Tuesday, January 29
Sunday, January 27
Beware of Fluoride!
Fluoride is a hazardous waste by-product of the nuclear and aluminum industries.
An article in Scientific American states:
So when I came across an article stating that the "ADA endorses fluoridated bottled water" I kept reading out of deep concern.
Having done some research on the ways of the FDA & the ADA, I know they don't always seem to be on the side of health for some strange reason . . . hmmm follow the money, as 'they' say.
ADA - American Dental Association is endorsing the inclusion of fluoride in bottled water! (There's also the issue of plastic bottles.)
Children should have pure water.
"Smile Healthy" certificates will be appearing this spring on one-gallon containers of "Kid Pure" fluoridated water bottled by Water Source One.
So when you see the "Smile Healthy" certificate, you may want to think twice - or run the other way~
An article in Scientific American states:
Researchers are intensifying their scrutiny of fluoride,
which is added to most public water systems in the U.S.
Some recent studies suggest that overconsumption of fluoride
can raise the risks of disorders affecting teeth, bones,
the brain and the thyroid gland.
which is added to most public water systems in the U.S.
Some recent studies suggest that overconsumption of fluoride
can raise the risks of disorders affecting teeth, bones,
the brain and the thyroid gland.
So when I came across an article stating that the "ADA endorses fluoridated bottled water" I kept reading out of deep concern.
Having done some research on the ways of the FDA & the ADA, I know they don't always seem to be on the side of health for some strange reason . . . hmmm follow the money, as 'they' say.
ADA - American Dental Association is endorsing the inclusion of fluoride in bottled water! (There's also the issue of plastic bottles.)
Children should have pure water.
"Smile Healthy" certificates will be appearing this spring on one-gallon containers of "Kid Pure" fluoridated water bottled by Water Source One.
So when you see the "Smile Healthy" certificate, you may want to think twice - or run the other way~
Saturday, January 26
Dr. Bob Martin is here in Hawai'i
When I was recuperating from a bad accident I lived in Arizona with my mom. I listened to the wisdom of Dr. Bob Martin every Saturday morning.
Dr. Bob is not a Big-Pharma pill-pushing doctor, which today, too many doctors unfortunately are.
Recently my mom who takes no drugs, is 84, and is extremely healthy went to the dr. because of her arthritis - She called me to ask me to look up the drug he wanted to inject - Reclasp. Whoa!
very nasty, but the good ol' FDA recently approved it, so drs. are pushing it. Don't take it! nor Boniva or Fosmax - all BAD news~ Dr. Bob recommends non toxic Prolo-therapy.
STOP Mandatory Vaccines - Boys Join the Target Market
Also Read: Death toll linked to Gardasil vaccine rises - Complications include shock, 'foaming at the mount.' convelsions, coma.
By Rob Stein
Washington Post Staff WriterBy Rob Stein
Thursday, March 26, 2009
When a Merck & Co. vaccine designed to protect girls against a sexually transmitted virus arrived three years ago, the debate centered on one question: Would the shots make young girls more likely to have sex?
[The wrong questions were asked. First you ask IS IT SAFE?!?!?]
Now the vaccine's maker is trying to get approval to sell the vaccine for boys, and the debate is focusing on something else entirely: Is it worth the money, and is it safe and effective enough?
"We are still more worried about the promiscuity of girls than the promiscuity of boys," said Susan M. Reverby, a professor of women's studies and medical history at Wellesley College. "There's still that double standard."
The shift in the discussion about Gardasil (Bad Medicine?) illustrates the complex interplay of political, economic, scientific, regulatory and social factors that increasingly influence decisions about new types of medical care. For the vaccine, the new dynamic reflects a strategic tack by Gardasil's critics, growing concern about health-care costs, fears about whether medical treatments are being vetted adequately and stubborn biases about gender, experts say.
"There is the cost, the safety, the boys versus girls," said Susan F. Wood, a professor of public health at George Washington University. "These are some of the complexities that are going to have to be addressed one way or the other with this vaccine."
Gardasil protects against the human papillomavirus, the most common sexually transmitted infection. HPV causes genital warts and, in women, can lead to cervical cancer -- a disease that strikes about 10,000 American women a year and kills about 3,700.
For males, the vaccine is aimed at protecting against genital warts and less common malignancies that HPV can cause, such as penile and anal cancer, as well as cancer of the mouth and throat. The virus causes at least 250,000 new cases of genital warts and an estimated 7,500 cancers in males each year, causing perhaps about 1,000 deaths. Vaccinating boys and men would also help prevent the spread of the virus to their sexual partners.
"By vaccinating men as well as women, you reduce the amount of virus that is out there that can be transmitted back and forth," said Richard M. Haupt, who leads the HPV vaccine program at Merck & Co., which makes Gardasil. "Hopefully there will be a benefit not only to men themselves, but to their partners and future partners."
After the Food and Drug Administration approved the vaccine in 2006 for girls as young as 9, medical authorities recommended that they receive it at age 11 or 12 to protect them before they start having sex. Critics worried that vaccinating children would send a subtle signal that their parents assumed they would become sexually active and that it would give youngsters a false sense of security.
Merck also began an ambitious marketing campaign and lobbying push to persuade states to add the vaccine to the list of those required for children to attend school. But the company eventually abandoned the strategy in the face of an intense backlash from critics who argued that the decision should be left to parents. Although many states considered such mandates, so far only Virginia and the District have imposed one, and Haupt said the company has no plans to pursue that strategy again.
But in December, Merck asked the FDA to approve the vaccine for males ages 9 to 26, and in February it presented the results of a large study that tested the vaccine in men to the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, in the hopes of winning the panel's endorsement. The committee's recommendations influence which vaccines schools require and whether private insurance companies and state programs will pay.
"There would be a tremendous public health benefit to vaccine 11- and 12-year-olds, both boys and girls," Haupt said.
The Merck study, involving more than 4,000 boys and men ages 16 to 23, showed that the vaccine is about 90 percent effective in preventing infection with four HPV types, as well as genital warts and precancerous lesions, Haupt said.
In preparation for a vote as soon as October, the CDC committee will meet again in June to consider cost-benefit analyses underway at the CDC and elsewhere. The relatively pricey vaccine costs about $500 for three shots and the associated office visits.
"The cost-effectiveness data will be looked at very carefully," said Lauri Markowitz, who leads the HPV vaccine work group for the CDC. "There is increased interest in taking cost-effectiveness into consideration when considering prevention efforts."
The American Academy of Pediatrics will also consider cost-effectiveness in deciding whether to endorse Gardasil for boys.
Some question that focus.
"The cost-effectiveness studies are really important, but I don't think they should be the sole driver of public health policy," said Gregory D. Zimet, a professor of pediatrics and psychology at Indiana University. "This is a vaccine that principally benefits women's health. I wonder if it was the reverse, and there was a vaccine for women that helped prevent prostate cancer in men, this would be as much of an issue."
Groups that initially were critical when Gardasil was introduced for girls say they now want to make sure the decision is left up to parents.
"We do not oppose the development or distribution of the vaccine," said Peter S. Sprigg of the Family Research Council. "The only concern we have is about proposals to make vaccination mandatory for school attendance. It's a parental rights issue."
Little research has been done on parents' attitudes about vaccinating their sons, but several experts said it would probably be a harder sell.
"For girls, you can go right to protection against cervical cancer. That's a powerful argument," said Zimet, who is studying the issue as part of his own research and in studies sponsored by Merck. "For boys, you have to make several arguments. Part of it is an altruistic argument. I think it's persuasive, but it's more complex."
Debbie Stein of Bethesda, whose 15-year-old daughter, Sara, was vaccinated, thinks she would agree to have her 11-year-old son, Ben, get the shots if his pediatrician recommended them.
"My feeling is it's a serious virus that causes cancer, and there's no reason not to vaccinate him," Stein said. "I think it will protect him and protect his wife in the future. I don't want to see him when he's 35 or 40 have a wife die of cancer."
But Agustin Zamora, who lives in the District, worries that Gardasil has not been studied enough to know that it is safe and effective for his 9-year-old son, Marco, and his twin 2-year-olds, Antonio and Joaquin.
"It's sort of like doing an experiment on people," Zamora said. "This is something you're giving to a lot of children. You need many years of study."
Federal health officials, Merck and others say they are confident that the vaccine is safe. But some experts said they are concerned that there is insufficient evidence about how long Gardasil's protection will last, whether serious side effects will emerge and whether the relatively modest benefits for boys are worth even the small risks associated with any vaccine.
"There are lots of things about this vaccine we do not know yet," said Karen K. Smith-McCune of the University of California at San Francisco. "I just want to be the voice in the room saying, 'What's the rush to vaccinate in the absence of the best available data?' "
Some also question whether the reduction in infections will mean fewer cancers in the future.
"There's probably enough data to say it probably is effective for the prevention of genital warts. They're not fun, but they're not at the same level as cancer or lethal infectious diseases," said Diane M. Harper, a professor of medicine at the University of Missouri at Kansas City who helped study the vaccine in women for Merck. "This may not be the best use of our resources at this time."
Saturday, January 19
Bells Tolling for the Swine Flu
Following is a 16-page paper written by Teresa Forcades, a physician specializing in internal medicine with a PhD in Public Health from the University of Barcelona. She took her specialization in the United States at the State University of New York.
My name is Teresa Forcades I Vila. I’m a Benedictine nun at Sant Benet of Montserrat’s monastery. Before joining the monastery, I practiced medicine for several years.
I’m a physician specializing in internal medicine and I have a PhD in Public Health from the University of Barcelona. I took my specialization in the United States at the State University of New York.
What we call swine flu (A), is also called in Catalonia, “the new flu.” This term may lead some people to believe that the “A” type flu virus is a new virus. Well, this isn’t a new type of virus ‐ “A” type viruses are part of the yearly common flu, the seasonal flu.
Regarding flu viruses, we have – maybe everyone’s aware of this, but I always start with the basics – A, B and C type of viruses. These are the known flu viruses affecting humans, but because the “C” virus only normally affects a smaller proportion of the population, it’s not used for the manufacturing of the yearly vaccines.
Therefore, every year, the seasonal flu vaccine is a mixture of “A” and “B” type virus, and so, the so‐called “new flu “ or swine flu is not new because it’s an “A” type of virus. But some would argue that it’s new because of the antigens of the A‐H1N1 virus, hemagglutinin (H) and neuraminidase (N), are surface proteins that could appear to give it a novel nature.
Well, this isn’t the case.
It must be said that these proteins are not providing a novelty nature to this virus because this same group, A‐H1N1, was the same flu virus group that in 1918 caused the terrible pandemic that killed more than 20 million people worldwide. It was this same type of virus and it existed amongst the population until around the mid 50s. In 1957, it seemed to disappear from what is now known as seasonal flu viruses and reappears in the year 1977.
This can be looked up by any physician or anyone in The New England Journal of Medicine, where last month, an article was published about the history of the flu viruses and I quote The New England Journal of Medicine as it’s the most well‐known and respected medical journal. The article confirms as fact that this virus reappeared (the A‐H1N1 virus) in 1977 because it had been resynthesized in a lab.
I say resynthesized but it seems that what happened was that they went to exhume the body of an Inuit, an Eskimo woman who died from this flu in 1918. As her body had remained under the ice, it was possible to recover from the tissues the necessary elements to reproduce, or to resynthesize this virus.
To recap, this happened in 1977 and according to The New England Journal of Medicine, this is an established fact.
From 1977, we then had the A‐H1N flu virus as being part of the pool or mixture of the seasonal flu viruses. Well, what is new then this year?
The novelty is the viral strain (S‐OIV). This year’s viral strain (S‐OIV) is a strain unknown until now. And it’s this new strain which was first diagnosed on April, 17 (2009). It seems that’s the origin of the first diagnosis, of the two cases in California. These are the first cases on record when we first heard about the new virus.
Therefore, the novelty is just the strain (S‐OIV).
This is the first scientific fact. The second important scientific fact to bear in mind is that since it began on April 17th until September 15th, which is when I last read the statistics, the figures recorded – now, I’m quoting this figure by heart so it may not be exact but I won’t be so far off – are 137 deaths (TC: 137 in Europe, 3.559 deaths worldwide), having already gone through the south hemisphere countries, through what’s called Austral Winter with this new virus, and having had a lower mortality rate than usual during this period.
The numbers, as I say are by heart, from April 17th to September 15th, 137 deaths in Europe and 3,559 deaths worldwide (TC), but I won’t be wrong by too far. And I quote them because it’s important to do so. There have been a lot of declarations, but I’ll quote one by a member of the National Medical Ethics Committee of France, whose name is J. Dupre. Or for instance another by the President of the General Spanish Medical Associations, Rodriguez Sendin.
Both prestigious doctors have confirmed that based on the scientific data that we have at hand, this new virus has a lower mortality rate than the common flu or than common seasonal viruses. I’ll end this scientific part with an important note, an important piece of data fully accredited on medical literature that says that it seems that people older than 60, have already a 33% of immunity against this new virus. These are important objective facts to take into account before getting into an in‐depth assessment.
Next, I’ll mention two irregularities that have taken place in the way, or the consequences so far of the discovery of this virus relatively new strain. The irregularities remain, to my understanding and to the understanding of any objective observer; they’ve remained unclarified, and they’re too serious to remain unclarified.
Firstly, the investigative journalist Jane Burgermeister, (TC: she pressed bioterrorism and mass murder attempt charges against the WHO, the UN, and some CEOs of governments and companies) born in Switzerland, with Austrian and Irish citizenship, heard about what I’m about to tell you now, and she was the one who made the information available. Anyone can verify that the information that I’m going to disclose is accurate and objective.
What happened?
At the end of January 2009, before this new flu was discovered, Baxter Pharmaceuticals, a US company with a very important subsidiary company in Austria, proceeded to distribute from the Austrian subsidiary via neighboring European countries – the Czech Republic, Slovenia and Germany – to 16
different laboratories, vaccination material for the flu, which was material for the vaccine to be
administered between February and March to the population of those countries for the seasonal flu virus vaccine. This material weighed 72 kg. Well, I haven’t calculated the exact number of doses but it certainly means thousands and thousands of doses.
So this was distributed, and here comes the point when through one of those life’s coincidences,
situations or plans are revealed that otherwise would have remained in the dark.
The Czech company Bio Test was one of the recipients of this material. One of their lab technicians decided, through his own initiative and as something he was qualified to do but not obliged, to carry out an extra security test with the vaccination material that they received before proceeding to its distribution.
So, before the distribution of this vaccine, what this lab technician did was to inoculate this vaccine to animals called in Spanish comadrejas or hurones – weasels or ferrets, small mammals that have been used since 1918 to test flu vaccines.
He inoculated these weasels and all of them died.
When he observed these unexpected deaths, and given that the inoculated vaccine shouldn’t have caused the death of the weasels, he immediately raised the alarm and they began checks to establish what this material received from Baxter contained because if its contents was for a vaccine, then the death of all the animals was inexplicable.
The results of the analysis showed that in the material delivered by Baxter to those 106 laboratories, two live viruses coexisted.
One was the bird flu virus – the bird flu virus is the virus that appeared in 2005, and that caused a high mortality rate but infected just a few people. The number of deaths worldwide, and I quote by heart, was around 250 but as far as we know, around 60% of those infected died. This means that if 250 died worldwide just around 600 got infected, whichever the exact number is, the mortality rate of this virus is very high, but its infection rate is minimal.
This virus was mixed with a seasonal flu virus that, as we all know, has an extremely low mortality rate, it means lower than, 0,01%, lower than 1% of mortality at any rate but with a high degree of transmission. Well, it’s highly contagious, with a high infection rate.
If you mix these two viruses and then you distribute it to thousands of people, what you’re doing is you’re maximizing the probabilities for these 2 viruses to merge, for them to recombine, and for a new virus to appear to be both very lethal and very infectious.
This is a fact and this has been admitted by Baxter.
They haven’t said “No, this is not true. This is just what by Jane Burgermeister says or whoever, but this material wasn’t there.” This has been officially admitted by Baxter, (TC: They have admitted that the contamination took place but not that the material was designed for human use.
Claiming protection behind the confidentiality rights, they haven’t disclosed information about its destination, and that the total 72 kg of the material contained a mix of live bird flu and seasonal flu viruses. This is a fact.
Could this have happened by chance?
The first thing that must be said is that it is extremely unlikely. And I say this simply because in science the word impossible is something we never say.
What does extremely unlikely mean?
It means that laboratories handling this kind of viruses have Bio Security Levels in place. The Bio Security Level 3 is the highest. And the one that must be applied to this laboratory, it means that if we talk in a scientific context about probability, based on known facts, the probability that this may have happened by chance is extremely low.
Not only this, how can we explain the mixing of two different live viruses?
But also because, the flu vaccines, as we all know, are vaccines made with attenuated viruses. This means that it’s perfectly normal for the flu vaccine to contain live virus; this is not an exception. But attenuated means that the virus must go through a radiation procedure.
These viruses found in the Czech Republic in the whole Baxter material hadn’t been attenuated.
Therefore the odds of it happening by chance, well…
That’s why I say that, scientifically or simply from a humanly prudent standpoint, we can’t say that it’s 100% impossible but, let’s be clear – it’s important to let it be known how unlikely it is for an accident to occur under these circumstances. In any case, this has happened and it’s under investigation.
This journalist, Burgermeister, has pressed charges, not only against Baxter, but also against the WHO. She has also pressed charges against governments of important countries because it seems that with the information at hand, it’s more probable to think in terms of malicious intent, and this is what she denounces rather than think that there have been a series of chance events almost impossible to conceive.
But, and I insist, it’s very important to separate objective facts from those which haven’t been proven yet. I think that the good thing about this video, about this information that we are facilitating, is that it may reach the wider public – the more people the better – and for it to reach those who are unaware about the existence of plans from a world elite that wants part of the population to disappear or even much of the population, that when hearing all this say “But… where’s all this coming from? This is science fiction, I’ve never heard about this.”
I know that there are people who have been studying this for a while but I would wish that my message reaches someone who says, “Look I don’t know anything about that stuff, but I’ve just heard that there was a laboratory that delivered a contaminated vaccine and that, interestingly… (I haven’t mentioned this but it’s a fact) it’s one of the laboratories in charge of making flu vaccines this year.”
Well, this fact alone makes it justifiable to myself to think that until such time as an explanation is given about why this contamination took place, I won’t wish it on me, on my child, nor on anyone close to me. I don’t know if I’ve been clear enough about this point. Because I think it’s important to make it clear.
I’d like to get to the second irregularity, because there’s a second one even more scandalous than the first one. The second irregularity happened as follows:
What I’ve just said about Baxter happened in February, I’ve also said that in April 17th we had the first diagnosis of the new flu.
Well then, in April 29th, twelve days after those two first cases were discovered, WHO Director‐General Dr. Margaret Chan (the World Health Organization depends on the United Nations) made a public appearance and announced a Level 5 worldwide state of alert for the prevention of a pandemic.
What does this mean?
Level 5 is quite a high level, after 5 there is only Level 6 left. Level 6 means the pandemic is already happening.
What does a pandemic mean? So how could, we may ask, Dr. Chan and the whole World Health
Organization, how could they declare a pandemic? Because well, I haven’t mentioned this but, on April 29, they say Level 5, and one month and a half later, just one month after the appearance of the first cases, on April 17th, so now I’m talking about June 11th.
On June 11th Dr. Margaret Chan announces Level 6 (On 11/06/09, the WHO declares a Level 6 Pandemic, the maximum level of health alert). We then have a global pandemic of the A‐H1N1 flu virus. This global pandemic has already been declared form June 11th.
How could WHO declare a pandemic, taking into account that this virus has a mortality rate lower than the yearly virus?
Then, isn’t there a pandemic every year, if the yearly virus is a worse than this new virus?
How come we don’t declare a pandemic every year?
Well, it’s quite simple. The answer is that this year, in the month of May, the WHO changed the
definition of pandemic from its then current definition of an infection to “infectious agents
simultaneously present in different countries at the same time and with significant mortality ratio to the proportion of infected population,” removing from the definition the mortality characteristics.
Therefore, the new definition went to describe pandemic as a simultaneous infection present in various countries and carrying an infectious agent showing any novel characteristic, thus leaving us unable to know the type of immunity present within the population.
With this new definition – and it’s a definition I’m quoting from the British Medical Journal – I insist that all this information that I’m giving doesn’t come from the alternative press, for whom I have great respect, but I think it’s important to know that all this information comes from the most prestigious
magazines and absolutely “mainstream,” as they say in English, free from any possible suspicion of tendentiousness anyway.
So this amended definition, is from May this year, if the mortality requirement disappears from the definition of pandemic, as I said, then we should ask ourselves, ”Well, what prevents the annual common flu from being declared a pandemic?”
And the answer is that, with this definition in place, nothing prevents it.
With this definition, what we are seeing now, with this investment… and I’ll now get into the political consequences, which is in fact where I wanted to get to.
All that is happening now that seems to be justifiable because of its exceptional nature, under the new definition; it wouldn’t present anything exceptional about it. So this would be the situation year after year, and this is just with the flu, not to mention other diseases with the same characteristics…
One may say, “Wait a minute. Isn’t it true that this virus is less infections, sorry… less lethal, that it presents a lower mortality rate than the annual seasonal virus?” And this fact can be read everywhere, everybody says so.
Even our minister (Health MP) here, they admit this is the case. Well, if this is the case, how can it be that a pandemic has been declared, bearing in mind the serious political consequences which we’ll talk about now.
So this is simply what I’m putting together. Perhaps the new piece of information that I’m giving is this (and I insist it’s from the British Medical Journal): that the definition of pandemic has changed, but this can be seen by anyone by asking WHO to send you the pandemic definitions for 2008 and 2009, and there you can see that this change has been made.
It can also be seen on their website, etc. In the document that I’m disseminating, I also quote an article from an American journal, where they explain that after visiting the WHO website, they commented “Listen, here it says that high mortality is a prerequisite for a pandemic and here nobody dies.”
They told them, “Wait a minute… ” and they changed the definition on the web.
This article has been quoted and taken from CNN, which is not a source under suspicion in this sense. Therefore, the WHO irregularity seems even more serious to me, because it’s equally objective, clear and easy to verify, and it brings us closer to the possible real consequences.
So it’s not just about elaborating on the possible intention or who did what, as you’ve seen I’ve stopped there, because I like to distinguish between what I can prove from what I cannot – about what it’s already happening now because of this definition.
To end this part of the irregularities, in the US, due to the June 11 pandemic declaration, because of the new virus, this same month, the US declares Public Health National Emergency (TC: in April, 26/04/09) which also carries political consequences. And this emergency declaration was made possible in the USA having at the time, in the month of April, just 20 cases of infection and 0 deaths.
With 20 cases of people infected and all of them documented – I won’t get into the documentation as I don’t wish to drag on – but it’s also important to know that the documentation is not so reliable, it’s not so simple and it’s also not being carried out now.
It was in June or July, when WHO said to stop verifying with lab tests who had swine flu or not. In the UK, for instance, they do it through a phone consultation where the person reports the flu symptoms, then they note down swine flu. This is the way it is done now.
Therefore when they say there are 12,000 , 13,000 cases, whichever number they say now, it’s very important to be aware of the way in which these figures are worked out.
Once again, these are objective facts that can be verified on the official web. WHO – and I’m quoting by heart but I think it was in July – said that there was no need to verify every case in the laboratory, therefore we’re assuming that every flu case is a case, and in some countries (in many others they don’t even do this) they’re making surveys based on, “We had 100 and 50 were swine flu cases, so we assume that the rest is also that way”.
But this survey is a generalization, lacking sufficient data at least on the ones that I’ve seen in the books. And these are the irregularities.
Now I’ll move on to the third part, which focuses on the political consequences – political consequences of a pandemic declaration.
It’s as simple as this: WHO is an international organization that normally issues recommendations – “WHO’s recommendations are…” then it is assumed that each sovereign country applies or does not apply the recommendations following its own criteria, its own circumstances, and well, its own internal research.
This changed in 2005, allowing an exception precisely in case of a pandemic: this means that in a pandemic, WHO doesn’t make recommendations; it gives orders.
This means that the countries – again, this is verifiable and objective fact – in the case of a pandemic, and a pandemic is a real serious threat to the health of the whole population, and that justifies this medical emergency.
It does within the context of the old definition, not in the one that we have now. Therefore with the present definition, the title has remained the same, global pandemic, but its contents have totally changed, because the significant mortality rate doesn’t exist.
But the political consequences remain because of the heading, there the law says, “In case of a
pandemic” or the internal rules or WHO’s regulations within their treaties and agreements with the member countries.
So from 2005, when faced with a pandemic, WHO doesn’t recommend but orders member countries which actions to take.
That’s why we hear from the authorities in California and the whole of Spain, “We’re awaiting WHO’s recommendations…” Perhaps that’s a manner of speech. But it’s not just that they are waiting for them
because they think it’s the right thing to do but because they have to abide by them, not as
recommendation but as orders from the moment that it’s issued.
You may ask “And what terrible thing may arrive?”
Well, the mandatory vaccination.
This is the most important point to me. It is very important to spread this information so that even if the vaccination is offered on a voluntary basis, the larger the number of people who know about the circumstances surrounding this vaccine and all the facts that we’re telling the better, so that each one of us can make an informed decision. The point we’re going to talk about now is slightly different, it’s about the real possibility that this vaccine was issued, or distributed, or announced as a mandatory vaccine.
And how can it be possible that I’m forced to have, or to accept a vaccine that I don’t wish to have?
The reasoning is quite clear: if we are in a global pandemic situation, although I insist, even if in the present case it doesn’t qualify, it seems that there’s a risk that if a person doesn’t take the shot, this may put other people’s health at risk.
Therefore, countries are under obligation to ensure that the law is obeyed.
If this is the law, what would this mean?
Well, the same as usual: fine or prison. Talking about fines, it seems that in Massachusetts, a document has already been made public in preparation for a possible mandatory vaccination, if this was the case, the fine would be $1,000 dollars per day, or it could reach up to $1,000 dollars a day.
So the thing works this way, you say, “No I don’t want to get vaccinated.” “Oh okay. Then look, $1,000 dollars daily from civil service, for every day you don’t get the vaccine.“ This is a way.
Other ways are happening right now but these are without the general law of obligatory nature. There are companies that say to their workers, “If you don’t take the shot, I fire you.” There are open lawsuits in different countries, in the US, in the UK, in France, because there are people that have already faced this dilemma and have tried to refuse.
In some cases in private companies, where there’s no collective labor agreement, in the US for instance, this has already made people lose their jobs for refusing to accept this vaccine.
And you may say “But there’s no vaccine yet.” Not yet, but the one that is already in distribution
because here in the monastery, we already have it; it already exists – the one for the seasonal flu. This has been delivered sooner because WHO has recommended to give the seasonal one and then, in most of the cases, in two doses, the new flu one. And now I’m going to talk about this.
Then, what may happen to a person who refuses to get his vaccine? If the vaccine is not mandatory, and by now it is not in any country, then nothing happens. You say no, and sign a document, if necessary, and the same for your children – they don’t get it and no problem. If the vaccine was mandatory, as I
said, fine or prison, as it is what must be done in a country; if there’s a law, it must be obeyed. If not, this would be a joke.
Let’s see, facing this daily thousand‐dollar fine or facing the possibility of a prison sentence, one would say “Let’s not exaggerate, I got the vaccine every year, or not me but my father has, or I know people who get it, so we simply get it this year.” And it’s alright. “Look, a disaster, they’re making money, as always.” Like what happened with the papilloma (HPV).
But what can I say, I’m not paying $1,000 dollars a day, or I’m not risking going into prison. Facing this possible answer, it is important to know three factors that make the swine flu vaccine, or of this year’s flu, to be different to every year’s vaccine.
I mean, the argument of it being the same as every year’s vaccine, but this time it’s for the swine flu virus. Well, then we take it, we’ve been fooled once again, politicians or whoever, but it’s not going to be the last time.
Three novelties that this vaccine has, in contrast to the annual flu vaccine.
Why is this vaccine not going to be the same as every year?
The first novelty I have already mentioned. Based on the WHO recommendation, most of the
pharmaceuticals that are producing this vaccine, recommend it to be given in two doses. This is a
something new because nobody has ever heard before that flu vaccines come in two doses.
Normally, it’s given once and that’s all. Next year, you take it again, but it’s never given in two doses. This year it comes in two doses, and also, as I’ve said, WHO has already recommended it. In fact, the vaccine delivery has already arrived at senior care homes, monasteries and other places so that everybody takes the vaccine for the seasonal virus.
If WHO’s recommendations are followed this year, those who follow them will end up receiving three flu vaccinations: the seasonal one, the first dose of the swine flu and the second dose.
I’ve also heard that some laboratories produce it just with one, but most of them have announced it will be a vaccine in two doses. That way, the possibility of secondary effects is multiplied by three, theoretically it is multiplied by three, and these vaccines do have secondary effects.
But this is only theoretical, in practice, nobody knows what could happen because it’s never been done before.
Because no one has ever before received three doses of the virus, three shots with live viruses of the flu, and from different types one after the other, in the middle of a supposed pandemic or flu season, this is the first novelty.
Second novelty, it has to do with the coadjuvants.
This has been denounced by the French Labor Union of Nurses. The National Nurse Labour Union of France has published a document that you can also check, where they talk about (well, they put many
examples, but I’m giving just one) the company Glaxo Smith Kline, one of the pharmaceutical companies that produce the vaccine.
In fact, it is responsible for the research with children that’s being done in Spain, the pioneer country in the world that has accepted that children, I think from 6 months old to 17 years old, try an experimental vaccine, and thus see what the secondary effects may be, or what point do they reach.
This is the company that promotes this research. This company is using a coadjuvant that’s never been used before in those flu vaccines. And this, in different ways, all the companies that produce swine flu vaccines have announced that they use stronger coadjuvants than the kinds that are normally used every year for flu vaccines.
What is a coadjuvant? A coadjuvant is a substance that’s generally added to the flu vaccine. “That’s added” means that the objective of the coadjuvant is to simulate and excite the immune system to produce a higher immune system response.
This is mainly done for the vaccine to be more effective, but in this case, French nurses have denounced that this coadjuvant is going to multiply ten times – this is the intention in the first studies – the immune system response, excite the immune system of the person so that it produces a response ten times higher than the normal and common one.
This coadjuvant seems to mix polysorbate with the excipient, or the coadjuvant squalene, which is the same coadjuvant used against anthrax and was given to the soldiers in the Gulf War.
There are many studies that prove that they had serious secondary effects, in terms of central
neurological system, paralysis and arthritis. This is squalene; this new coadjuvant is therefore, the second novelty.
There are coadjuvantss still untested, and that pharmaceutical companies justify precisely because they’ve been asked to produce millions and millions, in fact billions – 4.6 billions of doses of this vaccine, it’s what it’s been set – to vaccinate the whole population.
Rich countries and pharmaceutical companies have already announced that they are making donations of millions of doses to third world countries that couldn’t afford it. The plan is to vaccinate the whole world’s population. Well, in this production circumstance, some pharmaceutical companies justify using coadjuvants, still untested, so they can put fewer antigens and they save money. They can save antigen and in each injected dose of vaccine, fewer antigens and more coadjuvants. Which means, less natural immune system excitation, and more artificial excitation to compensate the lack of antigen to produced vaccines. This is the official explanation.
The thing is that it’s the second novelty, the coadjuvant is not the same as every year. Therefore,
nobody knows to what degree this artificial excitation of the immune system is going to cause
autoimmune diseases.
In fact, there’s one: the ascending paralysis of Guillain‐Barre. This is known or associated to the
administration, for instance, of the flu vaccines in 1976. In this moment it just affected the US, in a similar campaign, also through mass media and politicians. In this campaign they ended up vaccinating
48 million US citizens. Among these 48 millions there was, I don’t have the numbers with me right now, but there were around 3,000 complaints of paralysis with the Guillan‐Barre syndrome.
So this is accepted as a consequence. In fact, the CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) of the United States (www.cdc.gov) has already announced that it is inevitable that there will be paralysis cases if the whole of the population gets the vaccine, but, despite this, they’re going ahead with it.
When, I insist, we must always keep in mind that this virus of the flu is more benign than the usual virus.
Therefore if you check the pros and cons, and this is what the French nurses do in their document, the possibility of spending a few days at home with the flu, like every year, in fact, less than every year, or the possibility of suffering an ascendant paralysis, which in some cases people recover from but in many cases they don’t and can even lead to death, then… at least this information must reach everybody so everyone takes responsibility.
And the last one, the third novelty regarding the annual flu vaccine is that pharmaceutical companies, because they’ve been asked to, supposedly make extraordinary efforts to produce such a vast amount of doses in record time.
They are forcing agreements, and in the US, it’s official that this agreement has been signed, an
agreement to absolve them of any legal responsibility in case that this vaccine has adverse secondary effects or even if it causes death.
In the US, the Secretary of Health, Sibelius, signed a document that gives immunity, political immunity – it won’t be possible to demand responsibility nor compensation, nor from the involved politicians nor from the pharmaceutical companies.
This is a third novelty that I think is very significant, for money can’t buy health or life, but if the
pharmaceutical company or the responsible person is not, let’s say it other way, is willing to financially compensate, we can take it as a guarantee that it is not unforeseen to have an avalanche of complaints.
If the responsible person makes sure, with objective, clear and verifiable public documents that it won’t be possible to bring a lawsuit against them, he is taking from us a guarantee that this vaccine is not going to have adverse secondary effects.
As a thought, I’d say to sum up what I said up to now, if what happened with Baxter and those
contaminated vaccines, which is proven to be true and they were contaminated, we don’t know why or how they were contaminated, but that they were contaminated we do know it for sure, if this contamination hadn’t been discovered by chance and this, let’s remember, was in February 2009, today we would have the pandemic, this terrible pandemic that they’re announcing without a real basis.
They’re talking about this pandemic without a real or objective basis.
If, in February, this hadn’t been discovered by chance by this Czech researcher or lab technician who carried that test (which he didn’t have to), today we would have this pandemic that is being announced.
Then, knowing this, and keeping in mind the current WHO legislation and the irregularities, for instance, how is it possible that, what happened in February has not been discussed in the international press?
How is it possible that politicians haven’t talked about it? This hasn’t had any political or media impact.
This, we should ask to ourselves: how is all this possible?
Keeping this in mind, and keeping in mind that the pandemic would have happened, if this hadn’t been discovered by chance, I think it’s very important to state that the real threat, that those vaccines, which will arrive very soon, are contaminated, may be contaminated, and that a coercive legislation could be imposed when, despite the fact the they may be contaminated, that could force all of the population to take this vaccine by law.
I think this is a risk that cannot be and must not be minimized.
Do not, by any means, panic because panic doesn’t help in any way; quite the opposite. But one thing is not promoting, or having or expressing panic, and another is to not spread or share an information or a thought, like I’m doing, that may be important as we still have time for a reaction and that’s why I think this initiative is so important.
Therefore, do not minimize, this is just a risk, so I can’t say for sure that the vaccines will be
contaminated, I don’t know it for sure, I haven’t made them, nor analyzed them, I don’t think it’s going to be easy, either, to get access to this vaccine in order to analyze it independently. If it’s possible we will try or help to do it. But I don’t know of anybody who was able to do it.
What happens if more people start dying now? Or this that was announced, that a second wave is coming and a mutation is coming?
In terms of this, it is also very important to know that the swine flu virus has not mutated in 70 years. Then how is it possible to announce a mutation this year when this virus is not known to have ever mutated in this short period of time, during a period of 70 years?
I mean, what we didn’t have for 70 years is a flu coming in two waves with a different virus. Then again this is an irregularity.
But,let’s assume that many people start dying now, because of the flu or with compatible symptoms, then it will even more important to refuse to this vaccination, for two reasons.
First, because if this virus starts giving an increased mortality, it’s because it’s not the same – that is, it will have mutated. Although it’s something that doesn’t agree with up‐to‐date data, if it has mutated, the vaccine is of no use anymore. The vaccine that’s been produced now – this is why every year a different vaccine is produced because there are mutations – we have to produce a vaccine adapted to the new mutations.
So, if a significant part of the population doesn’t die, it is not necessary to take the vaccine, because, as I say, the risk is very high, the risk may be higher than the benefit.
If we start seeing a high rate of mortality caused by this flu, or because of compatible symptoms, then, this surprise could only be due to two reasons. The first is that the virus has mutated, therefore the
vaccine is not good; or second, it is another virus or other viruses, and therefore, the vaccine is no good either, and it could even be the vaccine itself (that’s causing the deaths).
The means of transmission of those new viruses, based on what happened with Baxter in February, this is where my thoughts lead me.
Now, I’d like to conclude with a proposal. The proposal is very clear.
On one hand, stay calm, this is fundamental. To stay calm, take your usual precautions to not get
infected, common sense precautions, and do not get the vaccination.
Do not get the vaccination this year because there are all those circumstances. This is my
recommendation, but it is also the recommendation of many people of “seny” in Catalonian, “of
common sense.” There are many people talking this way, many doctors, a whole association, nurse unions, and so on… This is the first part.
But then we have a second part, which is the one that we may have not heard so often. And it’s that one, that I now, from this platform we are, is where I think I’m going to upload. Can I say it now?
Because last week, in Catalonia, I started an initiative called Catalunya Religio (.cat) This is a web site where the photos have not yet been posted, as it has just started. But I’ve been asked to collaborate a bit.
So, this week, I’m going to upload the link to the document that I’m talking about. I’m also going to give you this document, so I think it’s going to be accessible.
So I appeal, from this document, and now from the visual platform, I appeal to activate urgently all the civil citizenship resources and legal resources to avoid two things in our country.
The first one: that no one can force anybody in this country to get a vaccine that they do not want to get.
And the second one: those who, of their own will, desire to get the vaccination, should not be deprived of, I mean to avoid that anyone who desires to get the vaccine, is deprived of his right to demand responsibility or financial compensation in case the vaccine causes him serious disease or death.
First, maybe on a personal note, it would be about this part of “experts.” More and more, the world seems to move around experts, and that a person who is not a doctor or public health doctor, or who doesn’t have credentials, or who doesn’t consider themselves to have enough knowledge to critically evaluate this mass of information that comes to us from everywhere, it seems hard, unless it is investigative journalism, people who have been preparing for many years to do this.
What happens with those who are actually health professionals? That they have, unlike me – in this my case it’s different – their work depends on them acting according to what the profession as a whole is saying, or not going far away from it. It’s really hard.
If I were practicing medicine at a hospital, as I was for several years, I don’t know if I would be talking here and now. I know I have the knowledge and education, but my work, my everyday life and my surroundings don’t depend on that.
My medical community, from Barcelona or my country, may think what I’m saying is correct or incorrect. That is I don’t have to feel this fear, and I say this just to point that it may be a reason for some health professionals who think the same way I do, or who are asking themselves the same questions but say “If I’m not 100% sure, I don’t want to take the risk of making these questions.”
Although, I must also say that there are many health professionals in our country that, maybe not everything I’ve said, maybe they haven’t touched the political aspects that much, but they perfectly handle the scientific data and they have made them public, with even more data than I’ve given. In this way, it’s very important to know that this is not something isolated.
I would like to make a note on “fear.”
Well, we must not be scared of the known swine flu (A). Because, as I’ve said a few times, but I’ll say it once more, according to objective facts, it has a lower mortality rate than seasonal flu. I didn’t mention this in the data but the mortality rate of the regular flu, the good years in Europe, the flu is not the same every year, some years it’s severe or more severe, and some others it’s more benign.
So, the official data of the disease center or the center that collects this information at the European level (that would be the CDC in the US) the ECDC. (European Center of Disease Prevention and Control http://ecdc.europa.eu).
This center’s numbers are: the good years of flu 40,000 people die from complications associated or derived directly to the flu. Forty‐thousand in a flu season; these are the “good years.” The bad years, it’s 220,000 deaths.
It’s very important to know it because when one says, “120 people have died!” Well, let’s wait; we
cannot just count them one by one. If every year, as a normal fact, in the best of the years, 40,000 people die, and in the bad years 220,000, if we count one by one, we spread an unjustified panic.
Therefore, we mustn’t fear the swine flu that is currently circulating if we take into account the numbers I’ve just quoted. However, in everything that I’ve said, there are many elements that may cause fear, or that can cause anguish or a real concern. I think that this anguish and real concern is good to have. It’s not good to let it shadow the political action, because that’s what it’s all about.
Now, nobody has declared a national emergency; nobody can do it either – with the information we have, this would be impossible. Now we have the doors open to act politically to ensure the two things I said before, in our country: that nobody can be forced to get a vaccine that they don’t wish and those who freely desire it and get it, won’t be deprived of their right to demand political responsibility and receive financial compensation.
And just as another note, if you want me to say something about what’s going around that I didn’t want to discuss directly, well, this hypothesis seems to underlie that it’s some sort of a plot. “What in the world is this? A plot to do something?”
Because WHO has said all of that, I’m not answering these questions, because I cannot answer them. But I may make a little note, so as far as we know about the history of humanity, there have been groups who wanted to dominate the world. This is not new. We cannot come in the 21st century and say
“Ah! There’s a group who wants to dominate the world.” Sorry but that is not new, it’s as old as the world.
From the Romans, and if we go further, the Incas and every known empire with a good intention: that is an intention to fix a world that is chaotic and difficult to control. So let us control it, whoever this “us” is, to help humanity; to actually make a world where there’s a minimum order, so we won’t have a Hitler here, another thing there. And for a long time, it’s been said that there is overpopulation.
Well, if that was so, even if we look at it from this kind of hypothesis, I think fear is unjustified by this historical background. It’s just being aware that this happened before in history. There have been people who, irresponsibly, have caused world wars, and they could have foreseen and acted politically but they didn’t. We’re in the 21st century. Human beings are the same with their extreme goodness. And these conspiracies will never be able to break this human goodness, this impossibility to control the whole world.
But that there are people, who try throughout history; they have always existed. And I’m not amazed at the possibility that this has something to do with this kind of action.
I think that the spectacular nature of talking about international plots, global mass murder shadows the other side. And I think it’s a bit self‐defeating. I mean, now I’d like to not have said it just because with the things I said before, which is all I wrote in the written document, is more than enough for any person willing to take political responsibility or action, may be able to say “Okay, I’ve had enough, I know what I must do.”
Well, each one will do what they want, but at least it is easy, objective and well‐founded information. While, if we dwell on this morbidity, saying that “They want to dominate us… there’s a group that wants to own the whole humanity!” We rush off and I insist, I’m not saying it’s possible, but I’m not interested in touching that, because I think we are onto something more serious, which is this possibility, in a few weeks or a month, when those vaccines arrive, to really take up on a civilian action, and maybe, let me finish with this, these groups who care about human rights, and about the quality of our democracies because we talk about democracies, happens here in Catalonia.
Almost a year ago, there was a legislative initiative of the people, because Catalonia is, well, Spain is the country, in the European Union, with the highest proportion of transgenic farming, and it’s located, around 80% – and I’m quoting from memory, it may not be accurate, but it’s not very far – in Catalonia.
Therefore, from Catalonian pagesia (peasants), there was this initiative to promote this legislative initiative of the people, to debate in the parliament whether or not this should be. For instance, the transgenic in Catalonia, are not in all of Spain, the products, from the supermarket are not labeled to show if they contain transgenic or not. And this was one of the proposals in the project.
According to our democracies, the minimum number of signatures needed to promote a legislative initiative for the people is 50,000 signatures. And collecting 50,000 signatures is a lot of work. Well, they were collected or we collected, as I also participated, 102,000 signatures.
Despite this, the Catalonian Parliament has said that they’re not going to debate it. This happened here this year.
When I talk about monitoring the quality of our democracies, they won’t be formal democracies but, at the time of truth, there’s a political practice that is closer to a dictatorship than to a democracy.
Oh yes, what I wanted to say, those who monitor the different people and groups, and jurists groups, and groups of people for the human rights but not the official ones, those groups commented, or summarized or highlighted in different documents as something special what happened in Spain. During the terrorist attack in Madrid, March 11th of 2004.
When there was the terrorist attack in Madrid, there was a political change, Popular Party (PP) lost and Socialist Party (PSOE) won. Well, this popular response against an attempt from those who held the power, to give an official version of the facts, making use of a moment of panic, and that was trying to imitate what happened in the US where, from a terrorist attack, that you may talk about causes and authors…
There are also many theories, but the one sure thing is that it causes panic among the population and they use that panic to reduce the people’s freedom. That didn’t happen here. And this, as I say, has been highlighted by international groups, that say, as if the Spanish state was an example of what happened.
Spontaneous call of people, strong enough to take to the streets – this is happening a lot nowadays – and stop the manipulation where they were near a declaration of a state of emergency or whatever, to justify this reduction in people’s freedom.
Then, well, we’ve done it before, so come on and let’s do it again.
Page 1
Bells Tolling for the Swine Flu
An interview with Teresa Forcades
Monastery of Sant Benet
Montserrat – Barcelona
9/23/2009
An interview with Teresa Forcades
Monastery of Sant Benet
Montserrat – Barcelona
9/23/2009
My name is Teresa Forcades I Vila. I’m a Benedictine nun at Sant Benet of Montserrat’s monastery. Before joining the monastery, I practiced medicine for several years.
I’m a physician specializing in internal medicine and I have a PhD in Public Health from the University of Barcelona. I took my specialization in the United States at the State University of New York.
What we call swine flu (A), is also called in Catalonia, “the new flu.” This term may lead some people to believe that the “A” type flu virus is a new virus. Well, this isn’t a new type of virus ‐ “A” type viruses are part of the yearly common flu, the seasonal flu.
Regarding flu viruses, we have – maybe everyone’s aware of this, but I always start with the basics – A, B and C type of viruses. These are the known flu viruses affecting humans, but because the “C” virus only normally affects a smaller proportion of the population, it’s not used for the manufacturing of the yearly vaccines.
Therefore, every year, the seasonal flu vaccine is a mixture of “A” and “B” type virus, and so, the so‐called “new flu “ or swine flu is not new because it’s an “A” type of virus. But some would argue that it’s new because of the antigens of the A‐H1N1 virus, hemagglutinin (H) and neuraminidase (N), are surface proteins that could appear to give it a novel nature.
Well, this isn’t the case.
It must be said that these proteins are not providing a novelty nature to this virus because this same group, A‐H1N1, was the same flu virus group that in 1918 caused the terrible pandemic that killed more than 20 million people worldwide. It was this same type of virus and it existed amongst the population until around the mid 50s. In 1957, it seemed to disappear from what is now known as seasonal flu viruses and reappears in the year 1977.
This can be looked up by any physician or anyone in The New England Journal of Medicine, where last month, an article was published about the history of the flu viruses and I quote The New England Journal of Medicine as it’s the most well‐known and respected medical journal. The article confirms as fact that this virus reappeared (the A‐H1N1 virus) in 1977 because it had been resynthesized in a lab.
I say resynthesized but it seems that what happened was that they went to exhume the body of an Inuit, an Eskimo woman who died from this flu in 1918. As her body had remained under the ice, it was possible to recover from the tissues the necessary elements to reproduce, or to resynthesize this virus.
2
To recap, this happened in 1977 and according to The New England Journal of Medicine, this is an established fact.
From 1977, we then had the A‐H1N flu virus as being part of the pool or mixture of the seasonal flu viruses. Well, what is new then this year?
The novelty is the viral strain (S‐OIV). This year’s viral strain (S‐OIV) is a strain unknown until now. And it’s this new strain which was first diagnosed on April, 17 (2009). It seems that’s the origin of the first diagnosis, of the two cases in California. These are the first cases on record when we first heard about the new virus.
Therefore, the novelty is just the strain (S‐OIV).
This is the first scientific fact. The second important scientific fact to bear in mind is that since it began on April 17th until September 15th, which is when I last read the statistics, the figures recorded – now, I’m quoting this figure by heart so it may not be exact but I won’t be so far off – are 137 deaths (TC: 137 in Europe, 3.559 deaths worldwide), having already gone through the south hemisphere countries, through what’s called Austral Winter with this new virus, and having had a lower mortality rate than usual during this period.
The numbers, as I say are by heart, from April 17th to September 15th, 137 deaths in Europe and 3,559 deaths worldwide (TC), but I won’t be wrong by too far. And I quote them because it’s important to do so. There have been a lot of declarations, but I’ll quote one by a member of the National Medical Ethics Committee of France, whose name is J. Dupre. Or for instance another by the President of the General Spanish Medical Associations, Rodriguez Sendin.
Both prestigious doctors have confirmed that based on the scientific data that we have at hand, this new virus has a lower mortality rate than the common flu or than common seasonal viruses. I’ll end this scientific part with an important note, an important piece of data fully accredited on medical literature that says that it seems that people older than 60, have already a 33% of immunity against this new virus. These are important objective facts to take into account before getting into an in‐depth assessment.
Next, I’ll mention two irregularities that have taken place in the way, or the consequences so far of the discovery of this virus relatively new strain. The irregularities remain, to my understanding and to the understanding of any objective observer; they’ve remained unclarified, and they’re too serious to remain unclarified.
Firstly, the investigative journalist Jane Burgermeister, (TC: she pressed bioterrorism and mass murder attempt charges against the WHO, the UN, and some CEOs of governments and companies) born in Switzerland, with Austrian and Irish citizenship, heard about what I’m about to tell you now, and she was the one who made the information available. Anyone can verify that the information that I’m going to disclose is accurate and objective.
What happened?
At the end of January 2009, before this new flu was discovered, Baxter Pharmaceuticals, a US company with a very important subsidiary company in Austria, proceeded to distribute from the Austrian subsidiary via neighboring European countries – the Czech Republic, Slovenia and Germany – to 16
3
different laboratories, vaccination material for the flu, which was material for the vaccine to be
administered between February and March to the population of those countries for the seasonal flu virus vaccine. This material weighed 72 kg. Well, I haven’t calculated the exact number of doses but it certainly means thousands and thousands of doses.
So this was distributed, and here comes the point when through one of those life’s coincidences,
situations or plans are revealed that otherwise would have remained in the dark.
The Czech company Bio Test was one of the recipients of this material. One of their lab technicians decided, through his own initiative and as something he was qualified to do but not obliged, to carry out an extra security test with the vaccination material that they received before proceeding to its distribution.
So, before the distribution of this vaccine, what this lab technician did was to inoculate this vaccine to animals called in Spanish comadrejas or hurones – weasels or ferrets, small mammals that have been used since 1918 to test flu vaccines.
He inoculated these weasels and all of them died.
When he observed these unexpected deaths, and given that the inoculated vaccine shouldn’t have caused the death of the weasels, he immediately raised the alarm and they began checks to establish what this material received from Baxter contained because if its contents was for a vaccine, then the death of all the animals was inexplicable.
The results of the analysis showed that in the material delivered by Baxter to those 106 laboratories, two live viruses coexisted.
One was the bird flu virus – the bird flu virus is the virus that appeared in 2005, and that caused a high mortality rate but infected just a few people. The number of deaths worldwide, and I quote by heart, was around 250 but as far as we know, around 60% of those infected died. This means that if 250 died worldwide just around 600 got infected, whichever the exact number is, the mortality rate of this virus is very high, but its infection rate is minimal.
This virus was mixed with a seasonal flu virus that, as we all know, has an extremely low mortality rate, it means lower than, 0,01%, lower than 1% of mortality at any rate but with a high degree of transmission. Well, it’s highly contagious, with a high infection rate.
If you mix these two viruses and then you distribute it to thousands of people, what you’re doing is you’re maximizing the probabilities for these 2 viruses to merge, for them to recombine, and for a new virus to appear to be both very lethal and very infectious.
This is a fact and this has been admitted by Baxter.
They haven’t said “No, this is not true. This is just what by Jane Burgermeister says or whoever, but this material wasn’t there.” This has been officially admitted by Baxter, (TC: They have admitted that the contamination took place but not that the material was designed for human use.
4
Claiming protection behind the confidentiality rights, they haven’t disclosed information about its destination, and that the total 72 kg of the material contained a mix of live bird flu and seasonal flu viruses. This is a fact.
Could this have happened by chance?
The first thing that must be said is that it is extremely unlikely. And I say this simply because in science the word impossible is something we never say.
What does extremely unlikely mean?
It means that laboratories handling this kind of viruses have Bio Security Levels in place. The Bio Security Level 3 is the highest. And the one that must be applied to this laboratory, it means that if we talk in a scientific context about probability, based on known facts, the probability that this may have happened by chance is extremely low.
Not only this, how can we explain the mixing of two different live viruses?
But also because, the flu vaccines, as we all know, are vaccines made with attenuated viruses. This means that it’s perfectly normal for the flu vaccine to contain live virus; this is not an exception. But attenuated means that the virus must go through a radiation procedure.
These viruses found in the Czech Republic in the whole Baxter material hadn’t been attenuated.
Therefore the odds of it happening by chance, well…
That’s why I say that, scientifically or simply from a humanly prudent standpoint, we can’t say that it’s 100% impossible but, let’s be clear – it’s important to let it be known how unlikely it is for an accident to occur under these circumstances. In any case, this has happened and it’s under investigation.
This journalist, Burgermeister, has pressed charges, not only against Baxter, but also against the WHO. She has also pressed charges against governments of important countries because it seems that with the information at hand, it’s more probable to think in terms of malicious intent, and this is what she denounces rather than think that there have been a series of chance events almost impossible to conceive.
But, and I insist, it’s very important to separate objective facts from those which haven’t been proven yet. I think that the good thing about this video, about this information that we are facilitating, is that it may reach the wider public – the more people the better – and for it to reach those who are unaware about the existence of plans from a world elite that wants part of the population to disappear or even much of the population, that when hearing all this say “But… where’s all this coming from? This is science fiction, I’ve never heard about this.”
I know that there are people who have been studying this for a while but I would wish that my message reaches someone who says, “Look I don’t know anything about that stuff, but I’ve just heard that there was a laboratory that delivered a contaminated vaccine and that, interestingly… (I haven’t mentioned this but it’s a fact) it’s one of the laboratories in charge of making flu vaccines this year.”
5
Well, this fact alone makes it justifiable to myself to think that until such time as an explanation is given about why this contamination took place, I won’t wish it on me, on my child, nor on anyone close to me. I don’t know if I’ve been clear enough about this point. Because I think it’s important to make it clear.
I’d like to get to the second irregularity, because there’s a second one even more scandalous than the first one. The second irregularity happened as follows:
What I’ve just said about Baxter happened in February, I’ve also said that in April 17th we had the first diagnosis of the new flu.
Well then, in April 29th, twelve days after those two first cases were discovered, WHO Director‐General Dr. Margaret Chan (the World Health Organization depends on the United Nations) made a public appearance and announced a Level 5 worldwide state of alert for the prevention of a pandemic.
What does this mean?
Level 5 is quite a high level, after 5 there is only Level 6 left. Level 6 means the pandemic is already happening.
What does a pandemic mean? So how could, we may ask, Dr. Chan and the whole World Health
Organization, how could they declare a pandemic? Because well, I haven’t mentioned this but, on April 29, they say Level 5, and one month and a half later, just one month after the appearance of the first cases, on April 17th, so now I’m talking about June 11th.
On June 11th Dr. Margaret Chan announces Level 6 (On 11/06/09, the WHO declares a Level 6 Pandemic, the maximum level of health alert). We then have a global pandemic of the A‐H1N1 flu virus. This global pandemic has already been declared form June 11th.
How could WHO declare a pandemic, taking into account that this virus has a mortality rate lower than the yearly virus?
Then, isn’t there a pandemic every year, if the yearly virus is a worse than this new virus?
How come we don’t declare a pandemic every year?
Well, it’s quite simple. The answer is that this year, in the month of May, the WHO changed the
definition of pandemic from its then current definition of an infection to “infectious agents
simultaneously present in different countries at the same time and with significant mortality ratio to the proportion of infected population,” removing from the definition the mortality characteristics.
Therefore, the new definition went to describe pandemic as a simultaneous infection present in various countries and carrying an infectious agent showing any novel characteristic, thus leaving us unable to know the type of immunity present within the population.
With this new definition – and it’s a definition I’m quoting from the British Medical Journal – I insist that all this information that I’m giving doesn’t come from the alternative press, for whom I have great respect, but I think it’s important to know that all this information comes from the most prestigious
6
magazines and absolutely “mainstream,” as they say in English, free from any possible suspicion of tendentiousness anyway.
So this amended definition, is from May this year, if the mortality requirement disappears from the definition of pandemic, as I said, then we should ask ourselves, ”Well, what prevents the annual common flu from being declared a pandemic?”
And the answer is that, with this definition in place, nothing prevents it.
With this definition, what we are seeing now, with this investment… and I’ll now get into the political consequences, which is in fact where I wanted to get to.
All that is happening now that seems to be justifiable because of its exceptional nature, under the new definition; it wouldn’t present anything exceptional about it. So this would be the situation year after year, and this is just with the flu, not to mention other diseases with the same characteristics…
One may say, “Wait a minute. Isn’t it true that this virus is less infections, sorry… less lethal, that it presents a lower mortality rate than the annual seasonal virus?” And this fact can be read everywhere, everybody says so.
Even our minister (Health MP) here, they admit this is the case. Well, if this is the case, how can it be that a pandemic has been declared, bearing in mind the serious political consequences which we’ll talk about now.
So this is simply what I’m putting together. Perhaps the new piece of information that I’m giving is this (and I insist it’s from the British Medical Journal): that the definition of pandemic has changed, but this can be seen by anyone by asking WHO to send you the pandemic definitions for 2008 and 2009, and there you can see that this change has been made.
It can also be seen on their website, etc. In the document that I’m disseminating, I also quote an article from an American journal, where they explain that after visiting the WHO website, they commented “Listen, here it says that high mortality is a prerequisite for a pandemic and here nobody dies.”
They told them, “Wait a minute… ” and they changed the definition on the web.
This article has been quoted and taken from CNN, which is not a source under suspicion in this sense. Therefore, the WHO irregularity seems even more serious to me, because it’s equally objective, clear and easy to verify, and it brings us closer to the possible real consequences.
So it’s not just about elaborating on the possible intention or who did what, as you’ve seen I’ve stopped there, because I like to distinguish between what I can prove from what I cannot – about what it’s already happening now because of this definition.
To end this part of the irregularities, in the US, due to the June 11 pandemic declaration, because of the new virus, this same month, the US declares Public Health National Emergency (TC: in April, 26/04/09) which also carries political consequences. And this emergency declaration was made possible in the USA having at the time, in the month of April, just 20 cases of infection and 0 deaths.
7
With 20 cases of people infected and all of them documented – I won’t get into the documentation as I don’t wish to drag on – but it’s also important to know that the documentation is not so reliable, it’s not so simple and it’s also not being carried out now.
It was in June or July, when WHO said to stop verifying with lab tests who had swine flu or not. In the UK, for instance, they do it through a phone consultation where the person reports the flu symptoms, then they note down swine flu. This is the way it is done now.
Therefore when they say there are 12,000 , 13,000 cases, whichever number they say now, it’s very important to be aware of the way in which these figures are worked out.
Once again, these are objective facts that can be verified on the official web. WHO – and I’m quoting by heart but I think it was in July – said that there was no need to verify every case in the laboratory, therefore we’re assuming that every flu case is a case, and in some countries (in many others they don’t even do this) they’re making surveys based on, “We had 100 and 50 were swine flu cases, so we assume that the rest is also that way”.
But this survey is a generalization, lacking sufficient data at least on the ones that I’ve seen in the books. And these are the irregularities.
Now I’ll move on to the third part, which focuses on the political consequences – political consequences of a pandemic declaration.
It’s as simple as this: WHO is an international organization that normally issues recommendations – “WHO’s recommendations are…” then it is assumed that each sovereign country applies or does not apply the recommendations following its own criteria, its own circumstances, and well, its own internal research.
This changed in 2005, allowing an exception precisely in case of a pandemic: this means that in a pandemic, WHO doesn’t make recommendations; it gives orders.
This means that the countries – again, this is verifiable and objective fact – in the case of a pandemic, and a pandemic is a real serious threat to the health of the whole population, and that justifies this medical emergency.
It does within the context of the old definition, not in the one that we have now. Therefore with the present definition, the title has remained the same, global pandemic, but its contents have totally changed, because the significant mortality rate doesn’t exist.
But the political consequences remain because of the heading, there the law says, “In case of a
pandemic” or the internal rules or WHO’s regulations within their treaties and agreements with the member countries.
So from 2005, when faced with a pandemic, WHO doesn’t recommend but orders member countries which actions to take.
That’s why we hear from the authorities in California and the whole of Spain, “We’re awaiting WHO’s recommendations…” Perhaps that’s a manner of speech. But it’s not just that they are waiting for them
8
because they think it’s the right thing to do but because they have to abide by them, not as
recommendation but as orders from the moment that it’s issued.
You may ask “And what terrible thing may arrive?”
Well, the mandatory vaccination.
This is the most important point to me. It is very important to spread this information so that even if the vaccination is offered on a voluntary basis, the larger the number of people who know about the circumstances surrounding this vaccine and all the facts that we’re telling the better, so that each one of us can make an informed decision. The point we’re going to talk about now is slightly different, it’s about the real possibility that this vaccine was issued, or distributed, or announced as a mandatory vaccine.
And how can it be possible that I’m forced to have, or to accept a vaccine that I don’t wish to have?
The reasoning is quite clear: if we are in a global pandemic situation, although I insist, even if in the present case it doesn’t qualify, it seems that there’s a risk that if a person doesn’t take the shot, this may put other people’s health at risk.
Therefore, countries are under obligation to ensure that the law is obeyed.
If this is the law, what would this mean?
Well, the same as usual: fine or prison. Talking about fines, it seems that in Massachusetts, a document has already been made public in preparation for a possible mandatory vaccination, if this was the case, the fine would be $1,000 dollars per day, or it could reach up to $1,000 dollars a day.
So the thing works this way, you say, “No I don’t want to get vaccinated.” “Oh okay. Then look, $1,000 dollars daily from civil service, for every day you don’t get the vaccine.“ This is a way.
Other ways are happening right now but these are without the general law of obligatory nature. There are companies that say to their workers, “If you don’t take the shot, I fire you.” There are open lawsuits in different countries, in the US, in the UK, in France, because there are people that have already faced this dilemma and have tried to refuse.
In some cases in private companies, where there’s no collective labor agreement, in the US for instance, this has already made people lose their jobs for refusing to accept this vaccine.
And you may say “But there’s no vaccine yet.” Not yet, but the one that is already in distribution
because here in the monastery, we already have it; it already exists – the one for the seasonal flu. This has been delivered sooner because WHO has recommended to give the seasonal one and then, in most of the cases, in two doses, the new flu one. And now I’m going to talk about this.
Then, what may happen to a person who refuses to get his vaccine? If the vaccine is not mandatory, and by now it is not in any country, then nothing happens. You say no, and sign a document, if necessary, and the same for your children – they don’t get it and no problem. If the vaccine was mandatory, as I
9
said, fine or prison, as it is what must be done in a country; if there’s a law, it must be obeyed. If not, this would be a joke.
Let’s see, facing this daily thousand‐dollar fine or facing the possibility of a prison sentence, one would say “Let’s not exaggerate, I got the vaccine every year, or not me but my father has, or I know people who get it, so we simply get it this year.” And it’s alright. “Look, a disaster, they’re making money, as always.” Like what happened with the papilloma (HPV).
But what can I say, I’m not paying $1,000 dollars a day, or I’m not risking going into prison. Facing this possible answer, it is important to know three factors that make the swine flu vaccine, or of this year’s flu, to be different to every year’s vaccine.
I mean, the argument of it being the same as every year’s vaccine, but this time it’s for the swine flu virus. Well, then we take it, we’ve been fooled once again, politicians or whoever, but it’s not going to be the last time.
Three novelties that this vaccine has, in contrast to the annual flu vaccine.
Why is this vaccine not going to be the same as every year?
The first novelty I have already mentioned. Based on the WHO recommendation, most of the
pharmaceuticals that are producing this vaccine, recommend it to be given in two doses. This is a
something new because nobody has ever heard before that flu vaccines come in two doses.
Normally, it’s given once and that’s all. Next year, you take it again, but it’s never given in two doses. This year it comes in two doses, and also, as I’ve said, WHO has already recommended it. In fact, the vaccine delivery has already arrived at senior care homes, monasteries and other places so that everybody takes the vaccine for the seasonal virus.
If WHO’s recommendations are followed this year, those who follow them will end up receiving three flu vaccinations: the seasonal one, the first dose of the swine flu and the second dose.
I’ve also heard that some laboratories produce it just with one, but most of them have announced it will be a vaccine in two doses. That way, the possibility of secondary effects is multiplied by three, theoretically it is multiplied by three, and these vaccines do have secondary effects.
But this is only theoretical, in practice, nobody knows what could happen because it’s never been done before.
Because no one has ever before received three doses of the virus, three shots with live viruses of the flu, and from different types one after the other, in the middle of a supposed pandemic or flu season, this is the first novelty.
Second novelty, it has to do with the coadjuvants.
This has been denounced by the French Labor Union of Nurses. The National Nurse Labour Union of France has published a document that you can also check, where they talk about (well, they put many
10
examples, but I’m giving just one) the company Glaxo Smith Kline, one of the pharmaceutical companies that produce the vaccine.
In fact, it is responsible for the research with children that’s being done in Spain, the pioneer country in the world that has accepted that children, I think from 6 months old to 17 years old, try an experimental vaccine, and thus see what the secondary effects may be, or what point do they reach.
This is the company that promotes this research. This company is using a coadjuvant that’s never been used before in those flu vaccines. And this, in different ways, all the companies that produce swine flu vaccines have announced that they use stronger coadjuvants than the kinds that are normally used every year for flu vaccines.
What is a coadjuvant? A coadjuvant is a substance that’s generally added to the flu vaccine. “That’s added” means that the objective of the coadjuvant is to simulate and excite the immune system to produce a higher immune system response.
This is mainly done for the vaccine to be more effective, but in this case, French nurses have denounced that this coadjuvant is going to multiply ten times – this is the intention in the first studies – the immune system response, excite the immune system of the person so that it produces a response ten times higher than the normal and common one.
This coadjuvant seems to mix polysorbate with the excipient, or the coadjuvant squalene, which is the same coadjuvant used against anthrax and was given to the soldiers in the Gulf War.
There are many studies that prove that they had serious secondary effects, in terms of central
neurological system, paralysis and arthritis. This is squalene; this new coadjuvant is therefore, the second novelty.
There are coadjuvantss still untested, and that pharmaceutical companies justify precisely because they’ve been asked to produce millions and millions, in fact billions – 4.6 billions of doses of this vaccine, it’s what it’s been set – to vaccinate the whole population.
Rich countries and pharmaceutical companies have already announced that they are making donations of millions of doses to third world countries that couldn’t afford it. The plan is to vaccinate the whole world’s population. Well, in this production circumstance, some pharmaceutical companies justify using coadjuvants, still untested, so they can put fewer antigens and they save money. They can save antigen and in each injected dose of vaccine, fewer antigens and more coadjuvants. Which means, less natural immune system excitation, and more artificial excitation to compensate the lack of antigen to produced vaccines. This is the official explanation.
The thing is that it’s the second novelty, the coadjuvant is not the same as every year. Therefore,
nobody knows to what degree this artificial excitation of the immune system is going to cause
autoimmune diseases.
In fact, there’s one: the ascending paralysis of Guillain‐Barre. This is known or associated to the
administration, for instance, of the flu vaccines in 1976. In this moment it just affected the US, in a similar campaign, also through mass media and politicians. In this campaign they ended up vaccinating
11
48 million US citizens. Among these 48 millions there was, I don’t have the numbers with me right now, but there were around 3,000 complaints of paralysis with the Guillan‐Barre syndrome.
So this is accepted as a consequence. In fact, the CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) of the United States (www.cdc.gov) has already announced that it is inevitable that there will be paralysis cases if the whole of the population gets the vaccine, but, despite this, they’re going ahead with it.
When, I insist, we must always keep in mind that this virus of the flu is more benign than the usual virus.
Therefore if you check the pros and cons, and this is what the French nurses do in their document, the possibility of spending a few days at home with the flu, like every year, in fact, less than every year, or the possibility of suffering an ascendant paralysis, which in some cases people recover from but in many cases they don’t and can even lead to death, then… at least this information must reach everybody so everyone takes responsibility.
And the last one, the third novelty regarding the annual flu vaccine is that pharmaceutical companies, because they’ve been asked to, supposedly make extraordinary efforts to produce such a vast amount of doses in record time.
They are forcing agreements, and in the US, it’s official that this agreement has been signed, an
agreement to absolve them of any legal responsibility in case that this vaccine has adverse secondary effects or even if it causes death.
In the US, the Secretary of Health, Sibelius, signed a document that gives immunity, political immunity – it won’t be possible to demand responsibility nor compensation, nor from the involved politicians nor from the pharmaceutical companies.
This is a third novelty that I think is very significant, for money can’t buy health or life, but if the
pharmaceutical company or the responsible person is not, let’s say it other way, is willing to financially compensate, we can take it as a guarantee that it is not unforeseen to have an avalanche of complaints.
If the responsible person makes sure, with objective, clear and verifiable public documents that it won’t be possible to bring a lawsuit against them, he is taking from us a guarantee that this vaccine is not going to have adverse secondary effects.
As a thought, I’d say to sum up what I said up to now, if what happened with Baxter and those
contaminated vaccines, which is proven to be true and they were contaminated, we don’t know why or how they were contaminated, but that they were contaminated we do know it for sure, if this contamination hadn’t been discovered by chance and this, let’s remember, was in February 2009, today we would have the pandemic, this terrible pandemic that they’re announcing without a real basis.
They’re talking about this pandemic without a real or objective basis.
If, in February, this hadn’t been discovered by chance by this Czech researcher or lab technician who carried that test (which he didn’t have to), today we would have this pandemic that is being announced.
12
Then, knowing this, and keeping in mind the current WHO legislation and the irregularities, for instance, how is it possible that, what happened in February has not been discussed in the international press?
How is it possible that politicians haven’t talked about it? This hasn’t had any political or media impact.
This, we should ask to ourselves: how is all this possible?
Keeping this in mind, and keeping in mind that the pandemic would have happened, if this hadn’t been discovered by chance, I think it’s very important to state that the real threat, that those vaccines, which will arrive very soon, are contaminated, may be contaminated, and that a coercive legislation could be imposed when, despite the fact the they may be contaminated, that could force all of the population to take this vaccine by law.
I think this is a risk that cannot be and must not be minimized.
Do not, by any means, panic because panic doesn’t help in any way; quite the opposite. But one thing is not promoting, or having or expressing panic, and another is to not spread or share an information or a thought, like I’m doing, that may be important as we still have time for a reaction and that’s why I think this initiative is so important.
Therefore, do not minimize, this is just a risk, so I can’t say for sure that the vaccines will be
contaminated, I don’t know it for sure, I haven’t made them, nor analyzed them, I don’t think it’s going to be easy, either, to get access to this vaccine in order to analyze it independently. If it’s possible we will try or help to do it. But I don’t know of anybody who was able to do it.
What happens if more people start dying now? Or this that was announced, that a second wave is coming and a mutation is coming?
In terms of this, it is also very important to know that the swine flu virus has not mutated in 70 years. Then how is it possible to announce a mutation this year when this virus is not known to have ever mutated in this short period of time, during a period of 70 years?
I mean, what we didn’t have for 70 years is a flu coming in two waves with a different virus. Then again this is an irregularity.
But,let’s assume that many people start dying now, because of the flu or with compatible symptoms, then it will even more important to refuse to this vaccination, for two reasons.
First, because if this virus starts giving an increased mortality, it’s because it’s not the same – that is, it will have mutated. Although it’s something that doesn’t agree with up‐to‐date data, if it has mutated, the vaccine is of no use anymore. The vaccine that’s been produced now – this is why every year a different vaccine is produced because there are mutations – we have to produce a vaccine adapted to the new mutations.
So, if a significant part of the population doesn’t die, it is not necessary to take the vaccine, because, as I say, the risk is very high, the risk may be higher than the benefit.
If we start seeing a high rate of mortality caused by this flu, or because of compatible symptoms, then, this surprise could only be due to two reasons. The first is that the virus has mutated, therefore the
13
vaccine is not good; or second, it is another virus or other viruses, and therefore, the vaccine is no good either, and it could even be the vaccine itself (that’s causing the deaths).
The means of transmission of those new viruses, based on what happened with Baxter in February, this is where my thoughts lead me.
Now, I’d like to conclude with a proposal. The proposal is very clear.
On one hand, stay calm, this is fundamental. To stay calm, take your usual precautions to not get
infected, common sense precautions, and do not get the vaccination.
Do not get the vaccination this year because there are all those circumstances. This is my
recommendation, but it is also the recommendation of many people of “seny” in Catalonian, “of
common sense.” There are many people talking this way, many doctors, a whole association, nurse unions, and so on… This is the first part.
But then we have a second part, which is the one that we may have not heard so often. And it’s that one, that I now, from this platform we are, is where I think I’m going to upload. Can I say it now?
Because last week, in Catalonia, I started an initiative called Catalunya Religio (.cat) This is a web site where the photos have not yet been posted, as it has just started. But I’ve been asked to collaborate a bit.
So, this week, I’m going to upload the link to the document that I’m talking about. I’m also going to give you this document, so I think it’s going to be accessible.
So I appeal, from this document, and now from the visual platform, I appeal to activate urgently all the civil citizenship resources and legal resources to avoid two things in our country.
The first one: that no one can force anybody in this country to get a vaccine that they do not want to get.
And the second one: those who, of their own will, desire to get the vaccination, should not be deprived of, I mean to avoid that anyone who desires to get the vaccine, is deprived of his right to demand responsibility or financial compensation in case the vaccine causes him serious disease or death.
First, maybe on a personal note, it would be about this part of “experts.” More and more, the world seems to move around experts, and that a person who is not a doctor or public health doctor, or who doesn’t have credentials, or who doesn’t consider themselves to have enough knowledge to critically evaluate this mass of information that comes to us from everywhere, it seems hard, unless it is investigative journalism, people who have been preparing for many years to do this.
What happens with those who are actually health professionals? That they have, unlike me – in this my case it’s different – their work depends on them acting according to what the profession as a whole is saying, or not going far away from it. It’s really hard.
If I were practicing medicine at a hospital, as I was for several years, I don’t know if I would be talking here and now. I know I have the knowledge and education, but my work, my everyday life and my surroundings don’t depend on that.
14
My medical community, from Barcelona or my country, may think what I’m saying is correct or incorrect. That is I don’t have to feel this fear, and I say this just to point that it may be a reason for some health professionals who think the same way I do, or who are asking themselves the same questions but say “If I’m not 100% sure, I don’t want to take the risk of making these questions.”
Although, I must also say that there are many health professionals in our country that, maybe not everything I’ve said, maybe they haven’t touched the political aspects that much, but they perfectly handle the scientific data and they have made them public, with even more data than I’ve given. In this way, it’s very important to know that this is not something isolated.
I would like to make a note on “fear.”
Well, we must not be scared of the known swine flu (A). Because, as I’ve said a few times, but I’ll say it once more, according to objective facts, it has a lower mortality rate than seasonal flu. I didn’t mention this in the data but the mortality rate of the regular flu, the good years in Europe, the flu is not the same every year, some years it’s severe or more severe, and some others it’s more benign.
So, the official data of the disease center or the center that collects this information at the European level (that would be the CDC in the US) the ECDC. (European Center of Disease Prevention and Control http://ecdc.europa.eu).
This center’s numbers are: the good years of flu 40,000 people die from complications associated or derived directly to the flu. Forty‐thousand in a flu season; these are the “good years.” The bad years, it’s 220,000 deaths.
It’s very important to know it because when one says, “120 people have died!” Well, let’s wait; we
cannot just count them one by one. If every year, as a normal fact, in the best of the years, 40,000 people die, and in the bad years 220,000, if we count one by one, we spread an unjustified panic.
Therefore, we mustn’t fear the swine flu that is currently circulating if we take into account the numbers I’ve just quoted. However, in everything that I’ve said, there are many elements that may cause fear, or that can cause anguish or a real concern. I think that this anguish and real concern is good to have. It’s not good to let it shadow the political action, because that’s what it’s all about.
Now, nobody has declared a national emergency; nobody can do it either – with the information we have, this would be impossible. Now we have the doors open to act politically to ensure the two things I said before, in our country: that nobody can be forced to get a vaccine that they don’t wish and those who freely desire it and get it, won’t be deprived of their right to demand political responsibility and receive financial compensation.
And just as another note, if you want me to say something about what’s going around that I didn’t want to discuss directly, well, this hypothesis seems to underlie that it’s some sort of a plot. “What in the world is this? A plot to do something?”
Because WHO has said all of that, I’m not answering these questions, because I cannot answer them. But I may make a little note, so as far as we know about the history of humanity, there have been groups who wanted to dominate the world. This is not new. We cannot come in the 21st century and say
15
“Ah! There’s a group who wants to dominate the world.” Sorry but that is not new, it’s as old as the world.
From the Romans, and if we go further, the Incas and every known empire with a good intention: that is an intention to fix a world that is chaotic and difficult to control. So let us control it, whoever this “us” is, to help humanity; to actually make a world where there’s a minimum order, so we won’t have a Hitler here, another thing there. And for a long time, it’s been said that there is overpopulation.
Well, if that was so, even if we look at it from this kind of hypothesis, I think fear is unjustified by this historical background. It’s just being aware that this happened before in history. There have been people who, irresponsibly, have caused world wars, and they could have foreseen and acted politically but they didn’t. We’re in the 21st century. Human beings are the same with their extreme goodness. And these conspiracies will never be able to break this human goodness, this impossibility to control the whole world.
But that there are people, who try throughout history; they have always existed. And I’m not amazed at the possibility that this has something to do with this kind of action.
I think that the spectacular nature of talking about international plots, global mass murder shadows the other side. And I think it’s a bit self‐defeating. I mean, now I’d like to not have said it just because with the things I said before, which is all I wrote in the written document, is more than enough for any person willing to take political responsibility or action, may be able to say “Okay, I’ve had enough, I know what I must do.”
Well, each one will do what they want, but at least it is easy, objective and well‐founded information. While, if we dwell on this morbidity, saying that “They want to dominate us… there’s a group that wants to own the whole humanity!” We rush off and I insist, I’m not saying it’s possible, but I’m not interested in touching that, because I think we are onto something more serious, which is this possibility, in a few weeks or a month, when those vaccines arrive, to really take up on a civilian action, and maybe, let me finish with this, these groups who care about human rights, and about the quality of our democracies because we talk about democracies, happens here in Catalonia.
Almost a year ago, there was a legislative initiative of the people, because Catalonia is, well, Spain is the country, in the European Union, with the highest proportion of transgenic farming, and it’s located, around 80% – and I’m quoting from memory, it may not be accurate, but it’s not very far – in Catalonia.
Therefore, from Catalonian pagesia (peasants), there was this initiative to promote this legislative initiative of the people, to debate in the parliament whether or not this should be. For instance, the transgenic in Catalonia, are not in all of Spain, the products, from the supermarket are not labeled to show if they contain transgenic or not. And this was one of the proposals in the project.
According to our democracies, the minimum number of signatures needed to promote a legislative initiative for the people is 50,000 signatures. And collecting 50,000 signatures is a lot of work. Well, they were collected or we collected, as I also participated, 102,000 signatures.
Despite this, the Catalonian Parliament has said that they’re not going to debate it. This happened here this year.
16
When I talk about monitoring the quality of our democracies, they won’t be formal democracies but, at the time of truth, there’s a political practice that is closer to a dictatorship than to a democracy.
Oh yes, what I wanted to say, those who monitor the different people and groups, and jurists groups, and groups of people for the human rights but not the official ones, those groups commented, or summarized or highlighted in different documents as something special what happened in Spain. During the terrorist attack in Madrid, March 11th of 2004.
When there was the terrorist attack in Madrid, there was a political change, Popular Party (PP) lost and Socialist Party (PSOE) won. Well, this popular response against an attempt from those who held the power, to give an official version of the facts, making use of a moment of panic, and that was trying to imitate what happened in the US where, from a terrorist attack, that you may talk about causes and authors…
There are also many theories, but the one sure thing is that it causes panic among the population and they use that panic to reduce the people’s freedom. That didn’t happen here. And this, as I say, has been highlighted by international groups, that say, as if the Spanish state was an example of what happened.
Spontaneous call of people, strong enough to take to the streets – this is happening a lot nowadays – and stop the manipulation where they were near a declaration of a state of emergency or whatever, to justify this reduction in people’s freedom.
Then, well, we’ve done it before, so come on and let’s do it again.
Tuesday, January 1
The World According to Monsanto -
http://www.inteldaily.com/
The World According to Monsanto - A documentary that Americans won't ever see
Mon, 24 Mar 2008 11:47:00
By Siv O'Neall
(Axis of Logic) -- The gigantic biotech corporation Monsanto is threatening to destroy the agricultural biodiversity which has served mankind for thousands of years. The endless list of genetically modified seeds sold and controlled by Monsanto are putting at enormous risk age-old agricultural patterns under the presumptuous slogan of aiming at solving the huge problem of hunger in the world.
On March 11 a new documentary was aired on French television (ARTE – French-German cultural tv channel) by French journalist and film maker Marie-Monique Robin, entitled 'The World According to Monsanto' (Le Monde selon Monsanto[1]). Starting from the Internet over a period of three years Robin has collected material for her documentary, going on to numerous interviews with people of very different backgrounds. She traveled widely, from Latin America, to Asia, through Europe and the United States, to personally interview farmers and people in influential positions.
As an example of pro-Monsanto interviews, she talked at length with Michael Taylor who has worked as a lawyer for Monsanto and also for the Federal Drug Administration (FDA), where he had great influence on the legalization of the genetically modified bovine growth hormone (BGH). It also became FDA policy during Taylor's tenure that GM seeds are declared to be "substantially equivalent[2] to non-GM seeds, hence proclaiming proof of the harmlessness of GMs to be unnecessary. Michael Taylor[3] is a typical example of technocrats employed via 'the revolving door policy'. He is now head of the Washington, D.C. office of Monsanto Corporation.
The gospel according to Monsanto is that their patented GM seeds and their bovine growth hormone (BGH) will increase worldwide production of agricultural, dairy and meat products and Bt cotton to the extent that worldwide hunger and poverty will be eradicated.
The actual truth is rather the opposite. GMOs are creating serious damage all over the world and artificial BGH injection in cows[4] cause numerous health problems, and even death.
Monsanto is not held back by any considerations of ethics and it hides the reality of its sordid machinations behind a wall of secrecy. Everything Monsanto does is exclusively with the intent of increasing its own profit – everything else be damned. If left to its own devices it will most certainly destroy the livelihood of millions of farmers – a process begun a decade ago in India and certainly in many other countries as well[5]. The planet's ecosystems will be seriously threatened by unnatural ways of changing agricultural patterns. The dangers of GMO cultivation to the environment come in many forms:
Switching from age-old biodiverse crops that can tolerate low-level amounts of water to industrial monocultures of crops such as GM soya, cotton, sugarcane, etc. that require large amounts of irrigation.
Inundating cultivated lands with toxic herbicides, in particular the dangerous Monsanto product Roundup, to which the GMO seeds have been made biotechnically resistant. Any other growth should succumb to Roundup, were it not for the fact that weeds to a very large extent become Roundup resistant.
Putting an end to biological farming and poisoning non GM cultures through pollenization from GM crops and accidental exposure to Roundup herbicide.
Deforestation to make more land available for the culture of the GM seeds Monsanto sells at high prices to poor farmers.
On top of all these dangers to biodiversity and biological farming comes the fact that Monsanto has patented its products and farmers are legally bound not to save seeds for replanting for the following year. They must buy new seeds from Monsanto every year and the company has a sizeable staff that just deals with prosecuting farmers suspected of illegally using one year's seeds for the planting of the next year's crop.
Globalization and Poverty
Biological farming is adapted to existing ecosystems. But age-old biological farming has had to give room to industrial monocultures that enrich the few and cause poverty and despair for millions of small farmers. Now there is soil erosion, destruction of biodiversity and social/economic disasters in tow. Contrary to Monsanto promises that GM seeds and Roundup would reduce production cost, farmers now have to pay skyrocketing prices for herbicides, pesticides and fertilizer.[6]
The destructive effects of genetically engineered crops are worldwide, but the extensive damage done in India has been widely documented by Dr Vandana Shiva. She is a physicist and environmentalist as well as a tireless activist and author of many books concerning the nefarious consequences of GM farming as opposed to the wisdom of traditional family and biological farming. She is currently based in New Delhi.
Quote from Dr. Vandana Shiva:
"I am writing this statement from beautiful Doon Valley in the Himalaya where the monsoons have arrived, and our Navdanya (Nine Seeds—Our National Movement on Conservation of Biodiversity) team is busy with transplanting of over 300 rice varieties which we are conserving along with the rich diversity of other agricultural crops. Our farm does not use any chemicals or external inputs. It is a self-regenerative system which preserves biodiversity while meeting human needs and needs of farm animals. Our 2 bullocks are the alternative to chemical fertilisers which pollute soil and water as well as to tractors and fossil fuels which pollute the atmosphere and destabilise the climate."[7]
"Economic globalization has become a war against nature and the poor" says Dr. Vandana Shiva.
"Recently I was visiting Bhatinda in Punjab because of an epidemic of farmers’ suicides. Punjab used to be the most prosperous agricultural region in India. Today every farmer is in debt and despair. Vast stretches of land have become waterlogged desert. And, as an old farmer pointed out, even the trees have stopped bearing fruit because heavy use of pesticides has killed the pollinators — the bees and butterflies.
"And Punjab is not alone in experiencing this ecological and social disaster. Last year I was in Warangal, Andhra Pradesh, where farmers have also been committing suicide. Farmers who traditionally grew pulses and millets and paddy have been lured by seed companies to buy hybrid cotton seeds referred to as “white gold”, which were supposed to make them millionaires. Instead they became paupers."[8]
In India as well as in China it has been proven that the unscrupulous promises of Monsanto that Bt cotton (genetically engineered cotton) would produce a far higher yield and prove less costly in terms of herbicide and fertilizer required has been the exact opposite of what was promised. Bt cotton increases irrigation and water requirements where biological cotton would thrive without added irrigation. Thus the yield of Bt cotton has been far inferior to that of biological cotton and the costs of production significantly higher.[9]
Disastrous health problems caused by GMO products
In spite of the reassurances from Monsanto and its own lawyers and scientists that GMO cultures and Roundup herbicide are not health hazardous, it has been proven in their own research that rats have developed different forms of tumors and other health problems. However, instead of pushing the research further, they put a complete stop to it.
"As farmers know there is a cancer epidemic in America's heartland – partly resulting from exposure to chemicals like Roundup, and partly from ingesting contaminated food and drinking water." (Economic, health & environmental impacts of Roundup-type chemical and Roundup Ready soybeans)
Particularly when Roundup is applied by aerial spraying the risk of drift of the herbicide to close-by crops and trees is considerable. Both trees and nutritious and medicinal herbs have been proven to be killed or producing severely damaged fruit and leaves from the effect of Roundup being sprayed on nearby cultures, by air as well as by ground spraying.
Quote from "New research on the impact of GMOs on health"
"Although some GMOs have been approved and marketed for several years, there was no body of scientific research on their impact on the biology of living organisms. This is partly because animal feeding trials are not required in the current safety approval process for GMOs in the EU or USA. Only now is a body of evidence starting to emerge from a small number of animal feeding trials into the health effects and progress in the new science of epigenetics. This indicates that genetic engineering is much more unpredictable and risky than traditional breeding."[10]
Various health problems from GMO products have been identified, from serious skin problems in humans in Argentina at soya plantations (documented by Marie-Monique Robin in her film – The World According to Monsanto), to allergies in humans as well as tumors, damage to internal organs and internal bleeding in rats fed with genetically engineered potatoes.
From a lack of sufficient research and the fact that many health hazards develop over a long period of time, there is still no complete list of real health hazards to humans caused by GMO products. Monsanto who provides 90% of the world's long list of genetically engineered products[11] (having bought up 50 smaller companies during the last decade) does their business with such complete secrecy that there are still sold-out individuals out there who praise the complete revolution of agriculture achieved by the culture of GMO crops. These corrupt people seem to be totally unaware of the health hazards and the drive to despair and ruin of small farmers caused by GMO products. They seem to still believe that genetically engineered seeds can save the world's food problems. Or worse yet, they don't care.
A high representative for Monsanto has openly admitted that "We want to control the world's food supply."[12] It is also very clear that they have no concern for health hazards or human disasters caused by the callous decisions of world leaders to give up on biological farming and opt for genetically engineered food production and monoculture industrial farming.
The proofs that GM huge industrial monocultures and Roundup herbicide are destroying the earth's environment and human health are completely censured and ignored, due to intense lobbying and pressure from sold-out individuals at the United States Department of Agriculture and the Federal Drug Administration.
Once again, only corporate profit counts and people as well as the environment are of no importance. And the neocon puppets are playing the game with great gusto.
[1] Also entitled 'Monsanto, une enterprise qui vous veut du bien' (Monsanto, a company that wants the very best for you.) Monsanto is the multinational producer of Agent Orange, dioxin, bovine growth hormone, Round Up and 90% of the world production of GMOs. New movie damns Monsanto's deadly sins See also: Le Monde selon Monsanto
[2] [Michael Taylor] Attorney for Monsanto who rewrote the "regulations" for Genetically Modified foods. His brilliant addition is the "substantial equivalence" measure which says if the nutrition measures are the same for the GMO as the natural food it is nobody's business what the chemical companies add.
[3] Michael Taylor, former legal advisor to the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA)'s Bureau of Medical Devices and Bureau of Foods, later executive assistant to the Commissioner of the FDA - still later a partner at the law firm of King & Spaulding where he supervised a nine-lawyer group whose clients included Monsanto Agricultural Company - still later Deputy Commissioner for Policy at the United States Food and Drug Administration - and later with the law firm of King & Spaulding - now head of the Washington, D.C. office of Monsanto Corporation.
[4] Reporters Jane Akre and Steve Wilson Blow Whistle On News Station - Florida Milk Supply Riddled with Artificial Hormone Linked to Cancer. They Were Ordered to Lie About it on Fox-TV.
[5]1997 witnessed the first emergence of farm suicides in India. A rapid increase in indebtedness, was at the root of farmers taking their lives. Debt is a reflection of a negative economy, a loosing economy. Two factors have transformed the positive economy of agriculture into a negative economy for peasants - the rising costs of production and the falling prices of farm commodities. Both these factors are rooted in the policies of trade liberalization and corporate globalisation. (Vandana Shiva)
[6] The shift from farm-saved seed to corporate monopolies of the seed supply is also a shift from biodiversity to monocultures in agriculture. The District of Warangal in Andhra Pradesh (India) used to grow diverse legumes, millets, and oilseeds. Seed monopolies created crop monocultures of cotton, leading to disappearance of millions of products of nature's evolution and farmer's breeding. Monocultures and uniformity increase the risks of crop failure as diverse seeds adapted to diverse ecosystems are replaced by rushed introduction of unadapted and often untested seeds into the market. When Monsanto first introduced Bt Cotton in India in 2002, the farmers lost Rs. 1 billion due to crop failure. Instead of 1,500 Kg / acre as promised by the company, the harvest was as low as 200 kg. Instead of increased incomes of Rs. 10,000 / acre, farmers ran into losses of Rs. 6400 / acre. (Vandana Shiva)
[7] Monocultures, monopolies, myths and the masculinisation of
agriculture - Statement by Dr. Vandana Shiva
[8] Indian Agrarian Crisis
[9] "Several studies have shown Bt cotton yields to be substantially lower than non-Bt varieties." Has the Bt cotton bubble burst? (Devinder Sharma)
[10] New research on the impact of GMOs on health
[11] New movie damns Monsanto's deadly sins
[12] Greenpeace researcher uncovers chilling patent plans. One way or another, Monsanto wants to make sure no food is grown that they don't own -- and the record shows they don't care if it's safe for the environment or not. (Direct quote in Marie-Marianne Robin's documentary)
Siv O’Neall is an Axis of Logic columnist, based in France. She can be reached at siv@axisoflogic.com
© Copyright 2008 by AxisofLogic.com
The World According to Monsanto - A documentary that Americans won't ever see
Mon, 24 Mar 2008 11:47:00
( REMOVED FROM THE INTERNET ! )
By Siv O'Neall
(Axis of Logic) -- The gigantic biotech corporation Monsanto is threatening to destroy the agricultural biodiversity which has served mankind for thousands of years. The endless list of genetically modified seeds sold and controlled by Monsanto are putting at enormous risk age-old agricultural patterns under the presumptuous slogan of aiming at solving the huge problem of hunger in the world.
On March 11 a new documentary was aired on French television (ARTE – French-German cultural tv channel) by French journalist and film maker Marie-Monique Robin, entitled 'The World According to Monsanto' (Le Monde selon Monsanto[1]). Starting from the Internet over a period of three years Robin has collected material for her documentary, going on to numerous interviews with people of very different backgrounds. She traveled widely, from Latin America, to Asia, through Europe and the United States, to personally interview farmers and people in influential positions.
As an example of pro-Monsanto interviews, she talked at length with Michael Taylor who has worked as a lawyer for Monsanto and also for the Federal Drug Administration (FDA), where he had great influence on the legalization of the genetically modified bovine growth hormone (BGH). It also became FDA policy during Taylor's tenure that GM seeds are declared to be "substantially equivalent[2] to non-GM seeds, hence proclaiming proof of the harmlessness of GMs to be unnecessary. Michael Taylor[3] is a typical example of technocrats employed via 'the revolving door policy'. He is now head of the Washington, D.C. office of Monsanto Corporation.
The gospel according to Monsanto is that their patented GM seeds and their bovine growth hormone (BGH) will increase worldwide production of agricultural, dairy and meat products and Bt cotton to the extent that worldwide hunger and poverty will be eradicated.
The actual truth is rather the opposite. GMOs are creating serious damage all over the world and artificial BGH injection in cows[4] cause numerous health problems, and even death.
Monsanto is not held back by any considerations of ethics and it hides the reality of its sordid machinations behind a wall of secrecy. Everything Monsanto does is exclusively with the intent of increasing its own profit – everything else be damned. If left to its own devices it will most certainly destroy the livelihood of millions of farmers – a process begun a decade ago in India and certainly in many other countries as well[5]. The planet's ecosystems will be seriously threatened by unnatural ways of changing agricultural patterns. The dangers of GMO cultivation to the environment come in many forms:
Switching from age-old biodiverse crops that can tolerate low-level amounts of water to industrial monocultures of crops such as GM soya, cotton, sugarcane, etc. that require large amounts of irrigation.
Inundating cultivated lands with toxic herbicides, in particular the dangerous Monsanto product Roundup, to which the GMO seeds have been made biotechnically resistant. Any other growth should succumb to Roundup, were it not for the fact that weeds to a very large extent become Roundup resistant.
Putting an end to biological farming and poisoning non GM cultures through pollenization from GM crops and accidental exposure to Roundup herbicide.
Deforestation to make more land available for the culture of the GM seeds Monsanto sells at high prices to poor farmers.
On top of all these dangers to biodiversity and biological farming comes the fact that Monsanto has patented its products and farmers are legally bound not to save seeds for replanting for the following year. They must buy new seeds from Monsanto every year and the company has a sizeable staff that just deals with prosecuting farmers suspected of illegally using one year's seeds for the planting of the next year's crop.
Globalization and Poverty
Biological farming is adapted to existing ecosystems. But age-old biological farming has had to give room to industrial monocultures that enrich the few and cause poverty and despair for millions of small farmers. Now there is soil erosion, destruction of biodiversity and social/economic disasters in tow. Contrary to Monsanto promises that GM seeds and Roundup would reduce production cost, farmers now have to pay skyrocketing prices for herbicides, pesticides and fertilizer.[6]
The destructive effects of genetically engineered crops are worldwide, but the extensive damage done in India has been widely documented by Dr Vandana Shiva. She is a physicist and environmentalist as well as a tireless activist and author of many books concerning the nefarious consequences of GM farming as opposed to the wisdom of traditional family and biological farming. She is currently based in New Delhi.
Quote from Dr. Vandana Shiva:
"I am writing this statement from beautiful Doon Valley in the Himalaya where the monsoons have arrived, and our Navdanya (Nine Seeds—Our National Movement on Conservation of Biodiversity) team is busy with transplanting of over 300 rice varieties which we are conserving along with the rich diversity of other agricultural crops. Our farm does not use any chemicals or external inputs. It is a self-regenerative system which preserves biodiversity while meeting human needs and needs of farm animals. Our 2 bullocks are the alternative to chemical fertilisers which pollute soil and water as well as to tractors and fossil fuels which pollute the atmosphere and destabilise the climate."[7]
"Economic globalization has become a war against nature and the poor" says Dr. Vandana Shiva.
"Recently I was visiting Bhatinda in Punjab because of an epidemic of farmers’ suicides. Punjab used to be the most prosperous agricultural region in India. Today every farmer is in debt and despair. Vast stretches of land have become waterlogged desert. And, as an old farmer pointed out, even the trees have stopped bearing fruit because heavy use of pesticides has killed the pollinators — the bees and butterflies.
"And Punjab is not alone in experiencing this ecological and social disaster. Last year I was in Warangal, Andhra Pradesh, where farmers have also been committing suicide. Farmers who traditionally grew pulses and millets and paddy have been lured by seed companies to buy hybrid cotton seeds referred to as “white gold”, which were supposed to make them millionaires. Instead they became paupers."[8]
In India as well as in China it has been proven that the unscrupulous promises of Monsanto that Bt cotton (genetically engineered cotton) would produce a far higher yield and prove less costly in terms of herbicide and fertilizer required has been the exact opposite of what was promised. Bt cotton increases irrigation and water requirements where biological cotton would thrive without added irrigation. Thus the yield of Bt cotton has been far inferior to that of biological cotton and the costs of production significantly higher.[9]
Disastrous health problems caused by GMO products
In spite of the reassurances from Monsanto and its own lawyers and scientists that GMO cultures and Roundup herbicide are not health hazardous, it has been proven in their own research that rats have developed different forms of tumors and other health problems. However, instead of pushing the research further, they put a complete stop to it.
"As farmers know there is a cancer epidemic in America's heartland – partly resulting from exposure to chemicals like Roundup, and partly from ingesting contaminated food and drinking water." (Economic, health & environmental impacts of Roundup-type chemical and Roundup Ready soybeans)
Particularly when Roundup is applied by aerial spraying the risk of drift of the herbicide to close-by crops and trees is considerable. Both trees and nutritious and medicinal herbs have been proven to be killed or producing severely damaged fruit and leaves from the effect of Roundup being sprayed on nearby cultures, by air as well as by ground spraying.
Quote from "New research on the impact of GMOs on health"
"Although some GMOs have been approved and marketed for several years, there was no body of scientific research on their impact on the biology of living organisms. This is partly because animal feeding trials are not required in the current safety approval process for GMOs in the EU or USA. Only now is a body of evidence starting to emerge from a small number of animal feeding trials into the health effects and progress in the new science of epigenetics. This indicates that genetic engineering is much more unpredictable and risky than traditional breeding."[10]
Various health problems from GMO products have been identified, from serious skin problems in humans in Argentina at soya plantations (documented by Marie-Monique Robin in her film – The World According to Monsanto), to allergies in humans as well as tumors, damage to internal organs and internal bleeding in rats fed with genetically engineered potatoes.
From a lack of sufficient research and the fact that many health hazards develop over a long period of time, there is still no complete list of real health hazards to humans caused by GMO products. Monsanto who provides 90% of the world's long list of genetically engineered products[11] (having bought up 50 smaller companies during the last decade) does their business with such complete secrecy that there are still sold-out individuals out there who praise the complete revolution of agriculture achieved by the culture of GMO crops. These corrupt people seem to be totally unaware of the health hazards and the drive to despair and ruin of small farmers caused by GMO products. They seem to still believe that genetically engineered seeds can save the world's food problems. Or worse yet, they don't care.
A high representative for Monsanto has openly admitted that "We want to control the world's food supply."[12] It is also very clear that they have no concern for health hazards or human disasters caused by the callous decisions of world leaders to give up on biological farming and opt for genetically engineered food production and monoculture industrial farming.
The proofs that GM huge industrial monocultures and Roundup herbicide are destroying the earth's environment and human health are completely censured and ignored, due to intense lobbying and pressure from sold-out individuals at the United States Department of Agriculture and the Federal Drug Administration.
Once again, only corporate profit counts and people as well as the environment are of no importance. And the neocon puppets are playing the game with great gusto.
[1] Also entitled 'Monsanto, une enterprise qui vous veut du bien' (Monsanto, a company that wants the very best for you.) Monsanto is the multinational producer of Agent Orange, dioxin, bovine growth hormone, Round Up and 90% of the world production of GMOs. New movie damns Monsanto's deadly sins See also: Le Monde selon Monsanto
[2] [Michael Taylor] Attorney for Monsanto who rewrote the "regulations" for Genetically Modified foods. His brilliant addition is the "substantial equivalence" measure which says if the nutrition measures are the same for the GMO as the natural food it is nobody's business what the chemical companies add.
[3] Michael Taylor, former legal advisor to the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA)'s Bureau of Medical Devices and Bureau of Foods, later executive assistant to the Commissioner of the FDA - still later a partner at the law firm of King & Spaulding where he supervised a nine-lawyer group whose clients included Monsanto Agricultural Company - still later Deputy Commissioner for Policy at the United States Food and Drug Administration - and later with the law firm of King & Spaulding - now head of the Washington, D.C. office of Monsanto Corporation.
[4] Reporters Jane Akre and Steve Wilson Blow Whistle On News Station - Florida Milk Supply Riddled with Artificial Hormone Linked to Cancer. They Were Ordered to Lie About it on Fox-TV.
[5]1997 witnessed the first emergence of farm suicides in India. A rapid increase in indebtedness, was at the root of farmers taking their lives. Debt is a reflection of a negative economy, a loosing economy. Two factors have transformed the positive economy of agriculture into a negative economy for peasants - the rising costs of production and the falling prices of farm commodities. Both these factors are rooted in the policies of trade liberalization and corporate globalisation. (Vandana Shiva)
[6] The shift from farm-saved seed to corporate monopolies of the seed supply is also a shift from biodiversity to monocultures in agriculture. The District of Warangal in Andhra Pradesh (India) used to grow diverse legumes, millets, and oilseeds. Seed monopolies created crop monocultures of cotton, leading to disappearance of millions of products of nature's evolution and farmer's breeding. Monocultures and uniformity increase the risks of crop failure as diverse seeds adapted to diverse ecosystems are replaced by rushed introduction of unadapted and often untested seeds into the market. When Monsanto first introduced Bt Cotton in India in 2002, the farmers lost Rs. 1 billion due to crop failure. Instead of 1,500 Kg / acre as promised by the company, the harvest was as low as 200 kg. Instead of increased incomes of Rs. 10,000 / acre, farmers ran into losses of Rs. 6400 / acre. (Vandana Shiva)
[7] Monocultures, monopolies, myths and the masculinisation of
agriculture - Statement by Dr. Vandana Shiva
[8] Indian Agrarian Crisis
[9] "Several studies have shown Bt cotton yields to be substantially lower than non-Bt varieties." Has the Bt cotton bubble burst? (Devinder Sharma)
[10] New research on the impact of GMOs on health
[11] New movie damns Monsanto's deadly sins
[12] Greenpeace researcher uncovers chilling patent plans. One way or another, Monsanto wants to make sure no food is grown that they don't own -- and the record shows they don't care if it's safe for the environment or not. (Direct quote in Marie-Marianne Robin's documentary)
Siv O’Neall is an Axis of Logic columnist, based in France. She can be reached at siv@axisoflogic.com
© Copyright 2008 by AxisofLogic.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
