Will there be a violent revolution in the US? If there is, will it be triggered by violations of your health freedom so devastating and so dangerous that Americans will, at last, say, “Enough”, just as they did with the imposition of new taxes at the end of the unopposed British Colonial era and the beginning of that difficult and dangerous period glorified in grade school history books as “The American Revolution”?
Whether you are a liberal, a progressive, a conservative, a Constitutionalist, a libertarian or a six foot scaly reptile, if you are watching (and that means living through) the political, social, economic, constitutional and social upheaval besetting the United States right now, you will find this provocative and thought-provoking article worth reading. Asking if we are heading for a revolution does not mean that I advocate one. Let me be very clear on that score: revolutions damage us all deeply and leave scars which may not heal for hundreds of years. But think about what happens if the US Government starts yelling, “Pandemic! Pandemic”, for example, saying there is an Avian Flu outbreak. Although the Indonesian Health Minister, Mme. Siti Fadila Supari, states unequivocally that the US is manipulating the Avian Flu situation for its own gain and greed, and that the World Health Organization provided Indonesian Avian Flu samples to a US Bioweapons lab at Los Alamos, New Mexico, most people will be so spooked and stampeded by the public “Wag the Dog” outcry created to drive people to compliance that we can expect the majority of them to roll up their sleeves and beg, literally bet, to be inoculated. Or will they?
Liberty after liberty, trusted source after trusted source, civil protection after civil protection have all been rapidly eroding through the heavy hand of an increasingly dictatorial “protection” mentality by government and agencies. On that we all can agree, no matter what our political stance or belief system. At the same time, global and local health freedoms have been undergoing the same erosion for the supposed benefit of our health and well being but with personal freedom and the right to make our own health decision as the victims. Quick, real and frightening examples:
– The rapidly arriving onslaught of compulsory vaccinations of children and adults in the US and elsewhere with the specter of “Avian Flu vaccine” on a universal compulsory basis lurking in the not-too-distant background
– The FDA literally forbidding labeling of genetically modified ingredients and foods (other than raw produce which has a code on the little oval label produce carries. If it begins with the number “8” it has been genetically modified) because they recognize, according to FDA employee Barbara Schneeman, PhD [head of Office of Dietary Supplements and frequent Codex Delegate for the US] that if you knew your food was genetically modified you would refuse to buy it. By the way, if it begins with the number “4”, the produce has been raised conventionally, which means with pesticides and other chemicals. If it begins with the number “9” the produce is organic and has not been treated with chemicals although it may have been irradiated or “pasteurized” without label notification.
– Your medical records, all of them, becoming public property which the Federal Government can sell for commercial purposes and which doctors offices can now transmit on special, $600 computers now available, directly to Google where they will be stored and accessed without your knowledge or your doctors (which is not such a huge departure from where we are now, after all, since if your doctor (or anyone else in the office) tells you that your records have been accessed, that person has committed a felony crime
– Your access to foods which have not been raised with undeclared pesticides or irradiated (now called “pasteurization” to make it sound less frightening) is nearly impossible to assure. All fruits and vegetables imported into the US must be irradiated, but that fact is not declared on any label
– Compulsory “mental health screening” followed by drugging with dangerous psychiatric drugs for children, adults and adolescents mandated by at least 6 Federal and numerous State laws. Parents who resist this dangerous imposition on their rights face criminal charges and potential loss of their children to the State. The same imposition of State over personal interests has led to numerous cases of forced chemotherapy treatment despite the wishes of patients and parents
– The disappearance of free speech to allow you to learn about and tell others about health benefits associated with a food or food component (currently forbidden by the FDA and Codex as “Health Claims” and “advertising” respectively) without having the potentially benefical substance classified as an “untested drug” by the FDA
– The right to sue manufacturers of devices, drugs and vaccines for the damage they have caused whether or not the drug, vaccine or device has been approved by the FDA for any purpose. Currently, if a device, drug or vaccination has been approved by the FDA for any use at all, the manufacturer has no liability, none, for any damage – even death – that the device or drug caused.
Could these basic human, American, personal rights, especially the right to refuse vaccination for oneself and one’s children be so dearly held by Americans, and could the distrust and loathing of government be so strong that, despite marshal law, despite propaganda and despite the police power of the state enforcing it, Americans might refuse in enough numbers, and with enough force to create a revolution? Well, that all depends on whether American discontent has reached a boiling point, rather than a roiling malaise.
Students of social movements and change (and revolutions certainly quality for those descriptions) ask the question, “What are the conditions necessary to create a full blown revolution and have we reached them in the United States. Please read on to learn more about whether the US is, in fact, in critical “blow up” mode.
When Change Is Not Enough: The Seven Steps to Revolution
by Sara Robinson
“Those who make peaceful evolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable.â€
– John F. Kennedy
There’s one thing for sure: 2008 isn’t anything like politics as usual.
The corporate media (with their unerring eye for the obvious point) is fixated on the narrative that, for the first time ever, Americans will likely end this year with either a woman or a black man headed for the White House. Bloggers are telling stories from the front lines of primaries and caucuses that look like something from the early 60s – people lining up before dawn to vote in Manoa, Hawaii yesterday; a thousand black college students in Prairie View, Texas marching 10 miles to cast their early votes in the face of a county that tried to disenfranchise them. In recent months, we’ve also been gobstopped by the sheer passion of the insurgent campaigns of both Barack Obama and Ron Paul, both of whom brought millions of new voters into the conversation – and with them, a sharp critique of the status quo and a new energy that’s agitating toward deep structural change.
There’s something implacable, earnest, and righteously angry in the air. And it raises all kinds of questions for burned-out Boomers and jaded Gen Xers who’ve been ground down to the stump by the mostly losing battles of the past 30 years. Can it be – at long last – that Americans have, simply, had enough? Are we, finally, stepping out to take back our government – and with it, control of our own future? Is this simply a shifting political season – the kind we get every 20 to 30 years – or is there something deeper going on here? Do we dare to raise our hopes that this time, we’re going to finally win a few? Just how ready is this country for big, serious, forward-looking change?
Recently, I came across a pocket of sociological research that suggested a tantalizing answer to these questions – and also that America may be far more ready for far more change than anyone really believes is possible at this moment. In fact, according to some sociologists, we’ve already lined up all the preconditions that have historically set the stage for full-fledged violent revolution.
It turns out that the energy of this moment is not about Hillary or Ron or Barack. It’s about who we are, and where we are, and what happens to people’s minds when they’re left hanging just a little too far past the moment when they’re ready for transformative change.
Way back in 1962, Caltech sociologist James C. Davies published an article in the American Sociological Review that summarized the conditions that determine how and when modern political revolutions occur. Intriguingly, Davies cited another scholar, Crane Brinton, who laid out seven “tentative uniformities†that he argued were the common precursors that set the stage for the Puritan, American, French, and Russian revolutions. As I read Davies’ argument, it struck me that the same seven stars Brinton named are now precisely lined up at midheaven over America in 2008. Taken together, it’s a convergence that creates the perfect social, economic, and political conditions for the biggest revolution since the shot heard ’round the world.
And even more interestingly: in every case, we got here as a direct result of either intended or unintended consequences of the conservatives’ war against liberal government, and their attempt to take over our democracy and replace it with a one-party plutocracy. It turns out that, historically, liberal nations make very poor grounds for revolution – but deeply conservative ones very reliably create the conditions that eventually make violent overthrow necessary. And our own Republicans, it turns out, have done a hell of a job.
Here are the seven criteria, along with the reasons why we’re fulfilling each of them now, and how conservative policies conspired to put us on the road to possible revolution.
1. Soaring, Then Crashing
Davies notes that revolutions don’t happen in traditional societies that are stable and static – where people have their place, things are as they’ve always been, and nobody expects any of that to change. Rather, modern revolutions – particularly the progressive-minded ones in which people emerge from the fray with greater rights and equality – happen in economically advancing societies, always at the point where a long period of rising living standards and high, hopeful expectations comes to a crashing end, leaving the citizens in an ugly and disgruntled mood. As Davies put it:
“Revolutions are most likely to occur when a prolonged period of objective economic and social development is followed by a short period of sharp reversal. The all-important effect on the minds of people in a particular society is to produce, during the former period, an expectation of continued ability to satisfy needs – which continue to rise – and, during the latter, a mental state of anxiety and frustration when manifest reality breaks away from anticipated reality….
“Political stability and instability are ultimately dependent on a state of mind, a mood, in society…it is the dissatisfied state of mind rather than the tangible provision of ‘adequate’ or ‘inadequate’ supplies of food, equality, or liberty which produces the revolution.â€
The American middle class was built on New Deal investments in education, housing, infrastructure, and health care, which produced a very “prolonged period of objective economic and social development.†People were optimistic; generations of growing prosperity raised their expectations that their children would do even better. That era instilled in Americans exactly the kind of hopeful belief in their own agency that primes them to become likely revolutionaries in an era of decline.
And now, thanks to 28 years of conservative misrule, we are now at the point where “manifest reality breaks away from anticipated reality;†and the breach is creating political turbulence. The average American has seen his or her standard of living contract by fits and starts since about 1972. This fall-off that was relieved somewhat by the transition to two-earner households and the economic sunshine of the Clinton years – but then accelerated with the dot-com crash, followed by seven years of Bush’s overt hostility toward the lower 98 percent of Americans who aren’t part of his base. Working-class America is reeling from the mass exodus of manufacturing jobs and the scourge of predatory lending; middle-class America is being hollowed out by health-care bankruptcies, higher college costs, and a tax load far heavier than that of the richest 2 percent. These people expected to do better than their parents. Now, they’re screwed every direction they turn.
In the face of this reversal, Davies tells us, it’s not at all surprising that the national mood is turning ominous, from one end of the political spectrum to the other. However, he warns us: this may not be just a passing political storm. In other times and places, this kind of quick decline in a prosperous nation has been a reliable sign of a full-on revolution brewing just ahead.
2. They Call It A Class War
Marx called this one true, says Davies. Progressive modern democracies run on mutual trust between classes and a shared vision of the common good that binds widely disparate groups together. Now, we’re also about to re-learn the historical lesson that liberals like flat hierarchies, racial and religious tolerance, and easy class mobility not because we’re soft-headed and soft-hearted – but because, unlike short-sighted conservatives, we understand that tight social cohesion is our most reliable and powerful bulwark against the kinds of revolutions that bring down great economies, nations and cultures.
In all the historical examples Davies and Brinton cite, the stage for revolution was set when the upper classes broke faith with society’s other groups, and began to openly prey on them in ways that threatened their very future. Not surprisingly, the other groups soon united, took up arms, and rebelled.
And here we are again: Conservative policies have opened the wealth gap to Depression levels; put workers at the total mercy of their employers; and deprived the working and middle classes of access to education, home ownership, health care, capital, legal redress, and their expectations of a better future for their kids. You can only get away with blaming this on gays and Mexicans for so long before people get wise to the game. And as the primaries are making clear: Americans are getting wise.
Our current plutocratic nobility may soon face the same stark choice its English, French, and Russian predecessors did. They can keep their heads and take proactive steps to close the gap between themselves and the common folk (choosing evolution over revolution, as JFK counsels above). Or they can keep insisting stubbornly on their elite prerogatives, until that gap widens to the point where the revolution comes – and they will lose their heads entirely.
Right now, all we’re asking of our modern-day corporate courtiers is that they accept a tax cut repeal on people making over $200K a year, raise the minimum wage, give us decent health care and the right to unionize, and call a halt to their ridiculous “death tax†boondoggle. In retrospect, their historic forebears might have counseled them to take this deal: their headless ghosts bear testimony to the idea that’s it’s better to give in and lose a little skin early than dig in and lose your whole hide later on.
3. Deserted Intellectuals
Mere unrest among the working and middle classes, all by itself, isn’t enough. Revolutions require leaders – and those always come from the professional and intellectual classes. In most times and places, these groups (which also include military officers) usually enjoy comfortable ties to the upper classes, and access to a certain level of power. But if those connections become frayed and weak, and the disaffected intellectuals make common cause with the lower classes, revolution becomes almost inevitable.
Davies notes that, compared to both the upper and lower classes, the members of America’s upper-middle class were relatively untouched by Great Depression. Because of this, their allegiances to the existing social structure largely remained intact; and he argues that their continued engagement was probably the main factor that allowed America to avert an all-out revolution in the 1930s.
But 2008 is a different story. Both the Boomers (now in their late 40s to early 60s) and Generation X (now in their late 20s to late 40s) were raised in an economically advancing nation that was rich with opportunity and expectation. We spent our childhoods in what were then still the world’s best schools; and A students of every class worked hard to position ourselves for what we (and our parents and teachers) expected would be very successful adult careers. We had every reason to believe that, no matter where we started, important leadership roles awaited us in education, government, the media, business, research, and other institutions.
And yet, when we finally graduated and went to work, we found those institutions being sold out from under us to a newly-emerging group of social and economic conservatives who didn’t share our broad vision of common decency and the common good (which we’d inherited from the GI and Silent adults who raised us and taught us); and who were often so corrupted or so sociopathic that the working environments they created were simply unendurable. If wealth, prestige, and power came at the price of our principles, we often chose instead to take lower-paying work, live small, and stay true to ourselves.
For too many of us, these thwarted expectations have been the driving arc of our adult lives. But we’ve never lost the sense that it was a choice that the America we grew up in would never have asked us to make. In Davies’ terms, we are “deserted intellectuals†– a class that is always at extremely high risk for fomenting revolution whenever it appears in history.
Davies says that revolutions catalyze when these deserted intellectuals make common cause with the lower classes. And much of the energy of this election is coming right out of that emerging alliance. The same drive toward corporatization that savaged our dreams also hammered at other class wedges throughout American society, creating conditions that savaged the middle class and ground the working class toward something resembling serfdom. Between our galvanizing frustration with George Bush, our shared fury at the war, and the new connections forged by bloggers and organizers, that alliance has now congealed into the determinedly change-minded movements we’re seeing this election cycle.
4. Incompetent Government
As this blog has long argued, conservatives invariably govern badly because they don’t really believe that government should exist at all – except, perhaps, as a way to funnel the peoples’ tax money into the pockets of party insiders. This conflicted (if not outright hostile) attitude toward government can’t possibly lead to any outcome other than bad management, bad policy, and eventually such horrendously bad social and economic outcomes that people are forced into the streets to hold their leaders to account.
It turns out there’s never been a modern revolution that didn’t start against a backdrop of atrocious government malfeasance in the face of precipitously declining fortunes. From George III’s onerous taxes to Marie Antoinette’s “Let them eat cake,†revolutions begin when stubborn aristocrats heap fuel on the fire by blithely disregarding the falling fortunes of their once-prosperous citizens. And America is getting dangerously close to that point now. Between our corporate-owned Congress and the spectacularly bad judgment of Bush’s executive branch, there’s never been a government in American history more inept, corrupt, and criminally negligent than this one – or more shockingly out of touch with what the average American is going through. Just ask anyone from New Orleans – or anyone who has a relative in the military.
Liberal democracy avoids this by building in a fail-safe: if the bastards ignore us, we can always vote them out. But if we’ve learned anything over the last eight years, it’s that our votes don’t always count – especially not when conservatives are doing the counting. If this year’s election further confirms the growing conviction that change via the ballot box is futile, we may find a large and disgruntled group of Americans looking to restore government accountability by more direct means.
5. Gutless Wonders in the Ruling Class
Revolution becomes necessary when the ruling classes fail in their duty to lead. Most of the major modern political revolutions occurred at moments when the world was changing rapidly – and the country’s leaders dealt with it by dropping back into denial and clinging defiantly to the old, profitable, and familiar status quo. New technologies, new ideas, and new economic opportunities were emerging; and there came a time when ignoring them was no longer an option. When the leaders failed to step forward boldly to lead their people through the looming and necessary transformations, the people rebelled.We’re hard up against some huge transformative changes now. Global warming and overwhelming pollution are forcing us to reconsider the way we occupy the world, altering our relationship to food, water, air, soil, energy, and each other. The transition off carbon-based fuels and away from non-recyclable goods is going to re-structure our entire economy. Computers are still creating social and business transformations; biotech and nanotech will only accelerate that. More and more people in the industrialized world are feeling a spiritual void, and coming to believe that moving away from consumerism and toward community may be an important step in recovering that nameless thing they’ve lost.
And, in the teeth of this restless drift toward inevitable change, America has been governed by a bunch of conservative dinosaurs who can’t even bring themselves to acknowledge that the 20th century is over. (Some of them, in fact, are still trying to turn back the Enlightenment.) Liberal governments manage this kind of shift by training and subsidizing scientists and planners, funding research, and setting policies that help their nations navigate these transitions with some grace. Conservative ones – being conservative – will reflexively try to deny that change is occurring at all, and then brutally suppress anyone with evidence to the contrary.
Which is why, every time our current crop of so-called leaders open their mouths to propose a policy or Explain It All To Us, it’s embarrassingly obvious that they don’t have the vision, the intelligence, or the courage to face the future that everyone can clearly see bearing down on us, whether we’re ready or not. Their persistent cluelessness infuriates us – and terrifies us. It’s all too clear that these people are a waste of our tax money: they will never take us where we need to go. Much of the energy we’re seeing in this year’s election is due to the fact that a majority of Americans have figured out that our government is leaving us hung out here, completely on our own, to manage huge and inevitable changes with no support or guidance whatsoever.
Historically, this same seething fury at incompetent, unimaginative, cowardly leaders – and the dawning realization that our survival depends on seizing the lead for ourselves – has been the spark that’s ignited many a violent uprising.
6. Fiscal Irresponsibility
As we’ve seen, revolutions follow in the wake of national economic reversals. Almost always, these reversals occur when inept and corrupt governments mismanage the national economy to the point of indebtedness, bankruptcy, and currency collapse.
There’s a growing consensus on both the left and right that America is now heading into the biggest financial contraction since the Great Depression. And it’s one that liberal critics have seen coming for years, as conservatives systematically dismantled the economic foundations of the entire country. Good-paying jobs went offshore. Domestic investments in infrastructure and education were diverted to the war machine. Government oversight of banks and securities was blinded. Vast sections of the economy were sold off to the Saudis for oil, or to the Chinese for cheap consumer goods and money to finance tax cuts for the wealthy.
This is no way to run an economy, unless you’re a borrow-and-spend conservative determined to starve the government beast to the point where you can, as Grover Norquist proposed, drag it into the bathtub and drown it entirely. The current recession is the bill come due for 28 years of Republican financial malfeasance. It’s also another way in which conservatives themselves have unwittingly set up the historical preconditions for revolution.
7. Inept and Inconsistent Use of Force
The final criterion for revolution is this: The government no longer exercises force in a way that people find fair or consistent. And this can happen in all kinds of ways.Domestically, there’s uneven sentencing, where some people get the maximum and others get cut loose without penalty – and neither outcome has any connection to the actual circumstances of the crime (though it often correlates all too closely with race, class, and the ability to afford a good lawyer). Unchecked police brutality (tasers, for example) that hardens public perception against the constabulary. Unwarranted police surveillance and legal harassment of law-abiding citizens going about their business. Different kinds of law enforcement for different neighborhoods. The use of government force to silence critics. And let’s not forget the unconstitutional restriction of free speech and free assembly rights.
Abroad, there’s the misuse of military force, which forces the country to pour its blood and treasure into misadventures that offer no clear advantage for the nation. These misadventures not only reduce the country’s international prestige and contribute to economic declines; they often create a class of displaced soldiers who return home with both the skills and the motivation to turn political unrest into a full-fledged shooting war.
This kind of capricious, irrational ineptitude in deploying government force leads to public contempt for the power of the state, and leads the governed to withdraw their consent. And, eventually, it also raises people’s determination to stand together to oppose state power. That growing solidarity and fearlessness – along with the resigned knowledge that equal-opportunity goons will brutalize loyalists and rebels alike, so you might as well be a dead lion rather than a live lamb – is the final factor that catalyzes ordinary citizens into ready and willing revolutionaries.
* * *
“A revolutionary state of mind requires the continued, even habitual but dynamic expectation of greater opportunity to satisfy basic needs…but the necessary additional ingredient is a persistent, unrelenting threat to the satisfaction of those needs: not a threat which actually returns people to a state of sheer survival but which put them in the mental state where they believe they will not be able to satisfy one or more basic needs….The crucial factor is the vague or specific fear that ground gained over a long period of time will be quickly lost… [This fear] generates when the existing government suppresses or is blamed for suppressing such opportunity.â€
When Davies wrote that paragraph in 1962, he probably couldn’t have imagined how closely it would describe America in 2008. Thirty years of Republican corporatist government have failed us in ways that are not just inept or corrupt, but also have brought us to the same dangerous brink where so many other empires have erupted into violent revolution. The ground we have gained steadily over the course of the entire 20th Century is eroding under our feet. Movement conservatism has destroyed our economic base, declared open war on the middle and working classes, thwarted the aspirations of the intellectual and professional elites, dismantled the basic processes and functions of democracy, failed to prepare us for the future, overseen the collapse of our economy, and misused police and military force so inconsistently that Americans are losing respect for government.
It’s not always the case that revolution inevitably emerges wherever these seven conditions occur together, just as not everybody infected with a virus gets sick. But over the past 350 years, almost every major revolution in a modern industrialized country has been preceded by this pattern of seven preconditions. It’s fair to say that all those who get sick start out by being exposed to this virus.
Hillary Clinton is failing because this is a revolutionary moment – and she, regrettably, has the misfortune to be too closely identified with the mounting failures of the past that we’re now seeking to move beyond. On the other hand, Ron Paul’s otherwise inexplicable success has been built on his pointed and very specific critique of the kinds of government leadership failures I’ve described.
And Barack Obama is walking away with the moment because he talks of “hope†– which, as Davies makes clear, is the very first thing any would-be revolutionary needs. And then he talks of “change,†which many of his followers are clearly hearing as a soft word for “revolution.†And then he describes – not in too much detail – a different future, and what it means to be a transformative president, and in doing so answers our deep frustration at 30 years of leaders who faced the looming future by turning their heads instead of facing it.
Will he deliver on this promise of change? That remains to be seen. But the success of his presidency, if there is to be one, will likely be measured on how well his policies confront and deal with these seven criteria for revolution. If those preconditions are all still in place in 2012, the fury will have had another four years to rise. And at that point, if history rhymes, mere talk of hope and change will no longer be enough.
–Sara Robinson
Please note that the political opinions are those of Sara Robinson, not mine or the Natural Solutions Foundation. We are deeply concerned by what is happening to the United States and, with it, the rest of the developed world. Please note, too, that the Natural Solutions Foundation does not endorse or support candidates for office because, as a tax exempt organization, we are prohibited by the IRS from doing so. We do, however, work closely with the candidates and other important figures on issues pertaining to health freedom. For example, we wanted to know what the 16 Presidential Candidates had to say about Health Freedom so we asked them in our Health Freedom Score Card. We sent more than 93,000 faxes to the candidates then running for President of both parties asking them 19 tough questions about Health Freedom.
Only Ron Paul answered those questions. And, in fact, only Ron Paul has a health freedom plank in his campaign specifically addressing such issues as compulsory vaccination and other burning health freedom issues. While we cannot endorse any politicians, we can note their behavior and statements. We can also note with dismay that while Barack Obama’s campaign promised several times that the Senator would respond to our faxes shortly, that never happened. Hillary Clinton and all the Republican candidates with the exception of Dr. Paul chose to ignore our repeated requests for clarification on these issues with a strong consistency which does not, we fear, bode well for your health freedom no matter who becomes president. it is for this reason that our Congressional Education campaign is so vital to our health freedom. In fact, we are asking you not only for your tax deductible donations (https://staging.drrimatruthreports.com/index.php?page_id=189) to the Natural Solutions Foundation to keep us active and effective, but we are also asking you to support a non-tax deductible activity of the Natural Solutions Foundation, the creation of the Natural Solutions Health Freedom Alliance, a lobbying 501 (c) 4 organization which will be able to take our message about legislation we support and legislation we oppose directly to Congress at a whole new level of intensity. If you are interested in supporting a lobbying effort for our side, not just the drug and Codex industry side, send Ralph Fucetola an email at ralph.fucetola@usa.net with “Lobbying” as the subject line. Don’t forget to include your contact information.
Articles and analysis like this are important because they can generate thoughts and responses clarifying both the questions and the answers of our time. Please feel free to respond to this opinion piece by email to dr.laibow@gmail.com with “BLOG RESPONSE” to let us know your thoughts on this topic and perhaps we will publish them in “Your Stories” on our web page, www.HealthFreedomUSA.org.
Living in a free society means defending freedom on a continuing basis. That’s what you and we are doing together. The Natural Solutions Foundation is the largest, and most effective health freedom organization in the English speaking world. And we are that effective only because of you – your actions, your input and your financial support.
Thanks for your continuing support. Don’t forget to let the people on your list know that they can join the Natural Solutions Foundation Health Freedom eAlerts list (https://staging.drrimatruthreports.com/index.php?page_id=187) to find out what is happening and how to take meaningful action.
Yours in health and freedom,
Dr. Rima
Rima E. Laibow, MD
Medical Director
Natural Solutions Foundation
Genetically modified soy affects posterity: Results of Russian scientists’ studies
Read it in Russian
On October 10, during the symposium over genetic modification, organized by the National Association for Genetic Security (NAGS), Doctor of Biology Irina Ermakova made public the results of the research led by her at the Institute of Higher Nervous Activity and Neurophysiology of the Russian Academy of Sciences (RAS). This is the first research that determined clear dependence between eating genetically modified soy and the posterity of living creatures.
During the experiment, doctor Ermakova added GM soy flour to the food of female rats two weeks before conception, during conception and nursing. In the control group were the rat females that were not added anything to their food. The experiment was formed by 3 groups of 3 female rats in each: the first one was control group, the second one was the group with GM-soy addition, and the third one with traditional soy addition. The scientists counted the number of female species to give birth and the number of born and died rats.
After the result of the first stage, the second part took place. Now the rats were divided into two groups – one with GM-soy addition in their food, and other without the GM-soy. In three weeks the scientists received following results:
Additions Female that gave birth Born rats Dead rats (in three weeks) Percent of dead rats Rats still alive
Control group 4 (of 6) 44 3 6,8% 41
With GM-soy 4 (of 6) 45 25 55,6% 20
With normal soy 3 (of 3) 33 3 9% 30
Thus, according to these results, the abnormally high level of posterity death has been detected at the posterity of the female species with GM-soy added to their food. And 36% percent of born rats weighed less than 20 grams that is an evidence of their extremely weak condition.
“The morphology and biochemical structures of rats are very similar to those of humans, and this makes the results we obtained very disturbing,†said Irina Ermakova to NAGS press office. According to NAGS Vice-president Aleksey Kulikov, the data received by Dr.Ermakova confirm the necessity of full scale tests of GM-products influence over living creatures.
On the photo: the results of the experiment. Same age rats from the control group (on the left) and the “GM-soy†group. http://www.regnum.ru/english/526651.html
Permanent news address:
Consequences of GM Crop Contamination ‘Are Set to Worsen’
Tue Feb 19, 2008 4:58 pm (PST)
Consequences of GM Crop Contamination `Are Set to Worsen’
Published on Monday, February 18, 2008.
Source: London Guardian
The consequences of contamination between GM crops and non-GM
varieties will be much more serious with the next generation of GM
crops, an influential group of US scientists has warned.0218 04
Mixing between GM and non-GM varieties has already caused serious
economic losses for producers in lost sales and exports. But the
consequences of mixing will be much more serious with new crops that
are altered to produce pharmaceuticals and industrial chemicals, the
scientists argue. The crops could harm human health and be toxic to
wild animals.
“What would be the impact societally, economically if for example,
cornflakes were contaminated by some sort of drug or chemical? I think
it would be a vast impact economically,” said Karen Perry Stillerman,
senior food and environment programme analyst with the Union of
Concerned Scientists.
“I think it’s really hard to say [what impact contamination would
have] because there is a variety of different drugs and chemicals that
might be manufactured in plants this way,” she added. “Our perception
is that some of them might be toxic, but all of them would certainly
cause tremendous economic upheaval.”
The group presented its findings at the American Association for the
Advancement of Science conference in Boston.
Huge research effort
Up to now, commercial GM varieties have been restricted mainly to
modifications for herbicide tolerance or resistance to pests. But a
huge research effort is going into a new generation of crops that are
genetically modified to produce drugs, hormones, vaccines and
industrial chemicals such as the precursors of plastics.
Although public opinion in Britain and the rest of Europe remains
firmly against GM crops in general, it is more favourable to crops
with medical benefits. But the Union of Concerned Scientists said that
these are precisely the crops that pose the greatest risks if they
exchange genes with wild relatives or conventional versions of the
same crop.
So-called “pharma crops” can offer advantages over current methods of
drug manufacture. Vaccines produced this way could be grown cheaply in
developing countries and simply given to patients in the food. That
would remove the need for sterile needles and refrigerators to keep
vaccine doses cold – a major obstacle for delivering therapies in poor
countries.
Prof Paul Gepts, a plant geneticist at the University of California,
Davis, said past experience suggests that “contamination” events
cannot be avoided. “Gene flow is really a regular occurrence among
plants. So if you put a gene out there it’s going to escape. It’s
going to go to other varieties of the same crop or to its wild
relatives,” he said. “It’s clear that zero contamination is impossible
at present.”
Major economic losses
There have been a handful of examples in the US and elsewhere of genes
from GM varieties not cleared for human consumption getting into
nearby food crops and hence the human food chain. This has led to
major economic losses for producers in lost sales, exports and
clean-up costs, but there have been no proven cases of damage to human
health.
“With the products we are talking about, there’s the potential for
that to be much more serious than what we have seen so far,” said Prof
Robert Wisner at Iowa State University.
According to Gepts, most of the ideas for keeping crops apart are
inadequate, because pollen and seed are carried on the wind, by
animals and birds and on farm machinery. He said the only way to be
sure that food crops would not be contaminated by drug genes or genes
for industrial chemicals would be to use non-food crops such as tobacco.
Alternatively, GM food plants could be grown in greenhouses or
underground to prevent pollen escaping, he said.
Call for ban
The Union of Concerned Scientists is calling on the US Department of
Agriculture to ban the growth of GM pharma crops outdoors unless they
are species that are not eaten by people or livestock.
The USDA is currently putting together new guidelines on GM that are
expected to be completed by the end of the year. Currently, no GM
crops that produce industrial chemicals or pharma crops are grown
commercially, although there are some field trials under way in the US.
Similar issues will apply in the UK and Europe if pharma crops are
approved. So far, though, only a handful of GM crop varieties are
grown in Europe.
WHY YOU SHOULD AVOID TAKING VACCINES
By Dr. James Howenstine, MD.
December 7, 2003
Dr. James R. Shannon, former director of the National institute of health declared, “the only safe vaccine is one that is never used.”
Cowpox vaccine was believed able to immunize people against smallpox. At the time this vaccine was introduced, there was already a decline in the number of cases of smallpox. Japan introduced compulsory vaccination in 1872. In 1892 there were 165,774 cases of smallpox with 29,979 deaths despite the vaccination program. A stringent compulsory smallpox vaccine program, which prosecuted those refusing the vaccine, was instituted in England in 1867. Within 4 years 97.5 % of persons between 2 and 50 had been vaccinated. The following year England experienced the worst smallpox epidemic[1] in its history with 44,840 deaths. Between 1871 and 1880 the incidence of smallpox escalated from 28 to 46 per 100,000. The smallpox vaccine does not work.
Much of the success attributed to vaccination programs may actually have been due to improvement in public health related to water quality and sanitation, less crowded living conditions, better nutrition, and higher standards of living. Typically the incidence of a disease was clearly declining before the vaccine for that disease was introduced. In England the incidence of polio had decreased by 82 % before the polio vaccine was introduced in 1956.
In the early 1900s an astute Indiana physician, Dr. W.B. Clarke, stated “Cancer was practically unknown until compulsory vaccination with cowpox vaccine began to be introduced. I have had to deal with two hundred cases of cancer, and I never saw a case of cancer in an unvaccinated[2] person.”
There is a widely held belief that vaccines should not be criticized because the public might refuse to take them. This is valid only if the benefits exceed the known risks of the vaccines.
Do Vaccines Actually Prevent Disease?
This important question does not appear to have ever been adequately studied. Vaccines are enormously profitable for drug companies and recent legislation in the U.S. has exempted lawsuits against pharmaceutical firms in the event of adverse reactions to vaccines which are very common. In 1975 Germany stopped requiring pertussis (whooping cough) vaccination. Today less than 10 % of German children are vaccinated against pertussis. The number of cases of pertussis has steadily decreased[3] even though far fewer children are receiving pertussis vaccine.
Measles outbreaks have occurred in schools with vaccination rates over 98 % in all parts of the U.S. including areas that had reported no cases of measles for years. As measles immunization rates rise to high levels measles becomes a disease seen only in vaccinated persons. An outbreak of measles occurred in a school where 100 % of the children had been vaccinated. Measles mortality rates had declined by 97 % in England before measles vaccination was instituted.
In 1986 there were 1300 cases of pertussis in Kansas and 90 % of these cases occurred in children who had been adequately vaccinated. Similar vaccine failures have been reported from Nova Scotia where pertussis continues to be occurring despite universal vaccination. Pertussis remains endemic[4] in the Netherlands where for more than 20 years 96 % of children have received 3 pertussis shots by age 12 months.
After institution of diptheria vaccination in England and Wales in 1894 the number of deaths from diptheria rose by 20 % in the subsequent 15 years. Germany had compulsory vaccination in 1939. The rate of diptheria spiraled to 150,000 cases that year whereas, Norway which did not have compulsory vaccination, had only 50 cases of diptheria the same year.
The continued presence of these infectious diseases in children who have received vaccines proves that life long immunity which follows natural infection does not occur in persons receiving vaccines. The injection process places the viral particles into the blood without providing any clear way to eliminate these foreign substances.
Why Do Vaccines Fail To Protect Against Diseases?
Walene James, author of Immunization: the Reality Behind The Myth, states that the full[5] inflammatory response is necessary to create real immunity. Prior to the introduction of measles and mumps vaccines children got measles and mumps and in the great majority of cases these diseases were benign. Vaccines “trick” the body so it does not mount a complete inflammatory response to the injected virus.
Vaccines and Sudden Infant Death Syndrome SIDS
The incidence of Sudden Infant Death syndrome SIDS has grown from .55 per 1000 live births in 1953 to 12.8 per 1000 in 1992 in Olmstead County, Minnesota. The peak incidence for SIDS is age 2 to 4 months the exact time most vaccines are being given to children. 85 % of cases of SIDS occur in the first 6 months of infancy. The increase in SIDS as a percentage of total infant deaths has risen from 2.5 per 1000 in 1953 to 17.9 per 1000 in 1992. This rise in SIDS deaths has occurred during a period when nearly every childhood disease was declining due to improved sanitation and medical progress except SIDS. These deaths from SIDS did increase during a period when the number of vaccines given a child was steadily rising to 36 per child.
Dr. W. Torch was able to document 12 deaths in infants which appeared within 3½ and 19 hours of a DPT immunization. He later reported 11 new cases of SIDS death and one near miss which had occurred within 24 hours of a DPT injection. When he studied 70 cases of SIDS two thirds of these victims[6] had been vaccinated from one half day to 3 weeks prior to their deaths. None of these deaths was attributed to vaccines. Vaccines are a sacred cow and nothing against them appears in the mass media because they are so profitable to pharmaceutical firms.
There is valid reason to think that not only are vaccines worthless in preventing disease they are counterproductive because they injure the immune system permitting cancer, auto-immune diseases and SIDS to cause much disability and death.
Are Vaccines Sterile?
Dr. Robert Strecker claimed that the department of defense DOD was given $10,000,000 in 1969 to create the AIDS virus to be used as a population-reducing[7] weapon against blacks. By use of the Freedom of Information Act Dr. Strecker was able to learn that the DOD secured funds from Congress to perform studies on immune destroying agents for germ warfare.
Once produced, the vaccine was given in two locations. Smallpox vaccine containing HIV was given to 100,000,000 Africans in 1977. Over 2000 young white homosexual males in New York City were given Hepatitis B vaccine that contained HIV virus in 1978. This vaccine was given at New York City Blood Center. The Hepatitis B vaccine containing the HIV virus was also administered to homosexual males in San Francisco, Los Angeles, St.Louis, Houston and Chicago in 1978 and 1979. U.S. Public Health epidemiology studies have disclosed that these same 6 cities had the highest incidence of AIDS, Aids related Complex (ARC) and deaths rates from HIV, when compared to other U.S. cities.
When a new virus is introduced into a community. It takes 20 years for the number of cases to double. If the fabricated story that green monkey bites of pygmies led to the HIV epidemic, the alleged monkey bites in the 1940s should have produced a peak in the incidence of HIV in the 1960s at which time HIV was non existent in Africa. The World Health Organization (WHO) began a African smallpox vaccination campaign in 1977 that targeted urban population centers and avoided pygmies. If the green monkey bites of pygmies truly caused the HIV epidemic the incidence of HIV in pygmies should have been higher than in urban citizens. However, the opposite was true.
In 1954 Dr. Bernice Eddy (bacteriologist) discovered live monkey viruses in supposedly sterile inactivated polio vaccine[8] developed by Dr. Jonas Salk. This discovery was not well received at the NIH and Dr. Eddy was demoted. Later Dr. Eddy, working with Sarah Stewart, discovered SE polyoma virus. This virus was quite important because it caused cancer in every animal receiving it. Yellow fever vaccine had previously been found to contain avian (bird) leukemia virus. Later Dr. Hilleman isolated SV 40 virus from both the Salk and Sabin polio vaccines. There were 40 different viruses[9] in these polio vaccines they were trying to eradicate. They were never able to get rid of these viruses ontaminating the polio vaccines. The SV 40 virus causes malignancies. It has now been identified in 43 % of cases of non-Hodgekin lymphoma[10] , 36 % of brain tumors[11] , 18 % of healthy blood samples, and 22 % of healthy semen samples, mesothiolomas and other malignancies. By the time of this discovery SV 40 had already been injected into 10,000,000 people in Salk vaccine. Gastric digestion inactivates some of SV 40 in Sabin vaccine. However, the isolation of strains of Sabin polio vaccine from all 38 cases of Guillan Barre Syndrome[12] GBS in Brazil suggests that significant numbers of persons are able to be infected from this vaccine. All 38 of these patients had received Sabin polio vaccine months to years before the onset of GBS. The incidence of non-Hodgekin lymphoma has”mysteriouly” doubled since the 1970s.
Dr. John Martin, Professor of Pathology at the Univ. of Southern California, was employed by the Viral Oncology Branch of the Bureau of Biologics (FDA) from 1976 to 1980. While employed there he identified foreign DNA in the live polio vaccine Orimune Lederle that suggested serious vaccine contamination. He warned his supervisors about this problem and was told to discontinue his work as it was outside the scope of testing required for polio vaccine.
Later Dr. Martin learned that all eleven of the African green monkeys used to grow the Lederle polio virus Orimune had grown simian cytomegalovirus from kidney cell cultures. Lederle was aware of this viral contamination as their Cytomegaloviral Contamination Plan[13] clearly showed in 1972. The Bureau of Biologics decided not to pursue the matter so production of infected polio vaccine continued.
In 1955 Dr. Martin identified unique cell destroying viruses termed stealth viruses in patients with chronic fatigue syndrome. These viruses lacked genes that would enable the immune system to recognize them. Thus they were protected by the body’s failure to develop antiviral antibodies. In March of 1995, Dr. Martin learned that some of these stealth viruses had originated from African green monkey simian cytomegalovirus of a type known to infect man.
The Lederle vaccine experience suggests that the higher-ups are not concerned about sloppy and dangerous preparation of vaccines. Animal cross infection is a huge unsolved current problem for all vaccine manufacturing. If this vaccine production sounds like an unbelievable mess to you, you are right.
The influential Club of Rome has a position paper in which they state that the world population is too large and needs to be reduced by 90 %. This means that 6 billion people must be reduced to 500 to 600 million. Obviously, creating famines and genocidal wars such as wrecked havoc in Africa, and loosing new laboratory-created diseases (HIV, Ebola, Marburg[14] , and probably West Nile virus and SARS) can help reduce the population. Other elitist groups (Trilaterals, Bildenbergers) have expressed similar concerns about excess people on planet Earth.
The company that was projected to produce the new smallpox vaccine in the U.S. was in serious trouble in England because of unsatisfactory quality of operations before setting up their facility in the U.S. Why would their performance here be any better than it was in England?
If there are important powerful groups of people that are determined to reduce the world population, what could be a more diabolically clever way to eliminate people than to inject them with a cancer-causing vaccine? The person receiving the injection would never suspect that the vaccine taken 10 to 15 years earlier had caused the cancer to appear.
Other Dangers From Vaccines
In the March 4, 1977 issue of Science Jonas and Darrell Salk warn, “Live virus vaccines against influenza or poliomyelitis may in each instance produce the disease it intended to prevent. The live virus against measles and mumps may produce such side effects as encephalitis (brain damage).
The swine flu vaccine was administered to the American public even though there had never been a case of swine flu identified in a human. Farmers refused to use the vaccine because it killed too many animals. Within a few months of use in humans this vaccine caused many cases of serious nerve injury (Guillan Barre syndrome).
An article in the Washington Post on Jan. 26, 1988 mentioned that all cases of polio since 1979 had been caused by the polio vaccine with no known cases of polio from a wild strain since 1979. This might have created a perfect situation to discontinue the vaccine, but the vaccine is still given. Vaccines are a wonderful source of profits with no risks to the drug companies since vaccine injuries are now recompensed by the government.
The steady escalation in the number of vaccines administered has been followed by an identical rise in the incidence of auto-immune diseases (rheumatoid arthritis, subacute lupus erythematosus, psoriasis, multiple sclerosis, asthma) seen in children. While there is a genetic transmission of some of these diseases many are probably due to the injury from foreign protein particles, mercury, aluminum, formaldehyde and other toxic agents injected in vaccines.
In 1999, the rotavirus vaccine was recommended by the Center for Disease Control for all infants. When this vaccine program was instituted several infants died and many had life endangering bowel obstructions. Prelicensure trials[15] of the rotavirus vaccine had demonstrated an increased incidence of intussusception 30 times greater than normal but the vaccine was released anyway without special warnings to practitioners to be on the lookout for bowel problems. Children’s vaccines are often not studied for toxicity possibly because such study might eliminate them from being used.
A large study from Australia showed that the risk of developing encephalitis from the pertussis vaccine was 5 times greater than the risk of developing encephalitis by contacting pertussis by natural methods.
Naturally acquired immunity by illness evolves by spread of a virus from the respiratory tract to the liver, thymus, spleen, and bone marrow. When symptoms begin, the entire immune response has been mobilized to repel the invading virus. This complex immune system response creates antibodies that confer life long immunity against that invading virus and prepares the child to respond promptly to an infection by the same virus in the future.
Vaccination, in contrast, results in the persisting of live virus or other foreign antigens within the cells of the body, a situation that may provoke auto-immune reactions as the body attempts to destroy its own infected cells. There is no surprise that the incidence of auto-immune diseases (rheumatoid arthritis, subacute lupus erythematosus, multiple sclerosis, asthma, psoriasis) has risen sharply in this era of multiple vaccine immunization.
Vaccine Induced Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus
Dr. John Classen has published 29 articles on vaccine-induced[16] diabetes. At least 8 of 10 children with Type 1 (insulin needing) diabetes have this disease as a result of vaccination. These children may have avoided measles, mumps, and whooping cough but they have received something far worse: an illness that shortens life expectancy by 10 to 15 years and results in a life requiring constant medical care.
Dr. Classen has shown in Finland, the introduction of hemophilus type b vaccine caused three times as many cases of type 1 diabetes as the number of deaths and brain damage from hemophilus influenza type b it might have prevented.
In New Zealand, the incidence of Type 1 diabetes in children rose by 61 % after an aggressive vaccine program against hepatitis B.. This same program has been started in the U.S.A. so we can now look forward to many cases of Type 1 diabetes in children. Similar rises in Type 1 diabetes have been seen in England, Italy, Sweden, and Denmark after immunization programs against Hepatitis B.
Toxic Substances Are Needed To Make Vaccines.
Vaccines contain many toxic substances that are needed to prevent the vaccines from becoming infected or to improve the performance of the vaccine. Among these substances are mercury, formaldehyde and aluminum.[17]
In the past 10 years, the number of autistic children has risen from between 200 and 500 percent in every state in the U.S. This sharp rise in autism followed the introduction of measles, mumps and rubella vaccine in 1975.
Representative Dan Burton’s healthy grandson was given injections for 9 diseases in one day. These injections were instantly followed by autism. These injections contain a preservative of mercury called thimerosal. The boy received 41 times the amount of mercury which is capable of harm to the body. Mercury is a neurotoxin that can injure the brain and nervous system. And tragically, it did.
In the United States the number of compulsory vaccine injections has increased from 10 to 36 in the last 25 years. During this period, there has been a simultaneous increase in the number of children suffering learning disabilities and attention deficit disorder. Some of these childhood disabilities are related to intrauterine cerebral damage from maternal cocaine use, but probably vaccines cause many of the others.
Many vaccines contain aluminum. A new disease called macrophagic myofasciitis causes pain in muscles, bones and joints. All persons with this disease have received aluminum containing vaccines. Deposits of aluminum are able to remain as an irritant in tissues and disturb the immune and nervous system for a lifetime.
Nearly all vaccines contain aluminum and mercury. These metals appear to play an important role in the etiology of Alzheimer’s Disease. An expert at the 1997 International Vaccine Conference related that a person who takes 5 or more annual flu vaccine shots has increased the likelihood of developing Alzheimer’s Disease by a factor of 10 over the person who has had 2 or fewer flu shots.
When we take vaccines we are playing a modern version of Russian Roulette. We not only get exposed to aluminum, mercury, formaldehyde and foreign cell proteins but we may get simian virus 40 and other dangerous viruses which can cause cancer, leukemia and other severe health problems because the vaccine pool is contaminated due to careless animal isolation techniques. Congress has protected the manufacturers from lawsuits, so dangerous vaccines simply increase profits at no risk to the drug companies.
U.S. children aged 2 months began receiving hepatitis B vaccine in December 2000.No peer-reviewed studies of the safety of hepatitis B in this age bracket had been done. Over 36,000 adverse reactions with 440 deaths were soon reported but the true incidence is much higher as reporting is voluntary so only approximately 10 % of adverse reactions get reported. This means that about 5000 infants are dying annually from the hepatitis B vaccine. The CDC’s Chief of Epidemiology admits that the frequency of serious reactions to hepatitis B vaccine is 10 times higher than other vaccines. Hepatitis B is transmitted sexually and by contaminated blood, so the incidence of this disease must be near zero in this age bracket. A vaccine expert, Dr. Philip Incao, states that “the conclusion is obvious that the risks[18] of hepatitis B vaccination far outweigh the benefits. Once a vaccine is mandated the vaccine manufacturer is no longer liable for adverse reactions.
Dr. W.B. Clarke’s important observation that cancer was not found in unvaccinated individuals demands an explanation and one now appears forthcoming. All vaccines given over a short period of time to an immature immune system deplete the thymus gland (the primary gland involved in immune reactions) of irreplaceable immature immune cells. Each of these cells could have multiplied and developed into an army of valuable cells to combat infection and growth of abnormal cells. When these immune cells have been used up, permanent immunity may not appear. The Arthur Research Foundation in Tucson, Arizona estimates that up to 60 % of our immune system may be exhausted[19] by multiple mass vaccines (36 are now required for children). Only 10 % of immune cells are permanently lost when a child is permitted to develop natural immunity from disease. There needs to be grave concern about these immune system injuring vaccinations! Could the persons who approve these mass vaccinations know that they are impairing the health of these children, many of whom are being doomed to requiring much medical care in the future?
Compelling evidence is available that the development of the immune system after contracting the usual childhood diseases matures and renders it capable to fight infection and malignant cells in the future.
The use of multiple vaccines, which prevents natural immunity, promotes the development of allergies and asthma. A New Zealand study disclosed that 23 % of vaccinated children develop asthma , as compared to zero in unvaccinated children.
Cancer was a very rare illness in the 1890’s. This evidence about immune system injury from vaccinating affords a plausible explanation for Dr. Clarke’s finding that only vaccinated individuals got cancer. Some radical adverse change in health occurred in the early 1900s to permit cancer to explode and vaccinating appears to be the reason.
Vaccines are an unnatural phenomena. My guess is that if enough persons said no to immunizations there would be a striking improvement in general health with nature back in the immunizing business instead of man. Having a child vaccinated should be a choice not a requirement. Medical and religious exemptions are permitted by most states.
When governmental policies require vaccinations before children enter schools coercion has overruled the lack of evidence of vaccine efficacy and safety. There is no proof that vaccines work and they are never studied for safety before release. My opinion is that there is overwhelming evidence that vaccines are dangerous and the only reason for their existence is to increase profits of pharmaceutical firms.
If you are forced to immunize your children so they can enter school, obtain a notarized statement from the director of the facility that they will accept full financial responsibility for any adverse reaction from the vaccine. Since there is at least a 2 percent risk of a serious adverse reaction they may be smart enough to permit your child to escape a dangerous procedure. Recent legislation passed by Congress gives the government the power to imprison persons refusing to take vaccines (smallpox, anthrax, etc). This would be troublesome to enforce if large numbers of citizens declined to be vaccinated at the same time.
Footnotes:
1 Null Gary Vaccination: An Analysis of the Health Risks- Part Townsend Letter for Doctors & Patients Dec. 2003 pg 78
2 Mullins Eustace Murder by Injection pg 132 The National Council for Medical Research, P. O. Box 1105, Staunton, Virginia 24401
3 Gary Null Interview with Dr. Dean Black April 7, 1995
4 de Melker HE, et al Pertussis in the Netherlands: an outbreak despite high levels of immunization with whole-cell vaccine Emerging Infectious Diseases 1997; 3(2): 175-8 Centers for Disease Control
5 Gary Null Interview with Walene James, April 6, 1995
6 Torch WS Diptheria-pertussis-tetanus (DPT) immunizations: a potential cause of the sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) Neurology 1982; 32-4 A169 abstract.
7 Collin Jonathan The Townsend Letter for Doctors & Patients 1988 abstracted in Horowitz L. Emerging Viruses Aids & Ebola pg 1-5
8 Harris RJ et al Contaminant viruses in two live vaccines produced in chick cells.J Hyg (London) 1966 Mar:64(1) : 1-7
9 Horowitz Leonard G. Emerging Viruses AIDS & Ebola pg 484
10 Vilchez RA et al Association between simian virus 40 and non-Hodgekin lymphoma Lancet 2002 Mar 9;359(9309):817-823
11 Bu X A study of simian virus 40 infection and its origin in human brain tumors Zhonghu Liu Xing Bing Xue Zhi 2000 Feb;21 (1):19-21
12 Friedrich F. et al temporal association between the isolation of Sabin-related poliovirus vaccine strains and the Guillan-Barre syndrome Rev Inst Med Trop Sao Paulo 1996 Jan-Feb; 38(1):55-8
13 Horowitz Leonard Emerging Viruses: Aids and Ebola pg 492
14 Horowitz Leonard G Emerging Viruses: Aids & Ebola pg 378-88 Tetrahedron Inc. Suite 147, 206 North 4th Ave. Sandpoint, Idaho 83864 1-888-508-4787 tetra@tetrahedron.org
15 Null, Gary Vaccination: An Anatysis of the health risks-Part 3 Townsend letter for doctors & patients Dec. 2003 pg 78
16 Classen, JB et al. Association between type 1 diabetes and Hib vaccine BMJ 1999; 319:1133
17 Brain 9/01
18 Incao, philip M.D. Letter to representative Dale Van Vyven, Ohio House of Representatives March 1, 1999 provided to www.garynull.com by The Natural Immunity Information Network
19 Rowen Robert Your first consultation with Dr. Rowen pg 20
© 2003 Dr. James Howenstine – All Rights Reserved
Sign Up For Free E-Mail Alerts
________________________________________
Dr. James A. Howenstine is a board certified specialist in internal medicine who spent 34 years caring for office and hospital patients. Curiosity sparked a 4 year study of natural health products when 5 of his patients with severe rheumatoid arthritis were able to discontinue the use of methotrexate (chemotherapy agent) after trying an extract of New Zealand mussels for the therapy of severe rheumatoid arthritis.
Dr. Howenstine is convinced that natural products are safer, more effective and less expensive than pharmaceutical drugs.
________________________________________
Dr. W. Torch was able to document 12 deaths in infants which appeared within 3½ and 19 hours of a DPT immunization. He later reported 11 new cases of SIDS death and one near miss which had occurred within 24 hours of a DPT injection.”
Below is a copy of an email exchange from Ralph Fucetola to Charles Frohman, our Washington Educationalist responding to Charlie’s followup email to several Congressional Aides involved in health freedom issues, subsequent to our trip to Washington earlier this month (edited for context).
——————–
Charlie,
Thank you for emailing this concise recitation of our concerns. We were really
happy to meet with Senator Mikulski’s aides, since we so much admire the Senator’s
leadership in matters such as:
* creation with Sen Harkin of the Center for Complementary Medicine
* introducing bill to require labeling of cloned animals
I was wondering if we could be of any assistance supporting honest labeling of
cloned animal products; perhaps we could encourage our grassroots/netroots
members to ask their Senators to become co-sponsors.
Let’s continue the dialog; certainly I hope to be back in Washington soon,
with General Stubblebine and Dr. Laibow.
Ralph Fucetola JD
—— Original Message ——
Received: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 04:10:57 PM EST
From: “Charles D. Frohman”
To: (HELP Mikulski\) …
Subject: Thanks for meeting – natural therapies/nutrients under FDA/Codex threat
> Thanks … for meeting with the Natural Solutions
Foundation this past Thursday. I welcome “replies to all” from Ralph or Dr.
Laibow, to correct or supplement what I write below.
>
> As explained in our meeting by “vitamin lawyer.com ” Ralph Fucetola JD (who would
serve as a wonderful witness in potential hearings), the vast majority of
Americans want access to natural food, nutrients and therapies, and NSF hopes
Ms. Mikulski can ask HELP Chairman Kennedy to hold hearings on the smothering
Guidelines from FDA, such as:
>
> * requiring impossible scientific agreement on claims,
> * threatening illegality to modalities by calling them “untested CAM products,”
> * guaranteeing bankruptcy with untenable manufacturing practices,
> * banning safe nutrients (such as ephedra and bioidentical hormones) by
using unfair risk analyses previously reserved for dangerous pharmaceuticals, and
> * ignoring the role of pharmaceutical mixing when reviewing Adverse Event
Reports for nutrients
>
> These hearings need also to examine FDA’s 1995 “harmonization” requirements
with the United Nation’s Codex Committee, which:
>
> * uses WTO santions to impose its anti-natural therapies threats onto every
nation on Earth, including the U.S.,
> * follows the anti-natural therapies bias of FDA’s own representatives,
> * has a Vitamin Committee that follows the European standard of treating
natural nutrients as toxins, and limits dosage to 15% above the naturally
occurring equivalent (a pathetically low standard, since the orange, in the
case of Vitamin C, is grown in soil that is depleted by poisonous Big Agri
chemicals, many of which were banned until reintroduced by Codex)
> * requires irradiation of imported food,
> * requires Monsanto’s growth hormone in imported milk
> * prohibits Genetically Modified labeling, in case people think GMOs are risky
>
> As you can see, Ellen-Marie, the natural therapies preferred by a vast
majority of Americans are threatened, and despite the congressional education
by NSF of HELP and Energy and Commerce members going back to last Spring, no
one in Congress yet has agreed to shine a light on FDA and Codex. May we
count on the Mikulski office to help move this process forward? If you do,
please let us know and we’ll be glad to let our several hundred thousand
member grassroots list know of your Leadership.
>
> Meanwhile, below is our most recent eNewsletter. Please feel free to sign
up, so you can become more familiar with our heavy involvement with countries
around the world in opposing Codex and, here in the U.S., opposing FDA’s
aggressive policies.
>
> Blessings,
>
> Charlie Frohman
> www.GlobalHealthFreedom.org
> www.cfrohman.com