Conspiracy Facts of Laws and there hidden meaning. There is no Law in America
The Lessons of a Lifetime
SILVER WEEKLY COMMENTARY..
August 18, 2008..
By : Theodore Butler..
TED BUTLER’S ARCHIVES..
In order to understand where you may be going, it is important to understand where you have been. Nowhere is this more true than in silver. The historic price sell-off, coupled with the obvious shortages in almost all forms of retail physical silver present the lessons of a lifetime. I believe that how we learn from this lesson will determine our future financial situation, good or bad..
The drastic sell-off in silver (and gold) is further proof of an ongoing manipulation to the downside. My advice to own real silver on a fully paid for basis, has been borne out. Real pain exists among those who held silver or gold on margin. Many leveraged investors have lost their positions because they couldn’t meet margin calls. Meanwhile, no fully paid up investors sold because they had to come up with more margin money. That’s lesson number one..
The Anatomy of a Crime..
What we just witnessed in the historic sell-off in silver and gold was a crime. That’s not a crybaby complaint. There were no supply or demand developments that could account for the severity of the sell-off. The proof that this sell-off was criminal lies in public data provided in the Commitment of Traders Report (COT) and a basic understanding of how the futures market works. This has been the most extreme sell-off in the recent history of silver and gold. We are farther below the moving averages than at any point since I have been writing about silver. Price movements this severe are likely to be intentional and not accidental..
Every criminal act must have a motive and an opportunity to commit the crime. By the simple process of elimination, those responsible for this crime are the concentrated commercial shorts on the COMEX. No one else fits the profile. They had the means (through their dominant and monopolistic position), the profit motive and the skill to cause the sell-off..
I can’t identify the concentrated shorts by name, as commodity law protects their identity. But the regulators certainly know who they are and continue to choose to do nothing about them. (They also knew the identity of the SemGroup, which appears responsible for the recent run up and collapse of crude oil prices.) While I can’t identify the perpetrators by name, I can label senior management of the NYMEX/COMEX , as well as the commissioners and other high ranking employees at the CFTC as being complicit and involved in the manipulation. Incompetence can no longer be considered an explanation or excuse for them not enforcing the law. (While not the purpose of this article, I will list the e-mail addresses of the regulators at the end of this article, for those who want to make their feelings known.)..
I am not writing this article in anger. I understand how many could feel angry, particularly if leveraged silver or gold positions were liquidated as a result of this sell-off. Not only does this episode confirm that these markets have been manipulated, it also strengthens my conviction that the termination of this manipulation is a certainty. The commercials know better than anyone how the markets function mechanically. This is their full-time business. They know when the markets are least liquid and when many traders are absent. Perhaps the most illiquid times, with few traders present, are in the overnight sessions. The most illiquid time is around 8 PM EST. On Thursday evening, right at that time, the price of silver suddenly plummeted by almost $1.50. It had never before fell by that amount so quickly in any overnight session..
So, how did the concentrated shorts pull that off? They waited until the most opportune time and threw in some relatively small, but aggressively placed sell orders. These sell orders caused the price to fall, touching off further sell orders from under-margined longs, which further caused prices to fall. The analogy I like to use is that it is similar to rolling a small snowball down a hill and watching it pick up size and momentum. As the sell orders began to snowball more and more, guess who was buying after prices dropped? Correct, the concentrated shorts..
How is it possible that the commercials could buy back short positions on thousands of contracts at times of steep sell-offs, without triggering a rise in price? There is only one possible and plausible explanation – through discipline and collusion. The commercials know the price levels that tech funds and other large speculators are likely to sell at on the way down. In addition, some of those large commercials do the clearing for these speculative traders. In that position, they know the finances of the large long silver traders better than anyone. The commercials know, in advance, the sell points and vulnerability levels of the longs as well as the longs themselves. So all the commercials have to do is trigger low enough prices at illiquid times in the market to manufacture an avalanche of selling. Then they sit back with low priced buy orders and wait for the desperate sellers to come to them. Previously, I have referred to the behavior of the commercials as a wolf pack. It is shocking that the regulators can permit this..
To those who claim that these are normal market games, and the commercials are market makers, let me point out that commodity law does not allow for market making. The markets are supposed to operate as an open outcry (now electronic) auction, not as a specialist system. Even assuming that the commercials operate as self-appointed market makers, what kind of legitimate market maker only caps price rises by increasing short selling. Then they create disorderly moves to the downside. That’s why all silver price rallies are contained and orderly and why we get vicious, out of control sell-offs. The commercials make markets only for their own financial benefit. Some market makers..
I promise you that I could prove this if I were privy to the trading records rather than just the CFTC and the exchange, whose mission is to look the other way. But that is impossible, so I have to prove it with public data. While the data for this Thursday-Friday sell-off won’t be available until the next COT, the last few COTs provide ample evidence to prove what I allege..
The most recent COT, for positions held as of 8/12, confirm that the commercials have been on a buying binge for the past month. In other words, they have rigged the sell-offs in silver and gold over the past month and used those sell-offs to collusively buy as many contracts as possible. The numbers are impressive. Since the COT of 7/15, the commercials have bought back and reduced their total net silver futures short position by more than 20,000 contracts (100 million ounces) In gold the commercials have bought back, as a group, more than 90,000 futures contracts, reducing their net short position by 9 million ounces. Undoubtedly, more contracts have been bought by the commercials in the current week..
In addition to this buying on the COMEX, I believe that the naked short position in shares of the silver ETF, SLV, have been bought back, either entirely or in large part over the past month. This was the plan..
However, the percentage of net buying by the concentrated shorts in COMEX silver and gold has decidedly lagged the overall pace of commercial net buying. In silver, the big 4 concentrated shorts only bought back 10%, or 2000 of the 20,000 silver contracts bought, while the raptors (the 9+ smaller commercials) bought 12,000 and the 5 thru 8 largest traders bought a bit more than the 6000 contract balance. In gold the big 4 only bought back 22%, or 20,000 of the 90,000 net contracts bought, with the raptors buying 40,000 contracts and the 5 thru 8 largest traders buying 30,000 contracts..
What this tells us, for sure, is that the concentrated short position of the big 4 in silver and gold, while somewhat reduced in total contracts over the past month, has grown more concentrated and manipulative. The big 4 in gold and silver have grown more and more isolated from the rest of the commercials and, therefore, more desperate. This fully explains the disorderly nature of the recent sell-off and will explain any further disorderliness. The very small amount of short covering by the big 4 increases the likelihood that they may be trapped in these short positions..
Remember, concentration and manipulation go hand in hand, and the more concentrated the short position becomes in silver and gold the clearer the proof of manipulation. Only those that refuse to analyze the public data and reject the very idea that silver and gold could possibly be manipulated can conclude that we are witnessing free market behavior and not a rig job. With the growing evidence of a retail investment shortage in silver, those who deny manipulation are about to look very silly..
The Retail Silver Investment Shortage..
The growing and persistent retail silver investment shortage is becoming increasingly obvious. This segment makes up a small part of the total silver market on a daily basis. However, due to the large number of participants, on both the buy and sell side, the demographics elevate this segment to a more reliable barometer than daily volumes might suggest. With some 5,000 US retail dealers and perhaps 100,000 customers, there is much to learn from in this retail market..
What is happening is nothing short of astounding. For the first time in our lifetime, there is not enough silver to go around. Just about everywhere you look, dealers are sold out or low on inventories, throughout the entire supply chain. Delays in deliveries, the clearest definition of a commodity shortage, are commonplace. This is unprecedented. That this is occurring precisely at the same time of a sharp sell-off in the price of silver, should make your head spin..
I would suggest, if you have college-age children or that you borrow any basic economics textbooks they have. What you will read, is what you already know. The most basic law of supply and demand dictates that low and falling prices must be an indication of growing supplies or falling demand. You will find no suggestion that the price of anything could fall sharply with record demand, especially with the unavailability of supply. At least, not in any free market system..
Then I would suggest that you consider the only plausible explanation to silver investment shortages amid plummeting prices. That explanation is that there must be something wrong with the price of silver, not with supply or demand. After all, the actual supply or demand can’t possibly be “wrong.” They are what they are. Only the price could possibly be wrong. To be exact, the price of silver is manipulated, something that I have maintained for more than two decades. The growing retail silver shortage confirms this manipulation..
I recognize that even if the true Prophet of any or all religions descended from the Heavens and certified that the price of silver (and gold) was manipulated, there would still be many who doubted it. That’s because one of the most powerful forces on the face of the earth, is the inability to admit that they may have been wrong. If that error is about something as basic as a market being free or manipulated, then the denial is likely to be more obstinate. In fact, as the evidence becomes more apparent, it’s actually quite humorous to read and listen to why the shortage doesn’t matter..
As regular readers know, the inevitability of a silver shortage (as a direct result of the long-tern manipulation) has been at the center of my message. If there is one thing upon which I have agreed with my good friend and mentor, Izzy, it is the coming shortage of silver. This has been an issue on which we have agreed for more than 20 years. But it is only recently that I have come to appreciate his true take on what shortage will mean to the price of silver. He has a perspective that few of us have, including me..
By way of review, the silver retail investment shortage emerged some six months ago, shortly after Izzy’s article extolling the advantage of buying US Silver Eagles..
There is not the slightest doubt in my mind that his article jump started the huge demand for Silver Eagles and as a result the US Mint could not keep up with demand. They still can’t. Already, the Mint has sold more Silver Eagles in the first seven and a half months of this year than it sold in any full year in the 22 year history of the Eagle program. And we still have four and a half months. Clearly, Silver Eagle sales would have been higher were the Mint able to keep up with demand. I believe the demand for Silver Eagles subsequently generated sales for all retail silver investment products. Those not able to buy Eagles bought other forms that were available, until demand exceeded supply for other silver products..
Now many may doubt that a retired grandfather could write a single article that could launch a shortage of retail silver for the very first time in history, but I know better. I know that is exactly what happened. And the reason I know it is because I knew that was Izzy’s intent beforehand. Everything he wrote about the benefits of owning silver was the gospel truth. But, he also intended and set out to highlight just how tight silver supply had become by forcing the Mint into a position where they could not meet demand. He knew that the Mint couldn’t hide a shortage of Silver Eagles. There’s no way that someone sets out to accomplish such a specific objective and then achieves it by accident..
The reason I am recounting Izzy’s remarkable accomplishment is to give you a sense of the true meaning of his thoughts on the coming silver shortage. Even I raise my eyes when he offers his seemingly outrageous price projections, although I know better to dismiss anything he says. But there is something unique in his experience and background that gives him a perspective unlike most. In fact, it is a perspective one can achieve only through first hand experience..
Izzy has experienced the kind of shortages of basic goods only witnessed during war. He was present during communist take over in his native Romania. He has related to me how people would pay any price for a loaf of bread, a chicken, even a tool. You and I can’t conceive of such shortages because we have never experienced them first hand..
Perhaps you can mentally transport yourself to imagine such shortages, where price becomes secondary to availability,. If so, you may get a brief glimpse of Izzy’s vision and “crazy” price targets for silver in a time of true shortage. I can only do it for the shortest of times, before my imagination shuts down. If this persistent and growing retail shortage of silver develops into a true full-blown wholesale and industrial shortage (as I believe we may already be in), we will not be able to judge what price is truly crazy. Those most likely to gauge price correctly in a shortage may only be those who have been there and done that..
Lessons For Everyone..
I realize I am running long here, but I ask your indulgence. This article is about the important lessons before us. Let me summarize the lessons to different segments of the silver market..
For investors, don’t let this opportunity slip by. I realize you are seeing something with your own eyes that you have never seen before, namely, shortages and low and sharply declining prices. This is contrary to everything you have learned and experienced. It is nothing short of extraordinary. You must rely on your common sense. Something has to give, either prices or supply. This can’t last for long. Continued low prices won’t increase supply. The only solution for shortage is higher prices. In the case of silver, sharply higher prices. Don’t hesitate in buying silver now..
Recently, I wrote that I thought silver was exceptionally low-risk, since it had fallen sharply. The price then went lower than I thought it would or could. But my basic premise is still intact, namely that the lower the price goes, the lower the remaining risk..
For those investors capable of switching gold owned into silver, this is a particularly opportune time to switch, as silver prices have been manipulated much lower than gold prices. Silver is cheaper, compared to gold, than it has been in a long time. That can’t last. Yes, gold looks cheap here and appears to be also tight on a retail supply basis, but the big difference is this; due to silver’s industrial consumption nature and deeply depleted world inventories, higher prices for silver will not cure a shortage for a long time..
Investors should recognize that the manipulative sell-off may have created the very springboard that will cause the price of silver to soar. This is not about some academic discussion on whether silver is manipulated or not. This is about identifying and taking advantage of a potential price explosion. It has been my long-held premise that before we took off to the upside, we were likely to get a super smash to the downside. I think this was the super smash..
For industrial consumers of silver, the lessons are even more compelling than for investors. That‘s because, investors don’t have to buy silver. They have the choice to buy or not buy. Users don’t have that choice, they must buy. Their only choice is when, how much, and at what price to buy silver. A few weeks ago, users were paying more than $19 an oz for silver. Since then, the price dropped more than $6. Users will not consume less silver just because the price declined..
If you know you must consume an item, price declines are the time to stock up. This is not complicated. If you consume a favorite type of coffee, when it goes on sale for 30% off, the reaction is to take advantage and buy more than you normally would. Likewise, some industrial consumers of silver will do the same. It’s called legitimate hedging, which is the economic justification of the futures markets..
A special note to users. For the past ten years or so, hedging has been a disaster for the producers who sold future production at too low of a price. But if there was one shining example of a good hedge, it was on the buy side by a user. I am speaking of Southwest Airlines, and their magnificent buy hedge of fuel. As a result of locking in low prices, those responsible for the fuel hedge are placed upon a pedestal at the company, and rightly so. Someday soon, there will be some great success stories about those users who locked in silver at current prices..
For mine producers of silver, the current sell-off presents unique risks and opportunities. Obviously, the low price presents danger to your shareholders. I don’t know of a primary miner that can operate at a profit at current silver prices. Producers can and should do something about it. At a minimum, producers should speak up about the sell-off and question its cause. They might threaten to withhold production. Such actions would meet with strong approval from shareholders. It would be a public relations bonanza. Shareholders don’t want to hear producers say everything is fine in the silver market, because they know otherwise..
A few years ago, a silver mining company, Silver Standard, appeared to take my public advice to buy some silver. The results were spectacular. Not only did the company and its CEO, Robert Quartermain, reap shareholder goodwill, it achieved a profit of roughly $25 million, when it sold the silver earlier this year above $20. I would suggest that this company (and others) take advantage of the sell-off and do it again. If they do, I think the results, both from a public relations and profit standpoint, will be even better..
Finally, the lessons to the regulators from this sell-off may be the most important of all. This year we have witnessed disorderly pricing in many markets. In oil and cotton, the disorderly markets were caused by speculator shorts, masquerading as commercials, who ran into trouble and had to buy back their short positions. While the concentrated shorts in silver and gold have not yet lost control, given the growing physical shortage in silver, it would appear to be only a matter of time..
In the meantime, the regulators are permitting a crime to remain in progress. This is shameful. Worse, I believe that their denial of the existence of a silver manipulation has, effectively, given a green light to the concentrated shorts to continue the manipulation. In other words, the CFTC is directly responsible for the recent silver and gold sell-off. That’s beyond shameful..
Any pretense that the concentrated short position in silver was somehow a legitimate hedge went out the window the minute that the price cracked below the cost of production and shortages started to develop. After all, who legitimately hedges to lock in a loss or hedges against nonexistent inventory?..
Here are the e-mail addresses for the regulators. If you want to give someone a piece of your mind about the manipulation, this is a good place to start. While it may or may not do any good, it is the right thing to do, especially if you are disturbed by this manipulation, as you should be..
Former Governor Jesse Ventura: WTC Collapse A Controlled Demolition
Navy veteran and movie star savages official story, says media covering up truth about attacks
Paul Joseph Watson
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
Former Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura vehemently savaged the official 9/11 story on a syndicated national radio show today, saying the WTC collapsed like a controlled demolition and was pulverized to dust as he also highlighted the impossible 10 second free fall speed of the towers.
Appearing on The Alex Jones Show, Ventura said that his initial reaction to 9/11 was much like most people at the time, and he accepted the official story outright, a response he now regrets because he was in a position of power and could have used it to raise a lot of pointed questions.
“I kicked myself when it initially happened that the light didn’t go off but I was so shocked that this thing had even taken place that I apologize for not being more aware,” said Ventura, adding that watching Loose Change at the insistence of his son was part of the catalyst for his wake up call.
Host Alex Jones is executive producer of Loose Change (get it here) http://infowars-shop.stores.yahoo.net/lochficut.html
the most watched Internet movie of all time. Ventura said he ran through a rollercoaster of emotions when he saw the film.
“When I finally did watch it I went through every emotion you could imagine, from laughing, crying, getting sick to my stomach, to the whole emotional thing,” said the former Governor.
“To me questions haven’t been answered and are not being answered about 9/11,” said Ventura, before highlighting the collapse of Building 7, a 47-story tall skyscraper that was not hit by a plane but collapsed in its own footprint in the late afternoon of September 11.
“Two planes struck two buildings….but how is it that a third building fell 5 hours later?” asked Ventura, “How could this building just implode into its own footprint 5 hours later – that’s my first question – the 9/11 Commission didn’t even devote one page to that in their big volume of investigation,” added the former Governor.
Ventura then explored how it was possible that all three buildings could rapidly collapse at almost free fall speed.
“How could those buildings fall at the speed of gravity – if you put a stopwatch on them both of those World Trade Center buildings were on the ground in ten seconds – how can that be?” asked Ventura.
“If you took a billiard ball and dropped it from the height of the World Trade Center in a vacuum it would hit the ground in 9.3 seconds and if you took that same billiard ball and dropped it 10 stories at a time and merely stopped it and started it it would take 30 seconds – if you dropped it every floor of the World Trade Center to the ground, simply stopping and starting it on gravity it would take over 100 seconds to reach the ground,” he surmised.
The former wrestling star then questioned how low-temperature burning jet fuel could melt steel.
“Jet fuel is four fifths kerosene – which is not a hot burning fuel – and they wanted us to believe it melted these steel structured girders and caused these buildings to pancake collapse to the ground?” he stated.
“I was on the site within two weeks after it happened and I saw none of these pancakes – wouldn’t they all be piled up in a huge mass on the ground and yet everything was blown into dust – when you look at it from that aspect none of it makes any sense,” said Ventura.
“Never before in the annuls of history has a fire caused a steel structure building to fall to the ground like these two did,” he concluded.
Having undergone Basic Underwater Demolition Seal training, Ventura is speaking from an experienced standpoint and he unequivocally stated that he thought the buildings were deliberately imploded.
“Upon looking at the film in super-slow motion and the way the buildings fell and comparing that to the way that they do like a controlled demolition of a hotel in Las Vegas, they both fell identical.”
“I did watch the film of Building 7 going down and in my opinion there’s no doubt that that building was brought down with demolition,” said the former Governor.
Ventura also questioned the lack of wreckage outside of the Pentagon after Flight 77 allegedly struck the building.
“When I was watching Loose Change with a friend of mine – he happens to work for a company that helps build the Boeing airplanes and they said that when the engines completely disappeared and were destroyed, his response was, excuse my French – bullshit!,” said Ventura.
“I turned to him and said why and he said because they’re made of titanium steel – they can’t disintegrate.”
Ventura said that the corporate media were going to continue to cover-up the truth about 9/11, but that the number of credible people speaking out and increasing education and knowledge about the subject would eventually reap dividends.
“We don’t want to lose our country, after all it’s still our country and until they put us down we have the power,” Ventura concluded.
The Governor’s bold comments about 9/11 come on the heels of similar views expressed by American icon Willie Nelson during an interview on the same radio show in February.
The Next Big Autism Bomb: Are 1 in 50 Kids Potentially At Risk?
Posted March 26, 2008 | 09:30 PM (EST)
Read More: Autism, Autism Mitochondria, Autism Thimerosal, Autism Vaccine Mercury, Autism Vaccines, Breaking Living News
stumbleupon :The Next Big Autism Bomb: Are 1 in 50 Kids Potentially At Risk? digg: The Next Big Autism Bomb: Are 1 in 50 Kids Potentially At Risk? reddit: The Next Big Autism Bomb: Are 1 in 50 Kids Potentially At Risk? del.icio.us: The Next Big Autism Bomb: Are 1 in 50 Kids Potentially At Risk? Review it on NewsTrust Yahoo Buzz: The Next Big Autism Bomb: Are 1 in 50 Kids Potentially At Risk?
On Tuesday, March 11, a conference call was held between vaccine safety officials at the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, several leading experts in vaccine safety research, and executives from America’s Health Insurance Plans, (the HMO trade association) to discuss childhood mitochondrial dysfunction and its potential link to autism and vaccines.
It was a sobering event for all concerned, and it could soon become known as the Conference Call heard ’round the world.
The teleconference was scheduled by a little known CDC agency called the Clinical Immunization Safety Assessment (CISA) Network, a consortium of six research centers working on “immunization-associated health risks,” in conjunction with the CDC’s Immunization Safety Office and the health insurance lobby — whose companies cover some 200 million Americans.
The hot topic of the day was mitochondria – the little powerhouses within each cell that convert food and oxygen into energy for use by the body. Recent news events have implicated mitochondria in at least one case of regressive autism, following normal development.
Some researchers on the call reported that mitochondrial dysfunction is probably much more common than the current estimate of 1-in-4,000 people. The potential implications for autism, then, are staggering.
“We need to find out if there is credible evidence, theoretically, to support the idea that childhood mitochondrial dysfunction might regress into autism,” one of the callers reportedly told participants.
“THE CLOCK IS TICKING”
One person on the call (those interviewed for this article asked to remain anonymous) told me that, “the CDC people were informed, in no uncertain terms, that they need to look into this issue immediately, and do something about it.” The clock is ticking, they were told, and if they don’t respond, the information will be made public.
Still, the doctor said, he was enormously impressed by the “seriousness” with which CDC officials treated the possibility of a link between mitochondria, autism and possibly vaccines as well.
In the recent landmark Hannah Poling case, filed in Federal “Vaccine Court,” officials conceded that Hannah’s underlying mitochondrial dysfunction was aggravated by her vaccines, leading to fever and an “immune stimulation that exceeded metabolic reserves.”
But on March 6, CDC Director Dr. Julie Gerberding claimed that Hannah’s case was a rare, virtually one-of-a-kind incident with little, if any relevance to the other 4,900 autism claims currently pending in the court — or to any other case of autism for that matter.(There were conflicting accounts about whether Gerberding was on the call or not).
Since then, however, Dr. Gerberding and other CDC officials were made aware of a Portuguese study, published last October, which reported that 7.2% of children with autism had confirmed mitochondrial disorders. The authors also noted that, “a diversity of associated medical conditions was documented in 20%, with an unexpectedly high rate of mitochondrial respiratory chain disorders.”
“Apparently, the Portuguese study really got their attention,” one of the participants said. “It’s a highly significant finding. And it’s worrisome enough to definitely look into. I think the CDC people know that.”
They also know that some reports estimate the rate of mitochondrial dysfunction in autism to be 20% or more. And the rate among children with the regressive sub-type of autism is likely higher still.
Vaccine safety officials on the March 11 call may have been open to discussing mitochondria and autism, but they were probably highly unprepared for what was to come next.
One doctor reported his findings from a five-year study of children with autism, who also showed clinical markers for impaired cellular energy, due to mild dysfunction of their mitochondria.
The biochemistry of 30 children was studied intensively, and in each case, the results showed the same abnormalities as those found in Hannah Poling, participants said. Each child had moderate elevations or imbalances in the exact same amino acids and liver enzymes as Hannah Poling.
All thirty children also displayed normal, healthy development until about 18-24 months of age, when they quickly regressed into clinically diagnosed autism (and not merely “features of autism”), following some type of unusual trigger, or stress, placed on their immune system.
Researchers explained on the call that some data show that mitochondrial dysfunction can convert into autism “in numbers that make it not a rare occurrence,” one participant told me. They explained this as “a distinct syndrome; not a mixed bag at all. Every kid had mild mitochondria dysfunction and autistic regression.”
Another surprise came when one researcher announced an “inheritance pattern” that linked each case through the genetics of the father: In families where two cousins had autism, the genetic link was always through the father.
This unexpected discovery would clearly implicate nuclear DNA inheritance, and not mitochondrial DNA, which is inherited only through the mother.
Gerberding and others had previously insisted that Hannah and her mother, Teri Poling, both had the same single point mutation in their mitochondrial DNA. CDC officials asserted that Hannah had a pre-existing disease, a rare genetic glitch in her mitochondria, that may well have manifested as “features of autism” on its own, perhaps even without an environmental trigger.
“It’s not in the mitochondrial DNA, and it’s not rare,” one participant confirmed. In fact, he said, many people probably carry the nuclear DNA mutation that confers susceptibility to mitochondrial dysfunction, they just don’t know it.
1-in-50 GENETIC RISK?
On the call, speculation on the prevalence of a genetic mutation that could confer mild mitochondrial dysfunction in the general population ranged from about 1-in-400, to a staggering 1-in-50, or 2% of all Americans.
There was talk about the urgent need to do mapping studies, and find the locus of this gene. Some of the researchers said they want to test all 30 children for the actual DNA mutation. There was some expectation that they might discover that the mutation goes back generations, so parents and grandparents might be tested as well.
One belief is that a particular mutated gene may have become prevalent over the centuries, because of selective advantage. Mild mitochondrial dysfunction reportedly has been associated with intelligence, because it can increase activity of the brain’s NMDA receptors. A large number of receptors can produce increased intelligence, but it can also increase risk of brain disease, one doctor explained to me. It’s possible that increased receptor activity acts in same way.
But not everyone agrees that mitochondrial dysfunction is a purely inherited affair. Some researchers believe that, while a susceptibility gene for mitochondrial problems certainly exists, some type of environmental trigger, or “adversity,” as one doctor put it, is needed to turn the mutation into a dysfunction.
The medical literature is replete with studies on mitochondrial health and the adverse impact of mercury, aluminum and other toxins. Even AIDS drugs like AZT and prenatal alcohol consumption can damage mitochondria and impact cellular energy.
The mercury-containing vaccine preservative, thimerosal, for example, “can definitely kill cells in vitro through the mitochondria,” one teleconference participant told me. “And some people are beginning to suspect that the dose of hepatitis B vaccine given at birth might be interfering with proper mitochondrial function in certain children.”
While the cause of mitochondrial dysfunction is up for the debate, so too is its potential effect on regressive autism.
All the researchers I spoke with agreed that, in many cases, there was an underlying, asymptomatic mitochondrial dysfunction, aggravated by some other stressful event imposed on the child’s immune system, resulting in autism.
Such “metabolic decomposition” occurs when a child’s system simply “cannot meet the energy demand needed to fight the stress of illness,” one doctor explained.
But what causes the stress? That is a very big question.
Apparently, in only two of the 30 cases, or 6%, could the regression be traced directly and temporally to immunizations, and one of them was Hannah Poling. In the other cases, there was reportedly some type of documented, fever-inducing viral infection that occurred within seven days of the onset of brain injury symptoms.
All 30 of the regressions occurred between one and two years of age, at a time when the still-developing brain is particularly vulnerable to injury.
But if a significant minority of autism cases was caused by mitochondrial dysfunction aggravated by common childhood illnesses, then shouldn’t we see fewer cases today than, say, at the beginning of the 20th Century? And wouldn’t developing countries likewise show far more prevalence of autism than the United States?
Not necessarily, some experts said. They noted that many viral infections are still quite prevalent in modern-day America, and many children still get these types of viral infections about once a month, on average.
If that is the case, then why doesn’t every child with “mito” dysfunction regress into autism? Surely, they must encounter viral infections during their yearlong window of neurological peril.
Again, not necessarily: Some doctors said it would depend on the severity of the dysfunction, the type of virus encountered, and perhaps other factors that are still not understood.
But at least two of the 30 kids with mito deficiencies were pushed over the edge into autism by their vaccines, and some researchers feel the number is probably much higher than that in the larger population.
“Vaccines, in some cases, can cause an unusually heightened immune reaction, fever, and even mild illness,” one participant said. “A normal vaccine reaction in most kids would be very different in a kid with a metabolic disorder. We know it happened to at least two kids in this study, and I’m certain there are many more Hannahs out there.”
One theory currently in circulation about what happened to Hannah and other children like her, is an apparent “triple domino effect.” According to this hypothesis, it takes three steps and two triggers to get to some types of autism, and it goes like this:
STEP ONE: Child is conceived and born healthy, but with an underlying nuclear DNA genetic susceptibility to mitochondrial dysfunction, inherited from dad.
TRIGGER ONE: An early environmental “adversity” occurs in the womb or during the neonatal period, perhaps caused by prenatal exposure to heavy metals, pollutants, pesticides and medicines. Or, it occurs in early infancy, through environmental toxins, thimerosal exposure, or even the Hepatitis B vaccine “birth dose.” This trigger results in:
STEP TWO: Child develops mild, usually asymptomatic mitochondrial dysfunction (though I wonder if the ear infections and eczema so common in these cases might also be symptoms of mito problems).
TRIGGER TWO: Child, now with an underlying mitochondrial dysfunction, suffers over-stimulation of the immune system beyond the capacity of his or her metabolic reserves. This stress is either via a viral febrile infection, or from multiple vaccinations, as in the Poling case. This trigger results in:
STEP THREE: Acute illness, seizures, encephalopathy, developmental regression, autism.
Such a scenario might help explain why autism has increased right along with the addition of more vaccines to the national schedule.
And it might help explain why autism rates are not plummeting now that thimerosal levels have been significantly reduced in most childhood vaccines.
It’s possible that exposures from the flu shot, and residual mercury left over in other vaccines — perhaps in synergistic effect with aluminum used as an “adjuvant” to boost the immune response – might “contribute to the toxic mix that causes childhood mitochondrial dysfunction in the first place,” one of the doctors said.
But like many hypotheses, this one has competition. Some researchers believe that the modern American diet is largely to blame for an increase in the number of children whose underlying mitochondrial dysfunction is “triggered” into autism by febrile infections.
The answer, they hypothesize, is corn.
The American diet has become extraordinarily dependent on corn oil and corn syrup used in processing, these experts contend. They say that corn oil and syrup are inflammatory, whereas fish oil is anti-inflammatory. Could our diet be a factor in making this mutated gene become more pathogenic? It’s a biochemical defect that leads to biochemical disease, supporters of this theory say: The gene itself becomes more of a problem.
This information raises so many questions it makes your head swim.
First and foremost among them: What to do about vaccinating children with known mitochondrial dysfunction?
In many respects, these kids should be first in line for vaccination, to prevent some illnesses that might trigger an autistic regression during the window of vulnerability. On the other hand, with multiple vaccinations, such as the case with Hannah, there is also a risk of overtaxing the immune system, and likewise triggering regression into autism.
What’s needed most urgently, if possible, is a quick, affordable and efficient method of testing children for low cellular energy, perhaps before vaccination even begins.
There was some discussion on the conference call about altering the vaccine schedule in some way, to lower the risk of immune over-stimulation in susceptible children. Certainly, pressure will grow for a change in the schedule – the question is how, when, and if such changes will be made.
Some of the suggestions may not be popular among public health officials. They include:
1) Establishing a maximum number of vaccine antigens to which any child could be exposed on any given day.
2) Permitting the option of separating out the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) live virus combination vaccines into three distinct “monovalent” shots.
3) Not giving the varicella vaccine (chicken pox) on the same day as the MMR injection – the CDC recently withdrew is recommendation for the Pro-Quad MMR+Varicella vaccine because it doubled the risk of seizures.
Another option is to create new “recommendations for administering multiple vaccines to children who have fallen behind in the recommended childhood immunization schedule,” according to the website of the Institute for Vaccine Safety at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.
Hannah had missed some shots and her doctor decided to “catch up” with the schedule by administering five shots, containing nine vaccine antigens, at once. But some autism activists have pointed out that giving five shots in one day is not that uncommon.
Moreover, they claim, many children regressed into autism following normal vaccination, when the parents religiously adhered to the official schedule.
According to the Johns Hopkins site, “Additional research is needed to determine if other children with autism, especially those with ‘the regressive form’ of autism, have the same or similar underlying mitochondrial dysfunction disorders.”
It adds that, “the advisory groups who make recommendations regarding vaccines will undoubtedly examine this case carefully and make decisions regarding the potential need for changes.”
That day may come sooner than you think. It was just announced that, on April 11 in Washington, DC, the National Vaccine Program Office at HHS will convene a meeting of the National Vaccine Advisory Committee’s Vaccine Safety Working Group. The Working Group was established to go over the CDC’s Immunization Safety Office draft research agenda, and to, “review the current vaccine safety system.”
The meeting is open to the public, and I have my seat reserved. But I honestly don’t envy the Working Group’s very tricky task at hand.
It remains to be seen how all this plays out. And many important questions still lie ahead.
For example, if mitochondrial dysfunction turns out to be as common as 200-per-10,000, and autism is now at 66 per 10,000, did anything bad happen to any of the other 134-per-10,000 children, apart from autism (i.e., ADD, ADHD, speech delay, etc.)?
Moreover, if 10-20% of autism cases can actually be traced to an underlying mitochondrial dysfunction, then what about the majority of autism cases where this did not come into play?
And, if 20% of autism cases are mito related, and 6% of those cases regressed because of vaccines, that would mean that at least 1% of all autism cases were vaccine related. Some estimates of autism go as high as a million Americans – that would mean 10,000 people with vaccine-triggered autism, and billions of dollars in the cost of lifetime care.
(While we are on the subject, isn’t it time to fund a study of vaccinated and unvaccinated children, to settle this debate once and for all?)
Finally, the goals of the CISA Network, (which convened the teleconference) are rather progressive and far reaching. It remains to be seen how well the Network fulfills its stated mission, which includes:
Conduct research into “the role of individual variation” on vaccine injury;
“Empower individuals to make informed immunization decisions;”
Help policy makers “in the recommendation of exclusion criteria for at-risk individuals,” and;
“Enhance public confidence in sustaining immunization benefits for all populations”
Let’s see how long it takes before Network members hang out the proverbial banner: “Mission Accomplished.”
The scientific value of a study can only be determined by examining how it was conducted, not by parroting its “conclusions.” This section is intended to make available the actual study rather than what people are saying about it.
Authored by Gary Mauser, professor at Simon Fraser University in British Columbia, Canada, this study examines crime trends in Commonwealth countries that have recently introduced firearm regulations: i.e., Great Britain, Australia, and Canada. The widely ignored key to evaluating firearm regulations is to examine trends in total violent crime, not just firearms crime. The United States provides a valuable point of comparison for assessing crime rates because its criminal justice system differs so drastically from those in Europe and the Commonwealth. Perhaps the most striking difference is that qualified citizens in the United States can carry concealed handguns for self-defense. The upshot is that violent crime rates, and homicide rates in particular, have been falling in the United States. The drop in the American crime rate is even more impressive when compared with the rest of the world. The study can be downloaded as a 304K pdf file.
From, of all places, the United Nations, comes this look at crime rates and victim attitudes for 17 major industrialized countries. What is of interest to gun owners is the not-so-surprising revelation that England now has the worst crime rate of all major countries. Following a near-total ban on civilian ownership of firearms, crime in England began to skyrocket. In the UN study, researchers found that nearly 55 crimes are committed per 100 people in England and Wales compared with an average of 35 per 100 in other industrialized countries. England and Wales also have the worst record for “very serious” offenses, recording 18 such crimes for every 100 inhabitants, followed by Australia with 16 (yet another country that has all but banned legitimate self-defense, thus creating a lucrative hunting ground for criminals). In typical UN layered-bureaucracy fashion, the ICVS is funded out of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, but the link is to the Dutch WODC (Research and Documentation Centre). Study data are available for download in English as Acrobat pdf files.
More United Kingdom data. Found here is an interesting and comprehensive dichotomy involving the differing approaches to fireams ownership in Northern Ireland and England itself. Of particular interest is the “Minutes of Evidence” section, whereby Members of the House of Commons respond to questions about just how trustworthy folks are with these pesky guns.
Dr. John R. Lott of More Guns, Less Crime fame teamed with John E. Whitley of the University of Adelaide on this study of more than twenty years worth of “Lock Up Your Safety” madatory gun storage laws. They found no support at all for the usual gun banner claims that such laws will reduce juvenile accidental gun deaths and suicides. On the contrary, the data suggest that these laws appear to impair the ability of citizens to properly use their guns in self-defense. During the first five full years after the passage of the safe storage laws, the group of fifteen states that adopted these laws faced an annual average increase of over 300 more murders, 3,860 more rapes, 24,650 more robberies, and over 25,000 more aggravated assaults. On average, the annual costs borne by victims averaged over $2.6 billion as a result of lost productivity, out-of-pocket expenses, medical bills, and property losses. The link is to the abstract; the actual study available for download is a 238K Acrobat pdf file.
This groundbreaking study, published in The Journal of Law and Economics, has discovered that states implementing concealed carry laws benefit the safety of police. The author, David B. Mustard of the University of Georgia’s Department of Economics, found that allowing law-abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons “does not endanger the lives of officers, and may help reduce their risk of being killed.” This is an Acrobat pdf file.
From the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention within the U.S. Department of Justice comes this study focusing on crime, gang activity, and drug use among youths in cities. Of particular interest is page 18. The study showed that those youths who owned illegal guns are involved in street crime at a whopping 71% rate. By contrast, the government researchers admit that youths owning legal guns have a crime rate lower than those who own no guns at all! The link between the socialization of the family and instruction by fathers to legal gun ownership and low crime rates is mentioned. The thugs, of course, are getting their socialization “on the street.” This is an Acrobat pdf file.
A federal grant from the Clinton Justice Department went to two anti-gun scholars to fund this research project. Result: findings which support the work on defensive uses of firearms done by Dr. Gary Kleck of FSU. Kleck’s research has been unfairly vilified in the media, but now even anti-gun researchers are admitting to more than a million defensive uses per year. The above link is to a text version; the 20-page report is also available as an Adobe Acrobat file.
This is the famous 1996 Lott and Mustard multi-year study which proves the link between concealed carry and the lowering of the crime rate. Several download options available.
This Clinton Department of Justice study looks at crime in the U.S. vs. the U.K. from 1981-1996. Gun control in England is nearly total, with yet another major ban passing in 1997. England’s attempts to control its society-wide crime problem with ever-more restrictive gun control have proven to be a dismal failure.
The FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports. Most files available as .pdf (Adobe Acrobat) only.
One of the oldest studies, from October of 1994, relying heavily upon early Florida and Washington data.
From the Florida Department of State, updated monthly.
Depopulation of a Planet Thinning Out The “Useless Eaters”
An Unspoken NWO Agenda
|Part I:||Historical Perspective|
|Part II:||What you can’t see will hurt you!|
|Part III:||No easy Answers!|
|Part IV:||A Picture Emerges|
|Part V:||U.N. Rings the Alarm|
|Part VI:||The Final Chapter|
A Report by RICK MARTIN
Part I: Historical Perspective 11/19/95 Many writers have spoken of intentional plans by certain Elite to thin-out the world’s population; it’s a recurring theme among so-called conspiracy theorists. There are frequent references to “useless eaters”, which includes the bulk of mankind. Most, when hearing of plots to depopulate the planet, simply say under their breath, “Yeah, right,” or more often, while shaking their head, “You’re nuts.” But when there is a careful examination of writings by prominent authors of this century, pieces of the puzzle certainly do fall into place – pieces which support the contention that there are certain individuals, if not entire governments, who have implemented a program of global genocide in an effort to salvage and corner “resources”.
What you will be reading in this series on Depopulation Of A Planet are selected writings from a wide cross-section of viewpoints and political leanings. I will be using “their” own documents, their own words, to weave a fabric which, in the end, will be a tapestry of undeniable clarity for those with eyes to see.
Without the historical foundation upon which to base understanding, writing about current efforts at depopulation, through the use of viruses and microorganisms, would have far less significance. So please stay with it as you read and it will come together. I realize that some of this initial material may seem dry, but it is important for a broader understanding of this critical and timely issue.
THOMAS MALTHUS Thomas Robert Malthus was a parson of the English State Church and an economist who lived from 1766-1834. He is best known for his writing An Essay On The Principle Of Population, published in 1798. His main idea is that populations increase more rapidly than food supplies. So, he claimed, there would always be more people in the world than can be fed, and wars and disease will be necessary to kill off the extra population.
Malthus did not claim to be the originator of this idea, although it has come to be known as the “Malthusian Theory”. Malthus based his argument on the works of Condorcet, David Hume, Adam Smith, Defoe, Sir James Steuart, Townsend, Franklin, and others.
Malthus’ Essay suggested to Charles Darwin the relationship between progress and the survival of the fittest. This was the basic idea in Darwin’s theory of evolution.
Turning to the New American Encyclopedia, we read, “Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831), German philosopher of idealism who had an immense influence on 19th and 20th-century thought and history. During his life he was famous for his professorial lectures at the University of Berlin and he wrote on logic, ethics, history, religion and aesthetics. The main feature of Hegel’s philosophy was the dialectical method by which an idea (thesis) was challenged by its opposite (antithesis) and the two ultimately reconciled in a third idea (synthesis) which subsumed both. Hegel found this method both in the workings of the mind, as a logical procedure, and in the workings of the history of the world, which to Hegel was the process of the development and realization of the World Spirit (Weltgeist). Hegel’s chief works were Phenomenology of the Mind (1807) and Philosophy Of Right (1821). His most important follower was Marx.”
In the book edited by Carl J. Friedrich entitled The Philosophy of Hegel, Hegel writes in The Philosophy of History, “In the Christian religion God has revealed Himself, giving to men the knowledge of what He is so that He is no longer secluded and secret. With this possibility of knowing Him, God has imposed upon us the duty to so know Him. The development of the thinking spirit, which has started from this basis, from the revelation of the Divine Being, must at last progress to the point where what was at first presented to the spirit in feeling and imagination is comprehended by thought. Whether the time has come to achieve this knowledge depends upon whether the final end of the world has at last entered into actual reality in a generally valid and conscious manner.”
Hegel concludes with, “World history, with all the changing drama of its histories, is this process of the development and realization of the spirit. It is the true theodicy, the justification of God in history. Only this insight can reconcile the spirit with world history and the actual reality, that what has happened, and is happening every day, is not only not ‘without God’, but is essentially the work of God.”
In his work A History Of Western Philosophy, Bertrand Russell writes, “Throughout the whole period after the death of Hegel, most academic philosophy remained traditional, and therefore not very important. British empiricist philosophy was dominant in England until near the end of the century, and in France until a somewhat earlier time; then, gradually, Kant and Hegel conquered the universities of France and England, so far as their teachers of technical philosophy were concerned.”
Russell continues, “[Condorcet 1743-1794]…was also the inventor of Malthus’s theory of population, which, however, had not for him the gloomy consequences that it had for Malthus, because he coupled it with the necessity of birth control. Malthus’s father was a disciple of Condorcet, and it was in this way that Malthus came to know of the theory.”
Of Hegel, Russell writes in part, “Hegel does not mean only that, in some situations, a nation cannot rightly avoid going to war. He means much more than this. He is opposed to the creation of institutions – such as a world government – which would prevent such situations from arising, because he thinks it is a good thing that there should be wars from time to time. War, he [Hegel] says is the condition in which we take seriously the vanity of temporal goods and things. (This view is to be contrasted with the opposite theory, that all wars have economic causes.) War has a positive moral value: ‘War has the higher significance that through it the moral health of peoples is preserved in their indifference towards the stabilizing of finite determinations.'”
Still quoting Bertrand Russell, “The Philosophical Radicals were a transitional school. Their system gave birth to two others, of more importance than itself, namely Darwinism and Socialism. Darwinism was an application to the whole of animal and vegetable life of Malthus’s theory of population, which was an integral part of the politics and economics of the Benthamites – a global free competition, in which victory went to the animals that most resembled successful capitalists. Darwin himself was influenced by Malthus, and was in general sympathy with the Philosophical Radicals. There was, however, a great difference between the competition admired by orthodox economists and the struggle for existence which Darwin proclaimed as the motive force of evolution. ‘Free competition,’ in orthodox economics, is a very artificial conception, hedged in by legal restrictions. You may undersell a competitor, but you must not murder him. You must not use the armed forces of the State to help you to get the better of foreign manufacturers. Those who have not the good fortune to possess capital must not seek to improve their lot by revolution. ‘Free competition,’ as understood by the Benthamites, was by no means really free.
“Darwinian competition was not of this limited sort; there were no rules against hitting below the belt. The framework of law does not exist among animals, nor is war excluded as a competitive method. The use of the State to secure victory in competition was against the rules as conceived by the Benthamites, but could not be excluded from the Darwinian struggle. In fact, though Darwin himself was a liberal, and though Nietzsche never mentioned him except with contempt, Darwin’s Survival Of The Fittest led, when thoroughly assimilated, to something much more like Nietzsche’s philosophy than like Bentham’s. These developments, however, belong to a later period, since Darwin’s Origin Of Species was published in 1859, and its political implications were not at first perceived.”
KARL MARX In his 1843 writing from The Kreuznach Manuscripts: Critique Of Hegel’s Philosophy Of Right [from Discussion Of The Princely Power, Comments On Hegel’s 279] Karl Marx writes, [quoting:]
“Democracy is the truth of monarchy; monarchy is not the truth of democracy. Monarchy is forced to be democracy as a non sequitur within itself, whereas the monarchical moment is not a non sequitur within democracy. Democracy can be understood in its own terms; monarchy cannot. In democracy, none of its moments acquires a meaning other than that which is appropriate to it. Each is actually only a moment within the whole demos. In monarchy, a part determines the character of the whole. The whole constitution has to take shape of this firm foundation. Democracy is the type or species of the constitution. Monarchy is a variety, and indeed a bad variety. Democracy is ‘form and content’. Monarchy is supposed to be only form, but it falsifies the content.
“In monarchy, the whole, the people, is subsumed under one of its particular modes of existence, that of the political constitution. In democracy, on the other hand, the constitution itself appears as only one determination, and indeed, as the self-determination of the people. In monarchy, we have the people of the constitution; in democracy we have the constitution of the people. Democracy is the riddle of all constitutions solved. In democracy the constitution is always based on its actual foundation, on actual man and the actual people, not only in itself, according to its essence, but in its existence and actuality; it is postulated as autonomous. The constitution is seen as what it is, the freely-created product of man. One could say that in some respects this is also true of constitutional monarchy, but what specifically differentiates democracy is the fact that in democracy the constitution is only one particular moment in the existence of the people, that the political constitution does not itself constitute the state.
“Hegel begins with the state and turns man into the state subjectivized; democracy begins with man and makes the state into man objectivized. Just as religion does not create man but man creates religion, so the constitution does not create the people but the people create the constitution. In certain respects, democracy bears the same relation to all other forms of state as Christianity bears to all other religions. Christianity is religion par excellence, the essence of religion, man deified as a particular religion. Similarly, democracy is the essence of every constitution; it is socialized man as a particular constitution. Democracy is related to other constitutions as a species is related to its varieties. But in democracy the species itself appears as a particular [form of] existence, as one therefore that appears as a particular type vis-a-vis other particular [individual] existences that do not correspond to their essence. Democracy is the Old Testament in relation to all other forms of state. Man does not exist for the law, but the law exists for man. In democracy law is the existence of man, while in other forms of state man is the existence of law. This is the fundamental distinguishing mark of democracy.”
Marx concludes with, “In all states other than democracy the state, the law, the constitution is dominant without actually dominating, i.e., without penetrating materially the content of the remaining non-political spheres: in democracy the constitution, the law, the state itself as a political constitution is only a self-determination of the people, a particular content of theirs.
“It is self-evident, incidentally, that all forms of state have democracy as their truth, and are therefore untrue in so far as they are not democratic.”
In a correspondence of 1843, which was an exchange of letters between Marx, Ruge, and Bakunin concerning the prospects of social and political emancipation, Marx writes,
“Man’s self-esteem, freedom, must be awakened once more in the heart of these men. Only this feeling, which disappeared from the world with the Greeks and vanished into the blue mists of heaven with Christianity, can once more transform society into a fellowship of men working for their highest purposes, a democratic state.
“Those people, on the other hand, who do not feel themselves to be men become appendages of their masters, like a herd of slaves or horses. The hereditary masters are the point of this whole society. This world belongs to them. They take it as it is and as it feels. They take themselves as they find themselves and stand where their feet have grown, on the necks of these political animals who know no other destiny than to be subject, loyal and at their master’s service.
“The world of the Philistines is the political kingdom of animals; if we have to recognize its existence then we have no alternative but simply to accept the status quo. Centuries of barbarism created and shaped it and it now exists as a consistent system, whose principle is the dehumanized world. The perfected world of the Philistine, our Germany, naturally had to lag far behind the French Revolution, which restored man to himself. A German Aristotle, who would take his Politics from our conditions, would write on the first page: ‘Man is a social, but a completely apolitical, animal’.”
Further on, Marx continues,
“To be sure, in times when the political state as such is born, violently, out of civil society, when men strive to liberate themselves under the form of political self-liberation, the state can and must go on to abolish and destroy religion. But it does so only the way that it abolishes private property, by setting a maximum, providing for confiscation and progressive taxation, just as it abolished life by establishing the guillotine. In moments when political life has a specially strong feeling for its own importance, it seeks to repress its presuppositions, civil society and its elements, and to constitute itself as the real, harmonious species-life of man. It can do this only by entering into violent contradiction with its own conditions of existence; it can do so only by declaring the revolution to be permanent; and the political drama therefore necessarily ends with the restoration of religion, of private property, and of all the elements of civil society, just as war ends with peace…
“We have shown, then, that political emancipation from religion leaves religion standing, even if not as privileged religion. The contradiction in which the follower of a specific religion finds himself in relation to his citizenship is only one aspect of the universal secular contradiction between the political state and civil society. The consummation of the Christian state is a state that recognizes itself as state and abstracts itself from the religion of its members. The emancipation of the state from religion is not the emancipation of actual man from religion.”
In Capital, Marx writes, (quoting:) The laboring population therefore produces, along with the accumulation of capital produced by it, the means by which itself is made relatively superfluous, is turned into a relative surplus-population; and it does this to an always increasing extent. This is the law of population peculiar to the capitalist mode of production; and in fact every specific historic mode of production has its own specific laws of population, historically valid within its limits alone. An abstract law of population exists for plants and animals only, and only insofar as man has not interfered with them. [end quoting]
Bertrand Russell writes in A History Of Western Philosophy, “Marx’s philosophy of history is a blend of Hegel and British economics. Like Hegel, he thinks that the world develops according to a dialectical formula, but he totally disagrees with Hegel as to the motive force of this development. Hegel believed in a mystical entity called Spirit, which causes human history to develop according to the stages of the dialectic as set forth in Hegel’s Logic. Why Spirit has to go through these stages is not clear. One is tempted to suppose that Spirit is trying to understand Hegel, and at each stage rashly objectifies what it has been reading. Marx’s dialectic has none of this quality except a certain inevitableness. For Marx, matter, not spirit, is the driving force. But it is a matter in the peculiar sense that we have been considering, not the wholly dehumanized matter of the atomists. This means that, for Marx, the driving force is really man’s relation to matter, of which the most important part is his mode of production. In this way Marx’s materialism, in practice, becomes economics.”
In one of his Fabian Essays [The Fabian Society], entitled Economic, George Bernard Shaw wrote the following in 1889, “All economic analyses begin with the cultivation of the Earth. To the mind’s eye of the astronomer the Earth is a ball spinning in space without ulterior motives. To the bodily eye of the primitive cultivator it is a vast green plain, from which, by sticking a spade into it, wheat and other edible matters can be made to spring.” Shaw continues, “It was the increase of population that spread cultivation and civilization from the center to the snow line, and at last forced men to sell themselves to the lords of the soil: it is the same force that continues to multiply men so that their exchange value fails slowly and surely until it disappears altogether – until even black chattel slaves are released as not worth keeping in a land where men of all colors are to be had for nothing. This is the condition of our English laborers today: they are no longer even dirt cheap; they are valueless, and can be had for nothing.”
On overpopulation Shaw writes, “The introduction of the capitalistic system is a sign that the exploitation of the laborer toiling for a bare subsistence wage has become one of the chief arts of life among the holders of tenant rights. It also produces a delusive promise of endless employment which blinds the proletariat to those disastrous consequences of rapid multiplication which are obvious to the small cultivator and peasant proprietor. But indeed the more you degrade the workers, robbing them of all artistic enjoyment, and all chance of respect and admiration from their fellows, the more you throw them back, reckless, on the one pleasure and the one human tie left to them – the gratification of their instinct for producing fresh supplies of men. You will applaud this instinct as divine until at last the excessive supply becomes a nuisance: there comes a plague of men; and you suddenly discover that the instinct is diabolic, and set up a cry of ‘overpopulation’. But your slaves are beyond caring for your cries: they breed like rabbits; and their poverty breeds filth, ugliness, dishonesty, disease, obscenity, drunkenness, and murder. In the midst of the riches which their labour piles up for you, their misery rises up too and stifles you. You withdraw in disgust to the other end of the town from them; you appoint special carriages on your railways and special seats in your churches and theaters for them; you set your life apart from theirs by every class barrier you can devise; and yet they swarm about you still: your face gets stamped with your habitual loathing and suspicion of them: your ears get so filled with the language of the vilest of them that you break into it when you lose your self-control: they poison your life as remorselessly as you have sacrificed theirs heartlessly. You begin to believe intensely in the devil. Then comes the terror of their revolting; the drilling and arming of bodies of them to keep down the rest; the prison, the hospital, paroxysms of frantic coercion, followed by paroxysms of frantic charity. And in the meantime, the population continues to increase!”
GEORGE ORWELL In George Orwell’s classic Animal Farm, he writes,
“Now, comrades, what is the nature of this life of ours? Let us face it: our lives are miserable, laborious, and short. We are born, we are given just so much food as will keep the breath in our bodies, and those of us who are capable of it are forced to work to the last atom of our strength; and the very instant that our usefulness has come to an end we are slaughtered with hideous cruelty. No animal in England knows the meaning of happiness or leisure after he is a year old. No animal in England is free. The life of an animal is misery and slavery: that is the plain truth.
“But is this simply part of the order of nature? Is it because this land of ours is so poor that it cannot afford a decent life to those who dwell upon it? No, comrades, a thousand times no! The soil of England is fertile, its climate is good, it is capable of affording food in abundance to an enormously greater number of animals than now inhabit it. This single farm of ours would support a dozen horses, twenty cows, hundreds of sheep – and all of them living in a comfort and a dignity that are now almost beyond our imagining. Why then do we continue in this miserable condition? Nearly the whole of the produce of our labour is stolen from us by human beings. There, comrades, is the answer to all our problems. It is summed up in a single word – Man. Man is the only real enemy we have. Remove Man from the scene, and the root cause of hunger and overwork is abolished for ever.
“Man is the only creature that consumes without producing. He does not give milk, he does not lay eggs, he is too weak to pull the plough, he cannot run fast enough to catch rabbits. Yet he is lord of all the animals. He sets them to work, he gives back to them the bare minimum that will prevent them from starving, and the rest he keeps for himself. Our labour tills the soil, our dung fertilizes it, and yet there is not one of us that owns more than his bare skin. You cows that I see before me, how many thousands of gallons of milk have you given during this last year? And what has happened to that milk which should have been breeding up sturdy calves? Every drop of it has gone down the throats of our enemies. And you hens, how many eggs have you laid in this last year, and how many of those eggs ever hatched into chickens? The rest have all gone to market to bring in money for Jones and his men. And you, Clover, where are those four foals you bore, who should have been the support and pleasure of your old age? Each was sold at a year old – you will never see one of them again. In return for your four confinements and all your labour in the fields, what have you ever had except your bare rations and a stall?
“And even the miserable lives we lead are not allowed to reach their natural span. For myself I do not grumble, for I am one of the lucky ones. I am twelve years old and have had over four hundred children. Such is the natural life of a pig. But no animal escapes the cruel knife in the end. You young porkers who are sitting in front of me, every one of you will scream your lives out at the block within a year. To that horror we all must come – cows, pigs, hens, sheep, everyone. Even the horses and the dogs have no better fate. You, Boxer, the very day that those great muscles of yours lose their power, Jones will sell you to the knacker, who will cut your throat and boil you down for the foxhounds. As for the dogs, when they grow old and toothless, Jones ties a brick around their neck and drowns them in the nearest pond.
“Is it not crystal clear, then, comrades, that all the evils of this life of ours spring from the tyranny of human beings? Only get rid of Man, and the produce of our labour would be our own. Almost overnight we could become rich and free. What then must we do? Why, work night and day, body and soul, for the overthrow of the human race. That is my message to you, comrades: Rebellion! I do not know when that Rebellion will come, it might be in a week or in a hundred years, but I know, as surely as I see this straw beneath my feet, that sooner or later justice will be done. Fix your eyes on that, comrades, throughout the short remainder of your lives! And above all, pass on this message of mine to those who come after you, so that future generations shall carry on the struggle until it is victorious.
“And remember, comrades, your resolution must never falter. No argument must lead you astray. Never listen when they tell you that Man and the animals have a common interest, that the prosperity of the one is the prosperity of the others. It is all lies. Man serves the interests of no creature except himself. And among us animals let there be perfect unity, perfect comradeship in the struggle. All men are enemies. All animals are comrades.”
“There is, of course, no reason why the new totalitarians should resemble the old. Government by clubs and firing squads, by artificial famine, mass imprisonment and mass deportation, is not merely inhumane (nobody cares much about that nowadays); it is demonstrably inefficient and in an age of advanced technology, inefficiency is the sin against the Holy Ghost. A really efficient totalitarian state would be one in which the all-powerful executive of political bosses and their army of managers control a population of slaves who do not have to be coerced, because they love their servitude. To make them love it is the task assigned, in present-day totalitarian states, to ministries of propaganda, newspaper editors and school teachers. But their methods are still crude and unscientific. The old Jesuits’ boast that, if they were given the schooling of the child, they could answer for the man’s religious opinions, was a product of wishful thinking. And the modern pedagogue is probably rather less efficient at conditioning his pupils’ reflexes than were the reverend fathers who educated Voltaire. The greatest triumphs of propaganda have been accomplished, not by doing something, but by refraining from doing. Great is truth, but still greater, from a practical point of view, is silence about truth. By simply not mentioning certain subjects, by lowering what Mr. Churchill calls an “iron curtain” between the masses and such facts or arguments as the local political bosses regard as undesirable, totalitarian propagandists have influenced opinion much more effectively than they could have done by the most eloquent denunciations, the most compelling of logical rebuttals. But silence is not enough. If persecution, liquidation and the other symptoms of social friction are to be avoided, the positive sides of propaganda must be made as effective as the negative. The most important Manhattan Projects of the future will be vast government-sponsored enquiries into what the politicians and the participating scientists will call “the problem of happiness” – in other words, the problem of making people love their servitude. Without economic security, the love of servitude cannot possibly come into existence; for the sake of brevity, I assume that the all-powerful executive and its managers will succeed in solving the problem of permanent security. But security tends very quickly to be taken for granted. Its achievement is merely a superficial, external revolution. The love of servitude cannot be established except as the result of a deep, personal revolution in human minds and bodies. To bring about that revolution we require, among others, the following discoveries and inventions. First, a greatly improved technique of suggestion – through infant conditioning and, later, with the aid of drugs, such as scopolamine. Second, a fully developed science of human differences, enabling government managers to assign any given individual to his or her proper place in the social and economic hierarchy. (Round pegs in square holes tend to have dangerous thoughts about the social system and to infect others with their discontents.) Third (since reality, however utopian, is something from which people feel the need of taking pretty frequent holidays), a substitute for alcohol and the other narcotics, something at once less harmful and more pleasure-giving than gin or heroin. And fourth (but this would be a long-term project, which it would take generations of totalitarian control to bring to a successful conclusion) a foolproof system of eugenics, designed to standardize the human product and so to facilitate the task of the managers. In Brave New World this standardization of the human product has been pushed to fantastic, though not perhaps impossible, extremes. Technically and ideologically we are still a long way from bottled babies and Bokanovsky groups of semi-morons. But by A.F. 600, who knows what may not be happening? Meanwhile the other characteristic features of that happier and more stable world – the equivalents of soma and hypnopaedia and the scientific caste system – are probably not more than three or four generations away. Nor does the sexual promiscuity of Brave New World seem so very distant. [Let me remind you this was written in 1946.] There are already certain American cities in which the number of divorces is equal to the number of marriages. In a few years, no doubt, marriage licenses will be sold like dog licenses, good for a period of twelve months, with no law against changing dogs or keeping more than one animal at a time. As political and economic freedom diminishes, sexual freedom tends compensatingly to increase. And the dictator (unless he needs cannon fodder and families with which to colonize empty or conquered territories) will do well to encourage that freedom. In conjunction with the freedom to daydream under the influence of dope and movies and the radio, it will help to reconcile his subjects to the servitude which is their fate.
“All things considered it looks as though Utopia were far closer to us than anyone, only fifteen years ago, could have imagined. Then, I projected it six hundred years into the future. Today it seems quite possible that the horror may be upon us within a single century. That is, if we refrain from blowing ourselves to smithereens in the interval. Indeed, unless we choose to decentralize and to use applied science, not as the end to which human beings are to be made the means, but as the means to producing a race of free individuals, we have only two alternatives to choose from: either a number of national, militarized totalitarianisms, having as their root the terror of the atomic bomb and as their consequence the destruction of civilization (or, if the warfare is limited, the perpetuation of militarism); or else one supra-national totalitarianism, called into existence by the social chaos resulting from rapid technological progress in general and the atomic revolution in particular, and developing, under the need for efficiency and stability, into the welfare-tyranny of Utopia. You pays your money and you takes your choice.”
Mark Twain in The Mysterious Stranger writes, “And what does it amount to?” said Satan, with his evil chuckle. “Nothing at all. You gain nothing: you always come out where you went in. For a million years the race has gone on monotonously propagating itself and monotonously re-performing this dull nonsense to what end? No wisdom can guess! Who gets a profit out of it? Nobody but a parcel of usurping little monarchs and nobilities who despise you; would feel defiled if you touched them; would shut the door in your face if you proposed to call; whom you slave for, fight for, die for, and are not ashamed of it, but proud; whose existence is a perpetual insult to you and you are afraid to resent it; who are mendicants supported by your alms, yet assume toward you the airs of benefactor toward beggar; who address you in the language of master toward slave, and are answered in the language of slave toward master; who are worshipped by you with your mouth, while in your heart if you have one you despise yourselves for it. The First man was a hypocrite and a coward, qualities which have not failed yet in his line; it is the foundation upon which all civilizations have been built.”
In a lecture titled The Population Explosion, delivered at Santa Barbara, California. in 1959, Aldous Huxley said, “Today I want to pass on to what is happening to the human species and to think a little about what our philosophy and our ethical outlook on the subject should be. This lecture is essentially about human numbers and their relation to human well-being and human values in general.
“Needless to say, any accurate estimation of human numbers is very recent, but we can extrapolate into the past and come to what seem to be fairly good conclusions. Although there are some fairly wide margins of difference among the experts, the numbers they come to are roughly in agreement. They agree that in pre-agricultural days, for example in the lower Palaeolithic times, when man was a food-gathering creature, there were probably not more than twenty million humans on this whole planet. In later Palaeolithic times, after organized hunting had been invented, the number probably doubled. We can make a rough estimate of what an organized hunting people could do because we know how many Indians were present in North America when the white man arrived – not more than one million in the entire North American continent east of the Rockies – and this gives one an indication of the extremely low density of population possible in a hunting economy.
“The Great Revolution came about 6000 B.C. with the invention of agriculture, and the creation of cities in the next millennia. By about 1000 B.C., after five thousand years of agriculture, there were probably about one hundred million people in the world.
“By the beginning of the Christian era, this figure had a little more than doubled: it was somewhere between two hundred million and two hundred and fifty million – less than half the present population of China. The population increased very gradually in the following years; sometimes there were long periods of standstill and sometimes there were even periods of decrease, as in the years immediately following 1348, when the Black Death killed off 30 percent of the population of Europe and nobody knows how much of the population of Asia.
“By the time the Pilgrim fathers arrived in this country, it is estimated that the population of the world was about twice what it had been on the first Christmas Day – that is to say, it had doubled in sixteen hundred years, an extremely slow rate of increase. But from that time on, from the middle of the seventeenth century, with the beginnings of the industrial revolution and the first importation of food from the newly developed lands of the New World, population began rising far more rapidly than it had ever risen before.
“By the time the Declaration of Independence was signed, the figure for the human population of the world was probably around seven hundred million; it must have passed the billion mark fairly early in the nineteenth century and stood at about fourteen hundred million around the time when I was born in the 1890s. The striking fact is that since that time the population of the planet has doubled again. It has gone from fourteen hundred million, which is already twice what it was at the signing of the Declaration of Independence, to twenty-eight hundred million. And the rate of increase now is such that it will probably double again in rather less than fifty years.
“Thus the rates of increase have been increasing along with the absolute increase in numbers.”
[Please remember, this was written in 1959. The world’s current population is rapidly approaching the 7 Billion figure – those are not “official” numbers, however.]……… [and 8 billion now in the year 2000 – update]
Still quoting Huxley:
“Let us now ask ourselves what the practical alternatives are as we confront this problem of population growth. One alternative is to do nothing in particular about it and just let things go on as they are, but the consequences of that course are quite clear: the problem will be solved by nature in the way that nature always solves problems of over-population – when any animal population tends (a) to starve and (b) to suffer from severe epidemic and epizootic diseases.
“In the human population, we can envisage that the natural check on the unlimited growth of population will be precisely this: there will be pestilence, famine, and, since we are human beings and not animals, there will be organized warfare, which will bring the numbers down to what the Earth can carry. What nature teaches us is that it is extraordinarily dangerous to upset any of its fundamental balances, and we are in the process of upsetting a fundamental balance in the most alarming and drastic manner. The question is: Are we going to restore the balance in the natural way, which is a brutal and entirely anti-human way, or are we going to restore it in some intelligent, rational, and humane way? If we leave matters as they are, nature will certainly solve the problem in her way and not in ours.
“Another alternative is to increase industrial and agricultural production so that they can catch up with the increase in population. This solution, however, would be extremely like what happens to Alice in Through The Looking Glass. You remember that Alice and the Red Queen are running a tremendous race. To Alice’s astonishment, when they have run until they are completely out of breath they are in exactly the same place, and Alice says, ‘Well, in our country…you’d generally get to somewhere else – if you ran very fast for a long time as we’ve been doing.’
‘A slow sort of country!’ says the Queen. ‘Now here, you see, it takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place. If you want to get somewhere else, you must run at least twice as fast as that!’
“This is a cosmic parable of the extremely tragic situation in which we now find ourselves. We have to work, to put forth an enormous effort, just to stand where we are; and where we are is in a most undesirable position because, as the most recent figures issued by the United Nations indicate, something like two-thirds of the human race now lives on a diet of two thousand calories or less per day, which – the ideal being in the neighborhood of three thousand – is definitely a diet of undernourishment.”
Further into the speech, quoting Huxley again:
“The third alternative is to try to increase production as much as possible and at the same time to try to re-establish the balance between the birth rate and the death rate by means less gruesome than those which are used in nature – by intelligent and humane methods. In this connection it is interesting to note that the idea of limiting the growth of populations is by no means new. In a great many primitive societies, and even in many of the highly civilized societies of antiquity, where local over-population was a menace, although less fearful than the natural means, the most common was infanticide – killing or exposing by leaving out on the mountain unwanted children, or children of the wrong sex, or children who happened to be born with some slight deficiency or other. Abortion was also very common. And there were many societies in which strict religious injunctions imposed long periods of sexual continence between the birth of each child. But in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries various methods of birth control less fearful in nature have been devised, and it is in fact theoretically conceivable that such methods might be applied throughout the whole world.
“What is theoretically possible, however, is often practically almost impossible. There are colossal difficulties in the way of implementing any large-scale policy of limitation of population; whereas death control is extremely easy under modern circumstances, birth control is extremely difficult. The reason is very simple: death control – the control, for example, of infectious diseases – can be accomplished by a handful of experts and quite a small labour force of unskilled persons and requires a very small capital expenditure.”
“The problem of control of the birth rate is infinitely complex. It is not merely a problem of medicine, in chemistry, in biochemistry, in physiology; it is also a problem in sociology, in psychology, in theology, and in education. It has to be attacked on about ten different fronts simultaneously if there is to be any hope of solving it.”
And, continuing later in Huxley’s speech,
“Merely from a technical and temporal point of view, we are obviously in a very tight spot. But we have also to consider the political point of view. There would undoubtedly have to be either world-wide agreement or regional agreements on a general population policy in order to have any satisfactory control of the situation at all. But there is absolutely no prospect at the present time of our getting any such political agreement.”
“Now we have to ask ourselves what our attitude should be towards these problems. We come to the other end of the bridge. We pass from the world of facts to the world of values. What we think about all this depends entirely on what we regard as the end and purpose of human life. If we believe the end and purpose of human life is to foster power politics and nationalism, then we shall probably need a great deal of cannon fodder, although even this proposition becomes rather dubious in the light of nuclear warfare. But if, as I think most of us would agree, the end of human life is to realize individual potentialities to their limits and in the best way possible, and to create a society which makes possible such a realization and philosophical way about the population problem. We see that in very many cases the effort to raise human quality is being thwarted by the mere increase of human quantity, that quality is very often incompatible with quantity. We have seen that mere quantity makes the educational potentialities of the world unrealizable. We have seen that the pressure of enormous numbers upon resources makes it almost impossible to improve the material standards of life, which after all have to raise to a minimum if any of the higher possibilities are to be realized: although it is quite true that man cannot live by bread alone, still less can he live without bread, and if we simply cannot provide adequate bread, we cannot provide anything else. Only when he has bread, only when his belly is full, is there some hope of something else emerging from the human situation.
“Then there is the political problem. It is quite clear that as population presses more and more heavily upon resources, the economic situation tends to become more and more precarious. As there is a tendency in precarious situations for centralized government to assume more and more control, there is therefore now a tendency towards totalitarian forms of government, which certainly we in the West find very undesirable. But when you ask whether democracy is possible in a population where two-thirds of the people are living on two thousand calories a day, and one-third is living on over three thousand, the answer is no, because the people living on less than two thousand calories will simply not have enough energy to participate in the political life of the country, and so they will be governed by the well-fed and energetic. Again, quantity militates against quality.”
And later, “Finally, the unlimited increase in human numbers practically guarantees that our planetary resources will be destroyed and that within a hundred or two hundred years an immensely hypertrophied human species will have become a kind of cancer on this planet and will ruin the quasi-organism on which it lives. It is a most depressing forecast and possibility.
“I think one can say from this last point that the problem of quality and quantity is really a religious problem. For, after all, what is religion but a preoccupation with the destiny of the individual and with the destiny of society and the race at large? This is summed up very clearly in the Gospel when we are told that the Kingdom of God is within us but at the same time it is our business to contribute to the founding of the Kingdom of God upon Earth. We cannot neglect either of these two aspects of human destiny. For if we neglect the general, quantitative, population aspect of destiny, we condemn ourselves, or certainly our children and grandchildren, as individuals. We condemn them to the kind of life which we should find intolerable and which presumably they will find intolerable too.
“There are no certain theological objections to population limitation. Most religious organizations in the world today, both within and outside the Christian pale, accept it. But the Roman Catholic church does not accept any method of population control except that which was promulgated and made permissible in 1932 – the so-called rhythm method. Unfortunately, where the rhythm method has been tried on a considerable scale in an undeveloped country such as India, it has not been found to be very effective. The fact that the Church recognizes this problem was brought home very clearly in 1954 at the time of the first united Nations Population Congress, which took place in Rome, when the late Pope, in an allocution to the delegates, made it quite clear that the problem of population was a very grave one which he recommended to the consideration of the faithful.”
And later, “We can conclude, then, by saying that over-population is quite clearly one of the gravest problems which confront us, and the choice before us is either to let the problem be solved by nature in the most horrifying possible way or else to find some intelligent and humane method of solving it, simultaneously increasing production and balancing the birth rate and the death rate, and in some way or other forming an agreed international policy on the subject. To my mind, the most important prerequisites to such a solution are first of all an awareness of the problem, and then a realization that it is a profoundly religious problem, a problem of human destiny. Our hope, as always, is to be realistically idealistic.”
LETTER TO U.N. SECRETARY GENERAL U THANT August 30, 1965 – My Dear Mr. Secretary General: The United States Government recognizes the singular importance of the meeting of the second United Nations World Population Conference and pledges its full support to your great undertaking.
As I said to the United Nations in San Francisco, we must now begin to face forthrightly the multiplying problems of our multiplying population. Our government assures your conference of our wholehearted support to the United Nations and its agencies in their efforts to achieve a better world through bringing into balance the world’s resources and the world’s population.
In extending my best wishes for the success of your conference, it is my fervent hope that your great assemblage of population experts will contribute significantly to the knowledge necessary to solve this transcendent problem. Second only to the search for peace, it is humanity’s greatest challenge. This week, the meeting in Belgrade carries with it the hopes of mankind.
Lyndon B. Johnson [President]
POPE PAUL VI
HUMANAE VITAE (1968)
[Quoting:] “The changes which have taken place are in fact noteworthy and of varied kind. In the first place, there is the rapid demographic development. Fear is shown by many that world population is growing more rapidly than the available resources, with growing distress to many families and developing countries, so that the temptation for authorities to counter this danger with radical measures is great. Moreover, working and lodging conditions, as well as increased exigencies both in the economic field and in that of education, often make the proper education of an elevated number of children difficult today.
“This new state of things gives rise to new questions. Granted the conditions of life today, and granted the meaning which conjugal relations have with respect to the harmony between husband and wife and to their mutual fidelity, would not a revision of the ethical norms in force up to now seem to be advisable, especially when it is considered that they cannot be observed without sacrifices, sometimes heroic sacrifices?
“…conjugal love requires in husband and wife an awareness of their mission of “responsible parenthood,” which today is rightly much insisted upon, and which also must be exactly understood. Consequently it is to be considered under different aspects which are legitimate and connected with one another.
“In relation to the biological processes, responsible parenthood means the knowledge and respect of their functions; human intellect discovers in the power of giving life biological laws which are part of the human person.
“In relation to the tendencies of instinct or passion, responsible parenthood means that necessary dominion which reason and will must exercise over them.
“In relation to physical, economic, psychological and social conditions, responsible parenthood is exercised, either by the deliberate and generous decision to raise a numerous family, or by the decision, made for grave motives and with due respect for the moral law, to avoid for the time being, or even for an indeterminate period, a new birth.
“These acts, by which husband and wife are united in chaste intimacy and by means of which human life is transmitted, are, as the council recalled, “noble and worthy” and they do not cease to be lawful if, for causes independent of the will of husband and wife, they are foreseen to be infecund, since they always remain ordained toward expressing and consolidating their union. In fact, as experience bears witness, not every conjugal act is followed by a new life. God has wisely disposed natural laws and rhythms of fecundity which, of themselves, cause a separation in the succession of births. Nonetheless the church, calling men back to the observance of the norms of the natural law, as interpreted by her constant doctrine, teaches that each and every marriage act (“qui libet matrimonii usus”) must remain open to the transmission of life.
“In conformity with these landmarks in the human and Christian vision of marriage, we must once again declare that the direct interruption of the generative process already begun, and, above all, directly willed and procured abortion, even if for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as licit means of regulating birth.
“Equally to be excluded, as the teaching authority of the church has frequently declared, is direct sterilization, whether perpetual or temporary, whether of the man or of the woman.
“Similarly excluded is every action which, either in anticipation of the conjugal act or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible.
“To rulers, who are those principally responsible for the common good, and who can do so much to safeguard moral customs, we say: Do not allow the morality of your peoples to be degraded; do not permit that by legal means practices contrary to the natural and divine law be introduced into that fundamental cell, the family. Quite other is the way in which public authorities can and must contribute to the solution of the demographic problem: namely, the way of a provident policy for the family, of a wise education of peoples in respect of the moral law and the liberty of citizens.
“We are well aware of the serious difficulties experienced by public authorities in this regard, especially in the developing countries. To their legitimate preoccupations we devoted our encyclical letter “Populorum Progressio.” But, with our predecessor Pope John XXIII, we repeat: No solution to these difficulties is acceptable “which does violence to man’s essential dignity” and is based only “on an utterly materialistic conception of man himself and of his life” The only possible solution to this question is one which envisages the social and economic progress both of individuals and of the whole of human society, and which respects and promotes true human values.
“Neither can one, without grave injustice, consider Divine Providence to be responsible for what depends, instead, on a lack of wisdom in government, on an insufficient sense of social justice, on selfish monopolization or again on blameworthy indolence in confronting the efforts and the sacrifices necessary to insure the raising of living standards of a people and of all its sons.”
U THANT “I do not wish to seem over dramatic, but I can only conclude from the information that is available to me as Secretary-General, that the Members of the United Nations have perhaps ten years left in which to subordinate their ancient quarrels and launch a global partnership to curb the arms race, to improve the human environment, to defuse the population explosion, and to supply the required momentum to development efforts. If such a global partnership is not forged within the next decade, then I very much fear that the problems I have mentioned will have reached such staggering proportions that they will be beyond our capacity to control.” U Thant, 1969.
UNITED NATIONS WORLD POPULATION CONFERENCE(1974) Resolutions and Recommendations
[Quoting:] The World Population Conference, having due regard for human aspirations for a better quality of life and for rapid socio-economic development, and taking into consideration the interrelationship between population situations and socio-economic development, decides on the following World Population Plan of Action as a policy instrument within the broader context of the internationally adopted strategies for national and international progress.
POPULATION GOALS AND POLICIES
Recommendations for Action
Population growth: According to the United Nations medium population projections, little change is expected to occur in average rates of population growth either in the developed or in the developing regions by 1985. According to the United Nations low variant projections, it is estimated that as a result of social and economic development and population policies as reported by countries in the Second United Nations Inquiry on Population and Development, population growth rates in the developing countries as a whole may decline from the present level of 2.4 percent per annum to about 2 percent by 1985; and below 0.7 percent per annum in the developed countries. In this case the world-wide rate of population growth would decline from 2 percent to about 1.7 percent.
Countries which consider that their present or expected rates of population growth hamper their goals of promoting human welfare are invited, if they have not yet done so, to consider adopting population policies, within the framework of socioeconomic development, which are consistent with basic human rights and national goals and values.
Countries which aim at achieving moderate or low population growth should try to achieve it through a low level of birth and death rates. Countries wishing to increase their rate of population growth should, when mortality is high, concentrate efforts on the reduction of mortality, and where appropriate, encourage an increase in fertility and encourage immigration.
Recognizing that per capita use of world resources is much higher in the developed than in the developing countries, the developed countries are urged to adopt appropriate policies in population, consumption and investment, bearing in mind the need for fundamental improvement in international equity.
Consistent with the Proclamation of the International Conference on Human Rights, the Declaration of Social Progress and Development, the relevant targets of the Second United Nations Development Decade and the other international instruments on the subject, it is recommended that all countries:
(a) Respect and ensure, regardless of their overall demographic goals, the right of persons to determine, in a free, informed and responsible manner, the number and spacing of their children;
(b) Encourage appropriate education concerning responsible parenthood and make available to persons who so desire advice and means of achieving it;
(c) Ensure that family planning, medical and related social services aim not only at the prevention of unwanted pregnancies but also at elimination of involuntary sterility and sub-fecundity in order that all couples may be permitted to achieve their desired number of children, and that child adoption be facilitated;
(d) Seek to ensure the continued possibility of variations in family size when a low fertility level has been established or is a policy objective;
(e) Make use, wherever needed and appropriate, of adequately trained professional and auxiliary health personnel, rural extension, home economics and social workers, and non-governmental channels, to help provide family planning services and to advise users of contraceptives;
(f) Increase their health manpower and health facilities to an effective level, redistribute functions among the different levels of professional and auxiliaries in order to overcome the shortage of qualified personnel and establish an effective system of supervision in their health and family planning services;
(g) Ensure that information about, and education in, family planning and other matters which affect fertility are based on valid and proven scientific knowledge, and include a full account of any risk that may be involved in the use or non-use of contraceptives.
It is recommended that countries wishing to affect fertility levels give priority to implementing development programs and educational and health strategies which, while contributing to economic growth and higher standards of living, have a decisive impact upon demographic trends, including fertility. International co-operation is called for to give priority to assisting such national efforts in order that these programs and strategies be carried into effect.
While recognizing the diversity of social, cultural, political and economic conditions among countries and regions, it is nevertheless agreed that the following development goals generally have an effect on the socio-economic context of reproductive decisions that tends to moderate fertility levels:
(a) The reduction of infant and child mortality, particularly by means of improved nutrition, sanitation, maternal and child health care, and maternal education;
(b) The full integration of women into the development process, particularly by means of their greater participation in educational, social, economic and political opportunities, and especially by means of the removal of obstacles to their employment in the non-agricultural sector wherever possible. In this context, national laws and policies, as well as relevant international recommendations, should be reviewed in order to eliminate discrimination in, and remove obstacles to, the education, training, employment and career advancement opportunities for women;
(c) The promotion of social justice, social mobility, and social development particularly by means of a wide participation of the population in development and a more equitable distribution of income, land, social services and amenities;
(d) The promotion of wide educational opportunities for the young of both sexes, and the extension of public forms of preschool education for the rising generation;
(e) The elimination of child labour and child abuse and the establishment of social security and old age benefits;
(f) The establishment of an appropriate lower limit for age at marriage.
The projections of future declines in rates of population growth, and those concerning increased expectation of life, are consistent with declines in the birth rate of the developing countries as a whole from the present level of 38 per thousand to 30 per thousand by 1985; in these projections, birth rates in the developed countries remain in the region of 15 per thousand. To achieve by 1985 these levels of fertility would require substantial national efforts, by those countries concerned, in the field of socio-economic development and population policies, supported, upon request, by adequate international assistance. Such efforts would also be required to achieve the increase in expectation of life.
In the light of the principles of this Plan of Action, countries which consider their birth rates detrimental to their national purposes are invited to consider setting quantitative goals and implementing policies that may lead to the attainment of such goals by 1985. Nothing herein should interfere with the sovereignty of any Government to adopt or not to adopt such quantitative goals.
JIMMY CARTER’S MESSAGE TO CONGRESS MAY 23rd 1977
“Rapid population growth is a major environmental problem of world dimensions. World population increased from three to four billion in the last 15 years, substantially canceling out expansion in world food production and economic growth of the same period.
“Without controlling the growth of population, the prospects for enough food, shelter, and other basic needs for all the world’s people are dim. Where existence is already poor and precarious, efforts to obtain the necessities of life often degrade the environment for generations to come.
“It is, of course, up to each nation to determine its own policies, but we are prepared to respond promptly and fully to all requests for assistance in population and health care programs. At my direction, the Department of State and the Agency for International Development stand ready to cooperate through international organizations, through private voluntary organizations, or through direct contacts with other governments.”
CONSIDER THIS On page 65 of Population: Opposing Viewpoints, we read, [quoting:]
“According to the United Nations, which follows these things closely, some 5.3 billion people enlivened our planet by 1990. By November 1992, that number will have increased to 5.5 billion, an addition nearly equal to the population of the United States. Or course no one, including the UN, has a reliable crystal ball that reveals precisely how human numbers will change. Still, people have to plan for the future, and so the UN’s analysts and computers have been busy figuring what might happen. One possibility they consider is that future world fertility rates will remain what they were in 1990. The consequences of this, with accompanying small declines in death rates, are startling. By 2025, when my now-16-year-old daughter will have finished having whatever children she will have, the world would have 11 billion people, double its number today. Another doubling would take only a bit more than 25 years, as the faster-growing segments of the population become a larger proportion of the total. At my daughter’s centennial, in 2076, the human population would have more than doubled again, passing 46 billion. By 2150 there would be 694,213,000,000 of us, a little over 125 times our present population.”
PRINCE PHILIP OF GREAT BRITAIN On March 30, 1990, The Washington Post reported Prince Philip as making the following statement: “We are constantly being reminded of the plight of the poor, the hungry, the homeless and the diseased. What does not make the headlines is that even if the proportion of those unfortunate people remains the same in relation to the total population, their number is bound to increase as the size of the population as a whole increases … The best hope of limiting the increase in the number of such people would be if the world population could be stabilized.”
Go to Part 2 of 6: If you thought it was bad … It’s worse than you think!
March 4, 2008
In response to the arrest of a 9/11 demonstrator during a Bill Clinton appearance in Corpus Christi, corporate media shill and former Republican Congress critter Joe Scarborough and his co-hosts demanded 9/11 truthers be tasered and taken to detention camps. “Where’s the taser?” Joe wants to know as MSNBC runs footage of the man’s arrest. “Tase him!” His co-host adds: “Led away in handcuffs and hopefully taken to one of those secret prisons in eastern Europe and never to be heard from again… I hope we have a special prison for 9/11 conspiracy theorists.”
In other words, the corporate behemoth MSNBC believes people who disagree with the government not only do not deserve First Amendment rights and protection, but also believe demonstrators should be kidnapped by the CIA and taken to a “special prison” to be tortured and ultimately killed, as this is the fate of many who disappear suffer.
Is it possible the United States is about to become like Pinochet’s Chile? In 1973, thanks to the CIA and U.S. corporations, Chile became a brutal police state. Chileans were subjected to systematic and massive violations of their most basic human rights. Official figures indicate that nearly 3,000 people were executed, disappeared or lost their lives as a result of torture and political violence. It would seem “Morning Joe” would enthusiastically welcome the installation of a fascist state where those he disagrees with are disappeared, tortured, and murdered.
Last October, CNN host Glenn Beck called 9/11 truthers “insane” and “dangerous anarchists” in response to 9/11 truthers infiltrating the Real Time with Bill Maher show. “These truthers are exactly the kind of people who want to rock this nation’s foundation, tear us apart and plant the seeds of dissatisfaction in all of us… [this is] the kind of group a Timothy McVeigh would come from,” declared Beck, setting a precedence followed this morning by the scurrilous Joe Scarborough and his complaisant minions.
“In thousands of 9/11 protests over the course of the last six years, not one person has been arrested for violent conduct,” Steve Watson wrote at the time. “To cart blanches suggest that the truth movement is dangerous, ‘a threat to children’ and intent on violence is extremely inflammatory and indicates just how afraid of investigating and debating the facts people like Glen Beck actually are.”
The core of the 9/11 truth movement is composed of highly educated and progressive individuals who are strictly opposed to violence and are intent on protecting a free and peaceful society which has been under dire threat ever since the attacks of 9/11 and the ensuing cover up.
Furthermore the movement represents the very antithesis of anarchism in that it is actively seeking to restore and protect our traditional form of government which has been usurped by an unaccountable cabal that continues to operate outside of Constitutional law and with little restraint using 9/11 as justification.
Indeed, Beck and Scarborough are calling for such draconian measures simply because the 9/11 truth movement is comprised “of highly educated and progressive individuals who are strictly opposed to violence” and because of this they must be demonized as a threat to national security and thus the government must kidnap, torture, and murder them. Although Scarborough did not suggest 9/11 truth “idiots” be murdered, this is of course the ultimate fate of those who oppose militarized fascism, now gaining speed in the United States.
This war on terrorism is bogus
The 9/11 attacks gave the US an ideal pretext to use force to secure its global domination
Massive attention has now been given – and rightly so – to the reasons why Britain went to war against Iraq. But far too little attention has focused on why the US went to war, and that throws light on British motives too. The conventional explanation is that after the Twin Towers were hit, retaliation against al-Qaida bases in Afghanistan was a natural first step in launching a global war against terrorism. Then, because Saddam Hussein was alleged by the US and UK governments to retain weapons of mass destruction, the war could be extended to Iraq as well. However this theory does not fit all the facts. The truth may be a great deal murkier.
We now know that a blueprint for the creation of a global Pax Americana was drawn up for Dick Cheney (now vice-president), Donald Rumsfeld (defence secretary), Paul Wolfowitz (Rumsfeld’s deputy), Jeb Bush (George Bush’s younger brother) and Lewis Libby (Cheney’s chief of staff). The document, entitled Rebuilding America’s Defences, was written in September 2000 by the neoconservative think tank, Project for the New American Century (PNAC).
The plan shows Bush’s cabinet intended to take military control of the Gulf region whether or not Saddam Hussein was in power. It says “while the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.”
The PNAC blueprint supports an earlier document attributed to Wolfowitz and Libby which said the US must “discourage advanced industrial nations from challenging our leadership or even aspiring to a larger regional or global role”. It refers to key allies such as the UK as “the most effective and efficient means of exercising American global leadership”. It describes peacekeeping missions as “demanding American political leadership rather than that of the UN”. It says “even should Saddam pass from the scene”, US bases in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait will remain permanently… as “Iran may well prove as large a threat to US interests as Iraq has”. It spotlights China for “regime change”, saying “it is time to increase the presence of American forces in SE Asia”.
The document also calls for the creation of “US space forces” to dominate space, and the total control of cyberspace to prevent “enemies” using the internet against the US. It also hints that the US may consider developing biological weapons “that can target specific genotypes [and] may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool”.
Finally – written a year before 9/11 – it pinpoints North Korea, Syria and Iran as dangerous regimes, and says their existence justifies the creation of a “worldwide command and control system”. This is a blueprint for US world domination. But before it is dismissed as an agenda for rightwing fantasists, it is clear it provides a much better explanation of what actually happened before, during and after 9/11 than the global war on terrorism thesis. This can be seen in several ways.
First, it is clear the US authorities did little or nothing to pre-empt the events of 9/11. It is known that at least 11 countries provided advance warning to the US of the 9/11 attacks. Two senior Mossad experts were sent to Washington in August 2001 to alert the CIA and FBI to a cell of 200 terrorists said to be preparing a big operation (Daily Telegraph, September 16 2001). The list they provided included the names of four of the 9/11 hijackers, none of whom was arrested.
It had been known as early as 1996 that there were plans to hit Washington targets with aeroplanes. Then in 1999 a US national intelligence council report noted that “al-Qaida suicide bombers could crash-land an aircraft packed with high explosives into the Pentagon, the headquarters of the CIA, or the White House”.
Fifteen of the 9/11 hijackers obtained their visas in Saudi Arabia. Michael Springman, the former head of the American visa bureau in Jeddah, has stated that since 1987 the CIA had been illicitly issuing visas to unqualified applicants from the Middle East and bringing them to the US for training in terrorism for the Afghan war in collaboration with Bin Laden (BBC, November 6 2001). It seems this operation continued after the Afghan war for other purposes. It is also reported that five of the hijackers received training at secure US military installations in the 1990s (Newsweek, September 15 2001).
Instructive leads prior to 9/11 were not followed up. French Moroccan flight student Zacarias Moussaoui (now thought to be the 20th hijacker) was arrested in August 2001 after an instructor reported he showed a suspicious interest in learning how to steer large airliners. When US agents learned from French intelligence he had radical Islamist ties, they sought a warrant to search his computer, which contained clues to the September 11 mission (Times, November 3 2001). But they were turned down by the FBI. One agent wrote, a month before 9/11, that Moussaoui might be planning to crash into the Twin Towers (Newsweek, May 20 2002).
All of this makes it all the more astonishing – on the war on terrorism perspective – that there was such slow reaction on September 11 itself. The first hijacking was suspected at not later than 8.20am, and the last hijacked aircraft crashed in Pennsylvania at 10.06am. Not a single fighter plane was scrambled to investigate from the US Andrews airforce base, just 10 miles from Washington DC, until after the third plane had hit the Pentagon at 9.38 am. Why not? There were standard FAA intercept procedures for hijacked aircraft before 9/11. Between September 2000 and June 2001 the US military launched fighter aircraft on 67 occasions to chase suspicious aircraft (AP, August 13 2002). It is a US legal requirement that once an aircraft has moved significantly off its flight plan, fighter planes are sent up to investigate.
Was this inaction simply the result of key people disregarding, or being ignorant of, the evidence? Or could US air security operations have been deliberately stood down on September 11? If so, why, and on whose authority? The former US federal crimes prosecutor, John Loftus, has said: “The information provided by European intelligence services prior to 9/11 was so extensive that it is no longer possible for either the CIA or FBI to assert a defence of incompetence.”
Nor is the US response after 9/11 any better. No serious attempt has ever been made to catch Bin Laden. In late September and early October 2001, leaders of Pakistan’s two Islamist parties negotiated Bin Laden’s extradition to Pakistan to stand trial for 9/11. However, a US official said, significantly, that “casting our objectives too narrowly” risked “a premature collapse of the international effort if by some lucky chance Mr Bin Laden was captured”. The US chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, General Myers, went so far as to say that “the goal has never been to get Bin Laden” (AP, April 5 2002). The whistleblowing FBI agent Robert Wright told ABC News (December 19 2002) that FBI headquarters wanted no arrests. And in November 2001 the US airforce complained it had had al-Qaida and Taliban leaders in its sights as many as 10 times over the previous six weeks, but had been unable to attack because they did not receive permission quickly enough (Time Magazine, May 13 2002). None of this assembled evidence, all of which comes from sources already in the public domain, is compatible with the idea of a real, determined war on terrorism.
The catalogue of evidence does, however, fall into place when set against the PNAC blueprint. From this it seems that the so-called “war on terrorism” is being used largely as bogus cover for achieving wider US strategic geopolitical objectives. Indeed Tony Blair himself hinted at this when he said to the Commons liaison committee: “To be truthful about it, there was no way we could have got the public consent to have suddenly launched a campaign on Afghanistan but for what happened on September 11” (Times, July 17 2002). Similarly Rumsfeld was so determined to obtain a rationale for an attack on Iraq that on 10 separate occasions he asked the CIA to find evidence linking Iraq to 9/11; the CIA repeatedly came back empty-handed (Time Magazine, May 13 2002).
In fact, 9/11 offered an extremely convenient pretext to put the PNAC plan into action. The evidence again is quite clear that plans for military action against Afghanistan and Iraq were in hand well before 9/11. A report prepared for the US government from the Baker Institute of Public Policy stated in April 2001 that “the US remains a prisoner of its energy dilemma. Iraq remains a destabilising influence to… the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle East”. Submitted to Vice-President Cheney’s energy task group, the report recommended that because this was an unacceptable risk to the US, “military intervention” was necessary (Sunday Herald, October 6 2002).
Similar evidence exists in regard to Afghanistan. The BBC reported (September 18 2001) that Niaz Niak, a former Pakistan foreign secretary, was told by senior American officials at a meeting in Berlin in mid-July 2001 that “military action against Afghanistan would go ahead by the middle of October”. Until July 2001 the US government saw the Taliban regime as a source of stability in Central Asia that would enable the construction of hydrocarbon pipelines from the oil and gas fields in Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, through Afghanistan and Pakistan, to the Indian Ocean. But, confronted with the Taliban’s refusal to accept US conditions, the US representatives told them “either you accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs” (Inter Press Service, November 15 2001).
Given this background, it is not surprising that some have seen the US failure to avert the 9/11 attacks as creating an invaluable pretext for attacking Afghanistan in a war that had clearly already been well planned in advance. There is a possible precedent for this. The US national archives reveal that President Roosevelt used exactly this approach in relation to Pearl Harbor on December 7 1941. Some advance warning of the attacks was received, but the information never reached the US fleet. The ensuing national outrage persuaded a reluctant US public to join the second world war. Similarly the PNAC blueprint of September 2000 states that the process of transforming the US into “tomorrow’s dominant force” is likely to be a long one in the absence of “some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor”. The 9/11 attacks allowed the US to press the “go” button for a strategy in accordance with the PNAC agenda which it would otherwise have been politically impossible to implement.
The overriding motivation for this political smokescreen is that the US and the UK are beginning to run out of secure hydrocarbon energy supplies. By 2010 the Muslim world will control as much as 60% of the world’s oil production and, even more importantly, 95% of remaining global oil export capacity. As demand is increasing, so supply is decreasing, continually since the 1960s.
This is leading to increasing dependence on foreign oil supplies for both the US and the UK. The US, which in 1990 produced domestically 57% of its total energy demand, is predicted to produce only 39% of its needs by 2010. A DTI minister has admitted that the UK could be facing “severe” gas shortages by 2005. The UK government has confirmed that 70% of our electricity will come from gas by 2020, and 90% of that will be imported. In that context it should be noted that Iraq has 110 trillion cubic feet of gas reserves in addition to its oil.
A report from the commission on America’s national interests in July 2000 noted that the most promising new source of world supplies was the Caspian region, and this would relieve US dependence on Saudi Arabia. To diversify supply routes from the Caspian, one pipeline would run westward via Azerbaijan and Georgia to the Turkish port of Ceyhan. Another would extend eastwards through Afghanistan and Pakistan and terminate near the Indian border. This would rescue Enron’s beleaguered power plant at Dabhol on India’s west coast, in which Enron had sunk $3bn investment and whose economic survival was dependent on access to cheap gas.
Nor has the UK been disinterested in this scramble for the remaining world supplies of hydrocarbons, and this may partly explain British participation in US military actions. Lord Browne, chief executive of BP, warned Washington not to carve up Iraq for its own oil companies in the aftermath of war (Guardian, October 30 2002). And when a British foreign minister met Gadaffi in his desert tent in August 2002, it was said that “the UK does not want to lose out to other European nations already jostling for advantage when it comes to potentially lucrative oil contracts” with Libya (BBC Online, August 10 2002).
The conclusion of all this analysis must surely be that the “global war on terrorism” has the hallmarks of a political myth propagated to pave the way for a wholly different agenda – the US goal of world hegemony, built around securing by force command over the oil supplies required to drive the whole project. Is collusion in this myth and junior participation in this project really a proper aspiration for British foreign policy? If there was ever need to justify a more objective British stance, driven by our own independent goals, this whole depressing saga surely provides all the evidence needed for a radical change of course.
· Michael Meacher MP was environment minister from May 1997 to June 2003
Bilderberg 2007 – Towards a One World Empire?
Discussions at the 2007 Bilderberg Group meetings covered concerns over the World Bank presidency, Russia’s muscle-flexing on energy issues and the failure of US-led NATO forces in Afghanistan.
PO Box 30, Mapleton Qld 4560 Australia. firstname.lastname@example.org
Telephone: +61 (0)7 5442 9280; Fax: +61 (0)7 5442 9381
From our web page at: www.nexusmagazine.com
The Sun has set on Bilderberg 2007 in Istanbul, Turkey. After a sumptuous lunch on this warm and sunny 3rd June, most Bilderbergers returned to their countries of choice, freshly armed with precise instructions from the Steering Committee on how to proceed in covertly expanding the powers of One World Government. Amongst this year’s luminaries in attendance were: Henry Kissinger; Henry Kravis of KKR; Marie-Josée Kravis of Hudson Institute; Vernon Jordan; Etienne Davignon, Bilderberg Group President; Her Majesty Queen Beatrix of The Netherlands, daughter of one of the founders, Prince Bernhard; and the King and Queen of Spain.
As a rhetorical question, can someone please explain to me how it is that progressive liberals such as John Edwards and Hillary Clinton as well as do-gooder humanitarians with multiple social projects on the go, such as David Rockefeller and every Royal House in Europe, can perennially attend Bilderberg meetings knowing that the final objective of this despicable group of hoodlums is a fascist One World Empire? How could it be orchestrated?
The idea is to give to each country a political constitution and an appropriate national economic structure, organised for the following purposes: (1) to place political power into the hands of chosen people and eliminate all intermediaries; (2) to establish a maximum concentration of industries and suppress all unwarranted competition; (3) to establish absolute control of prices of all goods and raw materials (Bilderbergers make it possible through their iron-grip control of The World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the World Trade Organization); and (4) to create judicial and social institutions that would prevent all extremes of action.
NOT PRIVATE, BUT SECRET
Although participants emphatically attest that they attend the Club’s annual meeting as private citizens and not in their official government capacity, that affirmation is dubious-particularly when you compare the Chatham House Rule with the Logan Act in the United States, where it is absolutely illegal for elected officials to meet in private with influential business executives to debate and design public policy.
Bilderberg meetings follow a traditional protocol founded in 1919, in the wake of the Paris Peace Conference held at Versailles, by the Royal Institute of International Affairs (RIIA) based at Chatham House in London. While the name Chatham House is commonly used to refer to the Institute itself, the Royal Institute of International Affairs is the foreign policy executive arm of the British monarchy.
According to RIIA procedures: “When a meeting, or part thereof, is held under the Chatham House Rule, participants are free to use the information received, but neither the identity nor the affiliation of the speaker(s), nor that of any other participant, may be revealed; nor may it be mentioned that the information was received at a meeting of the Institute.”
The Logan Act was intended to prohibit United States citizens without authority from interfering in relations between the United States and foreign governments. However, there have been a number of judicial references to the Act, and it is not uncommon for it to be used as a political weapon.
Those who have attended Bilderberg Group meetings over the years and flouted the Logan Act include: Allen Dulles (CIA); Senator William J. Fulbright (from Arkansas, a Rhodes Scholar); Dean Acheson (Secretary of State under President Truman); Nelson Rockefeller and Laurance Rockefeller; former President Gerald Ford; Henry J. Heinz II (former CEO, H. J. Heinz Co.); Thomas L. Hughes (former President of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace); Robert S. McNamara (President Kennedy’s Secretary of Defense and former President of the World Bank); William P. Bundy (former President of the Ford Foundation, and former editor of the Council on Foreign Relations’ Foreign Affairs journal); John J. McCloy (former President of Chase Manhattan Bank); George F. Kennan (former US Ambassador to the Soviet Union); Paul H. Nitze (former representative of Schroeder Bank; Nitze played a very prominent role in matters of arms control agreements, which have always been under the direction of the RIIA); Robert O. Anderson (former Chairman, Atlantic Richfield Co., and Chairman, Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies); John D. Rockefeller IV (former Governor of West Virginia, now US Senator); Cyrus Vance (Secretary of State under President Carter); Eugene Black (former President of the World Bank); Joseph Johnson (former President, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace); Gen. Andrew J. Goodpaster (former Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, and later Superintendent of West Point Academy); Zbigniew Brzezinski (National Security Adviser to President Carter, co-founder of the Trilateral Commission); General Alexander Haig (once European NATO Commander, former assistant to Henry Kissinger, and later Secretary of State under President Reagan); James S. Rockefeller (former President and Chairman, First National City Bank, now Citibank).
BILDERBERG 2007 CONCLUSIONS
Thanks to our inside sources at the conference, we have compiled what we believe to be an accurate and a credible model of the Bilderberg 2007 conclusions. Following is a summary of some key points with some additional commentary added. Other subjects discussed were climate change and global warming, Turkey’s role in the new European Union, World Bank reforms, Middle East geopolitics, the conflict in Iraq, Iran’s potential nuclear threat, and the future of democracy and populism.
Robert Zoellick and The World Bank
The United States delegation is standing unanimously behind Robert Zoellick’s candidacy as the next President of The World Bank. Zoellick is a 53-year-old Wall Street executive, a former official in two Bush administrations and a free-market fundamentalist. During the meeting, he pledged “to work to restore confidence in the bank”. “We need to put our differences aside and focus on the future together. I believe that the World Bank’s best days are still to come,” Zoellick said. The chances of Zoellick not being approved for the presidency are slim to none. The final decision is to be made in late June by the bank’s 24-member board of directors.
The United States and Europe have a tacit agreement between them that the World Bank’s President should always be a US national, while its sister institution, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), should always be headed by a European. Nevertheless, according to our sources at the conference, European Bilderbergers are not at all pleased with continuing the status quo, in which the US nominates a single candidate after informal consultations with World Bank members.Ê
The Zoellick nomination also appears to short-circuit burgeoning calls for reform of this selection process at the World Bank, one of the cornerstones of the global financial architecture as designed by the victors of World War II. One Belgian Bilderberger proposed “a merit-based selection process, without regard to nationality”, something which will obviously be discarded by the inept Bush administration. What is quite remarkable is that on several occasions European Bilderbergers openly rejected the current model, saying “the nomination reeks of double standards”, especially because both the USA and the World Bank preach accountability and transparency to developing countries-the main clients of the bank.
But with the IMF under the control of a Spaniard, Rodrigo Rato, and the European Central Bank headed by a Frenchman, Jean-Claude Trichet, it was difficult to imagine that the USA would give up control of the World Bank. Only the US Federal Reserve would remain in the hands of the Americans.
“Replacing one Bush appointee with another will not resolve the fundamental governance problems of the World Bank,” said one Scandinavian. “Member governments should reject a back-door deal that leaves the bank’s governance structure intact, and should press for an open, merit-based selection process,” he said.
Zoellick’s name also raised eyebrows among development groups for his close ties to the US establishment and corporate interests.
One of the attendees (I have not been able to confirm this individual’s identity) asked Zoellick how he was planning to patch up relationships with Third and Fourth World nations when he is best remembered during his tenure as US Trade Representative for arm-twisting poor nations’ governments to adhere to US-imposed intellectual-property laws that make medicines, for example, unaffordable in the developing world. Zoellick has been a close friend to the brand-name pharmaceutical industry, and the bilateral trade agreements he has negotiated effectively block access to generic medications for millions of people.
However, what has really riled both the American and European delegates is the fact that the World Bank’s dirty linen is being washed in public, thanks in great part to Paul Wolfowitz and his ineptness, which incidentally he has blamed on the press.
[Postscript: On 25 June, Robert Zoellick was unanimously elected President of The World Bank for a five-year term, taking over from Paul Wolfowitz on 1 July. In a statement posted at http://www.worldbank.org, he said: “Once I start at the World Bank, I will be eager to meet the people who drive the agenda of overcoming poverty in all regions, with particular attention to Africa, advancing social and economic development, investing in growth, and encouraging hope, opportunity and dignity.”]
Relations with Russia
Another issue of great concern to both American and European Bilderbergers is Russia’s current muscle-flexing on the issue of energy. The controversy over the TNK-BP licence, BP’s Russian venture, is just one of many circumstances causing anger amongst the globalist elite.
One American Bilderberger said that after years of economic stagnation, “Russia is acting against unipolarity’s accommodating ideologies and politics, against its recently resurgent manifestations and machinations, and against the instruments of its perpetuation, such as the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation [NATO]”.
Bilderberg 2007 served as a consensus-building exercise to decide on a common policy and strategy to deal with Russia’s resurgence. In particular, Bilderberg is not at all happy with Russia’s current strategy of actively dismantling what remains of “the atmosphere of acquiescence to America’s will”, in the words of one Bilderberger, which arose in the post-Soviet period and was absolutely crucial to the thriving of US-led unipolarity.
That was in the beginning of the 1990s, the early stages of the Yeltsin reign. With the wholesale looting of Russia in the 1990s through shock therapy and the loans-for-shares scheme, engineered by the socialist theoreticians at Harvard such as Jeffrey Sachs, Andrei Schliefer, David Lipton and Jonathan Hay, the country was brought into the dawn of the 21st century capitalist economy. As a result, Russia eventually toppled into anarchy, its population rendered desperate; its ability to support a world-class military establishment was smashed, which then made it inevitable that colonial behaviour would occur. That is exactly what George Ball was proposing during the Bilderberg 1968 meeting in Canada. I’ll get back to Ball later in this section.
Incidentally, the term “shock therapy” refers to the sudden release of price and currency controls combined with the withdrawal of state subsidies and immediate trade liberalisation within a country-all the necessary ingredients for impoverishment of the society…in this case, Russia.
In Zbigniew Brzezinski’s 1997 book The Grand Chessboard,1 “Russia” and “vital energy reserves”, as it turns out, are mentioned more frequently than any other country and subject in the book. Brzezinski is President Carter’s former National Security Advisor, a co-founder of the Trilateral Commission, a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and the Bilderberg Club and a close associate of David Rockefeller and Henry Kissinger. He is the proverbial insider’s insider. According to Brzezinski, global US and thus Bilderberg hegemony depended on having complete control of Russia’s vital energy reserves in Central Asia. As long as Russia remained strong, it remained a threat-a potential block to the complete imposition of Bilderberg-led economic and military will.
Bilderberg energy imperatives and geopolitical control are once again coming to play a key role in the lives of hundreds of millions of unsuspecting people.
Brzezinski spelled out in The Grand Chessboard the compelling energy issue driving American policy: “A power that dominates Eurasia would control two of the world’s three most advanced and economically productive regions. A mere glance at the map also suggests that control over Eurasia would almost automatically entail Africa’s subordination, rendering the Western Hemisphere and Oceania geopolitically peripheral to the world’s central continent. About 75 percent of the world’s people live in Eurasia, and most of the world’s physical wealth is there as well, both in its enterprise and underneath its soil. Eurasia accounts for 60 percent of the world’s GNP and about three-fourths of the world’s known energy resources.”
The history of mankind has always shown that controlling the heart of Eurasia was the key to controlling the entire known world. Azerbaijan, containing the riches of the Caspian Sea Basin and Central Asia, is a case in point. From the US perspective, the independence of the Central Asian states will be rendered nearly meaningless if Azerbaijan becomes fully subordinated to Moscow’s control. To the Bilderbergers, energy imperatives are the end game.
The energy theme appears again later in Brzezinski’s book, written four years before 9/11: “The world’s energy consumption is bound to vastly increase over the next two or three decades. Estimates by the US Department of Energy anticipate that world demand will rise by more than 50 percent between 1993 and 2015, with the most significant increase in consumption occurring in the Far East. The momentum of Asia’s economic development is already generating massive pressures for the exploration and exploitation of new sources of energy.”
Clearly, to the Bilderbergers, Russia was the beginning of the end game.
During a presentation titled “Internationalisation of Business” to the 26-28 April 1968 Bilderberg meeting at Mont Tremblant, Canada, George Ball provided a far more truthful and insightful glimpse into the group’s economic orientation. Ball, who was Under Secretary of State for Economic Affairs under JFK and Lyndon Johnson, a Steering Committee member of the Bilderberg Group as well as a Senior Managing Director for Lehman Brothers and Kuhn Loeb Inc., defined the Bilderberg’s new policy of globalisation and how it would shape the New World Order.
As Pierre Beaudry noted in Synarchy Movement of Empire,2 “…Ball presented an outline of the advantages of a new-colonial world economic order based on the concept of a ‘world company’, and described some of the obstacles that needed to be eliminated for its success. According to Ball, the first and most important thing that had to be eliminated was ‘the archaic political structure of the nation state’.”
In other words, Ball was calling for a return to the old colonialism system, but this time built on the concept of a “world company”.
“Ball wrote: ‘To be productive, we must begin our inquiry by explicitly recognizing the lack of phasing between development of the world company-a concept responding to modern needs-and the continued existence of an archaic political structure of nation states, mostly small or of only medium size, which is evolving only at glacier pace in response to new world requirements of scope and scale.'”
Beaudry concluded: “It was clear for Ball that the very structure of the nation state, and the idea of the commonwealth, or of a general welfare of a people, represented the main obstacle against any attempt of freely looting the planet, especially the weak and poor nations of the world, and represented the most important impediment to the creation of a neo-colonial world empire. The priority of the world company is obviously based on international free trade without restraint, that is, trade measured by the British standard of profit of buying cheap and selling dear. The problem is that national governments have priorities, which are different than and contrary to those of a looting company…”
On page 39 of a Bilderberg transcript from the 1968 meeting at Mont Tremblant, Ball self-assuredly stated the following: “Where does one find a legitimate base for the power of corporate managements to make decisions that can profoundly affect the economic life of nations to whose governments they have only limited responsibility?”
In other words, Messrs Rockefeller and Davignon, what Mr Ball would like to know is: how does one establish a Halliburton type of world company, which would greatly surpass in authority any government on the planet? Isn’t that what “world company”, run by the ruling class, stands for?
Not according to Bilderberg President and Belgian multimillionaire Etienne Davignon. During his 2005 BBC interview, Mr Davignon said: “I don’t think a global ruling class exists. Business influences society, and politics influences society-that’s purely common sense. It’s not that business contests the right of democratically elected leaders to lead.”
Is that so, Mr Davignon? Current parliamentary democracy works on the basis of an “elected” head of state and a parliament, which can be dumped any time you decide to orchestrate a crisis and put a third branch of government in charge of its financial system, called an “independent central banking system”.
In the United States, this “independent” banking system is known as the Federal Reserve, a privately owned bank interlocked with the Bilderberg Group. In Europe, the independent banking system is run through the European Central Bank, whose monetary policies are put together by the leading members of the Bilderberger elite, such as Jean-Claude Trichet. In Britain, this independent system is run by the Bank of England, whose members are also full-time members of the Bilderberg Group’s inner circle. The independent central banking system controls the emission of currency, controls national credit and interest rates, and, any time the government displeases it, uses its power to orchestrate the overthrow of the government. The British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher was overthrown because she opposed the wilful handover of British sovereignty to the global world company superstate designed by the Bilderbergers. This is what Kuhn, Loeb and Lehman Brothers have been building worldwide, by way of mergers and acquisitions, from the 1960s until today. In the past decades, the entire deregulation policy of US industries and banking was precisely set up in response to this blueprint scenario for creating giant corporations for a new empire whose intention is nothing short of perpetual war.
Could the eventual dismemberment and weakening of Russia-to the point that it could not oppose US military operations that have now successfully secured control of the oil and gas reserves in Central Asia-been part of a multi-decade plan for global domination? Most credible senior analysts definitely believe so.
At a 1997 symposium held in Bonn, Germany, Dr Sergei Glazyev, Chairman of the Economic Policy Committee of the State Duma of the Russian Federation, explained: “This colonisation, masked as reforms, destroyed the basic institutions of Russian society along the following basic lines: (1) destruction of the financial system of the state by means of an endless build-up of the state debt pyramid, shrinking of the tax base, deepening of the non-payments crisis, and disorganisation of the monetary system; (2) destruction of the scientific and technological potential of the country, achieved by means of a many-fold reduction in state financing of science, the collapse of technological cooperation and scientific production integration in the course of mass privatisation, and the refusal of the government to have any scientific and technical, industrial or structural policy at all; (3) sale of controlling blocs of shares in the leading and most valuable Russian firms, in industry, electric power and telecommunications, to foreign companies; (4) Transfer of the right to exploit the most valuable Russian raw materials deposits to transnational corporations; (5) establishment of foreign control over the Russian stock exchange; (6) establishment of direct foreign control over the shaping of Russian domestic and foreign economic policy.”3
The Bilderberg conclusions are striking in their candidness: “The US can no longer ride roughshod over, nor bully, nor simply ignore resurgent Russia, rising China or the globe’s regimes that supply the vital oil that fuels the US economy. Something must be done, and urgently, in order to cut deeply into Russia’s mounting global energy leverage. The US-Russia strategically deteriorating relations are one victim of this geopolitical struggle for energy supremacy.”
One Finnish delegate’s opinion that “no US-Russia military confrontation is likely, no matter how tense things should get” is increasingly an unsafe one as a more desperate US pushes back against a much more aggressive Russia. Dr Henry Kissinger added that “aggressive, unilateralist US foreign policy has forced ‘axis of evil’ states to accelerate their pursuit of nuclear weapons to immunise themselves against US military strikes”.
Richard Perle pointed out that in response to aggressive US tactics across the globe, Russia has undertaken asymmetric steps to undermine the ability of the US to project its military power effectively into their neighbourhoods and into those of their partners and allies. When one American Bilderberger tried to object, European delegates brought up China’s recent response to US intentions to weaponise space: a simple and relatively inexpensive demonstration of destruction of its satellite. The example produced snickering in the room, much to the chagrin of the Americans.
Afghanistan and the price of treason
Another subject under discussion dealt with Afghanistan. It was commonly agreed by the attendees that the US-led NATO alliance/mission is in a state of quagmire and that “the situation in the country is getting worse”. The problem can be defined, in the words of one British Bilderberger, as “one of the unreal expectations”. He went on to explain that clamouring for democratic reform while simultaneously propping up Pashtun warlords without delivering serious progress “has managed to discredit a lot of our basic notions in the eyes of the Afghans”.
Bilderbergers, however, aren’t the only ones left scratching their heads as to how Western governments and their carefully chosen Afghan partners have managed to spend billions of dollars in development assistance with little to show for it.
Catastrophe is good for business; always has been. Without suffering, there would be no humanitarian assistance. And without humanitarian assistance, there would be no room for undercover intelligence network operations as part of Western imperatives for geopolitical control.
The worse it looks, the better it sells. While the American people were getting their daily diet of ubiquitous images of repression, suffering and burka-clad Afghani women beamed into every living room in America, a propaganda campaign was surreptitiously launched in the pages of newspapers and glossy magazines. The New York Times and the New Yorker were greasing the gears of the misery machine by urging the US government, the United Nations and anyone who would listen to “do something”-amid the jewellery advertisements. Terror and horror, like expensive jewellery, became commodities.
Today, Afghanistan and its African cousins of Sudan, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Congo and Rwanda and the rest of the nations blessed with Western humanitarian help are all basket cases. Bilderbergers seem to be asking: how is it possible that humanitarian missions of such scale and magnitude could have failed so miserably? Is it a case of good-intentioned exercises going bad due to corruption, greed and lack of oversight? Or is it the merciless dismemberment of yet more foreign lands and cultures exercised stealthily through humanitarian aid agencies tied to the larger apparatus of government?
Furthermore, the US government’s support for known Afghani drug warlords adds another vital clue to the puzzle. The amount of profit generated annually by the drug trade, according to the United Nations, is somewhere around $700 billion in tax-free cash flow per year. Seven hundred billion dollars a year is too much money to hide in a sock. You need a lot of experience and expertise to move those kinds of funds stealthily. Does anyone doubt that Afghanistan is about drugs? Does anyone doubt that the CIA is involved?
For example, the CIA financed the Muslim Brotherhood in 1977 and trained the mujahedin in preparation for the campaign of collusion between Washington and right-wing Islam: the Afghan War. The roots to the Afghan conflict can be traced to Al-Azhar Mosque in Cairo, the centre of the Muslim Brotherhood’s activity. Shortly after the 9/11 attacks, alleged airline hijacker Mohammed Atta was identified as a Muslim Brother in several Western publications such as the Washington Post (22 September 2001), the Observer (23 September 2001) and Newsweek (31 December 2001). Other Muslim Brothers involved were Khalid Sheik Mohammed and Ramzi Yousef, who masterminded the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center. Osama bin Laden’s right-hand man, an Egyptian by the name of Ayman al-Zawahiri, is also a lifelong member of the Brotherhood.
Robert Dreyfuss, in his extremely important book Devil’s Game,4 explained it thus: “They returned to Afghanistan and formed a branch of the Brothers, the Islamic Society. Later, these same ‘professors’, as they were known, would form the backbone of the Afghan mujahedin who waged a US-backed, decade-long war against the Soviet occupation. The three leading ‘professors’ were Abdul Rasul Sayyaf, Burhanuddin Rabbani and Gulbuddin Hekmatyar.” Sayyaf and Hekmatyar, two big-time Pashtun drug traffickers and CIA assets, were backed by Pakistani Intelligence as well as Pakistan’s own “branch” of the Brotherhood and funded by Saudi money.
There is yet another link between the Brotherhood and the super-secret Bilderberg Group. In the early 1980s, Bilderberger Michael Ledeen of the ultraconservative American Enterprise Institute and Bilderberger Richard Perle used Hekmatyar as a poster boy of anti-Soviet resistance at the time when Hekmatyar was actively working with Hezb-i-Islami terrorists to undermine America’s influence in Afghanistan. Does anyone reading this doubt that this is hardly a coincidence?
First came the “humanitarian relief” through non-government organisations. In short order, this was followed by the US military which came to the rescue out of the goodness of its heart for “purely humanitarian objectives”. Once on the ground, it became an exercise in “nation-building”. In the end, it morphed into the hunt for a terrorist dictator.
During an animated discussion at Bilderberg 2007 in Istanbul, one Italian asked if the US-led NATO forces have “the will to stay the course”. In the wake of the US military siege of Tora Bora, Afghanistan, in December 2001, the commanding general, Tommy Franks, reportedly said it was not his intention to “get embroiled in a Soviet-style long-term engagement as in the 1980s”.5 Now, however, American Bilderbergers are pressuring NATO allies to provide larger troop contributions to the cause.
Dr Kissinger insisted that “the will” is lacking and so “we must now begin to acknowledge our limits”. “The choices facing us are very difficult,” reflected one European Royal, wholeheartedly agreeing with Kissinger’s assessment on the lack of commitment and will. A NATO representative categorically stated that the West has neither the political intelligence nor the understanding to fight a protracted, decade-long counter-insurgency campaign in Afghanistan.
A MEANS TO AN END?
The Bilderberg Group is not the end but the means to a future One World Government. This organisation has grown beyond its secretive beginnings to become a virtual shadow government which decides in total secrecy at annual meetings how its plans are to be carried out. The ultimate goal of this nightmare future is to transform Earth into a prison planet by bringing about a single globalised marketplace, controlled by a One World Government, policed by a United World Army, financially regulated by a World Bank, and populated by a microchipped population whose life’s needs have been stripped down to materialism and survival-work, buy, procreate, sleep-all connected to a global computer that monitors our every move.
And it is becoming easier because the development of telecommunications technology together with profound advances in present-day knowledge and new methods of behaviour engineering to manipulate individual conduct are converting what, in other epochs of history, were only evil intentions into a disturbing new reality. Each new measure, viewed on its own, may seem an aberration, but a whole host of changes, as part of an ongoing continuum, constitutes a shift towards total enslavement.
But there is hope. In almost every corner of the planet, stress points are beginning to fracture and people are starting to take sides. There is a general awakening taking place as people hold mirrors up to the irrationality that’s being imposed upon them. This awakening is beginning to empower our collective learning and understanding. You see, the powers-that-be have told us that world events are too difficult for the layperson to understand. They lied! We have been told that national secrets must be zealously protected. Indeed, they must! No government wants its citizens to discover that its best and brightest participate in massive collusion, conspiracy and pillaging of the planet.
Now, as the year 2007 unfolds, we find ourselves at the crossroads. The road we take from here will determine the very future of humanity and whether we will become an electronic global police state or remain free human beings. We must always remember that it is not up to God to bring us back from the “New Dark Age” planned for us. It is up to us. Forewarned is forearmed. We will never find the right answers if we don’t ask the right questions.
1. Brzezinski, Zbigniew, The Grand Chessboard: American primacy and its geostrategic imperatives, Basic Books, New York, 1997
2. Beaudry, Pierre, Synarchy Movement of Empire, Leesburg, Virginia, USA, 2005, Book IV, chapter 4, pp. 104-05, at http://www.pehi.eu/organisations/SME/Synarchy_Movement_of_Empire_book_04.pdf
3. Glazyev, Sergei, “From a Five-Year Plan of Destruction to a Five-Year Plan of Colonisation”, EIR Bonn Symposium, 1997
4. Dreyfuss, Robert, Devil’s Game: How the United States Helped Unleash Fundamentalist Islam, Henry Holt & Co., New York, 2005
5. Smucker, Philip, “Missions impossible: NATO’s Afghan dilemma”, Asia Times Online, 1 June 2007, http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/IF01Df01.html
About the Author:
Based in Spain, Daniel Estulin is an award-winning investigative journalist who has been researching the Bilderberg Group for over 15 years. He is the author of La Verdadera Historia del Club Bilderberg (2005), a bestseller in Spain and now in its 13th printing; it has been translated into 24 languages and sold to over 42 countries. The English-language edition, The True Story of the Bilderberg Group, is to be published by Trine Day, USA in September 2007 (available through Amazon.com). The sequel, Los Secretos del Club Bilderberg (2006), is already in its second printing in Spanish; bidding for international rights is scheduled for (northern) autumn 2007.
Estulin’s previous contribution to NEXUS was in 2005 with “Breaking the Silence: Bilderberg Exposed” (vol. 12, no. 5). The original text of this 2007 article is at the web page http://www.danielestulin.com/?op=noticias¬icias= ver&id=345&idioma=en.
Daniel Estulin can be contacted by email at email@example.com. For more information, visit his website at http://www.danielestulin.com.
DELEGATES AT BILDERBERG 2007
Istanbul, Turkey, 31 May – 3 June 2007
This year’s delegation included many of the most important politicians, businessmen, central bankers, European commissioners and executives of the Western corporate press. They were joined at the table by leading representatives of European royalty.
According to the Bilderberg Steering Committee list which this author has had access to, the following names have now been confirmed as attendees at the Bilderberg 2007 conference (uncharacteristically, David Rockefeller was not present).
Graham Allison, Douglas Dillon Professor of Government, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University (USA); George Alogoskoufis, Minister for Economy and Finance (Greece);
Ali Babacan, Minister for Economic Affairs (Turkey); Francisco Pinto Balsemo, Chairman and CEO, IMPRESA SGPS, former Prime Minister (Portugal); Michel Barnier, Vice President, Merieux Alliance; former Minister for Foreign Affairs (France); Michael Barone, Senior Writer, US News & World Report (USA); Martin Bartenstein, Federal Minister of Economics and Labour (Austria); Nicolas Baverez, Partner, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP (France); Her Majesty Queen Beatrix, Queen of The Netherlands (The Netherlands); Leonor Beleza, President, Champalimaud Foundation (Portugal); Franco Bernabe, Vice Chairman, Rothschild Europe (Italy); Rosina M. Bierbaum, Professor and Dean, School of Natural Resources and Environment, University of Michigan (USA); Carl Bildt, Minister for Foreign Affairs, former Prime Minister (Sweden); Mehmet A. Birand, Columnist (Turkey); Lloyd C. Blankfein, Chairman and CEO, Goldman Sachs & Co. (USA); Anders Borg, Minister for Finance (Sweden); Charles G. Boyd, President and CEO, Business Executives for National Security (USA); Umit N. Boyner, Member, Executive Board, Boyner Holding (Turkey); Vendeline A. H. von Bredow, Business Correspondent, The Economist; Rapporteur (Germany); Ian Bremmer, President, Eurasia Group (USA); Oscar Bronner, Publisher and Editor, Der Standard (Austria); Hubert Burda, Publisher and CEO, Hubert Burda Media Holding (Belgium); Gerald Butts, Principal Secretary, Office of the Prime Minister of Ontario (Canada);
Cengiz Candar, Journalist, Referans (Turkey); Henri de Castries, Chairman of Management Board and CEO, AXA (France); Juan Luis Cebrian, CEO, Grupo PRISA media group (Spain); Hikmet Cetin, Former Minister for Foreign Affairs and former NATO Senior Civilian Representative in Afghanistan (Turkey); Kenneth Clarke, Member of Parliament (UK); Timothy C. Collins, Senior Managing Director and CEO, Ripplewood Holding, LLC (USA);
Frans van Daele, Permanent Representative of Belgium to NATO (Belgium); George A. David, Chairman, Coca-Cola HBC SA (Greece); Etienne Davignon, Vice-Chairman, Suez-Tractebel, Honorary Chairman, Bilderberg Meetings (Belgium); Richard Dearlove, Master, Pembroke College, Cambridge (UK); Kemal Dervis, Administrator, UNDP (Turkey); Anna Diamantopoulou, Member of Parliament (Greece); Thomas E. Donilon, Partner, O’Melveny & Myers LLP (USA); Mathias Dopfner, Chairman and CEO, Axel Springer AG (Germany); Cem Duna, Former Ambassador to the European Union (Turkey); Esther Dyson, Chairman, EDventure Holdings, Inc. (USA);
Anders Eldrup, President, DONG AS (Denmark); John Elkann, Vice Chairman, Fiat SpA (Italy);
Ulrik Federspiel, Permanent Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Denmark); Martin S. Feldstein, President and CEO, National Bureau of Economic Research (USA);
Timothy F. Geithner, President and CEO, Federal Reserve Bank of New York (USA); Paul A. Gigot, Editorial Page Editor, The Wall Street Journal (USA); Eival Gilady, CEO, The Portland Trust, Israel (Israel); Dermot Gleeson, Chairman, AIB Group (Ireland); Emre Gonensay, Professor of Economics, Isik University, and former Minister for Foreign Affairs (Turkey); Marc Grossman, Vice Chairman, The Cohen Group (USA); Alfred Gusenbauer, Federal Chancellor (Austria);
Richard N. Haass, President, Council on Foreign Relations (USA); Victor Halberstadt, Professor of Economics, Leiden University, former Honorary Secretary-General of Bilderberg Meetings (The Netherlands); Peter D. Hart, Chairman, Peter D. Hart Research Associates (USA); Frank Heemskerk, Minister for Foreign Trade (The Netherlands); Paul Hermelin, CEO, Cap Gemini SA (France); Richard C. Holbrooke, Vice Chairman, Perseus, LLC (USA); Jan H. M. Hommen, Chairman, Reed Elsevier NV (The Netherlands); Jaap G. de Hoop Scheffer,* Secretary-General, NATO (The Netherlands/International);
Atte Jaaskelainen, Director of News, Sports and Regional Programmes, YLE (Finland); Kenneth Jacobs, Deputy Chairman, Head of Lazard USA, Lazard Freres & Co. LLC (USA); James A. Johnson, Vice Chairman, Perseus LLC (USA); Vernon E. Jordan, Jr, Senior Managing Director, Lazard Frres & Co. LLC (USA); His Majesty, King Juan Carlos I,* King of Spain (Spain);
Jyrki Katainen, Minister of Finance (Finland); Jason Kenney, Member of Parliament (Canada); Muhtar Kent, President and Chief Operating Officer, The Coca-Cola Company (USA); John Kerr (Lord Kerr of Kinlochard), Member, House of Lords, Deputy Chairman, Royal Dutch Shell PLC (UK); Henry A. Kissinger, Chairman, Kissinger Associates (USA); Eckart von Klaeden, Foreign Policy Spokesman, CDU/CSU (Germany); Klaus Kleinfeld, President and CEO, Siemens AG (Germany); Mustafa V. Koc, Chairman, Ko Holding AS (Turkey); Bruce Kovner, Chairman, Caxto Associates LLC (USA); Henry R. Kravis, Founding Partner, Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. (USA); Marie-Josée Kravis, Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute, Inc. (USA); Idar Kreutzer, CEO, Storebrand ASA (The Netherlands); Neelie Kroes, Commissioner, European Commission (The Netherlands/ International);
Bernardino Leon Gross, Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Spain); Mogens Lykketoft, Member of Parliament (Denmark); William J. Luti, Special Assistant to the President for Defense Policy and Strategy, National Security Council (USA);
Jessica T. Mathews, President, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (USA); Michael McDowell, Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform (Ireland); John R. Micklethwait, Editor, The Economist (UK); Mario Monti, President, University Commerciale Luigi Bocconi (Italy); Craig J. Mundie, Chief Research and Strategy Officer, Microsoft Corporation (USA); Egil Myklebust, Chairman, SAS and Norsk Hydro ASA (Norway);
Matthias Nass, Deputy Editor, Die Zeit (Germany); Ewald Nowotny, CEO, BAWAG PSK (Austria);
Christine Ockrent, Editor-in-Chief, France Television (France); Jorma Ollila, Chairman, Royal Dutch Shell PLC, Chairman and CEO, Nokia Corporation (Finland); George Osborne, MP, Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer (UK);
Laurence Parisot, President, MEDEF (Mouvement des Entreprises de France) (France); Christopher Patten, Member, House of Lords (UK); Richard N. Perle, Resident Fellow, American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research (USA); Rick Perry, Governor of Texas (USA); Volker Perthes, Director, Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik (Germany); HRH Prince Philippe of Belgium (Belgium);
Rodrigo de Rato y Figaredo, Managing Director, IMF (International); Olli Rehn, Commissioner, European Commission (International); Heather Reisman, Chair and CEO, Indigo Books & Music Inc. (Canada); Mat’as Rodriguez Inciarte, Executive Vice Chairman, Grupo Santander, Ciudad Grupo (Spain); Olivier Roy, Senior Researcher, CNRS (France);
Paolo Scaroni, CEO, Eni SpA (Italy); Eric Schmidt, Chairman of the Executive Committee and CEO, Google (USA); Rudolf Scholten, Member of the Board of Executive Directors, Oesterreichische Kontrollbank AG (Austria); Jorgen E. Schrempp, former Chairman of the Board of Management, DaimlerChrysler AG (Germany); Klaus Schwab, Executive Chairman, World Economic Forum (Switzerland); Robert W. Scully, Co-President, Morgan Stanley (USA); Kathleen Sebelius, Governor of Kansas (USA); Josette Sheeran, Executive Director, UN World Food Programme (USA); Kristen Silverberg, Assistant Secretary of State, Bureau of Interational Organization Affairs (USA); Domenico Siniscalco, Managing Director and Vice Chairman, Morgan Stanley (Italy); Javier Solana,* High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy, Secretary-General of the Council of the European Union and the Western European Union (International); Her Majesty Queen Sophia, Queen of Spain (Spain); Ayse Soysal, Rector, Bosphorus University (Turkey); Lawrence H. Summers, Charles W. Eliot University Professor, Harvard University (USA); Peter D. Sutherland, Chairman, BP PLC, and Chairman, Goldman Sachs International (Ireland); Carl-Henric Svanberg, President and CEO, Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (Sweden);
Paul A. Taggart, Professor of Politics, University of Sussex (UK); Sidney Taurel, Chairman and CEO, Eli Lilly and Company (USA); J. Martin Taylor, Chairman, Syngenta International AG (UK); Peter A. Thiel, President, Clarium Capital Management, LLC (USA); Teija Tiilikainen, State Secretary, Ministry for Foreign Affairs (Finland); Michel Tilmant, Chairman, ING NV (The Netherlands); Jean-Claude Trichet, Governor, European Central Bank (France/International);
Jens Ulltveit-Moe, CEO, Umoe AS (Norway);
Daniel L. Vasella, Chairman and CEO, Novartis AG (Switzerland); Jeroen van der Veer, Chief Executive, Royal Dutch Shell PLC (The Netherlands);
Jacob Wallenberg, Chairman, Investor AB (Sweden); Vin (J.V.) Weber, Partner, Clark & Weinstock (USA); Guido Westerwelle, Chairman, Free Democratic Party (Germany); Ross Wilson, Ambassador to Turkey (USA); James D. Wolfensohn, Chairman, Wolfensohn & Company, LLC (USA); Paul Wolfowitz, President, The World Bank (International); Joseph R. Wood, Deputy Assistant to the Vice President, National Security Affairs (USA); Adrian D. Wooldridge, Foreign Correspondent, The Economist; Rapporteur (UK);
Arzuhan Dogan Yalindag, President, TUSIAD (Turkey); Erkut Yucaoglu, Chairman of the Board, MAP, former President, TUSIAD (Turkey);
Philip D. Zelikow, White Burkett Miller Professor of History, University of Virginia (USA); Robert B. Zoellick,* former US Trade Representative, former Deputy Secretary of State, Managing Director, Goldman Sachs (USA).
* Known to have attended Bilderberg 2007, although not included on the official list of attendees distributed by the Bilderberg Meetings office.
Are Parents Being Manipulated?
30 Tactics Used by the Medical Profession
to Hoodwink the Public
Medical health authorities, including doctors, nurses, and other members of the allopathic fraternity, employ a number of strategies designed to elicit parental submission to vaccine guidelines. Currently, parents are expected to grant authorities permission to toxify their children’s pure and sacred little bodies with more than 30 blends of rare germs, bacteria, and other foul substances — all before they enter school!
To adequately assess the relevance of vaccine-related news, or the perils of vaccine-related situations you may find yourself in — and to increase your knowledge about how to protect your loved ones — several of the more common vaccine-related schemes you’re likely to encounter are included in the following section, along with samples of each.
1. Calling the Shots “Immunizations.” Numerous studies indicate that vaccines cannot be relied upon to boost the immune system and protect an individual from contracting the disease the vaccines were designed to offset. For example, the Minnesota Department of Health reported 769 cases of mumps in school children. But 632 of these cases (82 percent) occurred in children who were previously vaccinated against this disease.(119) The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported that 89 percent of all school-age children who recently contracted measles had been vaccinated against the disease.(120-122) And the New England Journal of Medicine published a study revealing that the pertussis vaccine “failed to give…protection against the disease.” In fact, more than 80 percent of cases in a recent epidemic occurred in children who had received regular doses of the shot.(123,124)
According to Dr. Sandra Huffman, head of Nurture: The Center to Prevent Childhood Malnutrition, “Increasing Americans’ breastfeeding rate would prevent more childhood diseases — and deaths — than [vaccination programs endorsed by the government].”(125) A distinction must therefore be made: breastfed babies are immunized;(126-128) children who are injected with germs and other toxic substances are vaccinated.
Calling the shots “preventive medicine” is deceptive as well. According to Dr. Kenneth Cooper, pioneering author of Aerobics, “My concept of preventive medicine is trying to prevent the things that kill us. Infectious disease is way down the list.”(129) (Dr. Cooper was ostracized from the medical community for promoting exercise to improve health!)
2. Rationalization and Denial. Medical personnel find it difficult to confront the vaccine issue head-on. It is much easier to falsely justify the use of vaccines or simply reject the idea that they may be unsafe and ineffective. Some doctors become so agitated when the topic is raised, they refuse to even discuss it. Doctors who are willing to exchange ideas and concerns regarding the safety and efficacy of vaccines often rely upon rationalization and denial.
The rationalization and denial ploy can be blatant or veiled. Blatant rationalization is easier to spot. For example, in a recently published pediatric legal paper, a Canadian neurologist candidly writes, “In this article [on vaccine-induced brain injury], I will…offer some suggestions for pediatricians to rationalize this emotional controversy.” He also plainly states, “A vigorous effort is required to dispel the myth of DTP-induced brain damage.”(130) He makes his recommendation in spite of the horrendous amount of literature in the medical journals indicating a causal relationship between this vaccine and severe mental impairment.(131)
The veiled Rationalization and Denial ploy is harder to detect. At first it appears logical and sound. But it merely represents a more intricate attempt at suppressing and confounding the truth. For example, according to some researchers, the DPT vaccine does not cause seizures; instead, “fever from the DTP vaccine may trigger one of these seizures.”(132) Or, according to an experienced vaccine policymaker, Ed Mortimer, M.D., “These kids already had underlying problems and DTP was the first fever-producing insult that occurred to the child.”(133) Again, it wasn’t the vaccine that caused the brain damage; it was the fever from the vaccine.
More examples of the rationalization and denial ploy:
When the incidence of a disease is low, authorities claim high vaccination rates are responsible. When outbreaks occur, we are told not enough people received the shots. For example, prior to a recent measles outbreak in a Hobbs, New Mexico, school district, authorities boasted a 98 percent vaccination rate. Then, when 76 cases of the disease broke out, researchers claimed that “vaccine failure was associated with immunizations that could not be documented in the provider’s records.”(134)
Although the Food and Drug Administration was legally bound to establish and oversee the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), and even though every year about 12,000 reports of adverse reactions to vaccines are made to the FDA,(135) authorities refuse to follow up on these cases because “the agency could not possibly investigate each report,” and besides, “a cause and effect relationship is not presumed.”(136)
By November 10, 1999, the Vaccine Injury Compensation System had already paid out more than $1 billion to settle claims of vaccine-induced damage or death.(137) However, because vaccine manufacturers and the federal government are not required to admit responsibility, even when a claim is paid, they are able to assert that “the settlement of a claim does not necessarily establish liability.”(138)
3. Double Talk and Creative Logic. Medical advisers were using this ploy as far back as 1806. In that year Edward Jenner, the dubious “father of modern vaccinations,” was under examination by a College of Physicians committee. Numerous members of the English population who had recently been vaccinated with Jenner’s concoction, and who were therefore considered immune to smallpox, had caught the disease. Many were afflicted with painful skin eruptions and died. When the commonly relied upon denial ploy was no longer effective, it was revealed that “spurious,” or phony, cowpox was the cause. As the number of vaccinated people afflicted with the disease grew, so, too, did public fear. How, Jenner was asked, could spurious cowpox be identified and avoided? Spurious cowpox, he explained, wasn’t meant to describe irregularities on the part of the cow, but rather certain quirks in the action of cowpox on the part of the vaccinated. In other words, when the vaccinated recovered from the ordeal, and did not contract smallpox, the cowpox was genuine; otherwise it was spurious.(139)
Current uses of the double talk ploy may be found at almost any forum or seminar where vaccine policymakers congregate. For example, at a recent FDA workshop officials indicated they were justified in administering new and unproven vaccines by claiming it is unethical to withhold them!(140)
Here is another example of the “unethical” argument: A recent study found that the AIDS virus directly causes cancer. You’d think this would stifle the researchers’ goal of creating an AIDS vaccine. In fact, Gerald Myers, director of the HIV Sequence Database Analysis Project at Los Alamos National Laboratory, warrants that a live vaccine would carry a risk of causing cancer — both in the vaccinated person and in their offspring. Nevertheless, he claims that “the risk might be worth it” to prevent the spread of AIDS. “It could be unethical not to try it.”(141)
A common use of the double talk and creative logic ploy may be found whenever health officials make the outrageous claim that unvaccinated children are a threat to the rest of society. This argument indicates how little faith authorities place in their own vaccines. If the vaccines were truly effective, only the unvaccinated would be at risk. This argument also overlooks the potential for vaccinated individuals to spread the virus to unvaccinated populations. For example, in separate scientific studies, the new rubella vaccine introduced in 1979 was found to be a cause of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, an immunological disorder first reported in the United States in 1982. Given to children, the vaccine was shown to linger in their systems for years and the vaccine virus can be passed on to adults through casual contact.(142-144)
In an attempt to conceal vaccine failures, medical authorities will often resort to the double talk ploy, sometimes in conjunction with the scare tactics ruse. In spite of their enterprising babble, however, they can’t always hoodwink the public. For example, the international Medical Observer states that “a new strain of measles resistant to vaccine” has been discovered. This is immediately contradicted by the statement: “Those who have been lax about vaccination will be unprotected.” Although the implication is that everyone should get vaccinated, a vaccine is obviously useless if a new strain of measles is resistant to it!(145)
More examples of the double talk ploy:
Scientists seeking human volunteers to test a new experimental AIDS vaccine try to assuage fear and mistrust by claiming there is “no evidence” it will cause AIDS. How could there be evidence? It is new and experimental and hasn’t been tested yet! And, of course, there is “no evidence” that it won’t cause AIDS.(146)
In an attempt to convince the public that vaccines offer the best of all worlds, medical researchers, and the journalists who quote them, often get tangled in their own webs of deception. For example, in a recently published pro-vaccine article, the author claims that unvaccinated children are susceptible to infection. He then contradicts himself by claiming that vaccinated children “insulate” or protect, the unvaccinated. The illogical implication is that when unvaccinated children contract an infectious disease it is because they are unvaccinated. However, if they remain free from disease, it is because the vaccinated are providing them with immunity.(147)
Every so often the double talk employed by authorities is so transparent it’s bewildering that so few people question its validity. In a recent promotional blitz, flu vaccine manufacturers and public health officials made the claim that the new and improved flu vaccine “is prepared from inactivated flu virus [Translation: “dead” flu virus — see Euphemisms addressed below] and cannot cause the disease.” (A rare admission that earlier versions did cause the disease.) In the same paragraph they warn that “some individuals might develop a mild fever and feeling of malaise” for a few days after receiving the shot.(148) (Sounds like the flu to me!)
Other times the double talk employed by vaccine researchers is remarkably elaborate. Although it is a simple matter to determine the efficacy of a vaccine — give it to people who want it, withhold it from those who don’t, and tally the incidence of disease — some scientists have other ideas. One writes: “Under heterogeneity of vaccine effect, a general expression for a summary vaccine efficacy parameter is a function of the vaccine efficacy in the different vaccinated strata weighted by the fraction of the vaccinated subpopulations in each stratum. Interpretation and estimability of the summary vaccine efficacy parameter depends on whether the strata are identifiable, and whether the heterogeneity is host- or vaccine-related.” To support this garrulous babble, a full-page mathematical model is provided.(149)
A final look at the double talk and creative logic ploy yields the following revelations: children who keep to “appropriate” vaccine schedules are “protected,” unless they haven’t yet received the full battery of shots and contract the affliction — in which case they are evidently “still susceptible to the disease.”(150) In such instances the vaccine does not fail, or worse, cause the disease; these become “non-preventable” cases!(151)
4. The “I Forgot to Mention” ploy is a common tactic used by health and medical authorities with an interest in omitting vital information. For example, a spokesman for the Ohio Department of Health supplied the Dayton Daily News with these statistics: 2,720 cases of measles were reported in Ohio during a recent year. This figure was used in conjunction with the godfather ploy (an offer hard to refuse) when the following threat was made as well: “Get shots or forget 7th grade.” What the official failed to mention was that more than 72 percent of these cases occurred in vaccinated people.(152) This figure is comparable to other outbreaks around the country, where a majority of measles cases often occur in vaccinated children, “sometimes in schools with vaccination levels of greater than 98 percent.”(153,154)
A concerned individual recounts her personal experience with the measles vaccine and the “I forgot to mention” ploy: “Fort Lewis College had a measles epidemic and the school closed down for a short time. The following year, I returned as a postgraduate for a teacher’s certificate and was denied reentry until I submitted to a measles vaccine — even though I had been fully vaccinated as a child. This fall I reentered Fort Lewis College, and they wanted me to get another measles shot! They told me the one I had already taken ‘didn’t work.’ I refused the shot and told them I was refusing all other shots as well. They replied, ‘Okay, just sign this waiver.’ No one ever tells you that the shots may be declined by signing a personal waiver.”(155)
Another example of the “I forgot to mention” ploy may be found in official evaluations of Reye’s Syndrome, an often fatal disease of the brain and liver. According to Dr. Robert Mendelsohn, the CDC is “quick to suggest a relationship between [this childhood disease] and certain flu outbreaks,” but they make no mention of “an association between this disease and the flu vaccine itself.”(156)
5. Gimmicks. Devising strategies to boost vaccination rates is a prime preoccupation of vaccine policymakers. Without doubt, the gimmick ploy is a proven winner. In fact, the AMA recently admitted that “adult vaccines need a gimmick.”(157) CDC physicians recommend catchy slogans, like “Vaccines are not just kid stuff.”(158) Shari Lewis and her puppet, Lamb Chop, were seen delivering pro-vaccination messages to the public on TV.(159) Even Bill Clinton was seen in print ads imploring parents to be sure their children receive “All their shots while they’re tots.”(160)
6. Bribes. Within the same family of wily maneuvers, one may find the bribe ploy. For example, in England the National Health Service pays a “bonus” to doctors with vaccination rates above specified percentages.(161) Here in the United States, former president Jimmy Carter was seen on TV offering free Michael Jackson concert tickets to parents who agreed to vaccinate their children.(162) In Saginaw County, Michigan, children were promised “a free order of french fries” if they were one of the first thousand people to receive their shots.(163) And in Taos, New Mexico, “all students who return consent forms and receive vaccinations will be entered in raffles for great prizes!”(164)
7. Skewed Statistics. Researchers are trying to develop a new vaccine to combat respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) — even though Dr. Bill Gary of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) admits that “an RSV vaccine was developed 10 to 15 years ago, but was unsuccessful and made many people ill.” To foster interest in this obscure project, and to improve the illusion that we need the vaccine, a recent report released by the CDC indicates that “about half” of the 69 labs that track diseases for the agency reported a 16 percent increase in RSV cases.(165) Stating “about half” is deceptively vague, and choosing not to list the percent increase or decrease of RSV cases in the other “about half” of the 69 labs is manipulative and dishonest.
Another good example of the skewed statistics ploy came from the Clinton administration. Goaded by the medical community, federal authorities announced their dubious goal to vaccinate all U.S. children. To accomplish this feat, Clinton sought $300 million from Congress. To bolster his case he made the bogus claim that “we can prevent the worst infectious diseases of children with vaccines and save $10 for every $1 invested.”(166) But he failed to supply facts and figures to support his claim. Perhaps this was because the administration chose instead to invoke the “I forgot to mention” ploy, conveniently neglecting to factor in the millions of dollars the government had already spent compensating families of children damaged or killed by the vaccines.(167)
A further example of the skewed statistics ploy:
The use of control subjects (individuals utilized as a standard of comparison for verifying the results of an experiment) is an established procedure in most fields of scientific inquiry. Not so within the vaccine research community. New experimental vaccines that are tested on a group of people are rarely matched against an equal number of untested people. Indeed, after a new AIDS vaccine was tested on hundreds of people, some of the volunteers were found to be infected with HIV. However, because the number of control subjects was suspiciously small (38 people) — and therefore worthless — the National Institutes of Health (NIH) was able to claim “there is no statistical basis for concluding that the vaccine has contributed to an increased vulnerability to infection.”(168)
8. The Fraud ploy has proven to be an early and consistent success. In 1956, soon after the Salk polio vaccine was introduced, officials decided to determine how safe and effective it really was. The results of this study — the now infamous Francis Field Trials — would help determine the feasibility of continuing to vaccinate millions of young children. What they discovered would have stopped most ethical people from continuing: large numbers of children were contracting polio after receiving the vaccine. Clearly, the vaccine was either unsafe (it was causing the disease it was meant to prevent) or ineffective (it failed to protect). Instead of removing the vaccine from the market, however, officials decided to exclude from the statistics all cases of polio that occurred within 30 days after vaccination on the pretext that such cases were “pre-existing.”(169,170)
The NIH, an influential branch of the vaccine oligarchy, was recently placed under investigation for interfering with charges of scientific fraud within its own ranks. According to a New York Times report, Walter W. Stewart and Dr. Ned Feder, scientific fraud investigators for the NIH, were summarily dismissed from their duties following the release of a report critical of other NIH scientists. Without warning their offices were closed and sealed, along with all the files of current investigations. The two scientists were then transferred to jobs unrelated to their work of previous years. This incident reveals how studies and reports critical of official dogma may be suppressed, and highlights “the continuing ethical battles over how government and universities should monitor scientists.”(171)
9. Fortune-telling. When medical and health authorities are at a loss to explain the cause of injury and death that occurs soon after a childhood shot, and denial is insufficient, they may resort to the fortune-telling ploy. In fact, the FDA’s official position is that “the ‘event’ [Translation: adverse reaction to a vaccine — see the Euphemism ploy] may have been related to an underlying disease or condition…or may have occurred by chance at the same time the vaccine was administered.” In other words, the child was destined to be damaged or die at the time of the shot anyway.(172)
The past director of the Ohio Department of Health, and other vaccine authorities, label vaccine-induced injury or death as “only temporal.: Once again, this translates to mean the damage was coincidental; it would have occurred anyway.(173)
More examples of the fortune-telling ploy:
“Bad Flu Season Forecast” blared the headlines. “A severe flu season is at hand; get flu shots right away.”(174) Who are these doomsday prophets, and where do they get their psychic news?
According to the U.S. government’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR), the efficacy of a flu vaccine depends upon whether the government has correctly “predicted” [Translation: guessed] which viruses should be placed in that year’s vaccine. There has to be a “good match” between the flu virus actually present in the community at the end of the year and the vaccine that was produced several months earlier.(175)
10. “Pardon Me.” Medical institutions wary of vaccine reactions often protect their members by enforcing the “pardon me” rule, exempting doctors from their own regulations. For example, in Evanston, Illinois, a 46-year-old social worker was fired from her job when she refused to take a rubella shot. Hospital policy requires all employees —except physicians — to be vaccinated against rubella. Doctors are not considered “employees.”(176)
A study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association reports that obstetrician-gynecologists are the least likely of all doctors to submit to the rubella vaccine. Fewer than 10 percent are inoculated, and blood tests indicate they are susceptible to rubella. The researchers conclude that a “fear of unforeseen vaccine reactions” lead these specialists to invoke their self-exempting “pardon me” rule.(177)
Some doctors refuse to vaccinate their own children as well. According to Dr. Jerome Murphy, former head of Pediatric Neurology at Milwaukee Children’s Hospital, “There is just overwhelming data that there’s an association [between the pertussis vaccine and seizures]. I know it has influenced many pediatric neurologists not to have their own children immunized with pertussis.”(178)
The FDA recently lost an important legal battle when they permitted the live virus polio vaccine, manufactured by Lederle Labs, to be released to the public even though it did not meet existing safety standards. As a result, several people were severely damaged. After losing the U.S. Supreme Court case, the FDA immediately implemented the “pardon me” ploy, and rewrote its safety procedures so that previously unacceptable safety measures would be allowable. Consequently, Lederle can continue to produce and the FDA can continue to sanction the same kind of polio vaccine that caused injuries in the first place.(179)
11. Delusions of Grandeur. Doctors, medical scientists, allopathic policymakers, and vaccine manufacturers, are prone to experience delusions of grandeur. This occurs whenever they take credit for a drop in nearly every communicable disease. But a greater than 95 percent decline in the incidence and severity of many of these diseases already occurred before the introduction of the vaccines. Such conceit also disregards the many diseases — like scarlet fever and the plague — that declined on their own, even though vaccines were not developed against them.(180)
Health officials claim high vaccination rates are required to disrupt the spread of a disease and eliminate its occurrence. For example, they take full credit — delusions of grandeur — for the current low incidence of polio in the United States. However, in many European countries that refused to mandate polio vaccines a fraction of the people were vaccinated, and polio disappeared.181 To explain this enigma, officials rely upon the double talk and creative logic ploy: evidently enough people were vaccinated “to interrupt the virus’s normal lines of transmission through the population.” Yet, countries like Finland used the killed-virus vaccine, which officials do not credit with the ability to confer immunity upon the unvaccinated!(182)
More recently, Finland has claimed to have “eradicated” measles, mumps, and rubella — even though only 30 percent of the people were vaccinated. Also, although researchers claim these diseases were “eradicated,” they note that there are about “ten cases of each disease a year, most of them ‘probably imported’ [from another country].”(183)
Vaccine policymakers promised that by 1982 measles would be eradicated from the Earth�delusions of grandeur.184 Today, in the 1990s, it has returned with a vengeance. The death rate for measles is more than 20 times higher than before the vaccine was in widespread use.(185)
Medical policymakers are unrelenting in their efforts to play God. After realizing “the number of visits to a healthcare provider [for vaccines] is an impediment” to receiving the entire battery of shots, they proposed the development of a single vaccine to provide “lifelong immunization” against many common childhood diseases. They call this single shot a “supervaccine” or “magic bullet” and have lobbied Congress for funds to continue research along these lines.(186) When we consider the medical community’s inability to provide lifelong immunity against a single disease, their dismal success rate with current multiple vaccines (DPT and MMR), and the number of vaccine-related injury and death claims clogging the courts, this latest “mad science” venture clearly demonstrates their wicked propensity toward delusions of grandeur.
12. Surprise Attack. Parents often report they are harassed by medical personnel wishing to vaccinate their children even when they visit their medical health care provider for other reasons. In fact, some doctors appear to be so obsessed with the vaccination status of their clients that they disregard the stated purpose of the visit. Therefore, anticipate the surprise attack.
The surprise attack is actually taught to members of the medical fraternity, as noted in the Journal of the American Medical Association: “Each encounter with a health care provider, including an emergency department visit or hospitalization, is an opportunity to screen immunization status and, if indicated, administer needed vaccines. Before discharge from the hospital, children should receive immunizations for which they are eligible. In addition, children accompanying parents or siblings who are seeking any service should also be screened and, when indicated, given needed vaccines.”(187)
The consequences of being unprepared for the surprise attack can be severe indeed. The Jonathan story published elsewhere on this site illustrates one parent’s reaction to being ambushed by the medical profession.
Another concerned mother describes her surprise attack in these words:
“My husband and I chose a midwife and had a homebirth, which was wonderful. The midwife insisted that I take our daughter to a local pediatrician for a newborn exam…. The reason I’m telling you this is because we were treated like trash. I was told that a homebirth is an automatic ‘red flag.’ The doctor reported us to Social Services, and we were subjected to a painful interrogation. I was [also] interrogated as to my beliefs about immunizations. My daughter was only two weeks old…and yet they wanted to inject her with multiple vaccines.
“How can I find a doctor for my daughter? I do not want to repeat this horrible experience…for fear Social Services will again be sent to investigate us because we don’t take our daughter to doctors for regular ‘well-baby’ checkups, which is really a ploy to force vaccines on innocent babies and unsuspecting parents.”(188)
13. Intimidation and Coercion. Doctors often claim vaccines are mandatory. Many threaten to withhold treatment, or they frighten parents when they reject the shots. As one mother puts it: “The pediatrician I have refused to service me because I am not willing to follow medical ‘rules.’ Another M.D. agreed to work with me, but only after I listened to him warn me [in very explicit terms, about all the dangers that could happen to my child.]”(189)
Another mother writes: “I am a concerned parent who has not vaccinated my 13 month old. I am met by my baby doctor in a critical and almost attacking nature. There seems to be no room in his mind-set for a choice on this issue.”(190)
Putting this in clearer perspective, another mother writes: “I am an Australian citizen [living in the United States]. I never realized what an issue [vaccinations are] in this country until I had my own children, and how much pressure the medical world puts on you, and above all else, how much clout the schools have. I really don’t know of any other country that makes this into such a difficult decision, and so one-sided in regard to information. Where I’m from, you either do, or you don’t, immunize. The question is asked, the decision made, and that’s it forever, unless you change your mind! Incidentally, a large majority [of parents in Australia] do not immunize [their children], and we don’t have a higher incidence [of disease] than in the U.S.”(191)
Note: The United States has one of the worst infant mortality rates among developed countries. In fact, the rate at which babies die in the first year of life has consistently increased since the 1950s when mass immunization campaigns were initiated. Today, infant mortality rates in some U.S. cities match those in developing countries.(192)
Public school officials — the unwitting henchmen for the medical profession — often warn parents their children will not be able to enter school without complying with vaccine mandates. Each state, however, offers one or more exemptions to the shots. In spite of these exemptions, one mother was told by authorities that she would need to write a letter explaining why her son was not vaccinated, and that she would accept full responsibility for any epidemics that occurred while her child was enrolled at the school!(193)
A concerned father tells this story: “I applied for religious exemption for my son at his public school in Totowa, New Jersey. The school nurse reported the exemption to the Board of Health. The New Jersey State Immunization Supervisor then sent a letter to the school principal. In it he stated that my letter of exemption was ‘not good enough,’ and that my son is not to be admitted into the school building at all. The school principal wrote me a letter confirming that my son would not be permitted to enter school, and threatened that `I had better begin immunizing’ my son. I must meet the August deadline to register my son for school, but they won’t even let him in the building. Time is running out, and my son’s education is being denied.”(194)
Note: This story is often told by parents throughout the nation. Evidently, state laws are immaterial to authorities intent upon using the intimidation and coercion ploy to deny parents their legal rights. For example, a clause in the New Jersey State Sanitary Code, Chapter 26:1A-9.1, allows for “exemption for pupils from mandatory immunization if the parent or guardian objects thereto in a written statement signed by the parent or guardian upon the ground that the proposed immunization interferes with the free exercise of the pupil’s religious rights.”
An apprehensive California mother reports that when her child was rushed to the hospital emergency room for a minor mishap, medical personnel were more interested in the child’s vaccination status than in the nature of her injury [the surprise attack]. Upon learning the child was not “up-to-date” on her shots, they refused to release the child to her mother until she gave her permission for the shots to be administered. When she refused, these doctors reported her to Social Services, claiming she was “abusing her child.” Soon thereafter the State Attorney General joined in the case and sought to prosecute the mother —even though the vaccine laws in her state permit parents the option to refuse vaccines based on personal convictions against them!(195)
Many parents report that doctors and nurses are intimidating them into vaccinating their newborns immediately after birth. One mother reports: “The very first time I heard about the hepatitis B vaccine was at the hospital after giving birth to my second child. They told me all babies must receive this vaccine before they can be released from the hospital. Needless to say, I refused it, although they persisted in badgering me. Later, when I took my baby to the pediatrician for her two-week checkup, he tried to frighten me into giving her the shot. He said hepatitis is very contagious and my child could easily catch it from other kids or infected adults. When I told him that I didn’t feel right about giving the vaccine to my infant, he informed me that I would need to find another doctor because he would not treat my baby.”(196)
On November 20, 1993, a nationally syndicated prime-time TV news magazine, The Crusaders, aired a gutsy show on the dangers of the DPT vaccine. Parents of vaccine-damaged children were interviewed, and rare, emotionally wrenching footage of their severely disabled children was shown. While most of the American medical community denies a link between the shots and brain damage or death, listeners heard vaccine expert Dr. Michael Pakickero warn parents that some batches of the DPT vaccine are more toxic than others. And, Dr. John Menkis, the former head of pediatrics and neurology at UCLA, candidly acknowledged, “You will have permanent, irreversible brain damage, which was not present before [DPT] vaccination.” Meanwhile, Michael Settonni, the show’s premier research journalist, estimated from government sources that “at least two children are reportedly killed or injured by the vaccine every day.”(197)
A few days after this show aired, Mr. John Butte, executive producer of The Crusaders, received a scathing letter from Thomas Balbier, Jr., Director of the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP), demanding a retraction. He asserted that the number of current vaccine injury and death claims filed by parents during the past few years represent claims of damage “for virtually the entire 20th century.” He also blasted the show for directing listeners to the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) — a nonprofit organization dedicated to improving vaccine safety and supporting a parent’s right to choose for or against vaccines. He claimed that NVIC is “not sanctioned” by the federal government, and therefore is “not the official spokesperson” for information on vaccine safety. He also made what appeared to be a veiled threat by noting that copies of his letter were being sent to the U.S. Department of Justice and the Federal Communications Commission.(198)
Note: On January 8, 1994, The Crusaders aired a retraction by quoting the medical industry’s most cherished — and fraudulent — data on the DPT vaccine: a controversial study conducted in Great Britain during the 1950s. Even though 42 of the babies in the study had convulsions within 28 days of receiving the shots, 80 percent of the babies were 14 months of age or older, and the tests were designed to test the efficacy (not safety) of the vaccine, U.S. health authorities still use these results as evidence that the vaccine is safe to give to babies as young as six weeks of age.199 Obviously, the intimidation and coercion ploy was, once again, a wicked success.
On March 19, 1992, Rolling Stone magazine published a remarkable story documenting potential correlations between the first polio vaccines and AIDS. Many independent researchers considered the expos� forthright and extraordinarily well investigated. Several months later, however, the magazine printed a half-page “clarification” indicating that any connection between early polio vaccines and AIDS is “one of several disputed and unproven theories.”200 Evidently, future vaccination campaigns and scientific reputations were jeopardized by the original story.
More examples of the intimidation and coercion ploy:
An Ohio woman with two children killed by the DPT vaccine received threatening letters from the Ohio Department of Health informing her that her only surviving child had to be vaccinated.201 A grieving mother whose baby died 17 hours after receiving a DPT shot was threatened with losing her WIC benefits for refusing to vaccinate her other children.(202)
A Kansas mother who objected to the vaccines was told that the state would seize her child, force the vaccinations upon her, and place her in a foster home. The child was vaccinated and is now permanently disabled as a result of the shot.(203)
This final example of the intimidation and coercion ploy clearly illustrates the arrogant and insensitive nature of the medical community. Grieving and dejected parents who personally contact the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System to report how their child was damaged or killed by a vaccine should be forewarned to expect an envelope in the mail with the following bold red letters emblazoned across the front: IMMUNIZE EARLY!(204)
14. The Godfather ploy is an extreme variation of the intimidation and coercion maneuver. It may involve blackmail. For example, poor mothers on state aid in Maryland must now get their children vaccinated or the state will take $25 from their monthly welfare checks for every preschool child not up to date on shots and checkups. A family sanctioned for three months will receive a call from a social service worker, who will request to visit the home to “help resolve the situation and any other problems.” Whereas child advocate groups claim Maryland’s new law is punitive and unfair, the state’s human resources secretary argues that “many [of these welfare recipients] just needed a push to do what is expected of them as responsible parents.”(205)
Here is another example of the godfather ploy: Health insurance companies are threatening to cancel policies when parents refuse vaccines for their children — unless parents sign a form absolving the insurance company from liability if the child contracts certain diseases.(206)
An extreme version of the godfather ploy — framing the parents — is now being reported with increasing regularity by frantic family members. Apparently, medical personnel intent on maintaining the vaccine deception will do anything to deflect blame. Moms and dads who are still grieving over their dead babies following the shots, are now being charged with homicide. For example, one mother, whose healthy baby died just 2 days after receiving DPT and MMR vaccines, was so outraged at this government sanctioned criminal activity, that she tried to fight back with a lawsuit. Authorities responded by charging her with the murder of her child.(207)
15. Scare Tactics. Whenever medical policymakers and their media pawns embark on a promotional blitz to increase vaccination rates, they invariably rely on the scare tactics ploy. Although this stratagem is similar to the intimidation and coercion ploy, subtle differences exist. Practitioners of the intimidation ploy seek mainly to dominate parental decision-making through the sheer force of their will. The scare tactics ruse attempts primarily to manipulate emotions and influence behavior by overstating sad and frightening stories about the unvaccinated.
One recently published pro-vaccine article describes in frightening detail the dangers of nonvaccination. First, readers are informed that “even adults can be killed from preventable infectious diseases.” Next, an emergency room nurse graphically recounts her attempts to restart the heart of a man who had contracted measles and continued to get sicker: A bacteria that usually causes strep throat “had invaded the small holes in the man’s skin” left by his measles rash. The man’s heart couldn’t be restarted, and he died from the secondary infection. Then, to clinch our emotions, we are told that he left three small children.(208)
Note: This very same measles vaccine that authorities claim could have prevented this tragedy, very likely caused it. Prior to the introduction of the measles vaccine, measles was a relatively tame childhood illness, and was virtually unheard of in infant, adolescent, and adult populations. But the vaccine changed all that. Now measles is contracted by age groups more likely to experience extreme complications, including death.(209,210)
A chickenpox vaccine has been available for years; however, authorities have been reluctant to approve it, for many people agree the disease is relatively harmless. Nevertheless, medical forces were prepared to approve it because “the U.S. could save five times as much as it would spend on the vaccine” by avoiding the costs incurred by moms and dads who stay home to care for their sick children. In response to the medical industry’s grand plans to promote this vaccine, media pawns rushed to print fearful stories detailing the dangers of this “serious” disease. For example, one newspaper published a personal story that started with “How my son died from chickenpox.” This scare tactic ruse was coupled with the “I (almost) forgot to mention” ploy, because the child had a preexisting condition that left him vulnerable to infection.(211)
Note: On March 17, 1995, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced that it had approved a chickenpox vaccine.(212) Shortly thereafter, the American Academy of Pediatrics began recommending it for all infants.(213)
16. Euphemisms. Medical personnel often attempt to conceal the facts by using vague terms with hidden meanings — the euphemism ploy. For example, doctors have been notified by the CDC that cases of Hib may occur after vaccination, “prior to the onset of the protective effects of the vaccine.” [Translation: Our vaccine may give your child the disease.] Other studies warn of “increased susceptibility” to the disease in the first 7 days after vaccination. [Another veiled confession that the vaccine may give a child the disease.] In addition, children who contract a particular disease, even though they have received their shots according to the recommended schedule — an earlier schedule that has since been changed (see the variable recommendations ploy) — aren’t the victims of an ineffective vaccine, or a vaccine failure; instead, they were “inappropriately vaccinated.” These are labeled “nonpreventable” cases.(214-216)
In 1993, in England, two of the three MMR (measles, mumps, and rubella) vaccines in use at the time were quietly withdrawn because of what health authorities claim was a “slight” risk of “transient” meningitis.217 A recent study in the United States has determined that the risk of illness and death from childhood shots is real but “extraordinarily low,” leading authorities to conclude that these are “very rare events.”(218) Such remote and fleeting possibilities stand in stark contrast to the words employed by authorities interested in promoting their cause. Then we must be wary of the “poorly developed” immune systems of young children (as an argument in favor of the vaccines!), the “extremely infectious” nature of the virus, and the “grave risk of complications” associated with contracting the disease.(219,220)
More examples of the euphemism ploy:
Researchers are trying to develop a “magic bullet” super-vaccine “that could be given once at birth to immunize infants to all childhood diseases”(221)– delusions of grandeur. Perhaps they call it a “magic bullet” because infant deaths from the “shot” will remain a mystery to the medical scoundrels who pull the trigger.
The public is informed that vaccination rates increase by the time children enter school because parents are “motivated” — not compelled — to have their children vaccinated.(222)
Finally, be wary whenever authorities announce that an “unprecedented” or “experimental” vaccine will soon be available. What they really mean is, “we’re seeking human guinea pigs to study the effects of our newest concoction.”
17. Outright Lies. Lying is an established ploy of the medical community. It is a quick and easy way to promote the vaccine cause without having to rely upon honesty, morality, or ethics. Shrewd members of the medical fraternity know that very few people question doctors and their comrades.
The American Nurses Association recently collaborated with Every Child by Two, the Rosalynn Carter/Betty Bumpers Campaign for Early Immunization, “to educate nurses, parents, business leaders, civic organizations, and educators about the urgent need to immunize children.” Their aggressive stance against unvaccinated children includes a news release with the following claim: several childhood diseases — including polio, diphtheria, rubella, mumps, and tetanus — are undergoing a “resurgence.” This statement is an outright lie, obviously made to scare parents into vaccinating their children. None of these diseases is making a comeback. In fact, all are at their lowest rates of occurrence since records on their existence have been kept.(223)
According to Donna Shalala, President Clinton’s secretary of Health and Human Services, “This year’s flu, the Beijing strain, is expected to hit very hard.” She also claimed that 10,000 to 45,000 Americans lose their lives to influenza each year.224 However, official government statistics, which Donna Shalala oversees, contradict her claim. In 1991, the CDC reported just 990 deaths attributable to influenza; in 1992, 1,260. Americans die at rates 3 or 4 times greater from common diseases such as asthma (4,650 deaths in 1992), stomach ulcers (5,770 deaths in 1992) and nutritional deficiencies (3,100 deaths in 1992).(225)
18. Variable and Illogical Recommendations. Our children are being used as guinea pigs. To conceal this fact, authorities frequently change their recommendations. New and experimental vaccines replace old and ineffective ones. The number of doses and ages to receive them are altered on a regular basis as well, often with little rationale to justify either the original recommendation or the switch. For example, in 1985 the first Hib vaccine (haemophilus influenzae type b) was approved for general use in the United States and was quickly recommended for all children two years old and up —even though 75 percent of all Hib cases occur before two years of age! In 1988, a new “conjugated” Hib vaccine was approved for use in children at least 18 months of age. By 1991, its recommended use was extended to infants as young as two months old. Today, a genetically engineered Hib vaccine has replaced all earlier versions.(226-229)
In 1963, the recommended age for measles vaccination was 9 months. In 1965 it was changed to 12 months. In 1976 it was changed to 15 months.(230) However, since fewer moms have natural immunity to measles today — due to the large number of mothers who received childhood shots in the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s — and therefore cannot pass protective antibodies on to their infants, outbreaks of cases are now occurring in children under 15 months of age.(231) In fact, by 1993, more than 25 percent of all measles cases were appearing in babies under one year of age.(232) As a result, in some areas of the country the recommended age to receive the measles vaccine was lowered again, bringing us full circle to initial recommendations — when most children were, according to medical authorities, “inappropriately vaccinated!”(233)
Recent data indicates that a large majority of measles cases are occurring in vaccinated people.(234) To conceal this fact, authorities rely upon the variable recommendations ploy and now recommend a measles booster shot at 4 to 6 years.(235) Some schools are requiring proof of revaccination before children can enter the 7th grade. Many colleges are refusing to admit students who have no evidence of revaccination. Yet, earlier studies — one recently published in the Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal — demonstrated that booster doses of the measles shot are relatively ineffective.(236,237)
Are altered recommendations based on sound science or personal convenience? Vaccine policymakers anxious to introduce the chickenpox vaccine were stymied by the number of vaccines already in existence. They could not decide at what age to recommend their new product. They wanted to make room for it at 15 months, but that would necessitate changing the third of four recommended ages to receive the oral polio vaccine from “15 to 18 months” to “6 months.” However, because there is “more leeway” with the MMR vaccine, they considered changing the first of three recommended ages to receive it from “15 months” to “12 to 15 months.”(238)
A “plasma-derived” hepatitis vaccination was introduced in the 1970s. In 1987, a genetically engineered “yeast-derived” vaccine was developed. In 1991, the CDC and AAP began the process of mandating the new vaccine for all infants — even though adult IV drug users, not children, are most at risk of contracting this disease!(239)
Here is one final example of the variable and illogical recommendations ploy: Authorities are so incensed by the number of people claiming vaccines damaged or killed a family member, that they are seeking to further restrict the stringent criteria for entering the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. For example, the newly revised rules stipulate that a severe reaction to a DPT vaccine — such as anaphylactic shock — must occur within 4 hours! In other words, if your previously healthy child receives the vaccine at 10 o’clock in the morning, has a violent allergic reaction — gasps for air, collapses into unconsciousness — at 3 o’clock that afternoon, and is later diagnosed as brain damaged, the federal government will say that the damage is not related to the shot and therefore you don’t have a claim. Other criteria for entering the program have been restricted as well, or removed altogether.(240)
19. Adjustable Diagnoses and Exaggerated Epidemics. Health officials realized early on that vaccine efficacy rates could be maximized by creative diagnoses. Remember, “the credit of vaccination is kept up statistically by diagnosing all the [cases of smallpox after vaccinations] as pustular eczema [or anything else] except smallpox.”(241) In other words, if the nonvaccinated contract the disease, call it one thing; if the vaccinated become ill, name it something else.
The medical profession often goes to great lengths to create the illusion of extraordinary vaccine efficacy rates. As an example, the standards for defining polio were changed when the live-virus polio vaccine was introduced. The new definition of a “polio epidemic” required more cases to be reported (35 per 100,000 instead of the customary 20 per 100,000). At this time paralytic polio was redefined as well, making it more difficult to confirm, and therefore tally, cases. Prior to the introduction of the vaccine the patient only had to exhibit paralytic symptoms for 24 hours. Laboratory confirmation and tests to determine residual (prolonged) paralysis were not required. The new definition required the patient to exhibit paralytic symptoms for at least 60 days, and residual paralysis had to be confirmed twice during the course of the disease. Finally, after the vaccine was introduced cases of aseptic meningitis (an infectious disease often difficult to distinguish from polio) were more often reported as a separate disease from polio. But such cases were counted as polio before the vaccine was introduced.(242,243) The vaccine’s reported efficacy was therefore skewed.
More recently, two siblings contracted a bad cough, and they were brought to the family doctor for a checkup. In a separate visit, their 2 cousins, who also contracted a bad cough, were brought to the same doctor. Prior to being examined, the doctor asked each set of parents the vaccine status of their children. The first 2 children, who were not vaccinated, were diagnosed as having pertussis. The other 2 children, who had been vaccinated against pertussis, were diagnosed as having bronchitis. No clinical test was performed on any of the children.(244) This tactic serves two functions: 1) it inflates whooping cough statistics suggesting the need for a pertussis vaccine, and 2) it suppresses the truth that the vaccine is ineffective.
Babies who die soon after receiving vaccinations are often diagnosed with Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS). In fact, this tactic is so handy that coroners are permitted to use this term to certify toddler deaths up to the age of 24 months.(245,246)
Vaccine epidemics are often “created” when health officials misdiagnose ailments, or overstate the number of cases. As an example, when television programs challenged the safety of the pertussis vaccine, the Maryland Health Department deceived the public by blaming a new “epidemic” of whooping cough on the impact of these shows. When Dr. J. Anthony Morris, former top virologist for the U.S. Division of Biological Standards, analyzed the original data, however, he concluded the Maryland epidemic didn’t exist. In only 5 of the 41 cases was there reasonable evidence to correctly diagnose whooping cough. And each of these 5 children had received from one to four doses of the pertussis vaccine.(247)
In Placitas, New Mexico, headlines warned parents of a dangerous whooping cough “epidemic” in that town. But only three cases of whooping cough were discovered, two of them in siblings, all three of them in children who were vaccinated.(248)
20. Patriotic Duty and Social Responsibility (also known as the Guilt Trip). According to Dr. Martin Smith of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), “children of the nation are soldiers in the defense of this country against disease.”(249) Vaccine advocates maintain that some children must be sacrificed “for the welfare, safety, and comfort” of the nation.(250) One mother, whose child was permanently brain damaged within hours after receiving a DPT vaccine, was told by the family doctor that this was the price her child had to pay to keep other children safe. According to Dr. George Flores, Sonoma County public health officer, parents who reject vaccines “don’t consider the effect of their child on the rest of society.”(251) Apparently, unvaccinated children are a danger to everyone who is vaccinated, even though the vaccinated are supposed to be “protected.” (We are told that for the shots to work, everyone must play along.)(252) And families who decline the shots, we are told, are somehow reaping the benefits from those who dutifully have their children vaccinated.(253)
21. Unethical Experimentation. In December 1990, a federal regulation was adopted whereby the FDA gave permission to the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) to circumvent U.S. and international laws forbidding medical experiments on unwilling subjects. This is the decree that allowed the DoD to inject American Gulf War troops with unapproved experimental drugs and vaccines without their informed consent by deeming it “not feasible” to obtain the soldiers’ permission.(254) Today, many of these vets, their spouses, and their children, are crippled by unknown diseases.(255)
In a class action lawsuit, American Indians in South Dakota are suing the FDA and CDC for testing a new hepatitis A vaccine on their infants. Health officials did not warn the parents the exposed children would be at risk for cancer, convulsions, eye disorders, or death.(256) Authorities now plan to test hepatitis A vaccine on remote Northwest Alaska villagers.(257)
Simultaneously administered vaccines have not been proven safe, yet authorities continue to recommend them and medical health practitioners continue to inject them. A recent study in the Journal of the American Medical Association found lowered levels of pertussis antibodies in children who were simultaneously given the DPT and Hib vaccines. According to the author of the study, “This concern must be addressed, for obviously we do not want to expose our children to the risk of vaccines without providing them with optimum benefit.”(258)
Every year during the fall and winter seasons a new flu virus is thought to circulate throughout the community. To produce a vaccine for this virus, health officials must correctly predict nearly a year in advance which virus will arrive (causing some people to speculate that when officials guess correctly, it’s really the vaccine itself that may be spreading the disease). With production usually beginning in January, and the final product licensed by the FDA in August, just a month or two before the shots are distributed, who does it seem the vaccines are being tested on?(259)
Vaccine researchers perform unethical experiments on human populations whenever their newest creations are ready to be tested. Therefore it comes as no surprise to learn of their plans to add foreign substances — viral matter — to the food supply. In fact, biotechnology firms have been experimenting with adding vaccines to bananas, lettuce, potatoes, tomatoes, and soybeans for several years now.(260,261) Who do you think these vaccines will be tested on?
22. Mandates. If vaccines are so wonderful, why does the government need to mandate them? You’d think that everyone would be lining up to get the shots. But vaccination rates are modest. The Clinton administration claimed that the price and accessibility of vaccines were hindering parents from maintaining vaccine schedules.(262) However, according to a survey conducted by The Gallup Organization on behalf of Lederle Laboratories, a major vaccine manufacturer, the “cost and time involved are least important” considerations for parents deciding whether to vaccinate their children. “The possibility of side effects is most frequently rated as important in making the decision.”(263)
State laws require children to be vaccinated before they can enter public school — unless a parent signs a waiver indicating opposition to the shots. While some states offer a philosophical or religious exemption, all provide a medical exemption — if contraindications exist. But parents should not have to sign a waiver objecting to mandatory vaccines. Instead, those who elect to have their children vaccinated should be obligated to read the full range of possible adverse reactions. Then, parents who still elect to have their children vaccinated should be required to sign a form indicating that they understand all the risks involved.
Mandating vaccines is also an unscrupulous means of extorting money from trusting parents. Imagine the exorbitant profits of any company that produces a product everyone is required by law to buy — even against their will. Moreover, the extreme wealth acquired through this medical racket is not hoarded by the drug makers alone; common doctors share in the booty. According to the late Dr. Robert Mendelsohn, world-renowned pediatrician, vaccines are the “bread and butter” of pediatric practice.(264) Others speculate that the damage caused by the shots may be responsible for new ailments and rare diseases(265-267) — enough to keep medical specialists affluent and busy for years to come.
Imagine for a moment a group of nutritionists who develop a multivitamin. They place their own people in a position to evaluate the benefits and risks of the product. It is now “officially” declared safe and effective. In fact, children who take this new multivitamin are reported to be 50 percent healthier than other children. But there is a catch: the costly vitamins must be taken at regular intervals and everyone must take them or they won’t work. They won’t enhance health, we are told, because the disease-prone “unprotected” children — progeny of irresponsible parents — will pass their germs on to the “protected” children — children of “responsible” families. So the nutritionists lobby government officials to mandate their product. Busy lawmakers study the “official” study results, determine that “protecting” children is a high priority, and decide to support the goals and ambitions of this powerful lobbying force.
Imagine any coalition of professionals with an agenda to pursue. Say, a guild of hypnotists has determined that children can be hypnotized to perform better in school than children who are not hypnotized. But again there is a catch: the children must be taken from their parents at regular intervals to be hypnotized, and all children must be hypnotized or the effects will be incomplete. Would you agree to this practice? Mind control, body control; who has authority over our children?
23. Refusing to Report Vaccine Reactions. Despite a federal law passed by Congress in 1986 — the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act — requiring all doctors who administer vaccines to report vaccine reactions to federal health officials, many choose to ignore this legal requirement. Doctors often justify their refusal to report vaccine reactions by claiming the shot had nothing to do with the child’s injury or death. The will of Congress is being subverted, resulting in a gross underreporting of vaccine injuries and deaths.(268)
The Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) is the federal program designated to tally reports of vaccine injuries and deaths. By the year 2002, tens of thousands of reactions to vaccines, including deaths, were reported — despite the medical boycott against reporting incidents.(269) Still, one must magnify these figures tenfold, because the FDA estimates that 90 percent of doctors do not report incidents.(270)
To further confirm the degree of underreporting that occurs, in 1988 and 1989 Connaught Laboratories conducted a study to determine the true rate of adverse events associated with the vaccines they produce. During this period of time, unsolicited (“spontaneous”) reports of adverse events occurred at the rate of 20 per million doses. However, when they supplied the vaccine to doctors with a request to report any adverse event that occurred within 30 days of a vaccination, provided that it resulted in a physician visit, the rate of adverse events skyrocketed to 927 events per million doses. According to Dr. Jim Froeschle, director of clinical research at Connaught Laboratories, these differences indicate “a fifty-fold underreporting of adverse events.”(271) Yet, even this figure may be conservative. According to Dr. David Kessler, M.D., director of the Food and Drug Administration, “Only about one percent of serious events [adverse drug reactions] are reported to the FDA.”(272)
The following testimonials from parents and relatives of vaccine-damaged children illustrate how easily doctors can dismiss apparent vaccine reactions and thus justify not reporting them:
“Our son had his 2nd DPT shot and oral polio [vaccine] at four months of age on September 22, 1989. He had reacted to his 1st DPT immunization two months earlier with prolonged high-pitched screaming and projectile vomiting…. After his 2nd shot he immediately started the high-pitched screaming again. He could no longer hold his head up and could not keep his food down. He couldn’t sleep or stay awake, he had absence seizures, dozens to hundreds a day. He deteriorated daily and died April 14, 1990.” The doctor would not report this reaction. He did not feel that it was related to the vaccine.
“Our 16-month-old grandson received his 4th DPT shot on December 5, 1989, and he died 24 days later. He also received the MMR and oral polio vaccines at the same time. Within 24 hours his legs were red and swollen, he had a fever of 103 degrees, and he was very fussy and irritable…. His previous shots had similar reactions…. We know the shot contributed to his death.” The doctor would not report this reaction. He did not feel that it was related to the vaccine.
“We lost our beautiful, precious and adored 4-month-old son 26 hours after receiving the DPT vaccination and oral polio [vaccine] at his well-baby checkup on January 25, 1990…. We were aware our son’s behavior patterns changed after the shot…. He was staring, looked spacey, only took short naps, vomited his bottle…. The doctor was insistent that this was a SIDS death.” The doctor would not report this reaction. He did not feel that it was related to the vaccine.
“Our son had his 1st DPT vaccination and oral polio vaccine at 14 months old on February 22, 1990. That evening he started high-pitched screaming. The next two days he had a temperature of 101 degrees and slept for 15 hours. When he awoke he was extremely irritable…. My son was in a lot of body pain. At times he looked like he had a stroke. At other times he was curled up in a hard knot we couldn’t straighten. He was having seizures and we didn’t know it…. He continues to have seizures. The doctor, even though law required him to record manufacturer and lot number, did not record the number.” The doctor would not report this reaction. He did not feel that it was related to the vaccine.
“My son had his first DPT shot at his 2-month checkup on May 8, 1990…. Four hours later he started crying…. I noticed he was pale and like a statue…. He stopped breathing. I picked him up and shook him and he started breathing again. A friend was visiting and called 911. My son stopped breathing 8 to 10 more times with me shaking him out of it each time before the paramedics arrived. He was ash white…screaming when we got to the hospital…. I have another child who had severe reactions from his shots. He had a seizure after each of his first three DPT shots and was on medication for three years.” The doctor would not report this reaction. He did not feel that it was related to the vaccine.
“My 16-month-old grandson had his 2nd DPT shot, MMR, and polio at his well-baby checkup on August 16, 1990. In less than 48 hours he had a temperature of 105 degrees and went into convulsions…. My grandson has deteriorated daily. He walks stiff-legged, or his knee collapses on under him…. He has trouble with his bowels, constipation one minute followed by diarrhea running down his leg the next minute. We look at our old videos and realize how much he has changed.” The doctor would not report this reaction, nor would he give the parents the manufacturers, and lot numbers of the vaccines he administered.
“My grandson had his 1st DPT shot and oral polio [vaccine] at his 2-month well-baby checkup on June 8, 1990. Within 21 hours he was dead. After the shot he started crying [high-pitched screaming]…. My grandson began projectile vomiting and continued the high-pitched crying…. At 7 A.M. my daughter awoke and found my grandson to have a purple color on one side of his face, clenched fists, blood coming from his nose and mouth and not breathing. My grandson was dead. I have promised my daughter that his death will not be in vain and just another statistic labeled SIDS.” The doctor would not report this reaction. He did not feel that it was related to the vaccine.(273)
24. Suppress Information/Prohibit Conflicting Testimony. On April 1, 1993, several bills were introduced in Congress to establish a federal “tracking and surveillance” system that would monitor parents who choose not to vaccinate their children. A few weeks later, Representative Henry Waxman and Senator Ted Kennedy chaired “public” hearings on this legislation, but prohibited input from individual parents, parent organizations, and healthcare professionals concerned about vaccine safety. Instead, only groups with a vested interest in ratifying these bills were permitted to attend: White House sponsors, several presidents of multibillion dollar companies that produce vaccines, agents of the American Academy of Pediatrics, and public health officials.(274)
The Salk “inactivated” or “killed-virus” vaccine was actually regulated to permit 5,000 live viruses per million doses. Yet, because the vaccine was promoted as being incapable of causing polio, cases that occurred following administration of the vaccine were denied, and it was excluded from the Vaccine Injury Table.(275) The CDC also refuses to acknowledge occurrences of encephalitis and seizure disorders following administration of the oral polio vaccine, even though encephalitis has been known to occur following polio contracted under natural conditions.(276)
More examples of the suppression ploy:
A recent report published in Lancet notes that some people contract meningitis after receiving the MMR vaccine. Nevertheless, the author concludes that “because of the extreme rarity of this complication, parents need not be told about the risk before deciding on vaccination.”(277)
Even though a national drug evaluation committee (ADRAC) recommended that children should be observed for a sufficient period of time after vaccination to monitor reactions, authorities fought against the suggested period of observation on the grounds that it causes inconvenience to parents and increases anxiety about the safety of childhood shots.(278)
When the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 was passed into law, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) was ordered by Congress “to develop and disseminate vaccine information materials for distribution by health care workers.” This material was to include information on adverse reactions, contraindications, and the availability of a federal compensation program for people who are injured or die from a mandated vaccine. HHS was to satisfy this legal requirement by December 22, 1988. By March 4, 1991, this matter was still unsettled. When HHS eventually submitted the required information, “they failed to meet even minimal standards of scientific rigor, candor, and fairness.” Vaccine risks were systematically understated or ignored.(279)
Although medical personnel are required by law to provide their clients with information booklets explaining the benefits and risks of vaccinations before they receive their shots, few doctors offer these booklets to their clients. The following story illustrates the type of damage that can occur when healthcare providers choose to suppress lifesaving information:
“I am a 29-nine-year old female who received an MMR vaccine required by [the medical center where I work]. Since receiving that vaccine I’ve experienced a number of side effects: dizziness, headaches, numbness of my feet and ankles, shortness of breath, chest pain, and aching joints.
“I have seen several doctors over the last six months, more times than I can count. Those doctors that admitted the vaccine may have something to do with these symptoms felt that within six months the symptoms would subside. Unfortunately, this is not the case. In fact, some symptoms have gotten worse. My ankles are numb almost continuously, the chest pain has begun to include pain in my left arm and jaw, accompanied by difficulty breathing.
“Every aspect of my life has been affected by this, including my work ability, which is the reason I had to have the vaccine in the first place. I was told I either had to get it, or I wouldn’t have a job. Unfortunately, by this time I have already given up the job I held for over five years.
“I was not given any information prior to receiving the vaccine. [I later learned] that people allergic to eggs should not receive this vaccine. I am allergic to eggs, but the hospital staff never asked or told me anything. My primary care physician is at a loss about what to do with me. But I continue to suffer.”(280)
25. Psychological Projection. Medical personnel are notorious for seeing in others the very thoughts, feelings, and actions they deny in themselves. This subtle and unconscious defense against anxiety and guilt is what psychologists refer to as projection. Vaccine researchers, for example, are disappointed that women and minorities have been reluctant to be experimented on with a new AIDS vaccine, even in light of recent revelations about Cold War radiation tests on unwitting subjects. The reluctant volunteers — not the researchers — were blamed for harboring a “mistaken belief” that the vaccine could cause AIDS, despite what the scientists say.(281)
Note: Less than 5 months later, researchers were forced to acknowledge that “at least five volunteers in the government’s principal AIDS vaccine study have become infected with the AIDS virus after receiving the vaccine.” One of the subjects is said to have undergone “an unusually rapid decline in the number of white blood cells, the standard measure for the progress of AIDS.” This has raised researchers’ concerns “not only about how well the vaccine works but whether it may have increased the likelihood of their infection and…even accelerated the progression of disease.”(282)
Medical policymakers and some lawmakers claim parents are abusing their children by not allowing them to be vaccinated.(283,284) Some parents have been accused of child abuse — “shaking baby syndrome” — after their children had seizures or went into a coma following vaccinations.(285) In fact, the authorities who allow these dangerous vaccines to be administered are abusing the children and implicating the parents. Parents have lost custody of their loved ones in this manner.(286)
26. Organized Propaganda. Community organizations and parent groups are often enlisted by medical associations to help organize campaigns against unvaccinated children. “Volunteers” rarely question the cult-like doctrines the pro-vaccinators foist in their direction. But are these organizations, and their helpers, really doing the community a service? How honest are vaccine campaigns that omit mention of the thousands of families affected every year by adverse reactions to vaccines? Why are the true facts prohibited from being revealed? And why can’t parents be trusted to weigh the facts for themselves?
The medical-industrial complex is well-prepared for almost any unfavorable eventuality that may occur. For example, soon after the NBC television show “NOW” broadcast a story about the dangerous DPT vaccine, a DPT manufacturer sent telegrams to health professionals throughout the nation reassuring them of the vaccine’s safety.(287) After the show aired a second time, the CDC organized a propaganda blitz by swiftly faxing biased pro-vaccine information to doctors and other concerned people throughout the nation. In this fax, the CDC had the audacity to claim that “Almost all infants with any medical illness, including death, will have been vaccinated earlier in their life…. [and] Almost all infants with any medical illness, including death, will have drunk milk earlier in their life,”(288) implying that receiving shots is as benign as drinking milk.
27. Legal Immunity. When the FDA tested a batch of DPT vaccine, they found the entire lot to be 200 percent more potent than regulations allowed. Instead of immediately destroying it, the agency allowed health authorities to “test” it on hundreds of children in Michigan. This proved to be a tragic gamble. Later, when the parents of children who were paralyzed and brain damaged from the mandatory shots tried to sue the state, the courts disallowed their case because the “doctrine of sovereign immunity” protects the government from claims arising from services that only the government can provide.(289)
A 13-year-old Pennsylvania girl suffered irreversible brain damage from a measles vaccine received during a mandatory mass vaccination program at her school. However, a court decision made it clear that neither the vaccine manufacturers nor the government could be held responsible because the vaccines were “unavoidably unsafe.” [Translation: Parents are compelled to play the medical establishment’s unique brand of Russian roulette.] The court also claimed the vaccine maker adequately delineated risks on its package insert.290 Consequently, these parents were deemed solely responsible for the care of their now mentally retarded daughter — even though they, like most parents, were not warned about vaccine dangers, were not told about these inserts, and withheld permission for their daughter to be vaccinated!(291)
Drug companies are legally immune against most claims of vaccine damage, and their incentive to produce safer vaccines was removed when the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 was passed. This law states that “no vaccine manufacturer shall be liable in a civil action for damages arising from a vaccine-related injury or death.” Incredibly, the original draft also stated: “The term vaccine-related injury or death means an illness, injury, condition or death associated with one or more of the vaccines listed in the vaccine injury table except that the term does not include an illness, injury, condition or death associated with an adulterant or contaminant intentionally added to such a vaccine.”(292)
28. Threats to go out of Business. Before the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 was enacted, vaccine manufacturers were being sued so often and for so much money, that many threatened to — and did — go out of business.(293) When the government began accepting liability for vaccine injuries and deaths, the enterprising drug companies succeeded in removing an important incentive to produce safe and effective vaccines.
29. Stonewalling. Vaccine officials use the stonewalling tactic whenever they want to delay or avoid accepting accountability. For example, when one mother, whose son died four days after his second polio shot, studied his provisional autopsy report, she noted that there were major findings of myocarditis, and hepatitis, and that the polio virus had been extracted from these diseased organs — conditions not inconsistent with a vaccine reaction. But when she questioned the pathology department’s initial conclusion — Sudden Infant Death Syndrome — and requested additional tests to determine whether the polio virus was a wild or vaccine strain, she was led into a nine-year battle with the CDC to secure the results. (Medical authorities were forced to concede the truth: the vaccine caused the child’s polio.)(294)
When a child is killed by a mandated vaccine, the government is expected to compensate the parents, awarding them up to $250,000. However, if the child is seriously injured by the vaccine, continues to live, and requires lifetime care, several million dollars may be awarded. Government officials may be reluctant to settle cases quickly, hoping the damaged child will die, thereby lowering the payment. This is exactly what millions of people learned when The Crusaders, a television newsmagazine, aired a gutsy show on the dangerous pertussis vaccine. The father of a young boy who suffered severe and permanent brain damage just hours after a DPT shot could not get the government to settle his case. The family needs the money to pay for the child’s specialized care, but “if something were to happen to him and he did not live, they would not have to pay for his life care.”(295)
30. Secrecy. If vaccines offered benefits only, the government wouldn’t need to mandate them, and the ploys noted in this chapter wouldn’t be necessary. Instead, parents would be lining up to get the shots. Members of the medical fraternity realize this, and have banded together to conceal how the vaccines are made, who they’re tested on, how effective they really are, and the true rates of adverse events. Even the manufacturer’s cost to market vaccines is considered a “trade secret or confidential information.”(296)
Doctors who have dared to publicly question vaccines, “have been warned that their careers are at stake and they risk [losing their license to practice medicine].”(297) Others are discredited.(298)
After one family’s son was damaged by a DPT shot, they obtained, through the Freedom of Information Act, a computerized record of more than 34,000 adverse reactions to vaccines over a three-year period. They had a hunch their son had received a bad vaccine — from a “hot lot” — and wanted to see if they could protect other children from being hurt.
After a great deal of research, they discovered that their son had been vaccinated from a hot lot. The death rate associated with this batch was three times higher than that linked with other lots. Ten children had died from it. But when the parents spoke to officials at the FDA to determine if the agency would conduct an investigation, they were told that “due to the size of the lot, the deaths did not warrant significant investigation.” When they inquired about the size of the lot, the FDA flatly stated, “That’s confidential.”(299)
Parents everywhere would like to know how many deaths would be enough to warrant an investigation. If ten isn’t enough, is twenty? Thirty? Forty? What’s enough? What industry is permitted to operate in secrecy, and put out a product to the public without accountability? Concerned citizens cannot even find out from the government what the mechanism is to institute a recall, if indeed one even exists.(300)
Drug company awards for vaccine damage are usually settled out of court. Parents who expect to receive compensation for their child who was damaged or killed by a vaccine are often obligated to remain silent as a condition of the agreement. Parents seeking compensation from the Federal Vaccine Injury Compensation Program are often counseled to refrain from discussing their cases, and settlements, as well.(301) To learn how difficult it is to break the secrecy pact, try to obtain specific vaccine information from the CDC or FDA. They’ll be happy to send you their official propaganda but will quickly turn apprehensive and restrained when you start probing for additional information. These public organizations, supported by taxpayer dollars, have all sorts of information. However, they’re unlikely to share it with average citizens, for then we’d be able to make our own rational, informed decisions regarding the shots. But the American people are entitled to know the answers to their questions before submitting their children to “mandated” vaccines.
“We could kneel on broken glass and give the American Medical Association (AMA) everything it wanted, and still they will oppose it. They are going to push us as far as possible, and then they are just going to screw us.” –Federal Healthcare Task Force Member, Time, (September 20, 1993), p. 61. “Every doctor will allow a colleague to decimate a whole countryside sooner than violate the bond of professional etiquette by giving him away.” –George Bernard Shaw
This article was excerpted from the vaccine archives of Neil Z. Miller.
See Immunization Theory vs. Reality for more information.
Copyright © 1995-2003. All Rights Reserved.
Vaccines: Pure Profit Up Front…then Customers for Life
Vaccines are the biggest deception and biggest lie ever perpetrated against man kind. Injecting filth — viruses and chemicals — is not about health; it is a guise for profit. The billion dollar profits on sale of vaccines (see below) is a drop in the bucket compared to the multiple billions in profits made on the drugs used to treat the diseases that vaccines cause.
My new book, “Saying No To Vaccines: A Resource Guide for All Ages” will be out soon…my hope is that the book will help save many children and adults from disaster. We MUST just learn to say NO and stand up against the ever growing medical tyranny in this country.
Parents: You’ve been brainwashed into believing in the “need” for a pediatrician. Learn to care of fevers and colds at home. You Can Do It!
Parents: Learn how to keep children healthy with great food, homeopathics, simple supplements and support groups to share ideas about keeping their kids healthy. There are really great books available to help you!!
Parents: Be strong and say “no” to vaccines. Don’t allow yourself to be bullied into submission (if you have a story about being bullied, please let me know at DrTenpenny.com
Parents: Talk to your parents, your grandparents, your aunts. They have a wealth of information to share. Home remedies have been around for centuries for a reason. Don’t let your child become dollars for pharma.
See the article below for why you should refuse vaccines….And know I’m on your side!
February 11, 2008
Time To End Profit Driven Mandatory Vaccination Racket
By Evelyn Pringle
The push to keep adding more vaccines to the mandatory schedules comes directly from a purely profit motivated industry and a recent investor report estimates that the world-wide market will quadruple from about $4.3 billion in 2006 to more than $16 billion in 2016, with the biggest boost coming from kids in the US.
A November 2007 report entitled, “Pipeline and Commercial Insight: Pediatric and Adolescent Vaccines,” authored by vaccine analyst, Hedwig Kresse, for the independent market analyst Datamonitor discusses the future outlook for vaccine profits.
The report provides an assessment of products and a patient-based forecast of market size and coverage rates to the year 2016, and predicts that the introduction of high price vaccines will induce rapid growth in the pediatric and adolescent vaccines market.
The report predicts that due to the “promising commercial potential” of new, high-price vaccines, the pediatric and adolescent market will quadruple from approximately $4.3 billion in 2006, to over $16 billion by 2016, across the US, the EU-five including France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the UK, and Japan.
The crucial factor for success in the pediatric market, the report notes, is the introduction of a product into national vaccination schedules. “Along with reimbursement, this virtually guarantees the rapid uptake and continuously high coverage rates in the target population,” Ms Kresse states. As an example, she cites Wyeth’s Prevnar, as the first premium price vaccine launched in the US in 2000 for vaccinating infants against pneumonia and meningitis.
Since then, Prevnar has been added to the childhood vaccination schedules in the US and EU-five despite its high price of nearly $320 for the 4-dose regimen. In 2006, Global sales reached almost $2 billion, making Prevnar the first vaccine to attain blockbuster status, according to the report. By 2016, Datamonitor expects the total value of the infant market for pneumococcal vaccines to increase to $2.3 billion.
In June 2006, Merck’s Gardasil was approved for cervical cancer. Because it was the first vaccine offered as a preventive measure for a form of cancer, its approval generated tremendous public attention along with pressure for healthcare authorities to make the vaccine available to teenage girls at a cost of $360 for 3 doses.
“Although most cases of cervical cancer in the developed world can be prevented through the existing pap smear screening programs, the expensive HPV vaccination has been recommended and is reimbursed for teenage girls across the US and Europe,” Ms Kresse reports.
She notes that this decision about the HPV vaccine is driven more by public pressure and excitement about the opportunity to vaccinate against cancer rather than by real need. The widespread publicity has led to a good uptake in the target group of adolescent girls, which is usually hard to reach for vaccination, Ms Kresse points out to investors.
Datamonitor sees a huge commercial opportunity in HPV vaccines, with annual sales of $1.4 billion in teenage girls for the seven major markets by 2016 and a cumulative catch-up opportunity in women aged 13-26 that could add up to over $17 billion until 2016.
But Ms Kresse warns investors that the “lack of medical need” for rotavirus vaccines such as RotaTeq will limit their uptake in most markets. RotaTeq is advertised to combat diarrhea that usually affects infants under the age of two, and was introduced by Merck in the US in 2006, at a price of $200 for the three-dose regimen. According to Ms Kresse, many countries, but not the US, have refused to add the vaccine to their schedules due to cost-benefit reasons. “In the developed world, rotavirus diarrhea is rarely severe for small infants and quick and efficacious treatment is already available,” she writes. “Consequently, healthcare authorities see no need to widely introduce a very expensive vaccine.”
Datamonitor estimates that annual sales will remain limited to approximately $1 billion across the 7 major markets by 2016 and predicts that the US will account for the majority of sales, being the only country to have recommended the rotavirus vaccine for all infants.
Wyeth’s Prevnar vaccine came on the market in 2000 and is recommended for children under 2. The vaccine was hailed as a breakthrough and had sales of more than $1.5 billion in 2006. Prevnar is given as four shots to children between 2 and 15 months.
On September 18, 2007, NewsMax reported that the vaccine has dramatically curbed pneumonia and other serious illnesses in children but is also having an unfortunate effect: “promoting new superbugs that cause ear infections.” According to NewsMax, doctors reported finding the first such germ that is resistant to all drugs approved to treat childhood ear infections and 9 toddlers in Rochester, N.Y., have had the bug and that it also may be turning up elsewhere.
It is a strain of strep bacteria not included in the pneumococcal vaccine. Prevnar prevents seven strains responsible for most cases of pneumonia, meningitis and bloodstream infections. But dozens more strains exist and some have become resistant to antibiotics since the vaccine combats the more common strains.
If the new strains continue to spread, “it tells us the vaccine is becoming less effective” and needs to be revised, Dr Dennis Maki, infectious diseases chief at the University of Wisconsin-Madison Hospitals and Clinics, told NewsMax. A new study in the November 8, 2007 New England Journal of Medicine by researchers at Oregon Health & Science University, supported by the United States Public Health Service, suggests that the schedule for vaccinating and revaccinating against diseases should be reevaluated and adjusted.
The study found that in many cases, the established duration of immunity for vaccines is greatly underestimated, which means that people are getting booster shots when their immunity levels do not require it and those antibody responses caused by viruses such as measles mumps, and rubella remained at protective levels for several decades and in most cases, for life.
The research also reconfirmed a previous finding by Slifka and his colleagues: that the duration of immunity after smallpox vaccination is much longer than previously thought. In that earlier study published in the journal Nature Medicine in 2003, these OHSU researchers observed surprisingly long-lived antiviral antibody responses but they were unable to measure the slow rate of decline.
The study indicates that the duration of immunity after smallpox vaccination is maintained with a calculated half-life of 92 years and that a person who has received the primary series of tetanus vaccine is likely to be protected for 3 decades.
Experts say we have allowed ourselves and our children to be overdosed through a culture dominated by industry marketing influence which has now become dangerously out of control and detrimental to our children’s health. “In the 21st century, it is unacceptable to be marketing medication to infants and children that may not work,” Dr Steven Czinn, chair of the department of pediatrics at the University of Maryland School of Medicine, told Reuters on October 11, 2007.
In the November 19, 2007 Huffington Post article, “Over Medicated and Over-Vaccinated: The Unintended Consequence of Medicines Meant to Protect,” Deirdre Imus asks, “Where are the conflict-free studies that prove giving infants and children 49 immunizations – most of them by age 5, are safe and effective?”
She points out that studies have provided evidence that the over-vaccination of dogs and cats can result in numerous maladies including cancer, skin and ear conditions, arthritis, allergies, diabetes, aggression, behavior problems and other immune system dysfunctions. “There is even a name for the conditions caused by animal over-vaccination, vaccinosis,” she notes.
Ms Imus also points out that the mercury-containing preservative, thimerosal, used in vaccines for over 50 years was removed from animal vaccines in 1992. “Unfortunately for the kids,” she writes, “it remained in children’s vaccines for another decade and remains in some vaccines like the influenza (25 micrograms) and tetanus vaccine (25 micrograms) today and in trace amounts (3 micrograms) in some immunizations.”
She says most people do not realize is that any liquid waste containing more than 200 parts per billion (ppb) mercury must be deposited at a hazardous waste site and that drinking water cannot exceed 2 ppb mercury. “But when the influenza vaccines arrive and are injected into pregnant woman and infants as young as six months, those vaccines contain 50,000 ppb mercury,” Ms Imus notes.
This amount of mercury is 250 times higher than hazardous waste, she notes, and according to EPA guidelines, this amount can only be considered safe if a person weighs 550 pounds. “Even trace amounts of mercury in vaccines can be anywhere from 600 to 2000 ppb,” she warns.
On November 13, 2006, PutChildrenFirst.org, a parent-led organization advocating vaccine safety, issued a press release to announce the results of a survey conducted October 27-30, 2006, by Zogby International of over 9,000 Americans to learn their plans for getting flu shots, their knowledge of its ingredients, and who they hold responsible for making sure vaccines are safe. The survey showed that an overwhelming majority of Americans were unaware that most flu shots contain mercury and that they would refuse a shot with mercury. After learning that mercury is an ingredient, 74% of those polled said they were less likely to get a flu shot and 86% of parents said they were less likely to allow their child to get a shot.
Lisa Handley is a founding parent of PutChildrenFirst.org, whose son Jamison had an adverse reaction to a flu shot with mercury in 2003. “I know firsthand how life-changing a flu shot with mercury can be, since our son began his regression into autism after his flu shot,” she states. “With everything we know about the dangers of mercury and the havoc it can wreak on young, developing brains, there is no excuse for any vaccine to contain mercury,” says Lyn Redwood, RN, MSN, President of SafeMinds, a nonprofit organization committed to ending mercury-induced neurological disorders. “The survey reveals that Americans are overwhelmingly in the dark about what is in most flu shots,” Ms Redwood stated in the press release.
“They do not want a known neurotoxin injected into their children, and they believe Congress and medical professionals must be more vigilant about keeping vaccines safe and mercury-free,” she added.
PutChildrenFirst also advises that two recent studies in leading medical journals admitted that limited data exists to support the effectiveness of flu vaccines. One study, in the Journal of the American Medical Association, noted that, “there is scant data on the efficacy and effectiveness of influenza vaccine in young children,” the release notes.
According to Ms Imus, we are beginning to see prescribed vaccines, like the whole cell DPT and Rotovirus, which are later found to be unsafe. “While physicians warn the public about the over use of antibiotics,” she points out, “it is the physicians themselves that over-prescribed these antibiotics for every ailment under the sun.”
“And like antibiotics,” she writes, “every time a new vaccine was developed, it quickly found its way onto the immunization schedule along with the recommended booster shots. We are now reaping the unintended consequences of the overuse of these medical interventions,” she states. “Instead of being healthier, we have a nation of very sick children.”
Forcing parents to inject poisonous concoctions into innocent, helpless children against their will is a gross violation of their most basic parental rights.
Authors Bio: Evelyn Pringle is a columnist for OpEd News and investigative journalist focused on exposing corruption in government and corporate America.