allergy, ear and tonsillar infections, bedwetting, asthma, intestinal bleeding and colic. Most of us milk moustachers don't realise that milk contains blood and white (pus) cells from the animal. USDA inspectors in America know this, and simply ask milk processing companies to keep the content of these white cells to a maximum of 1 to 1.5 million white cells per millilitre (1/30th of an ounce). The other pertinent point to consider before we suckle another of our favourite dairy dishes, is that fifty years ago, the average cow produced 20,000 pounds of milk every year. Today, the top gold-star bovines are churning out 50,000-plus pounds by comparison. Do you want to know how the cows are able to do this? Charles Atlas' Dynamic Tension Technique maybe? An LA sports club membership perhaps? Antibiotics, drugs and recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone (rBGH) are the culprits. rBGH is a genetically engineered drug, produced by the Monsanto Corporation (they of soy and GM), which swears blind that the hormone does not affect the milk or meat of the animal. Beef hormones are big business because they fatten cows, which means that farmers want to buy the hormones, since, in the case of estradiol, they can add significant weight to an animal during its 100-day fattening period prior to slaughter, resulting in at least an extra $80 in the farmer's wallet as a bonus. Dr Samuel Epstein, the cancer establishment's long-time antagonist and critic, describes a frightening legacy of non-regulation and governmental irresponsibility: "As of 1990, more than 95% of American beef cattle were implanted with carcinogenic growth-promoting hormones. The European Economic Community banned hormone-treated meat in 1989, and does not allow US or other producers to export their meat into the EEC. This ban was recently (February 1998) upheld by a World Trade Organisation appellate body. In the absence of effective federal regulation, the US meat industry uses hundreds of animal feed additives, including antibiotics, tranquilizers, pesticides, animal drugs, artificial flavours, industrial wastes, and growth-promoting hormones, with little or no concern about the carcinogenic and other toxic effects of dietary residues of these additives." And so the predictable cast of drug manufacturers, ever greedy for a fresh slice of the drug pie, prowl around this lucrative cattle-porking profit-centre like fat cats around a milk churn. Of course, what the companies fail to tell you, in their headlong rush to bank their profits, is that what gets fed to the cows invariably comes out in the whitewash, as it were. The milk produced by cows fed steroid-bolstered, antibiotic-laced, hormone-accelerated diets, which in certain cases can contain human excrement (France) and all these drug and bacterial elements, finds its way into the human food chain, bringing into our stomachs its Borgian poison-payload. "But that's what pasteurisation is for!" shrill the outraged. Wipe your faces, my friends, and please keep reading…. It all gets so horribly compelling in a minute. rBGH causes a significant increase in mastitis (udder infection) in cows, which requires antibiotic treatment and salves. The residues of these drugs appear in the milk and survive pasteurisation, which is designed to kill off harmful bacteria. Even the US Government's General Accounting Office has stated that FDA and State legislation across America is failing to regulate the true extent of drug and hormone contamination in milk. This contamination, taken in through meat and dairy products consumed by the human mother, shows up in her breast milk where these pesticides and drugs are then transmitted to the infant. Dr Frank Oski, of the Upstate Medical Center Department of Pediatrics, has spoken out against the American Academy of Pediatrics' recommendation that whole bovine milk should be consumed by infants. Breaking ranks with his peers in the scientific journal Pediatrics, Oski states: "It is my thesis that milk should not be fed to the infant in the first year of life because of its association with iron deficiency anaemia (cow's milk is so deficient in iron that an infant would have to consume an impossible 31 quarts a day to get the iron RDA of 15mg), occult gastrointestinal bleeding, and various manifestations of food allergy. I further suggest that unmodified whole bovine milk should not be consumed after infancy because of the problems of lactose intolerance, its contribution to the genesis of atherosclerosis, and its possible link to other diseases." So why do we drink cow's milk? Why don't we drink lion's milk to make us braver, or rat's milk to make us slyer or cat's milk so we can scratch up the furniture? The question is not as silly as it sounds. We drink cow's milk because that is culturally what we have always done. Also we can catch cows easily and they are docile when milked. You're not likely to have the same success if your penchant is for polar bear milk - and you probably won't live to get the Queen's telegram either. No, we drink cow's milk because it is readily available and we have been conned into believing we cannot get by without it. And then along comes the breakfast cereal industry and hooks us on sucrose, gluten and milk, all mixed up together with some raisins sprinkled on the top for good measure, and persuades us to eat it during our morning elimination cycle. This then is our breakfast 'health food'. What is the difference between my getting out of the car and suckling a cow in the field to your evident horror, and Sainsbury's and Walmart obtaining it for me, packaging it and sticking it on their supermarket shelves for me to grab on the way to the till? The answer? Marketing. We'll drink it if it is provided for us. If it isn't, we won't go suckle the cow. Figure out the logic of that one when you've got a minute. But is cow's milk similar to human milk? Not in the least. Milk components vary widely according to species. Cow's milk, for instance, has three to four times more protein than human milk. Rat milk contains up to eleven times more protein than human milk. Cow's milk is designed to assist baby cows in their development in very specific ways. It has five to seven times the mineral content but is markedly deficient in essential fatty acids when compared to human mothers' milk, which contains up to eleven times the essential fatty acid components, most specifically linoleic acid, essential for neurological development, which is completely absent in cow's milk when skimmed. Cows, of course, are not famous for their mental gymnastics. Harvey Diamond points out other problems with the consumption of the white stuff: "The enzymes required to break down and digest milk are renin and lactase. They are all but gone by the age of three in most humans. There is a protein in all milk known as casein. There is three hundred times more casein in cow's milk than in human's milk. That's for the development of huge [cow] bones. Casein coagulates in the stomach and forms large, tough, dense, difficult-to-digest curds that are adapted to the four-stomach digestive apparatus of a cow. Once inside the human system, this thick mass of goo puts a tremendous burden on the body to get rid of it somehow. In other words, a huge amount of energy must be expended in dealing with it. Unfortunately some of this gooey substance hardens and adheres to the lining of the intestines and prevents the absorption of nutrients into the body. Also the by-products of milk digestion leave a great deal of toxic mucus in the body. It's very acidic, and it is stored in the body until it can be dealt with at a later time. The next time you are going to dust your home, smear some paste all over everything and see how easy it is to dust. Dairy products do the same inside your body. That translates into more weight instead of weight loss. Casein, by the way, is the base of one of the strongest glues used in woodworking." When I was a kid in school, we used to be given bottles of milk to drink in the playground. Of course, in those days, current political correctness and the Nanny State were but an embryo in the minds of the communist social architects of the 1960s, so milk got thrown everywhere, and so did the glass bottles that held it. My early enduring memories of those days were the smell of decomposing milk, the thick mucus and taste of the stuff in my mouth, and most of all, the chronic runny noses and ear infections we all had, which weren't just because of the limb-snapping cold that often afflicts English kids in January. I know they were trying to kill us off before the age of seven, for who else but the terminally psychotic would ever send trusting kids out in Siberia temperatures IN SHORT TROUSERS to guzzle whole milk by the frozen (glass) bottle-load while we had sword fights with the icicles? One kid's nose in particular used to gush like Niagara. Every time you saw the poor wretch, he had those glassy pearls coming out of his nostrils. I was fascinated with this phenomenon and fully believed my mates when they told me Farr's brains were coming out through his nose. Come to think about it, we all had runny Niagara noses and this thick, flobby gunk in our mouth after we had slogged the milk down our throats through those paper straws we later used as peashooters. Dr William A Ellis, a retired osteopathic physician and surgeon, has researched and reported on milk and its health-related problems for over forty years. Dr Ellis' research shows conclusive links between high dairy products consumption and heart disease, arthritis, allergies and migraine headaches. He also, as a conclusion to his research, states that there is "…overwhelming evidence that milk and milk products are a major factor in obesity." He further states: "Over my forty-two years of practice, I've performed more than 25,000 blood tests for my patients. These tests show, conclusively in my opinion, that adults who use milk products do not absorb nutrients as well as adults who don't. Of course, poor absorption in turn means chronic fatigue." Other studies have linked Type 1 diabetes to chronic milk consumption. On 30th July 1992 the New England Journal of Medicine wrote up a landmark report. In Finland there is "… the world's highest rate of dairy product consumption and the world's highest rate of insulin-dependent diabetes. The disease strikes about 40 children out of every 1,000 there, contrasted with six to eight per 1,000 in the United States…. Antibodies produced against the milk protein during the first year of life, the researchers speculate, also attack and destroy the pancreas in a so-called auto-immune reaction, producing diabetes in people whose genetic make-up leaves them vulnerable." These same researchers also studied 142 Finnish children with newly diagnosed diabetes and found that every one of them had at least eight times the level of antibodies against milk proteins than normal children. "Clear evidence," as one of the researchers later stated, "that these children had a raging auto-immune disorder." Another favourite marketing adage of Big Milk is that milk is pure, because of the pasteurisation, and besides, milk gives you calcium to assist in the development of healthy bones. This too is complete nonsense, bordering on the criminal. The pasteurisation technique of heating up the milk to kill the bugs is widely known also to kill off enzymes, destroy the germicidal properties of bovine milk and reduce the usable vitamin content by at least 50%. Calves fed pasteurised milk die within 60 days, as shown by numerous experiments, so why do humans drink it? Actually the benefits of pasteurisation revert to the farmer and the milk industry: pasteurised milk lasts longer on the supermarket shelves and farmers can get away with a lower standard of cleanliness around the farm. And now the question of milk calcium. Calcium exists in the body to neutralise acid build-up and there is little question that milk contains calcium. However, the consumption of milk and dairy products greatly increases the acidity of the body requiring water and calcium to adjust the pH balance. The problem with milk calcium is that it is coarser than the calcium contained in human milk because it is bound up with the sticky protein casein we looked at earlier, making it more unavailable. The other problem is that most milk and dairy products have been pasteurised, skimmed, homogenised and otherwise processed and adulterated, further degrading the calcium, rendering it even more difficult for the body to absorb. Ingri Cassel remarks as follows: "Our nutritional education in school (funded in part by the diary industry) taught us that dairy products are one of the four basic food groups we all need for proper nutrition. Largely as a result of this conditioning, the average American consumes 375 pounds of dairy products a year. One out of every seven dollars spent on groceries in the US goes to buy dairy products. We have been told all of our lives to drink plenty of milk in order to build strong teeth and bones. Curiously, the US as a whole records one of the highest consumption of dairy products in the world and also boasts the highest incidence of bones fractures and osteoporosis. In the January 1988 Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism, scientists reported that calcium excretion and bone loss increase in proportion to the amount of animal protein ingested. Animal proteins, due to their high sulphur [acidic] content, alter the kidneys' reabsorption of calcium, so that more calcium is excreted on a diet based upon meats, eggs and dairy products. People on high protein diets excrete between 90-100mg of calcium a day." So here we have a picture of Westernised humans rendering their bodies acidic through the consumption of dairy and animal products which, by their very acid nature, compel the body to strip sodium, calcium and magnesium from its stores to alkalise the onslaught. Pause for a moment that hectic daily schedule of yours and consider where our society is, in terms of health, chomping and slurping all this endless 'healthy' dairy chow, with sicknesses endemic in our culture as a result of this wrong turn. With the evidence pointing to unweaned humans becoming sicker and more gummed up by the day, can we any longer maintain, with even a shred of credibility, that 'milk does a body good'? Further Resources Health Wars by Phillip Day Click
here to purchase or review any of the above. NHS Picks Up £6bn a Year Bill for Our Bad Diet
Poor diets are costing the National Health Service £6 billion a year - significantly higher than the £1.5 billion cost of smoking-related ill health, according to research published today. The study, published in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, used data from the World Health Organisation and other published studies to estimate the burden of food-related disease and health costs. In the latest study, Mike Rayner and Peter Scarborough, from Oxford University's department of public health, calculated the impact of ill health and death caused by diet using a measure known as "disability adjusted life years" (DALYs). A DALY is an indicator of the time lived with a disability and the time lost due to premature death. Illnesses attributed to dietary factors included food poisoning, heart disease, stroke, diabetes, certain types of cancer and tooth decay. The researchers estimated that 37 per cent of DALYs were linked to food-related disease - but just 0.2 per cent was related to food poisoning. They said that heart disease, cancer and diabetes accounted for most of the burden. The researchers said that diet was not responsible for all cardiovascular disease, diabetes and cancer - which together account for 28 per cent of NHS costs with a bill of £18 billion in 2002. But they estimated that food accounts for around a third of the burden, adding up to 10 per cent of all DALYs and costing £6 billion a year. "This is twice the £3 billion cost of accidents including car accidents," they said. The researchers also said that the cost was significantly higher than the official estimates for the cost of obesity, at around £479 million a year. They said that, as this estimate was only concerned with obesity, it considered a smaller range of diseases. It did not take into account tooth decay, for example. The researchers admitted that their calculations were crude. "Nevertheless they are probably accurate,"
they said. "The estimates suggest that the burden of food-related
ill health is large compared with, say, smoking, and suggest that food-related
ill health has been neglected by health and food policy-makers. For
example, while there are specific Government targets for smoking in England
there are no equivalent dietary requirements." American College of Clinical Themography A Literature Review and Commentary
Experts are publishing new evidence in peer-reviewed journals relating to the risks inherent in using mammography for breast screening. The findings are of no surprise to a growing number of doctors and specialists who have known for years that some of the cancers they have to treat are linked to the accumulative effects of mammographic radiation exposure. Controversy has raged for years as to whether the risks related to the radiation exposure suffered from mammography are justified by the benefits gained …… new evidence relating to the particular type of radiation used and the hard evidence relating to the clinical benefits of mammography have caused a serious re-evaluation of the justification of mammography as a screening test. If changes for the better are to be made, then the current paradigm needs serious evaluation by examining all of the existing evidence. We should first clarify the difference between 'screening' and 'diagnostic' mammography. Screening mammography is performed on healthy women from the age of 40 to 70 and is aimed at identifying suspicious findings, which justify further investigation. Diagnostic mammography is performed on patients who have existing justification for this test, this could be one or more risk factors, clinical symptoms, or a palpable lump. There is little argument about mammography's role as the 'gold standard' for evaluating suspicious symptoms but can we still justify subjecting women without symptoms to radiation exposure which is known to be damaging. The risks from radiation produced by mammography are far greater than the proponents of this test are aware of or have been promoting to women. Mammography does pose a wide range of risks of which women are still uninformed. Radiation from routine mammography cannot be directly compared to other types of X-ray like chest Xray's etc because they are very different types of radiation. The comparisons that have been used between a chest x-ray and mammography, 1/1,000 of a rad (radiation-absorbed dose) for a chest X-ray and the 1 rad exposure for the routine four films taken of both breasts for a mammographic screening exam results in some 1,000 times greater exposure. This is considered a significant risk factor when extended over a ten year screening period and a potential accumulative dose of 10 rads. Unfortunately this is not the major risk posed by the particular type of radiation used by mammograms. Mammography X-rays use a low energy form of ionising radiation which causes greater biologic damage than the high energy X-ray. The very low energy electrons affects the density of ionisation tracks that pass through the tissue which can cause complex damage to the DNA and carcinogenic changes. The radiation used by mammography is almost 5 times more effective at causing cancer. (Alpha particles, possessing both charge and a large mass, deposit their energy in a relatively small volume when compared with x-rays which have neither mass nor charge. Double strand breaks or even more extensive damage to the DNA can arise from the ionisations from a single alpha particle track through a cell, whereas multiple x-ray photons would normally be required to cause similar damage. So the degree of cell killing or the probability of cancer induction, as examples of biological effects, differ for 1 Gy delivered by alpha particles compared with Gy delivered by X-ray) Current estimates for radiation-induced cancer are based on people exposed to the high energy radiation (eg, atomic bomb survivors) or patients exposed either iagnostically or therapeutically. These cancer risk estimates are then applied to all x-ray exposures (including mammography) on the basis that the radiation weighting factor for all x-rays is equal. The conclusion reached in a recent study published in the Journal, Radiation Research was that their findings corroborated data previously published and that this suggests that the risks associated with mammography screening may be approximately five times higher than previously assumed and that the risk-benefit relationship of mammography exposures may need to be re-examined. Under current guidelines, premenopausal women undergoing annual screening over a ten-year period are exposed to a total of about 20 rads. The premenopausal breast is highly sensitive to radiation, each rad of exposure increasing breast cancer risk by 1 percent, resulting in a cumulative 10 percent increased risk over ten years of premenopausal screening. Risks are even greater for baseline screening at younger ages, but when an additional five fold increase of the risks are factored into the equation by the correct assessment of mammography radiation risk we have a much harder case to justify continued use of screening mammography for premenopausal women. Each new dose adds risk, because a single x-ray photon, acting alone, is capable of causing unrepairable, permanent damage to DNA and chromosomes, including carcinogenic mutations. The news gets worse for the 1 to 2 percent of women who are silent carriers of the ataxia-telangiectasia gene and thus highly sensitive to the carcinogenic effects of radiation, they already have a fourfold higher risk of breast cancer from mammography; by some estimates this accounts for up to 20 percent of all breast cancers annually in the United States. The principle of informed consent in medicine is ignored if women are not informed of the evidence relating to the risk and if women more readily consent to annual mammograms because they have been given 'misinformation' this is as bad as obtaining consent by deliberately blocking valid information. Women are entitled to know the full range of responsible opinion about the benefits, the risks, and the many uncertainties of mammography. Some years ago a British surgeon blasted American doctors as "immoral" for screening women under 50 for breast cancer. Dr. Baum said the screening was "opportunistic" and did more harm than good. "Over 99 percent of premenopausal women will have no benefit from screening. Even for women over 50, there has been only a one percent biopsy rate as a result of screening in the United Kingdom. The density of the breast in younger women make mammography a highly unreliable procedure. The United States is the only country that routinely screens premenopausal women by mammography. The U.S. also extends its screening practice by taking two or more mammograms per breast annually in postmenopausal women. This contrasts with the more restrained European practice of a single view every two to three years. The conclusion from all the available evidence is that there is a justifiable role for mammography to play in a breast cancer screening program but the role is very different from the one currently in place. In our opinion:
Further Resources www.meditherm.com - Thermography centres in your area Great News on Cancer in the 21st Century by Steven Ransom. More reasons to avoid radiation mammography like the plague. Click
here to purchase or review any of the above. The Top-10 MYCO-Toxic Foods DR. MERCOLA'S COMMENT: Dr. Dave Holland is the co-author, with Doug Kaufmann, of the best-selling book The Fungus Link, and the new book, The Fungus Link Vol. 2. In these books, and in their other books (Infectious Diabetes, and The Germ that Causes Cancer) they discuss the ravages that yeast, fungi and their mycotoxins (fungal toxins) can cause us when we are exposed to them. Health problems ranging from cancer to heart disease to asthma, multiple sclerosis, and diabetes may all be related to mycotoxins. Mycotoxins cause a wide range of health problems in humans when we are exposed to small amounts over an extended period of time, and can even be lethal if taken in large quantities over a short period of time. Given the large number of diseases linked to mycotoxins* (see Dr. Holland's list at the end of the article) and our tendency to eat a large amount of grains in our typical American diet, this is a very concerning problem. As Dr. Holland said, "Grains are sources of carbohydrates, or sugars, and as such, they risk contamination by certain fungi. These fungi produce secondary metabolites, or mycotoxins." Dr. Holland has put together a list of the top-10 mycotoxic foods. You'll notice as you browse through the list that it mentions lots of grains (wheat, barley, rye, etc.). You're probably familiar with some of the dangers of grains mentioned on this site, and now you have one more reason not to eat them--they are commonly contaminated with mycotoxins. You'll also notice that peanuts are on the list. Peanuts are not only commonly contaminated with aflatoxin, a carcinogenic mold, but they will also distort your omega-3:6 ratio. A much better choice if you want to eat nuts are walnuts, as they will give you some beneficial omega-3. One food that is not mentioned on the list is coconut oil. I want to point out that, while coconut oil is an incredible food in terms of nutrition and taste, many coconut oils contain mycotoxins. This is because they are commonly made with copras, or dried coconuts, which are often contaminated with mycotoxins. With that, here's the top-10 list of mycotoxic foods that you will want to avoid. By David A. Holland, M.D. 1. Alcoholic beverages 2. Corn 3. Wheat 4. Barley 5. Sugar (sugar cane and
sugar beets) 6. Sorghum 7. Peanuts | ||||